Comments by "Paddle Duck" (@paddleduck5328) on "David Pakman Show"
channel.
-
119
-
68
-
43
-
41
-
39
-
37
-
36
-
32
-
27
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
I don’t know the count, dozens for sure. This article listed ten recent departures:
Sarah Sanders, Raj Shah planning to depart the White House
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sarah-sanders-raj-shah-planning-to-depart-the-white-house/
Shah is also considering his exit, but he has not yet settled on an exact date.
Neither Sanders nor Shah responded to repeated requests for comment before this story was published. When reached Wednesday evening, both declined to comment on the record, and Sanders tweeted that she is "honored to work for @POTUS."
Several other lower-level positions in the communications department left vacant in recent weeks are likely to remain unfilled, with more departures expected in the coming weeks, according to a former official.
Numerous staffers have left the White House over the last several months, some voluntarily and others having been forced out.
Those departures include Hicks;
Jared Kushner's top communications aide, Josh Raffel;
homeland security adviser Tom Bossert;
National Security Council spokesman Michael Anton;
Trump personal aide John McEntee;
director of White House message strategy Cliff Simms;
communications aide Steven Cheung;
congressional communications director Kaelan Dorr;
assistant press secretary Natalie Strom;
and deputy director of media affairs Tyler Ross.
Trump's team
Over the course of the Trump administration, the White House has consolidated its workforce, eliminating jobs and assigning multiple portfolios of responsibility to individual staffers. Some positions have never been filled. Despite the smaller number of positions, the record-setting turnover rate has not slowed.
Less than halfway through Mr. Trump's term, the turnover rate stands at 51 percent, according to the Brookings Institution. Turnover during Mr. Trump's first year in office was 34 percent -- nearly four times higher than turnover during the first year of the Obama administration.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
The Million Man March was a gathering en masse of African-American men in Washington, D.C., on October 16, 1995. Called by Louis Farrakhan, it was held on and around the National Mall. The National African American Leadership Summit, a leading group of civil rights activists and the Nation of Islam working with scores of civil rights organizations, including many local chapters of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (but not the national NAACP) formed the Million Man March Organizing Committee. The founder of the National African American Leadership Summit, Dr. Benjamin Chavis, Jr. served as National Director of the Million Man March.
The committee invited many prominent speakers to address the audience, and African American men from across the United States converged in Washington to “convey to the world a vastly different picture of the Black male”[1] and to unite in self-help and self-defense against economic and social ills plaguing the African American community.
The march took place in the context of a larger grassroots movement that set out to win politicians’ attention for urban and minority issues through widespread voter registration campaigns.[2] On the same day, there was a parallel event called the Day of Absence, organized by female leaders in conjunction with the March leadership, which was intended to engage the large population of black Americans who would not be able to attend the demonstration in Washington. On this date, all blacks were encouraged to stay home from their usual school, work, and social engagements, in favor of attending teach-ins, and worship services, focusing on the struggle for a healthy and self-sufficient black community. Further, organizers of the Day of Absence hoped to use the occasion to make great headway on their voter registration drive.[3]
Although the march won support and participation from a number of prominent African American leaders, its legacy is marred by controversy over several issues. The leader of the march, Louis Farrakhan, is a controversial figure whose commentary on race in America has led some to wonder whether the message of the march can be disentangled from that of its organizer.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
KC 😂 wow soooo damning that there opinion piece from 2016. You used to go after the baddies, wonder what happened to you. Please state which candidate(s) you back so we can do a nice comparison if Bernie of all people doesn’t meet your funding purity test out of all the 2020 candidates!
From the 2016 article:
To be sure, lobbyist donations—about $3,200 overall —represent a tiny fraction of the more than $96 million Sanders has raised for his underdog presidential bid. About 70 percent of that sum comes from small-dollar donors who have given Sanders $200 or less.
Sanders's anti–big money, anti–special interest mantra has resonated with many voters, who have lifted him to victory against Clinton in several primary and caucus contests.
The lobbyist cash the Sanders campaign has collected has come from traditionally left-leaning causes: *labor unions, environmentalists, the American Civil Liberties Union*.
For instance, John M. Walsh, a lobbyist for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, contributed $500 to Sanders last year.
Other labor lobbyists giving Sanders money include Ian Hoffmann, a lobbyist for the American Federation of Government Employees, who contributed $235, and Michael Dolan, a lobbyist for the Teamsters, who gave $100.
Each lobbyist declined to comment.
Lobbyist Michael Correia of the National Cannabis Industry Association also donated $500 to Sanders last year. That's tied for the largest amount among Sanders's lobbyist contributors to date.
Like seriously??😂
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
SirToby, I don’t really care about arguing what exact percentage responsibility Farrakhan had. I don’t like the guy a all.
You seem to be downplaying it and angry he’d get any credit and I’m confused why. Most of the references to the Million Man March I read refers to it as his march.
I certainly didn’t didn’t create it out of thin air, and I have no reason to exaggerate one way or the other. If you have more sources (thanks for sourcing) that state otherwise, I’m always interested to learn more. I’m fine giving credit to different groups and icons being involved, and we could just leave it at that. I’m just not a huge fan of erasing history because it’s uncomfortable.
This is an excerpt from an article on mother jones about Keith Ellison’s past with Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam in the nineties:
Ellison’s aspirations as a community leader led him into an alliance with the Nation of Islam.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/02/keith-ellison-democratic-national-committee-chair/
If reclamation was the idea animating Ellison as he entered his 30s, Farrakhan was black America’s leading evangelist for it, commanding huge crowds for speeches that could last hours.
In 1995, Ellison and a small group of pastors and activists he’d worked with on policing issues (including the leader of the local NOI chapter) organized buses to take black men of all religions from the Midwest to attend Farrakhan’s Million Man March.
In his book, Ellison describes the event, held in October 1995, as a turning point in his flirtation with Farrakhan. After filling those buses and attending the march, he was struck by the smallness of Farrakhan’s message compared with the moment.
The speech was rich in masonic conspiracies and quack numerology about the number 19. What was the point of organizing if it built up to nothing? Ellison says he was reminded of an old saying of his father’s, which is attributed to former House Speaker Sam Rayburn: “Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a carpenter to build one.”
Ellison has said that he was never a member of the Nation of Islam and that his working relationship with the organization’s Twin Cities study group (the national organization’s term for its chapters) lasted just 18 months.
He has said that he was “an angry young black man” who thought he might have found an ally in the cause of economic and political empowerment, and that he overlooked Farrakhan’s most incendiary statements because “when you’re African American, there’s literally no leader who is not beat up by the press.”
In his book, Ellison outlines deep theological differences between the group and his mainstream Muslim faith.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Trump was only a Democrat during W.
Trump party affiliation:
Republican:
2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013
Independent:
2012, 2011
Republican:
2010, 2009
Democrat:
2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001
Independent:
2000, 1999
Republican:
1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990, 1989, 1988, 1987
Ind. or other: 4 years
Democratic: 8 years
Republican: 20 years
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
“In 2016, the amount of PAC money she received grew to more than $465,000. Again, business PACS made up the majority of her PAC money, this time over 55 percent. One of the largest contributing sectors was the defense industry. While Gabbard has gained a following for her anti-interventionist stances, yet, her 2016 campaign was given $63,500 from the defense sector. In fact, the campaign received donations of $10,000 from the Boeing Corporation PAC and from Lockheed Martin’s PAC, two of the biggest names in the military-industrial complex.Gillibrand’s Off the Sidelines PAC donated another $10,000 in 2016 as well.
In 2017, leading up to her successful reelection campaign, Gabbard announced she would no longer take PAC money. After receiving over $400,000 in PAC money in her previous two reelection cycles, in 2018 her campaign only took in just over $37,000, almost all of which came from labor associations and trade unions.
Gabbard also had her own leadership PAC named Time to Unite Lead and Serve with Integrity. According to an FEC filing in June 2018, the PAC was terminated. However, during its lifespan for the 2014, 2016 and 2018 cycles, the PAC brought in substantial money. In 2013-2014, the leadership PAC saw more than $44,000 in contributions, $17,500 from other PACs. It did even better in 2015-2016, with PAC contributions nearing $31,000, according to FEC data. The majority of funds, $20,000, came from business PACs like Raytheon and New York Life Insurance Company.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
“Pharmaceutical pollution doesn't seem to be harming humans yet, but disturbing clues from aquatic life suggest now is the time for preventive action.
Although maybe not as tasty as an ice-cold gulp from a mountain spring, the water that flows through most American kitchen faucets is generally clean, clear, and safe. Approximately 170,000 public water systems are monitored for nearly 80 harmful substances. The prohibited nasties include bacteria, viruses, pesticides, petroleum products, strong acids, and some metals.
But water quality experts and environmental advocates are increasingly concerned about another kind of water pollution: chemicals from prescription drugs and over-the-counter medications that get into lakes, rivers, and streams. Water also gets contaminated by perfume, cologne, skin lotions, and sunscreens that wash off people's skin.
At this point, there's really no evidence of pharmaceutical and personal care products in the water harming people, but studies are showing adverse effects on aquatic life.
Drug take-back programs, which allow people to drop off their unused medications at central locations, serve two purposes. They keep unused drugs out of the water and prevent diversion of drugs, mainly the opioid painkillers, for recreation and illegal purposes.
Another step in the right direction is new guidelines from the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that discourage hospitals and nursing homes from flushing unused drugs down the drain or toilet. Guidelines for individuals also discourage flushing most, but not all, unused drugs. The question now is whether these and other efforts will be enough to keep the chemicals out of the water at a time when the use of pharmaceuticals and personal care products continues to grow at a rapid rate.
The sources
Reliable figures are hard to come by, but it's a safe assumption that we, as consumers, are responsible for a hefty percentage of the pharmaceutical and personal care products that wind up in lakes, rivers, and streams. The typical American medicine cabinet is full of unused and expired drugs, only a fraction of which get disposed of properly. Data collected from a medication collection program in California in 2007 suggest that about half of all medications — both prescription and over-the-counter — are discarded. That's probably a high-end estimate, but even if the real proportion is lower, there's a lot of unused medication that can potentially get into the water.
Chemicals also get into the water from the drugs we use. Our bodies metabolize only a fraction of most drugs we swallow. Most of the remainder is excreted in urine or feces (some is sweated out) and therefore gets into wastewater. An increasing number of medications are applied as creams or lotions, and the unabsorbed portions of those medications can contribute to the pollution problem when they get washed off. It's been calculated, for example, that one man's use of testosterone cream can wind up putting as much of the hormone into the water as the natural excretions from 300 men.
Health care institutions are another source of pharmaceutical water pollution. Hospitals are probably less of a problem than nursing homes because they typically have on-site pharmacies with arrangements in place to return unused drugs to manufacturers for credit or disposal. Nursing homes, though, have often been guilty of flushing medications down the toilet or drain after a patient dies or is transferred to another facility. Typically, they don't have the same kind of return arrangements as hospitals. And the rules for getting rid of opioid painkillers, which make disposal down the drain an acceptable option, have inadvertently encouraged some nursing homes to dispose of all their leftover medications that way.
Drug manufacturing also results in some pharmaceutical pollution, although some factories are bigger problem than others. For example, a U.S. Geological Survey study found contamination levels downstream from two drug manufacturing plants in New York State that were 10 to 1,000 times higher than those at comparable facilities around the country.
Agriculture is another major source. The two trillion pounds of animal waste generated by large-scale poultry and livestock operations in this country is laced with hormones and antibiotics fed to animals to make them grow faster and to keep them from getting sick. Inevitably, some of those hormones and antibiotics leach into groundwater or get into waterways.”
https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/drugs-in-the-water
Thanks for the tip! You were right about the excretion.
LOL now that the trend for guys using testosterone is going up, it’s probably begun to counteract it..and maybe soon we’ll see it start making women grow beards! 😆
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I agree. I’m just pointing out where all this recent controversy has been drummed up from.
excerpts: Dems denounce Farrakhan rhetoric amid pressure from GOP
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/08/louis-farrakhan-democrats-448241
Several Democratic lawmakers denounced Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic rhetoric Thursday after facing pressure from Republican officials and religious groups to account for their past contacts with the controversial activist.
“I’ve spent my life fighting discrimination in every form, from anyone. I unequivocally condemn Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic and hateful comments,” Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)
tweeted Thursday. “This vitriol has no place in our society.”
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) also disavowed the religious leader, writing on Twitter: “Farrakhan's anti-Semitic messages are upsetting & unacceptable. I always condemn hate speech of any kind.”
Farrakhan’s history of derogatory remarks toward Jews and white people resurfaced in recent weeks after it was reported that at least one organizer of the 2016 Women's March in Washington attended a February event at which the Nation of Islam leader proclaimed that “the powerful Jews are my enemy.” Farrakhan bemoaned what he called the “satanic Jew” and took aim at Caucasians, saying: "White folks are going down. And Satan is going down.”
The comments prompted a wave of backlash, with Republicans demanding that Women’s March leaders and Democratic officials forcefully denounce the rhetoric.
On Tuesday, the Republican Jewish Coalition called on seven Democratic lawmakers to resign, saying they “sat down with Farrakhan for personal meetings” while in office.
The group targeted Reps.
Andre Carson (D-Ind.),
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.),
Danny Davis (D-Ill.),
Al Green (D-Texas),
Lee and
Meeks
in their calls for resignation, along with Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.),
the deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee, over “Farrakhan ties.”
Carson distanced himself from Farrakhan’s rhetoric in a statement to POLITICO.
“As a Member of Congress, I have met with a diverse array of community leaders, including Minister Farrakhan,
to discuss critical issues that are important to my constituents and all Americans,” he said Thursday.
“While many of these leaders have long track records of creating positive change in their communities, this does not mean that I see eye to eye with them on all beliefs or public statements.”
Carson added: “Racism, homophobia, islamophobia [sic], anti-Semitism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance have no place in our civil discourse.”
Davis initially responded by disavowing bigotry without explicitly naming the Nation of Islam leader in a statement earlier this week. But the Illinois lawmaker delivered a direct rebuke of Farrakhan Thursday evening.
"Let me be clear: I reject, condemn and oppose Minister Farrakhan’s views and remarks regarding the Jewish people and the Jewish religion," Davis said in a statement.
Ellison, whose praise of Farrakhan in 1995
was resurfaced by the Republican National Committee this month,
told the Washington Post that he had already addressed the issue, having previously disavowed the controversial leader and his rhetoric.
Last month, Ellison criticized his political detractors for resurfacing the issue, telling CNN that his “opponents keep pushing this out there in order to try to smear and distract from the key issues, but there’s no relationship.”
Representatives for Waters and Green did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Thursday.
The controversy over the Democratic lawmakers’ past interactions with Farrakhan drew the attention of some within President Donald Trump’s inner circle, with his eldest son Donald Trump Jr. and former press secretary Sean Spicer claiming news outlets are not holding legislators accountable on the topic.
“Strange how little coverage this is getting and how few (if any) are disavowing,” Trump Jr. tweeted Thursday. “It’s almost as though they condone and perhaps even agree with it. The silence is deafening. Truly sick.”
Spicer added on Twitter that it’s “not difficult for Capitol Hill reporters to ask the Democrat members to account for their association to #farrakhan & also ask @TheDemocrats leaders - as they would if this was a Republican.”
Farrakhan’s remarks at the February event also received significant attention from conservative media figures, drawing segments on Fox News’ prime-time lineup and grabbing headlines on right-leaning outlets like The Daily Caller and The Weekly Standard.
Davis, in his initial statement, pushed back against “right-wing blogs” covering the issue, accusing them of seeking to “impugn my character” and create a “divide” between the Jewish and African-American communities.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
snippet of a longer article:
He Solved The DNC Hack. Now He's Telling His Story For The First Time.
Less than a year before Marine Corps cyberwarrior Robert Johnston discovered that the Russians had hacked the Democratic National Committee, he found they had launched a similar attack at the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
November 8, 2017,
at 12:38 p.m.
Jason Leopold
One late morning in May 2016, the leaders of the Democratic National Committee huddled around a packed conference table and stared at Robert Johnston. The former Marine Corps captain gave his briefing with unemotional military precision, but what he said was so unnerving that a high-level DNC official curled up in a ball on her conference room chair as if watching a horror movie.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jasonleopold/he-solved-the-dnc-hack-now-hes-telling-his-story-for-the?utm_term=.htrxLKreN#.ap1dKr0ga
"They're looking at me," Johnston recalled, "and they're asking, 'What are they going to do with the data that was taken?'"
So, Johnston recalled, that’s what he told the DNC in May 2016: Such thefts have become the norm, and the hackers did not plan on doing anything with what they had purloined.
Johnston kicks himself about that now. “I take responsibility for that piece,” he said.
The DNC and CrowdStrike, now working with the FBI, tried to remove all remaining malware and contain the problem. And they decided on a public relations strategy. How could the DNC control the message? “Nothing of that magnitude stays quiet in the realm of politics,” Johnston said. “We needed to get in front of it.” So, Johnston said, in a story confirmed by DNC officials, CrowdStrike and the DNC decided to give the story to the Washington Post, which on June 14, 2016, published the story: “Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump.” “I thought it was a smart move,” Johnston said.
But it may have backfired.
One day after the Post article, a Twitter user going by the name Guccifer 2.0 claimed responsibility for the hack and posted to the internet materials stolen from the DNC’s server.
Johnston thinks the Washington Post story changed the tactics of the cyberattackers. “We accelerated their timeline. I believe now that they were intending to release the information in late October or a week before the election,” he said. But then they realized that “we discovered who they were. I don't think the Russian intelligence services were expecting it, expecting a statement and an article that pointed the finger at them.”
A month later, in late July 2016, WikiLeaks began to release thousands of emails hacked from the DNC server. Those leaks, intelligence officials would say, were carefully engineered and timed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
“In 2016, the amount of PAC money she received grew to more than $465,000. Again, business PACS made up the majority of her PAC money, this time over 55 percent. One of the largest contributing sectors was the defense industry. While Gabbard has gained a following for her anti-interventionist stances, yet, her 2016 campaign was given $63,500 from the defense sector. In fact, the campaign received donations of $10,000 from the Boeing Corporation PAC and from Lockheed Martin’s PAC, two of the biggest names in the military-industrial complex.Gillibrand’s Off the Sidelines PAC donated another $10,000 in 2016 as well.
In 2017, leading up to her successful reelection campaign, Gabbard announced she would no longer take PAC money. After receiving over $400,000 in PAC money in her previous two reelection cycles, in 2018 her campaign only took in just over $37,000, almost all of which came from labor associations and trade unions.
Gabbard also had her own leadership PAC named Time to Unite Lead and Serve with Integrity. According to an FEC filing in June 2018, the PAC was terminated. However, during its lifespan for the 2014, 2016 and 2018 cycles, the PAC brought in substantial money. In 2013-2014, the leadership PAC saw more than $44,000 in contributions, $17,500 from other PACs. It did even better in 2015-2016, with PAC contributions nearing $31,000, according to FEC data. The majority of funds, $20,000, came from business PACs like Raytheon and New York Life Insurance Company.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
From webmd:
Colloidal silver is LIKELY UNSAFE when taken by mouth , applied to the skin, or injected intravenously (by IV). The silver in colloidal silver products gets deposited into organs such as the skin, liver, spleen, kidney, muscle, and brain . This can lead to an irreversible bluish looking skin that first appears in the gums. It can also stimulate melanin production in skin, and areas exposed to the sun will become increasingly discolored.
Special Precautions & Warnings:
Pregnancy and breast-feeding: Colloidal silver is LIKELY UNSAFE when taken by mouth, applied to the skin or injected intravenously (by IV). Silver may cross the placenta. Increased silver levels in pregnant women have been linked to abnormal development of the ear, face, and neck in their babies. Colloidal silver supplements can also lead to silver accumulation in the body, which can lead to an irreversible bluish looking skin, known as argyria . Silver can also be deposited in organs, where it does serious damage.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
....1,400 deaths Friday March 27th
....6,000 deaths Friday April 3rd
..18,000 deaths Friday April 10th
..32,000 deaths Friday April 17th
..46,000 deaths Friday April 24th
..64,000 deaths Friday May 1st
..69,000 deaths Friday May 8th
..88,000 deaths Friday May 15th
..94,000 deaths Friday May 22nd
104,000 deaths Friday May 29th
110,000 deaths Friday June 5th
116,000 deaths Friday June 12th
120,000 deaths Friday June 19th
127,000 deaths Friday June 26th
I haven’t gotten today’s number yet. But I’ll bet money we’ll be over 150,000 by mid month.
1
-
1
-
“Death rate is steeply declining” Like I said, check back in a couple weeks.
Coronavirus deaths in the US
....1,400 deaths Friday March 27th
....6,000 deaths Friday April 3rd
..18,000 deaths Friday April 10th
..32,000 deaths Friday April 17th
..46,000 deaths Friday April 24th
..64,000 deaths Friday May 1st
..69,000 deaths Friday May 8th
..88,000 deaths Friday May 15th
..94,000 deaths Friday May 22nd
104,000 deaths Friday May 29th
110,000 deaths Friday June 5th
116,000 deaths Friday June 12th
120,000 deaths Friday June 19th
127,000 deaths Friday June 26th
132,000 deaths Friday July 3rd
1
-
1
-
Leigh McCormick Coronavirus deaths in the US
....1,400 deaths Friday March 27th
....6,000 deaths Friday April 3rd
..18,000 deaths Friday April 10th
..32,000 deaths Friday April 17th
..46,000 deaths Friday April 24th
..64,000 deaths Friday May 1st
..69,000 deaths Friday May 8th
..88,000 deaths Friday May 15th
..94,000 deaths Friday May 22nd
104,000 deaths Friday May 29th
110,000 deaths Friday June 5th
116,000 deaths Friday June 12th
120,000 deaths Friday June 19th
127,000 deaths Friday June 26th
132,000 deaths Friday July 3rd
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump wasn’t a Democrat then. In 1999 he was an independent after being a Republican for twelve years.
Trump party affiliations:
Republican:
2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013
Independent:
2012, 2011
Republican:
2010, 2009
Democrat:
2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001
Independent:
2000, 1999
Republican:
1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990, 1989, 1988, 1987
Ind. or other: 4 years
Democratic: 8 years
Republican: 20 years
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Coronavirus deaths in the US
....1,400 deaths Friday March 27th
....6,000 deaths Friday April 3rd
..18,000 deaths Friday April 10th
..32,000 deaths Friday April 17th
..46,000 deaths Friday April 24th
..64,000 deaths Friday May 1st
..69,000 deaths Friday May 8th
..88,000 deaths Friday May 15th
..94,000 deaths Friday May 22nd
104,000 deaths Friday May 29th
110,000 deaths Friday June 5th
116,000 deaths Friday June 12th
120,000 deaths Friday June 19th
127,000 deaths Friday June 26th
132,000 deaths Friday July 3rd
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
USA Today: Chris Christie says he spent a week in ICU, was 'wrong' to not wear a mask at White House event
7:44 pm EDT Oct. 15, 2020
Former Gov. Chris Christie said Thursday he was "wrong" not to wear a mask in the days before testing positive for COVID-19, but that he felt at that time that he was in a "safe zone" because of frequent testing.
Having spent a week being treated for the disease caused by the coronavirus – in an intensive care unit – Christie said he had a chance for greater reflection about his actions and the virus.
"It is something to take very seriously. The ramifications are wildly random and potentially deadly," Christie said in a statement, first reported by the New York Times.
"No one should be happy to get the virus and no one should be cavalier about being infected or infecting others."
Christie's position and his message to the public is at odds with President Donald Trump, whom he helped prepare for a debate and was also hospitalized with COVID-19. Trump has said he feels great, has entertained large, mask-less crowds at campaign rallies and urged the public, "don't be afraid of COVID."
In contrast, Christie said, "I hope that my experience shows my fellow citizens that you should follow CDC guidelines in public no matter where you are and wear a mask to protect yourself and others.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
....1,400 deaths Friday March 27th
....6,000 deaths Friday April 3rd
..18,000 deaths Friday April 10th
..32,000 deaths Friday April 17th
..46,000 deaths Friday April 24th
..64,000 deaths Friday May 1st
..69,000 deaths Friday May 8th
..88,000 deaths Friday May 15th
..94,000 deaths Friday May 22nd
104,000 deaths Friday May 29th
110,000 deaths Friday June 5th
116,000 deaths Friday June 12th
120,000 deaths Friday June 19th
127,000 deaths Friday June 26th
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
excerpts: California Democrats decline to endorse Feinstein
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/25/california-democrats-feinstein-leon-423452?cid=apn
The party declines to give its backing to the state's senior senator.
SAN DIEGO — In a sharp rebuke of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democratic Party has declined to endorse the state’s own senior senator in her bid for reelection.
Riven by conflict between progressive and more moderate forces
at the state party’s annual convention here, delegates favored Feinstein’s progressive rival, state Senate leader Kevin de León, over Feinstein
by a 54 percent to 37 percent margin, according to results announced Sunday.
Neither candidate reached the 60 percent threshold required to receive the party endorsement for 2018.
But the snubbing of Feinstein led de León to claim a victory for his struggling campaign.
“The outcome of today’s endorsement vote is an astounding rejection of politics as usual, and it boosts our campaign’s momentum as we all stand shoulder-to-shoulder against a complacent status quo,”
de León said in a prepared statement. “California Democrats are hungry for new leadership that will fight for California values from the front lines, not equivocate on the sidelines.”
A centrist Democrat, Feinstein has long maintained an uneasy relationship with activists who dominate state party conventions, and the vote this weekend — while embarrassing — was not unexpected.
The result followed two days of lobbying by the candidates in convention speeches and throughout the convention halls.
In an appeal to thousands of delegates Saturday, de León portrayed himself as an agent of change. He cast Feinstein, without mentioning her name, as a Washington power broker out of touch with progressive activists at home.
The non-endorsement appears unlikely to immediately alter the trajectory of a contest Feinstein is leading by a wide margin.
Feinstein is out-polling de León 46 percent to 17 percent among likely California voters, according to the most recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California.
Her financial advantage is even more overwhelming:
Feinstein held close to $10 million in cash on hand at the end of last year, while de León reported raising just $500,000.
Addressing the convention Saturday, Feinstein reminded delegates of her experience and what she portrayed as a lifetime of service in the cause of Democratic values.
And though supporters this year waved signs and stopped Feinstein to pose for photographs, she at times appeared out of step working the convention halls.
Interrupted in her convention speech Saturday by music signaling her time to speak had run out, Feinstein said, “I guess my time is up.”
As she left the stage, de León supporters in the crowd yelled back at the 84-year-old, “Time’s up! Time’s up!”
The state party returned a non-endorsement in California’s other major statewide contest, as well.
In the race for governor,
Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom led all candidates with 39 percent support, followed by state Treasurer
John Chiang and former state schools chief
Delaine Eastin with 30 percent and 20 percent, respectively.
Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who has drawn close to Newsom at the top of statewide public opinion polls, finished a distant fourth,
at 9 percent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Eliza Almaguer glad to hear 👍
Today Friday June 5th 110,000 deaths
....1,400 deaths Friday March 27th
....6,000 deaths Friday April 3rd
..18,000 deaths Friday April 10th
..32,000 deaths Friday April 17th
..46,000 deaths Friday April 24th
..64,000 deaths Friday May 1st
..69,000 deaths Friday May 8th
..88,000 deaths Friday May 15th
..94,000 deaths Friday May 22nd
104,000 deaths Friday May 29th
110,000 deaths Friday June 5th
1
-
Now 116,000 deaths. Starting to slow down.
....1,400 deaths Friday March 27th
....6,000 deaths Friday April 3rd
..18,000 deaths Friday April 10th
..32,000 deaths Friday April 17th
..46,000 deaths Friday April 24th
..64,000 deaths Friday May 1st
..69,000 deaths Friday May 8th
..88,000 deaths Friday May 15th
..94,000 deaths Friday May 22nd
104,000 deaths Friday May 29th
110,000 deaths Friday June 5th
116,000 deaths Friday June 12th
1
-
1
-
....1,400 deaths Friday March 27th
....6,000 deaths Friday April 3rd
..18,000 deaths Friday April 10th
..32,000 deaths Friday April 17th
..46,000 deaths Friday April 24th
..64,000 deaths Friday May 1st
..69,000 deaths Friday May 8th
..88,000 deaths Friday May 15th
..94,000 deaths Friday May 22nd
104,000 deaths Friday May 29th
110,000 deaths Friday June 5th
116,000 deaths Friday June 12th
120,000 deaths Friday June 19th
1
-
Hope you and yours are healthy.
127,000 deaths now.
I expect next week the number to jump over 140,000. We have a 300% jump in cases in some places.
....1,400 deaths Friday March 27th
....6,000 deaths Friday April 3rd
..18,000 deaths Friday April 10th
..32,000 deaths Friday April 17th
..46,000 deaths Friday April 24th
..64,000 deaths Friday May 1st
..69,000 deaths Friday May 8th
..88,000 deaths Friday May 15th
..94,000 deaths Friday May 22nd
104,000 deaths Friday May 29th
110,000 deaths Friday June 5th
116,000 deaths Friday June 12th
120,000 deaths Friday June 19th
127,000 deaths Friday June 26th
1
-
1
-
132,000 deaths in the US as of today.
....1,400 deaths Friday March 27th
....6,000 deaths Friday April 3rd
..18,000 deaths Friday April 10th
..32,000 deaths Friday April 17th
..46,000 deaths Friday April 24th
..64,000 deaths Friday May 1st
..69,000 deaths Friday May 8th
..88,000 deaths Friday May 15th
..94,000 deaths Friday May 22nd
104,000 deaths Friday May 29th
110,000 deaths Friday June 5th
116,000 deaths Friday June 12th
120,000 deaths Friday June 19th
127,000 deaths Friday June 26th
132,000 deaths Friday July 3rd
1
-
136,000 deaths as of today Friday July 10th
Coronavirus deaths in the US
....1,400 deaths Friday March 27th
....6,000 deaths Friday April 3rd
..18,000 deaths Friday April 10th
..32,000 deaths Friday April 17th
..46,000 deaths Friday April 24th
..64,000 deaths Friday May 1st
..69,000 deaths Friday May 8th
..88,000 deaths Friday May 15th
..94,000 deaths Friday May 22nd
104,000 deaths Friday May 29th
110,000 deaths Friday June 5th
116,000 deaths Friday June 12th
120,000 deaths Friday June 19th
127,000 deaths Friday June 26th
132,000 deaths Friday July 3rd
136,000 deaths Friday July 10th
1
-
Eliza Almaguer good luck to you 🤞
140,000 cases today July 17th
Coronavirus deaths in the US
....1,400 deaths Friday March 27th
....6,000 deaths Friday April 3rd
..18,000 deaths Friday April 10th
..32,000 deaths Friday April 17th
..46,000 deaths Friday April 24th
..64,000 deaths Friday May 1st
..69,000 deaths Friday May 8th
..88,000 deaths Friday May 15th
..94,000 deaths Friday May 22nd
104,000 deaths Friday May 29th
110,000 deaths Friday June 5th
116,000 deaths Friday June 12th
120,000 deaths Friday June 19th
127,000 deaths Friday June 26th
132,000 deaths Friday July 3rd
136,000 deaths Friday July 10th
140,000 deaths Friday July 17th
1
-
The curve swung up quite a bit over the last couple weeks.
Coronavirus deaths in the US
....1,400 deaths Friday March 27th
....6,000 deaths Friday April 3rd
..18,000 deaths Friday April 10th
..32,000 deaths Friday April 17th
..46,000 deaths Friday April 24th
..64,000 deaths Friday May 1st
..69,000 deaths Friday May 8th
..88,000 deaths Friday May 15th
..94,000 deaths Friday May 22nd
104,000 deaths Friday May 29th
110,000 deaths Friday June 5th
116,000 deaths Friday June 12th
120,000 deaths Friday June 19th
127,000 deaths Friday June 26th
132,000 deaths Friday July 3rd
136,000 deaths Friday July 10th
140,000 deaths Friday July 17th
147,000 deaths Friday July 24th
156,000 deaths Friday July 31st
.
1
-
Eliza Almaguer yes that looks pretty steadily climbing. Have people there gotten tired of social distancing?
161,000 deaths Friday August 7th
It went back to its previous rates from 3-6 weeks ago. But we don’t know whether to trust the numbers now due to reports of deaths being underreported.
Coronavirus deaths in the US
....1,400 deaths Friday March 27th
....6,000 deaths Friday April 3rd
..18,000 deaths Friday April 10th
..32,000 deaths Friday April 17th
..46,000 deaths Friday April 24th
..64,000 deaths Friday May 1st
..69,000 deaths Friday May 8th
..88,000 deaths Friday May 15th
..94,000 deaths Friday May 22nd
104,000 deaths Friday May 29th
110,000 deaths Friday June 5th
116,000 deaths Friday June 12th
120,000 deaths Friday June 19th
127,000 deaths Friday June 26th
132,000 deaths Friday July 3rd
136,000 deaths Friday July 10th
140,000 deaths Friday July 17th
147,000 deaths Friday July 24th
156,000 deaths Friday July 31st
161,000 deaths Friday August 7th
.
1
-
168,000 deaths Friday August 14th
Coronavirus deaths in the US
....1,400 deaths Friday March 27th
....6,000 deaths Friday April 3rd
..18,000 deaths Friday April 10th
..32,000 deaths Friday April 17th
..46,000 deaths Friday April 24th
..64,000 deaths Friday May 1st
..69,000 deaths Friday May 8th
..88,000 deaths Friday May 15th
..94,000 deaths Friday May 22nd
104,000 deaths Friday May 29th
110,000 deaths Friday June 5th
116,000 deaths Friday June 12th
120,000 deaths Friday June 19th
127,000 deaths Friday June 26th
132,000 deaths Friday July 3rd
136,000 deaths Friday July 10th
140,000 deaths Friday July 17th
147,000 deaths Friday July 24th
156,000 deaths Friday July 31st
161,000 deaths Friday August 7th
168,000 deaths Friday August 14th
.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
....1,400 deaths Friday March 27th
....6,000 deaths Friday April 3rd
..18,000 deaths Friday April 10th
..32,000 deaths Friday April 17th
..46,000 deaths Friday April 24th
..64,000 deaths Friday May 1st
..69,000 deaths Friday May 8th
..88,000 deaths Friday May 15th
..94,000 deaths Friday May 22nd
104,000 deaths Friday May 29th
110,000 deaths Friday June 5th
116,000 deaths Friday June 12th
120,000 deaths Friday June 19th
127,000 deaths Friday June 26th
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Most of our household got the swine flu. It was awful, I stayed home for the holiday feeling like I was going to die and my spouse got pneumonia.
I think the numbers will go up in a couple weeks.
Coronavirus deaths in the US
....1,400 deaths Friday March 27th
....6,000 deaths Friday April 3rd
..18,000 deaths Friday April 10th
..32,000 deaths Friday April 17th
..46,000 deaths Friday April 24th
..64,000 deaths Friday May 1st
..69,000 deaths Friday May 8th
..88,000 deaths Friday May 15th
..94,000 deaths Friday May 22nd
104,000 deaths Friday May 29th
110,000 deaths Friday June 5th
116,000 deaths Friday June 12th
120,000 deaths Friday June 19th
127,000 deaths Friday June 26th
132,000 deaths Friday July 3rd
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Coronavirus deaths in the US
....1,400 deaths Friday March 27th
....6,000 deaths Friday April 3rd
..18,000 deaths Friday April 10th
..32,000 deaths Friday April 17th
..46,000 deaths Friday April 24th
..64,000 deaths Friday May 1st
..69,000 deaths Friday May 8th
..88,000 deaths Friday May 15th
..94,000 deaths Friday May 22nd
104,000 deaths Friday May 29th
110,000 deaths Friday June 5th
116,000 deaths Friday June 12th
120,000 deaths Friday June 19th
127,000 deaths Friday June 26th
132,000 deaths Friday July 3rd
136,000 deaths Friday July 10th
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At least Tulsi stopped taking corporate and defense contractor money recently.
“In 2016, the amount of PAC money she received grew to more than $465,000. Again, business PACS made up the majority of her PAC money, this time over 55 percent. One of the largest contributing sectors was the defense industry. While Gabbard has gained a following for her anti-interventionist stances, yet, her 2016 campaign was given $63,500 from the defense sector. In fact, the campaign received donations of $10,000 from the Boeing Corporation PAC and from Lockheed Martin’s PAC, two of the biggest names in the military-industrial complex.Gillibrand’s Off the Sidelines PAC donated another $10,000 in 2016 as well.
In 2017, leading up to her successful reelection campaign, Gabbard announced she would no longer take PAC money. After receiving over $400,000 in PAC money in her previous two reelection cycles, in 2018 her campaign only took in just over $37,000, almost all of which came from labor associations and trade unions.
Gabbard also had her own leadership PAC named Time to Unite Lead and Serve with Integrity. According to an FEC filing in June 2018, the PAC was terminated. However, during its lifespan for the 2014, 2016 and 2018 cycles, the PAC brought in substantial money. In 2013-2014, the leadership PAC saw more than $44,000 in contributions, $17,500 from other PACs. It did even better in 2015-2016, with PAC contributions nearing $31,000, according to FEC data. The majority of funds, $20,000, came from business PACs like Raytheon and New York Life Insurance Company.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Then why didn’t she respond to their request? If it’s fake, she let it go to print without denying it.
Sarah Sanders, Raj Shah planning to depart the White House
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sarah-sanders-raj-shah-planning-to-depart-the-white-house/
Shah is also considering his exit, but he has not yet settled on an exact date.
Neither Sanders nor Shah responded to repeated requests for comment before this story was published. When reached Wednesday evening, both declined to comment on the record, and Sanders tweeted that she is "honored to work for @POTUS."
Several other lower-level positions in the communications department left vacant in recent weeks are likely to remain unfilled, with more departures expected in the coming weeks, according to a former official.
Numerous staffers have left the White House over the last several months, some voluntarily and others having been forced out.
Those departures include Hicks;
Jared Kushner's top communications aide, Josh Raffel;
homeland security adviser Tom Bossert;
National Security Council spokesman Michael Anton;
Trump personal aide John McEntee;
director of White House message strategy Cliff Simms;
communications aide Steven Cheung;
congressional communications director Kaelan Dorr;
assistant press secretary Natalie Strom;
and deputy director of media affairs Tyler Ross.
Trump's team
Over the course of the Trump administration, the White House has consolidated its workforce, eliminating jobs and assigning multiple portfolios of responsibility to individual staffers. Some positions have never been filled. Despite the smaller number of positions, the record-setting turnover rate has not slowed.
Less than halfway through Mr. Trump's term, the turnover rate stands at 51 percent, according to the Brookings Institution. Turnover during Mr. Trump's first year in office was 34 percent -- nearly four times higher than turnover during the first year of the Obama administration.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Uh oh 48% of Americans think Trump is obstructing the investigation.
"Robert Mueller’s disapproval rating is at its highest point since Morning Consult and Politico began tracking the Special Counsel,” said Tyler Sinclair, Morning Consult’s managing director. “A key driver of this movement appears to be Republicans.
Today, 53 percent of Republicans have an unfavorable impression of Robert Mueller, compared to just 27 percent who said the same in July 2017."
The spike in the special counsel’s unfavorable ratings come as he begins his second year on the job. Mueller has already publicly netted five guilty pleas and 18 indictments of people and companies tied to his work examining Moscow meddling in the 2016 election. But he’s nonetheless faced sharp attacks from the president, his lawyers and other associates.
Voters interviewed for the POLITICO/Morning Consult poll also have changed direction on whether they think the Mueller investigation has been on the up and up. In the latest survey, 40 percent of voters said it had been handled unfairly, compared to early February when 34 percent said the probe wasn’t being handled fairly.
The percentage saying the investigation was being done fairly remained unchanged from February at 38 percent.
The latest poll also has bad news for the president.
Forty-eight percent of voters believe Trump has attempted to impede or obstruct the Russia investigation, up from 44 percent who offered the same view in early February.
Democrats by a wide margin — 79 percent — said Trump was trying to obstruct Mueller’s probe. But 70 percent of Republicans said the president wasn’t meddling in the investigation.
Trump also may want to rethink his comments about pardoning himself if he’s found guilty of a crime.
The president last week told reporters he had the “absolute right” to make that move, but a majority of voters — 59 percent — said they opposed the idea of Trump issuing a self-pardon. Twenty percent said the president should pardon himself, while 21 percent were without an opinion or responded that they didn’t know.
The breakdown among party affiliation on pardons is also against the president.
About a third of Republicans — 34 percent — agree with the idea that Trump should issue himself a pardon.
The same number of Republicans also said he should not pardon himself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
KC grab some context, dude. These aren’t bundlers, they aren’t investment bank or insurance industry or oil lobbies. Bernie already has a reputation for supporting unions before he got those minuscule donations! He walks picket lines, who else has a history of activism like Bernie?
You want to win a point? Congrats, I concede you win, he had some measly lobbyist donations. But you’re really nitpicking here and I know you’re smart enough to know better. I personally have donated more than any of those big scawy donors this year myself!
So take your win and get off your soapbox. You seem like you just wanna debate to debate.
Of all the candidates, which one(s) do you think will make the most positive impact being elected the next president? To me it’s patently obvious.
Which one will appoint the best Supreme Court judges, work the hardest to turn around big money in politics? Who can win? Bernie, easily.
If you have anyone you think is superior, please lay your argument on the line and be vulnerable like the rest of the normal humans on this thread whose position you already know.
That or go back and rip on the idiots who encourage people to sit out and just bitch on the sidelines, like you used to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
'Willfully Choosing Not to Listen to Scientists': DNC Chair Tom Perez Under Fire for Urging States to Hold Primaries Despite Coronavirus Crisis
"That Tom Perez is encouraging this, and threatening states who postpone in-person voting, is criminal."
Jake Johnson, staff writer
Ignoring urgent pleas from medical professionals and other health experts to postpone primary elections amid the coronavirus outbreak, Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez late Tuesday encouraged states to go ahead with their scheduled contests, claiming "we can in fact have voting and protect our workers, our voters, our candidates."
"I think it's a false choice to suggest we either have to protect safety or protect and ensure our democracy," Perez said in an interview with NPR late Tuesday as voters in Arizona, Florida, and Illinois went to the polls despite widespread calls for a delay. Former Vice President Joe Biden swept all three states.
Perez urged upcoming states to make vote-by-mail available to all voters, but it is unclear whether such a solution could be implemented in short order.
"Deeply disappointed that the DNC is willfully choosing not to listen to scientists during one of the most critical moments in recent history."
—Dr. Lucky Tran
"What you saw in Arizona today, and in Florida, was in Arizona more people voted early than voted in the entirety of the Democratic primary in 2016," Perez said.
In a statement earlier Tuesday, Perez critized Ohio's widely praised decision to delay its presidential primary, asserting that it "only bred more chaos and confusion."
Critics argued that Perez's position runs counter to the recommendations of scientists—as well as the federal government—and could put countless lives at risk.
"Deeply disappointed that the DNC is willfully choosing not to listen to scientists during one of the most critical moments in recent history," tweeted biologist Dr. Lucky Tran.
Pointing to a video of an elderly Illinois resident voicing alarm Tuesday about conditions at her polling site—where she said hundreds of people, including vulnerable seniors, were gathered in a room for hours at a time—The Intercept's Ryan Grim ripped Perez for permitting such a potentially disastrous situation.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Never Miss a Beat.
Get our best delivered to your inbox.
"That Tom Perez is encouraging this, and threatening states who postpone in-person voting, is criminal," Grim tweeted, referring to a DNC memo sent last Wednesday warning that states could face a "delegate penalty" if they push back their scheduled elections.
"It's not out of the question that when this is over there could be demands for prosecutions of those who knowingly did this," Grim said.
Puerto Rico is set to hold its Democratic presidential primary on March 29, followed by contests on April 4 in Alaska, Hawaii, and Wyoming.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Look at the percentages... https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/data-points/who-s-more-likely-beat-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-or-n570766
May 10, 2016, 6:03 AM PDT
Hillary Clinton holds a 12-point lead over Bernie Sanders nationally, but in a hypothetical match-up against Donald Trump, Sanders does much better than the current Democratic front-runner.
As Ted Cruz and John Kasich exited the Republican primary race last week — making Trump the party’s presumptive nominee — Clinton and Sanders have used Trump’s candidacy to argue that they would be in the best position to defeat him in the general election in November.
When respondents in our NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking Poll were asked whether they would cast a vote for Trump or either of the Democratic candidates still in the race,
Sanders is the favorite over Trump by 13 points.
Clinton also beats Trump, but the race is decidedly closer — 49 percent to 44 percent.
These results are according to the latest from the NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking Poll conducted online from May 2 through May 8 of 12,714 adults including 11,089 registered voters.
Though about a month remains until the last Democratic primary in June, Sanders trails Clinton by a significant number of delegates, making Clinton the strong favorite to win the nomination. The data from the hypothetical head-to-heads thus provides a window into which groups Clinton needs to sway in order to defeat Trump in the general election in November.
Though blacks, Hispanics, women and moderate voters consistently support either Democratic candidate when faced with Trump as the Republican alternative, there are two significant groups that Sanders wins over by much larger margins than Clinton and help him beat Trump by double digits:
Republicans under 30 and Independents who do not lean toward either party.
There is no question that Sanders has consistently dominated Clinton among Democratic voters under 30 throughout the primary season. When analyzing the data from our weekly tracking poll, however, it appears his appeal among millennial voters crosses party lines as well.
About 30 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaners under 30 would vote for Sanders over Trump.
The support Sanders gains among young Republicans is surprising as research has consistently shown that party identification is the strongest predictor of vote choice.
When faced with a Clinton-Trump ticket, 18 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning voters under 30 would support Clinton; 78 percent would support Trump.
Appealing to unaffiliated and undecided voters is essential as campaigns start to pivot toward the general election. There is much higher turnout among these voters in the general election than the primary contests for several reasons, including the fact that some state-specific rules make it more difficult for Independents to vote in primary contests.
These “swing voters” can significantly impact the outcome of the election.
When analyzing this week’s theoretical general election match-ups, Sanders gets much higher support from Independents than Clinton when faced with a Trump alternative.
A small majority of Independents — 52 percent — would pick Sanders over Trump (30 percent).
When asked who they would support in a Clinton vs. Trump match-up, Independents were much more divided over their choices; 37 percent would vote for Clinton, while 39 percent said they would support Trump.
Though there are still a number of months left before any votes are cast this November, an analysis of each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses offer early insights into where campaigns should focus their efforts in the coming months.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
USA Today: Chris Christie says he spent a week in ICU, was 'wrong' to not wear a mask at White House event
7:44 pm EDT Oct. 15, 2020
Former Gov. Chris Christie said Thursday he was "wrong" not to wear a mask in the days before testing positive for COVID-19, but that he felt at that time that he was in a "safe zone" because of frequent testing.
Having spent a week being treated for the disease caused by the coronavirus – in an intensive care unit – Christie said he had a chance for greater reflection about his actions and the virus.
"It is something to take very seriously. The ramifications are wildly random and potentially deadly," Christie said in a statement, first reported by the New York Times.
"No one should be happy to get the virus and no one should be cavalier about being infected or infecting others."
Christie's position and his message to the public is at odds with President Donald Trump, whom he helped prepare for a debate and was also hospitalized with COVID-19. Trump has said he feels great, has entertained large, mask-less crowds at campaign rallies and urged the public, "don't be afraid of COVID."
In contrast, Christie said, "I hope that my experience shows my fellow citizens that you should follow CDC guidelines in public no matter where you are and wear a mask to protect yourself and others.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lolll you can’t be serious with this piddly nonsense.
“To be sure, lobbyist donations—about $3,200 overall—represent a tiny fraction of the more than $96 million Sanders has raised for his underdog presidential bid. About 70 percent of that sum comes from small-dollar donors who have given Sanders $200 or less.
Sanders’s anti–big money, anti–special interest mantra has resonated with many voters, who have lifted him to victory against Clinton in several primary and caucus contests.
The lobbyist cash the Sanders campaign has collected has come from traditionally left-leaning causes: labor unions, environmentalists, the American Civil Liberties Union.
For instance, John M. Walsh, a lobbyist for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, contributed $500 to Sanders last year.
Other labor lobbyists giving Sanders money include Ian Hoffmann, a lobbyist for the American Federation of Government Employees, who contributed $235, and Michael Dolan, a lobbyist for the Teamsters, who gave $100.
Each lobbyist declined to comment.
Lobbyist Michael Correia of the National Cannabis Industry Association also donated $500 to Sanders last year. That’s tied for the largest amount among Sanders’s lobbyist contributors to date.
Correia, who also gave $500 to Republican Rand Paul, told the Center for Public Integrity he contributed to both presidential campaigns because it was an “opportunity to reward somebody” for being a leader on cannabis policy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
'Willfully Choosing Not to Listen to Scientists': DNC Chair Tom Perez Under Fire for Urging States to Hold Primaries Despite Coronavirus Crisis
"That Tom Perez is encouraging this, and threatening states who postpone in-person voting, is criminal."
Jake Johnson, staff writer
Ignoring urgent pleas from medical professionals and other health experts to postpone primary elections amid the coronavirus outbreak, Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez late Tuesday encouraged states to go ahead with their scheduled contests, claiming "we can in fact have voting and protect our workers, our voters, our candidates."
"I think it's a false choice to suggest we either have to protect safety or protect and ensure our democracy," Perez said in an interview with NPR late Tuesday as voters in Arizona, Florida, and Illinois went to the polls despite widespread calls for a delay. Former Vice President Joe Biden swept all three states.
Perez urged upcoming states to make vote-by-mail available to all voters, but it is unclear whether such a solution could be implemented in short order.
"Deeply disappointed that the DNC is willfully choosing not to listen to scientists during one of the most critical moments in recent history."
—Dr. Lucky Tran
"What you saw in Arizona today, and in Florida, was in Arizona more people voted early than voted in the entirety of the Democratic primary in 2016," Perez said.
In a statement earlier Tuesday, Perez critized Ohio's widely praised decision to delay its presidential primary, asserting that it "only bred more chaos and confusion."
Critics argued that Perez's position runs counter to the recommendations of scientists—as well as the federal government—and could put countless lives at risk.
"Deeply disappointed that the DNC is willfully choosing not to listen to scientists during one of the most critical moments in recent history," tweeted biologist Dr. Lucky Tran.
Pointing to a video of an elderly Illinois resident voicing alarm Tuesday about conditions at her polling site—where she said hundreds of people, including vulnerable seniors, were gathered in a room for hours at a time—The Intercept's Ryan Grim ripped Perez for permitting such a potentially disastrous situation.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Never Miss a Beat.
Get our best delivered to your inbox.
"That Tom Perez is encouraging this, and threatening states who postpone in-person voting, is criminal," Grim tweeted, referring to a DNC memo sent last Wednesday warning that states could face a "delegate penalty" if they push back their scheduled elections.
"It's not out of the question that when this is over there could be demands for prosecutions of those who knowingly did this," Grim said.
Puerto Rico is set to hold its Democratic presidential primary on March 29, followed by contests on April 4 in Alaska, Hawaii, and Wyoming.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
snippet of a longer article:
He Solved The DNC Hack. Now He's Telling His Story For The First Time.
Less than a year before Marine Corps cyberwarrior Robert Johnston discovered that the Russians had hacked the Democratic National Committee, he found they had launched a similar attack at the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
November 8, 2017,
at 12:38 p.m.
Jason Leopold
One late morning in May 2016, the leaders of the Democratic National Committee huddled around a packed conference table and stared at Robert Johnston. The former Marine Corps captain gave his briefing with unemotional military precision, but what he said was so unnerving that a high-level DNC official curled up in a ball on her conference room chair as if watching a horror movie.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jasonleopold/he-solved-the-dnc-hack-now-hes-telling-his-story-for-the?utm_term=.htrxLKreN#.ap1dKr0ga
"They're looking at me," Johnston recalled, "and they're asking, 'What are they going to do with the data that was taken?'"
So, Johnston recalled, that’s what he told the DNC in May 2016: Such thefts have become the norm, and the hackers did not plan on doing anything with what they had purloined.
Johnston kicks himself about that now. “I take responsibility for that piece,” he said.
The DNC and CrowdStrike, now working with the FBI, tried to remove all remaining malware and contain the problem. And they decided on a public relations strategy. How could the DNC control the message? “Nothing of that magnitude stays quiet in the realm of politics,” Johnston said. “We needed to get in front of it.” So, Johnston said, in a story confirmed by DNC officials, CrowdStrike and the DNC decided to give the story to the Washington Post, which on June 14, 2016, published the story: “Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump.” “I thought it was a smart move,” Johnston said.
But it may have backfired.
One day after the Post article, a Twitter user going by the name Guccifer 2.0 claimed responsibility for the hack and posted to the internet materials stolen from the DNC’s server.
Johnston thinks the Washington Post story changed the tactics of the cyberattackers. “We accelerated their timeline. I believe now that they were intending to release the information in late October or a week before the election,” he said. But then they realized that “we discovered who they were. I don't think the Russian intelligence services were expecting it, expecting a statement and an article that pointed the finger at them.”
A month later, in late July 2016, WikiLeaks began to release thousands of emails hacked from the DNC server. Those leaks, intelligence officials would say, were carefully engineered and timed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1