Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


Celerity's Journal
Celerity's Journal
October 31, 2019

WaPo : Meet the Democrat who may take the next Democratic president hostage


The Democrats running for president, even those like Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg who are being characterized as “moderates,” have some significant plans for legislation they’d like to pass if they become president. Doing so, however, would require their party to take back control of the Senate, where Republicans currently have a 53-to-47 majority. Such a victory won’t be easy, but it’s certainly possible, given that Republicans are defending more seats and have a number of vulnerable senators up for reelection. But if you’re a liberal, what you may not have thought about — because it may be too depressing to contemplate — is what happens if Democrats win control by a vote or two, and the fate of the entire progressive project lies in the hands of Sen. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia. We’ll get to the implications in a moment, but first, take a gander at this clip from an interview Manchin just gave to Fox News:


This was in reference to an interview Bernie Sanders gave in which he was asked whether Manchin and other more conservative Democrats would vote for his agenda, and Sanders said, “Damn right they will.” Not only is Manchin making clear he wouldn’t, but in answer to the question of whom he’ll vote for in 2020 if Sanders is his party’s nominee, Manchin said, “It wouldn’t be Bernie.”

This may not be all that surprising, given that by most measures, Manchin is the most conservative Democrat in the Senate. In fact, he’s just about the only Democrat who could win statewide in West Virginia, which Donald Trump won in 2016 by 42 points. Nevertheless, the appropriate thing for even a Democrat from West Virginia to say is not “It wouldn’t be Bernie” but “It wouldn’t be Trump.” By the way, West Virginia is the poorest state in the country, so you could argue that Manchin’s constituents would benefit more than anyone else from Democratic agenda items such as universal health coverage, universal pre-K, enhanced workers’ rights and a higher minimum wage. How much is he really going to stand in the way of all that?

The answer is: probably quite a bit. Manchin’s entire political identity is built on being the guy who tells Democrats they’re being a bunch of dastardly libruls, and he has to pull the party to the right for its own good. Not only that, if he really holds the balance of power — if the Senate is 50-50, or if it’s 51-to-49 Democratic and he can join with another conservative Democrat (for instance, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, an unpredictable centrist who opposes getting rid of the filibuster), Manchin will have every incentive to throw sand in the gears of the party’s agenda.

That’s because if Manchin supports everything a President Sanders or a President Warren or a President Biden wants to do, he loses his power. He’d just be one vote out of 50 or so. If, on the other hand, he refuses to go along with health-care reform or whatever other bill is being debated, he immediately becomes the most powerful person in Congress. Democrats will have no choice but to give in and tailor their bills to Manchin’s liking if they don’t want the agenda to fail completely. And if he simply wants some part of that agenda to fail, he can make it happen.

October 31, 2019

Not only is Gabbard 98+% likely to qualify for the November debate, but now she's only 2 polls short

of qualifying for the December debate as well. There might be only 6 in the December debate, with Gabbard one of them. THAT is not a good look IMHO. She will be able to cause chaos far beyond what she could do in a 12 person stage, let alone if she was not even there.

She was utterly dead in the water, with literally ZERO qualifying polls for November (let alone the higher standard of December) before Clinton went after her via inference (and cemented ('if the nesting doll fits') by her staffer, as if anyone could not figure out who Clinton was talking about.) Now she is polling above or even with HARRIS in some polls, ffs. She was tied for fifth (only trailing Sanders, Warren, Biden, and Pete) in a qualifying NH poll, with 2/3rds more support than Sen. Harris. She beat Harris in the new PA poll too.

Ok, enough on that.

I also have to add that it is MADNESS to think that a 3rd party run by Gabbard will help us (as I have seen posited here.)

She will more than likely run (IF she goes 3rd party) on the GREEN PARTY ticket. There is some extremely faulty logic that Rethugs will vote for her. NO, they will not, there is almost nothing in her platform, let alone the Green platform, that RWers will support. She is overall very LW, almost Sanderite. People are mistakenly thinking the Rethugs using her as a wedge amongst us means some will vote for her. No, they detest almost all of her platform. They just happen to like her slagging off our party and also having a go at Clinton.

Here is a worst case scenario that more fully fleshes this out

Gabbard would have a cakewalk in the Green Primary, Stein is not running and Howie Hawkins is weak. If Warren wins the nomination, there is a really good chance Howard Schultz steps is as an indie too (I do not think Bloomberg will unless Bernie is the nominee, which will not happen), and the Libertarians might have a POOR candidate (Johnson was superb in terms of numbers.)

The Libertarians draw mostly from the Rethugs, and in FAR greater numbers overall compared to the Greens, especially in 2016. This is often overlooked (as it doesn't fit certain narratives), but if you add the 5.2 MILLION votes Gary Johnson and McMullin (a few state indie run) got to Trump, he then beats Clinton, not just in the EC, but also in the POPULAR vote as well, even if you give Clinton ALL 1.46 million Green votes.

With that data/positing in mind, now put Tulsi on a Green ticket, and it is BIG trouble, especially if Bernie and Warren go bonkers on each other in the primary campaign and Bernie does a tepid Warren endorsement, or worse, refuses to endorse her at all.

Tulsi as a Green and Schultz as an indie alone could easily draw a combined 6, 7, 8, even 10 (or more) million votes combined (1980 John Anderson, in 2016-adjusted % numbers, would have pulled over 10 million, Perot, close to 30 million based off 1992) and IF the Libertarians field a shit candidate (they always do fuckall without Gary Johnson and he is NOT running this time), and the other RW 3rd party/indie candidates also do meh, it is (at that point) quite possibly and quite disastrously, Rump's election to lose, especially IF we also bollocks up the impeachment and the economy does NOT go into recession.

Tulsi will pull (in terms of her types of voters) almost all from us, or the types who would never voter for either party, Schultz would probably pull 75/80% from us (the moderate/conservative voting types who detest Warren and hate Bernie even more), and 20/25% from Rethug Rump haters.

Caveat: THAT ALL is a WORST case scenario, I am NOT saying it will happen.

If Biden wins the nomination, then no Schultz (and no Bloomberg, who is not really a variable anyway as Bernie has no chance and that is the only way he might get in), but Tulsi (as a Green top of ticket) will gain more votes from us that she would if Warren was the nominee. That said, there is NO way will she pull more than what what her combined with Schultz (let alone Bloomberg) would have pulled if Warren (let alone Bernie) was the nominee, so it will be less of an effect overall on net.

But NO, it is NOT A GOOD THING for Gabbard to run 3rd party!!

here is the December Debate update

October 31, 2019

Facebook Is Punishing Liberal Sites And Rewarding Conservative Ones


I’ve always preferred Twitter to Facebook. In fact, these days, I prefer severe testicular injuries to Facebook, and if I could hastily abandon Mark Zuckerberg’s data-mining operation, I would do it. Unfortunately, I need to promote my work, so I hold my breath and deal with Facebook’s ongoing fuckery. Frankly, I envy those who can bail out whenever they choose. You might’ve heard that Twitter’s Jack Dorsey has decided to summarily ban all political advertising on his platform -- another reason why Twitter continues to be my thing. Yes, Twitter is screechy, obnoxious, and there are still too many trolls and creepazoids dodging the terms of service, but whenever I’m on Twitter, which is most of the day, I feel like I’m plugged into the hub, the nerve center of the political discourse, for better or worse. Nothing could be more educational, entertaining, and relentlessly infuriating on the internet than Twitter, and -- lord help me -- I’m happy to be there.

On the same day when Twitter took decisive action to thwart the blitzkrieg of paid propaganda, Facebook executives, on the other hand, announced they were banning eggplant and peach emojis whenever they’re posted with sexual intent. Put another way: One platform’s busily confronting a serious crisis, while the other platform is regulating dick-shaped produce. Remind me again which platform deserves our attention and which platform should be ejector-seated onto the social-network slagheap with the likes of Friendster and MySpace. As if that weren’t bad enough, Zuckerberg shrugged off the fact that, despite hiring fact checkers, political ads with known falsehoods are still being approved and posted by his corporate goons. Likewise, we just heard that Zuckerberg is allowing certain publications to flagrantly violate Facebook’s rules -- rules that Facebook more or less invented retroactively to punish hundreds of publishers a little more than a year ago in a mass-banning effort known colloquially as “the purge.”

On October 11, 2018, the platform Thanos-snapped around 800 U.S.-based accounts, disappearing the pages forever, presumably for uploading political propaganda. While some of the accounts could be shoehorned into the category of propaganda, many of the accounts were run by legitimate publications, with pages featuring links to the accompanying websites, as well as links to partner sites. My girlfriend and podcast partner, author and blogger Kimberley Johnson, was among the users who were purged that day, in addition to other liberal accounts like Reverb Press and Nation in Distress. Despite having spent hours per day for years posting content on Facebook, and despite following the terms of service as they existed at the time, she lost several of her pages, her personal profile account, and even her secret friends-and-family page.

The page run by the publication she worked for at the time, Liberals Unite, was also obliterated as was her ability to earn a living as a writer. All those years and years of effort, photos, ideas, connections -- lost in an instant. No warnings, no temporary suspensions, no three-strikes. Just vanished with the snap of Zuckerberg’s sweaty fingers, mainly because he screwed up royally, stupidly accepting Russia money in 2016 and was facing government regulations, but also because he’s a sociopath. Making matters worse, there was no one to whom she could appeal her removal. The only thing she heard back from Facebook was that she engaged in “inauthentic behavior.” Specifically, she would routinely post the same links across several pages -- links to articles she wrote or articles she thought were valuable or interesting. There wasn’t any rule against doing such a thing, but the A.I. bots or admins at Facebook decided that doing so was “inauthentic” even though it’s something many of us with several pages on Facebook often do. I know I promote my own work on both by podcast Facebook page and my personal one.

October 31, 2019

New B- Rated PA poll Joe 30, Warren 18, Sanders 12, Pete 8, Gabbard 2, Klobuchar 2, Harris 1, Beto 0

also, Bennet 2, Booker 1, Yang 1, Bullock 0



The survey findings presented in this release are based on the results of interviews conducted October 21 - 27, 2019. The interviews were conducted at the Center for Opinion Research at Franklin & Marshall College on behalf of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs. The poll was designed and administered by the staff of the Center for Opinion Research. The data included in this release represent the responses of 482 Pennsylvania registered voters, including 226 Democrats, 188 Republicans, and 68 independents. The sample of registered voters was obtained from Marketing Systems Group. All sampled respondents were notified by letter about the survey. Interviews were completed over the phone and online depending on each respondent’s preference. Survey results were weighted (age, gender, education, and party registration) using an iterative weighting algorithm to reflect the known distribution of those characteristics as reported by the Pennsylvania Department of State and Pennsylvania exit polls. The sample error for this survey is +/- 6.1 percentage points when the design effects from weighting are considered (the sample error for registered Democrats is +/- 8.9 percent). In addition to sampling error, this poll is also subject to other sources of non-sampling error. Generally
speaking, two sources of error concern researchers most. Non-response bias is created when selected participants either choose not to participate in the survey or are unavailable for interviewing. Response errors are the product of the question and answer process. Surveys that rely on self-reported behaviors and attitudes are susceptible to biases related to the way respondents process and respond to survey questions.
October 30, 2019

Gabbard Blasts Turkey's Erdogan as 'Radical Islamist Megalomaniac' Who Helps ISIS

Gabbard joined relatives of Sept. 11 victims the day before and called for an end to U.S. aid to Saudi Arabia


Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard ripped into Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan on Twitter Wednesday.

Gabbard said, "Erdogan has been helping ISIS/AQ for years. He has denied this but is now openly using militias of "former" ISIS/AQ terrorists, exposing him for what he really is: a radical Islamist megalomaniac who wants to establish a caliphate with himself as the Caliph — the supreme ruler.

Turkey also on Wednesday condemned two resolutions passed by the U.S. House of Representatives that symbolize deteriorating Turkish-American relations.

Addressing his ruling party, Erdogan said he wouldn't recognize the nonbinding House resolution to recognize the century-old mass killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks as genocide. The bill passed 405-11.



Tulsi Gabbard rips Trump's Syria decision: 'Kurds are now paying the price'


Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) on Friday ripped President Trump over his decision to withdraw troops from northern Syria and turn operations over to Turkey. Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran, told Hill.TV said that even though she supported Trump’s initial decision in December 2018 to move troops from the region, she said he has failed to do so in a responsible way.

“All that he has done is remove them from the northern border of Syria — really laying out a red-carpet, a green light for [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan and Turkey to launch an ethnic cleansing and offensive against the Kurds,” Gabbard told Hill.TV.

“Because of Trump’s failure to end the regime change war in Syria — the Kurds are now paying the price,” she added.

The Hawaii Democrat previously criticized Trump and other Republicans over the move in a series on tweets on Tuesday.

“The hypocrisy of war-mongers like Nikki Haley, Senator Graham & others who have demanded that we continue our regime change war in Syria, who are now crying crocodile tears for the Kurds, is nauseating,” she tweeted.

October 29, 2019

Pan Head - Punny Printer

A Punny Printer
B Punny Printer (Version)

Jammy's Records ‎– none
Vinyl, 7", 45 RPM
Dancehall, Ragga

October 29, 2019

WaPo : Why Alexander Vindman's testimony is big


After Bill Taylor testified last week to multiple corrupt quid pro quos between the Trump team and Ukraine, President Trump attacked him as a “Never Trumper.” He did so despite the fact that Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, was selected for his job just a few months ago by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Good luck trying to pull that with the latest big witness.

Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman will become the latest official Tuesday to testify to a corrupt quid pro quo. And he might be the most significant to date, given his profile and his proximity to some of the key events. According to his prepared testimony, Vindman will say that European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland said after a July 10 meeting with a top Ukrainian official that a long-sought meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Trump depended upon Ukraine launching specific investigations — those involving former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, as well as a conspiracy theory about the origins of the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election:

Amb. Sondland started to speak about Ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with the President, at which time [National Security Adviser John] Bolton cut the meeting with [top Ukraine official Oleksandr Danylyuk] short. Following this meeting, there was a scheduled debriefing during which Amb. Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma.

Vindman adds that he raised concerns about the arrangement — both immediately to Sondland and twice to a top National Security Council lawyer. “I stated to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in or push,” Vindman says. Vindman says elsewhere in his testimony that he didn’t just think the arrangement was wrong, but that he viewed it as harmful to U.S. foreign policy. “I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine,” he says.

October 29, 2019

50 years ago today, the internet was born in Room 3420

Here’s the story of the creation of ARPANET, the groundbreaking precursor to the internet—as told by the people who were there.


When I visited UCLA’s Boelter Hall last Wednesday, I took the stairs to the third floor, looking for Room 3420. And then I walked right by it. From the hallway, it’s a pretty unassuming place. But something monumental happened there 50 years ago today. A graduate student named Charley Kline sat at an ITT Teletype terminal and sent the first digital data transmission to Bill Duvall, a scientist who was sitting at another computer at the Stanford Research Institute (now known as SRI International) on the other side of California. It was the beginning of ARPANET, the small network of academic computers that was the precursor to the internet.

At the time, this brief act of data transfer wasn’t anything like a shot heard round the world. Even Kline and Duvall didn’t appreciate the full significance of what they’d accomplished: “I don’t remember anything specifically memorable about that night, and I certainly didn’t realize that what we had done was anything special at the time,” says Kline. But their communications link was proof of the feasibility of the concepts that eventually enabled the distribution of virtually all the world’s information to anybody with a computer.

Today, everything from our smartphones to our garage-door openers are nodes on the network that descended from the one Kline and Duvall tested that day. How they and others established the original rules for shuttling bytes around the world is a tale worth sharing—especially when they tell it themselves.


Even back in 1969, many people had helped set the stage for Kline’s and Duvall’s breakthrough on the night of October 29–including UCLA professor Leonard Kleinrock, whom I spoke with along with Kline and Duvall as the 50th anniversary approached. Kleinrock, who is still at UCLA today, told me that ARPANET was, in a sense, a child of the Cold War. When the Soviet Union’s Sputnik 1 satellite blinked across U.S. skies in October 1957, it sent shockwaves through both the scientific community and political establishment.

Room 3420, restored to its 1969 glory.


Hobbes' Internet Timeline




First packets sent by Charley Kline at UCLA as he tried logging into SRI. The first attempt resulted in the system crashing as the letter G of LOGIN was entered. (October 29)

Log entry

October 29, 2019

'This happened': A grad student refused to recant her rape accusation even after police arrested her

and said she lied


In the shadow of a red-brick hospital surrounded by neatly manicured grass, a University of Kansas graduate student told three police officers she had been recently raped following a night of drinking with close friends during homecoming weekend in September 2018. She said she didn’t want to press charges or file a formal police report — she just wanted to preserve any evidence in case another woman ever came forward with a similar accusation. The police asked to look at her phone. She handed it over.

In one of the messages, sent just 16 minutes before the woman met with the officers at the hospital, she called the encounter “borderline rape,” KCTV reported, and said she had “the bruises and statements to prove it.” In other texts sent to a friend in the hours after the 30-year-old woman woke up — still drunk, naked and confused in the Lawrence, Kan., apartment of her then-boyfriend’s best friend — she expressed regret and made jokes about what had happened.

“It’s gross … he’s actually really good at sex though,” she texted. A short while later, she texted the same friend: “Get here fast. I’m literally about to have a breakdown.” She told police she’d sent those messages to “downplay” what had happened, and couldn’t remember typing some of the messages sent right after the alleged attack. Her friend told police the woman’s reactions made her believe she had been raped, KCTV reported.

Those texts later became the heart of a police investigation into the woman and a criminal charge filed in January for allegedly making a false report of rape. After more than a month of criticism from sexual assault advocates, though, the Douglas County District Attorney’s Office on Monday dropped three felony charges for interfering with an officer by falsely reporting a felony crime. The county’s top prosecutors says he still believes in the “merits of this case” in a statement obtained by The Washington Post.

But attorneys for the woman, whom The Post is not naming as an alleged victim of sexual assault, say there’s overwhelming evidence she was indeed assaulted. “Our client did not ‘fabricate’ the bruises on her arms, on her legs, and on her neck,” her attorneys told the Kansas City Star in a statement last month. “Our client did not ‘fabricate’ the results of her examination, which revealed her additional, sensitive injuries.”


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: London
Home country: US/UK/Sweden
Current location: Stockholm, Sweden
Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2018, 07:25 PM
Number of posts: 45,281

About Celerity

she / her / hers
Latest Discussions»Celerity's Journal