People in West Virginia are angry with Sec. Clinton. Why? Those people are coal miners and while discussing plans to create jobs in the renewable energy industry during a CNN town hall in March, Clinton said, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”
Yeah, if I’m a coal miner that’s the way to get my vote, tell me you are going to put me out of business. West Virginia, and all of Appalachia is an area that put Bill Clinton in the White House and
“What I said was totally out of context from what I meant because I have been talking about helping coal country for a very long time,” Clinton said, according to NBC News. “What I was saying is that the way things are going now, we will continue to lose jobs. That’s what I meant to say.”
Yeah, there isn’t much of a way taking “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business” out of context.
Now to be fair, I agree with her about putting coal companies out of business and miners out of work until they can be retrained as something else. Her problem is in the way she said it.
And that’s one of the many problems I have with her, she says stuff the wrong way all the time and finds herself having to apologize for her misstatements. In this case it wasn’t a misstatement, she said what she meant. It would have been nice if she had thought about how coal miners, many of them living in impoverished areas with little else paying a living wage.
Dan pointed me to this article which got me thinking about automation and what it does to jobs. Basically, it destroys them, eating at them from the bottom (unskilled) to the top (skilled) and it will eventually put us all out of “work”.
What brings me to that conclusion is this statement:
In short, what today’s flexible software is threatening is to “free” us from the drudgery of all repetitive tasks rather than those of lowest value, pushing us away from expertise (A) which we know how to impart, toward ingenious Rube Goldberg like opportunities (B) unsupported by any proven educational model. This shift in emphasis from jobs to opportunities is great news for a tiny number of creatives of today, but deeply troubling for a majority who depend on stable and cyclical work to feed families.
Regardless of how skilled, a job is nothing more than a series of repetitive tasks. If you buy into the authors views repetitive tasks will be taken over by automation regardless of the degree of skilled required. What that leaves us with will be a series of opportunities we either must seize or we will wither away into poverty.
If you are an opportunist this is not a bad thing. You go about life engaged in your passion and seize opportunities as they arise for which you are richly rewarded.
Unfortunately, most of us are not opportunist.
Most of us keep our nose to the grindstone, whittling away at repetitive tasks, creating consumer goods that people will consume with the money they make keeping their nose to the grindstone at their repetitive tasks.
Young people don’t see the Sanders-Clinton race as a choice between idealism and incremental progress. The choice they see is between an honest politician, and one who is so profoundly a part of the problem that she can’t even see it anymore.
And this isn’t just with home automation equipment, it extends to your phone, your tablet, your computer and even your car. It goes to books, music and movies. Everything you have that depends on the cloud will only last as long as the supporting company sees a business benefit for them to continue the service.
Hillary Clinton’s team insinuated Monday she would decline another debate with rival Vermont Sen. Bernard Sanders unless he changed his “tone.” Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is worried the senator has been too negative in recent weeks and is “talking about running harsher negatives now.”
And thinking this is just the primaries and Sen. Sanders has only been attacking her on the issues. I think that’s fair play. Does she think she will get a more positive tone from Donald Trump should she get the Democratic nomination? Sen. Sanders has been the perfect gentleman.
Somebody wrote “Trump 2016” in chalk numerous times across the Emory University campus last night. Evidently this political speech was intimidating to some of the students. About forty of them gathered around the Administration Building to protest these chalkings, expressing the fear they felt from having to deal with this.
“I’m supposed to feel comfortable and safe [here],” one student said. “But this man is being supported by students on our campus and our administration shows that they, by their silence, support it as well … I don’t deserve to feel afraid at my school,” she added.
I can’t believe political diversity can be equated to intimidation but since these protesters brought it up, how do you suppose this Trump chalker feels seeing a gang of people chanting and condemning his or her expression of political thought? Don’t you suppose the chalker may be feeling a little intimidated now? Perhaps even fearful after witnessing this demonstration?
At an event in Spokane, Washington, Mr. Clinton called for putting “the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the seven years before that, where we were practicing trickle-down economics with no regulation in Washington, which is what caused the crash, then you should vote for her,” Mr. Clinton said, referring to his wife, Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, on the stump Monday.
We’ve all heard the rumors of how the Obama’s and the Clinton’s really don’t like each other all that much but because they are now politically tied together are making nice with each other out of their own self-interest. Maybe Bill is no longer the astute politician he was before his heart issues.
Nate Robinson brings up a great point in his article:
Trump’s political dominance is highly dependent on his idiosyncratic, audacious method of campaigning. He deals almost entirely in amusing, outrageous, below-the-belt personal attacks, and is skilled at turning public discussions away from the issues and toward personalities (He/she’s a “loser,” “phony,” “nervous,” “hypocrite,” “incompetent.”) If Trump does have to speak about the issues, he makes himself sound foolish, because he doesn’t know very much. Thus he requires the media not to ask him difficult questions, and depends on his opponents’ having personal weaknesses and scandals that he can merrily, mercilessly exploit.
This campaigning style makes Hillary Clinton Donald Trump’s dream opponent. She gives him an endless amount to work with. The emails, Benghazi, Whitewater, Iraq, the Lewinsky scandal, Chinagate, Travelgate, the missing law firm records, Jeffrey Epstein, Kissinger, Marc Rich, Haiti, Clinton Foundation tax errors, Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest, “We were broke when we left the White House,” Goldman Sachs… There is enough material in Hillary Clinton’s background for Donald Trump to run with six times over.
Peter Daou has a problem seeing where the problem really is. Well, that’s to be expected he’s been advising Sec. Clinton for a while and you don’t maintain that job without polishing her image.
Why on earth would Bernie Sanders run a campaign premised on the destruction of Hillary’s public image?
As we’ve written: Hillary let Bernie off the hook in the last debate. She could have asked him a simple question: Does he believe President Obama is corrupt because of financial industry contributions? It’s a yes or no question that is central to the 2016 race.
Does Bernie think President Obama is compromised by Wall Street contributions? If so, he should have the courage to say it. If not, he shouldn’t imply that a female candidate would be influenced by donations or speaking fees. There’s a word for that.
First, Bernie isn’t running a campaign premised on the destruction of Hillary’s public image. He’s running a campaign premised on the fact that Wall Street is running amok and compromising our political system with campaign contributions and lobbying for special treatment. This is also a premise that Sec. Clinton claims to accept but only after millions of Wall Street dollars have poured into her family’s foundation and into Super PACs created to put her into the presidency.
Sanders has built his campaign on fighting Wall Street and and its corrupting influence. Are you, Mr. Daou, suggesting that the Sanders campaign should change their tune just because Sec. Clinton appears to have been corrupted by Wall Streets influence? By the way, that is my question, not Sen. Sanders.
Maybe had she not taken millions of dollars from Wall Street she wouldn’t be in this predicament. Don’t blame Sen. Sanders for Sec. Clinton’s apparent corruption.
Oh, man, this is so cool. Scientist have taken the idea of 3D printing to new heights. They are printing out body parts!
The team wrote, “We present an integrated tissue-organ printer (ITOP) that can fabricate stable, human-scale tissue constructs of any shape. The correct shape of tissue construct is obtained from human body by processing computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data in computer-aided design software”.
My friend, Rick, keeps pointing out to me how the Democratic establishment isn’t going to allow Sanders, a party outsider, to win the Democratic nomination for president. He points out that even if he does he will be powerless to implement any of his platform programs and he knows that. This makes him dishonest in his campaign. Chris Hedges thinks he’s dishonest because he won’t speak the truth about his adversary, Hillary Clinton, and in not doing so is duplicitous in the con game she and the Democratic Party is running.
The Democratic Party is a full partner in the corporate state. Yet Sanders, while critical of Hillary Clinton’s exorbitant speaking fees from firms such as Goldman Sachs, refuses to call out the party and—as Robert Scheer pointed out in a column in October—the Clintons for their role as handmaidens of Wall Street. For Sanders, it is a lie of omission, which is still a lie. And it is a lie that makes the Vermont senator complicit in the con game being played on the American electorate by the Democratic Party establishment.
I’ve been trying to explain to people that Hillary Clinton is not the person to nominate as a fire break against the Republicans. Hillary is not the electable candidate. She will not get out the vote like Bernie Sanders will in the general election and she fares worse than Sanders in head to head polling against Republicans.
On the pragmatics of electability, nearly every major national poll consistently shows Sanders equaling or bettering Clinton against all Republicans. Polls show Sanders nearly tied with Clinton nationally and rising. On electability, if anything, Sanders has the edge right now. There is nothing empirical to suggest Clinton’s superior electability—quite the contrary given her loss to Barack Obama in 2008 and her flagging campaign this year. While Clinton might gain more moderate Independents (particularly against a polarizing Republican nominee), Sanders can inspire massive Democratic and liberal Independent turnout and likely win over many white working-class swing voters.
Sanders is attracting young people to the primaries and caucuses in numbers not seen since Kennedy ran for the Democratic nod in ’59. Young people are notorious for not showing up at the polls unless there is someone running who excites them. Hillary Clinton may be married to the most charismatic president since Reagan but she isn’t the charismatic one and she doesn’t excite young people to get out to vote unless those young people are young Republicans and their vote is against her.
The Clinton campaign is being sick and tired of all the scrutiny they are facing and the evidence of hypocrisy, ties to the banking industry and other ethical issues this is bringing forward. So they are pointing their fingers at the Sanders campaign and saying, “what about him?”
“There’s a lot of stuff that comes out about Hillary. She’s been scrutinized, scrutinized, scrutinized. I don’t see any of that about Bernie coming out—and there are things,” said Barbara Marzelli, who runs a gardening business in New Hampshire. “It’s like everybody’s throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks. They haven’t started to fling spaghetti at Bernie.”
That’s all well and good but what happens when you scrutinize someone and all you can find is extremely minor stuff like accepting campaign money from the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, which accepted money from Wall Street, while claiming not to have received money from Wall Street.
I think he can stand up to the scrutiny but I wonder about the spin.
Every one of Bloomberg’s gun control groups state that they are for reasonable gun control but doesn’t reasonable connote a willingness to compromise? Everytown for Gun Safety, formerly known as Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Mom’s Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, was a huge endorser of Governor Terry McAuliffe when he ran for office in Virginia on a pro gun control platform until he worked out a deal with pro gun rights Republicans to get the guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and encourage background checks on private sales at gun shows.
Last week, Everytown unleashed Facebook and Twitter ads against McAuliffe, posting his photo side-by-side with that of the National Rifle Association chief Wayne LaPierre.