Diario de Noticias

Recently Added Videos

LISTEN: Biden Supported A Constitutional Amendment To End Mandated Busing In 1975 – NPR

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, seen in 1975, told NPR at the time that he supported a constitutional amendment to ban court-ordered busing programs to integrate schools.

hide caption

toggle caption

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, seen in 1975, told NPR at the time that he supported a constitutional amendment to ban court-ordered busing programs to integrate schools.

In 1975, one of the most divisive cultural and political issues of the time was busing, the practice of putting black and white children on buses and sending them to different schools within a school district to achieve integration.

Factoring prominently into the debate against busing, however, was a young, liberal, 32-year-old Delaware senator by the name of Joe Biden.

Asked in an interview at the time by NPR’s David Ensor whether he would go so far as supporting a constitutional amendment to stop court-ordered busing, Biden was open to it.

“That would clearly do it,” he said, adding, “I’m going to go at it through a constitutional amendment, if it can’t be done through a piece of legislation.”

Here’s the full quote from the transcript:

ENSOR: What about a constitutional amendment, I asked Biden. Isn’t that what you’re going to end up supporting if you want to stop court ordered busing too?

BIDEN: That would clearly do it. We are trying to figure out whether or not we can come up with an innovative piece of legislation which would limit the remedy and I don’t honestly don’t know whether we can come up with something constitutional. And if we can’t I will not in an attempt to eliminate busing violate the Constitution. I won’t do that. The only way if I’m going to go at it, I’m going to go at it through a constitutional amendment if it can’t be done through a piece of legislation.

Biden also warned in the interview that one of the reasons many liberals were in favor of busing is that racists were against it.

“I think that part of the reason why much of this has not developed, much of the change has not developed, is because it has been an issue that has been in the hands of the racist,” Biden said, “and we liberals have out-of-hand rejected it because, if George Wallace is for it, it must be bad. And so we haven’t really looked at it. Now there’s a confluence of streams. There is academic ferment against it — not majority, but academic ferment against it. There are young blacks and young white leaders against it.”

The Biden campaign has not yet responded to a request for comment.

Biden defends himself

The issue of busing has threatened to derail Biden’s campaign after he came under attack from Sen. Kamala Harris of California at Thursday night’s debate. Harris noted that she was bused as a child and was hurt by Biden’s handling of remarks he made that he worked with segregationist senators with whom he disagreed.

On Friday, Biden took another shot at defending himself, speaking in Chicago before the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, headed by the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

“I heard and I listened to and I respect Sen. Harris,” Biden said. “But you know we all know that 30 seconds to 60 seconds on a campaign debate exchange can’t do justice to a lifetime committed to civil rights.”

He added: “I never, never, never, ever opposed voluntary busing, [such] as the program that Sen. Harris participated in, and it made a difference in her life. I did support federal action to address the root causes of segregation in our schools and in our community, including taking on the banks and redlining, and trying to change the way in which neighborhoods were segregated.

“I’ve always been in favor of using federal authority to overcome state-initiated segregation. In fact, I cast the deciding vote in 1974 against an amendment called the Gurney amendment, which would have banned the right of federal courts to be able to use busing as a remedy [to segregation].”

During the debate, Biden also said he was not against voluntary busing, only Department of Education-mandated busing. It sounded like a states-rights argument, similar to what had been used by those who wanted to keep segregation in place. But on Friday, Biden rejected that.

“These rights are not up to the states to decide,” he said. “They’re the federal government’s duty to decide. It’s a constitutional question, to protect the civil rights of every single American. And that’s always been my position.”

A historically divisive issue

Busing was a hotly divisive issue in the 1970s.

It was unpopular with white families and even divided black families.

A 1973 Gallup Poll found that while a majority of Americans favored school integration, just 5% believed busing was the best way to do it. That went across racial lines — just 4% of whites and 9% of African Americans thought busing was the best way to do it.

Americans thought other policies should be focused on more and would do a better job of achieving school integration, like changing school district boundaries to bring together students from different social, racial and economic groups (27%) or that there should be more affordable housing in middle-class neighborhoods (22%).

Even a generation later, 82% of Americans said they favored letting students go to their neighborhood school over busing. A 1999 Gallup Poll found that almost 9 in 10 whites said so, and blacks were split — 48% to 44%, with a plurality preference for keeping students in neighborhood schools.

Even nearly three-quarters of younger respondents in 1999 — ages 18 to 29, who might have gone through busing themselves and who thought integration programs were beneficial — said letting children attend neighborhood schools would be better than busing. (Harris would have been 35 in 1999; Biden was 57.)

A 1971 Gallup Poll found that fewer than half of Americans (43%) thought integration programs had improved the quality of education for black students. By 1999, though, 80% of those younger respondents thought they worked. In other words, the generational divide is real.

In 1974, the Supreme Court weighed in on busing and “white flight,” which saw white families abandon the cities for the suburbs. In Milliken v. Bradley, the court struck down a plan to desegregate Detroit public schools by having white children, who lived in the suburbs, integrated into inner-city schools.

The court said that was “wholly impermissible” and emphasized the importance of local control over public schools and “white flight” only continued.

NPR’s Noah Caldwell contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/06/28/736995314/listen-biden-supported-a-constitutional-amendment-to-end-mandated-busing-in-1975

36 views no comments

Salt Lake SWAT team takes man into custody in missing Utah student case – KSL.com

SALT LAKE CITY — Salt Lake police took one man into custody Friday in connection with the disappearance of missing University of Utah student Mackenzie Lueck.

The man and a second man were taken into custody about 9:20 a.m. at an apartment complex at 1028 S. West Temple. Police later said on Twitter that only one person was taken into custody in the case.

The men were seen outside the apartment complex walking toward a police SWAT team with their hands over their heads and they were then put into handcuffs.

A press conference is scheduled for 11:30 a.m.

Salt Lake police announced Thursday that the owner of a house in the Fairpark neighborhood, 31, is considered a “person of interest” in the disappearance of Lueck.

It was not immediately clear if one of the men is the homeowner.

SLCPD took one person into custody this morning regarding the MacKenzie Lueck case. We will be providing an update at 11:30 a.m at the Public Safety Building. #MacKenzieLueck

— SLC Police Dept. (@slcpd) June 28, 2019

Police spent an active Wednesday evening working through the night collecting evidence at a home in Salt Lake City at 547 N. 1000 West.

Police were even seen digging holes in the backyard. The holes were being dug in or near an area where at least one neighbor said a fire may have been set.

Lueck, 23, was last seen early on the morning of June 17 when she flew into Salt Lake City International Airport after attending a family funeral in her hometown of El Segundo, California. Surveillance video at the airport recorded Lueck making her way to baggage claim, and then getting into a Lyft vehicle.

The Lyft driver told police he dropped off Lueck at Hatch Park in North Salt Lake about 3 a.m. where another person in a car was waiting for her. As of Wednesday, Salt Lake police had not been able to identify that person or even the make and model of that car.

Texts and social media have become a focus on the investigation. There has been attention given to dating apps Lueck was allegedly on, including at least one that connects “sugar babies” with “sugar daddies.”

More information will be posted throughout the day as more information becomes available.

Live coverage of the Mackenzie Lueck case

Photos

Source Article from https://www.ksl.com/article/46583923/salt-lake-swat-team-takes-man-into-custody-in-missing-utah-student-case

42 views no comments

Who Won the Democratic Debate, Night 2? Experts Weigh In – The New York Times

… but Buttigieg also had a good night

Pete Buttigieg received some tough questions, including one about a police officer’s fatal shooting of a black man in South Bend, Ind., where Mr. Buttigieg is mayor. He has been off the campaign trail for much of the week dealing with the crisis. But his response at the debate, when asked why the South Bend Police Department has not added more black officers during his time in office, impressed some strategists and activists.

“Because I couldn’t get it done,” he said, before adding: “I could walk you through all of the things that we have done as a community, all of the steps that we took, from bias training to de-escalation, but it didn’t save the life of Eric Logan. And when I look into his mother’s eyes, I have to face the fact that nothing that I say will bring him back.”

“I can’t stop thinking about Pete Buttigieg’s answer to that question. It was completely unexpected. Vulnerable, honest, heartfelt, and not one bit of cowardice in it. It was a leader’s answer.” — Charlotte Clymer, spokeswoman for Human Rights Campaign

“Once again, he took responsibility for his failure as mayor to fully address the underlying issues. But he also spoke of the incident in very human terms; of the man who was killed, his family and the impact on his community.” — David Axelrod, former senior adviser to Barack Obama

“If anyone is teaching media training classes for how to speak in English about complicated topics on television—@PeteButtigieg is masterful at it. Never mentions bills, never mentions DC garbely gook.” — Jen Psaki, former spokeswoman for Mr. Obama

Biden emerged worse for wear

Early in the debate, Mr. Biden got some praise from analysts.

“Very smart for @JoeBiden to stick to who he is, what he stands for and not back away from it.” — Jen Psaki

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/us/politics/debate-winners.html

40 views no comments

US Supreme Court declines Alabama bid to revive abortion restriction – AOL

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday sidestepped a major new challenge to abortion rights by declining to hear Alabama’s bid to revive a Republican-backed state law that would have effectively banned the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

The justices left in place a lower court ruling that struck down the 2016 law, which would have criminalized a method called dilation and evacuation that is the most common type of abortion performed during the second trimester of a pregnancy.

The law in question is different than an even more strict Alabama measure signed by Republican Governor Kay Ivey in May. The new law, also facing a legal challenge, would ban nearly all abortions in the state, even in cases of rape and incest.

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion agreeing with the court’s decision not to hear the issue now but making clear that he would vote to uphold such laws.

“The notion that anything in the Constitution prevents states from passing laws prohibiting the dismembering of a living child is implausible,” Thomas wrote.

The Alabama law was one of a growing number passed by Republican legislators at the state level imposing a variety of restrictions on abortion.

“While we are pleased to see the end of this particular case, we know that it is nowhere near the end of efforts to undermine access to abortion,” said Andrew Beck, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the law.

Related: Stars slam new Alabama abortion bill

Up Next

See Gallery

“Politicians are lining up to do just what Alabama did – ask the courts to review laws that push abortion out of reach and harm women’s health, with the hope of the getting the Supreme Court to undermine, or even overturn, a woman’s right to abortion,” Beck added.

The lower court found that Alabama’s law was an infringement on a woman’s constitutional right to abortion recognized in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling. A ruling by the conservative-majority Supreme Court upholding the Alabama measure could have chipped away at the Roe decision, which legalized abortion nationwide.

In the method targeted in the Alabama law, sometimes called D&E, a woman’s cervix is dilated and the contents of the uterus removed. Alabama calls this method “dismemberment abortion.”

Anti-abortion proponents had hoped the case would present an opportunity to make inroads at the Supreme Court following the retirement last year of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was pivotal in defending abortion rights. President Donald Trump, who vowed before the 2016 election to appoint justices who would overturn the Roe ruling, named conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh to replace Kennedy.

The Supreme Court has a 5-4 conservative majority but has sent mixed messages on abortion in recent months.

Most recently, the court on May 28 refused to consider reinstating Indiana’s ban on abortions performed because of fetal disability or the sex or race of the fetus while upholding the state’s requirement that fetal remains be buried or cremated after the procedure is done.

In February, the court blocked a Louisiana law imposing strict regulations on abortion clinics from going into effect. An appeal is pending in that case.

The Supreme Court on Dec. 10 declined to take up another abortion-related case when it rebuffed two other conservative-leaning states – Louisiana and Kansas – that moved to deny public funding to Planned Parenthood.

Anti-abortion activists hope the high court will be more receptive to abortion restrictions following Kennedy’s departure. Many liberals have expressed concern that Kavanaugh, who joined the court in October, will be more hostile to abortion rights and could support the overturning of Roe.

The Supreme Court in 2016 on buttressed constitutional protections for abortion rights in a ruling in which Kennedy joined the four liberal justices, throwing out a Texas law imposing difficult-to-meet requirements on abortion clinics and abortion doctors.

With Kennedy gone, conservative states are debating and in some cases enacting laws that are in direct conflict with the Roe v. Wade precedent.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

Source Article from https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/06/28/us-supreme-court-declines-alabama-revive-abortion-restriction/23759033/

44 views no comments

Why We Remember Stonewall – NPR

The Stonewall Inn is a sacred place for many in the LGBTQ community. Fifty years ago, a raid and series of riots outside the New York City bar helped launch a civil rights movement.

Back in the 1960s, many bars in New York City were controlled by organized crime. Often they operated without proper paperwork, and corrupt police would collect monthly bribes to turn a blind eye.

Sometimes, police would arrest all the patrons in retaliation for not getting their “dues” on time. Gay and lesbian bars were easy targets because they had no legal protection. City laws made gay bars illegal, and wealthy patrons were often extorted. The dingy, rundown bars were frequently raided. People didn’t really stand up to the police.

That is, until one night …

A fight started. Nearby bars emptied out as patrons heard the commotion, and more people joined in the fight. Others fled for safety. Soon the crowd turned into a mob. Police sent in reinforcements and crushed the protests. But what began that night didn’t end there.

The following days saw more protests. The movement became a “coming out party” of sorts in the streets of Greenwich Village. One year later, organizers commemorated the event with the first “Pride” parade. Stonewall was not the first rebellion, by far, in the LGBTQ movement. But over the years, many civil rights activists began coordinating their efforts and celebrating that hot summer night as “the first.”

And Stonewall did change the lives of many people around the world. Like Michael Levine, who was there that night and, as he told Story Corps in 2010, came out because of it.

There would be accomplishments, and setbacks, in the years to come. But many people who were there say that Stonewall marked the moment when they found their voice.

Written and illustrated by LA Johnson. Radio story by Jennifer Vanasco.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/06/28/733500331/why-we-remember-stonewall

40 views no comments

Harris, Biden face-off is highest-rated Democratic primary debate in history – CNN

Chat with us in Facebook Messenger. Find out what’s happening in the world as it unfolds.

Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/28/media/nbc-democratic-debate-ratings-night-two/index.html

32 views no comments

Joe Biden throws own campaign into turmoil after Harris attacks his record on race – CNN

Chat with us in Facebook Messenger. Find out what’s happening in the world as it unfolds.

Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/28/politics/first-democratic-debate-night-2-analysis/index.html

38 views no comments

Trump Tells Putin (With a Grin) Not to Meddle in Elections – The New York Times

The written summary of the leaders’ meeting issued by the White House indicated, without elaborating, that they had talked about that as well as Iran, Syria, Venezuela and Ukraine. The summary made no mention of election interference, nor did it say anything about two Americans who have been arrested by the Russian authorities on disputed charges.

Likewise, it said nothing about an international investigation this month that pointed to Russia in the 2014 downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine, which killed all 298 people on board. International prosecutors have indicted three men with ties to Russian military and intelligence agencies in the destruction of the passenger jet and implicated, without charging, a senior aide to Mr. Putin.

Nor did the summary indicate that the leaders talked about Russia’s seizure of three Ukrainian ships and several sailors last November, events that prompted Mr. Trump to cancel a scheduled meeting with Mr. Putin, and which remains unresolved. When a reporter asked about the ships and sailors on Friday, the president said, “We haven’t discussed them.”

While Mr. Putin did not address the election issue with reporters on Friday, he scoffed at the idea of Russian involvement in an interview before flying to Osaka. He advanced the same line of argument that Mr. Trump does: that he won in 2016 because he was the candidate more in touch with Americans.

“Russia has been accused, and, strange as it may seem, it is still being accused, despite the Mueller report, of mythical interference in the U.S. election,” Mr. Putin told The Financial Times. “What happened in reality? Mr. Trump looked into his opponents’ attitude to him and saw changes in American society, and he took advantage of this.”

He complimented Mr. Trump’s political skill. “I do not accept many of his methods when it comes to addressing problems,” Mr. Putin said. “But do you know what I think? I think that he is a talented person. He knows very well what his voters expect from him.”

But Mr. Putin made clear he was frustrated that Mr. Trump had not agreed to extend the New Start treaty. “They keep silent, while the treaty expires in 2021,” he said. “If we do not begin talks now, it would be over because there would be no time even for formalities.”

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/us/politics/g20-summit-trump-putin.html

108 views no comments

Trade with China didn’t change China, it changed us – Washington Examiner

Ever since Congress extended permanent normal trade relations to China nearly 20 years ago, pro-China pundits have argued that increased trade and engagement with Beijing would cause the communist regime to open up and embrace Democratic values.

But China’s behavior hasn’t changed at all. To the contrary, Beijing has become more authoritarian and more adversarial. In fact, doing business with China has changed us more than it’s changed them.

The communists who control China’s government are not our friends. And yet, many American CEOs sound like lobbyists for the Chinese Communist Party. I see these corporate chieftains on the financial networks every day, attacking President Trump nonstop and taking China’s side in the current trade dispute.

On CNBC recently, a spokesman for the national Chamber of Commerce criticized Trump’s efforts to confront China over its unfair trade practices.

The national Chamber of Commerce effectively supports open borders to get cheap labor, while at the same time advocating policies that have resulted in the closure of thousands of American factories and the hollowing out of America’s middle class.

Many of these companies closed their American plants years ago and rebuilt them in China using cheap Chinese labor. Other U.S. companies are dreaming of great riches by selling into China.

The pundits and the talking heads are terrified that we are offending our Chinese trading partner. They are fretting about a “trade war.” But China has been at war economically with us for many years. Only now, finally, are we fighting back.

Unlike the last four presidents, Trump is engaged in a major effort to confront the rising threat of communist China.

It’s a very difficult battle, with two major fronts. The first is economic. China has been ripping off American intellectual property and manipulating their currency for decades. Trump is fighting to stop this rip off of American workers and consumers, and to revive the American economy, particularly in the Heartland.

But there’s another front in this battle that involves our national security.

China is challenging us militarily all over the world. China has announced a 20-year plan to control the world’s trade routes. They’ve been relentlessly launching devastating cyberattacks against the U.S. for years.

During the Obama administration, they hacked into our government databases and stole information on more than 20 million government employees. Our Navy worries they may have hacked our Naval computers.

China has also placed scores of propaganda centers on U.S. colleges known as Confucius Institutes that are funded by the Chinese Communist Party. The government is so concerned about spying that the Pentagon is cutting funding to universities that host these Confucius Institutes.

These financial and national security crimes come on top of the communist regime’s long record of human rights abuses, including its stifling of religious freedom. China is in a class by itself as a violator of human rights.

As I have written before, Chinese Dictator Xi Jinping is in the midst of an increasingly brutal campaign to exert control over religious life in China. Christian churches are being shuttered, pastors are being jailed, and the Bible itself is even being rewritten to make it more communist friendly. Meanwhile, Beijing has effectively been at war with Chinese Uighur Muslims. An estimated 1 million Uighurs have been imprisoned in “re-education” camps and subjected to prolonged physical and psychological abuse.

Unbelievingly, many American politicians insist that China is not our adversary, but our partner. You have to be in deep denial of reality to think that the communist Chinese government is our friend.

Interestingly, the financial and national security battlefronts are converging around a Chinese telecom company called Huawei. Its tentacles are all over the world. Its products are embedded in your cell phone, computer, and other electronic devices.

One reason Huawei has been so successful is that it can sell its products more cheaply than American companies can because China refuses to play by the trade rules that every other country must comply with.

The Trump administration understands that in a future showdown with China, Huawei’s technology and software can be used as a modern day Trojan Horse to thwart our military in a way that causes us to lose a future conflict.

When it comes to taking on China, every American politician ought to be standing with the president, and so should Wall Street. Sadly, they’re not.

China is not just a trading partner. China is also our adversary. Make no mistake about that. More American businesses and political leaders should start recognizing that, and they should start putting our workers and America’s interests first.

Maybe the corporate CEOs and financial titans who praise China and attack the U.S. should put the following quote on their mirrors to read every morning: “The capitalist will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”

That’s a quote from Vladimir Lenin, one of communism’s founders.

America’s CEOs should feel a debt of gratitude to the country that has allowed them to flourish. They should remember that they will not succeed unless America succeeds.

Gary Bauer is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is president of American Values and chairman of Campaign for Working Families. He ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trade-with-china-didnt-change-china-it-changed-us

126 views no comments

Margaret Sullivan: NBC’s technical glitch was bad, but debate’s overall chaos was far worse – Salt Lake Tribune

In general, though, the moderation was competent. Todd kept things moving and managed the glitch with a certain amount of grace, but he talked way too much. In fairness, Todd talked so much partly because he had to repeat that question three times and explain the glitch. According to a tally by FiveThirtyEight, he talked more than almost all the candidates, coming in fourth in word count behind Cory Booker, Beto O’Rourke and Elizabeth Warren, in that order.

Source Article from https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/06/27/margaret-sullivan-nbcs/

38 views no comments

Illegal immigrants should get health care, say Dems in Night 2 debate – Fox News

Video

Fox News Flash top headlines for June 27

Fox News Flash top headlines for June 27 are here. Check out what’s clicking on Foxnews.com

Illegal immigrants would be eligible for coverage under their respective health care plans, the 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls taking part in Thursday’s second round of debates in Miami agreed.

Moderator and NBC “Today” host Savannah Guthrie asked the 10 candidates if their health plans would provide coverage for the estimated 11 million people living in the U.S. illegally.

All raised their hands.

CONGRESSIONAL HISPANIC CAUCUS BLASTS BORDER FUNDING BILL AS ‘BETRAYAL’ OF AMERICAN VALUES

“It’s the humane thing to do,” former Vice President Joe Biden said.

“This is not about a handout. This is about an insurance program,” Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., said.

President Trump seized on the moment in his first tweet of the night, commenting from Japan where he will attend the G-20 summit.

“All Democrats just raised their hands for giving millions of illegal aliens unlimited healthcare,” the president wrote, just minutes after the exchange on the debate stage. “How about taking care of American Citizens first!? That’s the end of that race!”

Blue states like California have embraced providing health care coverage for undocumented immigrants.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Under an agreement between Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democrats in the state Legislature, low-income adults age 19-25 living in California illegally would be eligible for the state’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal. The deal emerged as part of a broader $214 billion budget that Newsom signed into law Thursday.

Fox News’ Frank Miles contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrat-presidential-candidates-favor-health-care-coverage-for-undocumented-immigrants

133 views no comments

Marianne Williamson’s highlights at the Democratic debate – Vox.com

Marianne Williamson did not speak for the first 27 minutes of the Democratic debate on Thursday. But when she finally did, everything she said was awesome.

If you’re not familiar, Williamson, who will turn 67 on July 8, is an author, spiritual leader, and friend to Oprah Winfrey. (Bet this time last year, you thought you’d be talking about Oprah on the debate stage and not her spiritual guru, right?)

She launched her presidential campaign in January and has more or less been flying under the radar, but her persona is distinctive: She sort of feels like a cross between your local psychic, the hippie lady who runs the town secondhand store, and your mom (or, um, you) two glasses of Chardonnay deep. She speaks with a cadence and accent that’s hard to put your finger on, but let’s just say it’s the definition of, as Marianne would probably put it, groovy.

Will she be president? Well, no. But Marianne is fun.

Williamson got a spot on the stage at the second night of the Democratic debates — something candidates including Montana Gov. Steve Bullock and Rep. Seth Moulton failed to achieve. And girlfriend (as Marianne would, again, probably put it) did not disappoint.

Here’s what she said, verbatim, because that’s really all you need:

On how she’d lower the cost of prescription drugs:

First of all, the government should never have made the deal with Big Pharma that they couldn’t negotiate. That was just part of the regular corruption by which corporations have their way with us. You know, I want to say, and while I agree — and I’m with Sen. Bennet and others, but I agree with almost everything here.

I tell you one thing, it’s really nice if we have all these plans, but if you think we beat Donald Trump by just having all these plans, you’ve got another thing coming. Because he didn’t win by saying he had a plan. He won by simply saying, “Make America Great Again.”

We have to get deeper than just these superficial fixes, as important as they are. Even if we’re just talking about the superficial fixes, ladies and gentlemen, we don’t have a health care system in the United States, we have a sickness care system in the United States. We just wait until somebody gets sick and then we talk about who is going pay for the treatment and how they’re going to be treated.

What we need to talk about is why so many Americans have unnecessary chronic illnesses, so many more, compared to other countries. It gets back into not just Big Pharma, not just health insurance companies, but it has to do with chemical policies, it has to do with environmental policies, it has to do with food, it has to do with drug policies, and it has to do with environment policies.

On family separation:

What Donald Trump has done to the children, and it’s not just in Colorado, [Gov. Hickenlooper], you’re right, it is kidnapping and it’s extremely important for us to realize that.

If you forcibly take a child from their parents’ arms, you are kidnapping them. If you take a lot of children and you put them in a detainment center, thus inflicting trauma upon them, that’s called child abuse. This is collective child abuse. … Both of those things are a crime. If your government does it, that doesn’t make it less of a crime. These are state-sponsored crimes.

What President Trump has done is not only attack these children, not only demonize these immigrants, he is attacking a basic principle of America’s moral core: We open our hearts to the stranger.

This is extremely important. It’s also important for all of us, and I have great respect for everyone who is on this stage, but we’re going to talk about what to do about health care? Well, where have you been, guys? Because it’s not just a matter of a plan, and I haven’t heard anybody on this stage who has talked about American foreign policy in Latin America and how we might have in the last few decades contributed to something being more helpful.

On criminal justice reform and police brutality:

All of these issues are extremely important, but they are specifics, they are symptoms, and the underlying cause has to do with deep, deep, deep realms of racial injustice, both in our criminal justice system and in our economic system. And the Democratic Party should be on the side of reparations for slavery for this very reason. I do not believe, I do not believe, that the average American is a racist, but the average American is woefully undereducated about the history of race in the United States.

On addressing climate change — and age?

The fact that somebody has a younger body doesn’t mean that you don’t have old ideas. John Kennedy did not say, “I have a plan to get a man to the moon, and so we’re going to do it, and I think we can all work together, and maybe we can get a man on the moon.” John Kennedy said, “By the end of this decade, we are going to put a man on the moon.” Because John Kennedy was back in the day when politics included the people and included imagination and included great dreams and included great plans.

I have had a career not making the political plans, but I have had I a career harnessing the inspiration and the motivation and the excitement of people. Masses of people. When we know that when we say we are going to turn from a dirty economy to a clean economy, we’re going to have a Green New Deal, we’re going to create millions of jobs, we’re going to do this within the next 12 years, because I’m not interested in just winning the next election, we are interested in our grandchildren. Then it will happen.

On which issue she would push first as president:

My first call is to the prime minister of New Zealand, who said her goal was to make New Zealand the place where it’s the best place in the world for a child to grow up. And I will tell her, “Girlfriend, you are so on.” Because the United States of America is going to be the best place in the world for a child to grow up.

On the international relationship she would reset:

One of my first phone calls would be to call the European leaders and say, “We’re baaack.” Because I totally understand how important it is that the United States be part of the Western alliance.

Her closing statement — and message to Donald Trump:

I’m sorry we haven’t talked more tonight about how we’re going to beat Donald Trump. I have an idea about Donald Trump: Donald Trump is not going to be beaten just by insider politics talk. He’s not going to be beaten just by somebody who has plans. He’s going to be beaten by somebody who has an idea what the man has done. This man has reached into the psyche of the American people and he has harnessed fear for political purposes.

So, Mr. President — if you’re listening — I want you to hear me please: You have harnessed fear for political purposes and only love can cast that out. So I, sir, I have a feeling you know what you’re doing. I’m going to harness love for political purposes. I will meet you on that field, and sir, love will win.

Source Article from https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/28/18961296/marianne-williamson-democratic-debate-oprah-meme-twitter

41 views no comments

How often Trump is mentioned by the Democratic candidates on Night Two of the presidential primary debate (live updates) – NBC News

Will the Democratic candidates make it two nights in a row of virtually ignoring President Donald Trump?

The president emerged from Night One of the Democratic debate mostly unscathed, as the 10 candidates spent two hours attacking one another and selling their plans to the public. Two candidates, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, went the entire night without saying Trump’s name even once.

Will that happen during Thursday’s debate? The lineup is headlined by one of the president’s most frequent Twitter targets: former Vice President Joe Biden, along with fellow front-runners in the polls Sens. Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana.

Keep track with the chart below, which will automatically update each time a candidate mentions Trump by name or title.

Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/live-track-mentions-president-donald-trump-democratic-debate-n1023646

48 views no comments

Commentators: Who won the 2nd Democratic debate? – CNN

Joe Biden may be a front-runner but he sure didn’t look like it at the Democratic debate last night. He looked tired, deflected direct questions early on and no matter what he did, could not handle the fire that Kamala Harris threw at him: questions about why he opposed school busing in the 70s, or, why he continues to tout his ability to compromise back in the day with his racist, segregationist colleagues.

And despite his decades of political experience, Biden found himself at one point drawn into a childish squabble with other candidates which led to a free-for-all — until thankfully Senator Kamala Harris jumped in and broke up the scrum, reminding her peers that Americans do not want to see a food fight on the stage. They want to hear how the candidates can help them put food on the table. Amen, sister.

For a minute it looked like the former vice president was back on track when he spoke about immigration and his work to not only provide health care for undocumented immigrants but to end family separations. His answers were informed and focused.

Could be that the road has been too smooth for Biden, so far. He took his time jumping into the presidential race and was immediately rewarded with media fanfare, record fundraising and an instant lead in the polls.

Well, it’s a new day Joe. The Democratic field is full of serious, compelling candidates. Harris, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Gov. Pete Buttigieg are gaining ground and looked strong in the first debates. And they are coming for you. Voters are looking for a fresh conversation in the aftermath of movements like #BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo, the Woman’s March and too-frequent school shootings and police killings of unarmed black and brown citizens.

Early on, many predicted that Biden was the best bet to beat President Trump. But last night, Biden didn’t even look, or sound, like he would be able to win the Democratic primary.

The road is about to get bumpy for Joe Biden.

Roxanne Jones, a founding editor of ESPN Magazine and former vice president at ESPN, has been a producer, reporter and editor at the New York Daily News and The Philadelphia Inquirer. Jones is co-author of “Say it Loud: An Illustrated History of the Black Athlete.”

Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/opinions/live-news/commentary-night-2-of-democratic-debate-june-27/index.html

39 views no comments

Russia’s Vladimir Putin says liberalism has ‘outlived its purpose’ – CNBC

Central banks ‘have run out of ammunition,’ says OECD head

“Interest rates are at zero practically everywhere, or very close. And now we know interest rates are going to remain low for longer, that is as much as the central banks can…

Central Banksread more

últimas notícias

Ultimas Noticias