#but with liberals when you try to pressure the dems into protecting your rights

[area51-escapee]

No but being transgender right now is fucking insane. Because you’re supposed to vote to preserve your right to gender affirming healthcare. But then you research your ballot and you know that some of these people hate you and want you dead or ran out of the state. And then the people that are supposed to be on your side and were when you initially checked, have changed their minds at the last minute and started using the same language as the people who hate you. But you’re still supposed to vote for them. But you can’t trust any of them to actually support your community.

[thisdaynews]

‘Everyone hates this place’: Border bill tears apart Democratic caucus

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/everyone-hates-this-place-border-bill-tears-apart-democratic-caucus/

‘Everyone hates this place’: Border bill tears apart Democratic caucus

Progressives said they felt stung by the stunning course-reversal by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, where she swiftly bowed to pressure from moderates. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

Congress

The four-day whiplash battle proved Pelosi, who often describes herself as a ‘master negotiator,’ is not invincible.

Democrats broke into open warfare Thursday over Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s surrender to the Senate’s emergency border aid package, with the caucus’s long-simmering divide between progressives and centrists playing out in dramatic fashion on the House floor.

Some lawmakers even resorted to public name-calling, with progressive leader Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) accusing moderate Democrats of favoring child abuse — an exchange on Twitter that prompted a pair of freshmen centrists to confront him directly on the floor, with other lawmakers looking on in shock.

Story Continued Below

Pelosi has spent months deftly navigating a diverse caucus brimming with political novices, deeply split on ideological lines and itching to throw the president out of office. But this week’s fiasco exposed fissures in Pelosi’s rank-and-file, in her leadership and in her relationship with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

“She is a very experienced legislator, but I think this is a very rough patch,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

“We can’t say that we have a lawless administration or a president who should be in prison, or whatever people want to say about him, but then cave,” she added. “You have to fight for what you believe.”

And the conclusion of the four-day whiplash battle within the caucus proved Pelosi, who often describes herself as a “master negotiator,” is not invincible. The battle further illustrates the hurdles Pelosi faces in the fall as she tries to keep her caucus united while negotiating with Republicans to avoid a fiscal cliff and debt default.

Just before the vote, Pocan, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, inflamed tensions further when he called the Problem Solvers Caucus — a bipartisan group of moderates that pushed Pelosi to take up the Senate bill — the “Child Abuse Caucus.”

The stinging attack was a reference to the Senate bill’s lack of additional language to protect migrant children that House progressives had fought aggressively for.

“Since when did the Problem Solvers Caucus become the Child Abuse Caucus?” Pocan wrote on Twitter.

Reps. Max Rose (D-N.Y.), and Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), both members of the Problem Solvers Caucus, confronted Pocan on the House floor over his tweet. According to sources familiar with the conversation, Rose used expletives, and Pocan said he did not apologize.

“I said, how come you can’t stay 24 hours to do your job?” Pocan said of his retort to Rose on the floor. “He said, ‘My mother thinks I’m a child abuser.’ I said, ‘I’ll tell your mother you’re not a child abuser.’”

Rose, whom his party considers to be vulnerable in 2020, vented his frustration Thursday shortly after the exchange, calling Pocan’s tweet “crazy, crazy language.”

“Mark’s tweet just speaks to why everyone hates this place. He’s just trying to get retweets. That’s all he cares about,” Rose told POLITICO.

Their spat continued on Twitter, with Pocan responding: “Maybe the REAL problem is someone who thinks this is about retweets and not about bad contractors, awful conditions and kids.”

More than 90 Democrats voted against the Senate bill, including members of leadership like Reps. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.) and David Cicilline (D-R.I.) — a sign of the deep discontent simmering within the caucus. In a shocking move, Pelosi’s entire team of negotiators on the border aid bill, including House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) and Reps. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.) and Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) also voted no.

Progressives, including Pocan, said they felt stung by the stunning course-reversal by Pelosi, where she swiftly bowed to pressure from moderates who had threatened to tank the House version of the bill — which contained hard-fought wins for the liberal Democrats. And Pocan warned that it could fire up the 90-member Congressional Progressive Caucus to take more hardline stances on key bills in the coming months.

“I just think it’s hard to ask our caucus to help deliver votes to pass things,” Pocan said. “It’s just going to be a lot harder for us to care to help deliver votes.”

Multiple other liberal Democrats were also publicly seething at their centrist colleagues for forcing Pelosi to abandon her initial plan to vote on an amended version of the Senate bill that contained additional protections for migrant children.

House centrists, meanwhile, took a victory lap for their earlier efforts to pressure Pelosi into taking up the Senate bill.

“You have to understand, you’re not going to get everything you want,” Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), co-chair of the Problem Solvers Caucus, said in an interview after the bill passed. “We just wanted to make sure that none of us went home without getting something done for children and families at the border.”

Hours earlier, Gottheimer and other Democratic moderates began privately lobbying their colleagues to threaten to oppose their own caucus’s version of the border bill, arguing that Pelosi should simply take up the Senate version. Those members, who belonged to both the Problem Solvers Caucus and the Blue Dog Coalition, ultimately totaled 18 — enough to tank the bill.

Pelosi went back to the negotiating table, speaking with Vice President Mike Pence for an hour before huddling with her leadership team. Pence agreed to some “administrative fixes” that addressed some Democratic concerns — and Pelosi announced her House would vote on the clean Senate bill as a result — but it wasn’t enough to calm furious liberals.

“I think the Problem Solvers Caucus is emerging to be this tea party within our own Democratic Party,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) told POLITICO. “I find their tactics to be extremely concerning. It’s horrifying. It’s horrifying.”

The New York Democrat said she blames the centrist group for the House getting stuck with the Senate’s funding package.

But other members of the Problem Solvers Caucus, who pride themselves on being bipartisan and largely staying out of the headlines, were privately livid.

Facing an uprising from both the right and left wings of the caucus, Pelosi struggled to contain members’ outrage on Thursday over being forced to concede to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who refused to entertain Democratic demands that he amend the Senate bill.

The end result also left House Democrats fuming at Schumer and Senate Democrats, who voted overwhelmingly for the Senate’s border aid package, weakening the House majority’s negotiating position, they said.

“It obviously significantly undermined our leverage and our ability to keep these important protections in the bill,” said Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), a member of House leadership who voted against the bill Thursday.

Pelosi expressed her own unhappiness with Schumer at a Democratic leadership meeting Thursday, complaining that he couldn’t corral his members to support the House bill, according to a source in the room.

Progressive lawmakers were much sharper — and public — in their criticism. Jayapal said Senate Democrats should have grown a “spine” and not voted with Senate Republicans on Wednesday.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), a progressive firebrand, declined to fault House leaders, placing the blame instead squarely on the shoulders of Senate Democrats, most of whom backed the Senate bill.

“Let’s focus on the fact that Senate Democrats joined the leadership behind McConnell in support of something that had no safeguards, no basic human rights for these children,” she said. “What are you doing? You’re just throwing money and saying, ‘continue what you’re doing President Trump, you’re doing a fine job.’”

Senate Democratic sources privately blamed House Democrats, saying they pulled out of bipartisan border aid negotiations in May after the Congressional Hispanic Caucus objected. Some House Democrats also privately blamed Jayapal, who they say inflamed the CHC, urging them to pressure leadership to pull out of the negotiations in May. Others argued that some of the demands from both progressives and Hispanic members came too late in negotiations.

That resulted in the Senate moving forward on its own, with the Senate Appropriations Committee approving its bipartisan package 30-1 before it overwhelmingly passed on the floor.

“Senate Democrats were with the House Dems all the way, but their bill couldn’t pass the Senate,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide. “By refusing to participate in a four-corner negotiation for weeks, House Dems never allowed themselves the chance to have a say in a bill that could actually become law, so they only have themselves to blame for that.”

House Democratic leaders sought to tamp down the controversy but acknowledged they weren’t able to get the job done, refusing to blame their Senate colleagues.

“It’s done. It’s not time for blame,” Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said. “We would have hoped that we would have had the opportunity to get the vision that we think should have been supported by the Senate. We were disappointed we weren’t able to get that in there.”

John Bresnahan, Jake Sherman, Melanie Zanona and Laura Barrón-López contributed to this report.

Read More

[oldguardaudio]

PowerLine 🔥 Highlights of President Trump – Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu Press Conference

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Daily Digest

Highlights of the Trump-Netanyahu Press Conference

Obama’s Secret Communications with Mullahs Undermined American Foreign Policy

Popovich pops off on Trump

Dem comeback on hold in Minnesota

Ready for Warren?

Highlights of the Trump-Netanyahu Press Conference

Posted: 15 Feb 2017 02:37 PM PST

(John Hinderaker)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in Washington meeting with President Trump. Prior to their meeting, they conducted the usual dual press conference. No major news was made, but several interesting points emerged:

1) I’ve rarely seen Netanyahu look so happy. He must be almost as relieved to see the end of the Obama administration as we are.

2) President Trump indicated that he was open to alternatives to the two-state solution, an immutable point of American policy for a long time:

So, I’m looking at two-state and one-state and I like the one that both parties like. I’m very happy with the one that both parties like. I can live with either one. I thought for a while the two-state looked like it may be the easier of the two but honestly, if Bibi and if the Palestinians — if Israel and the Palestinians are happy, I’m happy with the one they like the best.

This is smart, I think. The Palestinians need to understand that if they don’t shape up, they don’t get a state. Netanyahu finessed the question:

I read yesterday that an American official said that if you ask five people what two states would look like, you’d get eight different answers. Mr. President, if you ask five Israelis, you’d get twelve different answers.

(LAUGHTER)

But rather than deal with labels, I want to deal with substance.

3) A journalist effectively accused Trump of being responsible for a rise in anti-Semitic incidents:

Mr. President, since your election campaign and even after your victory, we’ve seen a sharp rise in anti-Semitic — anti- Semitic incidents across the United States. And I wonder, what do you say to those among the Jewish community in the states and in Israel and maybe around the world who believe and feel that your administration is playing with xenophobia and maybe racist tones?

Trump responded vaguely and with great restraint. Netanyahu answered a different question, then returned to the outrageous imputation against the president:

And finally one — if I can respond to something that I know from personal experience, I’ve known President Trump for many years, and to allude to him or to his people, his team, some of whom I’ve known for many years too — can I reveal, Jared, how long we’ve known you? Well, he was never small, he was always big.

He was always tall. But I’ve known the president and I’ve known his family and his team for a long time. There is no greater supporter of the Jewish people and the Jewish state than President Donald Trump. I think we should put that to rest.

Trump:

Thank you very much. Very nice. I appreciate that very much.

4) The first two journalists Trump called on were David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network and Katie Pavlich of Townhall. This caused Democratic Party journalists to go ballistic on Twitter. You can read all about it at Twitchy. The lack of self-awareness of liberal journalists never ceases to amaze.

One of their complaints is that Trump wasn’t hounded enough about General Flynn, although Brody did ask a question about Flynn, Russia, and Iran. Of course, the subjects of the press conference were American-Israeli relations and Israel and the Palestinians. The liberals were incensed that the journalists who were called on stayed on topic. As the press conference ended, someone called out: “Are you gonna answer any questions about your associates’ contact with the Russians during the campaign?” No such luck.

Obama’s Secret Communications with Mullahs Undermined American Foreign Policy

Posted: 15 Feb 2017 12:57 PM PST

(John Hinderaker)

The Democrats are trying to make a scandal out of the fact that one or more people associated with the Trump presidential campaign had telephone conversations with one or more representatives of the Russian government prior to Trump’s inauguration. Is there anything wrong with that? Not as far as we know. The CIA/NSA leakers have declined to say anything about the content of the conversations, so they must have been benign. Let’s release the tapes and eliminate all doubt, and then let’s fire the leakers and, if appropriate, send them to prison.

But in the meantime, let’s not forget an infinitely bigger scandal: in 2008, while he was running for the presidency, Barack Obama deliberately undermined American foreign policy by secretly encouraging Iran’s mullahs to hold out until he became president because he would be easier to deal with than President George Bush. I wrote about the Obama scandal here: “HOW BARACK OBAMA UNDERCUT BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S NUCLEAR NEGOTIATIONS WITH IRAN.” Check out the original post for links. Here it is:

In 2008, the Bush administration, along with the “six powers,” was negotiating with Iran concerning that country’s nuclear arms program. The Bush administration’s objective was to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. On July 20, 2008, the New York Times headlined: “Nuclear Talks With Iran End in a Deadlock.” What caused the talks to founder? The Times explained:

Iran responded with a written document that failed to address the main issue: international demands that it stop enriching uranium. And Iranian diplomats reiterated before the talks that they considered the issue nonnegotiable.

The Iranians held firm to their position, perhaps because they knew that help was on the way, in the form of a new president. Barack Obama had clinched the Democratic nomination on June 3. At some point either before or after that date, but prior to the election, he secretly let the Iranians know that he would be much easier to bargain with than President Bush. Michael Ledeen reported the story last year:

During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

So Obama secretly told the mullahs not to make a deal until he assumed the presidency when they would be able to make a better agreement. Which is exactly what happened: Obama abandoned the requirement that Iran stops enriching uranium so that Iran’s nuclear program has sped ahead over the months and years that negotiations have dragged on. When an interim agreement in the form of a “Joint Plan of Action” was announced in late 2013, Iran’s leaders exulted in the fact that the West had acknowledged its right to continue its uranium enrichment program:

“The (nuclear) program will continue and all the sanctions and violations against the Iranian nation under the pretext of the nuclear program will be removed gradually,” [Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif] added. …

“Iran’s enrichment program has been recognized both in the first step and in the goals section and in the final step as well,” Zarif said.

“The fact that all these pressures have failed to cease Iran’s enrichment program is a very important success for the Iranian nation’s resistance,” he added.

So Obama delivered the weak agreement that he had secretly promised the mullahs.

That, readers, is what a real scandal looks like.

Popovich pops off on Trump

Posted: 15 Feb 2017 09:28 AM PST

(Paul Mirengoff)

Gregg Popovich is a marvelous basketball coach; probably one of the three best the NBA has ever seen. His accomplishments with the San Antonio Spurs — a team he has led to five NBA titles — are remarkable.

Lately, Popovich has indulged in political commentary. To be more precise, he has taken to blasting President Trump.

There is plenty to dislike about Trump, but Popovich’s comments are of the knee-jerk variety. Worse, they play fast and loose with the facts.

Consider his latest shot at the president:

We all hope President Trump is successful. We hope he does some good things for everybody, but he didn’t start the presidency by mollifying any groups he disparaged during the campaign.

He didn’t say anything about women, or black people, or Mexican people, Hispanic people LGBT people, handicapped people. [He] acted like it never happened. So that willingness to do whatever it took to get elected, to say and act the way he did, I thought was unacceptable and really disgusting, so I said it.

When did Trump disparage LGBT people during the campaign? This is what Trump said about them during his acceptance speech at the GOP convention:

Whether you’re gay or straight, the Bill of Rights protects the rights of all of us to live according to our conscience.

Also this:

As your President, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology, believe me.

When did Trump disparage black people during the campaign? He noted that many predominantly black neighborhoods are in terrible shape, which I think is indisputable, and he vowed to try to improve these neighborhoods. But disparaging black people? I don’t think it happened.

During the campaign, Trump disparaged Megyn Kelly, Hillary Clinton, Rosie O’Donnell, and other individual women. He also disparaged individual men too numerous to list.

However, the only disparagement of women as a group that I can think of occurred many years before the campaign in his “pussy grabbing” remarks. This comment did not manifest “a willingness to say anything to get elected.” It was made in private long before he ran for office. As a candidate, Trump apologized for these disparaging comments.

What about Popovich’s claim that Trump “didn’t start the presidency by mollifying any groups” he supposedly “disparaged during the campaign”? Trump started his presidency with his brief inauguration address, during which he said this:

When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.

I don’t know whether this statement “mollified” members of groups who felt “disparaged” by Trump. Many of them are probably beyond being mollified. It was, however, a clear statement that these groups and others should not be mistreated or disparaged.

With regard to Mexicans, a week after his inauguration Trump said this:

I have great respect for Mexico. I love the Mexican people. I work with the Mexican people all the time – great relationships.

During the campaign, Trump had disparaged Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim. As president, though, Trump tweeted this:

Yes, it is true – Carlos Slim, the great businessman from Mexico, called me about getting together for a meeting. We met, HE IS A GREAT GUY!

Turning to what Popovich calls “LBGQT people,” we find that the White House issued this statement:

President Donald J. Trump is determined to protect the rights of all Americans, including the LGBTQ community. President Trump continues to be respectful and supportive of LGBTQ rights, just as he was throughout the election. The executive order signed in 2014, which protects employees from anti-LGBTQ workplace discrimination while working for federal contractors, will remain intact at the direction of President Donald J. Trump.

I don’t blame Popovich for not knowing much about what President Trump has said and done as a candidate or as president. He has his hands full figuring out how to contain Russell Westbrook, James Harden, and the collection of stars who play for Golden State. But maybe he should have someone do a little research before he spouts off about politics.

Indeed, it’s ironic that Popovich would discuss politics so ignorantly. He is famous for putting sports reporters down when they ask obvious questions about his tactics. For example:

One reporter asked if Pop had any regrets going with a smaller lineup.

Pop’s reply: “No. Are you coaching now? You should try not to do that.”

Note the clear difference between what the reporter did to Popovich and what Popovich is doing to Trump. The sports reporter observed the game and posed a reasonable question. Popovich, who derided the reporters for performing their job, pays scant attention to what the Trump administration has done and makes accusations.

During his latest anti-Trump diatribe, Popovich said “there’s going to be somebody who will say “just go coach your basketball team.” I’m not that “somebody.” I say if you want to talk politics intelligently, do your homework.

Dem comeback on hold in Minnesota

Posted: 15 Feb 2017 09:27 AM PST

(Scott Johnson)

Donald Trump narrowly lost to Hillary Clinton in the contest at the top of the ticket in Minnesota this year, but in other respects, Republicans had an astoundingly good year. They amplified their majority in the Minnesota House to an unprecedented number in a presidential election cycle, when the turnout advantage usually accrues to Democrats and took the majority in the Minnesota Senate. Republicans haven’t held a majority in the state Senate in a long time. As Star Tribune legislative reporter Patrick Coolican put it in the Star Tribune: “Senate Republicans have endured the indignities of minority status for all but two of the past 44 years[.]” I took a look at the results in “What happened in Minnesota” (part 2 here, part 3 here).

It was a bad year for Democrats in Minnesota. They didn’t see it coming.

Chisago (don’t spellcheck me, bro) County borders Wisconsin not far from the Twin Cities. It is Trump territory; Trump handily carried Chisago County by a margin of 30 points.

The Democrats got a rerun in one of the state House legislative races in Chisago County yesterday. Only last week the Star Tribune published an excited preview of the special election. The Star Tribune noted the efforts that Democrats put into the race to pull it off and make a statement.

Now that the results are in, however, the excitement over at the Star Tribune has faded: “Republican Anne Neu will represent Chisago County in an open Minnesota House seat following her victory in a closely watched special election on Tuesday. Neu took 53 percent of the vote in the House District 32B race, while DFLer Laurie Warner took 47 percent.” In his Star Tribune Morning Hot Dish newsletter today, Coolican laconically observes: “That means the House now stands at 77-57 for the GOP.”

Congratulations and thanks are in order for the excellent Ms. Neu while we pause to note that the Dem comeback is on hold in Minnesota.

Ready for Warren?

Posted: 15 Feb 2017 08:02 AM PST

(Paul Mirengoff)

Charlotte Allen at the Weekly Standard reports on the marketing of Elizabeth Warren. It includes a book, The Fight Is Our Fight; a webpage, “Help us elect Elizabeth Warren for president in 2020”; and a Facebook page, “Ready for Warren.”

But is America ready for Warren? A new survey finds her running behind President Trump by six points, 42-36.

A poll was taken almost four years before the next presidential election is meaningless as a guide to whether Trump would defeat Warren. What may be significant is that the same pollsters found that a “generic Democrat” runs ahead of Trump by eight points, 43-35.

As Lloyd Bentsen might say: I knew Generic Democrat. Generic Democrat was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Generic Democrat.

The public has not taken a fancy to the shrill would-be Indian from Harvard. Warren, it seems, is damaged goods.

It may be unrealistic to imagine that the damage can be repaired by a book, a website, and a Facebook page.

PowerLine 🔥 Highlights of President Trump – Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu Press Conference PowerLine 🔥 Highlights of President Trump - Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu Press Conference Daily Digest Highlights of the Trump-Netanyahu Press Conference…