Politics 2020 Field - DNC

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
MARIS61 said:
And another one bites the dust.

Absolutely no way Tulsi gets the nomination now, and if she did this would still cause her to lose against Trump's far more accepting stance and record towards the gay community.

Tulsi Gabbard under fire for past anti-gay remarks amid 2020 bid, says she has since 'evolved'

By Elizabeth Llorente | Fox News

Tulsi Gabbard under fire for past anti-gay remarks amid 2020 bid, says she has since 'evolved'

Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard barely finished announcing she is running for president in 2020 when the spotlight quickly shifted to anti-gay comments and actions from her past.

Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard barely finished announcing she is running for president in 2020 when the spotlight quickly shifted to anti-gay comments and actions from her past.

Gabbard, a 37-year-old Democratic lawmaker from Hawaii, is known for being politically unpredictable, something she has publicly said she takes pride in. But some of her most fiery remarks against same-sex marriage in years past, as well as her active campaign to promote “traditional marriage” legislation, have drawn closer scrutiny since her announcement Friday.

In years past, she several times referred to LGBTQ activists as “homosexual extremists,” a view that echoes that of her father, Mike Gabbard, whom a New Yorker profile of the congresswoman described as having long been “Hawaii’s leading opponent of the gay-rights movement, an energetic and often brusque activist who stood ever ready to denounce what he called ‘the radical homosexual agenda.’”

Gabbard was a visible force against same-sex marriage, and in 2004 spearheaded a fight in the state against a same-sex union measure. “To try to act as if there is a difference between ‘civil unions’ and same-sex marriage is dishonest, cowardly and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii,” she said at the time. “As Democrats, we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists.”

Gabbard then also blasted Massachusetts’ passage of same-sex marriage legislation, making it the first in the nation to recognize gay marriage. Speaking on behalf of the Alliance for Traditional Marriage and Values, a group headed by her father, she said the Massachusetts marriage law would cause a ripple effect across the country.

“It is highly likely that federal judges will soon be tearing apart our U.S. Constitution in order to force same-sex marriage down the throats of the people of Hawaii and America,” Gabbard said. “The only way to protect traditional marriage in Hawaii and throughout our country, the only way to stop activist federal judges from rewriting our constitution, is by the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment.”

The Alliance for Traditional Marriage and Values also drew controversy for supporting so-called conversion gay therapy, which views homosexuality as a mental illness. More than a dozen states in the country have since outlawed or restricted the controversial practice.

At the time, Gabbard also gave a lengthy speech at the Hawaii State House against a proposed resolution that addressed the bullying of gay students in public schools. Gabbard argued the resolution would cast homosexuality as normal, and that it would attract “homosexual-advocacy organizations into our schools to promote their agenda to our vulnerable youth.”

Rarely have we seen someone who was so actively and vehemently and viscerally against LGBTQ equality and acceptance. [Gabbard] was someone who worked so actively against our community when the stakes were so high.

— Zeke Stokes, the vice president of programs at GLAAD

On social media, critics for the most part were not forgiving.

Some said they had been aware of talk about Gabbard’s controversial remarks about gays, but were surprised to hear about the depth of her anti-LGBTQ views.

Others said they wanted to hear more from the congresswoman about why she held the views and, in particularly, why she went out of her way to fight against issues of importance to the LGBTQ community.

“We’ve seen [people] who may held a particular view and evolved to a place of acceptance,, but rarely have we seen someone who was so actively and vehemently and viscerally against LGBTQ equality and acceptance,” said Zeke Stokes, the vice president of programs at GLAAD, one of the most prominent LGBTQ advocacy groups, in an interview with Fox News. “[Gabbard] was someone who worked so actively against our community when the stakes were so high.”

“One thing is to say that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but another is to actively work to stymie the progress of a community that is marginalized, and to oppose an effort to keep kids safe.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pr...s-says-she-regrets-them-and-that-shes-evolved
Click to expand...
Makes me sad
 
A candidate in his own mind, Mexico's top healthcare insurer NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio goes full commie in hiss desperation to be noticed.

De Blasio pitches plan to seize private property of problem landlords, opponents cry ‘communism’

By Adam Shaw | Fox News

Liberal New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is rolling out a new plan that would potentially allow the city government to seize buildings of landlords who force tenants out -- a plan his opponents say amounts to “straight communism.”

De Blasio, in his State of the City address on Thursday, announced he wants to take action against landlords who try to force tenants out by making the property unlivable -- and pulled out an executive order to create a Mayor’s Office to Protect Tenants. He said that in the event the government intervenes, the buildings would then be controlled by a “community nonprofit.”

DE BLASIO SAYS MODERATES NEVER LEARNED 'LESSONS OF 2016,' URGES BOLD LIBERAL AGENDA

“When a landlord tries to push out a tenant by making their home unlivable, a team of inspectors and law enforcement agents will be on the ground to stop it in time,” he said, according to the New York Daily News. “If the fines and the penalties don’t cut it, we will seize their buildings and we will put them in the hands of a community nonprofit that will treat tenants with the respect they deserve.”

According to the mayor’s website, the city is “pursuing new local law to seize upwards of 40 of the most distressed multiple dwelling buildings annually and transition them to responsible, mission driven ownership.”

The city reportedly has gone easy on problem landlords in the past. The New York Times reported last year that officials have taken a "gentle hand with landlords who deprive tenants of basic services, declining to enforce the maximum penalties for even the worst offenders," detailing how "neglected repairs" end up forcing tenants out.

Republicans, though, were disturbed by the extent of Hizzoner's plan and charged the idea was more suited to communist dictatorships where land and property seizures are commonplace.

“My first reaction was: Is this communist Cuba?” state Assemblymember Nicole Malliotakis, who ran against De Blasio in the 2017 mayoral race, told Fox News. “ I can say that as a daughter of Cuban refugees who fled Castro’s Cuba in 1959, this is what happened to her family, she had her home taken, my grandfather had his gas station taken.”

“This is extreme even for Mayor de Blasio, because we know that he has socialist leanings, but this is straight communism and I think it’s very scary to America-loving, democracy-loving people.”

Malliotakis said the proposal was also hypocritical of the mayor, as she says the city runs some of the worst housing via the NYC Housing Authority. She also expressed some doubt as to how his plan to seize property would fare.

“Any attempt to seize property will face a court challenge and the mayor himself comes up with these ideas, throws stuff out there and doesn’t know how he intends to make it happen,” she said. “It’s all rhetoric.”

BILL DE BLASIO ANNOUNCES GUARANTEED HEALTH CARE FOR ALL NEW YORKERS, INCLUDING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

The proposal is the latest big-government pitch from the mayor. Earlier this month, he announced plans to launch “the largest, most comprehensive plan in the nation” to guarantee health care coverage for all city residents, including those in the country illegally.”

Video
“Health care is a right, not a privilege reserved for those who can afford it,” de Blasio said in a statement. “While the federal government works to gut health care for millions of Americans, New York City is leading the way by guaranteeing that every New Yorker has access to quality, comprehensive access to care, regardless of immigration status or their ability to pay.”

In an interview with New York Magazine in 2017, he also expressed a desire for much more government control in development and rents, and cited a “socialist impulse.”

"I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be," he said. "Look, if I had my druthers, the city government would determine every single plot of land, how development would proceed. And there would be very stringent requirements around income levels and rents."

On Sunday, he said in an interview that he wouldn’t rule out running for president in 2020, and urged the Democratic Party to take “bolder” positions similar to his own.

“There is still a lot of moderate voices in the party that did not learn the lessons of 2016 and are not listening to what people need in this country,” de Blasio said. “So I want to push this whole party, and I want to inform this debate in this country about the fact that we could go a lot further, we could be a lot bolder than what we’re doing now.”
 
MARIS61 said:
And another one bites the dust.

Absolutely no way Tulsi gets the nomination now, and if she did this would still cause her to lose against Trump's far more accepting stance and record towards the gay community.

Tulsi Gabbard under fire for past anti-gay remarks amid 2020 bid, says she has since 'evolved'

By Elizabeth Llorente | Fox News

Tulsi Gabbard under fire for past anti-gay remarks amid 2020 bid, says she has since 'evolved'

Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard barely finished announcing she is running for president in 2020 when the spotlight quickly shifted to anti-gay comments and actions from her past.

Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard barely finished announcing she is running for president in 2020 when the spotlight quickly shifted to anti-gay comments and actions from her past.

Gabbard, a 37-year-old Democratic lawmaker from Hawaii, is known for being politically unpredictable, something she has publicly said she takes pride in. But some of her most fiery remarks against same-sex marriage in years past, as well as her active campaign to promote “traditional marriage” legislation, have drawn closer scrutiny since her announcement Friday.

In years past, she several times referred to LGBTQ activists as “homosexual extremists,” a view that echoes that of her father, Mike Gabbard, whom a New Yorker profile of the congresswoman described as having long been “Hawaii’s leading opponent of the gay-rights movement, an energetic and often brusque activist who stood ever ready to denounce what he called ‘the radical homosexual agenda.’”

Gabbard was a visible force against same-sex marriage, and in 2004 spearheaded a fight in the state against a same-sex union measure. “To try to act as if there is a difference between ‘civil unions’ and same-sex marriage is dishonest, cowardly and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii,” she said at the time. “As Democrats, we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists.”

Gabbard then also blasted Massachusetts’ passage of same-sex marriage legislation, making it the first in the nation to recognize gay marriage. Speaking on behalf of the Alliance for Traditional Marriage and Values, a group headed by her father, she said the Massachusetts marriage law would cause a ripple effect across the country.

“It is highly likely that federal judges will soon be tearing apart our U.S. Constitution in order to force same-sex marriage down the throats of the people of Hawaii and America,” Gabbard said. “The only way to protect traditional marriage in Hawaii and throughout our country, the only way to stop activist federal judges from rewriting our constitution, is by the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment.”

The Alliance for Traditional Marriage and Values also drew controversy for supporting so-called conversion gay therapy, which views homosexuality as a mental illness. More than a dozen states in the country have since outlawed or restricted the controversial practice.

At the time, Gabbard also gave a lengthy speech at the Hawaii State House against a proposed resolution that addressed the bullying of gay students in public schools. Gabbard argued the resolution would cast homosexuality as normal, and that it would attract “homosexual-advocacy organizations into our schools to promote their agenda to our vulnerable youth.”

Rarely have we seen someone who was so actively and vehemently and viscerally against LGBTQ equality and acceptance. [Gabbard] was someone who worked so actively against our community when the stakes were so high.

— Zeke Stokes, the vice president of programs at GLAAD

On social media, critics for the most part were not forgiving.

Some said they had been aware of talk about Gabbard’s controversial remarks about gays, but were surprised to hear about the depth of her anti-LGBTQ views.

Others said they wanted to hear more from the congresswoman about why she held the views and, in particularly, why she went out of her way to fight against issues of importance to the LGBTQ community.

“We’ve seen [people] who may held a particular view and evolved to a place of acceptance,, but rarely have we seen someone who was so actively and vehemently and viscerally against LGBTQ equality and acceptance,” said Zeke Stokes, the vice president of programs at GLAAD, one of the most prominent LGBTQ advocacy groups, in an interview with Fox News. “[Gabbard] was someone who worked so actively against our community when the stakes were so high.”

“One thing is to say that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but another is to actively work to stymie the progress of a community that is marginalized, and to oppose an effort to keep kids safe.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pr...s-says-she-regrets-them-and-that-shes-evolved
Click to expand...
This is why Trump doesn't want transsexuals to serve in the military?
 
It seems rather strange that so many Democrats find themselves in need to apologizes for past statements about who should be able to get married.
In reality most have nothing to apologize about. The definition of the word marriage by all the major religions or most of churches associated is the joining of a man and a woman in the eyes of God. The statement in the Oregon Constitution that our passed AG said was indefensible, was indeed only this definition. It was not a law prohibiting another joining, simply the definition of the word.

Perhaps Our Hawaiian member should point this out to Tulsi Gabbard. I shouldn't think she has anything to apologize about. @lawai'a

Wow, talk about overreach! The Constitution and all the amendment say nothing of marriage. It only shows up in any US laws in tax law giving deductions to Married couple differently than singles. MY guess is the SCOTUS is way out of bound attempting to change the definition of the word for all the Religions of the world.
Way beyond their charter, or even the pay grade of the Justices. They some how convoluted the 14th amendment to apply in the case of marriage, requires they change the meaning of the word
so that they may reach for an inequity in the application of equal justice is absurd. A fail.
 
Last edited:
Robert Francis O'Rourke wants to burn The Constitution.

Beto O'Rourke mocked after offering few answers in wide-ranging policy interview

By Gregg Re | Fox News

Former Texas Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke faced across-the-board criticism on Tuesday after an unflattering interview in The Washington Post portrayed him as equivocal and unsure on a variety of substantive policy issues.

O'Rourke, 46, is widely considered a possible 2020 presidential contender, after falling only a few percentage points shy of dethroning incumbent Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz in the 2018 midterm elections. But his relative lack of experience and expertise has emerged as a central objection to his prospective candidacy.

Speaking to Johnson in El Paso, Texas, O'Rourke added fuel to those concerns by repeatedly demurring when asked for a direct answer on his positions on everything from visa overstays to whether President Trump should withdraw military forces from Syria.

At one point in the two-hour chat with The Post's Jenna Johnson, O'Rourke openly wondered whether the U.S. can "still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago" in the Constitution.

The article even included an apparent shot by at O'Rourke from former Illinois Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez, who told The Post he was “very pleasantly surprised” that O'Rourke -- who represented a mostly Hispanic district during his three terms in the House of Representatives -- was "suddenly interested" in immigration reform efforts last year.


Beto O'Rourke tops MoveOn.org 2020 straw poll
Can the former Texas Senate candidate's popularity translate into a successful presidential campaign?

Asked what could be done about illegal immigrants who overstayed their visas, O'Rourke told Johnson simply, “I don’t know."

MSNBC'S BRIAN WILLIAMS MOCKS O'ROURKE FOR INSTAGRAMMING TRIP TO THE DENTIST

Asked about the planned Syria pullout, he responded that there should be "a debate, a discussion, a national conversation about why we’re there, why we fight, why we sacrifice the lives of American service members, why we’re willing to take the lives of others. ... There may be a very good reason to do it. I don’t necessarily understand — and I’ve been a member of Congress for six years. ... We haven’t had a meaningful discussion about these wars since 2003.”

Asked whether the U.S. is capable of change, O'Rourke was again equivocal: "I’m hesitant to answer it," he said, "because I really feel like it deserves its due, and I don’t want to give you a — actually, just selfishly, I don’t want a sound bite of it reported, but, yeah, I think that’s the question of the moment: Does this still work? Can an empire like ours with military presence in over 170 countries around the globe, with trading relationships . . . and security agreements in every continent, can it still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago?”

Johnson, who said she spent two hours in all with O'Rourke on a tour of the border, said her interview revealed that the potential 2020 contender has an apparent preference for questioning rather than answering.

"When it comes to immigration policy and changing the way things are, he has few solutions — and would rather debate and discuss the topic," Johnson wrote on Twitter.

Other commentators were less forgiving,

"This last bit – where he suggests we might need to ditch the Constitution? – is wild," wrote senior Huffington Post political reporter Kevin Robillard.

"In WaPo interview, Beto O'Rourke displays striking lack of knowledge about immigration. Just knows one thing: He's against a wall," Washington Examiner chief political correspondent and Fox News contributor Byron York wrote on Twitter.

"Beto might have to figure out what he thinks about Syria before the first debate," commented CNN political reporter Rebecca Buck.

O'Rourke will have another opportunity for a major interview on the national stage in just a matter of weeks -- with talk show host Oprah Winfrey, as part of "Oprah's SuperSoul Conversations from Times Square" on Feb. 5.

He'll speak to Winfrey one-on-one as part of an event featuring others, including actors Bradley Cooper and Michael B. Jordan.

In the meantime, O'Rourke has been visible --- and some critics say, perhaps too visible -- on Instagram Live.

"So, I'm here at the dentist," the former Democrat congressman said with a giggle during a teeth-cleaning seen live on the service last week, before quizzing the dental hygienist about life along the U.S.-Mexico border. ( "Thank God this wasn’t Beto’s day to see the proctologist," MSNBC anchor Brian Williams joked, quoting online reactions to O'Rourke's stream.)

Influential activists in Iowa and elsewhere are clamoring for Beto to get in the presidential race, and The Post's article noted that numerous onlookers interrupted their interview with him to urge him to run.

"They're not going to wait forever," Mark Jones, a political science professor at Rice University in Houston, said of Democratic campaign operatives, donors, activists and fellow politicians looking to pick sides or offer endorsements. "The more candidates who start to formally launch their candidacies, the greater the pressure will rise on Beto."

Fox News' Alex Pappas and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
 
MARIS61 said:
Robert Francis O'Rourke wants to burn The Constitution.

Beto O'Rourke mocked after offering few answers in wide-ranging policy interview

By Gregg Re | Fox News

Former Texas Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke faced across-the-board criticism on Tuesday after an unflattering interview in The Washington Post portrayed him as equivocal and unsure on a variety of substantive policy issues.

O'Rourke, 46, is widely considered a possible 2020 presidential contender, after falling only a few percentage points shy of dethroning incumbent Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz in the 2018 midterm elections. But his relative lack of experience and expertise has emerged as a central objection to his prospective candidacy.

Speaking to Johnson in El Paso, Texas, O'Rourke added fuel to those concerns by repeatedly demurring when asked for a direct answer on his positions on everything from visa overstays to whether President Trump should withdraw military forces from Syria.

At one point in the two-hour chat with The Post's Jenna Johnson, O'Rourke openly wondered whether the U.S. can "still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago" in the Constitution.

The article even included an apparent shot by at O'Rourke from former Illinois Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez, who told The Post he was “very pleasantly surprised” that O'Rourke -- who represented a mostly Hispanic district during his three terms in the House of Representatives -- was "suddenly interested" in immigration reform efforts last year.


Beto O'Rourke tops MoveOn.org 2020 straw poll
Can the former Texas Senate candidate's popularity translate into a successful presidential campaign?

Asked what could be done about illegal immigrants who overstayed their visas, O'Rourke told Johnson simply, “I don’t know."

MSNBC'S BRIAN WILLIAMS MOCKS O'ROURKE FOR INSTAGRAMMING TRIP TO THE DENTIST

Asked about the planned Syria pullout, he responded that there should be "a debate, a discussion, a national conversation about why we’re there, why we fight, why we sacrifice the lives of American service members, why we’re willing to take the lives of others. ... There may be a very good reason to do it. I don’t necessarily understand — and I’ve been a member of Congress for six years. ... We haven’t had a meaningful discussion about these wars since 2003.”

Asked whether the U.S. is capable of change, O'Rourke was again equivocal: "I’m hesitant to answer it," he said, "because I really feel like it deserves its due, and I don’t want to give you a — actually, just selfishly, I don’t want a sound bite of it reported, but, yeah, I think that’s the question of the moment: Does this still work? Can an empire like ours with military presence in over 170 countries around the globe, with trading relationships . . . and security agreements in every continent, can it still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago?”

Johnson, who said she spent two hours in all with O'Rourke on a tour of the border, said her interview revealed that the potential 2020 contender has an apparent preference for questioning rather than answering.

"When it comes to immigration policy and changing the way things are, he has few solutions — and would rather debate and discuss the topic," Johnson wrote on Twitter.

Other commentators were less forgiving,

"This last bit – where he suggests we might need to ditch the Constitution? – is wild," wrote senior Huffington Post political reporter Kevin Robillard.

"In WaPo interview, Beto O'Rourke displays striking lack of knowledge about immigration. Just knows one thing: He's against a wall," Washington Examiner chief political correspondent and Fox News contributor Byron York wrote on Twitter.

"Beto might have to figure out what he thinks about Syria before the first debate," commented CNN political reporter Rebecca Buck.

O'Rourke will have another opportunity for a major interview on the national stage in just a matter of weeks -- with talk show host Oprah Winfrey, as part of "Oprah's SuperSoul Conversations from Times Square" on Feb. 5.

He'll speak to Winfrey one-on-one as part of an event featuring others, including actors Bradley Cooper and Michael B. Jordan.

In the meantime, O'Rourke has been visible --- and some critics say, perhaps too visible -- on Instagram Live.

"So, I'm here at the dentist," the former Democrat congressman said with a giggle during a teeth-cleaning seen live on the service last week, before quizzing the dental hygienist about life along the U.S.-Mexico border. ( "Thank God this wasn’t Beto’s day to see the proctologist," MSNBC anchor Brian Williams joked, quoting online reactions to O'Rourke's stream.)

Influential activists in Iowa and elsewhere are clamoring for Beto to get in the presidential race, and The Post's article noted that numerous onlookers interrupted their interview with him to urge him to run.

"They're not going to wait forever," Mark Jones, a political science professor at Rice University in Houston, said of Democratic campaign operatives, donors, activists and fellow politicians looking to pick sides or offer endorsements. "The more candidates who start to formally launch their candidacies, the greater the pressure will rise on Beto."

Fox News' Alex Pappas and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Click to expand...
Fox, you say? Well then, it's got to be true.
Fox News, the winners of how many journalistic accolades?
 
When my cousin came out to the family, I said something STUPID AF...

"Maybe if he hung around me more he wouldn't be gay"

All of this came from my Christian upbringing.

Now, I'll march WITH my cousin in a pride march.
I've been to a gay club (on "bear night") with him for his birthday.

It's nothing to me to be hit on by a gay man. It's happened before and isn't an affront to me.

People can evolve on this issue JUST like they can with race issues.
 
MARIS61 said:
But his relative lack of experience and expertise has emerged as a central objection to his prospective candidacy.
Click to expand...

Funny how lack of experience is either a good thing or a bad thing depending on which party the inexperienced person is from.

barfo
 
dviss1 said:
When my cousin came out to the family, I said something STUPID AF...

"Maybe if he hung around me more he wouldn't be gay"

All of this came from my Christian upbringing.

Now, I'll march WITH my cousin in a pride march.
I've been to a gay club (on "bear night") with him for his birthday.

It's nothing to me to be hit on by a gay man. It's happened before and isn't an affront to me.

People can evolve on this issue JUST like they can with race issues.
Click to expand...
Actually, ever since I was 16, gays have never bothered me.
By the way I also love Sam Cooke's song Cupid.
 
‘The View’ grills NYC mayor Bill de Blasio: ‘You screwed the city up’

By Brian Flood | Fox News

'The View' grills NYC mayor Bill de Blasio: 'Yohttps://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/the-view-grills-nyc-mayor-bill-de-blasio-you-screwed-the-city-upu screwed the city up'

The hosts of ABC News' 'The View' took a rare break from attacking President Trump to focus on New York City mayor Bill de Blasio. After praising his plan for universal healthcare, far-left co-host Joy Behar told the Democratic mayor he sounded like a Republican. Then worked-up co-host Whoopi Goldberg pivoted to her thoughts on New York City, telling de Blasio, 'You screwed the city up.'

ABC News’ “The View” has seen a resurgence in relevancy and popularity during Trump’s presidency, but the outspoken ladies attacked a different – and perhaps unlikely – politician on Wednesday when New York City mayor Bill de Blasio joined the show.

The mayor started off praising his plan for universal health care, prompting far-left co-host Joy Behar to tell the Democratic mayor he sounded like a Republican for saying that health care for all should be provided locally. “They believe in small government,” she said.

JOY BEHAR'S JOYLESS 2018: 'THE VIEW' STAR'S MOST OVER-THE-TOP ANTI-TRUMPINESS OF THE YEAR

“Only on ‘The View’ would you hear a host compare the radically leftist mayor of New York City to ‘a Republican,’ Media Research Center analyst Kristine Marsh wrote. “The hosts gave Bill De Blasio a tougher shake than most news programs do, but still praised his socialist health care plan that guarantees free health care for illegal aliens.”

De Blasio told Behar that he assumed she “means that in the best way,” laughing off the comparison to a member of the GOP.

“De Blasio stuck to the typical liberal lines of health care being a “universal right,” even claiming that his plan would save the city money because illegals wouldn’t have to go the emergency room as frequently to get their health care, and it would prevent everyone else from getting sick as well,” Marsh wrote.

ABC NEWS STAR JOY BEHAR SAYS KIM JONG UN, PUTIN HAVE MORE 'SANITY' THAN TRUMP

Then things got interesting when worked-up co-host Whoopi Goldberg pivoted to her thoughts on New York City.

“Know what’s really pissing me off… you built 83 miles or protected bike lanes. I like bikes, I like people who ride, but I don’t think you understand the impact of taking something like Tenth Avenue, which is six lanes, down to two and a half,” Goldberg complained. “Particularly when you have a winter storm and you can’t move. None of that is moveable.”

The New York Post even featured the interview with a front page image mocking the mayor headlined, “Can of whoop-ass,” noting that Goldberg told de Blasio he really “screwed the city up.”

ny-post-jan17.jpg

Goldberg wasn’t finished complaining about changes de Blasio has made to the Big Apple.

“Also, I’m upset that you love these bikes but you don’t tell people to put a helmet on,” she said. “This is an issue.”

De Blasio fired back, saying the plan is to reduce traffic crashes and fatalities.

“But you screwed the city up,” Goldberg responded.

Goldberg then told de Blasio that she doesn’t have the luxury of maneuvering the city with a police escort like the privileged politician does.

“You might want to take a look at some of this,” she said.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...-mayor-bill-de-blasio-you-screwed-the-city-up
 
The View? …….never seen it ..surprised it's looked at as a gauge of political wisdom....wait.....on second thought the Apprentice actually was in some ways exactly that. Jerry Springer could've been the leader of the free world as it's turned out.
 
barfo said:
Funny how lack of experience is either a good thing or a bad thing depending on which party the inexperienced person is from.

barfo
Click to expand...

Apples to Oranges.

You're confusing the leadership, international negotiation and organizational experience required to run a country, with the bribe-accepting and speech-reading experience that Congress is riddled with.

Trump was elected for the former, to rid US of the latter.
 
riverman said:
The View? …….never seen it ..surprised it's looked at as a gauge of political wisdom....wait.....on second thought the Apprentice actually was in some ways exactly that. Jerry Springer could've been the leader of the free world as it's turned out.
Click to expand...
You left out the highly acclaimed The Apprentice, LOL A perfect training ground for the person holding their finger on the proverbial button.
 
MARIS61 said:
Apples to Oranges.

You're confusing the leadership, international negotiation and organizational experience required to run a country, with the bribe-accepting and speech-reading experience that Congress is riddled with.

Trump was elected for the former, to rid US of the latter.
Click to expand...

I literally just died of laughter
 
A married gay man is running for president. That's a big deal.
Analysis by Kyle Blaine, CNN



BBSEiJ1.img
© Emma McIntyre/Getty Images North America LOS ANGELES, CA - OCTOBER 20: Chasten Glezman (L), and Mayor Peter Buttigieg at the 2017 GLSEN Respect Awards at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel on October 20, 2017 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Emma McIntyre/Getty Images for GLSEN)

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg entered the 2020 race for president on Wednesday, announcing his intentions with a video featuring scenes of him and his husband, Chasten, cooking and playing with their dog, Buddy.

Should Buttigieg win his long-shot bid for the Democratic nomination, he will become the first nominee of a major political party who publicly identifies as gay. If he goes on to defeat President Donald Trump, it'd be a historic win.

This appears unlikely (but by no means impossible) at this point; Buttigieg is not very well-known outside of Indiana and he's entering a crowded field of more established contenders. That a gay married man is running a serious campaign for president, however, is a big deal, and we shouldn't let the improbability of his candidacy stop us from acknowledging this moment.

Only a decade ago, his run would have been unthinkable.

Gay marriage was legal in only two states in January 2009 -- Massachusetts and Connecticut. Voters in California -- one of the most Democratic states in the country -- had just passed Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage in the state.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage," Obama told MTV News during the 2008 campaign.

It would have been fair to think that progress would come slowly for the LGBT community if even Obama, who was considered to be a progressive within the Democratic Party on many critical issues, was publicly opposed to same-sex marriage at the time. But the next eight years of his presidency saw rapid change.

In 2010, President Obama signed into law the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act, ending a policy enacted in 1993 that prevent gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military. In 2012, in the heat of a presidential campaign, Obama became the first sitting US president to support same-sex marriage, telling ABC News, "At a certain point I've just concluded that for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

Three years later, the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot ban same-sex marriage, making it legal nationwide for gay and lesbian couples to marry.

Public attitude shifted as well. In 2009, 54% of Americans opposed same-sex marriage and only 37% supported it, according to Pew Research Center. By 2017, that number had flipped: 62% of Americans supported same-sex marriage, while only 32% opposed it.

And during this time, candidates who publicly identify as gay, bisexual and transgender have broken barriers with their wins. In 2012, Wisconsin's Tammy Baldwin became the first gay person elected to the US Senate (she was re-elected in 2018). Kate Brown became the first bisexual governor in the US in 2015 when she was appointed in Oregon. She has been elected twice since then.

In last year's midterm elections, Colorado's Jared Polis became the first gay man in the US to be elected governor, Kyrsten Sinema, who is bisexual, won a US Senate seat in Arizona, and Sharice Davids, a lesbian, won her US House race in Kansas.

All of this is to say, quite simply, that in a relatively brief period of time, the politics surrounding gay marriage and LGBT equality shifted dramatically. And even though issues surrounding LGBT equality are hardly settled, Buttigieg's announcement is a good reminder of the progress that has been made.

Buttigieg, who was elected mayor in 2011 at the age of 29, came out in 2015 -- days before the Supreme Court struck down same-sex marriage bans nationwide. In a column titled 'Why coming out matters," he wrote about the difficulty he had coming to terms with his sexuality and being open about it publicly.

"We Midwesterners are instinctively private to begin with, and I'm not used to viewing this as anyone else's business," he wrote. "But it's clear to me that at a moment like this, being more open about it could do some good. For a local student struggling with her sexuality, it might be helpful for an openly gay mayor to send the message that her community will always have a place for her. And for a conservative resident from a different generation, whose unease with social change is partly rooted in the impression that he doesn't know anyone gay, perhaps a familiar face can be a reminder that we're all in this together as a community."

Buttigieg might not have a real chance at winning the Democratic nomination. But by announcing he is running for the highest office in the land with a video that features his husband, he's already on the path to accomplishing what he set out to do in his column.

He acknowledged as much to CNN's Dan Merica on Wednesday, saying, "I am also mindful of the fact that this just might make it a little easier for the next person who comes along. My sincere hope is that by the time my kids are old enough, once we have kids, to understand politics, that it won't even be newsworthy."

And who knows. Maybe he'll make the debate stage. Maybe he'll take off in Iowa, and that momentum will propel him further than we can foresee now.

But one thing is for sure: Having a gay candidate -- or nominee, or president -- is no longer such a farfetched idea.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...sident-thats-a-big-deal/ar-BBSEbp2?ocid=ientp
 
If you're a Democrat running for president, an apology is the ticket to the starting gate right now

By Colin Reed | Fox New

Kirsten Gillibrand and guns. Joe Biden and crime. Tulsi Gabbard and gay rights. What do all these things have in common? They’re issues that Democratic presidential candidates can’t run away from fast enough – especially now that their conservative views about them are unacceptable to the voters whose support they need.

In the ever-growing field of contenders, apologies have been an early hallmark of many campaigns. A headline from Politico called it “The 'I'm sorry' 2020 Democratic primary.”

To be sure, this phenomenon isn’t limited to the Democratic side. It has bedeviled GOP candidates too, whose moderate stances have recently been tested by conservative primary voters, particularly during the Obama years when Republicans were seething with the same anger that’s consuming Democrats today.

But it has never been as pronounced as what we’ve seen so far in 2019. The new year has brought with it a new premium on ideological purity that’s driving the apology frenzy.

Among the “apologize first” crowd, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., has been the most brazen, earning mockery from even the leftist Daily Show. Gillibrand has declared that her past positions on guns and immigration “certainly weren’t empathetic and they were not kind.” She even called herself “callous.” If that’s how she views herself, imagine what her opponents will say.
Distancing oneself from one’s former self serves an important goal: It allows a politician to credibly say that the issue has been asked and answered. It’s the political equivalent of starving a fire of oxygen. Short of new revelations coming to light or more gas being poured on the flames, it’s difficult for the storyline to spread. There are only so many times the media can raise the same issue without it becoming stale.

But the apology approach has downsides – it’s exactly what voters have come to expect and hate about politicians. The quest for ideological purity robs from the mantle of authenticity.
When it comes to genuineness, the pack of White House hopefuls could learn a lesson from its current occupant. Time and time again during the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump faced existential crises that conventional wisdom said required apologies. A long history of donations to Democrats, having been a registered Democrat himself, policy positions diametrically opposed to GOP orthodoxy on guns and abortion, to name a few – all could have sunk a traditional candidate, but none slowed down Trump’s march to the nomination.

In late 2015, when the Republican primary field was still crowded, a New York Times/CBS poll found that 76 percent of GOP voters believed Trump “says what he believes,” rather than saying “what people want to hear.” That number was far higher for Trump than any other credible contender. People liked that Trump doubled down when most candidates would back down.
Distancing oneself from one’s former self serves an important goal: It allows a politician to credibly say that the issue has been asked and answered. It’s the political equivalent of starving a fire of oxygen.

Now the authenticity contest is playing out on the Democratic side. When discussing the rise of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Beto O’Rourke, Neera Tanden, a former top Hillary Clinton advisor and president of the left-wing Center for American Progress, told Axios: "Both of them understand that people are tired of traditional politics and looking for authenticity."

If Tanden is correct – and recent history suggests she is – that spells trouble for the “apologize first” crowd.
Not all would-be 2020ers are walking away from their past lives. Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., hasn’t denounced her entire record as a prosecutor, although she has left herself wiggle room by blaming her staff for controversial decisions. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg made headlines for defending the “stop and frisk” policy, which is viewed by many progressives as racist.

The rigors of a brutal campaign will test the different strategies. Remember, it’s still January. The first debates are months away. The reporters are just starting to write their stories. The opposition research will soon start flying. Each candidate will be challenged by voters, the media and each other.

At stake will be two competing goals: authenticity and ideological purity. Which quality voters value more is still an open question, but it won’t be possible for every candidate to have them both.

One thing is becoming clear: If you’re a Democrat running for president, an apology is the ticket to the starting gate right now. Time will tell if it turns into a winner.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/if-...-is-the-ticket-to-the-starting-gate-right-now
 
MARIS61 said:
A married gay man is running for president. That's a big deal.
Analysis by Kyle Blaine, CNN



BBSEiJ1.img
© Emma McIntyre/Getty Images North America LOS ANGELES, CA - OCTOBER 20: Chasten Glezman (L), and Mayor Peter Buttigieg at the 2017 GLSEN Respect Awards at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel on October 20, 2017 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Emma McIntyre/Getty Images for GLSEN)

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg entered the 2020 race for president on Wednesday, announcing his intentions with a video featuring scenes of him and his husband, Chasten, cooking and playing with their dog, Buddy.

Should Buttigieg win his long-shot bid for the Democratic nomination, he will become the first nominee of a major political party who publicly identifies as gay. If he goes on to defeat President Donald Trump, it'd be a historic win.

This appears unlikely (but by no means impossible) at this point; Buttigieg is not very well-known outside of Indiana and he's entering a crowded field of more established contenders. That a gay married man is running a serious campaign for president, however, is a big deal, and we shouldn't let the improbability of his candidacy stop us from acknowledging this moment.

Only a decade ago, his run would have been unthinkable.

Gay marriage was legal in only two states in January 2009 -- Massachusetts and Connecticut. Voters in California -- one of the most Democratic states in the country -- had just passed Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage in the state.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage," Obama told MTV News during the 2008 campaign.

It would have been fair to think that progress would come slowly for the LGBT community if even Obama, who was considered to be a progressive within the Democratic Party on many critical issues, was publicly opposed to same-sex marriage at the time. But the next eight years of his presidency saw rapid change.

In 2010, President Obama signed into law the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act, ending a policy enacted in 1993 that prevent gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military. In 2012, in the heat of a presidential campaign, Obama became the first sitting US president to support same-sex marriage, telling ABC News, "At a certain point I've just concluded that for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

Three years later, the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot ban same-sex marriage, making it legal nationwide for gay and lesbian couples to marry.

Public attitude shifted as well. In 2009, 54% of Americans opposed same-sex marriage and only 37% supported it, according to Pew Research Center. By 2017, that number had flipped: 62% of Americans supported same-sex marriage, while only 32% opposed it.

And during this time, candidates who publicly identify as gay, bisexual and transgender have broken barriers with their wins. In 2012, Wisconsin's Tammy Baldwin became the first gay person elected to the US Senate (she was re-elected in 2018). Kate Brown became the first bisexual governor in the US in 2015 when she was appointed in Oregon. She has been elected twice since then.

In last year's midterm elections, Colorado's Jared Polis became the first gay man in the US to be elected governor, Kyrsten Sinema, who is bisexual, won a US Senate seat in Arizona, and Sharice Davids, a lesbian, won her US House race in Kansas.

All of this is to say, quite simply, that in a relatively brief period of time, the politics surrounding gay marriage and LGBT equality shifted dramatically. And even though issues surrounding LGBT equality are hardly settled, Buttigieg's announcement is a good reminder of the progress that has been made.

Buttigieg, who was elected mayor in 2011 at the age of 29, came out in 2015 -- days before the Supreme Court struck down same-sex marriage bans nationwide. In a column titled 'Why coming out matters," he wrote about the difficulty he had coming to terms with his sexuality and being open about it publicly.

"We Midwesterners are instinctively private to begin with, and I'm not used to viewing this as anyone else's business," he wrote. "But it's clear to me that at a moment like this, being more open about it could do some good. For a local student struggling with her sexuality, it might be helpful for an openly gay mayor to send the message that her community will always have a place for her. And for a conservative resident from a different generation, whose unease with social change is partly rooted in the impression that he doesn't know anyone gay, perhaps a familiar face can be a reminder that we're all in this together as a community."

Buttigieg might not have a real chance at winning the Democratic nomination. But by announcing he is running for the highest office in the land with a video that features his husband, he's already on the path to accomplishing what he set out to do in his column.

He acknowledged as much to CNN's Dan Merica on Wednesday, saying, "I am also mindful of the fact that this just might make it a little easier for the next person who comes along. My sincere hope is that by the time my kids are old enough, once we have kids, to understand politics, that it won't even be newsworthy."

And who knows. Maybe he'll make the debate stage. Maybe he'll take off in Iowa, and that momentum will propel him further than we can foresee now.

But one thing is for sure: Having a gay candidate -- or nominee, or president -- is no longer such a farfetched idea.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...sident-thats-a-big-deal/ar-BBSEbp2?ocid=ientp
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong? Are you also saying that the public is wrong?
 
Sleeping her way to the top with a married man...

Extramarital affair with Kamala Harris? Former San Francisco mayor, 84, admits it happened
By Louis Casiano | Fox News

Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown is claiming he had an extramarital affair with Kamala Harris 20 years ago.

Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown addressed his past extramarital relationship with U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris in his weekly column Saturday, saying he may have boosted the presidential hopeful's career.

"Yes, we dated. It was more than 20 years ago," Brown wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle.

"Yes, I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was [California] Assembly speaker. And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco."

Brown, 84, pointed out that he also helped the careers of other prominent California Democrats, such as U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Gavin Newsom and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

"The difference is that Harris is the only one who, after I helped her, sent word that I would be indicted if I 'so much as jaywalked' while she was D.A.,” Brown wrote. "That's politics for ya."

Brown appointed Harris -- about 30 years younger than Brown and just a few years out of law school – to two well-paid state commission assignments on the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the California Medical Assistance Commission, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

"Whether you agree or disagree with the system, I did the work," Harris said in a 2003 interview with SF Weekly. "I brought a level of life knowledge and common sense to the jobs."

"The difference is that Harris is the only one who, after I helped her, sent word that I would be indicted if I 'so much as jaywalked' while she was D.A.”

— Willie Brown, former mayor of San Francisco

The former mayor also connected Harris with campaign donors, which helped her outraise her opponent for San Francisco district attorney, Business Insider reported.

Brown's involvement in her election raised questions as to how Harris would remain impartial, given his enormous political clout.

As the Democrats' 2020 field grows, presidential candidates face pressure over past positions; reaction and analysis on 'Outnumbered.'

Questions about Brown’s relationship with Harris began anew after she announced her 2020 presidential bid on Martin Luther King Day.

During his two terms as mayor of San Francisco, Brown was known for his charm, arrogance and ego, according to a 1996 profile in People magazine.

Named one of the world’s 10 sexiest men by Playgirl magazine in 1984, Brown sometimes attended parties with his wife on one arm and a girlfriend on the other, according to a reporter quoted by the magazine.

Brown and Harris broke up in 1995 but remained political allies. In Saturday's column, Brown said Harris is "riding a buzz wave the likes of which we haven’t seen in years."

Fox News contacted Harris' office for a response to Brown's claims but did not receive a response.

For the past decade or so, Brown has reportedly been linked with Sonya Molodetskaya, a Russian refugee and socialite. He is said to be separated from wife Blanche Vitero, whom he married in 1958.

Brown and Vitero have three children, while Brown also fathered a child in 2001 with his former fundraiser, Carolyn Carpeneti, according to the Chronicle.
 
MARIS61 said:
Seems there's some more of that Dem/Russian Collusion going n here.
Click to expand...

Yeah, thankfully trump or any of his administration past and present haven't had any ties to Russia.

:biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:

13 angry democrats are laughing at you maris.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top