All the political luminaries, delegates, and journalists attending
the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia may be flying
directly into a chaotic mess if employers don’t negotiate with airport
workers.
According to the Philadelphia Inquirer,
SEIU 32BJ, the union fighting to represent workers at the Philadelphia
International Airport, is demanding the city grant airport employees the
right to unionize. They also made requests for clarity on the airport’s
paid sick day policy, an end to irregular scheduling, and a fairer
disciplinary system.
“The purpose of the DNC is to lift workers out of poverty,” 32BJ area Vice President Gabe Morgan said.
“Fifteen dollars an hour is a plank in the DNC,” he continued. “It
was huge subject of debate during the Democratic Primary, and really
what these workers are fighting for is the same thing the DNC is
fighting for in the upcoming national election.”
The vote to strike passed overwhelmingly by a 461-5 vote, and will
apply to roughly 1,000 airport workers who are hired by various
subcontractors that the airlines use to conduct daily operations. The
striking employees will include baggage handlers, wheelchair attendants,
airplane cleaners, and others. Should the strike go forward, the lack
of available staffing may result in extended flight delays for travelers
arriving to and departing from Philadelphia.
Morgan told the Inquirer the strike is unique to airport workers, as
other unionized employees already have fair contracts and would not be
striking during the convention, which takes place from July 25-28. He
added that the union’s past organizing has resulted in multiple
victories for workers at Philadelphia International, including a
$12/hour minimum wage.
No date has yet been announced for the strike. As of this writing,
there has been no indication from the companies subcontracting with the
airport that they’re willing to meet workers’ demands. The Philadelphia
convention host committee has also not commented on the strike.
Doom on Ultra-Nightmare difficulty without any upgrades!
The
graphic settings are different for this run compared to my previous
ultra-nightmare run. I changed to ultra settings and 105 FOV (120 FOV is
max, my other video was 90). I also reduced the bitrate\quality of the
recording a bit to reduce the size\upload time. I also removed glory
kill highlight, compass and changed crosshair.
No upgrades are:
- No weapon upgrades
- No armor upgrades
- No runes
- No argent cells (first cell is forced)
And no use of glitches\sequence skips, as that would make it trivial.
- No weapon upgrades does a lot less damage.
-
The armor upgrades are very useful for preventing massive damage from
barrels and self-rockets, and also missing faster weapon switch as well
as more effective powerups\grenades. A single barrel or a face rocket
can end your run very quickly.
- No runes will not allow me to grab
runes like for example saving throw which gives me a second chance, rich
get richer which gives me infinite ammo, or equipment powerup which
allows me to get armor from the siphon grenades.
- No argent cells
gives me a lot less health, armor and ammo. I can't afford to lose my
health from the mega health powerups later on, as I can't go over 100\50
from pickups. The lack of ammo makes it very important to be aware of
where the ammo pickups are and not to waste the chainsaw ammo.
This
UNM run is over an hour faster than my previous one, the main reasons
are because I play a lot better, I know where to go and without upgrades
I don't have to spend any time doing rune challenges, grabbing secrets
etc.
Why did I decide to do it without upgrades? Apparently a
lot of people have beaten it now on ultra-nightmare, so I figured I'd
take it a step further. But the main reason is because it's a very fun
way to play the game! I play a lot more aggressive this time and I don't
end up just using gauss cannon with rich get richer rune to clear
everything late game.
Misc:
Previously
I've died at the cyberdemon to a very strange attack combo that I don't
think should be possible, (you can watch that here: https://youtu.be/2Ph7FYhwics
I also died at the hell guardians, I didn't practice the fight properly
and without upgrades it was more difficult than last time. Also
included in the video above is a death at titan's realm.
I had a
crash at the start of the 4th level, never happened there before. I
didn't have any other crashes besides that and fortunately it happened
at the start of the level.
I don't know why my helmet was white at the hell guardians, never seen that before, as it should be either red or yellow.
On July 5th , the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion which found, in part, that sharing passwords is a crime prosecutable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The decision, according to a dissenting opinion on the case, makes millions of people who share passwords for services like Netflix and HBOGo into “unwitting federal criminals.”
MOMMY AND DADDY LOVE EACH OTHER AGAIN!!
Well, well, well, the time has come. Sources named Bernie Sanders said in an interview Thursday
that “We have got to do everything that we can to defeat Donald Trump
and elect Hillary Clinton.”
And by EVERYTHING, he means EVERYTHING. That
involves voting and making phone calls, and then voting in the place of
a dead person (kidding!) and then ‘splaining to your on-the-fence
neighbor who can’t stand Trump but somehow thinks Hillary’s emails mean
she is a criminal, how that is not true. And why should we do that? Tell us, Bernie:
“I don’t honestly know how we would survive four years of a Donald Trump … “
SO NOTED. So is an official endorsement about to happen? It would appear that way! The Huffington Post reports
that Hillz and Bernie will do a rally together in New Hampshire on
Tuesday!
Bernie will say, “I didn’t give a damn about your emails when
we were running against each other, and I don’t give a damn about them
now!” And Hillz will say, “You had some really great ideas, like the
free college thing, and I am trying to work some of those things
into my plans, so all the Democrats can get back to blowjobs, candy
canes and defeating Donald Trump!” And Bernie will reply, “I like candy
canes! They are cunning in their use of stripes!”
OK, where were we? Oh yeah, endorsement. So that’s probably happening Tuesday, unless Bernie decides to pull a GOTCHA!
like he did in June, when he said he was voting for Hillary, but then
like one hour later he was like “Yeah PROBABLY, no promises,” just like
Donald Trump was like “Yeah PROBABLY” about whether he’ll serve as president if he’s elected.
So
what tipped Bernie over into Hillary’s green pastures? The “free
college for most” thing? Maybe so! Or maybe it’s that the Democratic
Party platform is likely to include some very nice Bernie-esque things like support for a $15 minimum wage. Or maybe Bernie is just an overall mensch and smart guy who means it when he says a Trump presidency would be a dumpster fire of epic proportions.
As for Bernie’s supporters, they’re coming around, and his endorsement will help that along quite nicely. Oh, a few dead-enders are going apeshit over the FBI’s decision not to murder Hillary Clinton in her crib over “emails,” but they’re not the majority.
So hooray, put it on your calendars, for Tuesday is the day mommy and daddy are getting married again, WITH VOTES.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and Republicans across the country have been
obsessing over former Secretary of State and presumptive Democratic
nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her time
at the State Department.
But what Republicans really should be asking
is:
What about Gowdy’s private email server?
On July 5, Clinton was cleared by a team of FBI investigators led by
FBI Director James Comey. Dismayed by the fact that their email-centric
political witch hunt failed to indict Clinton just weeks after the
Benghazi “scandal” also cleared her, they decided to investigate the
investigators and take on Comey. Gowdy led a portion of Comey’s
interrogation.
Which makes it all the more hypocritical to learn that Benghazi
Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) has been exposed for having his own
personal email server at treygowdy.com. AlterNet remarks that
“while it’s not unusual to maintain such a thing particularly for
campaign work, it’s not clear that Gowdy utilizes this email solely for
political campaign work and not congressional tasks.”
Requests for comment by both Alternet and Correct The Record‘s David Brock
were both ignored by the Gowdy camp, which is highly indicative that he
does use his personal email for Congressional work- if he had nothing
to hide, why wouldn’t he just say so? Especially with the integrity of
his failed committee under such harsh scrutiny by the rest of the
nation, demanding answers for the colossal misuse of public funds and
time. Gowdy had better be ready to put his own actions under the
microscope.
Here is the full text of David Brock’s inquiry:
Dear Chairman Gowdy:
I noted with interest your public demand that Secretary Clinton turn
over her personal email server, presumably so that the committee can
access some 30,000 Clinton emails deemed to be strictly private and
beyond the reach of the government.
This Orwellian demand has no basis in law or precedent. Every
government employee decides for themselves what email is work-related
and what is strictly private. There is no reason to hold Secretary
Clinton to a different standard— except partisan politics.
But since you insist that Clinton’s private email be accessed, I’m
writing today to ask you and your staff to abide by the same standard
you seek to hold the Secretary to by releasing your own work-related and
private email and that of your staff to the public.
While I realize that Congress regularly exempts itself from laws that
apply to the executive branch, I believe this action is necessary to
ensure public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of your
investigation.
This week, high-profile police killings of two black men—Alton
Sterling of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Philando Castile, who was killed
in Falcon Heights, Minnesota—have renewed heated debates about police
violence, and brought the Black Lives Matter movement back into the
spotlight.
Every time this happens, cries of “Black Lives Matter” tend to be
met with the response “All Lives Matter.” Even presidential candidates
have made this mistake—last year, Hillary Clinton said “All Lives
Matter,” though she has since corrected herself. And lots of white
people have expressed confusion about why it’s controversial to broaden
the #BlackLivesMatter movement to include people of all races.
The real issue is that, while strictly true, “All Lives Matter” is a
tone-deaf slogan that distracts from the real problems black people in
America face.
The best explanation we’ve seen so far comes from Reddit, of all
places. Last year, in an “Explain Like I’m 5” thread, user GeekAesthete
explained, clearly and succinctly, why changing #BlackLivesMatter to
#AllLivesMatter is an act of erasure that makes lots of people cringe.
GeekAesthete explains:
Imagine that you’re sitting down to dinner with your family, and
while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don’t get any. So
you say “I should get my fair share.” And as a direct response to this,
your dad corrects you, saying, “everyone should get their fair share.”
Now, that’s a wonderful sentiment — indeed, everyone should, and that
was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of
everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad’s
smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn’t solve the problem that
you still haven’t gotten any!
The problem is that the statement “I should get my fair share” had
an implicit “too” at the end: “I should get my fair share, too, just
like everyone else.” But your dad’s response treated your statement as
though you meant “only I should get my fair share”, which clearly was
not your intention. As a result, his statement that “everyone should get
their fair share,” while true, only served to ignore the problem you
were trying to point out.
That’s the situation of the “black lives matter” movement. Culture,
laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all
lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our
society.
The problem is that, in practice, the world doesn’t work that way.
You see the film Nightcrawler? You know the part where Renee Russo tells
Jake Gyllenhal that she doesn’t want footage of a black or latino
person dying, she wants news stories about affluent white people being
killed? That’s not made up out of whole cloth — there is a news bias
toward stories that the majority of the audience (who are white) can
identify with. So when a young black man gets killed (prior to the
recent police shootings), it’s generally not considered “news”, while a
middle-aged white woman being killed is treated as news. And to a large
degree, that is accurate — young black men are killed in significantly
disproportionate numbers, which is why we don’t treat it as anything
new. But the result is that, societally, we don’t pay as much attention
to certain people’s deaths as we do to others. So, currently, we don’t
treat all lives as though they matter equally.
Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase “black lives
matter” also has an implicit “too” at the end: it’s saying that black
lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying “all lives
matter” is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It’s a way of
dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means “only black
lives matter,” when that is obviously not the case. And so saying “all
lives matter” as a direct response to “black lives matter” is
essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem.
Yep, there you go. Bookmark it, print it out, give it to your friends.
Hillary Clinton has a nearly 80 percent chance of winning the White
House in November, FiveThirtyEight polling guru Nate Silver predicted
Wednesday.
FiveThirtyEight projected Clinton has a 79 percent chance of winning
the general election against Donald Trump, who has just a 20 percent
chance of succeeding President Barack Obama in the Oval Office.
“Here’s how to think about it: We’re kind of at halftime of the
election right now, and she’s taking a seven-point, maybe a 10-point
lead into halftime,” Silver told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on “Good
Morning America.” “There’s a lot of football left to be played, but
she’s ahead in almost every poll, every swing state, every national
poll.”
Indeed, a Ballotpedia survey of seven swing states
released Wednesday shows the presumptive Democratic presidential
nominee sweeping Trump in Iowa, Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania, North
Carolina, Ohio and Virginia by margins ranging from 4 to 17 percentage
points.
Silver, who correctly forecast 49 out of 50 states in 2008 and every
state in 2012, noted that both camps “have a lot of room to grow,” but
no candidate has blown a lead as large as Clinton’s advantage over Trump
in nearly 30 years, when former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis lost
to George H.W. Bush despite maintaining a large lead coming out of the
spring and summer.
“It’s been a crazy year, politically,” Silver said, adding that more
states, particularly red states, are in play in 2016 than in previous
elections. “For example, Arizona looks like a toss-up. Maybe Georgia.
Maybe Missouri, North Carolina again.”
“Likewise,” Silver continued, “if Trump gains ground on Clinton then
maybe a state like Maine — used to be a swing state, not so recently” —
could be in play, too.
Silver also defended his August forecast that gave the billionaire businessman a 2 percent chance to win the GOP nomination.
“That wasn’t based on looking at polls. Trump was always ahead in the
polls, and one big lesson of his campaign is don’t try and out-think
the polls and try and out-think the American public,” Silver said. “And
Trump has never really been ahead of Clinton in the general election
campaign. He did a great job of appealing to the 40 percent of the GOP
he had to win the election, the primary — a lot different than winning
51 percent of 100 percent.”
Lawrence
O’Donnell has a thorough explanation of the woes plaguing Donald
Trump’s campaign as Trump complains he’s running against two parties
while a new scandal develops with the ‘Trump Institute.’
Stuart Stevens and Eugene Robinson join the discussion.
Gary Johnson, Jill Stein (Credit: Reuters/Lucas Jackson/Jonathan Ernst)
Ever
since Hillary Clinton became the “presumptive nominee” for the
Democratic Party, Bernie Sanders supporters have been faced with a
seemingly impossible dilemma: Vote for someone you hate (Clinton) or
vote for someone despicable (Trump). You either cast your vote toward
someone you see as a shill for corporate interests or you vote for a
bigoted monster. There is a real sense that there simply is no other
choice.
But
vote shaming seems to have caused unanticipated blowback. As mind
boggling as it may be to consider, many Sanders supporters are actually
suggesting they will choose Trump over Clinton. A June 14 Bloomberg Politics national poll of
likely voters in November’s election found that just over half of those
who favored Sanders — 55 percent — plan to vote for Clinton.
Stop and ponder how crazy that is for a moment. Frustration
with establishment politics is so high that folks will vote for a
misogynistic, racist, egomaniacal buffoon over a party insider. Anger
over a sense that the primary season was rigged, that Clinton lacks
integrity, and that the voting process was unjust has driven supporters
of a progressive candidate toward one who has been repeatedly described as fascist. For some Sanders supporters, #NeverHillary can only mean Trump.
That
false logic is a clear sign of how our democracy is rigged and our
system is flawed: Voters frustrated with the system are planning to cast
their votes within the same system.
Armes, like many other
Sanders supporters, never considered a third option. It never occurred
to her to vote for Green Party candidate Dr. Jill Stein, or Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. Armes was thinking in the binary two-party logic that forces her to choose between either a Democrat or a Republican.
There
is only one way to win an election for president in our country today
and that is by being the nominee of one of the two principal parties.
The reason for this is that we have “winner-take-all” system. In almost
every state, the candidate with the majority of votes wins all of the
Electoral College votes. So voting for a third party can really skew the
outcome. Even worse, it usually skews it away from your likely
second-choice candidate toward the person you fear winning the most.
This
is why many Sanders supporters who now say they are voting Clinton have
switched over. In general, they won’t be voting for Clinton because
they like her; they will be voting for Clinton because they are
terrified of Trump. And the same dislike is taking place on the other
side of the political spectrum. Voters are supporting Trump because they
deeply dislike Clinton.
In fact, as Harry Enten reports for Five Thirty Eight,
“Clinton and Trump are both more strongly disliked than any nominee at
this point in the past 10 presidential cycles.” So this really is the
election between two evils. The only question, thus far, has been which
of the two is the worst one.
As FairVote.org explains, ranked choice voting makes democracy more fair and functional.
In ranked choice voting, alternatively known as instant-runoff voting,
voters rank their votes. If your first choice does not win, then your
vote goes to your second choice, and so on. So, under ranked voting, you
could vote Stein first, then Clinton. That would guarantee that a vote
for Stein could not actually help Trump. It would also guarantee that we
could get a fair and accurate assessment of how many people really
picked Clinton or Trump as their first choice. If it seems complicated, check out a sample ballot here.
The
mere idea that voting for Nader wrecked the election and skewed votes
leading to a Bush Jr. presidency should be sign enough that we are due
for change. Voters who wanted to support a splinter candidate were
punished for exercising their rights. The problem is not just the
anti-democratic nature of the Electoral College; it is the way the
all-or-nothing system forces a two-party duopoly that can’t be
challenged without grave consequences.
The
reasons for considering an alternative voting system go beyond a desire
to give third parties a chance for greater visibility and more votes.
There is much more at stake. First of all, the winner-take-all system
increases fear-based voting. Voters are more inclined to vote against a candidate than to vote for someone.
So, as you ponder the two unappealing choices likely to
head the November ballot, consider bucking the closed two-party system
and voting a third way, but more importantly consider fighting to change
the rigged system that got us into this mess.
Sophia A. McClennen is
Professor of International Affairs and Comparative Literature at the
Pennsylvania State University. She writes on the intersections between
culture, politics, and society. Her latest book, co-authored with Remy
M. Maisel, is, Is Satire Saving Our Nation? Mockery and American Politics.
A jury has convicted a veteran U.S.
Congressman Chaka Fattah in a racketeering case that largely centered on
various efforts to repay an illegal $1 million campaign loan.
U.S.
Rep. Chaka Fattah was found guilty of all counts against him, including
racketeering, fraud and money laundering. His lawyers had argued that
the schemes were engineered without Fattah's knowledge by two political
consultants who pleaded guilty in the case.
As
he emerged from the courthouse after the guilty verdict, Fattah made a
brief statement about conferring with his lawyers before continuing to
walk away without answering further questions from reporters.
The
59 year old Democrat has represented West Philadelphia as well as parts
of Center City, South Philly, Montgomery County and the Main Line in
Congress since 1995 and served on the powerful House Appropriations
Committee. But he lost the April primary and his bid for his 12th term.
His current term ends in December.
Fattah's
jovial and calm demeanor didn't change much as the verdict was read,
said NBC10's Deanna Durante who was in the courtroom.
Fattah will remain out on bail ahead of his October sentencing.
Jurors
began deliberations late Wednesday afternoon, nearly month after the
trial began May 16. A juror was dismissed in the racketeering case
without explanation Friday. An alternate replaced the missing member,
and U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle III ordered jurors to begin
deliberations again.
Four co-defendants also faced numerous charges.
- Fattah's former chief of staff, Bonnie Bowser, was found guilty on some of her 21 counts.
- Fattah's friend and wealthy supporter, Herbert Vederman, was found guilty on all 8 counts.
- Political consultant Robert Brand was found guilty on all two counts.
- Former Fattah aide Karen Nicholas was found guilty on some of her seven counts.
The
four-week trial concluded quicker than most observers expected and did
not involve any bombshell testimony or evidence entered by prosecutors
and defense attorneys.
Instead,
the trial revolved around the legality of the defendants actions related
to a $1 million loan made during Fattah's failed 2007 mayoral campaign.
Prior
to the trial, Fattah's chief strategist for that mayoral bid, Richard
Naylor, pleaded guilty to misuse of campaign funds. He testified early
on in the trial as a prosecution witness.
“This
charge cost him his reelection. He’d been an 11-term Congressman and
did a lot of things for his constituents when he was in office,” said
Howard Bruce Klein, a former federal prosecutor. “So I would say it’s a
sad ending for a public servant who made scholarships available for
thousands of students over the years, but now has come to a very unhappy
ending, being guilty of corruption. So it’s a day for the Congressman,
it’s a sad day for his constituents and it’s a sad day for
Philadelphia.”
Members of the jurors didn't immediately comment as they left the courtroom Tuesday afternoon.
In this Majority Report clip, we are lucky enough to hear the wise words
of Alex Jones concerning the Orlando massacre. Jones (of course) thinks
that the globalists/U.S. Government/anti-gun lobby (??)/probably the
Illuminati/Obama are to blame for the mass shooting at Orlando nightclub
Pulse because of immigration laws.
The shooter, Omar Mateen, was an
American-born citizen, reportedly not that religious, likely mentally
ill, and possibly gay himself.
These are all incredibly sound reasons to
conclude that Alex Jones is wrong, as always, but here you go. He ruins a lovely nature scene while he’s at it.
Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI) has had enough of the growing movement to
drug test poor people who need government assistance. So on Tuesday,
she’s introducing a bill that she says will make things fairer.
Her “Top 1% Accountability Act” would require anyone claiming
itemized tax deductions of over $150,000 in a given year to submit a
clean drug test. If a filer doesn’t submit a clean test within three
months of filing, he won’t be able to take advantage of tax deductions
like the mortgage interest deduction or health insurance tax breaks.
Instead he would have to make use of the standard deduction.
Her office has calculated that the people impacted will be those who
make at least $500,000 a year.
“By drug testing those with itemized
deductions over $150,000, this bill will level the playing field for
drug testing people who are the recipients of social programs,” a memo
on her bill notes.
Moore has a personal stake in the fight. “I am a former welfare
recipient,” she explained. “I’ve used food stamps, I’ve received Aid for
Families with Dependent Children, Medicaid, Head Start for my kids,
Title XX daycare [subsidies]. I’m truly grateful for the social safety
net.”
Ten states
require applicants to their cash welfare programs to undergo a drug
test. States are currently barred from implementing drug testing for the
food stamps program, but Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) has sued the federal government to allow him to do so and has gotten some Congressional Republican support.
Moore has been frustrated to witness attempts to tie those who avail
themselves of the safety net to drug use. “Republicans continue to
criminalize poverty and to put forward the narrative, the false
narrative in fact, that people who are poor and reliant upon the social
safety net are drug users,” she said.
In fact, evidence from test results
among states that test welfare recipients indicates that they are no
more likely to use drugs than the general population — in fact, they may
be less likely.
That didn’t stop House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) from using a drug rehab center as the backdrop while he unveiled his poverty plan
last week. “I think this is what tipped me over the edge,” Moore said,
“rolling out his poverty initiative in front of a drug treatment program
to sort of drive that false narrative forward.”
House Speaker Paul Ryan speaks at a drug rehab
facility in the Anacostia neighborhood of Washington, Tuesday, June 7,
2016, where he proposed an overhaul for the nation’s poverty programs. CREDIT: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
Moore also wants to use her bill to question why some recipients of
government aid are treated differently than others. “On the one hand,
poor people…are entitled to things like Medicaid and SNAP [food
stamps],” she said. “People who take tax deductions and particularly
those in the top 1 percent…are not entitled to anything.” But they still
benefit from a large pot of government money.
When it comes to drug abuse, “There are no boundaries with regard to
class or race,” she said. “If these poor people who are entitled to SNAP
for survival are required to be drug tested, then certainly those
people who claim $150,000 or more in tax deductions should be subjected
to the same in order to receive this benefit from the government.”
Moore also thinks that while there is no evidence that drug testing
welfare recipients saves states any money, drug tests for wealthy
taxpayers could be different. “We would save a lot of money on this,”
she said. “When you add up all of the tax expenditures, all the money we
give really wealthy people, it really rivals the amount we spend on
Defense, Social Security, Medicare.” The mortgage interest deduction,
which overwhelmingly benefits people making more than $100,000, alone cost $70 billion in 2013, or 0.4 percent of GDP.
Her bill will also help illuminate this very fact: that so much is
spent on tax expenditures, not just on direct aid programs like welfare
and food stamps. “We think it’s important to engage in some transparency
and accountability around tax deductions,” she said.
Moore is not the only lawmaker in Congress who has raised questions
about unequal treatment between the poor who make use of government
programs and everyone else who needs them. In February, Rep. Rosa
DeLauro asked why
only recipients of food stamps were being considered for drug testing
but not the farmers who also make use of programs run by the Agriculture
Department.
But Moore is very serious about pushing her bill forward. “I’m
motivated,” she said. “I’m going to work on it very seriously. I’m going
to try to get cosponsors.”
She also wants to “engage the wealthy in this poverty debate,” she
said. “I would love to see some hedge fund manager on Wall Street who
might be sniffing a little cocaine here and there to stay awake realize
that he can’t get his $150,000 worth of deductions unless he submits to a
drug test.”
Why is the Ed Schultz Show hotter than a polar bear in Pensacola? Easy. Because he is so different from every other talk show hosts. He’s a straight talking, no-nonsense voice of reason in unreasonable times.
On Thursday's Show, Ed gives commentary on the Republicans predicament with Donald Trump as their presumptive nominee and the fight that his heating up over gun control. We are joined by Jane Kleeb, Director of Bold Nebraska and candidate for Nebraska Democratic Party Chair, joins the show to talk about the impact of Bernie Sanders on the Democratic platform.
