thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-23--Democrats Did Something Big On Health Care And Nobody Is Paying Attention

What The New Bill Proposes Under H.R .
3 , the majority of that money would go right back into Medicare , in order to underwrite dental , vision and hearing coverage that the program lacks ― and to further subsidize some of the low-income seniors on the program .
But a key provision of the law , one Pelosi prioritized , allows private insurers to use the negotiated prices , so that their beneficiaries can save money too .
Any proposal to reduce what the government pays for drugs prompts the industry to say that innovation will suffer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ written on the way drugmakers and their allies exaggerate those claims .
At the same time , plenty of well-respected scholars think the claims have some merit ― that , without those high profits , pharmaceutical companies would innovate less because they would draw less investment capital .
The CBO in its assessment concluded that if H.R .
3 becomes law , the drug industry would probably develop 8 to 15 fewer drugs over a 10-year period .
That ’ s a small fraction of the more than 300 drugs the CBO expects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ span , although obviously the significance of that reduction would depend ultimately on what those 8 to 15 drugs might have been ― another unimpressive knockoff drug for reflux , or a breakthrough for hemophilia ?
― and whether the CBO ’ s estimate , which necessarily involved a lot of guesswork , was on the mark .
Trump has also taken to attacking the “ Do Nothing Democrats ” on drug prices , which is a strange choice given that the House actually took action by passing its bill , when Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy unilaterally or with Congress .
At last month ’ s State of the Union address , House Democrats tried to make that point by standing when Trump mentioned drug pricing and holding three fingers in the air , for H.R .
3 .
The protest drew little notice .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
House Democrats passed a major health care bill last December, one that promises substantial, much-needed relief to Americans struggling with cost of prescription drugs.
Yet somehow, almost no one outside of Washington seems to be paying attention.
The most important provision of the bill would allow the federal government to negotiate directly with manufacturers over drug prices, as authorities in other countries do. That could slash the price of everything from insulin to cutting-edge, breakthrough treatments for cancer for the vast majority of Americans.
Advertisement
Steve Knievel, an advocate at Public Citizen’s Access to Medicines program says the bill is “the most impactful piece of drug legislation” to get through a house of Congress since the creation of the Medicare drug benefit in 2003.
Rachel Sachs, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis and a widely published researcher on the drug industry, told HuffPost that the bill is “an enormous deal … a sweeping reform that would be highly beneficial to patients.”
The proposal has its gaps, as all legislation does. It also comes with trade-offs, mainly in the form of lower revenue for drugmakers ― which sounds great to industry critics angry over what they say are obscene pharmaceutical profits, just as it sounds lousy to industry defenders who say those profits underwrite the development of miracle cures.
But whatever its shortcomings and whatever its consequences, the legislation would represent a major, transformational shift in the relationship between government and one of health care’s most important and powerful industries.
Advertisement
The bill probably would have dominated the news cycle, and have more of a profile today, if the vote hadn’t taken place right when the country was focusing on impeachment ― and if the proposal’s natural champions in the progressive community, who fought with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) over its reach and eventually won some key concessions, had touted it more.
The prescription drug bill that passed the House in December has gotten surprisingly little notice since, although it's not for lack of trying by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). MANDEL NGAN via Getty Images
The bill would also have generated more buzz if it stood a decent chance of becoming law this year. It doesn’t. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has flatly refused to consider it and President Donald Trump has said he opposes it too.
But any time a policy initiative of this magnitude crosses a key legislative threshold, it’s closer to becoming law. And this bill passed with votes from virtually every Democrat, including vulnerable members in more conservative districts, many of whom are now touting it back home.
These members obviously saw a political upside in supporting the bill, even at the risk of incurring the wrath of drugmakers. If the industry isn’t nervous about that, it should be.
Advertisement
What The New Bill Proposes
H.R. 3, the “Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act,” is named for the Baltimore congressman who died last year and who had long championed efforts to help people pay for their medications. It has three main components.
The first is a set of provisions that would limit out-of-pocket drug spending, like copays at the pharmacy, for seniors in Medicare Part D, the program’s drug benefit. This is the least controversial part of the proposal because, in reality, it’s just throwing government money at the problem.
Although Republicans in the modern era have generally been looking to reduce, rather than increase, spending on anything other than defense, drug coverage for senior citizens has been a conspicuous exception ― in part, perhaps, because seniors are such an increasingly vital part of the GOP’s political coalition.
H.R. 3’s second component would limit the ability of drug companies to raise prices year after year, by tying price increases to inflation. These limits would apply both to drugs in Part D (which is for drugs people buy directly themselves) and Part B (which includes drugs that physicians and clinics buy, then administer directly to patients). The bill also calls for studying ways of applying these limits to drugs available to other buyers.
An impetus for this change are the widespread examples of drug companies raising prices of products like EpiPens, which are used to stop potentially deadly allergic reactions, even when the product itself hasn’t gotten better in any meaningful way.
Advertisement
The inflation caps have generated a lot more pushback from the drug industry, which opposes any federal intervention into what it can charge. But it’s not nearly as controversial or toxic to drugmakers as the third provision, which would give the federal government authority to negotiate prices directly with manufacturers.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said the House drug pricing bill sounds like "socialism" and there's no way Republicans will take it up. Barcroft Media via Getty Images
Each year, following a short phase-in period, the secretary of Health and Human Services would pick at least 50 drugs that would be subject to negotiated prices. The 50 would come from a larger list of 250 single-source drugs (that is, drugs with no generic competition) on which the U.S. spends the most annually, taking into account both what government programs and private insurers buy.
The law also requires negotiation for one specific drug, insulin, as a response to widespread reports of diabetes patients rationing their own treatment ― occasionally, with tragic consequences.
H.R. 3 doesn’t simply call for a negotiation. It sets financial boundaries for the discussions by requiring that the negotiated prices not exceed 120% of the average of what six other countries (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan and the U.K.) pay. For newer drugs not yet available in other countries, the law has a separate set of guidelines.
Advertisement
The hard part of any proposal like this isn’t so much giving the government the right to negotiate. It’s giving drug companies reason to go along. There are a number of ways to do this, including threatening to exclude high-priced drugs from formularies and breaking patent rights (or having government manufacture drugs directly) when the drugmakers refuse to negotiate.
H.R. 3’s solution is slap drugmakers with a tax that would quickly rise to 95% of sales revenue any time manufacturers block a product from negotiation. The tax would not be deductible as a business expense ― which means, according to an assessment by the Congressional Budget Office, manufacturers could conceivably lose money outright in such instances, depending on the details and circumstances.
That threat would be enough to compel the drug industry to negotiate, the CBO predicted, and it would produce huge savings for the government: $456 billion over 10 years. An analysis by the independent firm Avalere found that the savings could be even bigger.
Under H.R. 3, the majority of that money would go right back into Medicare, in order to underwrite dental, vision and hearing coverage that the program lacks ― and to further subsidize some of the low-income seniors on the program. But a key provision of the law, one Pelosi prioritized, allows private insurers to use the negotiated prices, so that their beneficiaries can save money too.
Of course, drug companies could (and almost certainly would) find ways to game the system, perhaps by manipulating the way prices work abroad. And because the bill applies only to drugs that generate the most sales revenues, drugs that are expensive but serve small numbers of patients could fall outside its purview.
Advertisement
Those are among the reasons progressives weren’t more enthusiastic about the final product, even after Pelosi had adopted some of their ideas, although ultimately Reps. Lloyd Doggett (D-Tex.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) ― three progressive leaders who had sparred with leadership over the bill ― all voted yes.
Why This Legislation Matters
For conservatives on and off Capitol Hill, the issue with the bill is its potential effects on innovation, although the magnitude of those effects, if any, are the subject of long-standing debate in the health policy community.
Any proposal to reduce what the government pays for drugs prompts the industry to say that innovation will suffer, even though there have been whole books written on the way drugmakers and their allies exaggerate those claims. At the same time, plenty of well-respected scholars think the claims have some merit ― that, without those high profits, pharmaceutical companies would innovate less because they would draw less investment capital.
The CBO in its assessment concluded that if H.R. 3 becomes law, the drug industry would probably develop 8 to 15 fewer drugs over a 10-year period. That’s a small fraction of the more than 300 drugs the CBO expects the industry to develop during that same span, although obviously the significance of that reduction would depend ultimately on what those 8 to 15 drugs might have been ― another unimpressive knockoff drug for reflux, or a breakthrough for hemophilia? ― and whether the CBO’s estimate, which necessarily involved a lot of guesswork, was on the mark.
Progressive leaders like Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) voted yes on the bill after Pelosi incorporated some of their proposals into the legislation. Pool via Getty Images
Advertisement
What’s less ambiguous is that lots of people are suffering and in some cases dying right now because the status quo leaves so many unable to pay for their prescriptions. That is why drug pricing is getting so much attention, including from Trump, although he has sent characteristically inconsistent messages about what exactly he wants or how badly he wants it.
For more than a year, his administration has been preparing a regulation that would tie the price of Medicare Part B drugs (the ones doctors administer directly) to international prices ― which, conceptually, is similar to the way the House bill would use a global price index. But the administration has not yet proposed the regulation formally, despite constantly recirculating rumors that release is imminent, and it is under enormous pressure from industry and sympathetic Republicans on Capitol Hill to keep the proposal from going forward.
Trump has also praised a bipartisan bill from Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). That bill includes the first two parts of the House bill, the extra financial assistance in Medicare and the limits on year-after-year price increases, but not the provision for price negotiation, which is a nonstarter with conservatives. Even without that provision, McConnell has so far resisted bringing a bill to the floor and, so far, Trump hasn’t prodded him to do so.
At one point, Trump also expressed interest in working with Pelosi. This fueled tensions inside the Democratic caucus, as progressives accused the speaker of scaling back her proposal in order to win White House support. The administration eventually turned on H.R. 3, releasing a report suggesting it would have dramatic, devastating effects on innovation ― and dispatching officials to call the House proposal “unworkable.”
Trump has also taken to attacking the “Do Nothing Democrats” on drug prices, which is a strange choice given that the House actually took action by passing its bill, when Trump has repeatedly whiffed on chances to make policy unilaterally or with Congress. At last month’s State of the Union address, House Democrats tried to make that point by standing when Trump mentioned drug pricing and holding three fingers in the air, for H.R. 3. The protest drew little notice.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-23--Joe Biden: Trump And His Allies 'Like' Russia Interfering In U.S. Elections

Former Vice President Joe Biden didn ’ t mince words during an interview that aired on CBS News ’ “ Face The Nation ” on Sunday , saying President Donald Trump and his allies aren ’ t taking enough action to stop Russia interference in U.S. elections because they “ like ” it .
Asked if he believes there are lessons the Trump administration can learn on election meddling , Biden told host Margaret Brennan that the administration is “ incapable ” of evolving on the matter .
“ They like this , ” the Democratic presidential candidate said during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let ’ s be fair here .
They ’ ve known this for a long time , for three years.
” “ Every intelligence agency has told them [ that the Russians ] continue to be engaged in this activity , ” he added .
“ There is not any question anymore .
... And what ’ s he doing ?
Zero .
What is the Republican leadership in the United States Senate and Congress doing ?
Zero.
” The U.S. intelligence community ’ s top election security official reportedly told House lawmakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to win reelection in November .
Separately , U.S. intelligence officials last month told Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ ( I-Vt. ) presidential campaign that the Kremlin was apparently also seeking to help the Democratic candidate ’ s bid .
Trump , in contrast , has attacked Democrats over reports that Russia is trying to help him win reelection , accusing those across the aisle of spreading “ disinformation.
” Russian agents , during the 2016 campaign , hacked into the Democratic National Committee ’ s server and orchestrated a massive disinformation campaign to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. intelligence agencies .
Biden on Sunday said he ’ s been targeted by Russian bots on Facebook because the Kremlin doesn ’ t want him to be the Democratic nominee .
Asked whether it was Facebook or U.S. intelligence officials who informed him of this , Biden said he was alerted by his staff .
“ I have not spoken to the intelligence community , but I think the intelligence community should inform the rest of us who are running what they told Senator Sanders , ” he said .
Trump is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders and other members of Congress about some of Russia ’ s meddling efforts in the 2020 election cycle , Biden said , adding that the administration must do more to secure the integrity of our elections .
“ Why in God ’ s name haven ’ t we hardened the electoral process , provided ... hundreds of millions of dollars to states to be able to harden their voter rolls , make sure they can ’ t be attacked ... as a consequence of cyber attacks ?
” Biden continued .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capacity for them to be able to have the money to have paper ballots in addition to that ?
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Former Vice President Joe Biden didn’t mince words during an interview that aired on CBS News’ “Face The Nation” on Sunday, saying President Donald Trump and his allies aren’t taking enough action to stop Russia interference in U.S. elections because they “like” it.
Asked if he believes there are lessons the Trump administration can learn on election meddling, Biden told host Margaret Brennan that the administration is “incapable” of evolving on the matter.
Advertisement
“They like this,” the Democratic presidential candidate said during the interview. “Come on, let’s be fair here. They’ve known this for a long time, for three years.”
“Every intelligence agency has told them [that the Russians] continue to be engaged in this activity,” he added. “There is not any question anymore. ... And what’s he doing? Zero. What is the Republican leadership in the United States Senate and Congress doing? Zero.”
RUSSIAN ELECTION INTERFERENCE: @JoeBiden to @margbrennan: "Look, this administration is incapable of learning elections. They like this. Come on. Let's be fair here. They've known this for a long time, for three years." pic.twitter.com/uLS600pjY3 — Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) February 23, 2020
The U.S. intelligence community’s top election security official reportedly told House lawmakers earlier this month that Russia wants Trump to win reelection in November. Separately, U.S. intelligence officials last month told Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) presidential campaign that the Kremlin was apparently also seeking to help the Democratic candidate’s bid.
Advertisement
Sanders denounced Russia’s interference and demanded Russian President Vladimir Putin “stay out of American elections.”
Trump, in contrast, has attacked Democrats over reports that Russia is trying to help him win reelection, accusing those across the aisle of spreading “disinformation.”
Russian agents, during the 2016 campaign, hacked into the Democratic National Committee’s server and orchestrated a massive disinformation campaign to help get Trump elected, according to U.S. intelligence agencies.
Biden on Sunday said he’s been targeted by Russian bots on Facebook because the Kremlin doesn’t want him to be the Democratic nominee. Asked whether it was Facebook or U.S. intelligence officials who informed him of this, Biden said he was alerted by his staff.
“I have not spoken to the intelligence community, but I think the intelligence community should inform the rest of us who are running what they told Senator Sanders,” he said.
Advertisement
Trump is “angry” that intelligence officials informed Sanders and other members of Congress about some of Russia’s meddling efforts in the 2020 election cycle, Biden said, adding that the administration must do more to secure the integrity of our elections.
“Why in God’s name haven’t we hardened the electoral process, provided ... hundreds of millions of dollars to states to be able to harden their voter rolls, make sure they can’t be attacked ... as a consequence of cyber attacks?” Biden continued. “Why haven’t we provided the capacity for them to be able to have the money to have paper ballots in addition to that?”
“This is outrageous,” he said.
The White House did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s request for comment.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-23--Trump And Modi Want A Lot From Their India Stunt. They Won't Get It All.

“ We ’ ll have seven million people between the airport and the event , ” Trump said on Wednesday , referring to a “ Namaste Trump ” rally planned for a 110,000-seat cricket stadium in the city of Ahmedabad in Modi ’ s home state of Gujarat .
The president ’ s biggest foreign trip of this election year so far is a chance to show that , as he frequently claims despite evidence to the contrary , he has made America more respected worldwide ― and to revel in the displays of adoration he enjoys .
Modi wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the words of his senior ally and home affairs minister Amit Shah , he has “ put India on the world stage as a leading voice.
” International attention has been a major concern of his for years .
When first elected prime minister in 2014 , Modi pitched himself as a reformer for the world ’ s most populous democracy who would make it a top player in the global economy and world politics .
Now he ’ s facing tough foreign criticism for targeting his country ’ s millions-strong Muslim minority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dissent ― and he ’ s keen to prove that doesn ’ t make him a pariah .
Throughout , he ’ s relied on support and financial backing from Indians abroad .
India is one of the few countries where the common perception of the U.S. has not seriously wavered since Trump ’ s election , and Washington is chiefly perceived as key to New Delhi ’ s global aspirations .
“ Obama is a kind man .
Trump is a stubborn man .
He does what he has to do and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He is a strong leader , ” said Balwinder Singh , a taxi service provider in New Delhi , sharing his thoughts on Trump and former President Barack Obama .
“ I feel good that Trump is coming to India.
” Meanwhile , Modi has doubled down on a divisive political strategy that scapegoats India ’ s Muslim minority .
Since winning reelection with an overwhelming majority in 2019 , he has revoked the constitutionally guaranteed autonomy of India ’ s only Muslim-majority state , Jammu and Kashmir , subjecting it to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of politicians , activists , lawyers and even children ; and the longest internet shutdown ever witnessed in a democracy .
In December , Modi passed the Citizenship Amendment Act , which he called an attempt to help minorities in neighboring Muslim countries but which in effect made it harder for Muslims to secure Indian citizenship .
Shah , his top deputy on domestic issues , has used the word “ termites ” to describe people living without documents in India , many of whom are Muslims from neighboring Bangladesh .
The prime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of thousands of people across India have joined demonstrations against his citizenship act and the possibility of similar policies in the future , taking to the streets again and again despite crackdowns by Modi ’ s party .
“ I think they are thinking that if they don ’ t speak out as Muslims now , then they will never speak out , ” Dina M. Siddiqi , a professor of anthropology at New York University , told HuffPost India last week .
Despite Modi ’ s best efforts , Trump has continued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pakistan , which claims a stake there , and to offer to mediate between the two nations .
He ’ s unlikely to alienate Islamabad because he wants its backing for his attempt to secure a win in neighboring Afghanistan .
“ As Trump ’ s political motivation to withdraw from Afghanistan in the 2020 election year assumes the fore , there is an apparent restoration of U.S.-Pakistan ties , ” said Kashish Parpiani of the Observer Research Foundation in Mumbai .
A trade deal that the two sides have been negotiating for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wants India to open its market to U.S. manufacturers and farmers and to reduce tariffs on industrial products and medical devices .
His tariffs on steel and aluminum are hurting New Delhi .
He has revoked India ’ s status under the Generalized System of Preferences , which allowed almost $ 6 billion worth of Indian items to enter the U.S. duty-free , prompting Modi to hit back with his own tariffs on American goods .
And he continues to insist that India treats the U.S. unfairly .
Trump has railed against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even after Modi reduced it from 100 % to 50 % , and his team considered a “ Section 301 investigation ” into India ’ s tariff barriers , akin to its tough approach to China .
Posturing in India is an ideal way for Trump to boost his argument and to underscore that he remains welcome abroad even if domestic rivals have left him “ impeached forever.
” Unlike in Europe , where he ’ s unpopular and has major policy disagreements with most leaders , he probably won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an awkward contrast with the prime minister .
And the lack of a popular outcry against his visit probably won ’ t be blamed on repression , as it might have been if he were visiting one of the autocratic nations with Trump-friendly leaders , like Saudi Arabia .
“ There are more questions in the last six months about India ’ s commitment to democracy , to tolerance , and concerns about Islamophobia in India than we ’ ve really seen in the history of the U.S.-Indian relationship , ” said Bruce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is now at the Brookings Institution .
However , “ the last person in the world likely to raise any of these issues is Donald Trump .
He ’ s an Islamophobe himself , he doesn ’ t practice tolerance for dissidence at home , so these issues are not going to come up in this visit.
” India isn ’ t a key treaty ally like Germany and others he ’ s had his differences with , but it is vital to a foreign policy priority shared by Democrats and Republicans : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of China .
New Delhi ’ s buy-in is also helpful for American regional priorities like securing a peace deal in Afghanistan and a future settlement with Iran ― goals that Democrats say they could achieve if they take the White House from Trump .
Presenting himself as a Modi whisperer lets Trump argue that national security goals hinge on his personal success .
By showing his sway in a huge market , Trump will be signaling to Wall Street and corporate America , the beneficiaries of much of his economic policy so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stronger support given their wariness of an increasingly liberal Democratic Party .
As the U.S.-China trade war persists and the Trump administration expands its economic fight with Europe , India is an arena where he and the business community are pushing in the same direction : to reduce barriers rather than build them .
“ Prime Minister Modi and President Trump , for all the comparisons made about their similarities , are quite different in economic philosophy .
Prime Minister Modi ’ s party can be quite protectionist , ” Madan said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Indian government that they need to open up the economy , as they did in the early ’ 90s … you ’ re not going to see that necessarily get any better for American companies .
I think they are just going to keep trying to get some concessions along the way .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump knows what he’ll be looking for when he lands in India on Monday ― and his host, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has a wishlist for the trip too. With their own political careers facing new threats at home, the two ultra-nationalist leaders are putting on a show that they hope will have global ramifications.
“We’ll have seven million people between the airport and the event,” Trump said on Wednesday, referring to a “Namaste Trump” rally planned for a 110,000-seat cricket stadium in the city of Ahmedabad in Modi’s home state of Gujarat. The president’s biggest foreign trip of this election year so far is a chance to show that, as he frequently claims despite evidence to the contrary, he has made America more respected worldwide ― and to revel in the displays of adoration he enjoys.
Advertisement
(Ahmedabad’s population is estimated to be eight-and-a-half million. To make Trump’s vision a reality, 80% of the city would have to participate in the roadshow.)
Modi wants to bolster his narrative that, in the words of his senior ally and home affairs minister Amit Shah, he has “put India on the world stage as a leading voice.” International attention has been a major concern of his for years. When first elected prime minister in 2014, Modi pitched himself as a reformer for the world’s most populous democracy who would make it a top player in the global economy and world politics. Now he’s facing tough foreign criticism for targeting his country’s millions-strong Muslim minority and making Indian society less tolerant of dissent ― and he’s keen to prove that doesn’t make him a pariah. Throughout, he’s relied on support and financial backing from Indians abroad.
Students in Mumbai paint an image of President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Feb. 21, 2020, ahead of Trump's visit to India. INDRANIL MUKHERJEE/AFP via Getty Images
Both politicians have great expectations for how Trump’s India visit will pay off, just five months after their high-profile “Howdy Modi” event in Texas. But for all their ideological and personal affinity as fellow practitioners of the politics of bigotry, authoritarianism and sycophancy, they’re both likely in for some serious disappointments.
Advertisement
Modi Faces Unprecedented Pressure
NEW DELHI ― India is stuck in its worst economic slump in over a decade and Modi’s government has been accused of hiding unemployment data. His Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has lost five state elections in a row. But with Trump at his side, Modi wants Indians to believe that he is building a world of economic opportunities for them ― and he can use his mammoth social media operation and national political dominance to drive that message home.
India is one of the few countries where the common perception of the U.S. has not seriously wavered since Trump’s election, and Washington is chiefly perceived as key to New Delhi’s global aspirations. “Obama is a kind man. Trump is a stubborn man. He does what he has to do and does not care what anyone else says. He is a strong leader,” said Balwinder Singh, a taxi service provider in New Delhi, sharing his thoughts on Trump and former President Barack Obama. “I feel good that Trump is coming to India.”
Meanwhile, Modi has doubled down on a divisive political strategy that scapegoats India’s Muslim minority. Since winning reelection with an overwhelming majority in 2019, he has revoked the constitutionally guaranteed autonomy of India’s only Muslim-majority state, Jammu and Kashmir, subjecting it to an influx of troops; mass arrests of politicians, activists, lawyers and even children; and the longest internet shutdown ever witnessed in a democracy. In December, Modi passed the Citizenship Amendment Act, which he called an attempt to help minorities in neighboring Muslim countries but which in effect made it harder for Muslims to secure Indian citizenship. Shah, his top deputy on domestic issues, has used the word “termites” to describe people living without documents in India, many of whom are Muslims from neighboring Bangladesh.
People protest against a new citizenship law at Rupahi in the Nagaon district of Assam, India, on Feb. 16, 2020. Anuwar Ali Hazarika/Barcroft Media via Getty Images
Advertisement
A widely shared video of strangers hounding a Hindu girl for sitting in a restaurant with a Muslim boy demonstrated recently how intolerant India has become. Most media outlets are parroting the government line by pushing messages like the claim that Kashmiris welcomed the loss of their relative independence.
Amid his illiberal turn, Modi will use Trump’s visit to try to show that he’s still a powerful and respected leader.
The prime minister is under unprecedented pressure as hundreds of thousands of people across India have joined demonstrations against his citizenship act and the possibility of similar policies in the future, taking to the streets again and again despite crackdowns by Modi’s party. “I think they are thinking that if they don’t speak out as Muslims now, then they will never speak out,” Dina M. Siddiqi, a professor of anthropology at New York University, told HuffPost India last week.
Modi has been clear about seeing political benefits to his relationship with the U.S., and some analysts describe him as India’s most American-friendly prime minister ever. He’s tilted toward Washington and away from Russia, a traditional partner, on defense, increasing Indian purchases of U.S. arms exports by 550%. He outright endorsed Trump’s reelection in September, saying “Ab ki baar, Trump sarkar” (this time, a Trump government) and has benefited from the president’s silence on the human rights crisis in Kashmir.
“Kashmiris have no hope from Trump,” said Ejaz Ayoub, a professional based in Srinagar. “The U.S. has every reason to appease India for geopolitical and economic reasons.”
Advertisement
Yet it’s hard to tell how much Modi can actually secure from the two leaders’ latest encounter.
Despite Modi’s best efforts, Trump has continued to talk about the Kashmir situation with Pakistan, which claims a stake there, and to offer to mediate between the two nations. He’s unlikely to alienate Islamabad because he wants its backing for his attempt to secure a win in neighboring Afghanistan. “As Trump’s political motivation to withdraw from Afghanistan in the 2020 election year assumes the fore, there is an apparent restoration of U.S.-Pakistan ties,” said Kashish Parpiani of the Observer Research Foundation in Mumbai.
India and the U.S. remain at loggerheads over trade.
A trade deal that the two sides have been negotiating for three years is in limbo. Trump wants India to open its market to U.S. manufacturers and farmers and to reduce tariffs on industrial products and medical devices. His tariffs on steel and aluminum are hurting New Delhi. He has revoked India’s status under the Generalized System of Preferences, which allowed almost $6 billion worth of Indian items to enter the U.S. duty-free, prompting Modi to hit back with his own tariffs on American goods. And he continues to insist that India treats the U.S. unfairly. Trump has railed against the tariff that India imposes on Harley-Davidson motorcycles, even after Modi reduced it from 100% to 50%, and his team considered a “Section 301 investigation” into India’s tariff barriers, akin to its tough approach to China.
Trump has also worried the Indian public by making it harder to obtain H-1B visas, which allow tens of thousands of Indian professionals to work in the U.S., and by deploying rhetoric that is tied to widely publicized hate crimes against Indians and other South Asians in the U.S. In a 2017 case that drew major attention in India, a Kansas man yelled, “Get out of my country!” before shooting and killing an Indian engineer.
Domestically, the two leaders have deployed similar tactics to similar success. Both see “polarizing the electorate” as a tool, Parpiani said. But the kind of game-changing international boost they’re looking for from each other will likely elude them.
Advertisement
Trump’s Bid For Global Leadership
WASHINGTON ― Trump is claiming responsibility for a “great American comeback” ahead of his fight for reelection. Making the U.S. “highly respected again” is central to that pitch.
Posturing in India is an ideal way for Trump to boost his argument and to underscore that he remains welcome abroad even if domestic rivals have left him “impeached forever.” Unlike in Europe, where he’s unpopular and has major policy disagreements with most leaders, he probably won’t attract mass protests in India or present an awkward contrast with the prime minister. And the lack of a popular outcry against his visit probably won’t be blamed on repression, as it might have been if he were visiting one of the autocratic nations with Trump-friendly leaders, like Saudi Arabia.
Because Trump and Modi use similar rhetoric to appeal to select segments of their societies while presenting others as bogeymen, they don’t risk a public clash.
“There are more questions in the last six months about India’s commitment to democracy, to tolerance, and concerns about Islamophobia in India than we’ve really seen in the history of the U.S.-Indian relationship,” said Bruce Riedel, a longtime CIA official who is now at the Brookings Institution. However, “the last person in the world likely to raise any of these issues is Donald Trump. He’s an Islamophobe himself, he doesn’t practice tolerance for dissidence at home, so these issues are not going to come up in this visit.”
Courting India also helps Trump combat the common Democratic argument that he’s alienated important American partners.
Advertisement
India isn’t a key treaty ally like Germany and others he’s had his differences with, but it is vital to a foreign policy priority shared by Democrats and Republicans: rallying international partners to resist the rise of China. New Delhi’s buy-in is also helpful for American regional priorities like securing a peace deal in Afghanistan and a future settlement with Iran ― goals that Democrats say they could achieve if they take the White House from Trump. Presenting himself as a Modi whisperer lets Trump argue that national security goals hinge on his personal success.
Modi and Trump, two nationalist-minded leaders, attend the "Howdy Modi" rally at NRG Stadium in Houston on Sept. 22, 2019. SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images
And the president can use the visit to rack up more evidence for his campaign’s chief pitch: that he’s delivered for the U.S. economy.
To claim responsibility for creating jobs, Trump can cite the defense industry purchases to which India has agreed. He’ll be helped by Modi and other powerful Indians who are keen to talk about their country’s investments in the U.S. as proof that the relationship benefits both sides. The two leaders may sign a new limited trade agreement.
By showing his sway in a huge market, Trump will be signaling to Wall Street and corporate America, the beneficiaries of much of his economic policy so far and a potential source of even stronger support given their wariness of an increasingly liberal Democratic Party. As the U.S.-China trade war persists and the Trump administration expands its economic fight with Europe, India is an arena where he and the business community are pushing in the same direction: to reduce barriers rather than build them.
Advertisement
But Trump isn’t guaranteed success in his public relations effort.
Human rights groups, journalists and American lawmakers in both parties have been highlighting India’s growing repression for months, making Modi more controversial in the U.S. and increasing public awareness about his discriminatory policies. He is increasingly seen as just one more in Trump’s string of hardline, polarizing foreign allies ― limiting the political benefit of a Trump-Modi embrace among people outside the president’s base.
Aware of the risks of being seen as tied to only one of the two major U.S. political parties, India has traditionally been wary of presidential visits in election years, said Tanvi Madan, an analyst also at the Brookings Institution.
New Delhi has already weakened longstanding ties to Democrats by snubbing Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), an Indian immigrant and rising star in her party, in December.
Should the trip make U.S.-India ties appear even more partisan, Trump will look less like a global leader than a traveling circus act, performing the same electioneering shtick at home and abroad with similar, limited results.
Political realities will also undercut the president’s economic boasts around the trip. Modi could give Trump some basis to brag that he’s making it easier for Americans to succeed in the Indian economy, but the easing of restrictions probably won’t be substantial.
Advertisement
“Prime Minister Modi and President Trump, for all the comparisons made about their similarities, are quite different in economic philosophy. Prime Minister Modi’s party can be quite protectionist,” Madan said. “Unless we see a real rethink in the Indian government that they need to open up the economy, as they did in the early ’90s … you’re not going to see that necessarily get any better for American companies. I think they are just going to keep trying to get some concessions along the way.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-23--Pete Buttigieg Helps 9-Year-Old Come Out To The World In Emotional Exchange

“ Thank you for being so brave , ” 9-year-old Zachary Ro wrote in a question read during the openly gay candidate ’ s rally in Denver .
“ Would you help me tell the world I ’ m gay , too ?
I want to be brave like you.
” “ I don ’ t think you need a lot of advice from me on bravery .
You seem pretty strong , ” Buttigieg told the child .
“ It took me a long time to figure out how to tell even my best friend that I was gay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and tell the world .
And to see you willing to come to terms with who you are in a room full of 1,000 people , thousands of people you ’ ve never met , that ’ s really something.
” “ The first thing is that it won ’ t always be easy , but that ’ s OK because you know who you are .
And that ’ s really important , because when you know who you are , you have a center of gravity that can hold you together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around you , ” Buttigieg said .
“ The second thing I want you to know is that you ’ ll never know who ’ s taking their lead from you , who ’ s watching you and deciding that they can be a little braver because you have been brave , ” he continued .
Buttigieg came out in his 20s after he returned from deployment in Afghanistan and had already been elected mayor .
The Indiana native told his coming-out story at a Democratic debate last year , marking the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had heard a presidential candidate publicly talk about their coming-out experience .
“ When I was trying to figure who I was , I was afraid that who I was might mean that I could never make a difference , ” Buttigieg told Zachary .
“ And what wound up happening instead is that it ’ s a huge part of the difference I get to make .
I never could ’ ve seen that coming .
And you ’ ll never know who ’ s life you might be affecting right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There ’ s a lot of power in that.
” With Buttigieg being the first openly gay presidential candidate in the country ’ s history , the candidate ’ s campaign has faced homophobic comments ― mostly from the right ― on whether the U.S. is ready for , or even wants , a gay president .
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh recently made homophobic remarks about Buttigieg kissing his husband on the debate stage and questioned on his show how it would play out with voters if the former mayor is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Limbaugh ’ s comments last week , saying he does not take “ lectures on family values ” from the Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient who is known for his hateful positions on marginalized groups .
“ Well , I love my husband .
I ’ m faithful to my husband , ” the candidate told CNN of Chasten Buttigieg .
“ Onstage , we usually just go for a hug .
But I love him very much , and I ’ m not going to take lectures on family values from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of Americans said they would vote for someone who is gay or lesbian if the person is a party ’ s “ well-qualified ” presidential candidate , according to a Gallup poll released earlier this month .
Buttigieg said that while he can ’ t promise Zachary it will always be easy , “ I can promise you that I ’ m gon na be rooting for you.
” The two were then joined onstage by Chasten Buttigieg , who walked Zachary back to his parents .
“ I think you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m excited to see what you ’ re going to do as a leader , ” the former mayor told Zachary .
“ Just promise me you won ’ t run for president until after I ’ m done because I think you might be strong competition .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg shared a heartfelt moment on Saturday when a young boy asked the former South Bend, Indiana, mayor to help him come out to the world.
“Thank you for being so brave,” 9-year-old Zachary Ro wrote in a question read during the openly gay candidate’s rally in Denver. “Would you help me tell the world I’m gay, too? I want to be brave like you.”
Advertisement
Zachary, who reportedly attended the rally with his parents, then joined Buttigieg onstage and gave him a bracelet as the crowd responded with loud applause.
“I don’t think you need a lot of advice from me on bravery. You seem pretty strong,” Buttigieg told the child. “It took me a long time to figure out how to tell even my best friend that I was gay, let alone to go out there and tell the world. And to see you willing to come to terms with who you are in a room full of 1,000 people, thousands of people you’ve never met, that’s really something.”
Powerful moment (better audio): 9 year old Zachary Ro of Lone Tree asks @PeteButtigieg how he can be brave and tell people he is gay too pic.twitter.com/1aUbYM8cDM — Joe St. George (@JoeStGeorge) February 23, 2020
The former mayor then told Zachary that he does have some tips for him “that might be useful.”
“The first thing is that it won’t always be easy, but that’s OK because you know who you are. And that’s really important, because when you know who you are, you have a center of gravity that can hold you together when all kinds of chaos is happening around you,” Buttigieg said.
Advertisement
“The second thing I want you to know is that you’ll never know who’s taking their lead from you, who’s watching you and deciding that they can be a little braver because you have been brave,” he continued.
Buttigieg came out in his 30s after he returned from deployment in Afghanistan and had already been elected mayor. The Indiana native told his coming-out story at a Democratic debate last year, marking the first time in U.S. history that the public had heard a presidential candidate publicly talk about their coming-out experience.
“When I was trying to figure who I was, I was afraid that who I was might mean that I could never make a difference,” Buttigieg told Zachary. “And what wound up happening instead is that it’s a huge part of the difference I get to make. I never could’ve seen that coming. And you’ll never know who’s life you might be affecting right now just by standing here, right now. There’s a lot of power in that.”
With Buttigieg being the first openly gay presidential candidate in the country’s history, the candidate’s campaign has faced homophobic comments ― mostly from the right ― on whether the U.S. is ready for, or even wants, a gay president.
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh recently made homophobic remarks about Buttigieg kissing his husband on the debate stage and questioned on his show how it would play out with voters if the former mayor is the presidential nominee.
Advertisement
“I love my husband. I’m faithful to my husband,” @petebuttigieg responds to conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh’s recent comments. “I’m not going to take lectures on family values from the likes of Rush Limbaugh.” #CNNSOTUhttps://t.co/bOje6TVl1s pic.twitter.com/icNbNMetlw — State of the Union (@CNNSotu) February 16, 2020
Buttigieg responded to Limbaugh’s comments last week, saying he does not take “lectures on family values” from the Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient who is known for his hateful positions on marginalized groups.
“Well, I love my husband. I’m faithful to my husband,” the candidate told CNN of Chasten Buttigieg. “Onstage, we usually just go for a hug. But I love him very much, and I’m not going to take lectures on family values from the likes of Rush Limbaugh.”
About 78% of Americans said they would vote for someone who is gay or lesbian if the person is a party’s “well-qualified” presidential candidate, according to a Gallup poll released earlier this month.
Buttigieg said that while he can’t promise Zachary it will always be easy, “I can promise you that I’m gonna be rooting for you.” The two were then joined onstage by Chasten Buttigieg, who walked Zachary back to his parents.
Advertisement
“I think you’ve already got it together, so I’m excited to see what you’re going to do as a leader,” the former mayor told Zachary. “Just promise me you won’t run for president until after I’m done because I think you might be strong competition.”
I caught up with 9 year old Zachary after he was brought on stage and asked @PeteButtigieg his question. His dad told me off camera he was proud of his son. pic.twitter.com/CsO60aQiUh — Joe St. George (@JoeStGeorge) February 23, 2020
Zachary told a KDVR-TV reporter after the event that the former mayor gave him “some really good advice.” The reporter said Zachary’s father told him he was proud of his son.
“I just feel inspired by Pete being openly gay and running for president at the same time,” Zachary told the station. “Someday I wanna be like him.”
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story said Pete Buttigieg came out in his 20s. He was 33.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-23--Moderates Hustle To Blunt Bernie Sanders' Momentum After Nevada Win

Sanders ’ win solidified his front-runner status in the crowded field as the race turned to Saturday ’ s presidential primary in South Carolina , where his moderate opponents scrambled to try to blunt the Vermont senator ’ s momentum .
But with so-called Super Tuesday just three days later , when 14 states vote and one-third of the delegates are awarded , time was running short for Sanders ’ opponents to consolidate support .
“ I think it would be a real burden for us in these states or congressional districts that we have to do well in , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House majority whip and the top-ranking black Democrat in Congress , said Sunday on ABC ’ s “ This Week.
” Clyburn , who said he ’ ll endorse a candidate on Wednesday , specifically pointed to the districts Democrats flipped to take control of the House in 2018 .
“ In those districts , it ’ s going to be tough to hold on to these jobs if you have to make the case for accepting a self-proclaimed democratic socialist , ” he said .
He successfully relied on that coalition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nevada , pulling far ahead of the second-place finisher , former Vice President Joe Biden , and Pete Buttigieg , the former mayor of South Bend , Indiana , who came in third .
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren landed in fourth , while Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Tom Steyer were in a close race for fifth as the Nevada Democratic Party continued to tabulate results .
Sounding like a candidate who had already secured the nomination , Sanders told thousands of cheering supporters who filled a basketball arena on the campus of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win in the state both next month and next fall .
Sanders was announcing a plan to provide universal , government-funded child care until age 3 and universal pre-kindergarten programs after that .
In an interview with “ 60 Minutes ” that aired Sunday night , he said he ’ d pay for it using part of the proceeds from his previously announced wealth tax , which would be levied annually on fortunes worth more than $ 32 million .
But some Democrats were worried that the new focus on Sanders may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months , as several Democrats jockeyed to become the chief alternative to Sanders , they largely attacked each other on debate stages and in ads while taking relatively few punches at the Vermont senator .
Indeed , even after Sanders ’ strong finish in Nevada , Warren avoided launching a direct hit at Sanders even when asked directly whether a Sanders nomination would be a risk for the Democratic Party .
The Massachusetts senator is aligned with Sanders on a number of key policies and competing with the Vermont senator for many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporters in Denver , Warren instead continued her attacks on Mike Bloomberg , calling him the “ riskiest candidate standing on that stage because of his history of hiding his taxes , his history of harassment of women and his history of defending racist policies.
” And Party leaders have been reluctant to appear to be putting their thumb on the scale , so as not to rile Sanders voters and further divide the party .
It was not clear Sunday that there was any new strategy to try to knock Sanders off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moderate .
Klobuchar rallied supporters near the North Dakota-Minnesota border , speaking to voters in her home state , which votes on March 3 , while North Dakota on March 10 .
Warren campaigned in Colorado , also a Super Tuesday state .
Biden was in South Carolina , the state his campaign hoped would revive his candidacy after poor showings in Iowa and New Hampshire and only modest improvement in Nevada .
Biden resisted predicting victory in South Carolina and said he isn ’ t banking on Clyburn ’ s endorsement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up support with the black voters his campaign has long argued will be the springboard to a nomination .
Clyburn said Sunday he had heard from Democrats disappointed in Biden ’ s debate performances .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON (AP) — Bernie Sanders’ commanding Nevada caucus victory made him a top target for his Democratic rivals and a growing source of anxiety for establishment Democrats worried that the nomination of an avowed democratic socialist could cost the party in November.
Sanders’ win solidified his front-runner status in the crowded field as the race turned to Saturday’s presidential primary in South Carolina, where his moderate opponents scrambled to try to blunt the Vermont senator’s momentum. But with so-called Super Tuesday just three days later, when 14 states vote and one-third of the delegates are awarded, time was running short for Sanders’ opponents to consolidate support.
Advertisement
That prospect on Sunday amplified concerns among Democrats who believe Sanders’ call for a political “revolution” would drive moderate and independent voters away from the party, both in the matchup against President Donald Trump and in House and Senate races.
“I think it would be a real burden for us in these states or congressional districts that we have to do well in,” South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn, the House majority whip and the top-ranking black Democrat in Congress, said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”
Clyburn, who said he’ll endorse a candidate on Wednesday, specifically pointed to the districts Democrats flipped to take control of the House in 2018. “In those districts, it’s going to be tough to hold on to these jobs if you have to make the case for accepting a self-proclaimed democratic socialist,” he said.
Sanders’ campaign argued he will bring in new and infrequent voters — largely progressives, young people and voters of color — who have been alienated from the process and seek a drastic overhaul of Washington, not merely trying to oust Trump.
Advertisement
He successfully relied on that coalition Saturday to dominate his Democratic rivals in Nevada, pulling far ahead of the second-place finisher, former Vice President Joe Biden, and Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, who came in third. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren landed in fourth, while Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Tom Steyer were in a close race for fifth as the Nevada Democratic Party continued to tabulate results.
Sanders celebrated the win in Texas, a top Super Tuesday prize and a state that Democrats see trending their way thanks to a growing Hispanic population and opposition to Trump in the suburbs.
Sounding like a candidate who had already secured the nomination, Sanders told thousands of cheering supporters who filled a basketball arena on the campus of the University of Houston that he would win in the state both next month and next fall.
“If working people and young people of this city, black and white and Latino, gay or straight, if our people stand together, come out to vote, we’re going to win here in Texas,” he said.
Sanders was announcing a plan to provide universal, government-funded child care until age 3 and universal pre-kindergarten programs after that. In an interview with “60 Minutes” that aired Sunday night, he said he’d pay for it using part of the proceeds from his previously announced wealth tax, which would be levied annually on fortunes worth more than $32 million.
Advertisement
Sanders’ new status was clear as most of his rivals sharpened their focus on him.
On Sunday, Buttigieg ripped Sanders’ for his massive and often combative online following, saying the nominee’s job “is to call people into our tent, not to call them names online.”
Speaking to a crowd of thousands gathered in a high school football field in Arlington, Virginia, Buttigieg said Democrats should nominate someone who will focus on “mobilizing, not polarizing the American majority.”
“Politics will be fierce sometimes, but it is not just combat,” he said.
Biden, meanwhile, swiped indirectly at Sanders, noting Sanders is an independent and not a member of the party he’s seeking to represent in November, and at billionaire candidate Mike Bloomberg.
“I ain’t a socialist. I’m not a plutocrat. I’m a Democrat,” Biden told supporters Saturday.
But some Democrats were worried that the new focus on Sanders may be too little, too late. For months, as several Democrats jockeyed to become the chief alternative to Sanders, they largely attacked each other on debate stages and in ads while taking relatively few punches at the Vermont senator.
Indeed, even after Sanders’ strong finish in Nevada, Warren avoided launching a direct hit at Sanders even when asked directly whether a Sanders nomination would be a risk for the Democratic Party. The Massachusetts senator is aligned with Sanders on a number of key policies and competing with the Vermont senator for many of the same progressive voters.
Advertisement
Speaking to reporters in Denver, Warren instead continued her attacks on Mike Bloomberg, calling him the “riskiest candidate standing on that stage because of his history of hiding his taxes, his history of harassment of women and his history of defending racist policies.”
And Party leaders have been reluctant to appear to be putting their thumb on the scale, so as not to rile Sanders voters and further divide the party. It was not clear Sunday that there was any new strategy to try to knock Sanders off course or consolidate support behind a single moderate.
“We gotta hope that some of these candidates develop political skills quickly,” said James Carville, a Democratic strategist and one of the noisiest anti-Sanders voices in the party. “The risk in losing the election is deep and profound. We just gotta pray.”
Dan Pfeiffer, a former adviser to President Barack Obama, said if no candidates drop out before Super Tuesday and the moderates continue to split the delegate, Sanders likely has a lock on the nomination.
“It’s just simple math,” Pfeiffer said, noting that he’s not advocating that any candidates drop out to stop Sanders, and that he doesn’t ascribe to the belief among some Democrats that Sanders can’t win.
Advertisement
“Each of these campaigns have a legitimate rationale for staying in the race,” he said of Sanders’ opponents.
On Sunday, those Sanders opponents pledged to stay in the race through South Carolina, and several signaled they would stay in through Super Tuesday.
Klobuchar rallied supporters near the North Dakota-Minnesota border, speaking to voters in her home state, which votes on March 3, while North Dakota on March 10. Warren campaigned in Colorado, also a Super Tuesday state. Biden was in South Carolina, the state his campaign hoped would revive his candidacy after poor showings in Iowa and New Hampshire and only modest improvement in Nevada.
Biden resisted predicting victory in South Carolina and said he isn’t banking on Clyburn’s endorsement, a blessing that could help Biden shore up support with the black voters his campaign has long argued will be the springboard to a nomination. Clyburn said Sunday he had heard from Democrats disappointed in Biden’s debate performances.
Democrats will debate on Tuesday in Charleston, South Carolina. California billionaire Tom Steyer said Sunday he has qualified for that debate, after missing the mark for the stage in Nevada.
Advertisement
The stakes were high for Nevada Democrats to avoid a repeat of the chaos in the still-unresolved Iowa caucuses, and it appeared they did not entirely avoid complaints. Buttigieg’s campaign raised questions about the results, citing more than 200 reports of problems allocating votes. It wants the state party to disclose more details of the votes and address concerns before releasing final results.
But the party said it was not planning to offer a more detailed voting breakdown and appeared to be inviting the campaign to follow recount rules if it wanted to challenge the results.
___


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-24--1980 'Miracle On Ice' Players Slammed For Appearing In KAG Caps At Trump Rally

President Donald Trump honored 14 members of the 1980 “ Miracle on Ice ” Olympic hockey team in Las Vegas on Friday .
And the move had some fans giving the team the freeze .
“ The name on the front is more important than the name on the back ” .
🏒🏅🇺🇸 # MiracleonIce # 40Years pic.twitter.com/mLXIEjhvv3 — 1980 Miracle Hockey Team ( @ 1980MiracleTeam ) February 21 , 2020 The improbable U.S. victory over the dominant Soviet hockey team in the 1980 Olympics in Lake Placid , New York , was punctuated by sportscaster Al Michaels calling out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you believe in miracles ?
Yes !
” Sports Illustrated ranked it as the No .
1 moment in U.S. sports history .
Today in 1980 , the USA pulled off the greatest upset in sports history .
Do you believe in miracles ?
pic.twitter.com/OmSUXDjqdc — Super 70s Sports ( @ Super70sSports ) February 22 , 2020 The victory allowed the U.S. team to advance to face Finland , who they defeated for the gold medal .
The team ’ s Twitter account claimed the appearance with Trump wasn ’ t about politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is about proudly representing the United States of America , ” the team tweeted .
“ Whether your beliefs are Democratic , Republican or Independent , etc .
we support that and are proud to represent the USA.
” But given that the appearance took place at a Trump campaign rally and that most of the team members donned Trump ’ s red “ Keep America Great ” caps , fans weren ’ t buying it : Ugh ... .
so disappointed by the @ 1980MiracleTeam .
I loved watching that game as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watching the movie with my kids .
To see them on a stage , in maga hats—kinda crushing I have to say .
— Soledad O'Brien ( @ soledadobrien ) February 23 , 2020 Do you believe in scumbags ?
Miracle on Ice ' U.S. hockey team responds to criticism for appearing at Trump rally https : //t.co/CTVsnvjN6g via @ usatoday — Rick Reilly ( @ ReillyRick ) February 24 , 2020 everything trump touches dies ... the glory of the miracle on ice died at 40yrs of age — Kathy Byrne ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They have forever tarnished their legacy .
And for what ?
Disappointing does n't even begin to cover it .
Shameful .
— Eric Slater ( @ ericsslater ) February 23 , 2020 They ’ re no heroes of mine In 1980 they defeated Russia Now they bend the knee to a man who gets his marching orders from Russia Again - they ’ re not heroes — Jonathan Jewel ( @ jonathanjewel ) February 23 , 2020 Miracle on Ice guys going to a Trump rally after defeating the USSR in 1980 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — Andrew James ( @ ndrewL7 ) February 21 , 2020 This wasn ’ t a White House invitation to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Miracle on Ice .
This was a political event .
Please note .
When you appear at a Trump rally and wear MAGA hats it ’ s pretty hard to claim you ’ re not “ choosing sides ” .
pic.twitter.com/6c7qamJssE — Jeff Hoyle ( @ Hoopgreen ) February 24 , 2020 I didn ’ t expect one of the most American moments to be struck by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1980 Miracle on Ice team being Trump supporters is tearing my insides to shreds .
What a horrid time this is .
😖😣😖😣😖😔 pic.twitter.com/qTyUzSAOKK — Jay T. ( @ TheRoar_24 ) February 21 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump honored 14 members of the 1980 “Miracle on Ice” Olympic hockey team in Las Vegas on Friday. And the move had some fans giving the team the freeze.
“ The name on the front is more important than the name on the back”. 🏒🏅🇺🇸 #MiracleonIce #40Years pic.twitter.com/mLXIEjhvv3 — 1980 Miracle Hockey Team (@1980MiracleTeam) February 21, 2020
Advertisement
The improbable U.S. victory over the dominant Soviet hockey team in the 1980 Olympics in Lake Placid, New York, was punctuated by sportscaster Al Michaels calling out in the final seconds: “Do you believe in miracles? Yes!”
Sports Illustrated ranked it as the No. 1 moment in U.S. sports history.
Today in 1980, the USA pulled off the greatest upset in sports history. Do you believe in miracles? pic.twitter.com/OmSUXDjqdc — Super 70s Sports (@Super70sSports) February 22, 2020
The victory allowed the U.S. team to advance to face Finland, who they defeated for the gold medal.
The team’s Twitter account claimed the appearance with Trump wasn’t about politics or “choosing sides.”
“This is about proudly representing the United States of America,” the team tweeted. “Whether your beliefs are Democratic, Republican or Independent, etc. we support that and are proud to represent the USA.”
Advertisement
But given that the appearance took place at a Trump campaign rally and that most of the team members donned Trump’s red “Keep America Great” caps, fans weren’t buying it:
Ugh.... so disappointed by the @1980MiracleTeam. I loved watching that game as a kid with my dad. Loved watching the movie with my kids. To see them on a stage, in maga hats—kinda crushing I have to say. — Soledad O'Brien (@soledadobrien) February 23, 2020
Do you believe in scumbags?
Miracle on Ice' U.S. hockey team responds to criticism for appearing at Trump rally https://t.co/CTVsnvjN6g via @usatoday — Rick Reilly (@ReillyRick) February 24, 2020
Do you believe in Miracles?! Meh... https://t.co/yW1GfG7383 — Colin Hanks (@ColinHanks) February 22, 2020
everything trump touches dies... the glory of the miracle on ice died at 40yrs of age — Kathy Byrne (@kab_fair) February 21, 2020
Advertisement
Apparently Russia won after all... — MrsDubya (@MrsDubya6) February 23, 2020
They have forever tarnished their legacy. And for what? Disappointing doesn't even begin to cover it. Shameful. — Eric Slater (@ericsslater) February 23, 2020
They’re no heroes of mine
In 1980 they defeated Russia
Now they bend the knee to a man who gets his marching orders from Russia
Again - they’re not heroes — Jonathan Jewel (@jonathanjewel) February 23, 2020
Miracle on Ice guys going to a Trump rally after defeating the USSR in 1980 is quite the fall from grace. — Andrew James (@ndrewL7) February 21, 2020
This wasn’t a White House invitation to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Miracle on Ice. This was a political event. Please note. When you appear at a Trump rally and wear MAGA hats it’s pretty hard to claim you’re not “choosing sides”. pic.twitter.com/6c7qamJssE — Jeff Hoyle (@Hoopgreen) February 24, 2020
Advertisement
I didn’t expect one of the most American moments to be struck by the #MilkshakeDuck....members of the 1980 Miracle on Ice team being Trump supporters is tearing my insides to shreds. What a horrid time this is. 😖😣😖😣😖😔 pic.twitter.com/qTyUzSAOKK — Jay T. (@TheRoar_24) February 21, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-23--Harry Reid Calls For Democratic Party To Move To Primaries Everywhere — Including Nevada

Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called on his home state of Nevada to switch from the complicated caucus system to a presidential primary , and endorsed the Western state to become the first in the nation to vote .
The Democrat ’ s remarks on Sunday came a day after Nevada held its caucuses , the first state in the West and the third overall to hold a presidential contest in the primary cycle .
The state ― which has a significant Latinx population and organized labor presence ― overwhelmingly went to Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nevada , demonstrated again by the tremendous caucus turnout this year , I believe we should make the process of selecting our nominee even more accessible , ” Reid said in a statement .
“ We ’ ve made it easier for people to register to vote here in Nevada in recent years and now we should make it easier for people to vote in the presidential contests .
That ’ s why I believe it ’ s time for the Democratic Party to move to primaries everywhere.
” In primaries , voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determined by who receives the most votes .
In caucuses , the state awards county convention delegates to viable candidates , which in turn determines how many national pledged delegates each candidate will receive .
In the first alignment of a caucus , participants gather in groups based on which candidate they support .
Usually , candidates need at least 15 % of caucusgoers at each precinct in order to be viable .
Those who choose a viable candidate in the first alignment can not change their preference in the final alignment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ switch groups or refuse to commit .
The Nevada caucuses saw a high turnout and went significantly smoother than the first caucuses of the presidential primary cycle in Iowa .
Aside from the murky problems with a digital app that volunteers needed to use to upload their final results , the Midwestern state ’ s contest experienced issues that will almost always come with caucusing : final delegate counts that were rounded up or down and led to strange-appearing count ties ; ties that were resolved by coin flips ( or in Nevada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; delegate apportionments that disproportionately favored less-populated rural areas over younger , more populated metropolitan regions ; and obvious difficulties attending for disabled people , parents who could not schedule or afford child care , and people working abnormal hours .
The Iowa Democratic Party is still recounting votes from 10 precincts after the apparent leaders in that race ― Sanders and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg ― both requested limited recounts .
Buttigieg ’ s campaign sent a letter on Saturday to the Nevada Democratic Party alleging “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vote-counting process behind the caucuses .
In Nevada , Buttigieg came in third after much stronger finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire , two predominantly white states .
Many people like former Housing Secretary and 2020 candidate Julián Castro have called for having a more diverse state serve as the first in the country to hold a presidential contest .
Reid , who as senator was integral in pushing the Democratic National Committee to pick Nevada as the third early state , joined those calls on Sunday by offering up Nevada as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m glad to have fought to make Nevada the first Western state in the Democratic nominating process since 2008 , and we have proven more than worthy of holding that prominent early state position , ” Reid said .
“ I firmly believe that Nevada , with our broad diversity that truly reflects the rest of the country , should not just be among the early states ― we should be the first in the nation .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called on his home state of Nevada to switch from the complicated caucus system to a presidential primary, and endorsed the Western state to become the first in the nation to vote.
The Democrat’s remarks on Sunday came a day after Nevada held its caucuses, the first state in the West and the third overall to hold a presidential contest in the primary cycle. The state ― which has a significant Latinx population and organized labor presence ― overwhelmingly went to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
Advertisement
“With so much Democratic enthusiasm in Nevada, demonstrated again by the tremendous caucus turnout this year, I believe we should make the process of selecting our nominee even more accessible,” Reid said in a statement. “We’ve made it easier for people to register to vote here in Nevada in recent years and now we should make it easier for people to vote in the presidential contests. That’s why I believe it’s time for the Democratic Party to move to primaries everywhere.”
Harry Reid calls for the end to caucuses - and for Nevada to bump Iowa and become first in the nation.
“I believe it’s time for the Democratic Party to move to primaries everywhere.”
Here is the former Senate Majority Leader’s statement 👇 pic.twitter.com/Tbe1o79KrR — Dan Merica (@merica) February 24, 2020
The Nevada Democratic Party did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s request for comment on whether it would consider switching to a primary system.
In primaries, voters cast a single ballot with the winner determined by who receives the most votes. In caucuses, the state awards county convention delegates to viable candidates, which in turn determines how many national pledged delegates each candidate will receive.
Advertisement
In the first alignment of a caucus, participants gather in groups based on which candidate they support. Usually, candidates need at least 15% of caucusgoers at each precinct in order to be viable. Those who choose a viable candidate in the first alignment cannot change their preference in the final alignment, while those in nonviable groups can either switch groups or refuse to commit.
The Nevada caucuses saw a high turnout and went significantly smoother than the first caucuses of the presidential primary cycle in Iowa. Aside from the murky problems with a digital app that volunteers needed to use to upload their final results, the Midwestern state’s contest experienced issues that will almost always come with caucusing: final delegate counts that were rounded up or down and led to strange-appearing count ties; ties that were resolved by coin flips (or in Nevada’s case, card draws); delegate apportionments that disproportionately favored less-populated rural areas over younger, more populated metropolitan regions; and obvious difficulties attending for disabled people, parents who could not schedule or afford child care, and people working abnormal hours.
The Iowa Democratic Party is still recounting votes from 10 precincts after the apparent leaders in that race ― Sanders and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg ― both requested limited recounts. Buttigieg’s campaign sent a letter on Saturday to the Nevada Democratic Party alleging “errors” and “inconsistencies” in the vote-counting process behind the caucuses.
In Nevada, Buttigieg came in third after much stronger finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, two predominantly white states. Many people like former Housing Secretary and 2020 candidate Julián Castro have called for having a more diverse state serve as the first in the country to hold a presidential contest.
Reid, who as senator was integral in pushing the Democratic National Committee to pick Nevada as the third early state, joined those calls on Sunday by offering up Nevada as the first-in-the-nation state.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-23--Marianne Williamson Endorses Bernie Sanders, Wants To Do ‘Everything I Can’ To Support

Marianne Williamson endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) in his bid for the White House on Sunday , saying the “ energy ” of the campaign was “ unquestionably with Bernie ” after his decisive win in the Nevada caucuses .
“ A 40 yr-old trend of capitalism without conscience — corporate elites and their errand boys in government — have created the inevitable blowback in the form of a political revolution , ” Williamson wrote on Twitter shortly after announcing her endorsement in Austin , Texas .
“ That revolution is the one that Bernie Sanders now leads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I can to further its success.
” Sanders was declared the projected winner of the Nevada caucuses on Saturday after early results showed him with a strong lead over the next closest competitor .
The senator had a strong network of support across the diverse state , including Latino , Black and moderate voters who joined his ardent left base .
“ In Nevada , we have just put together a multi-generational , multi-racial coalition that is not only going to win in Nevada , it ’ s going to sweep this country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was called .
Williamson , an author and spiritual adviser , ended her own bid for the White House in January , saying she wished all remaining candidates her “ best on the road ahead.
” “ With caucuses and primaries now about to begin , however , we will not be able to garner enough votes in the election to elevate our conversation any more than it is now , ” Williamson said at the time , noting she ’ d support whoever won the nomination .
“ The primaries might be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I don ’ t want to get in the way of a progressive candidate winning any of them.
” In Austin on Sunday , Williamson compared Sanders ’ surge in the polls to the change associated with other social movements in America , including the fight of abolitionists and suffragettes .
“ Today , we ’ re tired of saying pretty please , ” she said .
“ We ’ re going to stand up , we ’ re going to show up because we woke up , and we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re going to say with style , we ’ re going to say to all those who say liberty and justice can not be done , sure as hell can be , because we ’ re here and we ’ re with Bernie .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Marianne Williamson endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in his bid for the White House on Sunday, saying the “energy” of the campaign was “unquestionably with Bernie” after his decisive win in the Nevada caucuses.
My statement of endorsement. pic.twitter.com/Bm2JqCFQCd — Marianne Williamson (@marwilliamson) February 23, 2020
Advertisement
“A 40 yr-old trend of capitalism without conscience — corporate elites and their errand boys in government — have created the inevitable blowback in the form of a political revolution,” Williamson wrote on Twitter shortly after announcing her endorsement in Austin, Texas. “That revolution is the one that Bernie Sanders now leads, and I want to do everything I can to further its success.”
Sanders was declared the projected winner of the Nevada caucuses on Saturday after early results showed him with a strong lead over the next closest competitor. The senator had a strong network of support across the diverse state, including Latino, Black and moderate voters who joined his ardent left base.
“In Nevada, we have just put together a multi-generational, multi-racial coalition that is not only going to win in Nevada, it’s going to sweep this country,” Sanders declared after the race was called.
Williamson, an author and spiritual adviser, ended her own bid for the White House in January, saying she wished all remaining candidates her “best on the road ahead.”
Advertisement
“With caucuses and primaries now about to begin, however, we will not be able to garner enough votes in the election to elevate our conversation any more than it is now,” Williamson said at the time, noting she’d support whoever won the nomination. “The primaries might be tightly contested among the top contenders, and I don’t want to get in the way of a progressive candidate winning any of them.”
In Austin on Sunday, Williamson compared Sanders’ surge in the polls to the change associated with other social movements in America, including the fight of abolitionists and suffragettes.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-24--Houston Flea Market Shooting Leaves 7 Wounded

Feb 23 ( Reuters ) - A gunman opened fire at a flea market in Houston on Sunday , wounding seven people in an area known for its Hispanic community , with a suspect being taken into custody at the scene .
“ No one is critically wounded , ” Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez said , adding that the victims were being taken to hospitals and that some injuries may have been a result of a bullet ricochet .
“ We believe at this point those are all minor , superficial type of wounds , ” Gonzalez said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ scene.
” The shooting occurred as the Sunday market was taking place in the busy area .
“ This evening there was a live dance going on here at this location .
A lot people including children were inside the location , ” the Harris County Sheriff said in a briefing .
The investigation was going on and there was no immediate information on the motive of the shooter , according to the sheriff , who said the shooting happened at around 7:00 p.m. A witness had reported seeing somebody with a gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed , the sheriff said .
“ It is a miracle nobody else was seriously hurt , especially the children , ” he said .

Feb 23 (Reuters) - A gunman opened fire at a flea market in Houston on Sunday, wounding seven people in an area known for its Hispanic community, with a suspect being taken into custody at the scene.
“No one is critically wounded,” Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez said, adding that the victims were being taken to hospitals and that some injuries may have been a result of a bullet ricochet.
Advertisement
“We believe at this point those are all minor, superficial type of wounds,” Gonzalez said. “A male is detained at the scene.”
The shooting occurred as the Sunday market was taking place in the busy area.
“This evening there was a live dance going on here at this location. A lot people including children were inside the location,” the Harris County Sheriff said in a briefing.
The investigation was going on and there was no immediate information on the motive of the shooter, according to the sheriff, who said the shooting happened at around 7:00 p.m.
A witness had reported seeing somebody with a gun in the area where weapons are not allowed, the sheriff said.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-24--The Young Turks' Progressive Founder Urged His Staff Not To Unionize

Top leadership at the progressive news network The Young Turks held an all-staff meeting at its office in Culver City , California , on Feb. 12 .
The regularly scheduled gathering was supposed to deal with personnel matters , but instead the focus turned to the staff ’ s nascent union campaign , which had just gone public .
Earlier that day , a Twitter handle claiming to represent TYT employees had announced on the social media platform their intention to form a union .
In the staff meeting , the network ’ s co-founder and influential host , Cenk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so , arguing that a union does not belong at a small , independent outlet like TYT , according to two workers who were present .
He said if there had been a union at the network it would not have grown the way it has .
His talk ― at times emotional , the staffers said , with Uygur throwing his papers to the ground at one point , and chastising an employee ― seemed to contradict the progressive , worker-first ethos that TYT broadcasts to its millions of lefty followers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the company ’ s chief operating officer as Uygur runs for Congress in California , told the staff they were not discouraging unionization .
In an interview with HuffPost , Uygur said he is a strong supporter of unions , especially at large corporations that aren ’ t sharing profits with their workers .
But he said he worries a unionized workforce would bring new legal and bureaucratic costs that TYT can ’ t sustain .
The network has a growing subscription base and has raised venture capital money , but faces many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media dealing with the collapse of ad revenue .
He added , “ For a smaller digital media company , those are absolutely real considerations .
It doesn ’ t mean you shouldn ’ t have a union .
Everyone should know the full context ...
If folks say they don ’ t believe we ’ re in a precarious position , OK. And that ’ s their decision to make.
” Uygur said he was caught off guard by the union effort that appeared on Twitter the day of the meeting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the process he wasn ’ t sure if it was real or if he was “ being punked.
” He acknowledged that he threw papers in the meeting ― in a downward direction , not toward anyone , he noted ― and that he reprimanded an employee whom he believed to be smiling .
According to staffers , Ugyer said it would be funny “ later ” — an ominous statement they found unsettling .
He told HuffPost it wasn ’ t meant to be a threat .
“ The person smiling seemed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the company might not survive after 18 years .
And we put all this blood , sweat and tears into it , ” he said .
“ I don ’ t find the idea of us going down funny.
” Media has become fertile ground for union organizing in recent years , with workers at both old , legacy newspapers and newer , web-only outlets seeking the protections of a collective bargaining agreement .
The union push has made for some awkwardness at organizations with liberal reputations , where management may resist collective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign at TYT comes with another wrinkle : Uygur ’ s attempt to fill the Congressional seat vacated by former Rep. Katie Hill , a Democrat who resigned in October amid an ethics probe into her relationship with a staffer .
Uygur is running to the left in the Democratic primary .
The front-runner , Christy Smith , a California assemblywoman , generally has the backing of the party establishment and many labor unions .
As the union spat became more public , Uygur suggested on Twitter that the union campaign was politically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stage Employees , the union trying to organize TYT employees .
IATSE endorsed Smith in the race .
But staffers said their first organizing discussions date back more than two years , and their recent attempt to round up support began shortly before Uygur declared his candidacy ― a timeline confirmed by a union organizer .
IATSE has asked TYT management to voluntarily recognize the union through “ card check , ” saying a clear majority of staffers who would be represented have signed union cards .
That has often been the course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can avoid the pressures of a union election .
IATSE would represent the production and post-production staff ― about a quarter of the company ’ s 65-employee workforce .
But TYT management has proposed having the workers vote in a secret-ballot election to be administered by a third party , outside the National Labor Relations Board .
Management has also disputed the union ’ s proposed bargaining unit , saying some of the employees should be considered managers .
In recent cases where liberal outlets have resisted a union drive , such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up unionizing anyway , either through an election or a public pressure campaign that wears down the employer .
Uygur acknowledged his position on the union poses a political problem in his Congressional bid ― indeed , Smith has already dinged him for it ― but said he wants staff to know the potential downsides of unionizing .
The TYT staffer who spoke on condition of anonymity described support for the union as “ a solid majority , ” and said it hasn ’ t frayed despite the turmoil of the past week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said colleagues are insistent on the company recognizing the union without a secret-ballot election , and including all the staff they believe should be part of it .
They expected plenty of disagreements in bargaining a contract , but not a fight over the formation of the union .

Cenk Uygur, TYT's co-founder and host, told his staff not to join a union. Seb Daly via Getty Images
Top leadership at the progressive news network The Young Turks held an all-staff meeting at its office in Culver City, California, on Feb. 12. The regularly scheduled gathering was supposed to deal with personnel matters, but instead the focus turned to the staff’s nascent union campaign, which had just gone public.
Earlier that day, a Twitter handle claiming to represent TYT employees had announced on the social media platform their intention to form a union. In the staff meeting, the network’s co-founder and influential host, Cenk Uygur, urged employees not to do so, arguing that a union does not belong at a small, independent outlet like TYT, according to two workers who were present. He said if there had been a union at the network it would not have grown the way it has.
Advertisement
His talk ― at times emotional, the staffers said, with Uygur throwing his papers to the ground at one point, and chastising an employee ― seemed to contradict the progressive, worker-first ethos that TYT broadcasts to its millions of lefty followers. Jack Gerard, who is acting as the company’s chief operating officer as Uygur runs for Congress in California, told the staff they were not discouraging unionization.
But the message from Uygur was clear ― and, to at least some staffers, discouraging.
“We generally feel disappointed, but unshaken,” said one staffer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. “We feel it’s the right thing to do because of what TYT values.”
In an interview with HuffPost, Uygur said he is a strong supporter of unions, especially at large corporations that aren’t sharing profits with their workers. But he said he worries a unionized workforce would bring new legal and bureaucratic costs that TYT can’t sustain. The network has a growing subscription base and has raised venture capital money, but faces many of the same headwinds as other online media dealing with the collapse of ad revenue.
“The reality is we’re in a precarious position. We’re in a digital media landscape where almost no one makes money or is sustainable.” - Cenk Uygur, TYT host and co-founder
Advertisement
“The reality is we’re in a precarious position,” Uygur said. “We’re in a digital media landscape where almost no one makes money or is sustainable.”
He added, “For a smaller digital media company, those are absolutely real considerations. It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have a union. Everyone should know the full context ... If folks say they don’t believe we’re in a precarious position, OK. And that’s their decision to make.”
Uygur said he was caught off guard by the union effort that appeared on Twitter the day of the meeting, and that it was so early in the process he wasn’t sure if it was real or if he was “being punked.” He acknowledged that he threw papers in the meeting ― in a downward direction, not toward anyone, he noted ― and that he reprimanded an employee whom he believed to be smiling. According to staffers, Ugyer said it would be funny “later” — an ominous statement they found unsettling. He told HuffPost it wasn’t meant to be a threat.
“The person smiling seemed to be openly mocking the idea that the company might not survive after 18 years. And we put all this blood, sweat and tears into it,” he said. “I don’t find the idea of us going down funny.”
Media has become fertile ground for union organizing in recent years, with workers at both old, legacy newspapers and newer, web-only outlets seeking the protections of a collective bargaining agreement. The union push has made for some awkwardness at organizations with liberal reputations, where management may resist collective bargaining despite overseeing labor-friendly coverage.
Advertisement
The campaign at TYT comes with another wrinkle: Uygur’s attempt to fill the Congressional seat vacated by former Rep. Katie Hill, a Democrat who resigned in October amid an ethics probe into her relationship with a staffer. Uygur is running to the left in the Democratic primary. The front-runner, Christy Smith, a California assemblywoman, generally has the backing of the party establishment and many labor unions.
As the union spat became more public, Uygur suggested on Twitter that the union campaign was politically motivated by the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, the union trying to organize TYT employees. IATSE endorsed Smith in the race. But staffers said their first organizing discussions date back more than two years, and their recent attempt to round up support began shortly before Uygur declared his candidacy ― a timeline confirmed by a union organizer.
IATSE has asked TYT management to voluntarily recognize the union through “card check,” saying a clear majority of staffers who would be represented have signed union cards. That has often been the course at liberal media organizations, so staff can avoid the pressures of a union election. IATSE would represent the production and post-production staff ― about a quarter of the company’s 65-employee workforce.
But TYT management has proposed having the workers vote in a secret-ballot election to be administered by a third party, outside the National Labor Relations Board. Management has also disputed the union’s proposed bargaining unit, saying some of the employees should be considered managers.
Uygur told HuffPost he wants a secret-ballot election because a few employees told him after the meeting that they do not support a union ― “some, not all,” he said.
Advertisement
“Am I supposed to say, ‘I don’t care what you want?’” he said. “That’s crazy.”
In recent cases where liberal outlets have resisted a union drive, such as at Slate, employees have typically ended up unionizing anyway, either through an election or a public pressure campaign that wears down the employer. Uygur acknowledged his position on the union poses a political problem in his Congressional bid ― indeed, Smith has already dinged him for it ― but said he wants staff to know the potential downsides of unionizing.
“Look, at the end of the day, my opinion on it is irrelevant,” he said. “It’s the employees who get to decide and who should decide.”
The TYT staffer who spoke on condition of anonymity described support for the union as “a solid majority,” and said it hasn’t frayed despite the turmoil of the past week and a half. The staffer also said colleagues are insistent on the company recognizing the union without a secret-ballot election, and including all the staff they believe should be part of it. They expected plenty of disagreements in bargaining a contract, but not a fight over the formation of the union.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-24--Federal Judge In Roger Stone Case Scathingly Responds To His Claims Of Bias

The federal judge overseeing the case of President Donald Trump ’ s friend and ally Roger Stone , who last week was sentenced to more than three years in prison for lying to Congress and witness tampering , demolished Stone ’ s allegations of bias .
“ Given the absence of any factual or legal support for the motion for disqualification , the pleading appears to be nothing more than an attempt to use the Court ’ s docket to disseminate a statement for public consumption that has the words ‘ judge ’ and ‘ biased ’ in it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a scathing court order denying Stone ’ s request to remove her from the case .
Following Stone ’ s sentencing last week , his lawyers filed a motion attempting to get Jackson disqualified from any further proceedings involving Stone ’ s case , claiming she showed bias when she said the jurors in the case “ served with integrity under difficult circumstances.
” “ Judges can not be ‘ biased ’ and need not be disqualified if the views they express are based on what they learned while doing the job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she wrote .
“ There is no rule and no case law that would justify the recusal of a judge for bias simply because he or she says something about an issue on the docket , on the record , at some point before a reply has been filed , or before a hearing — which may or may not be required in the Court ’ s discretion — has concluded , ” Jackson continued .
“ If parties could move to disqualify every judge who furrows his brow at one side or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court system would come to a standstill.
” Both Stone and Trump have attacked the judicial process and claimed that one juror was biased .
Stone has asked for a new trial .
Jackson has not yet weighed in on that request .
Stone ’ s 40-month sentence was far below prosecutors ’ recommendation of seven to nine years .
But after Trump tweeted that it was “ a horrible and very unfair situation ” for Stone , the Department of Justice reduced the sentencing recommendation .
The entire team of DOJ prosecutors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in protest .
However , in sentencing to Stone to 40 months , Jackson said the recommendation of seven to nine years “ would be greater than necessary.
” Last year , Stone attacked Jackson in a threatening Instagram post , in which a photo of her was placed next to a crosshairs symbol .
He later removed the post and apologized .
“ Please inform the Court that the photograph and comment today was improper and should not have been posted , ” Stone wrote in a court filing .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and humbly apologize to the Court for the transgression .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The federal judge overseeing the case of President Donald Trump’s friend and ally Roger Stone, who last week was sentenced to more than three years in prison for lying to Congress and witness tampering, demolished Stone’s allegations of bias.
“Given the absence of any factual or legal support for the motion for disqualification, the pleading appears to be nothing more than an attempt to use the Court’s docket to disseminate a statement for public consumption that has the words ‘judge’ and ‘biased’ in it,” Judge Amy Berman Jackson wrote Sunday in a scathing court order denying Stone’s request to remove her from the case.
Advertisement
Following Stone’s sentencing last week, his lawyers filed a motion attempting to get Jackson disqualified from any further proceedings involving Stone’s case, claiming she showed bias when she said the jurors in the case “served with integrity under difficult circumstances.”
In her order, however, Jackson wrote that it was a “very general comment.”
“Judges cannot be ‘biased’ and need not be disqualified if the views they express are based on what they learned while doing the job they were appointed to do,” she wrote.
“There is no rule and no case law that would justify the recusal of a judge for bias simply because he or she says something about an issue on the docket, on the record, at some point before a reply has been filed, or before a hearing — which may or may not be required in the Court’s discretion — has concluded,” Jackson continued. “If parties could move to disqualify every judge who furrows his brow at one side or the other before ruling, the entire court system would come to a standstill.”
Both Stone and Trump have attacked the judicial process and claimed that one juror was biased. Stone has asked for a new trial. Jackson has not yet weighed in on that request.
Advertisement
Stone’s 40-month sentence was far below prosecutors’ recommendation of seven to nine years. But after Trump tweeted that it was “a horrible and very unfair situation” for Stone, the Department of Justice reduced the sentencing recommendation. The entire team of DOJ prosecutors in Stone’s case then resigned in protest.
However, in sentencing to Stone to 40 months, Jackson said the recommendation of seven to nine years “would be greater than necessary.”