Runboard.com
You're welcome.

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3  4  5 ... 11  12  13 

 
CooterBrown44 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 01-2017
Posts: 361
Karma: 2 (+2/-0)
Reply | Quote
Obama team’s 2020 signals spark chatter among Dems


Here we go.

quote:

Democrats are expressing concern that advisers and aides to former President Obama have already begun signaling which candidate they might support for the White House in 2020.

Valerie Jarrett, one of Obama’s closest confidantes, and David Simas, the CEO of Obama’s foundation, have sent smoke signals urging former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) to enter the race.

Simas, who once served as a top aide to Patrick, is an ardent supporter of the former governor, sources tell The Hill, while Jarrett has privately told friends that she would do what it takes to support him.

And Politico reported last month that Jarrett believes a President Patrick is “what my heart desires.”

At the same time, friends of Jarrett’s say that while she would love for Patrick to run, she is also open to other candidates.

Others in Obamaworld have quietly been buzzing about the excitement behind a potential Patrick run.

Axios's Mike Allen mentioned Patrick as a favorite in Obamaworld in his popular newsletter on Friday.

Other former aides close to Obama say they would support a run by former Vice President Joe Biden, if he decides to launch a bid in 2020.

Obama has not weighed in publicly on the next presidential race, and those around him have said he isn’t looking to tip the scales and believes it is too early to back any one candidate.



]Read more here.

Good comment on the track record of Party insiders. I don't see anyone mentioned that warms my cockles, and the idea of carrying on the Obama legacy doesn't appeal to me. It may be time to write in my ex-wife again in 2020.
9/3/2017, 10:50 am Link to this post PM CooterBrown44
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator
Global user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 542
Karma: 2 (+2/-0)
Reply | Quote
Skeezy bastard



Trump has decided to end DACA, with 6-month delay

Senior White House aides met Sunday afternoon to discuss how to roll out the controversial move affecting hundreds of thousands of Dreamers.

By ELIANA JOHNSON 09/03/2017 08:21 PM EDT Updated 09/03/2017 08:25 PM EDT


President Donald Trump has decided to end the Obama-era program that grants work permits to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as children, according to two sources familiar with his thinking. Senior White House aides huddled Sunday afternoon to discuss the rollout of a decision likely to ignite a political firestorm — and fulfill one of the president’s core campaign promises.

Trump has wrestled for months with whether to do away with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA. He has faced strong warnings from members of his own party not to scrap the program and struggled with his own misgivings about targeting minors for deportation.

Conversations with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who argued that Congress — rather than the executive branch — is responsible for writing immigration law, helped persuade the president to terminate the program, the two sources said, though White House aides caution that — as with everything in the Trump White House — nothing is set in stone until an official announcement has been made.

In a nod to reservations held by many lawmakers, the White House plans to delay the enforcement of the president’s decision for six months, giving Congress a window to act, according to one White House official. But a senior White House aide said that chief of staff John Kelly, who has been running the West Wing policy process on the issue, “thinks Congress should’ve gotten its act together a lot longer ago.”

Trump is expected to announce his decision on Tuesday, and the White House informed House Speaker Paul Ryan of the president’s decision on Sunday morning, according to a source close to the administration. Ryan had said during a radio interview on Friday that he didn’t think the president should terminate DACA, and that Congress should act on the issue.

Neither the White House not a spokesman for Ryan immediately responded to requests for comment.
The president’s expected announcement is likely to shore up his base, which rallied behind his broader campaign message about the importance of enforcing the country’s immigration laws and securing the border. At the same time, the president’s decision is likely to be one of the most contentious of his early administration, opposed by leaders of both parties and by the political establishment more broadly.

The White House and Congress have tried to pass the issue off on each other – with each arguing that the other is responsible for determining the fate of the approximately 800,000 undocumented immigrants who are benefiting from DACA. Though most Republicans believe that rolling back DACA is a solid legal decision, they are conscious of the difficult emotional terrain. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch joined Ryan in cautioning Trump against rolling back the program.

The president is likely to couch his decision in legalese. Many on the right, even those who support protections for children brought into the country illegally through no fault of their own, argue that DACA is unconstitutional because former President Barack Obama carried it out unilaterally instead of working through Congress.

Some Republican lawmakers, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, have said that Congress needs to pass a law to protect the so-called Dreamers.

“My hope is that as part of this process we can work on a way to deal with this issue and solve it through legislation, which is the right way to do it and the constitutional way to do it,” Rubio told CNN in June.
Trump’s expected decision to scrap DACA represents another challenge for Ryan and fellow congressional Republicans, who are facing an end-of-September deadline to avert a government shutdown and government debt default, while also tackling a Hurricane Harvey relief package and a major tax reform push.

[sign in to see URL]

---
Robbie
9/3/2017, 9:30 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
CooterBrown44 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 01-2017
Posts: 361
Karma: 2 (+2/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Quickies


I agree that the Congress should get off of its rear end and address this among a number or other things.
9/3/2017, 11:25 pm Link to this post PM CooterBrown44
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator
Global user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 542
Karma: 2 (+2/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Quickies


quote:

CooterBrown44 wrote:

I agree that the Congress should get off of its rear end and address this among a number or other things.



Yes, they should. Now, watch the Freedom Party throw tantrums.

---
Robbie
9/3/2017, 11:41 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 373
Karma: -1 (+1/-2)
Reply | Quote
Who started Labor Day?


Go, union!

Who started Labor Day? The bloody and confusing history of an American holiday.

By Rachel Siegel September 4 at 6:00 AM

The act making Labor Day a federal holiday spared few words when it was signed into law on June 28, 1894. Above the scripted signatures of President Grover Cleveland, the speaker of the House and the vice president, the 83-word law declared that the first Monday of September be “the day celebrated and known as Labor’s Holiday.”

The paragraph does little to suggest the decades of confusion that would swirl around the holiday’s origins, Cleveland’s role in its creation or the blood spilled along the way. Labor leaders with similar names spawned much debate as to who was the holiday’s true founder, and the caretaker of the nation’s leading Cleveland museum insists that the president’s signing of the law was not the politically motivated gesture widely reported ever since.

The first Labor Day celebrations took place more than a decade before it became a federal holiday. Many sources point to Peter J. McGuire — founder of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and an early leader of the American Federation of Labor — who suggested the celebration to the Central Labor Union of New York as the holiday’s progenitor. Others claim that Matthew Maguire, secretary of the Central Labor Union, proposed the holiday.

On Sept. 5, 1882, the first parade launched in lower Manhattan. A band played “When I First Put This Uniform On,” from “Patience,” a comic opera by Gilbert and Sullivan. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the total number of marchers ranged from 10,000 to 20,000. The New York Tribune reported that “the windows and roofs and even the lamp posts and awning frames were occupied by persons anxious to get a good view of the first parade in New York of workingmen of all trades united in one organization.” Nearly 25,000 union members and their families celebrated in a post-parade party at Wendel’s Elm Park at 92nd Street and 9th Avenue.

From 1887 to 1894, 23 states passed Labor Day laws. Oregon was the first, followed by Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. Then came its recognition as a federal holiday.

The passage of Labor Day legislation was not a priority of Cleveland’s presidency, said Sharon Farrell, caretaker of the Grover Cleveland Birthplace in Caldwell, N.J. Rather, legislation had already been making its way through Congress and did not hinge on Cleveland’s final signature, she said.

“He was not the driving force behind it, and it was not his idea,” Farrell said. “He just happened to be the president sitting in the chair.”

Farrell’s argument challenges a widely held belief that Cleveland rushed the legislation through in the midst of one of his presidency’s most fraught moments: the Pullman Strike. In an essay titled “The Government in the Chicago Strike of 1894,” Cleveland wrote that a “very determined and ugly labor disturbance broke out in the city of Chicago.”

“Almost in a night it grew to full proportions of malevolence and danger,” he wrote. “Rioting and violence were its early accompaniments; and it spread so swiftly that within a few days it had reached nearly the entire Western and Southwestern sections of our county.”

The railroad strike and boycott lasted May 11 to July 20, 1894, disrupting rail traffic for much of that summer. In response to the economic depression that began in 1893, the Pullman Palace Car Company, which manufactured railroad cars, cut the wages of its workers 25 percent. A group of workers tried to address their grievances with company president George M. Pullman, but he refused to meet with them and ordered them fired. A delegation of workers then voted to strike, marching out of work on May 11.

Thirty-five percent of Pullman workers were represented by the American Railway Union at the time of the strike. The workers believed the union would back the strike, but it wasn’t clear exactly how, because the Pullman workers did not directly work on the railroads.

The union ultimately refused to handle Pullman cars or trains with Pullman cars until the railroads cut ties with the Pullman Company. Union president and future Socialist presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs knew that the support of switchmen would be key to the boycott’s success: If switchmen stopped adding or removing Pullman cars from trains, the railroads would replace them with nonunion workers and prompt more union members to walk out.

By the end of June, 125,000 workers on 29 railroads quit rather than handle Pullman cars. But Debs worried about the potential for the workers’ anger to lead to violence. As he predicted, a crowd following a June 29 speech acted out, setting buildings on fire and derailing a locomotive that was attached to a U.S. mail train.

Cleveland — who had also received reports of goods rotting in rail yards and cattle dying from the heat — was not pleased.
Illinois Gov. John Peter Altgeld had already dispatched militia companies to quell rioting. U.S. Attorney General Richard Olney urged federal troops go into Chicago to stop the “reign of terror.” On July 2, he obtained an injunction that barred union leaders from compelling employees of the railroads “to refuse or fail to perform any of their duties.”

Cleveland ordered troops into Chicago on July 3, much to the frustration of Altgeld, who thought his state militias had a handle on the situation. Strikers acted out against the troops, overturning rail cars and erecting barricades at the rail yards. On July 6, roughly 6,000 rioters destroyed hundreds of rail cars in the South Chicago Panhandle yards.
But even the 6,000 federal and state troops, 3,100 police officers and 5,000 deputy marshals in Chicago could not suppress the violence. National Guardsmen fired into a mob July 7, killing as many as 30 people and wounding others. Gradually the strike ended and trains resumed their normal schedules, and federal troops were pulled out July 20.

Historians, encyclopedias and news articles pinpoint Cleveland’s actions during the Pullman Strike as his reason for rushing the Labor Day Act through Congress that June. People were dead on the streets of Chicago, and the creation of a holiday would help make up for it. These reports also claim the law was passed to court votes ahead of the 1896 election, to no avail. In this version of history, Cleveland was rejected by his party, and the Democratic nomination went to the great orator William Jennings Bryan. Republican William McKinley ultimately won the presidency.

But Farrell, the Cleveland expert and museum caretaker, said the law’s timing was not politically motivated. Cleveland, who had already served two terms, had no intention of running for reelection, she said. She called the alleged connection between Labor Day and Cleveland’s political future “completely misguided.”

After Cleveland signed the law, the Morning Call of Paterson, N.J., published an editorial titled “Honor to Whom Honor is Due,” according to the New Jersey Historical Society. The piece argued that Matthew Maguire was the undisputed founder of the holiday.

More than a century later, it seems the question of “to whom honor is due” is still up for debate.

[sign in to see URL]
9/4/2017, 8:46 am Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator
Global user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 542
Karma: 2 (+2/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Quickies


September 4, 2017 / 2:25 AM / 4 hours ago

UK's Prince William and wife Kate expecting third child

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain’s Prince William and his wife Kate are expecting their third child, their office said on Monday after the Duchess was forced to cancel an engagement due to severe morning sickness.

The baby will be fifth in line to the British throne, after grandfather Prince Charles, father William and elder siblings George, 4, and Charlotte, 2.

The couple, who released the news via their office at Kensington Palace, did not say when the baby was due.

“The Queen and members of both families are delighted with the news,” the palace said.

Britain’s monarchy has ridden a wave of public support in recent years due to the emergence of the younger royals, William, Kate and William’s brother Harry.

Kate and William married in a lavish ceremony in 2011 watched by about two billion people around the world. Two years later the international camera crews and photographers camped outside a London hospital to record the birth of George, and returned two years later for his sister Charlotte.

George and Charlotte have since appeared on the front covers of magazines around the world and traveled on official royal tours of Poland and Germany with their parents.

“This is fantastic news,” British Prime Minister Theresa May said. “Many congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.”

More at: [sign in to see URL]

---
Robbie
9/4/2017, 11:02 am Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
CooterBrown44 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 01-2017
Posts: 361
Karma: 2 (+2/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Quickies


I don't blame William for having plenty of kids. emoticon
9/4/2017, 11:10 am Link to this post PM CooterBrown44
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 373
Karma: -1 (+1/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Quickies


Do you all think the monarchy should be abolished? Of what value is it to England now that Shakespeare is not writing plays for Elizabeth?
9/4/2017, 11:14 am Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator
Global user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 542
Karma: 2 (+2/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Quickies


I think it is utterly none of my business whether the UK should keep the monarchy. They seem to like it.

---
Robbie
9/4/2017, 11:17 am Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 373
Karma: -1 (+1/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Quickies


A poll of Britons in 2015 showed that 71 percent support the monarchy and 18 think there should be an elected head of state. This is interesting, because 68 percent think the monarchy is good for Britain, and 9 percent think it is bad, with 17 percent saying it is neither good nor bad. (So some of that 17 percent support it anyway?)

62 percent think the monarchy will still be there in 100 years, and 23 percent think it won't.

The monarchy certainly gives Britons (the whole world for that matter) something to gossip about, the way our movie stars do for us and the whole world. When I was a child, I had pictures of Elizabeth and Margaret, the little princesses, and pictures of the Dionne quintuplets. Are any of you old enough to reember the Dionne quintuplets? I wonder where they are now.

American women fell in love with Philip when he was courting Elizabeth. (He turned out to be a womanizer, according to Paul Theroux.) What American woman didn't want Margaret to marry Captain Townsend, even though he was divorced. Does anyone remember how our feathers fell when she announced that she wouldn't marry him?
9/4/2017, 12:02 pm Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3  4  5 ... 11  12  13 



You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top