On premiere of 'Desus & Mero' show, Ocasio-Cortez explains 'farting cows' reference in 'Green New Deal'

Desus & Mero

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., defended the Green New Deal after the recent rollout of the New York Democrat's policy proposal got a lot of attention over “farting cows.”
In an appearance Thursday night on the premiere of Showtime's late-night “Desus & Mero" show, the comedy pair hosts of the program asked the freshman congresswoman why she thought the initial reaction focused on "cow farts."
“In the deal, what we talk about, and it’s true, is that we need to take a look at factory farming, you know? Period. It’s wild,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “And so it’s not to say you get rid of agriculture, it’s not to say we’re gonna force everybody to go vegan or anything crazy like that. But it’s to say, ‘Listen, we gotta address factory farming. Maybe we shouldn’t be eating a hamburger for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Like, let’s keep it real.”

"Listen, we gotta address factory farming. Maybe we shouldn’t be eating a hamburger for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Like, let’s keep it real."
— U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

GREEN NEW DEAL'S INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN COULD COST TRILLIONS
“Slow down,” co-host Desus Nice joked.
“But we have to take a look at everything," Ocasio-Cortez continued, "and what we need to realize about climate change is about every choice that we make in our lives, you know?"
On the original FAQ page for the Green New Deal's rollout, Ocasio-Cortez and other Democrats backing the plan had explained why the proposal included the goal of “net zero” greenhouse gases in 10 years.
“We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren't sure that we'll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast,” the page said.
But after the FAQ page was widely mocked, the Democratic lawmakers took it down.
Also on Thursday's show, the Democratic socialist also defended her call for a 70 percent marginal tax rate on incomes over $10 million, which she said represented a “pretty good year.”
“It really comes down to the question of, ‘Isn’t $10 million enough?’ Like, when does it stop?” she asked. “At what point is it amoral that we’re building Jeff Bezos a helipad when we have the most amount of homeless people in New York City?”
Like Ocasio-Cortez, Desus Nice (aka Daniel Baker) and partner The Kid Mero (aka Joel Martinez) hail from the Bronx, N.Y.

Liberal Washington Post Cartoons

Swalwell bypasses coffee inside Trump Tower, tweets about it

One Stupid Dude :-)

California Rep. Eric Swalwell was slammed on Twitter Wednesday for posting about his decision to bypass a coffee shop inside Trump Tower and walk a couple of extra blocks. (Rep. Eric Swalwell / Twitter)

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., got a different kind of roast after sharing how his trek to get a cup of coffee on Wednesday involved bypassing a café inside the Trump Tower and opting to brave the elements to find another coffee spot in New York City.
The leftist congressman posted about his coffee run on Twitter, alongside a photo of himself covered in a light dusting of snow.
"It's snowing in New York," he wrote. "I need coffee. The closest cafe is inside Trump Tower. This is me walking to an alternative."
Twitter users were quick to roast the potential 2020 presidential candidate.
“Swalwell later froze to death as slowly he came to the realization that most of NYC's cafes are run by a rival presidential candidate,” one user wrote, referring to former Starbucks CEO and independent presidential candidate Howard Schultz.
One Twitter user replied that Swalwell appeared to have taken his photo outside the Fendi store in Midtown Manhattan — an area steeped with coffee shops.
Swalwell's tweet received over 25,000 replies, some blasting the congressman while others poked fun at his dramatic winter journey.
The congressman, a member of the House Judiciary and Intel committees, did not update the post on whether he was able to locate another coffee spot.

Trump’s policy toward Russia makes McCabe’s 'asset' question ‘harder to justify,’ columnist says

President Trump’s policy toward Russia since taking office appears to make it ‘harder to justify’ the comments that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe made, questioning whether or not Trump is a “Russian asset,” Eli Lake, a columnist for Bloomberg said.
McCabe has detailed the origins of the counter-intelligence probe that the Department of Justice launched against Trump after the dramatic firing of FBI Director James Comey in May 2017. He said that he is not convinced that the president isn’t under the influence of Russia since the inquiry began.
Lake, who appeared on Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” said McCabe’s theory may not hold water because the Trump administration has had a consistent policy of opposing Russia.
“President Trump has appointed Russia hawks at the highest levels of the government,” Lake said. “He has, in a lot of cases, not every single one, countered Russian interests directly, most recently being Venezuela, selling lethal arms to Ukraine. So there’s been no quo to the quid and the quid has yet to be established after two years of an investigation from the FBI.”
He continued, “What we haven’t seen is any kind of follow through in terms of the policy, nor have we seen the evidence that there was in all of these meetings that have come out and all of these contexts, we have yet to see coming close to that initial claim.”
McCabe has said in the past that the FBI had a good reason to launch a counterintelligence investigation into whether Trump was working with Russia and was a possible national security threat.
The former official was asked on CNN’s "Anderson Cooper 360" if he believes Trump may still be a Russian asset. He said he’s "anxious" to see the conclusion of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s investigation.
Kellyanne Conway, the White House counselor, told the network that McCabe's comment is "hardly [worth] dignifying with a response."
"He's a liar and a leaker," she said.

Trump revives 'enemy' rhetoric in denouncing NY Times, Washington Post

President Trump castigated The New York Times and Washington Post yesterday, dusting off his "enemy" rhetoric in the seemingly endless war with his two most aggressive newspaper adversaries.
The two situations could not be more different.
In his broadside against a lengthy Times report on the Russia investigation, the president chose a general denunciation, rather than specific denials, and said one thing that turns out not to be true.
In cheering on a Covington high school student’s $250 million lawsuit against the Post, Trump is seizing on the paper's initial reporting on the clash at the Lincoln Memorial last month, which was badly flawed. But that doesn't add up to a successful lawsuit.
The president pulls no punches against his hometown paper, despite recently granting its publisher and two reporters an 85-minute interview:
"The New York Times reporting is false. They are a true ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!"
I've said from the beginning that Trump has every right to hit back against what he sees as unfair reporting — but that such rhetoric, implying treasonous behavior, goes too far.
In a second tweet clearly inspired by the Times story, the president says: "The Press has never been more dishonest than it is today. Stories are written that have absolutely no basis in fact. The writers don't even call asking for verification."
But Maggie Haberman, one of the story's four co-authors, said on CNN that they went over the planned story in detail with the White House and Justice Department:
"I sent several emails that went unanswered until yesterday. We went through a detailed list of what we were planning on reporting. They chose not to engage, and afterwards, the president acts surprised."
In response to Trump's charge, Publisher A.G. Sulzberger said that "in demonizing the free press as the enemy, simply for performing its role of asking difficult questions and bringing uncomfortable information to light, President Trump is retreating from a distinctly American principle ... The phrase 'enemy of the people' is not just false, it's dangerous."
In the story, the Times says that Trump asked Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker to intervene in the New York investigation focusing on such subjects as Michael Cohen and hush money. (This is separate from the probe by Bob Mueller, who was reported yesterday to have told Trump lawyers he has finished his report.)
The Times also said that as part of his effort to oust then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Trump asked Corey Lewandowski to pressure Sessions to resign. Neither Whitaker nor Lewandowski seems to have done anything. And the piece describes Trump changing his instructions to Sean Spicer to describe how Mike Flynn was forced out of the White House.
While Trump is castigating the Times, I've seen no specific denials that challenge what the paper reported.
Meanwhile, Nick Sandmann, the Covington teenager who was unfairly maligned by the media mob, has filed a lawsuit against the Post, accusing the paper of bullying him for political reasons.
Quoting from the lawsuit, Trump tweeted: "'The Washington Post ignored basic journalistic standards because it wanted to advance its well-known and easily documented biased agenda against President Donald J. Trump.' Covington student suing WAPO. Go get them Nick. Fake News!"
The suit, brought by lawyer Lin Wood, says: "In a span of three days in January of this year commencing on January 19, the Post engaged in a modern-day form of McCarthyism by competing with CNN and NBC, among others, to claim leadership of a mainstream and social media mob of bullies which attacked, vilified, and threatened Nicholas Sandmann, an innocent secondary school child."
While the initial reporting by the Post and others was seriously flawed, charges like "McCarthyism" are way off base.
In the first couple of days, the Post relied too heavily on an edited video that was misleading, and on an interview with Nathan Phillips, the Native American activist who confronted Sandmann, and who said things that were untrue and kept changing his story. Such media accounts did galvanize a social media explosion that unjustly crucified these Catholic kids, some of them wearing MAGA caps. But that doesn’t necessarily mean a courtroom victory.
It's highly unfortunate that the paper wasn't able to interview any of the students. But as for getting their side, the students' own school and diocese said in a joint statement that "we condemn" their behavior, and warned that some might be expelled. The diocese later apologized.
Even though much of the Post's reporting about Trump is negative, the first Covington story was written by three metro reporters covering a demonstration on deadline, not political reporters who cover the administration.
Two days later, the Post reported that the story was far more complicated than originally reported, including slurs from a black activist group, and quoted Sandmann's first statement on the confrontation, made to the Cincinnati Enquirer.
So it will be an uphill battle for Sandmann's parents, who filed the suit, to prove malice, as the legal papers claim. As for the eye-popping damages being sought, the suit says that $250 million is what Jeff Bezos spent to buy the Post — in other words, a symbolic figure.
Trump ended one of his tweets by saying the press is "totally out of control. Sadly, I kept many of them in business. In six years, they all go BUST!" The president has indeed boosted clicks and ratings for his media antagonists, but that last sentence is wishful thinking.

Kamala Harris' dad says parents are 'turning in their grave' over her comments on weed and being Jamaican: report

The father of Sen. Kamala Harris is trying to distance himself from the 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful after she said her pot smoking in college stemmed from her Jamaican heritage.
Harris, D-Calif., told the nationally syndicated radio show "The Breakfast Club" earlier this month that she supports marijuana legalization at the federal level, and acknowledged that she's smoked pot in the past, saying: “I have. And I inhaled. I did inhale.”
The senator re-emphasized her use when asked by the hosts about rumors that she opposes marijuana legalization.
“That’s not true. Look, I joke about it, I have joked about it. Half my family is from Jamaica, are you kidding me?” Harris said, laughing.
Harris' father, Donald, disapproved of the comments, which he told the Jamaica Global Online constituted "identity politics."
"My dear departed grandmothers ... as well as my deceased parents, must be turning in their grave right now to see their family’s name, reputation and proud Jamaican identity being connected, in any way, jokingly or not with the fraudulent stereotype of a pot-smoking joy seeker and in the pursuit of identity politics," he said
Donald Harris continued: "Speaking for myself and my immediate Jamaican family, we wish to categorically dissociate ourselves from this travesty.”
The senator told the radio program: “We need to research the impact of weed on a developing brain” and said measuring how marijuana impairs people who are driving needs to be addressed."
Harris supports a bill — introduced Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, a rival for the Democratic presidential nomination — that would end the federal marijuana prohibition.

Blue State Debt Blues Cartoons

Move over Millennials, Oregon lawmakers introduce bill to lower voter age to 16

Liberal blue  states have gone completely nuts.

Some Oregon lawmakers want lower the voting age from 18 to 16-years-old in an effort to get young people to take part in decisions that will impact their future. (Cherokee County Voter Registration and Elections Commission)

Oregon lawmakers are floating a bill that would ask voters to amend the state’s constitution to lower the voting age from 18 to 16-years-old under a plan unveiled Monday.
If passed, the question could be put before voters in the 2020 presidential election. Oregon would become the first state to lower the statewide voting age to 16, which would give younger voters the opportunity "to participate in the ballot -- about decisions that affect their homes, their clean air, their future, their schools and, as we’ve seen, their very lives,” Democratic State Sen. Shemia Fagan said during a news conference in Salem.
"Sixteen-year-olds are subject to our criminal justice system," Fagan added, according to the Salem Statesman-Journal. "They are couch surfing with friends while their families experience homelessness and they're begging us to take action to protect their future."
Issues facing young people have been the catalyst to lowering the voting age in the past. The 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - ratified in 1971 - brought down the voting age requirement from 21 to 18. The measure was fueled in part by young people facing the draft for the Vietnam War, which had become increasingly unpopular.
"We need to be able to take our work to the ballot and protect the policies we’re working so hard to pass,” South Salem High School senior Maria Torres said, according to the Oregonian.
The bill would let 16-year-old cast ballots in all elections, including federal-level offices. Since 2003, 13 states have introduced bills to lower the voting age. None have passed.