Podcasts about republican democratic

Thank you PamC, Jodie Ray, Jane B

Dr. John B. Cobb, Jr. The Economics of Nuclear War Not since the early 1980s have we collectively worried about nuclear war. Today the war in Ukraine rages on and the US foreign policy has not excluded the potential of nuclear weapons against both Russia and China. . Meanwhile, the oceans are heating up, species are dying out at record rates, and the economies of the world are in jeopardy. . Are we at the dawn of a nuclear, or, for that matter, environmental holocaust? Is there any good news on the horizon? What can we, as business leaders, do to make the world safer for us all? . We will endeavor to answer those questions in surprising ways as we sit down with the author of more than 50 books; an American theologian, philosopher, and a leader in the environmental movement. . is the preeminent scholar in process philosophy and process theology. Dr. Cobb's transdisciplinary approach integrates insights from many different study areas and brings different specialized disciplines into fruitful communication. He has influenced various disciplines, including theology, ecology, economics, biology, and social ethics. . In 1971, he wrote the first single-author book on environmental ethics, Is It Too Late? A Theology of Ecology, which argued for the relevance of religious thought in approaching the ecological crisis.[9]  . Dr. Cobb is the co-founder and current co-director of the Center for Process Studies in Claremont, California. In 2014 Cobb was elected to the prestigious American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He recently founded the Living Earth Movement and is writing his newest book, Is International Cooperation Possible? . Website: https://LivingEarthMovement.eco Twitter: https://twitter.com/LivingEarthMvmt . Part 2) China & US: Environmental Collaboration .

On this Friday show, we present Part 2 of the Hacks & Wonks 2022 Post-Primary Election Recap which was live-streamed on August 9, 2022 with special guests EJ Juárez and Doug Trumm. In Part 2, the panel breaks down primary election results for State Legislature seats in the battleground district of the 47th LD and in Seattle-area Democrat vs Democrat races in the 36th, 37th, and 46th LDs, The historical importance of The Stranger endorsement in the progressive path out of the primary is discussed as well as Doug and EJ's thoughts on other races in the 42nd LD and for Secretary of State. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-hosts, EJ Juárez at @EliseoJJuarez and Doug Trumm at @dmtrumm. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources Hacks & Wonks 2022 Primary Election Recap Livestream | August 9th, 2022: https://www.officialhacksandwonks.com/august-2022-postprimary-recap   Transcript [00:00:00] Bryce Cannatelli: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Bryce from the Hacks & Wonks production team. On this show we talk with Policy Wonks and Political Hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work, with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening and what you can do about it. You're listening to part 2 of our 2022 Post-Primary Election Recap, with special guests EJ Juárez and Doug Trumm, that we live-streamed on August 9th, 2022. If you missed part 1, you can find it as the previous episode of your podcast feed, or you can find the audio and transcript for the full recap on our website, officialhacksandwonks.com. Thank you for listening! [00:00:59] Crystal Fincher: Another very interesting district is the 47th Legislative District, which is half of Kent, Covington, Maple Valley, parts of Auburn - again, a very purple district - one that sees two open seats - an incumbent remaining in Representative Debra Entenman, but an open Senate seat after Mona Das announced that she was leaving and an open House seat after Pat Sullivan retired. And so we had competitive Democratic and Republican primaries going on here with open seats, just a lot of questions about what is going to happen here in the 47th - very hard to predict. But we saw some really interesting results. Again, this is one of the districts that Republicans said was one of their top targets - definitely in the top two or three targets that they felt were there for pickups and turning these seats that were held by Republican [Democratic] incumbents and two of them now open seats into Republican pickups. And what we saw was in the one seat with Debra Entenman, she finished comfortably with 55% against a Republican candidate, Kyle Lyebyedyev. There was another Republican contesting in the race, but Debra made it through fairly comfortably. We had a Senate race with Satwinder Kaur and Claudia Kauffman as Democrats against Bill Boyce, the Republican. Bill Boyce, who is a City Councilmember in the City of Kent, a Republican, also a Black Republican that's running here is - has 45.58%. And then a very, very, very close race between Claudia Kauffman and Satwinder Kaur. Currently, Claudia Kauffman is leading with 27.23% over Satwinder with 27.02%. This is a race that is under a hundred votes separating the two and it looks like Claudia Kauffman is going to squeeze and squeak through here. This is a really interesting race. And again, you look at the combined percentage of the Democratic vote - they're above, they're like 54% there. That's a great result that we see on the Democratic side, but wow, what a really closely contested race. And then in the other seat, we saw two Democrats - Chris Stearns with 33.4% against Shukri Olow, another Democrat, who is making it through - both Democrats making it through the primary - Shukri with 19.6% against three Republicans. One of - again, a party pick for the Republicans - Carmen Goers raised $200,000 in the primary, spent the bulk of it. She actually finished in last place. This was another Black Republican here with two other Republican white male opponents who finished with 15.1% and 17.4%, respectively, with Ted Cooke and Barry Knowles. Very interesting result. I don't know that many people - I certainly did not call that there was gonna be a Democratic shutout in one of these seats in this purple district, or that the other results looked so strong in favor of the other ones. What do you see when you see this 47th Legislative District race, Doug? [00:04:37] Doug Trumm: Yeah. You can't get any bigger with them not even making it to the primary. So having two Democrats in that Position 2 seat - that is going to be an exciting race, but not for the Republicans. But we'll circle back to that, 'cause I do want to talk about that race more, but I suppose we should talk about the other races more a little bit too. Mona Das retiring - I think that certainly led to some nervousness that we're not gonna have the incumbent advantage and that didn't seem to be an issue with the result. And it does look like it'll be Claudia Kauffman, so again - an established name - but someone I think who seemed to do a good job, so someone I'm actually glad to see coming back. I'm not always thrilled when you get people who keep going back for many decades, but I think that one is an exception. But yeah, and going back to the 30th as well - on the Democratic side, I guess over all those years of not having that many Black - and apologies for my cat making all that noise - not having that many Black candidates, I guess assumption was they would do worse than the white candidates that people were putting forward, or just maybe wasn't even a thought. But it's pretty clear that those Black candidates are doing just as good as any of the white candidates, if not better, because we see these results in the 30th and in the 47th and all across really the metro area where we're seeing voters really resonating with these folks. If anything, it appears to be an asset. And yeah, it just clearly is a district that is slipping away from Republicans and they don't seem to be doing very much to fix that. And as you mentioned, Carmen Goers finishing fifth when she had the support of the party at, I think, all levels. And then additionally, she had The Seattle Times endorsement, which didn't appear to be worth the paper it was written on - which I don't know if that's true of every race, but in the 47th that's a really embarrassing finish for the Seattle Times. And as EJ alluded to - a Viking funeral for $200,000 worth of cash - that's gotta be one of the only times that's happened in Washington history - that a candidate has raised $200,000 in a primary and then finished fifth, at least at the state legislator level. [00:07:14] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. What did you see here, EJ? [00:07:19] EJ Juárez: I saw - I think one of the most exciting things for me is that this actually might be the first time where we have two Native people representing the same district in the House in Washington State. And I think that is incredible - the opportunity and the history making moment of those candidates' ascension if they are the victors in November. I really think that is the underreported takeaway of this cycle in that these are two candidates, although one has - both of them are previously elected in other offices - that's a big deal, right? On the other end of that spectrum, it is wildly confusing to me the uneven field game that has occurred in the 47th. We have some candidates who were deeply knocking on doors every weekend, huge volunteer turnout. And then we have some candidates who really focused on media and focused on really traditional electronic - I don't even know if that's the way to put it, "traditional electronic" - they weren't at the doors, they weren't making a ton of phone calls, and they were pretty open about it. So I think there's a lot of questions to be answered in terms of how people got through and the vote share. So when you're looking at Rep Position 2 with Shukri and Chris, Shukri outraised Chris and really produced not very many votes for that. And when you look at the per dollar spend on per vote, it doesn't really - the math doesn't quite work out the way you would expect. Now, a D-on-D race in that is going to be pretty - there will be fireworks, right? Because you have to make up a considerable amount of points and the clock is reset for both of those candidates. So I'm watching them really closely. I'm excited. I think they're both great candidates. I think they're both folks who, as they move towards the general, are going to start to distinguish themselves to voters. I think when you look at that Senate race, I cannot help but think if I was a Republican strategist and fundraiser, I would've wanted to pour a lot more money into that race supporting a Black Republican versus some of the white Republicans, which received much higher proportions of spend from caucus accounts and from PACs associated with Republicans. There's probably some obvious reasons for that on that side that don't need to go too much into depth on, but it is shocking that in a three-way race, the Republican still only musters 45%. [00:10:06] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that's all valid. And I even think - actually in this district in the 47th, it has been an interesting one. This is actually - I live near the border of the 47th - the 47th and the 33rd District border. And in the 47th, actually, we've traditionally seen Black candidates, visibly non-Christian candidates - whether it's someone with a hijab or a turban - underperform compared to spend a number of times here. And so it's interesting to see these results come through. I don't know what role that played on the Republican side also, but that's just another dynamic in this race that has been interesting. I do think that this sets up - just for the candidates that are there, that are gonna be in the general - really interesting matchups and comparisons. And I do think that Democrats - all of the Democrats in these races - do need to be out on the doors, do need to work through the general. Certainly a favorable result in the primary, but another one where they can't rest at all and need to continue to push forward. But one where I think - this was an area where people were wondering - Hey, where's the public safety conversation gonna be? And are Republicans gonna be able to land some hits here and are people hyper-worried about inflation? I think, yet again in this district, I think people saw that the conversation on public safety on the ground is a lot more nuanced than it is in the media - I think is safe to say. So many times we hear the conversation between more cops and "Back the Blue" and - hey, we're - no candidates are actually running on this, FYI - but like "Defund Everything." There's not actually a candidate saying that right now, but the perception is out there - that that has been there. And people aren't there - even people who favor more police, who are not bothered by more police - are saying - but what we really need are behavioral health services, are substance use disorder, addiction treatment services, are housing for people. We have to address these root causes. If there's an issue with someone who is going through a crisis, police just don't have the tools to solve that. I think that's pretty universally acknowledged and not a controversial statement. And when polling goes beyond just some very basic questions and probes into those, we repeatedly see the public saying - yeah, of course we need those things. And so it was very interesting to see some of these attacks - whether it's in the 30th, or throughout the state, in the 47th - on those issues and they just fell flat. And even on the inflation issue, people are worried and people are absolutely squeezed, but looking at - okay, so what are you gonna do about it? And I think Democrats told a better story about - okay, here's the plan. This is what we plan to invest in and this is how we plan to help. I think working people felt that Democrats had a plan that was more tailored to their needs from Democrats. So just an interesting result that we saw there. We will pivot a bit to the Seattle races, which are different than all of these battleground races that we've been talking about. And these are in the City of Seattle - Democrat versus Democrat races. We saw a number of open seat races that have happened here. And so we can start with the 36th District, which had a pretty stark and conclusive result, I think, in the open seat race that was there, where there was a contested primary that had five Democratic candidates there - different shades of there, from more progressive to probably on the most moderate end with Waylan Robert. But we saw Julia Reed, who received The Seattle Times and The Stranger endorsement take 55% of the vote, followed by Jeff Manson who is making it through the primary with 13.5% of the vote. And then followed by Nicole Gomez, Waylon Robert, and Elizabeth Tyler Crone. Looks like that is a race that is Julia's for the taking, I think realistically, just looking there. And certainly benefited from both The Times and The Stranger endorsement. There's another race in the 37th in South Seattle where Chipalo Street got both The Stranger and The Times endorsement, but that was a much closer race where we saw Chipalo with 41% of the vote - 41.53% - and Emijah Smith making it through the primary with 35.37% of the vote - a much closer race. We saw in the 46th Legislative District - Darya Farivar make it through in first place, the progressive candidate in the race - she currently has 31.61% of the vote and Lelach Rave finishing in second, making it through the primary at 28.06% of the vote. And then we saw in the 34th Legislative District, in that open seat there, Emily Alvarado with 54% of the vote to Leah Griffin's 31.2%. I'll kick this off, as we discuss these Seattle races at-large. It's been talked about so many times before - how in Seattle, how consequential the Seattle Times and The Stranger endorsements are. On a previous post-primary recap, Michael Charles put it very succinctly - saying there are two political parties in Seattle - The Seattle Times and The Seattle Stranger. And actually went back and looked at the numbers - and for races in the City of Seattle, for legislative districts in Seattle, for candidates on the ballot, for the past decade - candidates endorsed by The Stranger have made it through to the primary a 100% of the time. It actually seems like, particularly for progressive candidates, the path requires going through The Stranger - requires that endorsement to make it on to the general. How consequential is that, and what do you think we saw overall in general in these races, Doug? [00:16:50] Doug Trumm: Yeah, I think that Stranger endorsement - it's really huge, particularly in a primary in Seattle - I think the 46th is where we really saw the test of that. In Seattle the Urbanist Elections Committee, which I'm a member of, is lucky enough to talk to most of the candidates. And when people skip - usually it's a sign that they're either running in that centrist lane, or they just got the race together so late that they didn't really have time or put it together enough to respond. But we agreed with The Stranger and The Seattle Times with Julia Reed - I think there's a unique case where there's just a candidate that was so - just polished - and any other candidates had some promise, but there just weren't really compelling case to say - but why not, Julia Reed. And I think that's a testament to running a really good race and being a good candidate. And hopefully everyone's right about that, 'cause I don't think you see all three of us agree very often. In the 46th, on the other hand, we did end up endorsing Melissa Taylor and really liked what she brought to the table in housing. But we were also - really thought that Darya Farivar was a fantastic candidate as well. And particularly around the issues of transportation - being Policy Director at Disability Rights Washington, which is a great partner of us and a great leader on all these climate and climate justice issues at the state level and the local level. So we were happy with both candidates and great to see Darya go through and being several points ahead of Lelach where - we didn't get a chance to talk to her. And I think she's more in the Sara Nelson lane of the party who endorsed her, if you will. How that race shakes out will have, I think, pretty big bearing on just what is possible on some issues like housing, where it seems like someone like Rave is staking out a very moderate position there and not really being upfront about - Hey, we need to do something about exclusionary zoning, we need to make our zoning more inclusive and be able to fit more people into parts of the city - where Northeast Seattle is so wealthy, so much opportunity, so many good schools and good parks and everything, and it's a part of the city that's pulled up the drawbridge a little bit. Maybe she will change her tune on that position a little bit, but I think - although Darya didn't talk about housing a lot, she's someone who on the questionnaire was pretty clear - she's on that same page around ending exclusionary zoning and promoting missing middle. It's an issue that we track really closely - polling shows that Washington voters are increasingly focused on that. And I think it's because people are smart and you get that the whole world's experiencing inflation - you can't really blame one party for that. You maybe can blame Putin for that a little bit, but no one can control Putin. But what are you gonna do to help people control their costs? And one - the hugest thing is housing. It's just - it's a massive cost in our region. And if you don't have a solution that both gets at promoting affordable housing through investment and also dealing with our zoning and policies that just make it really restrictive to create more housing, you're not really tackling that problem. And I think for some voters that's really starting to hit home, which could give a candidate like Darya the edge. And I will let EJ break down some of the other races, as I've gone on long enough. But it definitely was a reassuring result in that sense. [00:20:45] EJ Juárez: Yeah, so I - one, I appreciate being on a show with Doug because Doug is so smart about so many things. And as he is talking, I'm writing down things - oh, I need to look into some of that. For me, back to the question around endorsements and the power of The Stranger. I think Michael Charles was absolutely right around the two-party system now. I also feel like it is incredibly disingenuous for anybody who works in politics to be surprised if the candidate who gets The Stranger endorsement gets through. I think it shows a lack of context around just how much that means to people, both as a key part of many people's own political maturity within the city, right? The Stranger serves as this thing that people learn about Seattle from, learn how Seattle operates - and discounting the weight of that endorsement is done at one's own peril. I think how we get, how we've gotten to this place - and many of these endorsements and many of the races bear this out - is that there are a couple of things at play. Media consolidation has removed many of the other endorsing organizations that had typically seen - excuse me, typically been seen as nonpartisan, right? We no longer have The Seattle PI, we no longer have many of the regional or neighborhood papers that were also doing this for many years. The lanes of engagement have also changed for people who are coming into elected office. The salaries that we pay people to do public service no longer match the cost of living in many of our cities. So therefore, you are narrowing the field more and more and more as this goes. I think the two remaining factors that I think of when you think about just the power of these - of The Times and The Stranger's endorsements - are the policy hegemony, right? The lane in which we talk about policies is so locked in and narrow in the full spectrum of possibility. So the process of differentiating - if we're looking at the 36th - 7 candidates, is it 2, 4, or 6 candidates who have minor policy differences and may only sell that difference with enthusiasm or gusto differently, but are 99% aligned - is more and more difficult for voters to actually judge on policy versus performance. And I think that gets to the last piece here of - the opposition that is understood in Seattle politics has become more and more clear around - there is the folks that are trying to do good and the folks that are trying to do bad. And the folks that are trying to do bad - when I started working in politics here, that was - you could name 50 different organizations, 50 different people off the top of your head. And now it feels like every campaign has really locked in on - the bad guys are Amazon, the bad guys are the tech bros, the bad guys are X, Y, and Z, but it's really focused on small pockets of opposition. And for many reasons, some of those groups earn that label - I will say that - but in many ways it limits the amount of discourse that happens. And I'm going on a little bit long, but I think it can't be overstated that many of these factors inform how we got to a place where two newspapers informed so much of our political success in the City. [00:24:25] Crystal Fincher: Yeah - to your point - the reason why Hacks & Wonks exists is because of the frustration with how narrow and shallow some of those conversations can be, with so much consolidation and with the thinning of just the amount of people covering these races, the amount of visibility that races and policy have, the lack of accountability that we see with so many of our leaders - not just federally, but in the City of Seattle - we're still wondering what happened to texts that disappeared at a really pivotal time in the City. So it is challenging to work through that and deal with that. And I just think that this is a time where I hope lots of community organizations lean in and engage and try to connect their own memberships, their own spheres of influence to the process. One thing that I found really exciting about these results that I haven't really seen talked about was - there's a lot of public polling available, but the primary is a spectacular, actual public poll. And when we talk about inclusive zoning and making progress on affordable housing, the vast majority of voters in every single district - from the 46th to the 37th - voted in favor of the candidates who said we're taking on exclusive zoning, we're going to make it more inclusive, we're going to vote for that missing middle housing bill, and that spoke strongly in favor of it. That they voted overwhelmingly for candidates who talked about strengthening the social safety net, who talked about addressing behavioral health services, substance use disorder services, supportive housing and wraparound services - and not just focusing on the - well, we just need to lock people up and do what we've been doing that has landed us here today. They're really talking about addressing a lot of these root causes and taking substantive - not incremental, but pretty dynamic - change in many of these areas. And voters were right there, so I think that that was encouraging to see. And I would just wonder and hope that we're going to see that reflected and responded to throughout the general election. Full disclosure - I worked for Melissa Taylor, I've paid close attention to the 46th and a number of these races - and am excited to see a strong progressive get through in that race - and Darya Farivar, especially with a lot of the work that she's done in disability justice, which is critical. And so it's just gonna be really interesting to see as these general election races go by, and I think the 37th Legislative District looks like a very competitive race that could go either way right now, that it's gonna be really interesting to hear in these opportunities where it's not quite a Democrat versus Republican conversation that does get flattened a lot, but hopefully we can get into some of the meatiness of issues. There's a lot of policy space in the Democratic arena, in the progressive arena to really talk through - what are your plans for fixing the issues that are challenging people? How do you plan to make people's lives easier and simpler and what are you going to stand up for? Where are your red lines? What are you gonna lead on? Are really interesting and exciting things to see, that I see there. So I think that the entire media ecosystem from The Urbanist playing a crucial role, the South Seattle Emerald, Real Change - just a lot of community media. Community organizations have a lot of power just because there just aren't many people covering or talking about this - and this is an opportunity for them to talk about what's important to them, their members, people they serve, their community. And we need it now more than ever - as we finish thinking about these Seattle races and just other races across the state, is there anything that you think is flying under the radar that's notable or things that we haven't discussed tonight that you feel we should be paying attention to? And I will start with Doug. [00:29:05] Doug Trumm: Oh, so many things - I think, just to add another thought about the Seattle races is - again, I think what was another case with Chipalo Street, where we endorsed him as well and I think that's another race where Seattle Times and Stranger - we agreed. And I think that may have partially been just an advantage of him having his game plan set when he announced and it seemed like Emijah Smith was a little bit more still trying to catch up - announcing a little bit later, I think. And we didn't get a chance to talk to her, so that was part of our decision - she didn't return a questionnaire. But he was someone who was really good at talking about housing. So again, I think that fits the theme and Emily Alvarado doing better than Leah Griffin, who we endorsed - but we like both candidates, we were very clear that you have two great options there - again, someone with housing chops was doing a little better. I don't know - I might be stretching this theme a little bit much, but it definitely seems like credibility on that issue is a huge asset. And that should be good news. Unfortunately we're gonna have people like Gerry Pollet getting re-elected, but they might look at this and go - maybe I've been doing this a little bit wrong if I really want to continue getting re-elected. But I guess one race we didn't talk a lot about - but we shouldn't shy away from the bad news, which is the 42nd did not go well for Democrats. You had hope of a Senate pickup there and it's still not completely impossible, but Sharon Shewmake, who is an incumbent House representative, getting 47% in that district - that's not a great result against two Republicans. And one of 'em did have kind of that name ID - Simon Sefzik, or however you say that - so that might have helped him, but does look like he'll be the one through. So she'll continue to face that in the primary. And then we have actually - two of those seats are Democratic held, so the people lower on the ticket did a little bit better. But these could be the two seats we lose, but I do think we make that up maybe in LD10 where Greg Gilday, the Republican incumbent, isn't doing well at all - is down like four points. And also in the 26th, as we've talked about a little bit, with having Adison Richards potentially being a pickup there - it might end up coming out in the wash. But I don't know what's going on in the 42nd - I thought that district was drifting a little bit blue, but - and the redistricting is really odd because it's such a huge district - all the changes happened within the sort of Bellingham scope. And I guess they must have just carved out a little bit of Bellingham that was keeping that district where Shewmake was winning. And it's also - I guess, maybe Shewmake wasn't as strong of a candidate as maybe some of - her seatmate Alicia Rule doing a point and change better. I don't know if that's just the money in that race or what, or if it really should have been flip-flopped who tried to grab that Senate seat, but it might have been for naught if that district is just now a +3 or something Republican - you really have to run a really good race maybe to win that. And with Republicans pouring money in there, it's not as favorable terrain - which kind of brings us back to redistricting - it's a weirdly drawn district and I guess we left it that way, but why? Maybe I'll leave it at that for now and let others jump in. [00:32:44] Crystal Fincher: Go ahead, EJ. [00:32:45] EJ Juárez: I think I'll start with the 42nd. I think this is a district that is an opportunity for Democrats to begin with, right? If it were not for the death of conspiracy theorist, COVID-denying Doug Ericksen, who loved to work for dictators - I think we wouldn't even be in this situation. Any Democrat who is putting up numbers right now - it was an uphill battle - and I think that the points are valid around just how hard that was going to be for just about anybody, given the challenges of where the lines are gonna be and all these things. I think in terms of other stuff that is top of mind for me is the real tragedy of Julie Anderson's run for Secretary of State - incredible underperformance, not even carrying her own county of Pierce County, running as an independent against the incumbent Steve Hobbs - is something that I can't, I keep coming back to where I'm like - all right, that does not make sense in my head yet. Given everybody's enthusiasm of keeping Steve Hobbs as far away as possible from actually legislating - that part does. But the lack of challenge to his ascension into the Secretary of State's office seems a bit odd. It is almost certain that the Democrat will hold that seat for the first time in 60 years, and I think that is something that is to celebrate. I think that is a good thing for Washington, even as oddly as we have arrived at that fact. Some of the other quick things on my list is - as long as you're asking for that grab bag - I'll go back to the complete lack of strategy on the Republican side, in terms of how they are planning on taking and building a majority in this state. Still top of mind for me - it is the bright, shiny object of - are they going to produce a strategy at any point in the next decade? I don't know. And then lastly, where Democrats have made long-term investments, they are starting to yield the results and the rewards of that - whether that's Federal Way, whether that's in the 26th out in Gig Harbor - Democrats are getting those rewards for decisions and investments that they made 8-10 years ago. And the multiple cycle layering of those massive multimillion dollar investments in voter turnout, in improving the data on who lives in those areas, and making the case to those voters is making their job easier. And when you look at places that have not enjoyed that investment that are continually looked at as opportunities and pickups, especially when you're looking at the kind of "demographics as destiny" argument that gets made, we don't see perennial investments in places where there are large populations of color that are ascendant to majorities. We haven't seen the multi-layered approach in Yakima. We haven't seen that multi-layered approach in the Tri-Cities. And frankly, the results show - Democrats are not moving forward in many of those primaries and the lack of investment from the party shows. But where they have done it, it has been an incredible reward for them. [00:36:03] Crystal Fincher: Completely agree. And with that, this recap comes to a close. I want to thank our panelists - EJ Juárez, Doug Trumm - for their insight and making this an engaging and informative event. To those watching online, thanks so much for tuning in and for sending in questions. If you missed any of the discussion tonight, you can catch up on the Hacks & Wonks Facebook page or Twitter, where we're @HacksWonks. Special thanks to essential members of the Hacks & Wonks team and coordinators for this evening, Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. If you missed voting in the primary, you still have time to make your voice heard in the general elections coming up on November 8th. If you need to register to vote, update your registration, or find information, you can go to MyVote.wa.gov. And as a reminder, even if you've been previously incarcerated, your right to vote is restored and you can re-register to vote immediately upon your release, even if you are still under community supervision - so that's new this year. You can vote if you are not currently incarcerated - you just need to re-register at MyVote.wa.gov. Be sure to tune into Hacks & Wonks on your favorite podcast app for our midweek interviews and our Friday week in review shows or at officialhacksandwonks.com. I've been your host, Crystal Fincher - see you next time. [00:37:27] Bryce Cannatelli: Thank you for listening to part 2 of our Hacks & Wonks 2022 Post-Primary Election Recap. If you missed part 1, you can find both parts of the livestream in our podcast feed or you can find the video and text transcript for the full recap on our website at officialhacksandwonks.com. Thank you for tuning in - talk to you next time.

Critical Thinking for Critical Times. The host for this show is Michael Sukhov. The guest is Andy Lee Roth. We discuss popular notions of news bias; how 'bias' is different from news 'slant'; which kinds of people are treated as newsworthy (and which kinds are not), and why; what the view or 'framing' of an issue means; what is included in the framing of an issue, and what is excluded or missing. We discuss other topics including adopting a more global perspective, avoiding a U.S.-centric view of the world, or assuming U.S. 'exceptionalism.' Finally, we discuss thinking beyond the either/or logic that frames almost all 'mainstream' corporate news in terms of red/blue, Republican/Democratic, liberal/conservative opposition, as well as explain what 'digital literacy' is. The ThinkTech YouTube Playlist for this show is https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQpkwcNJny6mfbvbH9PaDqTKng_XaNdhs Please visit our ThinkTech website at https://thinktechhawaii.com and see our Think Tech Advisories at https://thinktechadvisories.blogspot.com.

Early voting will continue through Friday, May 20, in the primary runoff elections for Republican and Democratic candidates on the ballot in November. Early ballots may be cast in Wilson County on weekdays through May 20, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., at Wilson County Courthouse Annex III, 1103 Fourth St. in Floresville. Election Day for the runoff elections is Tuesday, May 24. Below are the candidates for federal, state, and local offices who appear on Wilson County ballots. Democratic Party • U.S. Representative, District 15 — Ruben Ramirez and Michelle Vallejo • Lt. Governor — Mike Collier and Michelle...Article Link

Area voters have another chance to determine the Republican and Democratic candidates on the ballot in November. Several races in the party primary elections March 1 resulted in runoffs. Voting in the primary runoff elections will take place Tuesday, May 24. Early voting will be May 16-20. Applications for mail-in ballots are due by Friday, May 13. This includes candidates for federal, state, and local offices. Democratic Party •U.S. Representative, District 15 — Ruben Ramirez and Michelle Vallejo •Lt. Governor — Mike Collier and Michelle Beckley •Attorney General — Rochelle Mercedes Garza and Joe Jaworski •State Comptroller — Angel Luis...Article Link

These two pundits, Republican Mark McKinnon and Democrat Cornell Belcher, hit the nail on the head as they spoke to Ali Velshi on Texas' new draconian abortion law. Democrats must politicize what Texas Republicans have done to the nth degree. It is a winning issue because it is a decision that cuts across party lines. Polls indicate that the majority of Americans support women's right to control their own bodies.--- If you like what we do please do the following! Most Independent Media outlets continue to struggle to raise the funds they need to operate much like the smaller outlets like Politics Done Right SUBSCRIBE to our YouTube Channel here. LIKE our Facebook Page here. Share our blogs, podcasts, and videos. Get our books here. Become a YouTube PDR Posse Member here. Become a Politics Done Right Subscriber via Patreon here. Become a Politics Done Right Subscriber via Facebook here. Consider providing a contribution here. Please consider supporting our GoFundMe equipment fund here. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/egbertowillies/support

Show Notes: 0:00 Jason & Sacks hash out their Twitter beef 20:58 Robinhood $70M FINRA fine signals & S-1 news, plus how GPs think about IPO distributions 35:29 Delta variant: reason for concern or fear porn? 57:25 Trump not taking credit for Project Lightspeed, Trump CFO indicted, will Dems prosecuting Trump backfire & help him gain steam for 2024? 1:06:11 Future of Republican & Democratic parties 1:11:17 FTC takes a hit in Facebook case dismissal & Amazon requesting Lina Khan's recusal, does Facebook have the best case against being a monopoly? 1:19:42 Sha'Carri Richardson Olympic suspension Follow the besties: https://twitter.com/chamath https://linktr.ee/calacanis https://twitter.com/DavidSacks https://twitter.com/friedberg Follow the pod: https://twitter.com/theallinpod https://linktr.ee/allinpodcast Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://twitter.com/yung_spielburg Referenced in the show: All-In Stats - E37 https://newsletter.allinstats.com/issues/all-in-stats-episode-37-662814 FINRA fines Robinhood $70M https://www.finra.org/media-center/newsreleases/2021/finra-orders-record-financial-penalties-against-robinhood-financial Robinhood S-1 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1783879/000162828021013318/robinhoods-1.htm CNN - The Delta variant will cause 'very dense outbreaks' in these five states, expert says https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/28/health/us-coronavirus-monday/index.html Google - US vaccine rates by state https://www.google.com/search?q=vaccination+rates+by+state&oq=vaccination+rates+by&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433j0i433j69i57j0i131i433j0i433j0i395i433j0i395i457j69i61.3260j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Experimental Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Content in Inhaled Air With or Without Face Masks in Healthy Children https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2781743 Politico - ‘Not a healthy environment': Kamala Harris' office rife with dissent https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/30/kamala-harris-office-dissent-497290 Politico - DeSantis ‘very wary' of upsetting Trump https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/28/desantis-trump-gop-election-496367 CNBC - Judge dismisses FTC and state antitrust complaints against Facebook https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/28/judge-dismisses-ftc-antitrust-complaint-against-facebook.html Amazon's petition for Lina Khan recusal https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/AMZN%20petition%20re%20Khan.pdf NYT - Sha'Carri Richardson, a Track Sensation, Tests Positive for Marijuana https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/01/sports/olympics/shacarri-richardson-suspended-marijuana.html Tweets: https://twitter.com/ALLIN_STATS/status/1409269704573820939 https://twitter.com/DavidSacks/status/1409282278270849028 https://twitter.com/Jason/status/1409282966354857986 https://twitter.com/DavidSacks/status/1409287404628938753 https://twitter.com/DavidSacks/status/1409554101713702917 https://twitter.com/Jason/status/1409289443161382912 https://twitter.com/trvrb https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1410432407816212481 https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1410682821358858242 https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/1409649814308986888 https://twitter.com/DavidSacks/status/1409723626476216321

Corwin and Josh look at which NFL/MLB teams have won the most championships under Republican/Democratic presidents, now that the election has passed (hopefully) Twitter: https://twitter.com/JuicingPod Email: juicingthenumbers@gmail.com https://teespring.com/juicing-the-numbers-swag

My hot take on the passing of RBG and what republicans should do now and why. Also the latest attack on Trump over the virus. Support the show at https://www.patreon.com/republickeeper 125 - Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Hot Lava Take and Latest attack on Trump 00:00:00 - 00:05:01 Let's see if this works. Welcome Republic podcast Brian O'Kelly I'll be your host for today's adventure. Rod. Casting from the. Forest. Washington just outside of Seattle. My russian-made, A. MT to nineteen might perform. This podcast number one, twenty, five. And hopefully got audio and. Remember him on twitter facebook. and. So on it's Brian Your Bro at the Republican for Dot Com website for the social media connections and more, and we will treat today like every other day and begin the broadcast by thanking God for good health and the ability to be here, sharing with you and thank you again for your time and attention today. Hopefully, we have audio now happening and I guess it wasn't working there the beginning and so. Awesome thank you for the feedback and appreciate it this you know. If, it wasn't for my sister and my mom I don't know of anybody who would listen but I'm so grateful. That my sister is always up at this time and and and help me some feedback. I should probably start. Pannard every time something's wrong and she's sending me a taxed. It's awesome. So thank you carry very much for that for your help. So today, of course, we have the news that Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed away and. This is of course. has thrown the entire race into a complete change. I, mean wow. What an overnight. You know shift in the dynamic compared to where we had been where it was all about you know. A million other things, and now all of a sudden it's about the court and not that it wasn't about the court because this was on people's mind and it's not a big surprise that repeater Ginsburg has passed away i. do think that it was somewhat expected that she may that she was going to pass away during trump's next administration. She'd been fighting pancreatic cancer for quite some time so. I wanted to. Reflect back on basically what I'm seeing now that this is all passed and just give you. This is kind of a hot lava take. On Ruth Bader Ginsburg I don't think I'm going to make a lot of friends. With with what I'm going to have to say today. Okay so I'M NOT GONNA BE UNKIND. But I, I don't think this is the take. You're going to be hearing a lot of other places. Okay. So that's the kind of the set up here on a play for you. First the president's reaction when he was told about this. The music is on the on the tarmac there. Well. The I didn't know that I just thought it'd be the first time. She let an amazing. What else could you say? She was an amazing woman whether. Or not she was an amazing woman. An amazing life. Imagine. Thank you very much. Monster. Is just a monster. I mean what a monster? To hear it and he said, she led an amazing life. What kind of a man have we put in the White House here? Anyway. So. So here are kind of. My thoughts and these are scattered. I've got a bunch of email her email of audio here from different people, and this is not in any particular order. Okay. So the first thing is. That there's hypocrisy a plenty. To go around on both sides. Back when it was garland. Pushing through all of the Republicans were saying you can't do it an election year and you have to wait for the voice of the people and the Hashtag. Do Your job was a thing on the Democrat side it was do your job do your job your job, and the Republicans were all saying no, you can't do in an election year and so now here we are we've had it flipped. So it just got trump's reaction here is Vice President Biden's we need to de escalate. Escalate. Try Appeal to those few Senate. Republicans. The handful who really will decide what happens. Please, follow your conscience. Don't vote to confirm anyone nominate the circumstances president trump. Incentive McConnell have created. 00:05:02 - 00:10:08 Don't go there. Uphold your constitutional duty. Your conscience. Let the people speak. Cool the flames engulfing our country. We can't keep rewriting history scrambling norms, ignoring our cherry system of checks and balances. Who'll the flames? Cool, the flames he says. Right, go how about we started calling for that months ago Joe. That includes this whole business of releasing a list of potential nominees. That I would put forward. Now same after a after Ruth Bader. GINSBURG passed away. They said Biden should releases list. It's the one in the trump campaign ads that I released list only after she passed away. A game for them? They were asking. Anger. There were asking. lionsgate other than Donald Trump has ever done such a thing. I. The reason is because no presidential candidate other than Donald Trump. Has Ever thought ahead about it. That's the answer Joe. And then he goes into this thing about the that his. Nominees would be attacked pretty judges name on lists like that could influence that person's decision making as a judge and that would be wrong. At least create the perception influenced. Second. Anyone could enlist. Like that, under these circumstances will be subject to unrelenting political attacks. And he's right about that. That's exactly what's going to start happening now to amy conybeare Barrett. That's the next. The next thing that's going to happen Amy Barrett is president trump's choice apparently for the court. Here's a quick a piece that they did on her over on I. Think this was ABC. And at the top of the list we're told is judge Amy Coney American for name sounds familiar. It's because she was on the shortlist when president trump sought to replace Anthony Kennedy and ultimately settled on. Justice. Now Justice Brett Cavanaugh she is a devout Catholic she's considered a superstar of the religious, right? Shoulder has she is an ardent of abortion opponent and there are even Republicans who think that that can be a complicating factor in her confirmation process if she is nominated because you have those republicans like. Susan Murkowski Lisa Murkowski. Susan. Might not be inclined to vote for her. Also on the list you also have Barbara Lagola. She's an appeals judge on the eleventh circuit of her name sounds familiar to anybody is because she represented Elian Gonzales in his asylum case the decades ago she's connected to Florida's Cuban immigrant community. You also see there. Are He's appeals judge on the sixth circuit, and he's considered to be a favourite of Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell. So we could find out as early as this week who the president ultimately has settled. and. So trump a you know has got I mean. He's considering a Catholic woman, a Hispanic woman and a man from an in with an Indian background. What kind of monster have we put in the White House here? Ministers we ought to be embarrassed that this man is our president, right? Maybe, not so Lindsey Graham. Back in the day and you probably all seen this but I wanNA make sure your included here because it's relevant back in the day Lindsay Graham. said that if? If this happened, we could use his words against him. This will stand the test of time. This is the last year. Of. A lame duck president. And if Ted Cruz. DONALD TRUMP GETS TO BE president they've all asked us not to confirm or take up a selection by president. Obama. So if a vacancy occurs in their last year of their first term, guess what you'll use their words against them. I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in two, thousand, sixteen in a vacancy occurs and the last year of the first term. You can say Lindsey Graham said, let's let the next president who whoever it might be made that nomination and you could use my words against being. You'd be absolutely right. We're setting a precedent here today Republicans are. That in the last year. At least of a lame duck eight-year term, I would say is going to be a four year term that you're not going to fill a vacancy of the Supreme Court. Based on what we're doing here today, that's going to be the new rule when y'all change the rules about appellate judges and district. Court judges to get your way I thought it was a really abuse of power and what you have done here is you've made the caucuses the Republican Democratic caucuses are now not going to have to reach across the aisle when it comes to pellet judges and District Court judges to get input from us or we get input from you. 00:10:08 - 00:15:01 So what does that mean that we're GonNa pick the most hard asked people we can fi And there somebody in the conference to vote against that person? You're going to have the most Liberal members of your caucus pushing you to pick the most liberal judges because she don't need to reach across the out very input and we'll do the same. So, overtime, the judiciary is GONNA be more ideologically driven because the process in the Senate now does not require you to get outside. Your. Own. Party. Here's exactly right. And now he's GonNa be determined whether or not. He's GonNa play the hypocrite. Now what I'm saying when he said I said he's exactly right is he's right and wrong. I think it was right for. President Obama to nominate for justice. I think given that it was a potential switch parties. At the election, which it always is like right now I think it was appropriate for the Senate to wait. To have a confirmation vote. I think if if they're at this point, it would. Be reasonable for the Senate to wait to have confirmation vote. If we were concerned about being fair. Said this is going to be a hot lava take on this. Fairness is not part of the equation. This is a war. Is Not a small skirmish. CINCINATI. A tiny little thing. This is a war. One. Side knows it's a war and treats it like a war. Our side doesn't seem to know that. Let me give you an example. This is only a few hours old outside Senator Rams. House. then. Is this peaceful protesting. Standing outside someone's house like that, and this is what leftist mobs do. They are intimidation squads. They are here to say if you don't do it our way, we are going to disrupt your life threatening you injure you and maybe even kill some of you. Like the man in Portland. This is war. This is not A. Game. This is war and it's a war for the soul of the country. In the case of the Supreme Court nomination if the Republicans become more concern about some headline about fairness than they are about the fate of the unborn than maybe I should just figure out that I can't even participate in politics because there's no one who represents me. This thing is, is a prime example of how selfish the Democrats are. The Democrats knew. Everybody knew the entire country has known for a decade that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was going to go next in fact when Antonin Scalia died everyone was shocked that he went before her. She was so selfish that she couldn't even retire in the first year of Obama's second term. Or. The second year or the third year in the first year he had Harry Reid as the Senate majority leader dear remember. Harry Reid. was the majority leader. Harry Reid could have gotten anybody through. She was so selfish. That she stayed on. And then they were so arrogant and they had so much hubris. In. The fall of two thousand sixteen, there was no way. DONALD TRUMP WAS GONNA win after all they had their insurance policy. and. So she can stay on until Hillary was in and then Hillary could appoint the next one. Speaking of Hillary. Of course, she had to have something to say on this and and you know what I'm not gonNA play her I don't want to. I'm going to play her husband though here's. Here's good bill. Well. 00:15:03 - 00:20:02 Of course it's. Superficially, hypocritical isn't it? I mean Mitch. McConnell wouldn't. Give President Obama's nominee Mary Gallon a hearing. Ten months before the president's election. and. That meant that we went a long time with judges on the court. This is what they do. I. Think they're. Know both for the senator McConnell and president trump I value is. Power and they're trying to take the court would as many. Ideological judges as they can't. Somehow. When he appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg, he wasn't trying to appointing idiological. Judge. Been Bill Clinton was absolutely looking for someone who would make sure that the slaughter continued. So this idea that somehow there's something inappropriate about Republicans looking to to pack the court with people who matched their ideology. That's what Bill Clinton did. That's what everybody does is packed. The court with somebody matches their ideology. Right. So you know hangs up for a minute I'll be right back. In a minute or two, we will come back and talk about. Some more of this and a little more of my hot take about the weaponization of the death of Ruth. Bader. GINSBURG. Welcome back to the Republic Uber podcast. Thanks again for your time and tension. Again, my name is Brian O'Kelly I appreciate you joining and if you're watching on youtube twitter facebook whichever. On the Vice Rhonda's probably a subscribe button and there is probably a share button. So. If you right now hit that share button at shirt your feed that would be awesome. That'll bring more people into. Doing and for those are new to the broadcast found us through advertising referral whatever. But you know how this works. This is a listener supported broadcast and what that means is there's no big company behind it June me together. And I do the work in you smart show and what that means is I need you to do three things for me. I make three simple requests I. Think they're simple First one is pray for me. The guy needs a lot of stuff to do this. Right Energy Balance Wisdom insight so on. I also asked the listeners to like I say share the show like I was just asking subscribing share do reviews, and then the third thing is to support the show financially there is a link to Patriae on on the website Patriots Dot, com slash republic keeper, and if you just go there and help support the show five bucks a month is a big difference I just kind of think of it as we're going to grab a cup of coffee. Every morning, five days a week. Would you once a month Miami a cup of coffee for five bucks and if you would. Do me favor visit the site and do that because I I do need the support and it does help and it's also A. Sign that this is valuable to people and I know that that's a small thing, your tension matters. But it helps me know that that I'm on the right track with what I'm doing here. So honored with Ruth Bader Ginsburg now. Back to what I was saying it's we have known for a long time that this woman was gonna pass away right and so the idea of being unprepared. For this event is foolishness. So. I can only hope that when I die at creates much of a cluster for everybody as this has I mean good job for her for Web nizing her own debt. And I mean is. Basically, almost set off a nuclear bomb with her death and. You know I mean I respect the game play. You know. I'd say it. Okay. So Here's what I'm thinking. I know this is crazy. Yeah you think I'm really crazy here on say this actually let's just play. Here's here's speaking of crazy. Let's just crazy nancy kit right back to my crazy idea now from the speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi Speaker Pelosi. Thanks for joining us this morning the morning. You wrote Friday that the passing of Justice Ginsburg is an incalculable loss for our democracy. How do you remember her and how will the house honor? I'm so glad that the country is. Providing section outpouring of love and support to honor with Bater Ginsburg. petites tiny in size huge impact, and powerful brilliant brain on the court. She was so remarkable and I can't help. But thinking the good person that she is as we extend condolences to her family, she want us to keep our eye on the ball of the two hundred thousand people. Who will be a probably this weekend will reach. Reached that number this. Challenge that we have is directly. If the president thinks this isn't about the coronavirus it is. 00:20:02 - 00:25:01 It's about healthcare so that the president is rushing to make some kind of a decision because He November tenth is one the our arguments begin on the affordable care act. He doesn't want to crush the virus he wants to crush the affordable care act. Sodas present was crush the affordable care act. Maybe you just want to be constitutional. I know that's crazy idea for it to be constitutional but I think that's what what the president wants now. That's crazy. Nancy now, Chuck Schumer got up on the stand and also had to share something about. The dying wish apparently of the prior justice congresswoman Alexandria Cossio Cortez, and we are here. Because of Ruth Bader GINSBURG's passing. We are here really for three reasons. To show how unified we are. The Democrats are in trying to make sure. That her legacy is protected. And that's the second reason to honor that legacy. She was an amazing woman. Incredible In a male dominated legal establishment, she pushed away through for brains and strength and fortitude and change the world for women long before. The rest of the world caught up. And when she got to the court, she was able to bring that same equality in strength to so many different people of all different types and kinds. And she was an amazing woman and so the first reason we're here is unity and the second is to honor her legacy. To demand. That her lamb wish we're going to demand filled by the Senate. She said, my most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced by until a new president is installed. We believe that. So did the American people today? A Reuters poll came out and said, sixty, two percent of Americans agree with her. Okay let's Reuters poll said sixty, two percent of Americans while I'm glad that her last her dying wish wasn't that a chimpanzee replace her on the court because then we'd have to do that apparently whatever sick old ladies say on their deathbed is what the United States Senate has now compelled to do. What a bunch of garbage. That's Baloney. The US has one job. Advise and consent the president. K and guess what they withheld their consent. From President Obama on Merrick. Garland. And they may very well withhold their consent from President, trump on his pick. That's up up up to them, right And Senator Collins has said she won't Senator Murkowski said she won't. Probably Senator Romney will say he won't. So the Senate will advise and consent, and maybe they won't give their consent. But this is one of the things. One of the strengths of conservatism is that when we put someone forward from a group, first of all I'm GonNa say this. This is bs that the president is putting has said that he's going to put forth a woman. Is this woman seat now? Is Clarence Thomas seat a black seat. When Clarence Thomas dies or retires. Do. We have to appoint a black man. And if he's a conservative black man, will the Democrats say he's not really black. Because if you're black or you're not a conservative, right. You know when? Soda my are. Retires. Or you know passes on when she's not on the court anymore is the president no matter who it is compelled to pick a Latino woman. We gotTA stop. This. We gotTA. Stop it and president trump is doing it. By saying, he'll put a woman on. Okay and and I don't care if it's a woman or a man. I don't care if they're black white Latino Chinese I could care less. GimMe somebody from. Indonesia. WHO UNDERSTANDS THE LAW? I don't care if it's a little Vietnamese guy or Big Samoan? Woman. Yeah I could care less. I want you understand the constitution? And so president trump is joining in this whole idea that. You know it's got to be a woman because. Our BG was a woman. So now you got to put a woman on the court. That's BS in my view now, Ted Cruz has come out and back. When it was. Time for. Garland go forward. Here's what Ted Cruz had to say it has been eight years since the Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. 00:25:01 - 00:30:08 There's a long tradition that you don't do this in an election year. You don't do an election year. Sorry I got to get a drink a cool water there. She should've filled my water bottle up a little bit more than I did but regardless here I am. and. Maybe on the next break, I'll scoot over and fill that up So Ted Cruz we don't do it an election year right? Well, that's super convenient. When you were the guy who was saying no. But now, Ted Cruz is the guy who's saying yes. As Senator Ted Cruz joins us now good morning senator. Thanks for joining us this morning you and your colleagues are pretty clear back in two thousand sixteen to in an election year. A matter for the people decide is it fair for people to conclude right now that you've changed your tune because the President Republican not a Democrat. Well Georgia I'm happy to talk about that but I but I want to start by budget acknowledging the the extraordinary career Justice Ginsburg. Had she was a a trail blazing advocate? One of the finest Supreme Court litigators to have ever lived she she served for nearly three decades on the court I. I Argued Nine Times before Justice Ginsburg on the court she was brilliant justice she was she was her questions were always incisive. She was a careful lawyer. She's lead a a remarkable legacy and. Heidi. And I are prayers are are with her family who are grieving the loss of of someone who led an extraordinary life. Now, when the vacancy occurs that naturally leads to the to the question of what will happen next. And the answer in terms of what's going to happen next as we know now the president is going to make a nomination when I called for the president to make the nomination this coming week he's announced he's going to make the nomination this week, and I believe the right thing to do is for the Senate to take up this nomination and a confirm the nominee before election day now on the question of precedent. We had this fight at the end of the Brock Obama, a term, and and at the time all the Democrats were saying confirm the nominee confirmed the nominee and all the Republicans were saying we're not gonNA confirm the nominee, and so we've got a situation. You just played a quote for me in two thousand sixteen. We can play that game all day long where you can play I. Disagree with the nominee I don't disagree with that's what I'm just trying to get you to concede this is really about who has the votes and who has the power to any given time, right? Correct. No. It isn't if you look at history. One, the precedent is this has happened twenty nine times. Twenty nine times there has been a vacancy in a presidential election. I didn't know that that's residents had made nominations all twenty nine times. That's what presidents do. If there's a vacancy, they make a nomination what is the Senate done and there's a big difference in the Senate with weather the Senate is of the same party of the president or a different party the. President when the Senate has been of the same party of the President of Vacancy Occurs Election Year of the twenty, nine times those are nineteen of them of those nineteen. The Senate has confirmed those nominees seventeen time. So if the parties are the same, the Senate confirms the nominee when the parties are different, that's happened ten times. Merrick. Garland was one of them of those ten. The Senate has confirmed the nominees only twice. Only, twice now, there's a little bit of of learning that can go on here. Would this? The Senate and I talked about this the other day it'd be even before Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed the Senate and the. Court or the least democratic institutions in the whole thing they're the least responsive to democracy. Okay the court is appointed by the president confirmed by the Senate, right? That's how it works. The Senate is on six year term. Not Elected. As, often as the house and the president is not directly elected by the people, it's elected president selected by the Latrell College right and so these are the two least responsive parts of our. System in terms of democratic response. The House of Representatives is the most responsive to the people in terms of. You know the two year terms, right? And it has almost no role in the court other than establishing how many. Seats are on the court, which it may turn out to be an important role that they have. But the reality is that the least constitutional least democratic part of this whole thing is the court. And the second least democratic part is the Senate. And the the idea is that the founding fathers wanted to frustrate the whim of the moment. They wanted to frustrate the analogy. Of different kinds of. Attitudes that happened in society, and so by having these things related to the longer cycles, it meant that the judges were more responsive to the Republic and the constitutional ideas than they were to the whim of the moment, one more from Ted Cruz, and there's a reason for that. 00:30:08 - 00:35:01 It's not just simply your party, my party the reason is it's a question of checks and balances in order for a Supreme Court nomination. To go forward, you have to have the president and the Senate. In this instance, the American people voted elected Donald trump a big part of the reason they elected Donald Trump. Is Because of the Scalia. Vacancy and they wanted principal constitutionalist on the court and a big part of the reason why we have a Republican majority elected in two thousand fourteen reelected twenty, sixteen grown even larger twenty, eighteen a major issue in each of those elections the American people voted and said, we want constitutionalist judges. Right I hear what he said there. We have a majority in two thousand fourteen. The grew in sixteen and grew in eighteen. The Senate has become more Republican with each election. So have governors. Conservatism at the ballot box is succeeding. Don't believe twitter. Don't believe your local media because they're all full of crap they're lying. To you all of these polls, about Joe, Biden up by eight their intended to keep you home. Understand what the mission is. They want you dispirited. That's what they're trying to do. It's it's it's What do they call gas lighting, right? So Now. When we put through as conservatives because of this process when we put someone through this part of a group and back to my rant on groups that I'm not excited about the fact that we're giving in to this idea has to be a woman. But when we do say, let's put a woman candidate through. We put through somebody WHO's a Rockstar? Okay, the difference on the liberal side is they put through whoever screams the loudest. Whoever says I'm a victim with the loudest voice is who gets moved up on the liberal side. On our side because it's harder because you know if you're a black man who is conservative or a black woman who is a conservative Timori classic out there in in Baltimore, you're just going to get hammered for being an uncle Tom or whatever I don't know what they call a a woman on that side of the deal, but the point is that. You know their. It's terrible. The way they treat somebody who's not part of the expected, and so when we put someone forward whose one member one of those groups. There a Rockstar. Every time. Now. Again. Ruth Bader GINSBURG should've retired. Should have retired. In two, thousand, thirteen. Two Thousand Twelve two thousand thirteen when Barack Obama was reelected they had Harry Reid is the majority leader of the Senate they could put through somebody who was thirty seven years old, who would be on the court for fifty years. They didn't. They didn't. And so guess what? That's incompetence. That's long-term party incompetence. It's Hubris. An incompetent since the assumption, the problem with the Obama Administration wasn't wasn't that they were incompetent what they did the problem with the Obama Administration is that they thought they were so competent that no one else could ever compete with them. And so they thought they were permanent. Trump knows not permanent. Trump knows he's got limited time. That's what trump's doing so much so fast. 'cause trump knows if he doesn't get her done. Pretty quick. It could be outright and so. Now what this is. Is a chance for. US to have and by US I. Mean Conservatives People, WanNa keep the republic. For us to have an extinction level event, happen on the left. Literally, level an event that could just completely end their party. and. Here's why I don't care who trump nominates I could care less. I want them confirmed. I want them confirm it and the reason I, want confirmed because I want to watch the left lose their minds. And burn their own. Party down. When they lose their minds. America does see it. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the appointment of a conservative Supreme Court justice may be more important than trump being reelected in the big picture. 00:35:03 - 00:40:00 WHO KNOWS One vote makes a big difference, right? Now. Here's some things I have to say about. Justice GINSBURG. She's a legend right and She was wicked. SMART. wicked. SMART. She understood the law really well. And I wouldn't read some of her decisions. And Review I'd read them as they come out. A Geek. I read too much and it's it's not a good thing always but I do I spent a Lotta time sitting reading in the supreme. Court decisions when they come out a usually read most of them at least have a appear to have a significant import, which is almost all of them because otherwise they don't make the Supreme Court right. So she is a legend. And When you read her opinions and her dissents. You can see the logic flowing through it. Even though it's logic I didn't agree with and she had some premises I. Don't agree with you can see the logic in her arguments. She was a brilliant jurist she's worth studying. Elena Kagan. Sonia or Not so much. Not, so much these guys are ideologues. Who write about how they feel? There's very little logic in what they write about. They just. It's all about how they feel. They don't have liberal legal theories. They have. Theories about. How things work in people's lives and so on and not that that's bad. But that's not the law. Your job isn't to determine how much you like a law. As Supreme Court justice you're determined your job is to determine whether or not the law is constitutional and should be passed. That's your job. And so. Late Kagan. It's kind of funny. She was before she was on the court she was Obama's Solicitor General. LOOK UP HER WIN-LOSS RECORD Elena Kagan lost at the court consistently the arguments that she put in front of the court, the court rejected over and over and over again. So what did Obama do? Well, he put her on the court, the court wouldn't reject her arguments. When someone else made them. Right and so here we have ruth, Bader Ginsburg who is one of the most powerful women in the country who knows because she's wicked smart. She knows what the process is. She knows that if she retires Obama can put somebody in she saw Kagan. And Soda or come in, and here she was best friends with Antonin Scalia. Right? Now and Scalia. Many people think. I'm not sure I'm one of them. I'm just going to say what people think many people think. That Scalia was assassinated. J.. So here you are you're dying your your Ruth Bader Ginsburg you're dying of pancreatic cancer. Your best. Friend. In the law and Scalia. All sudden taken out maybe assassinated. Came and Your. Party. Appoints these these you know? I don't know what else to call them. These mental midgets who are concerned more about how things feel than about the law. She's looking at what the what's on the court and she's saying I can't give Obama another one of these. There's nobody here WHO's a lawyer? Not Saying that. The GINSBURG was some Kinda. Stealth conservative I. Just think that she didn't WanNa give Obama another pick. Maybe not. But I think that's what she did. I think she just said you know what? Screw you guys I'm going to stick it out. And when she saw. Joe. Biden. As the the candidate. I think that it was just all my gosh. They're going to put a dementia patient up here. I don't know I'm just speculating here as to how went down but regardless we're to talk a little bit about the virus in some of the the new attack line on Donald. Trump over the virus when we get back for the race so. Back in just a minute or two and we will. Get into that. Thanks again for your time and attention please visit the website and share the show and become a sponsor that would be awesome nice. Welcome back. Republic podcasts. 00:40:00 - 00:45:04 Thanks for giving me a minute out to a fault, my water bottle and make sure the guy talks for an hour. Your throat gets dry at times. What it is right now anyway. Welcome. Back to the republic keeper podcast. Joining the break. Coming in and the broadcast banks again, remember to hit that share button ensure the show. Live in progresses best if you can. Jewish on the podcast later also please do share the show. Doesn't matter so. So moving on we have. Some the new attack line on President trump has begun. And it is. Of course, you know trump is the worst person ever and apparently now It's it's why it's a couple of attack lines. First one is we have two hundred, thousand people dead and it's trump's fault and if trump had done something different, it would have been less. So the first one is. Here is Dr Sanjay Gupta. This is Vin Gupta. From Seattle I'm at the university. Of Washington. Chuck I. You nailed it without comment. I think it's the message. It sends that that's the loss opportunity in terms of quantification. Everybody's in criticize models because the the output is only as good as the input but there's convincing evidence that probably seventy percent of lives. Could have been saved that have since been lost if we had a early shutdown so two weeks earlier, seventy percent allies would have been saved. If we added masks on top, this is what I can tell chuck. I'm not going to speculate on what we could have done. But if we adopt universal mask and right now, something the president forty eight hours ago continues to to make fun of question the efficacy of if we adopt universal asking right now, we could potentially save up to two hundred thousand lives according to estimates, University of Washington by December one. So this is serious. This isn't going away and on the West Coast at least chuck you know we're talking about masks but well, fitting high-quality masks. That's the issue here is that just put a piece of cloth on your nose and your mouth? What's the type? The NASCAR WE CAN'T? And so Hurry said. Could. Save another two, hundred, thousand lives by December first. So what they're saying is that in the next ten weeks. WE'RE GONNA, lose another as many people's we've lost in the six months. Including the time when we didn't even know how to treat it or what to do that's what he's saying and the seventy percent figure. So the one, ninety, nine, there take seventy percent off there would have been what? Only sixty thousand deaths trump is responsible for one hundred, forty, thousand deaths. It's his fault. He has blood on his hands Donald. Trump is the worst man. Is the new line. Take a listen. It was shocking to see the president saying that the virus was a hoax saying that everything's okay. When we know that it's not the truth is he doesn't actually care about anyone else but himself if the president had taken this virus while seriously he actually made an effort to tell how serious it was. He would have slowed the virus Fred, she would have saved lives. He would have saved lives Donald trump would have saved lives. In fact, you know it's this is amazing. This now woman comments on this ad she says that it's up to half of all the deaths and the role that I had. Government aid for all of the role that I had. I was watching it the effects of the chaos that was happening at the White House and I could tell something really really wrong better respond to hear first-hand first-hand from Libya who is in the room y things were so chaotic that it wasn't just. Inexperienced people with dealing with something novel. And not. Prime. Cool. Not Realizing that they needed to rely on their governments Experts in public health emergency management community, but in fact. It wasn't just incompetence there was designed here. There was a intentional negligence anti here per explain. What she witnessed, it just broke my heart that in in our country that can happen and there a study that came out this week that really this into context why Lydia's testimony matters Brookings Institute looked at other countries around the globe in our country a compared in these are countries that have standards of living way. Ours have access to healthcare like ours and they discovered that because the way that we who've adventurers. Hit influence other countries we have nine, million, nine, million more people working today. And there would be a hundred thousand people not dead. 00:45:04 - 00:50:01 So. We have almost two hundred, thousand dead half of those wives would have been say if the trump administration has followed, the plans that we have in place have had in place for fifteen years and had acted responsibly in the way many other governments across the path. Right and so she says, half of the deaths would have been prevented right and so let me this is where you're going to be a better news consumer by being a Republican podcast listener whenever you hear the brookings. Institution. You should hear dishonest leftist think-tank. Because that's who the Brookings Institution is, they are a dishonest left wing wing think tank that's who they are. That's what they do. They're unreliable at every level. In every way. So. Then they had this presidential historian on our Melber did over on his name is on Michael Beschloss presidential historian and he said trump doesn't actually care but listens to what we're hearing about. This is you know you look elect trump again we they lose our democracy. You know what we were just hearing omen ago in private trump does not care. About those who are suffering dying from covert can you imagine if this were thousand, nine, hundred, forty, four and someone from the Franklin Roosevelt Administration. In closing years of world. War Two said he really doesn't care about the troops behind the scenes. He doesn't have a plan to win the war that would have been draconian. This is something we really haven't seen. Right with something win something we're not seeing now that's not what's happening. You one disgruntled employee who says that and that's not doesn't make it what's happening. Regardless, there was this guy doctor Redlener I guess is the guy's name last clip we have and he's GonNa he's now we've gone six months. And it's one ninety nine they've had on the screen they're right and now this guy is going to have the projection that this is the ultimate fear porn clip ready get beat be afraid be very, very afraid. Yes to call it's really just absolutely horrendous. In fact, if you just take the total number of days between now and the election now on the end of the year and just sit multiplied by thousand, you'll get a pretty good sense of what we're gonna be looking at fatality. Wise. If you carry that through the end of twenty, twenty one if things don't change dramatically and by the way he's he's completely dishonest about the time line for the vaccine and how effective it's going to be. So we have we're looking at hundreds of thousands and I actually had predicted a few months ago in an op Ed that we could be seeing six to eight, hundred, thousand fatalities if. Six to eight hundred, thousand fatalities. Six to eight, hundred, thousand. If what? If we don't do anything through the end of next year and the deaths continue at the pace, they were the worst day get really wild with the pandemic and we don't have the control measures. So what we've learned about him, he's absolutely a pathological liar. We should be remind yourselves about this every day and I'm waiting for the moment when his supporters will will get this and you know he was impeached for. Making a phone call to the Ukraine president. If you think about it now he's going to be responsible for a couple of hundred thousand unnecessary deaths covid nineteen. There's no reason why like other countries we should not have been at this point less than fifty thousand S, and now we're hitting two, hundred thousand. It is really outrageous and if that wasn't enough with the thing about this his attacks of Redfield on Redfield, etc.. All right. That's enough of that. I can't stand anymore of that guy. So the sorry about that but you know the. So this is the new attack line is that president trump is a mass murderer. That he is the worst person ever and he has blood on his hands. One hundred thousand dead Americans because of president trump is what they're saying. And of course, it's not true. and. If you go back to the early press conferences when the president had the charts up and they were doing the Fifty fifteen days or fourteen days to slow the spread. The initial projections? I. Remember I I sent out a tweet that said they're setting us up for the idea that a quarter million dead is a win. And That's exactly right. The projections from the Neil Ferguson and the whatever it is the. Ice. Over whatever it is the U. Dub, they were all in the millions. and. So now here we are this two, hundred thousand is. The truth is when you take out the nursing home patients. It's unbelievably successful. and. So this is just a lie and IT'S A it's a smear and it's designed to. 00:50:02 - 00:50:31 Hurt the president and give Joe Biden an opportunity to occupy the White House one I hope that he never gets. So thanks for listening this morning. I appreciate your time and attention. Do Remember visit the website and support. The show will be back with more tomorrow and. Again thanksgiving risen. Republic. Uber. Dot Com and finding that link to patriotic and become. A sponsor and sharing the show. We'll see you tomorrow.  

I can always appreciate a good story, especially when I feel like something is being left out. In this weeks Podcast I dig into the surprising history of the Republican & Democratic parties. I can't believe this history isn't taught as a whole. If I was a GOP / Republican candidate, this history would be a key focus and not just a line item. Here we go. Talk to you soon. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/PlainWayneWins/support

Recorded LIVE from WCOM 103.5 FM in Carrboro/Chapel Hill, North Carolina, veteran talk show host Bill Hendrickson of "Time Out" and I discussed our American political divide.  I gave a brief background of the formation, development & history of the "Seeking Justice" talk show concept from 2014 through it's move to the Triangle of North Carolina.  The show's objective: to reveal deeper perspectives of both sides of current events, contemporary issues of conflict, and social justice issues in which both sides are "seeking justice" from THEIR perspective. Seeking first to understand assists both sides to empathize with the deeper perspective of the other. I provided a list of future guests booked for September which include Political candidates (both Republican & Democratic) for office in the 4th District of Orange County, North Carolina -coming on the show together in two weeks. 

In Episode 6, Marc works through the key sticking points keeping Canada out of a NAFTA 2.0, muses on the future of Trade Promotion Authority, and breaks down the Republican/Democratic divide over the so-called "United States - Mexico Trade Agreement" now on a 90-day clock.

On this installment of Issa Gorilla, Guerrilla Hebrew introduces a new sub-podcast that will feature fellow Biracial Angel Hasad Chaarab in what they're calling Beige Rage. To kick Beige Rage off the duo discuss Kanye West; his recent controversial comments, his music catalog, where he went wrong as well as the history of the Republican & Democratic parties in America. 

On this episode, Professor of Tax Law, Andy Haile presented his initial impressions of the proposed changes to the tax code. He described that each individual or family's circumstances would determine whether they would see increases to their taxes or have tax cuts. Specifically, one change is a proposed "block deduction" for families (with children) and a removal of the prior deduction per child. Professor Haile discussed the ramifications of the removal of tax deductions for state taxes - highlighting that many home and property owners may pay more due to the loss of these deductions. He clarified that mortgage and charity deductions would remain. Overall, it appeared that the reforms may result in tax increases for middle income earners and tax cuts for the highest 20% of income earners while the lower income class rates and taxes would remain unchanged.   Andy reviewed the consequences of eliminating the estate tax and warned that the "base level rise" (on estate homes or properties that have increased in value - which are currently NOT taxed) may be taxed in the future. He clarified that the estate tax only applies to the highest valued estates (5.5 M. - 11 million+). Middle income estates may essentially pay an estate or "death" tax in the future (if the "base level rise" is taken away) while high income estates would not pay taxes. We discussed whether tax cuts for corporations should mandate that corporations hire more workers and increase salaries for middle income workers.  Andy felt this would be too difficult (both politically and mathematically to quantify). I felt that corporate tax preparation could & would accommodate the accounting (and quantify) the additional hiring & salaried increases to justify continued tax cuts. I presented that both the corporation and workers would benefit so much from the work to make this happen that it would be worth it. As proposed, corporations would see a cut from 39% to 20% with zero requirements for the use of the extra money saved. I emphasized the need for change. Quantifying/justifying tax cuts for corporations would benefit ALL and would/could go over well - both politically and on paper - if it were presented well. Individuals would have simpler forms, and corporations could easily justify the energy to quantify their massive tax cut because the public would receive it so much better if it were realized fairly. We briefly reviewed the failure of "trickle down economics" and I highlighted to Andy that mandating the hiring of jobs and salary increases to middle income earners would accomplish both Republican & Democratic goals and help our capitalistic system turn back toward the original ideals that founded our constitution and our country.  

Celebrated economist Jeffrey Sachs joins Bob Herbert in discussing the state of the American economy, how it has fared over the past few decades under Republican & Democratic presidents, & how the presidential nominees differ in their economic approach.

The words politically passionate typically aren't used to describe an 8-year old, but that's Tina Vierling. Her parents recognized they had an 'awoke' child when Tina began commenting on different injustices she was seeing in the news. She would rather spend time at a Republican & Democratic debate watch party than home playing with Barbies. In the last year she has attended numerous political events including; the caucuses in Iowa, a lunch for Chelsea Clinton and Mayor Sly James as well as private fundraisers. Tina is making her mark on the world and shares advice we can all learn from. 

Scientists agree that California’s droughts are cyclical and appear to be growing worse. While some technologies have been developed to address shortages, water policy remains a divisive issue in the Golden State, and not necessarily along traditional Republican-Democratic party lines. Instead, the splits are evident between agricultural and urban industries, the Central Valley and coastal communities, and environmentalists and fracking proponents, among others. Join moderator Dick Beahrs, State Water Resources Control Board Chair Felicia Marcus, former US Representative Mel Levine and David Sedlak, director of the Institute for Environmental Science and Engineering at UC Berkeley for a timely discussion on finding bipartisan solutions to ensure a sustainable water supply in California. Presented by the Center on Civility & Democratic Engagement at the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley. Series: "Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 30123]

Scientists agree that California’s droughts are cyclical and appear to be growing worse. While some technologies have been developed to address shortages, water policy remains a divisive issue in the Golden State, and not necessarily along traditional Republican-Democratic party lines. Instead, the splits are evident between agricultural and urban industries, the Central Valley and coastal communities, and environmentalists and fracking proponents, among others. Join moderator Dick Beahrs, State Water Resources Control Board Chair Felicia Marcus, former US Representative Mel Levine and David Sedlak, director of the Institute for Environmental Science and Engineering at UC Berkeley for a timely discussion on finding bipartisan solutions to ensure a sustainable water supply in California. Presented by the Center on Civility & Democratic Engagement at the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley. Series: "Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 30123]

Scientists agree that California’s droughts are cyclical and appear to be growing worse. While some technologies have been developed to address shortages, water policy remains a divisive issue in the Golden State, and not necessarily along traditional Republican-Democratic party lines. Instead, the splits are evident between agricultural and urban industries, the Central Valley and coastal communities, and environmentalists and fracking proponents, among others. Join moderator Dick Beahrs, State Water Resources Control Board Chair Felicia Marcus, former US Representative Mel Levine and David Sedlak, director of the Institute for Environmental Science and Engineering at UC Berkeley for a timely discussion on finding bipartisan solutions to ensure a sustainable water supply in California. Presented by the Center on Civility & Democratic Engagement at the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley. Series: "Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 30123]

Scientists agree that California’s droughts are cyclical and appear to be growing worse. While some technologies have been developed to address shortages, water policy remains a divisive issue in the Golden State, and not necessarily along traditional Republican-Democratic party lines. Instead, the splits are evident between agricultural and urban industries, the Central Valley and coastal communities, and environmentalists and fracking proponents, among others. Join moderator Dick Beahrs, State Water Resources Control Board Chair Felicia Marcus, former US Representative Mel Levine and David Sedlak, director of the Institute for Environmental Science and Engineering at UC Berkeley for a timely discussion on finding bipartisan solutions to ensure a sustainable water supply in California. Presented by the Center on Civility & Democratic Engagement at the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley. Series: "Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 30123]

Scientists agree that California’s droughts are cyclical and appear to be growing worse. While some technologies have been developed to address shortages, water policy remains a divisive issue in the Golden State, and not necessarily along traditional Republican-Democratic party lines. Instead, the splits are evident between agricultural and urban industries, the Central Valley and coastal communities, and environmentalists and fracking proponents, among others. Join moderator Dick Beahrs, State Water Resources Control Board Chair Felicia Marcus, former US Representative Mel Levine and David Sedlak, director of the Institute for Environmental Science and Engineering at UC Berkeley for a timely discussion on finding bipartisan solutions to ensure a sustainable water supply in California. Presented by the Center on Civility & Democratic Engagement at the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley. Series: "Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 30123]

Scientists agree that California’s droughts are cyclical and appear to be growing worse. While some technologies have been developed to address shortages, water policy remains a divisive issue in the Golden State, and not necessarily along traditional Republican-Democratic party lines. Instead, the splits are evident between agricultural and urban industries, the Central Valley and coastal communities, and environmentalists and fracking proponents, among others. Join moderator Dick Beahrs, State Water Resources Control Board Chair Felicia Marcus, former US Representative Mel Levine and David Sedlak, director of the Institute for Environmental Science and Engineering at UC Berkeley for a timely discussion on finding bipartisan solutions to ensure a sustainable water supply in California. Presented by the Center on Civility & Democratic Engagement at the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley. Series: "Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 30123]

Scientists agree that California’s droughts are cyclical and appear to be growing worse. While some technologies have been developed to address shortages, water policy remains a divisive issue in the Golden State, and not necessarily along traditional Republican-Democratic party lines. Instead, the splits are evident between agricultural and urban industries, the Central Valley and coastal communities, and environmentalists and fracking proponents, among others. Join moderator Dick Beahrs, State Water Resources Control Board Chair Felicia Marcus, former US Representative Mel Levine and Davd Sedlak, director of the Institute for Environmental Science and Engineering at UC Berkeley for a timely discussion on finding bipartisan solutions to ensure a sustainable water supply in California. This web-only version contains the Q&A that followed the presentations. Series: "Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley" [Public Affairs] [Science] [Show ID: 30276]

Scientists agree that California’s droughts are cyclical and appear to be growing worse. While some technologies have been developed to address shortages, water policy remains a divisive issue in the Golden State, and not necessarily along traditional Republican-Democratic party lines. Instead, the splits are evident between agricultural and urban industries, the Central Valley and coastal communities, and environmentalists and fracking proponents, among others. Join moderator Dick Beahrs, State Water Resources Control Board Chair Felicia Marcus, former US Representative Mel Levine and Davd Sedlak, director of the Institute for Environmental Science and Engineering at UC Berkeley for a timely discussion on finding bipartisan solutions to ensure a sustainable water supply in California. This web-only version contains the Q&A that followed the presentations. Series: "Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley" [Public Affairs] [Science] [Show ID: 30276]

Scientists agree that California’s droughts are cyclical and appear to be growing worse. While some technologies have been developed to address shortages, water policy remains a divisive issue in the Golden State, and not necessarily along traditional Republican-Democratic party lines. Instead, the splits are evident between agricultural and urban industries, the Central Valley and coastal communities, and environmentalists and fracking proponents, among others. Join moderator Dick Beahrs, State Water Resources Control Board Chair Felicia Marcus, former US Representative Mel Levine and Davd Sedlak, director of the Institute for Environmental Science and Engineering at UC Berkeley for a timely discussion on finding bipartisan solutions to ensure a sustainable water supply in California. This web-only version contains the Q&A that followed the presentations. Series: "Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley" [Public Affairs] [Science] [Show ID: 30276]

Scientists agree that California’s droughts are cyclical and appear to be growing worse. While some technologies have been developed to address shortages, water policy remains a divisive issue in the Golden State, and not necessarily along traditional Republican-Democratic party lines. Instead, the splits are evident between agricultural and urban industries, the Central Valley and coastal communities, and environmentalists and fracking proponents, among others. Join moderator Dick Beahrs, State Water Resources Control Board Chair Felicia Marcus, former US Representative Mel Levine and Davd Sedlak, director of the Institute for Environmental Science and Engineering at UC Berkeley for a timely discussion on finding bipartisan solutions to ensure a sustainable water supply in California. This web-only version contains the Q&A that followed the presentations. Series: "Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley" [Public Affairs] [Science] [Show ID: 30276]

Scientists agree that California’s droughts are cyclical and appear to be growing worse. While some technologies have been developed to address shortages, water policy remains a divisive issue in the Golden State, and not necessarily along traditional Republican-Democratic party lines. Instead, the splits are evident between agricultural and urban industries, the Central Valley and coastal communities, and environmentalists and fracking proponents, among others. Join moderator Dick Beahrs, State Water Resources Control Board Chair Felicia Marcus, former US Representative Mel Levine and Davd Sedlak, director of the Institute for Environmental Science and Engineering at UC Berkeley for a timely discussion on finding bipartisan solutions to ensure a sustainable water supply in California. This web-only version contains the Q&A that followed the presentations. Series: "Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley" [Public Affairs] [Science] [Show ID: 30276]

Scientists agree that California’s droughts are cyclical and appear to be growing worse. While some technologies have been developed to address shortages, water policy remains a divisive issue in the Golden State, and not necessarily along traditional Republican-Democratic party lines. Instead, the splits are evident between agricultural and urban industries, the Central Valley and coastal communities, and environmentalists and fracking proponents, among others. Join moderator Dick Beahrs, State Water Resources Control Board Chair Felicia Marcus, former US Representative Mel Levine and Davd Sedlak, director of the Institute for Environmental Science and Engineering at UC Berkeley for a timely discussion on finding bipartisan solutions to ensure a sustainable water supply in California. This web-only version contains the Q&A that followed the presentations. Series: "Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley" [Public Affairs] [Science] [Show ID: 30276]