What Do Donald Trump, The Sightline Institute, Sierra Club of Washington and Columbia River Keeper Have in Common?

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , , /by

like_trumpThey All Want You to Ignore Recent Studies on Climate Change…

An important new study on Climate Change was released last week by multiple agencies of the Federal Government. The study concludes, again, that the world’s temperatures are rising and that human activity is a significant cause. 

So, did President Donald Trump embrace the science? The newly released study?

Nope. 

“I don’t believe it.” was all he said. He placed his uninformed opinion above the competent researchers that produced the report. 

This nonsense only happens on the Right, right? Wrong. Here in Washington State, environmental activists are doing the same thing.

Two weeks ago, an independent and thorough study was released that shows building a proposed methanol plant in Kalama, Washington will reduce Global Greenhouse Gases by as much as is produced by 89% of all private cars on Washington State Roads.

The response from The Sightline Institute, Sierra Club Washington and The Columbia River keepers? 

“Ignore the study!” (See here, for one example)

Wow. We on the Left can be as daft as the Right.

Some Background…

In September 2016, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was released for a Methanol Production Plant proposed to be built in Kalama. The report made claims that building the plant would have net-positive effects on Global Greenhouse Gases (GHG). Specifically, that by building this plant & shipping methanol to China, that methanol would replace coal in Chinese production processes, resulting in a significant reduction of GHG. Or said more succinctly, using methanol for producing products in China is significantly cleaner than the coal that China currently uses.

More Research!!!

Activists, however, were not satisfied that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement provided enough research into the overall affects of building the plant. 

Specifically, opponents, including Sightline Institute and Columbia River Keepers, wanted the State to consider not only the impacts of building the plant within Washington State, they wanted a more thorough study on both the upstream (the GHG that is produced in fracking the natural gas that the Kalama Plant would use) and the downstream (the GHG produced in transporting and burning the methanol in China).

Fair enough. I agree with them! We need to understand the entire lifecycle of the projects we build. 

To that end, the Shoreline Hearings Board put the project permits on hold, and in May of this year, Superior Court Judge Stephen Warning (that name!) ordered exactly that, saying that the environmental review was inadequate & that a full lifecycle analysis had to be done.

Chop! Chop!

Behold! A Study!

So what happened? Well…as the Hearings Board, the Judge (Warning!), and environmentalists asked, a study WAS done. And not a small study, but a comprehensive cradle-to-grave lifecycle analysis of the entire project. 

In other words, the opponents got exactly what they asked for…and guess what? The study answered and refuted not some, but most of their concerns.

The study concluded not only that building the plant would reduce the Global Greenhouse Gases by a little…it would reduce them by a lot! 

Building the methanol plant at Kalama, according to the commissioned study, will reduce GHG by 11.5 million metric tons per year. That’s just a number…so how much is 11.5 million metric tons? It’s the equivalent of removing 89% of all privately owned cars from Washington State Roads.

Think how much work we do to try to improve transportation…and then realize that in one act, we could remove 89% of the negative impact of those cars. Now.

Environmentalists Are Satisfied! Right? Right?

The critics raised serious and important questions that needed to be answered. And they won! They forced the independent study! And the most important questions they were asking have now been answered.

You’d expect them to be satisfied, to move from being skeptics to supporters, right? After all, this project represents the single-largest reduction of GHG that Washington State will have ever undertaken. That’s a win! Right?

In my 25 years in political activism, I’ve learned one important truth: activists are rarely happy.

Many are so identified with their opposition to a thing that they can’t recognize when they’ve won an important battle. And that’s what has happened here. Sightline, The Sierra Club and the Columbia River Keepers won an important battle. And they’re still not happy.

Trump Wants Coal. Environmentalists Want Coal Too?

Trump has been busy trying to prop-up and revive the coal industry. And here again, we find a parallel with Sightline, Sierra Club and Columbia River Keepers.

These enviros are screaming “Fracked Gas!” as though they are telling you the whole story. They are not. Their complaints are short-sighted and disingenuous. Why? Because “fracked gas!” is only one side of the equation. The other side? Dirtier Coal.

By opposing the plant in Kalama, these environmentalists are propping up the coal industry in China. They are arguing that instead of taking this opportunity to displace coal, we should maintain the status quo. Do nothing. Allow China to simply proceed as normal. In other words, burn more and more coal.

The methanol produced in Kalama will replace a much dirtier fuel. So while we can all agree that fracked natural gas and fossil fuels are not a long-term solution to climate change, we should also be able to agree that taking strong steps to reduce the dirtiest sources of pollution should be a top priority. The methanol plant at Kalama does exactly that. In a big way.

But, don’t just take my word for it

Read the report!

Hey Enviros! We need a WIN! 

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by
Click Image to Read the Port & County Sponsored DSEIS Report

Read the Port & County Sponsored DSEIS Report

…and it’s Right In Front of Us

Support The Kalama Methanol Plant. Reduce Global Greenhouse Gases by 11.5 Million Metric Tons per year.

Washington State Enviros continue to collect losses. Losing has become a habit.

Over the past three years, a State Carbon Tax has been defeated three times: Initiative 732 lost 60-40% in 2016. Governor Inslee, despite having a Democratically controlled Senate, couldn’t pass Senate Bill 6302 in 2017. And now, Initiative 1631 was soundly defeated 57-43% this month. Ouch.

In my 25 years working electoral politics in Washington State, I’ve learned an important lesson: Losing is NOT Winning. That may sound obvious, but many so-called environmental activists simply do not understand this. They’ll lose, year after year, and declare in some tortured way that the loss was actually a victory.

Let’s Remove 89% of the Cars from Washington Roads, beginning RIGHT NOW!

Fortunately, Washington’s Environmental Activists have the opportunity score a huge victory for the reduction of Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions. It’s ready for them to push over the top, and to declare an easy and significant victory. Oddly, however, they are opposed to this effort.

Northwest Innovation Works is close to receiving final approval to build a $2 billion Methanol Plant at the Port of Kalama in Cowlitz County. They just received a stunning report that was overseen by the Port of Kalama and Cowlitz County, the lead agencies for the State’s Environmental Review.

The Study outlines that by building the plant, global greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by 11.5 Million Metric Tons per year.

How big a number is this? It is the equivalent of removing 89% of the cars on Washington’s roads. Right now. In the immediate future. 

Think of the effort we all go through to improve our transportation system, in designing and building and buying electric cars. In building bike lanes and encouraging broad adoption of cleaner commutes.

The Kalama Methanol Plant would represent the largest single-effort reduction of Greenhouse Gases in the History of Washington State. 

How does this work? How is building a Methanol plant going to reduce global emissions? The methanol will be produced using the tightly regulated natural gas coming from British Columbia. From there, it will be shipped to China, replacing a significant portion of Coal that is used to produce Methanol there. The offset will reduce global emissions by 11.5 million metric tons of CO2. 

That is a stunning number. And would represent the largest single-effort reduction of Greenhouse Gases in the History of Washington State. 

Environmentalists Can’t Get Out of Their Own Way

Yet…many of the leading environmental agencies and activists in Washington State can’t find their way to taking the win that’s right in front of them. The plant is opposed by the Sierra Club, Sightline Institute and the Colombia River Keepers. Their opposition makes little sense.

Primarily, they oppose the plant because they oppose the production of British Columbia Natural Gas. They use the word “fracked” to drum up their point, overlooking several key factors:

  1. The British Columbia Natural Gas Market is among the most tightly regulated markets in the world. 
  2. China’s Coal Production and Burning are among the least tightly regulated markets in the world. 
  3. If China doesn’t have a cheaper, cleaner source of fuels, they will continue to burn Coal.

Don’t Let the Good be the Enemy of the Perfect

So, instead of focusing on the staggering reduction of GHG available to us right now, many enviros prefer that China continue to burn coal. Loss after loss after loss. As I said before, it’s become an environmental habit.

Take the win. Let us all win. And let us move forward together.

Netflix, not Frank Underwood, is the Real Devil

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , /by
net_underHouse of Cards is a dangerous and cheap exploitation of ignorance.
 
I’ve previously criticized journalists who mix fiction and non-fiction by using their persons to portray fictional journalists on TV.
 
But more than that, Netflix, its writers and producers, its executives and owners, cross a dangerous line when they mingle fiction with actual and current nonfiction issues.
 
For example, when they suggest that Frank Underwood is leaving to start a Foundation, to put himself where real power lies. When they mix in stories about Syria, chemical weapons, and Isis; stories which are current and which need real and nuanced understanding.
 
By playing loose with these real and present world issues, they are influencing the public with fantasy, not reality. It’s irresponsible, immoral.
 
Morality; does any care about that?
 
Frank Underwood at one point says “there is no justice, only conquest.” And Netflix is aiding that sentiment.
 
The most prescient danger we face is that people, even relatively well-informed people, can no longer distinguish between fact and fiction.
 
Netflix is playing that for laughs. For subscribers.
 
It’s deadly serious.

The Measure of a Market

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , , /by

Here’s my answer: a well functioning market will distribute wealth (or income) in the pattern of a bell curve.

18402695_10155201378451678_1092038054711139476_nMarkets are artificial constructs. The only way to build a productive market is to determine the desired outcome and adjust market regulation along the way.

The problem in the United States is that we’ve placed all value in the fantasy of a “free” market. There are two problems here:

  1. There is no such thing as a free market; all markets are constructs.
  2. The solution can never be pre-determined. Values have to be determined and outcomes measured against those values.

We have no idea what a successful market should look like. I’ve asked the following question of several economists and mostly received blank stares: “How do you know if a market is working?” It usually then moves to a discussion of jobs and unemployment numbers. But jobs aren’t the desired product of an economy, the desired product is wealth or income. Jobs can be artificially inflated: cut all jobs in half and you’ve just doubled employment.

The answer to the question (is the market working?) should be the core value of any economy. That seemingly few Americans even understand the question, let alone have a coherent answer, is a problem.

Here’s my answer: a well functioning market will distribute wealth (or income) in the pattern of a bell curve.

Is the market working? Simply overlay the graph of current wealth distribution (b) with a bell curve (a), and you get a visual representation of how well the market is functioning.

The degree to which the actual curve and the bell curve differ shows you exactly how off the market is; or said differently: B is a result of a poorly constructed market. B is NOT the result of harder working wealthy people.

I first developed these ideas here: Makers and Takers

Rise of Berniecrats, Death of Democrats, Ergo, Death of America

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

IMG_7276The Democratic Party is being severely weakened, and will be unable to mount any serious challenge to the Trump wing of the US.

Bernie Sanders and his supporters will prove to be the worst thing to happen to the Left in decades. And his followers, who have very little understanding of realpolitik, do not have anywhere near enough support to implement their flawed ideology; but they have enough to hamstring the unity needed to disrupt any serious effort push back on the Right.

Right now, the DNC, which has much less power than Berniecrats have been lead to believe, have created a “Unity” committee, which will be formed with Clinton appointing 9 members, and Bernie Sanders appointing 7 members.

Think about this: Bernie Sanders still refuses to identify as and commit to being a Democrat, and yet he’s being given huge power to shape the party. And the Berniecrats, who haven’t won any political race of any significance, fancy themselves as experts on how to take back the Country.

Remember the platform committee? Bernie put Cornell West on that committee; he who promptly endorsed Jill Stein after the effort.

The Berniecrats are toxic, ill informed, and frankly, immoral (go research their treatment of Delores Huerta in the Nevada primary caucus to deflate any notion of the movement’s moral superiority). The net result of this is that they will only have enough power to kill the Democratic Party; not enough to kill Trump.

And that has the potential to kill America.

Guns Don’t Kill People, Statistics Do

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

PrintThe primary reason given for gun ownership is protection. That is one valid potential use for a gun. But that is not the only way that a gun can be used. Here are common uses for a gun:

  1. Protection
  2. Intentional self-harm
  3. Accidental self-harm
  4. Intentional other-harm
  5. Accidental other-harm

On this list, protection is statistically the least likely. Uses 2-5 are much more common than is protection. So, when a gun is introduced into a home, it is significantly more likely to be used for unintended reasons than for the intended reason.

That would be true in a home of one person. Now let’s multiply the above list by the number of people who have proximity to that gun:

  1. Self
  2. Family Members
  3. Visitors to the home
  4. Thieves

None of us can predict future circumstances or know of future mental states. None of us can predict the potential for mental illness (either permanent or temporary) either in ourself or in those with proximity to the gun.

Gun x Unintended Uses x Others x Unknown Future = Danger

Take the statistically more likely uses for the gun (2-5) and multiply that by the number of people proximity to that gun, and multiply that again by the unknown future mental state of any of those with proximity, and you begin to understand why a gun in the home is significantly more likely to be used in a manner that is not intended.

Homes with a gun are more dangerous than homes without a gun.

Trump The Cuban Missile Crisis

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

mushroom-cloud-photography-11892-www-wallconvertNOTE: While there is a humorous tone to this post, I take the issue quite seriously. Trump is simply not fit to be POTUS. This is an attempt to envision the Cuban Missile Crisis under a Trump Presidency.

Day 1

President Trump learns on Twitter that Cuba has nuclear weapons.

Trump Tweets: “Putin and Cuba are so COOL; they’re like bullies. Big respect for that. Looking forward to meeting him soon!”

Day 2

President Trump convenes his top advisors, Chris Christie, Trey Gowdy, Ivanka Trump and Michelle Bachman to discuss his concerns. The meeting lasts 20 minutes.

Trump Tweets: “We’re going to CRUSH Cuba. BIG League. They won’t know what hit them. And then we’ll take the Island. Hey…new HOTEL?” Read more

An Open Letter to Conflicted Republicans…

/4 Comments/in , , , , , /by

Donald J. Trump Campaigns In MiamiDear Republican Friends…

I get that many of you are conflicted. I understand that you dislike the policies of the democratic party, and think that Hillary would take us down a path opposite where you think we should go. I’m being honest; I can sense the gut wrench of your decision, and don’t envy it.

If Donald Trump is elected President of the United States, the dignity of the office would be forever tarnished. The dignity of the United States would be forever tarnished.

Trump is not a viable option to lead this country. He’s quite simply the worst candidate ever to be presented for the office. Most of you know this. I don’t need to recount the why’s of it. A GOP candidate who has been rejected by every past living GOP president, who has been called a con man by your last presidential nominee. You don’t have to take my word, just listen to members of your own party.

Let’s be honest…

Trump is not a republican. You can have no faith in what he says; you cannot rely on him to enact conservative policies. He’s simply all over the board. You know this.

Trump is not a moral man. I understand that many of you consider yourselves moral voters. There simply is no case to be made that Trump will bring any dignity to the office of President. You know he does not represent nor does he live your values.

Trump is a dangerous man. He’s impulsive. Can we really trust him on matters of foreign policy and heading the military?

It’s not enough to not vote for Donald Trump. Donald Trump has to be defeated. That means someone else has to win. If you agree with me that Trump represents a dire threat to the Country, please use your vote not just to withhold by voting for a third-party candidate, but rather, use it to ensure that Trump loses. And that will require you to do what previously may have been unthinkable: Vote for Hillary Clinton.

We The People. We are still in this together.

Hey Millennials…

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

Bernie Sanders explains why it’s important that millennials support Hillary Clinton for President.

A Word Problem for Alt-Left Voters

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , , /by
Fortunately, it's not this hard!

Fortunately, it’s not this hard!

Billy, an Alt-Left voter, is trying to decide who to vote for in the upcoming Presidential Election.

  • Candidate Green and Billy share the same opinion 100% of the time.
  • Candidate Blue and Billy share the same opinion 75% of the time.
  • Candidate Orange and Billy share the same opinion 0% of the time.

Read more

A Trump IRS FOIA Request

/2 Comments/in , , , /by

On Tuesday, Sept. 13, 2016, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Internal Revenue Service. The focus of my request is for any documents which confirm that anyone with the last name “Trump” is currently being audited, whether or not such an audit is completed, and a list of names of IRS employees who are assigned to any audits relating to anyone with the last name Trump.  Read more

Judging Hillary: They Who Are Without Sin…

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

hillaryI became angry at a fellow Democrat this weekend…

She’s a solid Hillary Clinton supporter, never a doubt that she was going to vote for her. But over drinks, she said what we all hear over and over again about HRC: “She’s a liar, she’s power-hungry, she’s…” You know the list.
 
Dear Everybody…Here are some things about Hillary Clinton you have insufficient evidence for:
  • She’s dishonest
  • She’s really in it for the power
  • She doesn’t really care about the issues
  • She doesn’t really love Bill
  • She’s a cold, distant mother
  • She’s a cold, distant grandmother
  • She’s shrill
  • She’s really in it for the money
  • She’s in the pocket of Wall Street
  • She’s really a Republican
  • She’s really a Socialist
  • …
We are all free to hold to the “who would you rather have a beer with” trope. We are certainly free to make the judgements I list above. But if you judge Hillary Clinton without acknowledging the systemic and cultural sexism through which we judge her and the relentless nearly three decade campaign of deliberate misinformation that she’s been subjected to, well then…
  • Who’s being dishonest?
Has Hillary Clinton lied? Yes. After years of scrutinizing every charge that has been leveled at her (I know, I need a life), here’s the one thing she’s said that I think was a lie: the incident of “sniper fire” on her 1996 trip to Bosnia.
 
But rather than implicating her as a “liar” I marvel at how under such scrutiny, recorded in detail far greater than nearly any other human in history (maybe Princess Diana?), how little evidence there actually is for the primary narrative about her. Being honest with myself, I’ve lied and exaggerated stories. Even so, I value honesty and integrity, and would consider any judgement that labeled me “a liar” unfair.
“They who are without sin…”

Proposal for a Fair & Dynamic Market-based Economy

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , , , , /by

bell_curve_natureThe following is consistent with the principles of capitalism. The economy must match the values of the community in which it resides. Those community values are defined in the Constitution both of the Federal Government and the State Government. The economy must also benefit the community as a whole; the existence of a stable market requires the existence of a stable government and a stable community. This proposal maintains focus on a market economy, rooted in the notion of a fair market.

If the cost of living in a given community is $30,000, the AVERAGE wage in that community would be $1,500,000. Want a raise?

There is a fallacy known widely as a free market; free markets do not and cannot exist; they are theoretical. Absent regulation, a market will tend to favor the powerful and diminish the weak; over time, this will destabilize both the community and the economy. If free markets were to exist, they would naturally approximate what I have outlined below. The degree to which an economy veers from what I have outlined below is the degree it differs from a theoretical free market. Contrary to popular belief, the approximation of a free market requires rather than abhors regulation. Put another way, Libertarianism is the opposite of a free market.

The primary goal in the following economic model is to produce a bell-curve distribution of wealth and income. If a free market were to exist, it would naturally produce this bell-curve distribution. Read more

Holding Nose? Nonsense…

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

There’s a common narrative this election cycle that most voters are simply holding their nose and choosing the lesser evil. For example, Chris Cillizza tweeted this today:

The problem with this narrative is that it is overwhelmingly false. Here’s why:

In recent polling, the favorables for Clinton (and Trump) were broken out into many different groups. But let’s focus on one very important group to dispel the notion that Mr. Cillizza is spreading above: Clinton Voters.

Of those voters who plan to vote for Hillary Clinton, here’s her Favorable/Unfavorable numbers:

Favorable: 84%
Unfavorable: 9%
Not Sure: 7%

Or stated another way, only 9% of those voters who are choosing Hillary Clinton could reasonably be described as “holding their nose.” 91% hold favorable views or are not yet sure.

This dispels the oft-repeated myth of lesser evilism. And perhaps more interestingly, this common narrative is really only rooted in certain narrow voter demographics. For example:

Among African Americans, there is very little holding of noses regarding Clinton:

Favorable: 83% 
Unfavorable: 7% 
Not Sure: 10% 

Among Democrats as a whole, a similar story:

Favorable: 73% 
Unfavorable: 18% 
Not Sure: 10%

Among Hispanics:

Favorable: 59% 
Unfavorable: 34%
Not Sure: 7%

Stop buying the spin. Hillary Clinton is a widely admired candidate, and her voters recognize her as such.

When Hillary Clinton Wins…

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

135017_bannerWhen Hillary Clinton wins this election, she will have beaten…

…with more to come.

Hillary Clinton & Racism

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

06-hillary-clinton-black-voters-2.w710.h473.2xRecently, in a discussion on racism among recent presidential candidates, a friend asked me what level of racism I think Hillary Clinton holds. Here is my answer:

Building a Scale: 1 to 10, 10 being the most racist.

Clinton: 2 or 3

Let’s say there’s a dividing line at 5, and the dividing point is whether a person is teachable on the subject of racism; do they fundamentally understand racism and are open to learning and improving on their own biases as well as the systemic racism in our culture? The dividing line is where I think it is ethical to call someone racist; above a 5 they are fairly labeled a racist, and below 5 they are not.

Rather than answer from my perspective alone, let’s rely on the support that Clinton receives from the African American community (note, we could talk about minorities in general, including Latinos and Asians, for example, but for the purposes of this discussion, let’s focus in on African Americans).

I’d place Clinton at 2 or 3 on the described scale. That means that she maintains the remnants of racism naturally inherent in all humans and the remnants of racism inherent in white privilege. But she’s also keenly aware of her own racism and the racism in our society, and more specifically, the systemic ways racism manifests in government.

Let’s look at how African Americans see her:

On the question of who they will vote for:
Clinton: 80 %
Trump: 3%

Let’s look at favorability:

While Ciinton’s favorability ratings among all voters sits at 41 favorable and 52 unfavorable, among African Americans, Clinton has an 83% favorability rating.

While one might conclude that she only does this well in contrast to Trump, I’d note that Clinton pulled similar numbers in her matchup with Bernie Sanders.

Finally, as a measure of her awareness on these issues, I’d direct you to read her policy positions:

Racial Justice
Criminal Justice Reform
Voting Rights

Polling taken from http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/…/PPP_Release…

Progressives Make Progress

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

buckskin-gulch-slot-canyon_1080

If you support candidates and issues that lose, you’re not a progressive. You’re a conservative.

Jill Stein is not a progressive. Why? She doesn’t make progress. She confuses holding an opinion for making progress. She’s convinced many people to hold opinions in higher esteem than making progress.

To the degree that one holds opinion in higher esteem than progress, and thereby aids conservative ideas to win, then that person is working for the conservative movement.

Progress trumps opinion. A progressive understands this.

The Progressive Coalition: An Invitation

/2 Comments/in , , , , , /by

coalitionDear Berniecrats, Green Partiers, Socialist Alternatives, and other Progressives…

I extend to you an invitation to build a Progressive Coalition.

I get it. Your views create separation from the Democratic party. Your views are not fully captured by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Platform. You long for a more representative movement. It is not my intent here to argue with your views, to change your views, or to beg you to join the Democratic party.

I, too, am a Progressive. Sure, I am a Democratic-flavored progressive, but a progressive nonetheless. Like you, I am passionate about my politics. I am mindful of the ethics of my positions, and dedicated to Social Justice and the Environment, and many other issue on which we likely agree.

Politics always requires coalitions to build majority movements. Even in Countries where there are multiple viable parties, majorities are built from coalitions of smaller movements. This is true in our two-party system as well, just to a less-defined degree.

For all our differences, we still have many shared values. And I firmly believe that we are all stronger when we have a member of the Progressive Coalition in the Whitehouse.

Hear me out; I’m going to talk about Ralph Nader. I’m not going to blame him for being the spoiler in 2000. But I am going to question whether his approach to that election helped or hurt the progressive movement as embodied in the Green Party? In my review of the history, the election of George Bush did not build a groundswell of resources to further build progressive movements. Rather, that energy was simply exhausted in opposing the Bush presidency; efforts that in my estimation would have largely been freed under a Gore presidency.

In other words, had Ralph Nader both committed to building the Green Party, AND committed to working to elect Al Gore, who was the most likely candidate to win the White House for the progressive movement, I contend that more energy could have been devoted to building strong Progressive movements of different varieties. The effort would have been a net gain, not only for the Democratic Party, but for the Green Party as well. Further, much of the Obama presidency has been spent simply making up for lost ground under the Bush presidency.

Without resorting to the fear-based ask surrounding Trump, the same scenario exists today. We can build a Progressive Coalition to elect a member of our Progressive movement. By doing so, we will gain several important benefits that accrue to all Progressives.

Joining such a coalition does not require you to abandon your beliefs or principles. The opposite is true. The degree to which the President of the United States shares even some of your values frees you to not have to fight an opponent of those values. That energy can then be used to focus on building your movement and expanding your base.

Coalitions don’t require us to agree on everything. They simply ask us to build on those values that we already share.

Will you join me? Can we build a Progressive Coalition?

That is my sincere hope.

 Timothy Killian
A Fellow Progressive