By Michael Kranish
January 31, 2019

NEW YORK — On an autumn day in 2013, New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg traveled to the Bronx to hail the transformation of a massive garbage dump into a world-class golf course. Donald Trump stood nearby, beaming as Bloomberg said the course would be operated by “the great Trump Organization.”

“If there is anybody who has changed this city, it is Donald Trump,” Bloomberg said. “He really has done an amazing thing, and this is another part of it.”

Trump turned to Bloomberg, gushing: “You have been a great mayor. You really have. I mean, this guy is fantastic.”

For more than a decade, the two New York billionaires appeared together at charity golf events, ribbon cuttings and even on Trump’s reality television shows, a relationship of political and business convenience if not genuine friendship.

The alliance imploded the moment Trump launched his bid for the White House in 2015, exposing raw differences of policy and personality that have become only more stark as President Trump has carried out a series of measures that are politically anathema to Bloomberg, such as withdrawing from a deal to combat global warming.

Trump, in an interview this week with The Washington Post, said, “I really liked Michael and I think he liked me, but it went really strangely haywire once I ran for office.” He said Bloomberg did not care about his political views when he was merely a New York City developer, but now “he probably doesn’t like my policies. I’m for guns, he’s against guns . . . A developer is a lot different than as a candidate.”

Trump used the golf course deal as a cudgel against Bloomberg, saying during the campaign the city was unable to get the course finished until he took it over — a claim that infuriated Bloomberg’s associates, who said the city did most of the work.

Now Bloomberg’s dark view of Trump’s performance as president may be the deciding factor in whether the former mayor decides to run for the White House. Bloomberg has expressed doubt that a “short, Jewish, divorced billionaire” such as himself could be elected president. Trump’s performance, however, has led him to seriously consider using part of his fortune to seek the Democratic nomination.

Bloomberg, in a brief interview this week during a visit to the first-primary state of New Hampshire, said, “My objection to Donald Trump is the way he’s filling his current role, in terms of representing the country, in terms of representing the public. There’s an attitude, and a style, and lack of civility that I think is bad for the country, and I find offensive.”

On the surface, Bloomberg and Trump have much in common: Both have named their businesses after themselves; both have become billionaires in New York City; both unexpectedly won their respective political offices; both have switched their party registrations repeatedly.

But they come from very different backgrounds. Bloomberg was raised in working-class Massachusetts while Trump benefited from his father’s fortune. Bloomberg made his fortune selling Wall Street-related data, and he veered left on a variety of issues, including the environment and gun control, as he rose in New York City politics. Trump, who once was a classically liberal New Yorker, moved right as he sought a national audience, recasting himself as a conservative Republican. Bloomberg calls himself a nonpartisan manager and engineer who delegates authority; Trump is a defiantly partisan president who says he, alone, can fix things.

While both are among the wealthiest Americans, Bloomberg is much richer. Bloomberg ranks tenth on the Forbes 400 list of wealthiest Americans, with $52 billion, compared with Trump, ranked 259th with $3.1 billion.

Rep. Peter T. King, a New York Republican who was reelected last year with fundraising help from Bloomberg even though he continues to support Trump, said the battle of billionaires has gotten deeply personal.

“I would think, without getting into psychoanalysis, that one New York billionaire can think he is better than another New York billionaire,” King said. “I can see Mike resenting the fact he is not getting the same recognition Donald Trump gets. Each guy thinks he is smarter than the other.”

The Rev. Al Sharpton, who has spent many hours with both men, said Trump’s self-image relies greatly on his coming from Queens and never feeling accepted by the Manhattan elite, even after building Trump Tower.

Trump “is an outsider, and the guys like Bloomberg, in style and substance, are the people he felt always rejected him, which would unnerve him if [Bloomberg] ran against him,” Sharpton said. If the two face each other, he said, “I’d want a ringside seat.”

Billionaire alliance

The two did not know each other until Bloomberg ran for mayor in 2001 as a Republican. Trump focused on the Democratic primary, first supporting Fernando Ferrer, who lost the primary to Mark Green. Trump then contributed $4,500 to Green during the general election race against Bloomberg, whose campaign was self-funded. Once Bloomberg was elected, Trump said, he became an avid supporter.

For years, Trump had lavished attention on New York City mayors, whose support he needed for real estate projects. By the time Bloomberg was elected, however, Trump had mostly switched from developing new properties in New York City to selling his brand around the world and starring in his reality television show.

In October 2004, Trump invited Bloomberg to appear on “The Apprentice,” and the mayor met contestants at the official mayoral residence, Gracie Mansion. Trump hyped the appearance, telling contestants they would be meeting a “great leader.”

Four years later, Bloomberg appeared on “The Celebrity Apprentice” in an episode centered on which stars could sell the most hot dogs on the streets of New York City. Bloomberg was shown walking down a busy Manhattan street with Trump as the two prepared to inspect the work of contestants such as Gene Simmons of the rock band Kiss and “Apprentice” star Omarosa Manigault Newman.

While Trump beamed and dramatic music played, Bloomberg delivered a series of corny lines, such as: “As the No. 1 ‘Frank-o-phile’ in the city, I’m supposed to see whether you guys can cut the mustard.”

Manigault Newman, who went on to work in the office of public liaison in the Trump White House, said in an interview that the pair’s relationship was a case study in how they used each other in “symbiotic exploitation.”

“Doing official business, Bloomberg came across uptight. In our episode, I remember he came across as down to earth and relatable,” she said. As for Trump, “It gave him quite a bit of legitimacy, to flex his connections and his access to powerful people.”

During the filming, Bloomberg and Trump rode the subway together. As Bloomberg recalled the incident last week, Trump “said he took the subway all the time, but I did note he didn’t know which end of the MetroCard to put in.”

Trump, asked about the ride, said Bloomberg’s description was untrue. He said the subway was opened for dozens of crew, “and I never had a MetroCard when I rode the subway with him.”

After two terms as mayor, Bloomberg was prohibited under the law from seeking a third. The business community rallied around the idea of overturning the term limit, and Trump became a leading backer. The term limit was dropped, and Bloomberg won reelection. That, in turn, led to the high point of the Trump-Bloomberg relationship.

Bloomberg had promised he would oversee the transformation of a trash dump in the Bronx into a world-class golf course. The project had faltered for decades because of the high cost of cleaning up the landfill and meeting environmental rules. The Bloomberg administration hoped a developer such as Trump would agree to pay for the cleanup and build the course, but no one bid.

Eager to keep his campaign promise, Bloomberg eventually decided city taxpayers would pay the bill. The project had started under a prior mayor and reached $164 million to build the course, and millions more for environmental measures, according to the city-run Independent Budget Office. The Bloomberg administration then sent out bids for a company to finish the course by planting seed and some other measures and constructing a clubhouse.

Trump said Bloomberg asked him to get involved “because he was getting killed on this project. He had it for 12 years. I said, ‘Michael, I’m going to make you look good.’ ” As Trump told the story, Bloomberg was grateful for the golf course work and turned against him only after both men pondered running for the presidency.

Trump’s son, Eric, said in an interview that he participated in two conversations about the project that included his father and Bloomberg, one by phone and a second in person.

“I remember this conversation vividly,” Eric Trump said. “Mike called up and said [to Donald Trump], ‘We need your help because this is an embarrassment to the city of New York and my administration. You are the only person who can do it.’ We went in there and we did the job.” Trump was one of three bidders and won the contract in 2013. Eric Trump said his father and Bloomberg “were friends a lot closer aligned than people would think.”

Bloomberg declined to respond or to discuss the golf course project, but his spokesman, Howard Wolfson, said: “Unsurprisingly, given their well documented relationship with the truth, the Trumps are lying. None of these conversations occurred.” Told of this denial, Eric Trump stood by his comments.

A rivalry begins

By April 2015, as Trump began seriously considering a presidential bid, the relationship turned rivalrous.

Trump’s daughter Ivanka wrote on her blog that her father “acquired this amazing redevelopment project after it had floundered around with the City of New York for more than two decades. Shortly after he was announced as the developer, my father went out to the construction site, where he saw a bunch of guys literally moving sand from one end of the course to the other. He essentially looked at them and said, ‘You guys have made a lot of money pushing sand around for the last 20 years, but that stops with me. It’s time to get this done.’ And they did.”

Adrian Benepe, Bloomberg’s former parks commissioner, said such descriptions exaggerated Trump’s role. “That is when the lying began, that Trump had come in to bail out the incompetent city. Despite the myth, Trump did not build that golf course. The city built it, the city did all the heavy lifting, dealt with all the environmental issues.”

Ivanka Trump deferred to her father’s comments, a spokeswoman said. Jack Nicklaus, who designed the course before Trump took over and is now a Trump supporter, said in an interview, “We might have been there another 30 years if Donald Trump hadn’t been there.” After the city built the public course, the Trump Organization made the improvements and built a clubhouse that cost $10 million. Under the contract, Trump collects course and concession fees. The course is open to the public. at an 18-hole weekend fee of $185.

Three months after Ivanka Trump’s blog entry, Donald Trump launched his bid for the presidency, and he frequently cited completing the golf course as an example of his ability to get things done. In a January 2016 appearance on CNN, for example, Trump said, “I took it over for one year, knocked it up, and now it’s a tremendous success. Michael asked me if I’d get involved with it, and I’m the one that got it done, and did a great job.”

Bloomberg decided two months later not to seek the presidency, even as he said Trump ran “the most divisive and demagogic presidential campaign I can remember, preying on people’s prejudices and fears.” He then attacked Trump at the Democratic National Convention, calling him a “risky, reckless and radical choice.” Trump, who said he was stunned by Bloomberg’s words, tweeted in response: “ ‘Little’ Michael Bloomberg, who never had the guts to run for president, knows nothing about me. His last term as Mayor was a disaster!”

Shortly after he won the presidency, Trump talked on the phone with Bloomberg about how to run the White House but he said he did not offer a job. Bloomberg told The Post last year that he told the president-elect: “You could have a good presidency if you get good people and you depend on them, and you delegate authority to go along with responsibility.” Bloomberg said that is “what he did not do.”

The two have not talked since.

Alice Crites, David A. Fahrenthold, Michael Scherer and David Weigel contributed to this report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-relationship-between-trump-and-bloomberg-went-into-a-tailspin/2019/01/31/95ee0914-1ff9-11e9-9145-3f74070bbdb9_story.html?utm_term=.64f540ba6bd4

Tesla + SolarCity Solar Shingles (+ Video)

October 29th, 2016 by Steve Hanley 

Originally published on Solar Love.

Note: One of our reporters was at the reveal and will be writing an article about the event and the new products as well.

On October 28, Elon Musk played ringmaster while Tesla and SolarCity showed off their new line of glass solar tiles that generate electricity but look like conventional roof shingles and tiles. Musk told an audience of several hundred invited guests that between 4 and 5 million new roofs are installed in America every year and many times more than that are installed worldwide. If the cost of a solar roof was less than what a homeowner would spend for a conventional roof plus utility bills that wouldn’t have to be paid over the roof’s 30 year useful life, “Why wouldn’t you?” Musk asked.

Good question. To be honest, conventional rooftop solar systems are not aesthetically pleasing to look at (in my opinion). The main advantage to Musk’s solar roof is that it adds to the look of a home instead of detracting from it. The solar roof tiles will come in four styles. The first looks like a conventional black roof shingle. The second resembles a conventional slate roof. Its individual tiles vary slightly in shade, making for a roof that is the most attractive of all. Third is called Tuscan and looks like the curved terracotta roofing tiles common throughout southern Europe and California. The fourth option is called textured glass and is visually appealing as well.

The secret sauce in all this is a series of micro-louvers built into each tile, technology developed in cooperation with 3M Corporation. The louvers allow sunlight to shine directly on the solar cells below but hide them from view from the street. The result is the best of both worlds — solar panels that generate electricity and a roof that generates compliments and adds value to any home.

To show off the new roof products, Tesla took over four houses on the back lot of Universal Studios that once served as the set for the reality TV series Desperate Housewives. Each house had its old roof stripped off and replaced with one of the four styles of glass roof tiles that Tesla and SolarCity will offer. Naturally, each home had Tesla automobiles parked in the garage to emphasize that having a solar roof means sufficient power for the inhabitants with enough electricity leftover to charge electric vehicles.

The missing link in that scenario is battery storage. Tesla has recently introduced its second generation Powerwall with double the energy storage capacity as the original — 14 kWh versus 7 kWh. It is less sculpted than the original but comes with the inverter built in, which should simplify installation. The original cost is about $7,000 including an inverter and installation. Musk says the new unit should be capable of meeting the needs of a family of four for lighting, normal household use, and a refrigerator for about a day if there is a power outage. Notably absent from his example is any mention of heating or air conditioning.

The Powerwall 2.0 with double the power should cost about the same as the original after installation, which illustrates how quickly the prices of energy storage products are dropping, The original has only been on the market for about a year and already we have a new version with twice the power for about the same money. Elon let slip that he expects Tesla to sell more Powerwalls than automobiles.

Musk emphasized during his solar roof presentation that his overarching goal is for the world to transition to 100% clean, renewable energy from the sun as quickly as possible. If the world fails to complete that transition in time to prevent massive disruption from climate change, it won’t be for lack of trying on Tesla’s part. Many people mistake Tesla for an electric car company that also makes batteries. It is just the opposite — a battery company that also makes electric cars.

Source: Wired | Photo by Tesla

Advocating for the National Election Reform Platform

 As Independents we are not convinced that we can rely on the two large legacy parties for correcting the mess they have gotten us in to. Fixing democracy is vital and must be implemented to increase citizen involvement in solving the issues of war, immigration, health care, environment, education, trade, etc.

Here are ten key points of our National Election Reform Platform (NERP). We are asking all presidential and congressional candidates to pledge their support... 

1. Uniform Ballot Access for federal candidates. Rather than candidates for president having 51 different rules for making the ballot, we make the criteria the same throughout the land. That means those running for Senate and House also have the same criteria in each state.

2. Loosen Third Party Ballot Restrictions. Force states to untie ballot access to past election results. Without fair ballot access in place now, the thresholds to become a recognized third party are too difficult to achieve (by design of the two larger parties). Currently only 36 states have at least one recognized third party and that changes based on election results.

3. Universal Voter Registration. Legislation has already been passed that will require government standardized identification cards which should be acceptable to election officials to allow anyone who shows up at the right precinct on Election Day to vote on-the-spot whether registered or not.

4. Extended Election Day. Either hold elections on weekends or move it to a holiday like Columbus Day in October.

5. Equal Media Access for third party contenders to include broadcast time and inclusion in the debates. 

6. Institute Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) which allows voters to rank their choices. If no candidate gets a majority of the vote – over 50% - then the lowest number of first place votes is eliminated and the votes are recounted for how many second place votes came in. This continues until a candidate is declared a winner of a majority.

7. Secure the Vote - Ensure the security of our voting instruments whether it is via a papertrail or some better method. Thirteen years after the Florida debacle and we still do not have secure voting machines – considering the fact that electronic machines are subject to manipulation.

8. Public Campaign Financing - Instituting a fair and equitable method of public campaign financing reduces the taxpayer burden. Here's how: It costs the country more now under the current system that forces candidates to raise exorbitant sums of money from corporate and private donors (read: elitists and their SuperPACs). The winner is then beholden to the group of financiers that paid for that victory which creates a corrupt system of paybacks and legislation that raids our Treasury – at an enormous cost to the real owners of our country – the people.

9. Direct Election of the president. Get rid of the Electoral College.

10. Voting Rights in congress for the citizens of the federal District of Columbia.

written by Joseph Oddo, National Director

Contact Joe Oddo for details

bettercandidates@gmail.com

703-338-0200

Thanks right folks. Now that the president has relieved travel restrictions to our neighbor just an hour plane ride from Miami (censored from revealing destination), I aim to go within the next six weeks. Our delegation of up to 30 will be spending seven days traveling around the cultural, educational, humanitarian and artistic venues to learn, share and grow.

While less expensive than traveling in the US, there are still approximately $2,500 in expenses that I seek to offset with the generosity of my friends and colleagues. I have always sought to enrich my brothers intellect and spread the practical application of goodwill through hard work, attention to detail and sharing experiences from running for office to writing books to selling to organizing to communicating via radio and television media.

Currently a volunteer on WTJU radio (99.1 FM in Charlottesville, and GreenTV (Fairfax Public Access Television), I have a forum to spread what we can learn from our TBD brethren after this trip.

So please share any amount you can - from buying me a meal one day ($20) to sponsoring the plane ticket ($350ish). Your generosity is greatly appreciated. You will be rewarded knowing that you sponsored a true historical educational opportunity.

Send any amount of funds to my Paypal account. Or write a check to Joseph Oddo Sr., 2404 Barracks Ct Suite 1 Charlottesville, VA 22901 

Contact me for more details at 703-338-0200. 

Woodard lays out his map in the new book “American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America.” Here’s how he breaks down the continent:

Yankeedom: Founded by Puritans, residents in Northeastern states and the industrial Midwest tend to be more comfortable with government regulation. They value education and the common good more than other regions.

New Netherland: The Netherlands was the most sophisticated society in the Western world when New York was founded, Woodard writes, so it’s no wonder that the region has been a hub of global commerce. It’s also the region most accepting of historically persecuted populations.

The Midlands: Stretching from Quaker territory west through Iowa and into more populated areas of the Midwest, the Midlands are “pluralistic and organized around the middle class.” Government intrusion is unwelcome, and ethnic and ideological purity isn’t a priority.

Tidewater: The coastal regions in the English colonies of Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland and Delaware tend to respect authority and value tradition. Once the most powerful American nation, it began to decline during Westward expansion.

Greater Appalachia: Extending from West Virginia through the Great Smoky Mountains and into Northwest Texas, the descendants of Irish, English and Scottish settlers value individual liberty. Residents are “intensely suspicious of lowland aristocrats and Yankee social engineers.”

Deep South: Dixie still traces its roots to the caste system established by masters who tried to duplicate West Indies-style slave society, Woodard writes. The Old South values states’ rights and local control and fights the expansion of federal powers.

El Norte: Southwest Texas and the border region is the oldest, and most linguistically different, nation in the Americas. Hard work and self-sufficiency are prized values.

The Left Coast: A hybrid, Woodard says, of Appalachian independence and Yankee utopianism loosely defined by the Pacific Ocean on one side and coastal mountain ranges like the Cascades and the Sierra Nevadas on the other. The independence and innovation required of early explorers continues to manifest in places like Silicon Valley and the tech companies around Seattle.

The Far West: The Great Plains and the Mountain West were built by industry, made necessary by harsh, sometimes inhospitable climates. Far Westerners are intensely libertarian and deeply distrustful of big institutions, whether they are railroads and monopolies or the federal government.

New France: Former French colonies in and around New Orleans and Quebec tend toward consensus and egalitarian, “among the most liberal on the continent, with unusually tolerant attitudes toward gays and people of all races and a ready acceptance of government involvement in the economy,” Woodard writes.

The clashes between the 11 nations play out in every way, from politics to social values. Woodard notes that states with the highest rates of violent deaths are in the Deep South, Tidewater and Greater Appalachia, regions that value independence and self-sufficiency. States with lower rates of violent deaths are in Yankeedom, New Netherland and the Midlands, where government intervention is viewed with less skepticism.

States in the Deep South are much more likely to have stand-your-ground laws than states in the northern “nations.” And more than 95 percent of executions in the United States since 1976 happened in the Deep South, Greater Appalachia, Tidewater and the Far West. States in Yankeedom and New Netherland have executed a collective total of just one person.