Yep here we go Republicans - We can't afford childrens healthcare because we just gave zillions to corporations and business criminals.
Inevitable and disgusting. Anything that might benefit the poor or working class they can't afford but the military and Wallstreet there's always a few extra hundred trillion dollars for them.
Yep here we go Republicans - We can't afford childrens healthcare because we just gave zillions to corporations and business criminals.
Inevitable and disgusting. Anything that might benefit the poor or working class they can't afford but the military and Wallstreet there's always a few extra hundred trillion dollars for them.
"Military contractors" not "military". I was on food stamps when I was a soldier. They've always got money to buy the latest boondoggle, like the Sgt. York or the F-35, but that money never seems to reach the soldiers' paycheck.
Good one at Doonesbury today:
SAY WHAT? "I think he's a kook. I think he's crazy. I think he's unfit for office." -- Sen. Lindsey Graham on Trump, February 2016
"What concerns me about the American press is this endless, endless attempt to label the guy some kind of kook not fit to be president." -- Sen. Lindsey Graham, this week
Yep here we go Republicans - We can't afford childrens healthcare because we just gave zillions to corporations and business criminals.
Inevitable and disgusting. Anything that might benefit the poor or working class they can't afford but the military and Wallstreet there's always a few extra hundred trillion dollars for them.
"Military contractors" not "military". I was on food stamps when I was a soldier. They've always got money to buy the latest boondoggle, like the Sgt. York or the F-35, but that money never seems to reach the soldiers' paycheck.
Good one at Doonesbury today:
SAY WHAT? "I think he's a kook. I think he's crazy. I think he's unfit for office." -- Sen. Lindsey Graham on Trump, February 2016
"What concerns me about the American press is this endless, endless attempt to label the guy some kind of kook not fit to be president." -- Sen. Lindsey Graham, this week
Jake Tapper ran a clip of Lindsey Graham saying the later followed by him saying the former on Friday then just stared at the camera for 5 seconds as if to say "what could I possibly add??"
Every single Republican candidate for President in 2016 legitimately thought Trump was dangerous and nuts. Cruz, Rubio, Graham....down the line. They still do. They are just willing to lie and pretend everything is fine to pass the tax cuts. EVERYTHING is about the tax cuts. This entire experiement of putting a demented lunatic in charge of the most powerful country in the world is simply something that must be endured so we can offer sacrifices to the god of supply-side economics. At what point, if Mueller is closing in, does Trump just start launching bombs?? He hasn't really played his war card yet. It's sitting there waiting for a extreme political crisis. At what point does he start a military action and conflate opposition to him as opposition to the military?? I've already lived through 8 years of that once. It was the playbook for the entire Bush Administration.
Apparently one of Trump's advisors, K. T. McFarland, said in a December 29th email that Russia "has just thrown the U.S.A. election to him."
Even if someone doesn't think the contacts between the Russians Trump's associates during the campaign amount to a conspiracy to throw the election, it is absolutely undeniable that they a.) knew about what was going on and b.) did absolutely nothing to stop it.
Veterans of the last 3 or 4 Presidential campaigns (Republican and Democrat) are all on the record as saying that they never saw so much as one Russian swirling around their campaigns, much less Russian operatives popping up all over the place, secret meetings in hotel rooms, etc etc etc. They have all said that if it had happened, they would have reported the attempted intrusion to the FBI immediately. Because, at the very least, before Trump, such a connection would have spelled the end of any normal campaign if it was revealed. As a matter of fact, Al Gore's team was sent a copy of George W. Bush's debate prep in 2000. They reported it to the FBI.
Beyond that, take a look at the almost infinite amount of lies that continue to be told about those contacts. Jared Kushner has seemingly had to revise his recollections about such things every other week (in regards to what he left off his security clearance form). Sessions either has the worst memory in the history of humanity, or has lied to Congress on 3 separate occasions. Trump today just denied doing something he is on video admitting to in an interview with Lester Holt. The amount of lies that have been told about this subject by those around Trump would require a spreadsheet to keep track of, and hardly anyone would deny that. The main question remains, if there was nothing improper going on, what in the hell accounts for the sheer VOLUME of false statements, many made under the threat of perjury and indictment??
I'll also add that K.T. McFarland, like Flynn, was not just a campaign worker. She was brought into the Administration in a official capacity. As Flynn's #2. She is now one vote away from being named Ambassador to Singapore.
I should clear up @semiticgod 's post a bit. Obviously an email sent in December was AFTER the campaign. In the email, she was telling someone that her belief (and, given her high position in the inner circle, also ostensibly the belief of many in the campaign) that Russia had thrown the election to her boss. And yes, she specifically used the word "thrown".
It's partially people's gullibility and prejudices. I have an old relative that really hated hillary and posted things like "Like this Post if you think Soldiers should be able to pray anywhere!" which is completely ridiculous that this person was convinced they couldn't or Hillary would do away with that right. On top of this person's misguided outrage - they weren't even religious!!!!!! That was exactly the type of post the Russians were pushing during the campaign to divide us. So Russia pushed it but the GOPs war on reality and education has people set up to believe the stupidity.
The Russians and The GOP win if they can convince enough gullible people that "zomg her emails!" or "omg abortion" or "omg muslims!". If they get enough people to pay attention to that they can reach in their pockets and rob them blind. Too many people see through their BS? Voter suppression solves that. But the people they've convinced that there's some poor person who is out to get them they get the gullible people to support Republicans no matter what they do - be it pedophilia, sexual assault, or just robbing them blind to give to rich people. These people are convinced well he may be a pedophile and a crazy creep but at least they don't support brown people like those other guys the democrats do! Sad!
The Republicans and the rich thrive on dividing us and then robbing us blind. Oh and once the money is gone they turn around and want to cut medicare and social programs that help people. It's like we're all rubes walking around with one hundred dollars in our hands that they grab and give to a rich guy and then they tell us they have to cut our wages.
This is the kind of "the peasants are starving? Whatever, just let them eat cake" stuff that caused revolutions in the past. Do you think the GOP realizes that? I think they don't, they are so successful at looting the country, the markets up and all that why would they? They don't have to deal with the riff raff much when they live in their gated communities and attend private schools. The people on top don't care, everyone else is out of sight and out of mind. It's working, why stop?
It's partially people's gullibility and prejudices. I have an old relative that really hated hillary and posted things like "Like this Post if you think Soldiers should be able to pray anywhere!" which is completely ridiculous that this person was convinced they couldn't or Hillary would do away with that right. On top of this person's misguided outrage - they weren't even religious!!!!!! That was exactly the type of post the Russians were pushing during the campaign to divide us. So Russia pushed it but the GOPs war on reality and education has people set up to believe the stupidity.
The Russians and The GOP win if they can convince enough gullible people that "zomg her emails!" or "omg abortion" or "omg muslims!". If they get enough people to pay attention to that they can reach in their pockets and rob them blind. Too many people see through their BS? Voter suppression solves that. But the people they've convinced that there's some poor person who is out to get them they get the gullible people to support Republicans no matter what they do - be it pedophilia, sexual assault, or just robbing them blind to give to rich people. These people are convinced well he may be a pedophile and a crazy creep but at least they don't support brown people like those other guys the democrats do! Sad!
The Republicans and the rich thrive on dividing us and then robbing us blind. Oh and once the money is gone they turn around and want to cut medicare and social programs that help people. It's like we're all rubes walking around with one hundred dollars in our hands that they grab and give to a rich guy and then they tell us they have to cut our wages.
This is the kind of "the peasants are starving? Whatever, just let them eat cake" stuff that caused revolutions in the past. Do you think the GOP realizes that? I think they don't, they are so successful at looting the country, the markets up and all that why would they? They don't have to deal with the riff raff much when they live in their gated communities and attend private schools. The people on top don't care, everyone else is out of sight and out of mind. It's working, why stop?
And the Democrats aren't in the upper class? I call BS. At best they give lip service that they're somehow different. They're the biggest hypocrites since from what I see they're all for a permanent lower class that they throw their crumbs to in order to buy their votes. More illegal aliens? Sure, just remember who you owe it to when you vote. Felons? Sure, vote for us and we're all for you. I'm waiting for them to lower the voting age to 13 or something. Hey y'all I know you haven't earned a paycheck in your whole life but vote for us and we'll set you up for life! We'll just take it all from the rich and give it to you. After all, they don't need it. Their money should be your money (just not our money of course)!
It's partially people's gullibility and prejudices. I have an old relative that really hated hillary and posted things like "Like this Post if you think Soldiers should be able to pray anywhere!" which is completely ridiculous that this person was convinced they couldn't or Hillary would do away with that right. On top of this person's misguided outrage - they weren't even religious!!!!!! That was exactly the type of post the Russians were pushing during the campaign to divide us. So Russia pushed it but the GOPs war on reality and education has people set up to believe the stupidity.
The Russians and The GOP win if they can convince enough gullible people that "zomg her emails!" or "omg abortion" or "omg muslims!". If they get enough people to pay attention to that they can reach in their pockets and rob them blind. Too many people see through their BS? Voter suppression solves that. But the people they've convinced that there's some poor person who is out to get them they get the gullible people to support Republicans no matter what they do - be it pedophilia, sexual assault, or just robbing them blind to give to rich people. These people are convinced well he may be a pedophile and a crazy creep but at least they don't support brown people like those other guys the democrats do! Sad!
The Republicans and the rich thrive on dividing us and then robbing us blind. Oh and once the money is gone they turn around and want to cut medicare and social programs that help people. It's like we're all rubes walking around with one hundred dollars in our hands that they grab and give to a rich guy and then they tell us they have to cut our wages.
This is the kind of "the peasants are starving? Whatever, just let them eat cake" stuff that caused revolutions in the past. Do you think the GOP realizes that? I think they don't, they are so successful at looting the country, the markets up and all that why would they? They don't have to deal with the riff raff much when they live in their gated communities and attend private schools. The people on top don't care, everyone else is out of sight and out of mind. It's working, why stop?
And the Democrats aren't in the upper class? I call BS. At best they give lip service that they're somehow different. They're the biggest hypocrites since from what I see they're all for a permanent lower class that they throw their crumbs to in order to buy their votes. More illegal aliens? Sure, just remember who you owe it to when you vote. Felons? Sure, vote for us and we're all for you. I'm waiting for them to lower the voting age to 13 or something. Hey y'all I know you haven't earned a paycheck in your whole life but vote for us and we'll set you up for life! We'll just take it all from the rich and give it to you. After all, they don't need it. Their money should be your money (just not our money of course)!
Complete hypocrisy...
Democrats are in the upper class but difference is they are more slightly more responsive than Republicans who have sold us out completely.
Who is first the working class in republicans? Not one. There's at least a couple dems. With dems (Obama) he wanted a corporate tax rate of 28% - too low but better than20% we get from Republicans.
I'm not saying there aren't sell outs on both sides, I'm saying I see not one Republican, who control all branches, who is not a complete corporate sellout.
Regardless, if you are a republican you should get your party under control and of you are a Democrat the same.
Rand Paul is the only politician I can name offhand who has been strongly on the right side of this issue, supporting automatic restoration of rights for felons after they've served. This is a classic libertarian position, a nominal constituency of the Republicans.
As for rest I'm not sure I know anyone who supports more illegal aliens--the left is generally more amenable to a path to citizenship for people already here and working, sure, but twisting that into wanting more illegal aliens is, at best, a disingenuous oversimplification. Lowering the voting age is not something I've seen seriously proposed anywhere, by anyone, and I doubt you have either.
Rand Paul is the only politician I can name offhand who has been strongly on the right side of this issue, supporting automatic restoration of rights for felons after they've served. This is a classic libertarian position, a nominal constituency of the Republicans.
As for rest I'm not sure I know anyone who supports more illegal aliens--the left is generally more amenable to a path to citizenship for people already here and working, sure, but twisting that into wanting more illegal aliens is, at best, a disingenuous oversimplification. Lowering the voting age is not something I've seen seriously proposed anywhere, by anyone, and I doubt you have either.
Felons can't vote in a few states, which I find utterly preposterous. If you have served your sentence and paid whatever the judicial system decided your debt to society was, it is absurd to think they should spend the rest of their lives paying for it by being (at best) a second-class citizen. It sounds great on paper for someone to say "felons can't vote!". I agree, when they are in jail. After that, I simply can't agree that should be the case. Especially since the modern legal system, since the end of slavery, is set up specifically to incarcerate as many black men as possible. The Netflix documentary "13th" sheds quite the light on this. Illegal immigrants simply CAN'T vote, and even if they were going to go through all the hopes that would be required to do so, the risk of deportation if caught (especially in Trump's America, where ICE agents are literally waiting for parents to pick up their children from school to haul them in) is in no way proportional to whatever benefit their ONE vote for, ostensibly, a Democratic candidate, would bring to their cause. Most of these people are simply hunkering down and trying to get to and from work everyday without Trump's goon squads tracking them down.
Rand Paul is someone you can possibly listen to for 5 minutes on one issue and think "yeah, this guy has a good idea" (in addition to letting felons have their voting rights after their sentence, he and Kamala Harris have also been working on reforming the bail system in this country). But then he will say something like he did when being interviewed by Rachel Maddow years ago, where he advocates the idea that restaurants shouldn't have to serve black people. Not because he himself is racist, but because his libertarian ethos is just THAT strong. He is, after all, NAMED after Ayn Rand, who is possibly one of THE most popular figures in right-wing politics (at least on the libertarian side). Paul Ryan is another acolyte. As for her, well.....I'm sure most of us have played Bioshock a time or two. The city of Rapture is meant to be an extreme fantasy example of Objectivism run amok.
It's worth wondering out-loud just have prevalent this type of thought that Chuck Grassley is spouting off here is on the American right. That people who live paycheck to paycheck are spending all their money on (in order) alcohol, prostitutes, and going to the movies:
I especially love the "women" part. I've lived paycheck to paycheck PLENTY, and paying for a hooker has never entered my budget plans. I'll admit to buying a six-pack occasionally (about $8) and going to see a movie on occasion as well ($10). Not every two weeks during those periods, but occasionally. Imagine what I could have been if I had just stayed home instead. That $18 would put we well on my way to being able to leave a multi-million dollar inheritance, if only I was able to invest it correctly.
NOW, I don't have any kids. It was fairly tough sometimes for me to "indulge" (if you can even call it that) in those activities sometimes. For a working single-mother of two, I doubt she does either of them (the kids probably watch 90% of their movies at home on a hand-me down TV with DVDs purchased from a thrift store). I'm also 100% certain SHE also isn't hiring alot of prostitutes. But hey, what the hell do I know. I'm not a Senator from Iowa.
Also, I'd like to point out that Chuck Grassley is accidentally admitting what most rich people do with the extra money they don't need. As I've been saying, they don't hire new workers, they invest it. Which means putting it in the Wall Street casino we call the stock market.
It's worth wondering out-loud just have prevalent this type of thought that Chuck Grassley is spouting off here is on the American right. That people who live paycheck to paycheck are spending all their money on (in order) alcohol, prostitutes, and going to the movies:
I especially love the "women" part. I've lived paycheck to paycheck PLENTY, and paying for a hooker has never entered my budget plans. I'll admit to buying a six-pack occasionally (about $8) and going to see a movie on occasion as well ($10). Not every two weeks during those periods, but occasionally. Imagine what I could have been if I had just stayed home instead. That $18 would put we well on my way to being able to leave a multi-million dollar inheritance, if only I was able to invest it correctly.
NOW, I don't have any kids. It was fairly tough sometimes for me to "indulge" (if you can even call it that) in those activities sometimes. For a working single-mother of two, I doubt she does either of them (the kids probably watch 90% of their movies at home on a hand-me down TV with DVDs purchased from a thrift store). I'm also 100% certain SHE also isn't hiring alot of prostitutes. But hey, what the hell do I know. I'm not a Senator from Iowa.
Also, I'd like to point out that Chuck Grassley is accidentally admitting what most rich people do with the extra money they don't need. As I've been saying, they don't hire new workers, they invest it. Which means putting it in the Wall Street casino we call the stock market.
I'll call hypocrisy on this a-hole as well. Poor people might buy booze and cigarettes but I'm pretty sure the rich spend a Hell of a lot more on top-shelf alcohol, Cuban cigars, high class call girls and drugs. I'd stake my life on it...
It's worth wondering out-loud just have prevalent this type of thought that Chuck Grassley is spouting off here is on the American right. That people who live paycheck to paycheck are spending all their money on (in order) alcohol, prostitutes, and going to the movies:
I especially love the "women" part. I've lived paycheck to paycheck PLENTY, and paying for a hooker has never entered my budget plans. I'll admit to buying a six-pack occasionally (about $8) and going to see a movie on occasion as well ($10). Not every two weeks during those periods, but occasionally. Imagine what I could have been if I had just stayed home instead. That $18 would put we well on my way to being able to leave a multi-million dollar inheritance, if only I was able to invest it correctly.
NOW, I don't have any kids. It was fairly tough sometimes for me to "indulge" (if you can even call it that) in those activities sometimes. For a working single-mother of two, I doubt she does either of them (the kids probably watch 90% of their movies at home on a hand-me down TV with DVDs purchased from a thrift store). I'm also 100% certain SHE also isn't hiring alot of prostitutes. But hey, what the hell do I know. I'm not a Senator from Iowa.
Also, I'd like to point out that Chuck Grassley is accidentally admitting what most rich people do with the extra money they don't need. As I've been saying, they don't hire new workers, they invest it. Which means putting it in the Wall Street casino we call the stock market.
I'll call hypocrisy on this a-hole as well. Poor people might buy booze and cigarettes but I'm pretty sure the rich spend a Hell of a lot more on top-shelf alcohol, Cuban cigars, high class call girls and drugs. I'd stake my life on it...
I seriously would not even know where to find either drugs or prostitutes in the city I live in, and though it isn't large by major metro area standards, it is the largest city in the State. I had a Cuban cigar once, at my cousin's wedding well over ten years ago, when my uncle brought some out at 2 am. One time a family friend brought a bottle of Hennessy to my aunt's 40th birthday party. That was quite the night. Incidentally, it was after that night that I just flat-out quite drinking on any regular basis because I had a two-day hangover. I still WILL drink, but only 3 or 4 times a year.
And the Democrats aren't in the upper class? I call BS. At best they give lip service that they're somehow different. They're the biggest hypocrites since from what I see they're all for a permanent lower class that they throw their crumbs to in order to buy their votes. More illegal aliens? Sure, just remember who you owe it to when you vote. Felons? Sure, vote for us and we're all for you. I'm waiting for them to lower the voting age to 13 or something. Hey y'all I know you haven't earned a paycheck in your whole life but vote for us and we'll set you up for life! We'll just take it all from the rich and give it to you. After all, they don't need it. Their money should be your money (just not our money of course)!
Complete hypocrisy...
The Democrats are also beholden to moneyed interests, yes, but they've never tried to transfer money from the working and middle class like this, whereas the Republicans have been working hard at it since Reagan. The two parties are not equivalent in this regard.
The closest Democrats have come to what Republicans have been doing for decades is "welfare reform" in the 90s during Clinton.
It's worth wondering out-loud just have prevalent this type of thought that Chuck Grassley is spouting off here is on the American right. That people who live paycheck to paycheck are spending all their money on (in order) alcohol, prostitutes, and going to the movies:
I especially love the "women" part. I've lived paycheck to paycheck PLENTY, and paying for a hooker has never entered my budget plans. I'll admit to buying a six-pack occasionally (about $8) and going to see a movie on occasion as well ($10). Not every two weeks during those periods, but occasionally. Imagine what I could have been if I had just stayed home instead. That $18 would put we well on my way to being able to leave a multi-million dollar inheritance, if only I was able to invest it correctly.
NOW, I don't have any kids. It was fairly tough sometimes for me to "indulge" (if you can even call it that) in those activities sometimes. For a working single-mother of two, I doubt she does either of them (the kids probably watch 90% of their movies at home on a hand-me down TV with DVDs purchased from a thrift store). I'm also 100% certain SHE also isn't hiring alot of prostitutes. But hey, what the hell do I know. I'm not a Senator from Iowa.
Also, I'd like to point out that Chuck Grassley is accidentally admitting what most rich people do with the extra money they don't need. As I've been saying, they don't hire new workers, they invest it. Which means putting it in the Wall Street casino we call the stock market.
I'll call hypocrisy on this a-hole as well. Poor people might buy booze and cigarettes but I'm pretty sure the rich spend a Hell of a lot more on top-shelf alcohol, Cuban cigars, high class call girls and drugs. I'd stake my life on it...
I seriously would not even know where to find either drugs or prostitutes in the city I live in, and though it isn't large by major metro area standards, it is the largest city in the State. I had a Cuban cigar once, at my cousin's wedding well over ten years ago, when my uncle brought some out at 2 am. One time a family friend brought a bottle of Hennessy to my aunt's 40th birthday party. That was quite the night. Incidentally, it was after that night that I just flat-out quite drinking on any regular basis because I had a two-day hangover. I still WILL drink, but only 3 or 4 times a year.
The hangover from a non-top-shelf liquor is infinitely worse. I've enjoyed Cuban cigars and top-shelf liquor. I just can't afford to do it very often (fortunately). I definitely know the difference though. Rich folks don't even get the same hangovers as the poor folks.
Btw: I know where the ladies of the night are in Detroit but have no interest in partaking of that particular vice. Not even to see their dillies...
And the Democrats aren't in the upper class? I call BS. At best they give lip service that they're somehow different. They're the biggest hypocrites since from what I see they're all for a permanent lower class that they throw their crumbs to in order to buy their votes. More illegal aliens? Sure, just remember who you owe it to when you vote. Felons? Sure, vote for us and we're all for you. I'm waiting for them to lower the voting age to 13 or something. Hey y'all I know you haven't earned a paycheck in your whole life but vote for us and we'll set you up for life! We'll just take it all from the rich and give it to you. After all, they don't need it. Their money should be your money (just not our money of course)!
Complete hypocrisy...
The Democrats are also beholden to moneyed interests, yes, but they've never tried to transfer money from the working and middle class like this, whereas the Republicans have been working hard at it since Reagan. The two parties are not equivalent in this regard.
The closest Democrats have come to what Republicans have been doing for decades is "welfare reform" in the 90s during Clinton.
I think trade deals like Bill Clinton's were part of a massive wealth transfer from American workers to the corporate bottom line, end result being the routine usage of slave-like conditions and slave-like wages to produce goods sold in American stores. I think the endless push to keep migration as open as possible is also part of a massive wealth transfer through loss of bargaining power and the law of supply and demand to increase the corporate bottom line, the worst hit being the poor who needed jobs. But least they can get welfare and depend on the democrats then! I think the endless cries of epithets the democrats use to avoid talking about this is them full in the knowledge they do not act in the interests of Americans and can't defend their actions on that basis.
I think it's a massive mistake to assume the democrats act with better intentions then their opponents or that the flowery moralizing is real.
Agreed. What exactly have they achieved for the people they supposedly defend? The Dems have had complete control of all branches of the government far more often than the GOP in the last 30-40 years and they really haven't achieved jack shit. Personally I think it's because they don't want to. If they actually achieved their goals the people they represent wouldn't need them anymore. It's far more advantageous for them to pay lip-service than actually achieve anything. I'd be a Democrat if I truly believed they wanted to achieve the goals they supposedly uphold. Prosperous people don't need handouts...
I think trade deals like Bill Clinton's were part of a massive wealth transfer from American workers to the corporate bottom line, end result being the routine usage of slave-like conditions and slave-like wages to produce goods sold in American stores. I think the endless push to keep migration as open as possible is also part of a massive wealth transfer through loss of bargaining power and the law of supply and demand to increase the corporate bottom line, the worst hit being the poor who needed jobs. But least they can get welfare and depend on the democrats then! I think the endless cries of epithets the democrats use to avoid talking about this is them full in the knowledge they do not act in the interests of Americans and can't defend their actions on that basis.
I think it's a massive mistake to assume the democrats act with better intentions then their opponents or that the flowery moralizing is real.
Said trade deals have enjoyed bipartisan support for years. It's simply not accurate to paint them as Democratic policies; the GOP has a long history of supporting them as well.
There is, however, a partisan divide over tax cuts and spending cuts.
People are vastly overstating the available situations to change things when Democrats had full power. The first time was in '92, and Clinton's first two years, from a policy standpoint, were an absolute mess. He lost the House very famously in '94. Clinton survived because of a great economy.
Obama had two years as well. He choose to use his political capital on two things: 1.) getting the stimulus package passed to stave off a depression, and 2.) getting health care passed. The second sealed his fate legislatively for the rest of his Presidency, and in '10 the Republicans took the House in a very similar manner and blocked everything for the rest of his term. After that, he was essentially regulated to foreign policy decisions and the ceremonies of the office. The modern Presidency doesn't allow for but two or three accomplishments (as far as legislation goes) before the other party, fueled with anger because they are out of power, simply swamp the complacent voters of the party in power in the mid-terms, allowing them to put a halt to anything. The only exception to this rule was the '02 mid-terms, when Bush and Karl Rove were fear-mongering over 9/11 and beating the drums of war.
Also, Republicans are simply better at getting what they want done, because Democrats still believe in the norms of governing that have held this country together up til now (such as, you know, allowing a sitting President to have his Constitutionally mandated Supreme Court pick). I went over on Friday night the differences between how Obamacare was debated vs. this tax bill. There wasn't even a comparison. You all saw the pictures of amendments being written in the margins of the bill in pen at (literally) the last minute at the behest of K-Street lobbyists. There is a difference between passing a bill on partisan lines (Obamacare) and completely refusing to have any debate or discussion about the bill whatsoever (Friday). When Republicans have the chance, they simply stick the shiv in and kill. Democrats still naively believe the other side is operating in good faith, to the point that they actually used a CONSERVATIVE universal health care template as the basis for Obamacare, in a futile effort to convince even one Republican to cross lines.
I feel like it should be mentioned there were last minute hand written amendments into other bills such as Dodd Frank written by D's like Sen. Durbin. It's not really evidence of anything outlandish though what it says about the political system is another thing entirely.
Democrats selling out as badly as Republicans have cost them. If the choice is between Republican-lite and actual Republican, the actual Republican usually wins. Well that and gerrymandering and voter suppression helps them too.
The Republican majority Supreme Court giving us Citizens United Ruling ruined politics.
Democrats selling out as badly as Republicans have cost them. If the choice is between Republican-lite and actual Republican, the actual Republican usually wins. Well that and gerrymandering and voter suppression helps them too.
The Republican majority Supreme Court giving us Citizens United Ruling ruined politics.
The appointment of Neil Gorsuch ended any chance of getting money out of politics for the next generation. He shouldn't be on the court. It was Obama's seat to fill, and he wasn't allowed to. If you care about money in politics (and everyone here on every side of the spectrum claims to) then that was the ballgame. Trump appointing another Federalist Society jurist was the end. Doesn't matter what else you think he might have been good on, doesn't matter what happens the rest of his term, or when another Democrat gets in. Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and Gorsuch are never going to be against it. If Trump gets to replace Kennedy or Ginsburg, then the shit will truly hit the fan. Then even your CHILDREN won't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting money out of politics.
The Supreme Court is by far the most important branch of government when it is all said and done. And the fact is, the moment Hillary lost (well, actually the moment Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans engaged in unprecedented behavior in regards to Obama's pick), it was a 100% lock that Citizens United was here to stay, as would any further similar cases that come before the court.
If Trump is able to select TWO more Justices?? At that point, you can say goodbye to Roe v. Wade, probably gay marriage, and, in all likelihood, also the individual right to use birth control. Quite honestly, if anyone has any respect at all for women's privacy or the basic rights of gay friends and family, pray to god Ruth Bader Ginsburg is able to hold on as long as possible.
And for the record, IF by some miracle the Democrats manage to take the Senate next year, and Trump gets a vacancy, the Democrats must absolutely do what McConnell did to Obama. They didn't start this nonsense, but it cannot go unreciprocated given the chance. Fire simply has to met with fire in this case if the situation arises. There is no room for taking the high road on this issue. Not anymore.
I've heard the Gorsuch is making an ass out of himself. Not surprising that Trump appointed a conceited jerk.
Neil Gorsuch hasn’t been on the Supreme Court that long, but we already know he’s a bit of a jerk. He gets pedantic during oral arguments, he’s been boorish and childish, and isn’t making any friends on the Court. And it seems it’s getting worse. https://abovethelaw.com/2017/10/justice-kagan-does-not-like-neil-gorsuch/
Anyway, you are right about Republican appointed Supreme Court judges but there is another option. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A Team er pass a Constitutional ammendment. It's been done before. It won't be easy but once these people who put personal wealth and corruption above the country leave no choice you have to do it. You've seen the marches, people are interested in making a difference.
Will Republicans join? Well we know their fox News and breitbart and Alex Joneses will be lying to them nonstop as usual. It won't be easy. But it will be worthwhile.
In fact, believing that the Republican tax plan will create real growth and jobs in America is a bit like believing in immaculate conception. There is no proof, so, at this point, you just have to take it on faith.
Well so far today we have the President's lawyer saying Trump, who lies about things and believes in conspiracy theories, is above the law. I tend to agree because Republicans have shown no interest in holding him accountable. Still, the whole "the law doesn't apply to me" didn't really work for Nixon.
And people have been seeing this official job performance survey the GOP sent out.
Trump sent out a survey. We all know he's a snowflake and has his feelings hurt super easily but look at how this is worded to protect his fragile ego:
If you actually fill out the thing, it takes you to a page where it says Trump is poor and needs your money where there's an option to set up a recurring $2500 donation.
So, trade agreements were not great, although as pointed out earlier they had bipartisan support. So, not really a democrat initiative specifically.
That said, trade agreements have not been nearly as damaging to the economy as well as the population of the US as this tax bill will be.
We've already seen what this sort of wealth redistribution does. Similar was passed in 1929, before the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression. And then more recently, there was the failed attempt at tax reform in Kansas.
Never mind the number of people who are likely to die because they'll lose access to life-saving medical care. 13 million people losing insurance over the next ten years, for example, as well as automatic cuts to Medicare caused by sequester at a minimum.
Well so far today we have the President's lawyer saying Trump, who lies about things and believes in conspiracy theories, is above the law. I tend to agree because Republicans have shown no interest in holding him accountable. Still, the whole "the law doesn't apply to me" didn't really work for Nixon.
And people have been seeing this official job performance survey the GOP sent out.
Trump sent out a survey. We all know he's a snowflake and has his feelings hurt super easily but look at how this is worded to protect his fragile ego:
If you actually fill out the thing, it takes you to a page where it says Trump is poor and needs your money where there's an option to set up a recurring $2500 donation.
Man, this reminds me of Stephen Colbert's bit where he'd have guests on and ask them "George W. Bush... great president? Or greatest president?"
Well so far today we have the President's lawyer saying Trump, who lies about things and believes in conspiracy theories, is above the law. I tend to agree because Republicans have shown no interest in holding him accountable. Still, the whole "the law doesn't apply to me" didn't really work for Nixon.
And people have been seeing this official job performance survey the GOP sent out.
Trump sent out a survey. We all know he's a snowflake and has his feelings hurt super easily but look at how this is worded to protect his fragile ego:
If you actually fill out the thing, it takes you to a page where it says Trump is poor and needs your money where there's an option to set up a recurring $2500 donation.
Looks like click-bait to me. I call bullshit on this being real...
Trump has officially endorsed Roy Moore. Before going further, it's worth pointing out that Nancy Pelosi has called on two Democratic House members to resign in the past week based on sexual harassment allegations. Which is the opposite of endorsing. But yeah, the President of the United States is now not just sitting back and waiting, but is going to actively campaign for a child molester.
I am well aware conservatives in Alabama are voting for this guy because he is against abortion and literally thinks being gay should be against the law. That's great. Once you save that fetus and it becomes a child, maybe it can grow up to be molested by Roy Moore.
Trump's lawyers are now saying the President cannot obstruct justice, by default. Sounds stunningly similar to "if the President does it it's not illegal".
And, right on target, after blowing up the deficit on purpose, here they come for Social Security and Medicare cuts. As I've been saying they would all year long:
Comments
Inevitable and disgusting. Anything that might benefit the poor or working class they can't afford but the military and Wallstreet there's always a few extra hundred trillion dollars for them.
Good one at Doonesbury today:
Every single Republican candidate for President in 2016 legitimately thought Trump was dangerous and nuts. Cruz, Rubio, Graham....down the line. They still do. They are just willing to lie and pretend everything is fine to pass the tax cuts. EVERYTHING is about the tax cuts. This entire experiement of putting a demented lunatic in charge of the most powerful country in the world is simply something that must be endured so we can offer sacrifices to the god of supply-side economics. At what point, if Mueller is closing in, does Trump just start launching bombs?? He hasn't really played his war card yet. It's sitting there waiting for a extreme political crisis. At what point does he start a military action and conflate opposition to him as opposition to the military?? I've already lived through 8 years of that once. It was the playbook for the entire Bush Administration.
Veterans of the last 3 or 4 Presidential campaigns (Republican and Democrat) are all on the record as saying that they never saw so much as one Russian swirling around their campaigns, much less Russian operatives popping up all over the place, secret meetings in hotel rooms, etc etc etc. They have all said that if it had happened, they would have reported the attempted intrusion to the FBI immediately. Because, at the very least, before Trump, such a connection would have spelled the end of any normal campaign if it was revealed. As a matter of fact, Al Gore's team was sent a copy of George W. Bush's debate prep in 2000. They reported it to the FBI.
Beyond that, take a look at the almost infinite amount of lies that continue to be told about those contacts. Jared Kushner has seemingly had to revise his recollections about such things every other week (in regards to what he left off his security clearance form). Sessions either has the worst memory in the history of humanity, or has lied to Congress on 3 separate occasions. Trump today just denied doing something he is on video admitting to in an interview with Lester Holt. The amount of lies that have been told about this subject by those around Trump would require a spreadsheet to keep track of, and hardly anyone would deny that. The main question remains, if there was nothing improper going on, what in the hell accounts for the sheer VOLUME of false statements, many made under the threat of perjury and indictment??
I'll also add that K.T. McFarland, like Flynn, was not just a campaign worker. She was brought into the Administration in a official capacity. As Flynn's #2. She is now one vote away from being named Ambassador to Singapore.
I should clear up @semiticgod 's post a bit. Obviously an email sent in December was AFTER the campaign. In the email, she was telling someone that her belief (and, given her high position in the inner circle, also ostensibly the belief of many in the campaign) that Russia had thrown the election to her boss. And yes, she specifically used the word "thrown".
The Russians and The GOP win if they can convince enough gullible people that "zomg her emails!" or "omg abortion" or "omg muslims!". If they get enough people to pay attention to that they can reach in their pockets and rob them blind. Too many people see through their BS? Voter suppression solves that. But the people they've convinced that there's some poor person who is out to get them they get the gullible people to support Republicans no matter what they do - be it pedophilia, sexual assault, or just robbing them blind to give to rich people. These people are convinced well he may be a pedophile and a crazy creep but at least they don't support brown people like those other guys the democrats do! Sad!
The Republicans and the rich thrive on dividing us and then robbing us blind. Oh and once the money is gone they turn around and want to cut medicare and social programs that help people. It's like we're all rubes walking around with one hundred dollars in our hands that they grab and give to a rich guy and then they tell us they have to cut our wages.
This is the kind of "the peasants are starving? Whatever, just let them eat cake" stuff that caused revolutions in the past. Do you think the GOP realizes that? I think they don't, they are so successful at looting the country, the markets up and all that why would they? They don't have to deal with the riff raff much when they live in their gated communities and attend private schools. The people on top don't care, everyone else is out of sight and out of mind. It's working, why stop?
Complete hypocrisy...
Who is first the working class in republicans? Not one. There's at least a couple dems. With dems (Obama) he wanted a corporate tax rate of 28% - too low but better than20% we get from Republicans.
I'm not saying there aren't sell outs on both sides, I'm saying I see not one Republican, who control all branches, who is not a complete corporate sellout.
Regardless, if you are a republican you should get your party under control and of you are a Democrat the same.
As for rest I'm not sure I know anyone who supports more illegal aliens--the left is generally more amenable to a path to citizenship for people already here and working, sure, but twisting that into wanting more illegal aliens is, at best, a disingenuous oversimplification. Lowering the voting age is not something I've seen seriously proposed anywhere, by anyone, and I doubt you have either.
Rand Paul is someone you can possibly listen to for 5 minutes on one issue and think "yeah, this guy has a good idea" (in addition to letting felons have their voting rights after their sentence, he and Kamala Harris have also been working on reforming the bail system in this country). But then he will say something like he did when being interviewed by Rachel Maddow years ago, where he advocates the idea that restaurants shouldn't have to serve black people. Not because he himself is racist, but because his libertarian ethos is just THAT strong. He is, after all, NAMED after Ayn Rand, who is possibly one of THE most popular figures in right-wing politics (at least on the libertarian side). Paul Ryan is another acolyte. As for her, well.....I'm sure most of us have played Bioshock a time or two. The city of Rapture is meant to be an extreme fantasy example of Objectivism run amok.
I especially love the "women" part. I've lived paycheck to paycheck PLENTY, and paying for a hooker has never entered my budget plans. I'll admit to buying a six-pack occasionally (about $8) and going to see a movie on occasion as well ($10). Not every two weeks during those periods, but occasionally. Imagine what I could have been if I had just stayed home instead. That $18 would put we well on my way to being able to leave a multi-million dollar inheritance, if only I was able to invest it correctly.
NOW, I don't have any kids. It was fairly tough sometimes for me to "indulge" (if you can even call it that) in those activities sometimes. For a working single-mother of two, I doubt she does either of them (the kids probably watch 90% of their movies at home on a hand-me down TV with DVDs purchased from a thrift store). I'm also 100% certain SHE also isn't hiring alot of prostitutes. But hey, what the hell do I know. I'm not a Senator from Iowa.
Also, I'd like to point out that Chuck Grassley is accidentally admitting what most rich people do with the extra money they don't need. As I've been saying, they don't hire new workers, they invest it. Which means putting it in the Wall Street casino we call the stock market.
The closest Democrats have come to what Republicans have been doing for decades is "welfare reform" in the 90s during Clinton.
Btw: I know where the ladies of the night are in Detroit but have no interest in partaking of that particular vice. Not even to see their dillies...
I think it's a massive mistake to assume the democrats act with better intentions then their opponents or that the flowery moralizing is real.
Agreed. What exactly have they achieved for the people they supposedly defend? The Dems have had complete control of all branches of the government far more often than the GOP in the last 30-40 years and they really haven't achieved jack shit. Personally I think it's because they don't want to. If they actually achieved their goals the people they represent wouldn't need them anymore. It's far more advantageous for them to pay lip-service than actually achieve anything. I'd be a Democrat if I truly believed they wanted to achieve the goals they supposedly uphold. Prosperous people don't need handouts...
There is, however, a partisan divide over tax cuts and spending cuts.
Obama had two years as well. He choose to use his political capital on two things: 1.) getting the stimulus package passed to stave off a depression, and 2.) getting health care passed. The second sealed his fate legislatively for the rest of his Presidency, and in '10 the Republicans took the House in a very similar manner and blocked everything for the rest of his term. After that, he was essentially regulated to foreign policy decisions and the ceremonies of the office. The modern Presidency doesn't allow for but two or three accomplishments (as far as legislation goes) before the other party, fueled with anger because they are out of power, simply swamp the complacent voters of the party in power in the mid-terms, allowing them to put a halt to anything. The only exception to this rule was the '02 mid-terms, when Bush and Karl Rove were fear-mongering over 9/11 and beating the drums of war.
Also, Republicans are simply better at getting what they want done, because Democrats still believe in the norms of governing that have held this country together up til now (such as, you know, allowing a sitting President to have his Constitutionally mandated Supreme Court pick). I went over on Friday night the differences between how Obamacare was debated vs. this tax bill. There wasn't even a comparison. You all saw the pictures of amendments being written in the margins of the bill in pen at (literally) the last minute at the behest of K-Street lobbyists. There is a difference between passing a bill on partisan lines (Obamacare) and completely refusing to have any debate or discussion about the bill whatsoever (Friday). When Republicans have the chance, they simply stick the shiv in and kill. Democrats still naively believe the other side is operating in good faith, to the point that they actually used a CONSERVATIVE universal health care template as the basis for Obamacare, in a futile effort to convince even one Republican to cross lines.
The Republican majority Supreme Court giving us Citizens United Ruling ruined politics.
The Supreme Court is by far the most important branch of government when it is all said and done. And the fact is, the moment Hillary lost (well, actually the moment Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans engaged in unprecedented behavior in regards to Obama's pick), it was a 100% lock that Citizens United was here to stay, as would any further similar cases that come before the court.
If Trump is able to select TWO more Justices?? At that point, you can say goodbye to Roe v. Wade, probably gay marriage, and, in all likelihood, also the individual right to use birth control. Quite honestly, if anyone has any respect at all for women's privacy or the basic rights of gay friends and family, pray to god Ruth Bader Ginsburg is able to hold on as long as possible.
And for the record, IF by some miracle the Democrats manage to take the Senate next year, and Trump gets a vacancy, the Democrats must absolutely do what McConnell did to Obama. They didn't start this nonsense, but it cannot go unreciprocated given the chance. Fire simply has to met with fire in this case if the situation arises. There is no room for taking the high road on this issue. Not anymore.
Neil Gorsuch hasn’t been on the Supreme Court that long, but we already know he’s a bit of a jerk. He gets pedantic during oral arguments, he’s been boorish and childish, and isn’t making any friends on the Court. And it seems it’s getting worse.
https://abovethelaw.com/2017/10/justice-kagan-does-not-like-neil-gorsuch/
Anyway, you are right about Republican appointed Supreme Court judges but there is another option. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A Team er pass a Constitutional ammendment. It's been done before. It won't be easy but once these people who put personal wealth and corruption above the country leave no choice you have to do it. You've seen the marches, people are interested in making a difference.
Will Republicans join? Well we know their fox News and breitbart and Alex Joneses will be lying to them nonstop as usual. It won't be easy. But it will be worthwhile.
And people have been seeing this official job performance survey the GOP sent out.
Trump sent out a survey. We all know he's a snowflake and has his feelings hurt super easily but look at how this is worded to protect his fragile ego:
If you actually fill out the thing, it takes you to a page where it says Trump is poor and needs your money where there's an option to set up a recurring $2500 donation.
That said, trade agreements have not been nearly as damaging to the economy as well as the population of the US as this tax bill will be.
We've already seen what this sort of wealth redistribution does. Similar was passed in 1929, before the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression. And then more recently, there was the failed attempt at tax reform in Kansas.
Never mind the number of people who are likely to die because they'll lose access to life-saving medical care. 13 million people losing insurance over the next ten years, for example, as well as automatic cuts to Medicare caused by sequester at a minimum.
https://gop.com/survey/rate-trump-job-performance/
Perhaps, in the future, we could all spend a little time doing research instead of refusing to examine our own biases.
I am well aware conservatives in Alabama are voting for this guy because he is against abortion and literally thinks being gay should be against the law. That's great. Once you save that fetus and it becomes a child, maybe it can grow up to be molested by Roy Moore.
Trump's lawyers are now saying the President cannot obstruct justice, by default. Sounds stunningly similar to "if the President does it it's not illegal".
And, right on target, after blowing up the deficit on purpose, here they come for Social Security and Medicare cuts. As I've been saying they would all year long:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/01/gop-eyes-post-tax-cut-changes-to-welfare-medicare-and-social-security/