« Brewer tells the truth | Main | A dozen historic elections »

October 31, 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Too bad the game was rigged to force Clinton down the nations throat. I guess when all those ruling class scions dump all that money into the Clinton Foundation they are going to do what ever it takes to make all that influence buying pay off. Screw the country! Give us Hillary!

Bernie would have beat Trump hands down.

That's why I wrote in Bernie Sanders on my ballot.

Call it the Anti-soleri, Anti-Hattie vote.

I hate partisan operatives who call us dumb while their "PROFESSIONALS" act like the Keystone cops, The Stooges, The gang who couldn't shoot straight.

Given the choices you "PROFESSIONALS" give us, I vote, BURN THE HOUSE DOWN.

Food for thought.


Democracy's autoimmune disease shows up in an electorate too uninformed to know Donald Trump is utterly and completely unqualified to be president. It shows up in a Republican Party energized not to govern well - or at all - but to wage war against those who would. And it shows up in our political debates that are not really about anything except how unlikeable the other person is.

Each election cycle is crazier than the preceding one. Voters want to throw the bums out and instead end up electing even worse ones. The one party that still wants to govern and compromise is fighting a two-front war, both against a nihilist opposition party and against a small but growing rump of fantasy-based lefties. I keep asking myself why people who are well-fed and comfortable seem so eager to burn down the house of self-government. Is the thirst for simple explanations so overwhelming that we will give a pass to a party that actively engages in sabotage against once inviolable norms of political behavior?

I know there's no neat ideological approach to these problems. The truth is that we require two functional parties, a political divide that acknowledges the necessity of the other half, and a faith in the institutions and traditions of government. But we careening awfully close to the cliff. When Donald Trump suggests not accepting the result of this election if he doesn't win it, it points out just how corroded this faith has become. There seems to be an atavistic urge in the heartland for a kind of strongman/bully who will make us feel "safe". This is insane. Tribalism will destroy us before it will make us cohere as a nation. This is the perennial nightmare we've been struggling to awake from for most of our history. It will only be over when Republican media call a truce in their war on America.


I hate to break it to you but the 2 party system is dead. It's an illusion designed to keep the rubes in the game. The Clinton's sold the tattered remains of the once proud Democratic Party to Wall Street years ago. It's a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman Sacs et al.

In the multi-party Italy of which you dream, the right will win outside of progressive bastions such as Seattle. As for St. Bernie, he would have been flayed by same right wing media that has convinced you Hillary is a corrupt sellout.

I also continue to be perplexed, despite all that I have written, about the bad history regarding Democrats compromised by Wall Street and the other "elites."

"Crips and bloods. No difference between the two parties." Not true.

There simply was no appetite for a national party marching in lockstep with Noam Chomsky. Unless you want to lose over and over like the Greens.

The Democrats, as a mass party, had liberals, centrists and conservatives (the Republicans once did, too). So you can find all sorts of flavors among the Dems. But in general, only one party has fought for working people, the social compact, common good, environmental protection, consumer protection, antitrust enforcement, infrastructure and other investments and every other liberal cause — it was the Democrats.

But unless you are from a hard blue safe district, you have to make compromises. After the disasters of McGovern, Carter, Mondale and Dukakis in the ascendancy of Reagan (and Thatcher's TINA), if you wanted to win national elections, you had to make compromises with neoclassical economics and the "end of history" narrative.

Maybe that changed after the banksters, but I doubt it on a scale enough to really win. The Tea Party was white supremacist and against Obamacare. Its dander up about Wall Street was decidedly secondary, and they keep electing the party that does the bidding of big business without any question. And that's the GOP.

Big difference between the parties.

I think for Ross, the idea is that there is an alternative history that must be believed before it can be realized. It's why Bernie Bros spend so much time talking to themselves in their own special jargon. They and they alone know the truth. Only infidels and sellouts dare question their One True Faith.

Republicans, to be sure, have pointed in the direction of a mass political party that is also closer to a pure ideological construct. But it is less to do with "ideas" than tribal identity. Lefties wonder why can't they do something like that but without the racism and bigotry. The assumption is always that people would vote hard left if they knew what their real interests were.

The trouble is most people are not really ideologues. They don't think in terms of valiant workers and predatory bosses, or benign unions and evil corporations. Most people are vague about political philosophy, so you have to meet them in the center, not on the fringes, if you hope to have crossover appeal.

If Bernie had won the nomination, he would have inherited the Obama coalition with its heterogeneous elements, special interests, and minority groups. He would have tacked to the center necessarily to keep that coalition from fragmenting. The trick would have been keeping the hard-core ideology from swamping the real-world concerns of non-ideologues. This would likely prove impossible.

To prove your ideas viable, start off small. Select a manageable polity, say a legislative district, and run a strong candidate with progressive bona fides. If your ideas work, you'll eventually see success. But if you whine that the Democratic Party is thwarting you (and the will of the people only YOU embody), you are living in fantasy. Just as Donald Trump is now doing, the Bros spent a lot of time talking about the contest being rigged. Bernie got a lot of votes but, sadly, he couldn't get a majority. Purists need to accept democracy before they can rule it.

People still pining about Bernie. Losers.

"Republicans have stated explicitly that they will refuse to approve any Supreme Court nominee she puts before the upper house."

Republicans are liars (or, as Sec Clinton words it, they wisely have "both a public and a private position"). Just as they were going to require every piece of introduced legislation to be read on the floor along with a Constitutional justification for the law, the Garland battle is just election year theater. Exactly the same as the 11th hour gun control sit ins were political theater.

People want it to be over because we're tired, not because we don't appreciate the severity of the situation. Campaigns are nothing more than dealing with the hypothetical. Trump says he's going to build that wall but we all know he isn't. Clinton says she's going take on Wall Street but we all know she isn't. So, whoever gets picked, let's get on with it.

Election season is Spring Training. You get a glimpse of your candidates (even ones that you knew from previous seasons) but it's no guarantee as to how they're going to perform. That's why you play the game. Well, after 18 months of exhibitions in which our only two electable candidates shared the same stage for all of three hours (in which many of Sec Clinton's responses were, "just go look at my website" and Trump's were, "I didn't say that."), we're ready to get on with it.

Personally, I have no faith in the federal government to do what is right by the American people. I think that ship has sailed and it is never coming back. Of course there are worse conditions than Congressional gridlock and DC pissing contests but the likely outcome, Clinton + a GOP Congress, is only marginally worse than giving her a Democratic Congress. Definitely not worth being any more involved in this election that I have been.

People still defending Hillary. Pathetic.

The idea that corp d can make progress by compromising with corp r is a failed plan. Corp r won't compromise. Each time corp d give a little the slack is taken and the bar is set a little lower. It's the ratchet effect. The road to victory as laid out by the Clintons is to move to the right and try to triangulate yourself so that you remain about 1 mm to the left of corp r. The Clinton's in deed and fact are center right r's. If securing the privileges of power is all you worry about it mostly works for a while. After a bit the rubes figure out that only the people at the top are benefiting and one by one they lose faith in the system. Then the stage is set for a Trump to come and tell them what they already know. The game is rigged. Only he can fix it. Do I believe it? No! Would I vote for it? No!

Denying that a fundamental shift has occurred in the system we govern ourselves by won't fix the problem.

Change will not come from the top. The rejection of draconian drug laws is an example of how change can come. From the bottom up, state by state. That will only happen when we stop accepting the lesser evil and hoping we can compromise our way out of this failing state of affairs.

blaxsabbath, I suppose it's a sign of my old age when I no longer hope that elections solve extraordinarily difficult problems so much as not make them significantly worse. That said, there's still a sharp moral distinction to be made between the two parties when it comes to the future. I understand you are not persuaded by history, or the necessity of choice itself. I would suggest to you that this fashionable abdication is a close cousin to the nihilism we see on the right. Just burn the house down if we don't get our way.

Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton for good reasons, perhaps one of which is that while he's a lefty gadfly, he's not insane. You don't improve the lot of American workers by not caring if a party of hard-right ideologues slashes taxes on the rich while shredding the safety net. This would be, let's just say, devastating for American workers. You don't gut the EPA of its ability to regulate greenhouse gases. The result would be catastrophic for the climate. Then there's the small matter of the Supreme Court and what more hard-right justices will do voting rights, women rights, environmental law, gay rights, and campaign finance reform if we ever revisit that issue. Let's just say it won't be pretty. Lastly, a Republican win would tell this nation - and the world at large - that America is now a white nationalist fever swamp where black lives definitely don't matter. The alt-right will move dramatically closer to the mainstream of American political life.

I know you don't care but you should. Bernie Sanders cares and you apparently respected his opinion once. He urged you to vote for Clinton in simple, emphatic language. It's true the choice is not ideal but it is clear. It's not your favorite scenario but it is the only morally responsible one. We need to be just adult enough here to understand the difference between vanity and necessity. For that reason alone, this choice is extraordinarily easy to make. You would have to be a child to demand something better.

It was the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act that gave the EPA the ability to regulate greenhouse gases; those amendments were proposed by the elder George Bush and easily passed the Senate and House


You know, back when Presidents could lead....

I find it totally to be the fault of the Democratic Party by them forcing this Bitch upon us...A known LIAR, CHEAT, and UNETHICAL Bitch...
I used to say, at the last few Presidential elections, that we had a choice of the lessor of two evils.. NOT THIS TIME.. Now our choice is who will SCREW US the LEAST.. and, unfortunately, that would be Donald Trump.
Both the Dems and the GOP have shown the American p0eople that they do NOT give a shit about us... It's power and $$$ that count to them.. While Trump is the GOP ticket, he is disliked by many, if not all, the top GOP Leadership... they are scared shitless of Trump, because they cannot control him, they cannot buy him...unlike HRC and the Dems.
Unsecure Emails, dead Americans in Benghazi..(HRC, "THE ANKLE" and IMAM OBAMA failed to answer that phone)..the shame of the "Clinton Foundation.. Clintons 18 million dollar tax write off to THEMSELVES..to a foundation that pays less than 6% to those they are supposed to serve..
Hell, the Clintons can't even follow the laws/rules concerning their residences.. Renovations being done WITHOUT any permits.. why??? Because they want it done by Thanksgiving.. Permits and rules are for the little people..
And the Leadership of the Democrats.. they PRAISED Comey when he said no charges should be filed.. Comey was a HERO.. BUT.. NEW EVIDENCE appears, and they re-open this Email scandal investigation.. NOW all the Democratic Leadership want to hang Comey.. and AG Lynch should be IMPEACHED.. She fought Comey.. She is in the pocket of IMAM OBAMA and HRC, "THE ANKLE"..She is NOT acting like the top Justice Official.
Sorry, DEMS... you put all your eggs in one basket, and it's now coming back to bite you in the ass. This could cost the Presidency AND the House and Senate that you so much wanted.
I won't even go in to all the arrests/allegations concerning the Voter Fraud. We all know how the Democrats have fought against Voter ID's... even though the poorest of Countries in the World have it.. The Democrats would lose too many votes with Voter ID's.
and remember... I am a registered Ind. I do vote for some Democrats, like Kyrsten Senima. Wish we had more like her, and less like John McCain..

"I won't even go in to all the arrests/allegations concerning the Voter Fraud."

You really should, Skip. I'd like to watch the knots you'd tie yourself into trying to document actual Democratic 'voter fraud', which as we all know too well, pales in comparison to GOP voter suppression.


Skip welcome back to the blog, its been a while. While I may or may not agree with you on a number of points, I believe its good for you to post here as it provides for interaction.

For those of you that do not know Skip Redpath, this might help.

for fun, scroll down to picture of donald and Valdimir.


First, I'm not a Sanders supporter and never was. I didn't care what he had to say in March and I don't care what he has to say now. His endorsement means as much to me as that of Sen Patrick Leahy of VT. I know why he's backing Hillary now -- because the other side is his enemy. It's the same reason so many GOP officials back/backed Trump though they don't agree with him on policy/governance.

Second, I am generally not persuaded by history -- at least before the 21st Century -- because, as RC points out, this isn't the two-party system of old. The current system is, as you nailed it, an obstructionist GOP that will let it all burn and a centrist (at best) Democratic Party that will gladly go along with almost any insane Republican plan -- be it handing the Congressional war powers to the President or killing a single-payer ACA option -- while assuming absolutely no blame because the alternative was always worse (I have before pointed out how Kyrsten Sinema has made a career out of being the helpless minority legislator so won't bother to bring it up again). In terms of an indicator, I'm much more interested in demographics (both of voters and of legislators) than I am historic party politics.

Should Clinton win -- yes. Should her victory come as an overwhelming referendum -- I sure hope not. And therein lies the problem with our election system. Once these elections are over, we all go back to being without a voice for four years (maybe two if you have a Rep who will be challenged). I know, stay active, be diligent, email your rep. But what's the reality? Congress escapes to DC and the waiting agenda of lobbyists to perform the work that will allow them to refill their campaign war chests.

This election isn't about policy (sadly) and it's not even about personality. It's about faith. Faith that Trump can make Mexico build the wall or that a business mogul can apply his Midas Touch to an economy that could seriously use a bump. It's also about faith that Hillary Clinton will set out to do all the things that the House was able to keep Obama from executing -- like taking our guns, taxing us at Scandinavian rates, and sending our troops to die on behalf of whatever conflict her Clinton Foundation donors see fitting. Or, alternatively, faith that the Democrats aren't as lost of a cause as the GOP and, if we just give them the seats they need, that they'll maybe do something about Wall Street/military quagmires/social injustice/a deficient ACA. Faith that a career politician's last hurrah is going to be a stand for the people, not the government and it's current influencers. Faith that, at least, Clinton is strong enough to battle Congressional obstruction to keep the Republic running long enough to make it to another election cycle where her calls to replace the GOP seats with other like-minded centrists might succeed. But, because neither candidate is very transparent, we're all just gonna have to guess at what risk you think is best -- because it's all just a matter of faith.

But, again, conversations like this are exactly why I'm ready for the election to be over. Regardless of who wins (it's going to be Hillary, it was always going to be Hillary), we'll all be back to reality. We'll be dealing with how Congress actually does act. If the Senate actually does continue to obstruct SC nominees. If our leaders, as a whole, decide to turn Syria into a war with Russia. We've beaten the hypotheticals into the ground and pretty much everyone seems decided so let's just have the vote and get on with it because, regardless of who wins, as Bernie Sanders puts it, it remains the job of Clinton's supporters “to demand that the Democratic Party implement that platform.”

Of course, this is all only if there is time to get to anything else while the GOP is busy pushing to impeach Clinton as of 1/20/17.

Table 5:


Obamacare was originally pitched as being deficit neutral but as of March 2016, it in projected to increase the deficit $ 1.3 trillion from 2016 to 2025.

Those damn racists at the CBO!!!!!

blaxsabbath, I'm not exactly sure what you're saying except that everything sucks, therefore don't even try to improve anything. But this is nihilism, not reason. We have to behave "as if" there's a point to our political efforts otherwise we will go mad with despair. As always, the best guide in any situation is a combination of empirical reality, past performance, and humane regard for others. Our judgment can't be abstracted from what is real unless we're no longer voting for a recognizable future so much as a scenario based on nostaglia or a game theory kind of extrapolation that is akin to a dream.

This is a progressive blog that, oddly, attracts a large share of reactionaries and left-wing Betrayal Queens. My sense is that the far left and far right have common epistemological standards, particularly when it comes to conspiracy theories and group think. Politics can't fix the tendency in the human mind to see cosmic evil as a key element in political life. We will not advance our interests by having debates about things that are not in themselves real. We can only argue about whose coalition has a set of interests and beliefs that can advance the national project. The right barely even plays this game any more except to furiously blow dog whistles about those people who are judged not to be Real Americans (and we know what color they are). For better or worse, the left is still arguing about real things and real possibilities. That's it. I'm a progressive because I believe progress is possible. Otherwise, there would be no point to any of this. There is, I think, a moral component to progressive political values. Nihilism, on the other hand, is a form of solipsism that reduces reality to one's own bad mood. That's what I'm seeing here and it makes me wonder what it is about America that has so many people ready to give up.

Soleri, very good commentary on your part however with all due respect, I dont see posts here that indicate, "Giving Up". I see response to stimuli. Regardless if the responses are irrational or rational they are still indications of not giving up. Giving up is just not responding at all.

AND being judgmental or slipping from intelligent thought to emotion
"You would have to be a child to demand something better."
You Pegged me, 76 and still a kid.

Why am I fed up, by an American, Part I

Because a bomb, paid by my taxes, was dropped by a plane, paid by my taxes, on a child somewhere in this world and that child's family blames me.

Because we send our elected officials to Washington and they don't come back. Evan Bayh can't prove when he was last in Indiana. He may not even know where the state is.

The correct order is: God, family, country, community, then maybe party.
It's not party, party, party, party.

Memo to the gridlocked federal government:
Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.

Parts II through M may follow.


You write: "The GOP will stop at nothing, because its members believe only they have the right to rule."

You then write, "Want it to be over? Hand the Republicans a crushing defeat across the board, and keep defeating them. Otherwise..."

In other words, you will "stop at nothing" because you believe only the Democrats should have the "right to rule."

Other than being insulted by Hillary and her supporters as a "racist" (which I am not), "deplorable" and all the rest, the thing I detest most about the progressives is double-standards such as this that you all shamelessly delight in embracing.

“we all strive for safety, prosperity, comfort, long life and DULLNESS.”
Aldo Leopold.

'I can't wait for this to end'

“The gloomy night before us flies,
The reign of terror now is o’er;
Its gags, inquisitors and spies,
It’s hags and harpies no more”

Boy, not only is the CBO a bunch of racists, but here's a federal judge overruling an Obama Executive order, and I'm sure it's because Obama is black!!!


Then there are the election obsessives who would be happy for it to go on and on:


Will the real Manchurian cadidate stand up.


Regarding the WSJ link, boy, it sure makes INPHX happy when employers find a new way to screw their workers and ultimately consumers and tax payers. It's like Christmas! I'm going to take a wild guess that the ruling was issued by a judge appointed by Republicans.

Regarding the CBO link, we are all still breathlessly awaiting the Republican's health care plan. As long as it covers as many people as the ACA, with no limitations on lifetime coverage or pre-existing conditions...

I got nothing. Either way this goes - and my money's on Hillary,- we're in for no reprieve. None. Zip. Nada. There's a cultural seismic shift going here, and who knows how it will end.

Diane, try this from the above front pages.

Is Trumps strength that he is unscripted and unfiltered?


It's not that everything sucks and we shouldn't try to improve it. However, there is a great need for significant and objective improvement and, for my part, moving at a snail's pace is effectively as bad as not moving at all.

This seems to be our fundamental disagreement. I'm not going to rehash the theory but when I'm saying things are so broken that working within the system in its current form is effectively useless, it's not much of a rousing endorsement for the future when your response is "We have to behave 'as if' there's a point to our political efforts otherwise we will go mad with despair." Don't move the goal posts. Don't tell me that inching towards progress is as good as achieving it. And especially don't tell me that I should be jumping for joy just because we aren't currently going backwards.

I hope to be eating my words next year when President Clinton is calling out establishment republicans and throwing around executive actions every time they dig in their heels. I hope Sanders/Warren stand firm on their promise to call out Clinton when she falls into the rut of appointing corporate foxes to watch the regulatory hen houses. I hope Clinton stands up and uses the term "radical Islam" (okay, that one is just a joke). But I can only say that I hope for these things because, based on history, it's going to be political grandstanding as usual after the election. I can't force myself to behave 'as if' there's a point to these elections if DC goes back to simply being DC after next Tuesday.

Mr Franklin:

The real point of the WSJ link was to demonstrate Obama's obvious weakness as a President. He can't possibly get anything through Congress, so with his phone and pen, he executes an executive order that then gets bounced by a federal judge. Separation of Powers and all.

If you want to drill down into the actual issue presented, Obama's executive order would prohibit contractors even ACCUSED of labor violations from bidding on federal contracts. And once you understand that, well, it's easy to understand the judge'e ruling. Unless you're against that whole "innocent util proven guilty" concept- and maybe you are.

On Obamacare, you write "As long as it covers as many people as the ACA, with no limitations on lifetime coverage or pre-existing conditions..."

I'd probably add "fiscally sane" to that rather shallow set of criteria, but I tend to set the bar a little higher.

It was suppose to reduce deficits. It won't.

What are we arguing about?

Wait- never mind- the country is in such great fiscal shape we can take the Obamacare hit.

Carry on.

Here's what the judge actually said before bouncing the Obama executive order:

"The Executive Order [and related policies] arrogate to contracting agencies the authority to require contractors to report for public disclosure mere allegations of labor law violations, and then to disqualify or require contractors to enter into premature labor compliance agreements based on their alleged violations of such laws in order to obtain or retain federal contracts. By these actions, the Executive Branch appears to have departed from Congress’s explicit instructions dictating how violations of the labor law statutes are to be addressed,"

blaxsabbath, I know many on the left think this election is about them and their precious sensibilities. Susan Sarandon, a wealthy white woman, will not settle for anything less than the Full Bern. She's endorsing a daffy fringe candidate running on the Green ticket. But not everyone is as privileged as she is. They won't be able to escape to a chalet in southern France if Republicans succeed in deporting people who are unacceptably brown. Women won't have defenders on the Supreme Court if President Trump appoints some new Antonin Scalias to that august body. Blacks may find their lives matter significantly less than they did before (not to mention their voting rights). The very few of us who think climate change is an existential threat infinitely more compelling than ISIS will have to endure the Republican Ignoramus-in-Chief scuttling EPA regulations governing carbon emissions. Of course, the middle - and white working - class - will witness a tectonic shift in this nation's wealth to the top 1%.

The False Equivalence is a brain-rotting prion destroying the judgment of countless Americans. Be aware of the danger signs: thinking Democrats and Republicans are equally bad. Thinking progress is insufficient (tell that to the 20 million Americans who now have affordable health insurance), thinking that fantasies about revolution can substitute for the hard work of political change, and believing that other people really don't matter so much as your "principles".

If you exhibit any of these danger signs, breathe deeply and tell yourself: this election is more important than your vanity. Other lives are at stake. Vote as if their lives matter as much as your own.

Soleri wrote, "This is a progressive blog that, oddly, attracts a large share of reactionaries and left-wing Betrayal Queens." I couldn't have said it better.

Let's remember that the Affordable Care Act was a **Republican** idea that came out of the Heritage Foundation. A version of ACA was implemented in Massachusetts by Gov. Mitt Romney. They disowned it once Obama embraced it and were committed to doing everything possible to undermine it, from Congress to red-state governors.

ACA was always dependent on a deal with the big insurance companies. They either couldn't — or wouldn't because of the administration's resistance to further mergers — make it succeed.

The Republican insurance plan is essentially, die. Otherwise, we have to make ACA work or go to single payer.

Rogue Columnist-

Isn't single payer, practically speaking, the only way to make the ACA work? Don't get me wrong, the gains in coverage options for previously uninsurable Americans is an enormous gain -- and a part of the legislation that, frankly, should have been passed long ago outside of the market interference scope of health care reform.

Additionally, as most Americans still use employer health plans, the steep rise in premiums only applies to a fraction of Americans (of course, this isn't a point of praise if you are someone who falls in that crack). But without a single payer option, how do we get them out of those cracks? Subsidies is only a patch to the problem and, as the ACA was advertised as deficit neutral, leaves the program open to attack -- especially when the day returns where Americans care about government spending.

As Paul Harvey would say: And now the rest of the story.

Please do not throw around the 20 million now insured, without adding the 6 million who had coverage and are now uninsured due to the cost.

These 6 million are the middle class who have been sacrificed for the other group.

government mandated transfer of wealth from one segment to another.

Not right.

Scrap ACA, no.

Fix it, please.

The ACA as implemented included explicit and specific arrangements with insurance companies. Risk sharing, risk corridors, policy requirements, subsidies at checkout, a whole litany of items. It also included the Co-ops, which were suppose to circumvent the evil big insurance companies, which have turned out swell. If you can find one.

There was no future "deal" with big insurance companies. The rules were made, and we all went off to the races.

And amazingly, most Democrats at the time thought those arrangements would work. So they said "let's go!!".

And then, the high school level economics concepts kicked in. The penalties for noncompliance weren't high enough. Amazingly, young, healthy people did not feel a patriotic duty to buy health insurance that they didn't think they'd use. And the moral hazard implicit in any insurance contract raised its ugly head and sick people signed up for health insurance they DID need.

Stunning, isn't it??


The total enrollment is under where it was projected, there's too many sick people enrolled, there's not enough well people involved, the tax receipts are way under what was projected (thanks Janet Yellen), and a deficit neutral safety net has turned into a $1.3 trillion mess in a country that doesn't need any more unfunded social experiments.

The insurance companies react sanely, raising prices, deductibles, and in some cases just getting out. I guess in Rogue's view, they should just keeping stockpiling losses.

You guys had your shot. And every economic idea that was wrong when the act was passed turned out EXACTLY how conservatives predicted, all we hear about are fixes. After a litany of administrative fixes in the interim.

There's only one real fix.

Increase taxes to cover the incorrect and stupid initial assumptions about a safety net program projected to remain deficit neutral. Make the penalties for noncompliance more than the cost of insurance (Duh) and do not further delay the implementation of the Cadillac Tax.

And include explicit language for additional tax increases should what I described above not cover the cost. And it probably won't.

So- Democrats- raise your hand if you're in.

And hopefully, have a little cynicism the next time someone proposes a program whose success depends on a stunning willful ignorance of basic economics.

Here's more good news. The Cadillac Tax was delayed two years until 2020, so there's two years less revenue on that tax. Not that we need it.

Why was it pushed back?


Solid, good Democratic Governor here telling it like it is:



What would you suggest to make ACA work?

How would you know it was working?

Is it being deficit neutral (as it was pitched) an important criteria?

INPHX, you are just toooooo rational & logical.

blaxsabbath, I congratulate you for seeing past your own nihilism and recognizing the value of the government enacting affordable health insurance coverage. Countless lives hang in the balance next Tuesday, and you might actually want to descend from your cloud long enough to bear witness to the momentous decision we make on the ground next Tuesday. This election is not just about your boutique issues. There are real lives that will be devastated by a Republican victory.

Obamacare fills a breach in the social contract created by the untenable decision to let private insurance companies manage 50% of this nation's health care. They are neither equipped nor disposed to rein in costs, which means we have the highest health costs in the world, about 18% of GDP. This will not change even if we enacted a single-payer system tomorrow. The health-care sector is not giving back anything to anyone. That 18% is pretty a baseline figure. Yes, it would have been much better if we had a Canadian-style system. But unless you can invent a time machine, we're stuck with our hybrid system. The insurance and health-care industries simply have too much clout. They will overwhelm any political efforts to push them aside.

What we can do is apply regulations not only to health insurance companies but over time to providers and Big Pharma when it comes to cost increases. Or, we can let Republicans run riot and simply let them hike costs to the point that no one can except the wealthy will be able to afford their services. It's our decision and it's that stark.

The Republican party and the right-wing trolls in this forum who type its disinformation don't care if people live or die. They're pro-life for fetuses but for human beings, not so much. They are literally offering nothing to replace their own health-care plan, ACA, with something "better". And I do mean literally. They occasionally trot out talking points like selling insurance across state lines. Anyone who knows anything about insurance understands what a crock this is. You always get what you pay for, so it makes no difference where your insurance company is setting up shop.

Obamacare is a "kludge". That is, it creates a Rube Goldberg policy apparatus to make the best out of the hash that is our health-care system. It's the best we can do right now. Maybe later, we'll have super-majorities of Democrats in Congress that can muscle out the insurance and pharmaeucutical cabals. But right now, Obamacare is what we have. The choice is ours. You can vote for Trump because you're a sociopath. Or you can vote for Stein because you're a nihilist. Just don't pretend you give a flying fuck about your fellow citizens.

"Fiscal sanity" is an argument that Republicans only use when they don't want to do something. You know, things like social programs, health care, schools, etc.

Wars, military spending, and tax cuts for the rich, on the other hand, are always fiscally sane.

A national health care system only works if it is truly instituted nation wide rather than letting individual states pick and choose what they will or won't do. California, for instance, seems to be doing well with the ACA. The Confederate states...not so much...

As far as money to pay for it, I bet we could find a few trillion dollars with a careful audit of the Defense Department.

Of course, for the "party of personal responsibility" being poor and getting sick are signs of moral weakness. And the morally weak are better off dead.


Just in case you missed it, a large part of the benefit of having private health insurance is that they do indeed negotiate rates and payment to doctors and pharmacies. This keeps vile racists like me from having to sit down with a doctor and negotiate for a something like a knee replacement (not that I've had one) and, to the extent that you had private coverage, you were able to take advantage of the negotiated rates on the dozens (hundreds?) of maladies you've most likely suffered.

Kind of like what Medicare does, although using the wonderful tension in a free market as opposed to the oppression of dealing with the government.

So, your statement that "They (health insurance companies) are neither equipped nor disposed to rein in costs," is contradicted by the very nature of private health insurance.

If you had any pride, you'd edit your previous post.

It is a consensus among Obama, HRC, and just about every same person in the US that the ACA needs some fixing. Many on the right think that- well, why would you let the chowderheads that devised this mess be the ones to fix it and that perhaps it's time to start over.

No matter what happens in November, it will get changed or replaced, and not just because Obama is black. Rather, it's because good intentions never trump basic economics (boy- that's a new one) and that when someone tries to tell you the cost of a social program and they say something other that "We have no idea", they're lying.

Do you think that a prime consideration for the fix should be that the ACA be deficit neutral like the way it was originally pitched or does that even matter to you?

Do you feel lied to now that we know it isn't deficit neutral?

Well don't go congratulating me just yet, Soleri. With Trump/McCain/Gallego pretty much assured victories, I'm sure you'll hate my ballot when all is said and done.

I do honestly sometimes wonder if the GOP would sincerely repeal the ACA though. I mean, when is the last time anything major that was passed by one party stopped/repealed by the other? It takes a monumental effort to make things happen in DC -- be it the ACA, wars, Patriot Act, embargoes, etc -- but seems almost impossible to pull a 180 on any issue. The easiest ploy is to defund operations but, as we've seen with our military quagmires, the Democrats are more interested in bitching about W's wars than ending them. And, as much as the GOP was the anti-gay, anti-abortion party, they did very little on either of those issues while Bush had both chambers on his side. At the local level, yes, both parties are willing to make some pretty drastic moves. Federally, not so much.

Obviously the GOP is not interested in pushing for a single payer model but, in all honesty, I don't think they would 'let people die'. Especially with the need for them to grow the party or die, I doubt they'd get the necessary numbers to simply burn the ACA to the ground. Maybe they'd highlight the strong points of it and 'strengthen' those areas while weakening the services portion (not good but still not as bad as a repeal). As B. Franklin noted, the GOP isn't a small government/fiscally responsible party. Tinkering with the ACA gives them a lot of influence within the health care industry and they'll be sure to get their donations before making all their business-friendly changes.


Like most here, you like to paint with a broad brush. Anyone to the right of HRC is a vile racist committed to scorched earth. Or something like that.

Federal and state deficits are not a joke to me. I'm fine with parts of Obamacare as long as there are taxes levied to pay for it. Defense must learn to do more with less. Waste is EVERYWHERE. Want a safety net? Great. Just make sure it's very well funded to assume the staggering liabilities.

On the whole Obamacare we're all in or not, well SCOTUS was 7-2 that states had the right to reject the Medicaid expansion, so you can argue with them


blaxsabbath, in a rational political universe, the GOP would not dare damage a cash cow for one of its major contribution sectors, Big Insurance. But these are not ordinary times. The Republican Party is now given over to the most extreme elements in American society. Anything with the name on Obama bears the mark of Satan. This Holy War against the "other" (minorities, liberals, SCOCIALISM!!!, et al) is now a full-time obsession. This war was not merely a Rovian feint. It's the real deal.

When a madman threatens to blow up an airliner, take him seriously. We see the insanity on the right steadily increasing, to the point that they're already talking about not allowing Clinton any judicial appointments and begining impreachment hearings prior to the inauguration.

When was the last time a major-party candidate was enthusiastically endorsed by the KKK and the American Nazi Party? Please, too much is at stake to assume they're not serious.

Here's an interesting link I was surprised to find in the Trumpington Post...


And this link from a Common Dreams article comments section.

Welcome to the new world order. If this is happening under a Pinko-Muslim-Leftie like Pres. Obama does any one really think an avowed centrist like Clinton will give a s***


New world order, same as the old world. Nothing new, move along child and do something productive and vote for Hillary.

Last one.
Link to some very good graphics...


Ross, thanks for all your posts,but keep in mind that some do not have all that fancy chit, like facebook, twitter and so forth. Just email.
I just checked in as I had a meeting with 3 Native American proffessors. Just so you know God is Red and for Inphx,
"Custer Died for your Sins". (Vine Deloria)
Right Ruben? PS, Ruben is writing a new book of Native American Poetry dedicated to Walt. I understand it's a hair raising book.


I don't have facebook myself. I found the link in a RT article. You don't have to be on facebook to view the pictures. I hope Ruben keeps us posted about his book. I will get a copy.

While Obama and Clinton waffle.


Ruben U get your Standing Rock T-shirt?
Where I live the white folks are cheering on the Bundys.
And of course Trump and White sheets are popular.


Another reason why Bernie the Gadfly was much like the socialistic inexperienced Junior Gadfly senator from Illinois in 2007.
So while the nation awaits the November 8th high noon shoot out and a nation littered with political parties dismembered skeletons ,dont forget Bernies peoples, vigor and their causes and thoughts.
I hesitate to say revolution and as of lately that word has taken on a meaning that seems to mean something stupid.

Gadfly, Sanders is the junior senator from Vermont and the ranking member on the Budget Committee.

Sen. Bernie Sanders is the longest serving independent in congressional history.

An independent thought on Trumps success.


LoL- back to Arizona, through the lens of Kansas- http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-kansas-economy-20161031-story.html

Doubling down on dumb.

Like the ACA, we can either reform it, or scrap it. But scrapping it will have massive unforeseen effects, including even more people uninsured.

I do like the tRump idea of a special session to repeal it.

Nothing would bring Canadian style healthcare here faster than repeal and disaster.

Is the GOP crazy? Yup- read the article about Kansas, and watch the smarter Ducey folks get us there with better PR.

As for disaster, bring it on, after all, Germany was rebuilt from the ruins.

Which is a very nihilistic way to look at it, but we must go broke to get rich- so the R party tells us!

Like tRump did- after all the unwashed masses can just suck it up and pay for these disasters. WE always do.

Concern Troll
while the indigenous folks duke it out with the Military, the militarized police and the ignorant thugs hired by corporations.
Other corporations keep try to hasten the demise of the planet.
and dont forget:
and from a lady I got to talk to recently about genocide in Amerika.

The Atlantic has a long and impressionistic piece on Arizona's mood this presidential season. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/the-high-stakes-for-hispanics-and-millenials-in-arizona/505535/

Arizona is changing, not fast enough to be sure, but there are hopeful portents. Arpaio looks to be toast, so the racist right won't have its foremost poster boy going forward. The big problem remains apathy, and not just among Hispanics. An urban environment with as little sense of place as Phoenix doesn't create the necessary sense of civic stewardship indispensable for political progress. But Arizona is much more urban than rural, and that augurs well for less extreme politics.


The brief story of Matt Bergerm, the vape juice manufacturer, resonates as similar to many of the 30 to 40-something year old hispanics I know. Clearly against Trump in this election; not sold on the Democratic Party, as a whole, on principle. I think the overarching narrative of hispanics as workers, rather than business managers or owners, that is true across the country is an incorrect assumption here. I work in construction and though the rest of the country also leans on hispanic/immigrant labor, the owners in Phoenix are often hispanic as well. Like Bergerm from the article, they see the GOP as business-friendly and the Democrats as attacking business. This may or may not be true -- and surely depends on the specifics of your industry -- but Democrats have done little to combat that narrative.

With No-Trump and No-Joe sentiment mobilizing many young and/or hispanic voters in AZ this year, the Democrats are going to need to show some results to these groups for the Taco Bowl Engagement to be effective in bringing hispanics into their base. Hispanics have a typically more conservative family/religious culture (though the younger generation is more liberal) and, as their earnings and status go up, they will start to care more about the who-wants-to-help-businesses narrative. Trump's rhetoric and Joe's lawsuits make for some quality election year #content but, as always, "it's the economy, stupid."

Now, how you show that you're the business-friendly party when you don't have the power to legislate as such (or, when you did, you passed the ACA which, overall, has not been considered as business-friendly), that's part of my concern about Hillary Clinton. She's set a vague but consistent (wisely referring to her website in response to questions in order to not get caught flip flopping) plan to support jobs and economic growth. But, with very few specifics, I wonder how many people have filled in the blanks with, "Oh, she's going to do something to help my industry!" just to be let down when she can't directly help everyone and the chants of the feds "picking winners and losers" begin to swell. Expectations are part of the game and, in four or eight years, when there is no Joe or Trump to mobilize hispanics out of fear, how many Arizonans like Bergerm continue to support the Democrats? If the GOP pivots back to just the conventional message of smaller government/lower taxes and leaves all their social bs alone (a tall order, I know), I don't see how they don't get a sizeable chunk of the upwardly-mobile (even if they got this mobility from Democratic policies) voter block back.

Being a baby boomer who often felt he had nothing in common with other boomers, certainly not before 40, I am suspicious of generation generalities. (Perhaps wrongly so).

Much depends on whether one is raised to have — or develops — urban values or suburban values. This is a very tall order in the Phoenix of today. The city I knew in the 1960s had an urban core and I grew up there. Then I had the good fortune to live in some real cities. I always had urban values and sensibilities.

Today's Phoenix is, as Grady Gammage calls it, "a suburban city." My translation: an enormous mass of real-estate ventures connected by wide highways called "streets." Its spatial form promotes disconnection and suburban values, which encourage and reinforce "conservatism." The old dense core of Phoenix that I knew was mostly bladed, often replaced by suburban-style projects.

So it's going to be tough for progressive Arizona to flourish. Not impossible. But very difficult. That "big sort" thing. North America contains a diaspora of former Phoenicians who needed to live and thrive in a real city (or who were exiled). The Resistance fights on, but it's very hard.

blaxabbath is correct about the peril that Democrats face with the emergence of a potent Hispanic electorate in Arizona. It might not happen, for reasons I have enumerated. But if it does, many of the culture-war tropes that the Dems take for granted will not sell in many conservative Hispanic families. I know of some old Arizona Mexican-American families where is does not sell.

Back to suburban vs. urban values and spatial form. In a successful city, density not only promotes tolerance, "creative friction," and innovation but also an understanding of the necessity for an active government. The leading city economies are found in blue cities. But in a "suburban city," the "bad for business" meme can go unchallenged. And accepted by Hispanic business owners, too. So explaining both the reality of our mixed economy and what "business friendly" really means, is an urgent challenge for progressives.

Lots of meaty stuff in the latest edition of Arizona's Continuing Crisis, which went up this morning:


For anyone who still hasn't decided:




Inphx, I'll give you one John Birch and raise You a Jose Mujica.

For anyone who still hasn't decided, one party's Presidential candidate has the vocal support of the KKK and assorted white supremacists...which he has never renounced.

The same party does everything they can to suppress certain types of voters. Because, you know, the "sanctity" of the vote.

Getting back to the candidate, there isn't enough time to list all of his lies and subterfuge. Let's just say anything he accuses someone else of doing is very probably something that he himself has done. And, with any luck, he will be spending much of his remaining life in court, as befits such a "yooge" grifter.

Just in case you haven't decided.

Mr. Franklin:

Wrong again.

I report, you decide


INPHX try this:

Rogue, you weren't part of the Vietnam War era Boomers segment like Trump and Clinton and subject to the draft. Your side of the line may identify more with the Jobs and Gates segment of the Boomers than the preachy, controlling Vietnam era generation. The good news is that this presidential race will close the curtain on the drama queen rich Vietnam era Boomers. You maybe more aligned with the second half of the Boomer group than you believe.

Intimidation is nothing new for a bully like Trump--and many self-professed God-fearing supposed Christians are buying into his overbearing tactics...

Another mutation of the Trump candidacy is the "Bible bully."

A Bible bully is a Bible beater on "sanctimonious steroids."

The Trump candidacy has given "God's goons" a veneer of legitimacy they use to spout their venomous invective against anything they don't approve of.

These bullies feel divinely entitled to get in the face of liberals like me, calling them satanic, murderers, traitors, and all manner of vile and disgusting epithets. They say liberals will burn in hell--and often try to imply they want to put us there themselves.

Do these supposed "Christians?" realize their expression of freedom is intolerantly infringing on our exercise of freedom by trying to intimidate us?

I wonder how many of these alleged "patriots?" know this country was founded on separation of church and state? Do these scriptural "storm troopers" even have the comprehension or intelligence to understand what that means? Or that combining church (or religion) and state is the very definition of "theocracy," like what's in Iran or any ISIS or ISIL controlled territory?

Finally, I wonder what God thinks of their warlike behavior and threatening gestures designed to control what liberals like me say?

Yet, the closest thing to a debate I've gotten on these points is: "We must be praying to different gods." And, yes, they left "god" in lower case.

That commenter doesn't realize how accurate they were in their dismissive response.

To quote from INPHX's latest link: "Mr. Trump denounces hate in any form."

Boy, if you can say that with a straight face you can say ANYTHING.

And the people who believe you?

Well, they are beyond redemption.

What did U think the odds are that the person that yelled gun at Trumps Reno show was a Trump plant?

The Reichstag fire will come later. But could he have been an agent provocateur? Sure.



It is appropriate in this campaign that one of the best quotes I've heard summarizing the choice comes from a comedian (Dennis Miller). "Trump's [campaign behavior] is a startling array of grotesque missteps but his inner voice and his outer voice are the same, warts and all. Hillary is a narcissistic, malevolent ineptoid who's inner voice and outer voice have never even met and that's why she's probably going to be the president of the United States.  She best represents America right now: people who feel they're at the center of it all but claim no responsibility whatsoever when it goes cosmically wrong."  

I don't disagree with most of the things that Trump non-supporters say about him, including RC. That still doesn't change the equation for me. It is a reflection of the sad state of this country that Donald Trump, as bad a candidate as he is, is the better choice.

Dennis Miller? Really?

I'm reminded of what someone once said about Newt Gingrich: he's a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like.

This election is the most consequential of our lifetime. It ought, at a minimum, remind us of the extraordinary leaps of logic some people made to justify the candidacy of a morally squalid and utterly unqualified real-estate developer. We need to revisit this topic periodically to remind ourselves that it can happen here, that we came perilously close to turning this nation into an alt-right authoritarian nightmare. The possibility alone shall haunt my sleep for a long time to come.

Agree with soleri. The current American political situation provides much insight into the Weimar Republic and the rise of the most infamous of authoritarian regimes.


Your opinions would carry more effect if you could bring yourself to acknowledge the concerns that about 1/2 of the electorate have with the obvious corruption the Clinton's so profitably represent.

Where is your moral outrage for the millions of displaced or dead souls whose lives have been destroyed by the dreams of world ownership the Clinton's grow wealthy pimping?

I've always though that the ideas of Nazi like ruling in this country were nonsense, but every time I read more about the DOJ and the FBI's cozy relationships with the DNC, I get a little more concerned.

ross, you are a political fantasist who traffics in conspiracy theories and reality inversions. Half this country is living in near-complete denial about what politics can accomplish in a highly complex international economy. A blowhard demagogue, who you apparently support, has no understanding let alone ability to stop globalization or somehow bring back high-paying manufacturing jobs. He brazenly claims as much because he's speaking to half the country that thinks reality TV is the same thing as reality. I'm sorry if our hard-working salt of the Earth have to put up with black people, Latinos, and libtards, but this ain't Mayberry anymore. it's time for you guys to grow up. Proto-fascist politics will not fix anything.

Trotsky still lives-apparently in Portland.


Dig back and find me a post where I express support for either of these candidates. I have called them shit sandwiches, one with mayo, one with mustard. Also I have said I would not vote for either so stop painting me and every one who has their blinders off with any of your vast supply of dismissive slurs. Maybe you are not the genius you imagine and the rest of us are not as dull as you think.

Now, back to my previous observation.
Where is your moral outrage regarding the multitudes of victims of Clinton hubris and money grubbing for war?

Americans have always had a difficult time distinguishing between American liberalism, socialism and communism.

The following is not a defense of Soleri. Nor is it a defense of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. It is information from my past that has evolved into opinion.
That’s opinion and I apologize for any judgmental knives that I seem to slice away at, in the current world of politics.
As I looked at my mail in ballot and stared at the list of candidates for president the bile rose in the throat of this lifetime Republican. I had to use my left hand to hold down my right hand to keep it from writing in “Gadfly” Bernie Sanders for president. Then I struggled to keep my rebellion down and not write in Jose Mujica.

SO, there have been accusations against Bill Clinton since he left the trailer court of poverty and against Hillary since she “appeared” to leave the comfort of her father’s republicanism.
In the course of my 76 years and in the time I have been around law enforcement (48 years) I have heard many accusations against the Clintons. Accusations by federal folks of Bill’s protection of drug smugglers to Hillary’s ordering Janet Reno to take down the Waco religious folks that were causing Bill, “Embarrassment”. Now years later and many allegations resulting in no meaningful prosecution a big group of folks still want to put Hillary in prison. But for what. I seriously doubt any Kenneth Starr out there could actually get anything more than a weak indictment let alone get a jury to convict. The Clintons would bring attorneys to the court that would destroy the case.
If we need to put Hillary in prison, For What? How about George W Bush and his crew for the horrendous murders of many young Americans and thousands of innocent citizens. How about Ronald Reagan for perjury in the approval of illegal sale of arms to foreign countries and the sale of illegal drugs to Americans. How is the Clinton Foundation prosecutable for its charity? It is at least 86 percent better than “Kids Wish Network” and only 12 percent under the 100 percent charity Direct Relief in the charity ratings.
I seriously doubt that Wall Street and the Neocons are as afraid of Hillary as they are of Donald. Donald appears to be a loose cannon that has bragged about how seeking revenge is a sign of strength. That is scary to a lot of folks when they consider Trump might be President of the most powerful country. Not that Hillary is not revengeful but it seems to come with a deliberate sanity. Which is just as equally scary.

What is it about “smart” guys and women? We know Bill’s history and Donald, who some claims has an IQ in the 170 range seem to think that entitles them to group Lolita and any other female that strays across their path. It seems every day some really “smart” man is trying to bed women and men on the casting couch or surreptitiously putting women in situations where they can be slipped incapacitating drugs.

Soleri and I have had our rounds on these issues and while we agree to disagree, I listen to his discussion just as fairly as I do of Ruben or INPHX. A many of wise men have told me, sit down and listen son. So here I sit on the park bench awaiting more news from Socrates.

INPHX, the Nazi's you speak of are more likely those Feds that seem to think they need to have the seemingly senile Mussolini dude Rudy Giuliani as their spokesperson. Not in attempt to get Fuhrer Trump elected but to keep Hillary from being elected.
The percentage of white men voting for Trump is high but probably even higher among white law enforcement guys. After all Donald is a big aggressive White guy while Hillary is that? Well you can fill in the men's locker room words here.

Dudas, Trotsky wasn't that the guy that got murdered in Mexico while having an affair with Diego Riveras wife, Frida.

I meant grope not group.
But can you grope a group?
Well some try.

"Clinton has made it through all her challenges to face the bull-headed Minotaur of sexism at the end of the maze."
Margaret Talbot.

ross, you oppose fascism by opposing Trump. There is no other sane or moral choice. I understand your certitude is ironclad but please remember: what you call "corruption" is as daft and as stupid as anything coming out of the right-wing Wurlitzer. You're just regurgitating garbage. Your real aim here is to damage the progressive coalition. If we were sharing a foxhole, I would have shot you already.

We're in this war until we beat the kooks, and I mean humiliate the Dumb White Trash who think life is unfair because they don't get to use the N word, or think that a ginned-upy racist gambit like birtherism is a "legitimate" issue. These are the people you're are aiding and abetting. They hate America, its diversity and promise. They're small-minded, stupid, and entirely deserving of their eventual irrelevance in our civic lives.

You are ineducable, although this blog can be useful if you only take it more seriously than your fringe politics. Hillary Clinton is a titan by comparison to all the people you like. She's made countless lives better, and through the Clinton Foundation, has helped save millions more. There is no one on the political scene who comes close to the scope of her humanity or effectiveness. Please: go away. Stop helping the very people making this nation a cesspool of cynicism and idiocy.

Cal - Trotsky was WAY MORE than the sentence you gave him. Check him out - there is a huge lesson to be learned.

GEEZ DUDAS, I was up on Trotsky before U were born. I was just jerking your chain. So now I owe U two cups of coffee. That little restaurant next to the upstairs Gallery? You can bring your dog as they provide water and space.

Dudas we can chat about the history of where you now live. So for discussion purposes we can review the book "Arizona A Short History" by Odie B Faulk. An easy read and a good primer on the years between 1450 and 1900.

Duda, looking back it seems that I was catching up on the History of Modern Russia
In 62 at a lecture at ASU. But before that I was attempting to wade through Das Kapital about the same time I was reading Atlas Shrugged.
Probably one could devote volumes to the psychology of two extremely interesting minds such as Frida and Trotsky deciding to have a sexual involvment. But then maybe it was more about mental masterbation.
Reminds me of the English singers Enigma and a somewhat spiritual song with the words, "that's why we are here".

There was a time when I thought Soleri might be a pacifist. But it seems I was mistaken. He seems to have risen to a point that may allow him to play a part in the coming of the Hunger Games

Lash - you've missed the point completely. Frida Kahoe has NOTHING to do with my remark.

I didn't miss anything Dude, I just went on about all that. You stay in the Tuscan sun to long this summer? Maybe Ruben has been shipping you some of that mountainous weed?

Dude, given your scholarship skills maybe you can bring me up to historical speed on why Trumps twitter account is now controlled by his staff?
Oh I know some one hacked into it a 3AM and posted stuff The Donald would never say.

Trumpers, "Prison for Hillary".
Maybe the Democrats should have had huge ugly thugs dressed in all white medical clothing, carrying straight jackets (not handcuffs) pull up to Trump rallies in a sanitarium ambulance.

So soleri;

Still waiting for your outrage about the millions who are suffering and dying so the likes of HRC can feather her nest via pay to play with the sec.state / president. Maybe if the suffering weren't Muslim and or dark skinned you would find your voice.

Now that Clinton II is on the cusp what do you think a speech from BJ Bill will go for?

In regard to some of my previous posts reference the FBI and its Whiteness, an article by Susan Grigsby.

Ross, your pay or not pay reminds me of this:
Jefferson choose not to pay.
Hence we got a Navy and Marines.

The First Barbary War (1801–1805), also known as the Tripolitanian War and the Barbary Coast War, was the first of two Barbary Wars between the United States, Sweden and the four North African states known collectively as the "Barbary States". Three of these were nominal provinces of the Ottoman Empire, but in practice autonomous: Tripoli, Algiers, and Tunis. The fourth was the independent Sultanate of Morocco.[3] The cause of the war was pirates from the Barbary States seizing American merchant ships and holding the crews for ransom, demanding the U.S. pay tribute to the Barbary rulers. United States President Thomas Jefferson refused to pay this tribute, in addition the Swedes having been at war with the Tripolitans since 1800

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz