« Transition | Main | Innovation district »

January 09, 2017


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

The GOP Congress might impeach Trump if he takes his campaign-trail promises to heart and tries to block efforts to dismantle and privatize Social Security and Medicare. He won't do that, of course.

Richard Nixon - tape recordings

Donald Trump - twitter

Be patient my friends, be patient.

Twitter Trump will be the distraction while the Republican Congress does the dirty work of returning US government and society back to the early 20th century.


The blood bath begins 012017.

Like it or not...


...I'm guessing most here do not.

Talton, don't be such a Pollyanna, there's a dark side to all of this...

The only hope is that the different schisms of the Republican party form a circular firing squad for four years without an impeachment.Hopefully this will give the Dems enough time to develop a candidate that can win.Would put odds at 50/50.

2066, Next Democrat president.

I know Trump is bucking all the trend-lines but, if you will, bear with me...

Since the later part of the 20th Century, US bubbles/recessions have trended towards shorter periods of growth (bigger bubbles) followed by more sharper recessions (bursts). There are many factors to this, depending on who you want to read, but everyone agrees that the US economy gets bailed out of every burst with an artificial recovery. We haven't been able to take the economy off the historic-low interest rates of the 00's and so, in 2008, we literally just handed money to the banks. Where handouts (sorry, "bail outs") weren't just gifted to our biggest lobbying sector, special loans were granted at 0% interest. These moves did shorten the recessions but effectively kicked that remaining pain down the road to be balled up with the next time the economy slows.

Now, Barrack Obama was a fine President. I know many people can't stop gushing over the guy. I know others (who are now in power) claimed to despise him. In my view, he's done about alright, considering the circumstances. Regardless, he sits today at a 57% approval rating. The GOP led the nation directly into a brutal recession and two-years of a Democratic Congress and a two-term "progressive" (relative to his 2008 primary challenger, one Hillary Clinton) completing his Presidency with a 50+% approval rating was their punishment. Whereas tanking the national economy (and having a substantial role in the global meltdown) should warrant at least one full four-year term of opposition control, like with our recessions, punishing the GOP seems to be a one-cycle (at best) proposition.

The takeaway (which we know won't happen as long as dopes like Pelosi and Schumer are running the Dems)? When the Democrats do manage to accidentally win a few races and garner some power, they need to go after Wall Street hard. Obama's greatest failing was the opportunity to do this and, instead, doubling down on the status quo and bailing out/empowering the banks. I understand why he did it but the middle class is going to feel the hurt plenty under the GOP platform with nothing to show for it. If Obama had battled the banks -- even at the expense of a longer recession -- we could have had a transformed system to build on. Instead, we have one where the first 10% of the nation's wealth is tithed to Wall Street, less they decide to get all upset at their daily coke party and hold the global economy hostage again.

Until the system changes, talk about who pays for birth control pills or which boondoggle fighter jet we keep blowing millions on developing, is just a feat of arguing over drops in the bucket.

Obama-Wall Street
I agree.

"Twitter Trump will be the distraction while the Republican Congress does the dirty work of returning US government and society back to the early 20th century."

Make that the 18th Century and you're on to something.

Blaxabbath writes "even at the expense of a longer recession."

How about a full blown, world wide Depression?

I'm sorry, but the "let's let it burn and see what happens" school of realpolitik doesn't work for me.

Throwing a few bankers in jail might have been pleasing to our souls and sense of justice, but what would it have accomplished besides that?

The sad thing is that most of what they did was legal. Not moral or ethical. But legal.

It was up to the Congress to break up and re-regulate the banks. And there were never enough votes to do it to the extent it needed to be done.

So we got a few patches, which will soon be completely undone.

Much of what they did (and still do) was not legal, in fact. But they know that the feds will treat them with kid gloves so, if they can make a millions of dollars laundering money for ISIS, they'll gladly do it knowing that they'll only pay fines of pennies on the dollar.

So we didn't throw bankers in jail, that's fine. It's not their fault Congress has been asleep at the wheel for, well, my lifetime anyways. But Wells Fargo is forced, by courts, to go make loans to the communities that their predatory practices damaged and, you know what they did? They turned it into an ad campaign about how they're stepping in and helping Americans recover. And the feds say nothing. Not one quip about how this is their punishment, not their charity. This is the kind of BS wholly-in-bed-with-the-banks kind of behavior that is inexcusable. We don't thank the chain gang for getting out and cleaning up I-10, as if they're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Why do let WF get away with such spin?

Imagine if a court during the Trump administration hands down such a directive to WF and they try to turn it into an ad campaign. You'll get one tweet from the White House - "WF is helping communities bc the government I run is making them. We punish those who hurt the middle class and this is their punishment. Don't thank WF, thank my administration." But low-key Obama didn't press this. He said, "well, the important thing is the loans are being made again."

God - I feel like it's July all over again. "There's no room for progressive policies in this country! We have to toe the purple line because, if we play ball with the lobbyists and the lawyers and the GOP and the finance executives and the pharmaceutical giants and the war machine then maybe they'll see us, the middle class, as their peers and throw a couple more scraps our way. If not, they're holding all the cards and, you know, they can make things real hard for us if we don't go along. Afterall, it'd sure be a damn shame if something happened to that fancy social security package you're counting on or those neat little consumer protection laws that don't do squat for anyone anyways."

But the real threat is if Trump actually is impeached under some actual malfeasance stemming from not being extreme enough (by possibly vetoing bill that go too far) for the confederate congress.

Then you get Pence.

Which nightmare is worse?

No one who voted for someone other than Hillary did not vote to destroy the world. Considering she got 3M more votes than Trump means they did the same thing by that logic.

Looks like Sessions will be the AG. So much for the Senate, but then placing hope on McCain or Graham is about as effective the Hope and Change we heard about in '08. Cornel West has it right on Obama.

The Great American (White) Middle Class has been under steady attack since the Reagan years.

And yet they voted for Reagan's 1984 re-election by a landslide. And then for both Bushes. And now Trump.

I don't think they're capable of understanding much of anything at this point--they're way too angry to listen to reason or facts.

And their anger has gotten them a foolish narcissist in the White House and a Congress full of anti-government haters.

Sometimes you don't realize how much you need something until it's gone.

Regarding Cornel West:

He is a highly intelligent, passionate man.

In addition to being a public intellectual, he is a tenured professor at an elite University.

As far as I can tell, he has spent his entire adult life in the academy.

As such, he has no working knowledge of how the political world works. Of what is possible. Of what is not. Of the compromises necessary to achieve anything.

What he has are theories and wishes and a deep disappointment when they aren't put into practice. However impractical they may be.

B.Franklin-how about a full blown depression? 95% of what we make is exported and a great deal of what we grow is also exported.What makes us think we can put tariffs on imports without other countries responding in the same way.Globalization has made us trade dependent on the rest of the world and when it starts to break down it will be a daisy chain of failures,just like the 1930's

Jerry McKenzie, the simple problem is that too many Republicans think the world should be ordered up according to their orthodoxy. There are a lot of other world leaders who will most vehemently oppose such bullying. In that space between lies the possibility for monumental conflict.

Insofar as my comment on Pence, Trump, as bad as he is, seems open to the possibility of persuasion--while Pence would appear to be an iron-fisted ideologue. Pence IS one of the "true believers" in everything I believe to be anathema to across-the-board freedom, fairness, and charity. He seems to be a very cold-blooded individual.

We're in for a very bumpy and disturbing future.

Agree with all that BD.

And that is why I believe that once Trump takes the oath of office, he becomes accountable for his ability to defend, protect, and uphold the Constitution.

The connections Trump has with the Russians (and Putin) will be used by the Republicans to demonstrate that he is unfit to defend, uphold, and protect the Constitution. If they get a majority of Representatives (which they have) to impeach, it goes to the Senate. They would need to convince 15-16 Democrats to convict and remove Trump from office.

Why would they attempt this? Because the Republicans have an almost unique opportunity to get virtually everything they want if Pence becomes President. With Trump, the Republicans may harbor doubts over his past statements, whereas Pence is an absolutely known quantity.

A Trump impeachment will be quite the gamble by the GOP. Will 2nd Amendment 'Merica blame them, the Dems, or both? The Dems will surely join that dogpile.

No way do they impeach Trump unless as an absolute last resort. Trump is good enough for the GOP Congress. Yeah, they might get a slightly better (read: pure) ally in Pence but the move would be at the cost of then having to battle Trump, who effectively rides the anti-establishment sentiment.

Ask Paul from the Sprint commercials. Is it worth the messy battle and potential red state backlash to impeach Trump on some skeletons in his closet to get a 1% better option in Mike Pence? Hey John McCain -- can you hear me now?

While it's plausible there would be a backlash for impeaching and removing Trump, it would quite likely be short-lived because the hatred of liberals is much, much greater among the alt-right than against the "establishment." In fact, I believe most of the anti-establishment rhetoric is just thinly disguised anti-liberalism.

Once Pence gets going, Trump will be quickly forgotten by the alt-right as an embarrassment.

I don't want it to seem as if I want Pence as President, because he seems much more sinister and devious than Trump.

I just think the GOP, and especially the alt-right, is very determined to take away as much as possible from the gains of the last 50-60 years. Pence is the ideologue and automaton to make that happen.

Which is exactly what the soulless, heartless, and uncharitable conservatives truly desire to be America's future.

The only "silver lining" is that Pence will likely be very circumspect about Putin and Russia.

THAT may be Pence's only redeeming quality.

Jon, I am worried that you may be coming down with TRS (Trump Derangement Syndrome). Your posts have been getting very dark the last couple of months. Your articles, while generally left leaning, have historically been pretty even handed and honest with the facts as you see them. I think you fell off that standard when you wrote: "Now, even though Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and more people voted for Democrats than Republicans, this minority has total control of the national government."

That Democrats got more congressional votes nationwide is a meaningless statistic. Since you are a longtime chronicler of "The Big Sort" and a sophisticated political observer, I find it hard to believe that you don't realize that. Only a third of states vote for Senate every two years and total vote margins will be driven by the outcomes of the biggest states that happen to be voting in a given year. This year you had two lopsidedly Democratic states voting (CA and NY) and the largest lopsidedly Republican state not voting (TX). On top of that, CA had two Democrats running for senate with no Republican option. That accounts for most of the national Democratic margin right there. Here's just one of many articles documenting this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/29/the-most-bogus-stat-of-the-2016-election-how-democrats-won-the-senate-popular-vote/?utm_term=.ff08079941a3

The self sorting phenomenon is most extremely seen in CA. It used to be a pretty strongly contested state that could elect candidates from either party but the last 30 years have seen huge demographic change, with many, many of the people that used to vote Republican leaving to other states (like AZ) and being more than replaced by massive foreign immigration. The liberals in the population centers are totally content with that , since it gives them total electoral hegemony. Personally, I think that a significant number of people who aren't eligible are voting there due to the combination of lax registration and voting rules and no desire on the part of Democratic officials to investigate or enforce those particular laws. Difficult to prove that, though.

Though the presidential popular vote has no actual bearing in our constitutional system, I can understand Democrats' frustration with winning the popular vote and losing the presidency. Again, most of that margin can be attributed to CA, with its massively disproportionate Democratic advantage. The electoral/popular vote disconnect is a problem that is likely to only get worse as America continues to sort itself even more.

These last two plus months since the election have been a honeymoon for some and a nightmare for others. The Rogue Columnist has been making some pretty bold predictions with his hell-warmed pen about how catastrophic the Trump administration and 115th congress will be. Respectfully, TRS may be influencing you, Jon. Soon we'll (finally!) have actual events rather than predictions to talk about. Personally, my bet is on politicians mostly reverting to their natural state of inaction, deadlock and compromise. Even Trump. Democracy will survive. If I am wrong, feel free to remind me from the Gulag.

Would you prefer Guantanamo or Seberia?
Cigarettes and a Latte or water boarding at confession time?

How do you get TRS out of Trump Derangement Syndrome? Is that part of the derangement?

As far as I can see, the only deranged element is Trump himself. Delusional, too. As are his supporters.

By the way, now that Trump is in charge of the Justice Department, he can test your "significant number" of ineligible voters voting in California theorem. Shouldn't be too hard to prove, right? Not with the full force of the Trump administration determined to do it. I'm sure his pal Putin would be happy to lend his assistance, too. All that "voter fraud" must be dealt with. Otherwise people might start to think that our democracy is a joke.

Will send them illegal California voters to Siberia not Seberia.

Oh yeah, thanks. TDS is derangement syndrome. TRS is what I have. Trump Rearrangement Syndrome is a much milder form that just makes you mix up your letters.


Do you deny that most of the Republicans in power want to take away many of the gains in personal liberties of the last 50-60 years, that they believe in as little charity as possible (believing that all people have to earn it--and ALWAYS can earn it), and that they have little interest in working across the aisle (as they have so aptly demonstrated the past eight years)?

Trump is, by his nature as a businessman, more prone to aggrandizement than most. He see those befitting of "reward" as having the same ethos as him. The corollary to the above is that people simply need to be ambitious to be both "worthy" and to keep feeding the capitalist machine.

Those unfortunate enough to either want to "stop and smell the roses" or "left behind" are unworthy--and expendable.

Your thoughts, please....

Trump Derangement Syndrome is the latest right wing meme against critics of Trump. During the Obama terms jon7190 's tribal extremism against him was more simply described as racism.

Imagine if Obama had engaged in one tenth of the white trash behavior that Is Trump. What would southern redneck Gingrich and tribe be screaming 24/7?

Rearrangement? Sounds like a nice euphemism.


You are absolutely correct. "No Drama Obama", regardless of how you feel about his policies, has been an upstanding individual in terms of personal behavior as a reflection of the office. I'd extend your comment to include the first family as well -- imagine if Michelle Obama had any such rumors about being the "blowjob queen" that Nancy Reagan was described as. Or if Obama's girls drank underage or were the "Secret Service Nightmare" that Jenna Bush was?

That said, expectations are everything. The "but W/Clinton/Obama/Reagan did ______" is so prevalent that, regardless of what any politician does, their side is going to support them because, well, fanaticism.

I will not normalize Trump. And my patience for those who attempt to do so will be limited.

Jon7190's initial post has all the "tells" of a right-wing troll or "seminar commenter," people who are paid to go on sites and appear reasonable — even concerned about the author who in the past they claim to have admired — while sowing lies and misinformation. They are taught this. They learn from scripts.

People like Skip or Teri at least come off as authentic Trump supporters and not operatives.

Correction Jon - actually, I am in the Anyone But Hillary camp. Trump will have to do. We'll just have to see how this President shakes out - so far, so good.

"So far, so good" is the punchline to an old joke:

A man falls out of a window on the top floor of a very tall building. As he plummets to the ground, he passes a friend in a lower window. The friend asks "how's it going?"

And the falling man replies, "so far, so good."

So far Trump hasn't sold us out to the Russians, or any of his other foreign creditors. So far his minions haven't raided the public purse for their own gain. So far no completely unqualified appointee has screwed anything up.

Of course, he's not really President yet, either.

So far, so good.


Still waiting for you to take issue with my contentions about the Republicans in power being both extremely cynical, avaricious, and totally without compassion.

If I don't hear anything, do those assertions have real merit?

I strongly think that, in the absence of challenges, they do describe the Republicans now in power.

Ronald Reagan (no fan of the working stiff) IS rolling over like a crocodile in his grave.

B. Franklin - my point, exactly.

So, Anyone But Hillary includes a puppet of Vladimir Putin?

Good to know.

Maybe a little late. But still good to know.

Just don't pretend to be a patriot and someone who loves this country.

Because people might laugh at you.


Quite a lot of Republicans, Tea Partiers, and Alt-Right folks detest liberals to the point that they prefer the Russians over them. At least the Russians understand how to take freedom away, which makes them blood-brothers for conservatives.

Just like the evangelicals who would crucify Jesus all over again were he here in the flesh because he was a liberal.


Your silence is deafening, but then I don't think you have anything to rebut my assertions about your beloved Trump and his fellow Ugly Americans.

And I do mean Ugly American in the 1950's dictionary term as coined by the Europeans.


I appreciate your impatience. I'm not trying to put you off, but I have young kids and writing is one of the many things I wish I had more time for.

I don't attribute virtue to most politicians of any party. I think they are by and large self serving people who do, or try to appear to do, what they think their constituency expects them to do and you will almost never find one doing something against the interest of their biggest financial contributors. If it is in their political interest to either fund or defund social assistance programs, that is what they will do whether they have a D or an R after their name.

I am a Union guy and a social conservative, not an easy combination to be politically. I have rarely been able to bring myself to vote for a Democrat above the local level. If there was still an animal in nature called a conservative Democrat, I'd probably be that. Since they are basically extinct (there are still a couple here in Texas), I register as a Republican. Trump was just about last on my list of preferences in the primaries, but he has grown on me some. He is frustrating because he is such an endless fount of idiotic and/or ill considered statements and ideas, but what gives me hope for him is that he was not, until a year and a half ago, a politician, he is not a Republican (in the traditional sense) and he is not financially dependent on big money contributors. Sure it would be nice if he knew more about the government and geopolitics, and maybe read books. I could be completely wrong about him, but I am optimistic that he will be pragmatic and attempt to govern like he has the interests actual people at heart rather than just his big donors.


You aren't answering my charges, specifically that the Republican powers-that-be and power-brokers are completely indifferent to the point of uncaring and heartless to the economically average (and below-average) American. Charity, justice, and freedom for all is anathema to them.

They will get rid of Trump for some of the reasons you have mentioned--all for the sake of putting their lockstep ideologue Pence at the helm. Trump is merely one person, albeit a famous person, but once the Republicans lay the "traitor" tag on him, I believe many of Trump's supporters will drop him like a hot potato.

My main claims against Republicans is that the value of life is low on their list of priorities, behind power, money, ambition, avarice, aggrandizement, and rolling back the gains in freedoms and equalities Democrats and liberals have accomplished in the last 50-60 years.

That Republicans are repealing Obamacare WITHOUT any replacement plan or proposals proves my point of their mean-spiritedness and heartlessness. They are harping on the "savings," instead of the potential for saving "lives." Human life means little to then besides what it can accomplish to further their ideologic aims.

Even really smart folks can be naive.
The Russians have been here big time since the early 90's. From bad gas to gems, cyber crime and even barbershops. They are the world's most feared mafia. America is about to get a haircut
"Training Day" starts 012017.

@Cal: the Russians/USSR have been here since the 30’s. But they are minor league compared to the Chinese.

PS: I think the whole Snowdon affaire was about the NSA hacking everybody in sight includng new networks.

PPS: I'm a lot more worried about the government in Washington D.C. snooping on me than the one in Moscow. Just posting to this site puts one on the list of some variety..


One item of note, via NPR's coverage of "repeal & replace":

"Republicans have promised to keep intact some of the more popular provisions of the law. They say people with pre-existing conditions will still have access to health insurance, and that parents can keep their adult children on their health plans until age 26."

They GOP may begrudgingly keep this elements around to avoid the greatest political backlash but I think it's important that, until repeal legislation is brought forth, both Congressional leaders and Trump have both stated that they want to keep the two points above. And, frankly, I don't know why the insurance lobby would let them take away keeping your child on your plan until 26 -- employer-sponsored plans make up the bulk of policies and letting dad pay for his unemployed 25 year old helps BlueCross' bottom line much more than telling little Johnny to go out and get him own (which he either won't do or will likely sign on with a cheap plan other than BlueCross).

The Republicans have mentioned keeping both of those provisions, that's true. I just want to see if they'll do much of anything else after the repeal.

What may have been lost in the furor when the ACA was passed was Republican anger over the "Cadillac plans" being taxed. It seemed this was a small portion of the overall health insurance market and this taxing provision caused more controversy than it was worth because it only aggravated those with these corporate perks. I can only imagine how many of the aggrieved turned totally against Obama and the Democrats.

On the other hand, it is amusing to see the Republicans trying to reverse course on the tightrope of public sentiment over the popular provisions of the ACA.

Wkg, I m well aware of when the WHITE Russians got here. I've posted here a number of times reference their arrival. I'm refering to the Russians since the breakup (1991) of the Soviet Union. And currently the people (I have some very good sources ) I know consider them currently more dangerous than the Chinese. But maybe the Chinese are why Putin wants to marry Donald.
Ca U be more clear on your NSA and Snowden sound bite.
And I'll bet your puter is more likely infected by a Russian malware than a NSA one.

Another aspect of the confederate congress, not fully appreciated, is their absolute determination to undo Roe v. Wade.

Rouge columnist mentioned the Republican fetish over sex. I'll expand on this by saying the Republicans, aside from believing sex is for procreation, see sex as something serious--and not as a frivolous or enjoyable endeavor. Sex is seen by Republicans as a driver of commerce by compelling those with children to be both employees and consumers--and thus further driving capitalism. By abolishing abortion, Republicans seek to gain this form of "control" over people's lives--and fatten corporate coffers.

Sex as an enjoyable activity is anathema to many evangelicals due to their preoccupation with liberal "hedonism," which they fell contributes very little to a regimented and orderly society.

This is the endgame for Republicans on the abortion issue.

As for those who seek "illegal" abortions, many Republicans feel these people need to die--because they aren't worthy enough to live in the "nirvana" of capitalism.

Idiotic drivel belived by idiots and the dangerously mentally ill.
"Make America Great again "
The Donald

The Americas were awesome until about 1450.

wkg in bham,

I'm guessing you're going to include the vastly increased "security apparatus" under Trump (in Washington, DC) who'll be snooping on this column.

Or are you angling for an appointment in the Trump administration?

But they'll hire me first just to co-op my views.


Trump Derangement Syndrome is tongue in cheek. I know your feelings are raw still, I'm not trying to offend you. I think it is a humorous way to poke fun at millennial university types, street protesters, celebrities and others who have shamelessly lost their composure in public over Trump's upset. It might actually be a real thing here, though, if a critical post makes you think the Real Estate Developer's forces are paying people to write long, individualized comments on your blog.

I don't comment often enough for you to probably remember my past posts. If you care to, you could look up my sporadic comments over the last couple of years and see if you think I'm a paid troll. I'll take the compliment that you said I appear reasonable:)

I was sincere when I said you are a really good writer. The first article I read of yours was when I happened across your story about working on an ambulance in Phoenix in the 70's. I loved that one because I started out in kind of the same way, only 20 years later and with much less excitement at Southwest Ambulance. I think I've read all the Phoenix 101 articles. Personally, I like spending some time here and occasionally commenting because the articles are well written, many of the commenters write well, it challenges me and keeps from living in an echo chamber. The impression I've had is that this is the rare political site that has some commenters from all ends of the political spectrum and that everybody is welcome as long as they disagree agreeably. If I am mistaken about that and you would prefer to keep this an exclusively liberal bubble, let me know and I will refrain from commenting and skip the political articles. I will still read the historical ones, though.

You are welcome here, Jon. Thanks for clarifying.

Kalle Lasn for president.


If you want to put it on the record that Republican politicians are heartless, I won't argue with you. I do believe that Republicans as a general party are very beholden to big business interests and it's a driver for much of their policy and actions. Charity is not high on their list of government priorities. I don't know about Justice and Freedom. Those are pretty open ended terms and what policies an interest in those ideals dictate is totally subject to one's ideological point of view, which I am sure we would disagree on. I don't think Republican politicians are committed to any ideals so much as they are to their own political welfare. I would agree with you that many Republican politicians are motivated by power, money, ambition, avarice, aggrandizement, etc. My main point is that though you may find some satisfaction in making Republicans into boogeymen, it would be naive to think that Republicans are the only variety of politician with those interests.

There is this small comfort for you: What you believe Republicans believe about sex, I can guaran-damn-tee you that Trump doesn't believe that!

It will be interesting to see what happens when Trump clashes with Republicans in congress, or even in his own cabinet. It is political fantasy that Republicans will get rid of him before his term ends (but who knows, 2016 was the year of OMG politics and anything could happen). Simplistic argument: All, of course, depends on how successful he is. If he is successful and popular, they need him. If he crashes and burns, they'll go down with him.

@Cal re: “Ca U be more clear on your NSA and Snowden sound bite.”


Per wiki: “By October 2013, Snowden's disclosures had created tensions[136][137] between the U.S. and some of its close allies after they revealed that the U.S. had spied on Brazil, France, Mexico,[138] Britain,[139] China,[140] Germany,[141] and Spain,[142] as well as 35 world leaders,[143] most notably German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who said "spying among friends" was "unacceptable"[144] and compared the NSA with the Stasi.[145] Leaked documents published by Der Spiegel in 2014 appeared to show that the NSA had targeted 122 "high ranking" leaders.[146]”

The article also has extensive verbiage regarding domestic snooping including Google and Yahoo account info, Verizon call info, etc.


I equate justice with fairness and equality. I define freedom in the absolute, in that everyone has it--and not just those that are one side of the fence. With regard to Republicans having unseemly and immoral qualities, sure, liberals have those. However, while no political party gives back what it should, I believe liberals and Democrats are (maybe only fractionally) less avaricious, greedy, and stingy than those on the conservative side.

While Trump may view hedonism and sex differently than other conservatives, he has the same endgame--the outlawing of abortion and a woman's choice over her body. I, being an equal rights advocate, am diametrically opposed to control-oriented politicians--and abortion is one of my litmus tests.

I have outlined why there is a possibility of Trump being impeached and removed--and the endgame of it. Trump is merely the vehicle Republicans ride in for the moment: Pence is the truck the Republicans use to ramrod their policies up the liberals heinies.

Any Democrats that wish to oppose either Trump's impeachment or removal risk being called unpatriotic.

While not necessarily novel, you would have to agree my impeachment theory has both credible reasoning and a politically sound calculation.

Trump Reality Syndrome.

I start my new minimum wage style yob next week to achieve health care of some sort before the R party dismantles the ACA.

Now comes Rand Paul with his social reality of letting folks die while they figure out how to do single payer.

The deportations are going to be epic.

Trade disruptions are going to be epic.

The end of the dollar hegemony may be in sight, which will have consequences that are nearly unimaginable by the Republican Party, but they listen to fake economists and Randites.

The really funny part is the pain in the heartland is just beginning, because our crop exports are incredibly vulnerable to a trade war, and that would crap on the flyover voters who put this whole mess into motion.

Cutting social security- big deflationary item- extremely stupid.

Cutting off the dollar, and going to a balance federal budget means the use of the dollar as an international reserve is in danger- which means we could have an immense crash in west coast housing as the Chinese panic sell (if they can't get to their bolthole houses, they blow them off!).

In other words, we have rewarded capital, and starved workers for three decades, and now the rich think it will only be better for them?

They are utter fools- look at DD- thinks a crumb for teachers will placate the reality of everything crumbling.

Nobody expects another round of crazy deflation, nobody expects huge asset deflation, and yet it is becoming more and more possible, indeed probable with an entire federal government in the hands of dangerously incompetent people beholden to the very richest.

Look at the Treasury Secretary- he is Andrew Mellon incarnate, and Trump already threatened default as a tactic in managing international relations.

If anything, I advocate early panic to save whatever you can from this disaster, because this is so far from the normal America that it will be unique.

The really moronic part is China, because they will wreck trade with us when they think they have developed enough internal demand- and will quite enjoy stranding the capital robbed from their own people that has flown to safe havens.

In short, we are screwed, but the big ship is going to take a while to sink.

GLTA- you are going to need it.

ONCE Again,
Putin's inauguration present to his wife Donald. SNOWDEN!

Concern Troll, may I suggest U can probably get minimum wage and great medical benefits in Europe.

I have elderly parents to take care of, including a 95 year old f-i-l. I am stuck for a decade, at least.

Otherwise, I would go to Canada, once they have their crash.

Europe is going to be arguably worse for where I could go based on parentage and available potential passport.

Nope, hunkering down for the duration of this mess.

And just wait and see how crazy this is going to get- Trump has essentially destroyed the Chamber of Commerce Republican Party-they are dead men walking, including our simple gov.

I am feeling the ghost of HST- and going pro!

Concern Troll is the opposite from an alarmist. Now I'm even more afraid.

Let's see if I got this right. Concern Troll has seen the ghost of a dead guy whose drug laden ashes were shot out of a canon by his friend Johnny Depp?
That is scary.

I repeat come 012017 the US will not have a president but a Queen married to a Russian king. Talk about Royalty. Step aside Queen Elizabeth.

The problem with narcissists is that there is no possible presentation of reality that will convince them to change their self-opinion. But, you can co-opt them through flattery (or through blackmail or manipulation, as some have argued Putin has done quite strategically for some time).

It seems like the clearest way to "succeed" with this man is throughout brazen ass-kissing and immense flattery. We've seen how well that's worked out for some companies and individuals who basically come to Trump Tower, kiss the ring, and then get plaudits about how great they are sung to the press and on Twitter.

Those who were loyal to him when others turned their backs are rewarded. He has few powerful/important supporters, so those who are willing to risk their public image and career by hitching their wagon to the Trump train can score big in the short game, although I imagine they'll have a hard time finding relevancy thereafter.

So, when it comes to those intending to profit from the coming "kleptocracy" as Jon has put it, the aim may be to score as much as they can as fast as they can, because the gravy train could come to a spectacular end at any time.

jon7190 admits :

I think that a significant number of people who aren't eligible are voting [in California]

I have no doubt that you actually think so.

However, multiple federal and state investigations into claims of in-person/mail-in voting fraud have found only microscopic numbers of violations. (Humorously, a few of those have been Republican public figures).

So it's a good thing that you prefaced your claim with "I think".
Otherwise it would be a lie, rather than an admission that you cling to discredited but useful political talking points.

Trumps private thugs have been here before.
What they did to the Wobblies.


This study looked at non-citizen voting in 2008 and 2010 elections and estimated that 6.4% of non-citizens voted, at a rate of 81% democratic. Extrapolated to the 2016 election would make about 800,000 votes for Clinton.


This study looked at non-citizen voting in 2008 and 2010 elections and estimated that 6.4% of non-citizens voted, at a rate of 81% democratic. Extrapolated to the 2016 election would make about 800,000 votes for Clinton.

That study is a joke with a tiny data set. The rate of non-citizen voting is derived by a ridiculous averaging of a) verified non-citizen registrants; and b) non-citizens who were asked if they had voted, but whose registration (much less actual voting) was not verified.

The study tells us nothing other than that there is a social norm, even among non-citizens, to tell people you voted.


Well, here we are seven years later.
You nailed it. Dammit.

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