Category: Politics

By on

I have to hand it to Donald Trump. He picks his targets wisely. Trans people are an infinitesimally small minority that most people don’t understand and don’t have any contact with. They are mostly an unknown, not likely to get people out into the streets. Immigrants can’t vote and are being blamed for many of the social ills that afflict the country. Their status is vulnerable because many are here illegally. Now, he has declared foreign drug smugglers as terrorists which gives the government the ability to blow them out of the water without trial. Brilliant. Trump gets to pick on two hated groups for the price of one — they are foreigners so they can’t vote and they are engaging in an illegal act so they aren’t very popular. Bingo.

Defending them is tantamount to saying I want drug smugglers importing their poison into the country. Is that what you want? It’s awkward position to have to defend but, then, defending despicable people is sometimes necessary to defend every citizen’s rights. So here goes nothing.

What is disturbing me is that I thought I understood my legal rights as a citizen. This understanding seems out of steps with what the Trump Administration believes. I thought that terrorists had the same rights as any ordinary thug. It seems like a regular old American drug dealer unloading drugs at a dock in an American city would be treated differently than the drug smugglers killed recently in the Caribbean. They should be given an opportunity to surrender and given an opportunity to explain themselves in court. Right?

As far as I can tell, they weren’t given an opportunity to surrender. Again this seems like a reasonable first step in any police action where lethal force might be used. Why kill the suspect when you can get them to surrender. But these suspects weren’t warned. This doesn’t seem like a difficult step to take. Put a helicopter in the air, have someone with a megaphone explain the situation to the trapped smugglers and give them an opportunity to surrender.

Then there is the killing. My understanding of using lethal force is that it is limited to imminent danger. Someone’s life has to be in danger now, not some person who might use the drugs a week from now. This doesn’t seem to be the case here. The U.S. Navy was in control. They didn’t ask them to surrender and there was no imminent danger to anyone until the Navy attacked the drug smugglers.

Finally, drug smuggling isn’t a capital crime. No where in the United States can anyone be executed for drug smuggling. Again, what would have happened if this had happened on U.S. soil? Also has the status of terrorists been designated to local drug dealers? Can we expect executions in the streets to ensue?

Of all the shitty things that Donald Trump has done, this, I believe, is the worst because he has undermined my notion of what my rights are. I used to be able to say with some confidence what they were. Now you can say well as long as you don’t engage in drug smuggling you are safe. For now, maybe, but this man has intimidated his way into being the final say about what the law is and how the government interprets the law. So far he has used them against unpopular and marginal targets. As I am gay and reside in a more vulnerable part of the population, I question how safe I really am. All I can say is I don’t feel particularly safe anymore.

By on

I love Bill Maher’s response to Karoline Leavitt’s defense of Trump calling a reporter piggy. Leavitt thinks it is good that Trump is so honest and frank with reporters. Maher took her up on her defense of being honest and frank and called her a bitch. Good for him.

Trump is nearly 80 year old man. He knows that he crossed a line when he called a woman he has a professional relationship piggy. Anyone, as Trump has been, involved in the business world of the last 50 years knows it. The woman deserves an apology but won’t get one because Trump, in that warped little mind of his, thinks that apologizing is some form of weakness and he is so worried about being perceived as weak that he will never deign to apologize to anyone.

This isn’t really the worst problem this little foot-in-mouth incident exposes. Getting an apology is between Trump and the reporter. What is troubling is that Leavitt and other Trump lackeys aren’t willing to call him out for it. No one is willing to remind him of the hard truths of living in the 21st century and how he should conduct himself in his professional relationships.

Yes, she wants to keep her job but this would seem like a good opportunity to help the boss out. An apology would end this relatively minor dust up. Now he looks like an asshole when he could look like less of asshole, sorry he will always be an asshole in my eyes, with a simple I’m sorry. Since Leavitt isn’t saying that an apology is order, it speaks volumes about Trump’s management style. You can’t speak honestly with him even when the stakes are low.

This is a terrible person to be in charge of a business and potentially disastrous person to be running a country. But hey ho at least those Commie Democrats aren’t in charge.

The good news is I think every reporter in the White House pool should feel free to address him as President Fatso. I mean just to be honest and frank with him. He clearly values that kind of honesty.

By on

Having been Wily Coyote to Roadrunner Donald Trump numerous times since Trump took office, I am a bit suspicious that the Epstein Files are going to change anything. Truly, if the Democrats had anything significant on him they would have released it before now and Trump has changed his mind about releasing them, I think, then, there can’t be anything more damaging to Trump than what we already know.

Consider:

  1. The Justice Department has had this information for years. If there was something worth pursing, it would have been pursued by now. It just beggars belief that Democrats would sit on something that was damaging to Trump for this long. If they did, then they should be sued for political malpractice.
  2. The new evidence would have to be undeniable and horrible. Barring videos depicting Trump struggling with an underage girl then I think he is going to be fine. Let’s face it, he was convicted of sexual abuse and still won the 2024 election. There would have to be something truly damning for this to matter and if they had this damning evidence why did the Justice department sit on it so Trump could win the 2024 election. It doesn’t make any sense.
  3. If all the new evidence shows is that Trump knew Epstein and Epstein thought Trump was an asshole, then I am afraid that is a lot of nothing. Lots of people knew Epstein and lots of people think Trump is an asshole. Tell me something new.
  4. Trump is willing to release the evidence. I don’t mean to give Trump a compliment here but he isn’t that dim. The thought that he would willingly release evidence that would prove he was involved in child sex trafficking and rape is under estimating the man who has bested his betters quite a lot.

My point here is that I lived through too many Trump is finally cornered situations only to see Trump beep beep right out of the corner. Maybe let’s wait on the celebration and champagne until Trump is really backed into a corner. I just don’t think this is it.

By on

I know I hold a minority opinion among Democrats about the shutdown but what is the point of keeping government shutdown any longer. I believe that government has a job to do and it best get back to doing it — even if it is less than perfect and it will always be less than perfect.

There is a segment of the Republican Party who hates government so much that they don’t particularly care if it is open and will use any opportunity to undermine its function and will look with glee at its destruction. This segment of the Republican party doesn’t care if people go hungry. The Rich were not being hurt by the shutdown. The Poor were.

The Democrats, being the minority party, had very little leverage to change minds. Trump holds sway with the Republicans. What he says goes. He wasn’t going to backdown and there is little evidence that there were Republicans getting ready to bolt this position.

The idea that holding out longer would create a Democratic victory was a pipe dream. The Democrats who voted to reopen government are not traitors. They looked at the facts and made a reasonable decision. Continuing the shutdown was pointless and it was hurting actual people.

The Democratic Senators that voted to reopen tended to come from Purple states where either party could win an election. You don’t get to govern unless you win elections. A lesson that Liberal Democrats need to be reminded of all the time. Yes Mamdani won New York but there is little evidence that the same holds true for say New Hampshire or Wisconsin.

Given our forefathers structure of government, this means winning in states with a more conservative electorate. These moderates are needed in order to win future elections. So I think all this talk of punishing them is incredibly unhelpful. Indeed this is how Trump is keeping his party in line — punishing the Republicans who don’t agree 100% with him.

Let’s keep everyone on board.

By on

Republicans are complaining about Virginians electing Jay Jones as Attorney General. Jones’ emails were released that showed him wishing violence on both his opponent and his opponent’s kids. Wow. What would be thought of as a disqualifying action with the voters wasn’t enough to defeat Jones.

I feel their pain. This is how I felt when Trump defeated Harris in 2024. How the voters could elect such a nakedly corrupt individual over a rather mundane political hack was beyond me. But the voters had a choice. A lot of voters felt they had a bad choice but a choice nonetheless. They choose the nakedly corrupt Trump which means that they feared Harris more than they did from Trump.

Now I disagree with the voters who opted for Trump over Harris as the lesser of two evils. But when Democrats got upset about it, I felt they were missing the point. When Trump is seen as the lesser of two evils, the problem isn’t with the voters. The problem is your candidate. Something was turning marginal voters against the Democrat’s candidate. Instead of complaining about the voters, it might be wiser to look at why people made this decision and alter your course.

The Republican brand might just be having a similar problem right now. Given a bad choice between a man who would like to see his opponent shot and a Republican incumbent then it might be time for a little self reflection on how voters see the Republican Party. I am fairly certain that they will resist this temptation. But, honestly, if you can’t beat a candidate with such negative press and a weak defense of his actions, you are in bigger trouble than you can comprehend.

By on

The above question is the problem. Someone has to win and someone has to lose.

Compromise, or at least as I understand the word compromise, requires that both sides give a little and take a little. Both sides get something out of the deal. That’s why they call it compromise.

The nightly breathless reporting of who is winning and who is losing the shutdown makes compromising extremely difficult particularly in the present circumstances. Trump needs to look like a winner and the Democrats are trying to look like fighters. Neither wants to look like a loser so all pretense of looking for a compromise has been abandoned because there is a battle going on and somebody has to win.

American democracy, unlike most other democratic countries, depends greatly on compromise due to the cumbersome federal system our forefathers created. There has to be a general agreement across an executive, two legislature bodies (one of which requires a supra majority) and the Supreme Court. It is extremely difficult to get things done through this system even in the best of times. These are not the best of times.

It is clear that it isn’t in the best interest of the press for there to be a compromise between the two parties. Indeed compromise is decidedly boring and unlikely to engage the press who prefer mudslinging, name calling and they particularly like winners and losers. Because the press needs to have winners and losers, they are framing the present struggle between the Republicans and the Democrats in the most unhelpful way. The press wants one side to succumb to a more powerful winning side who will then stand on the loser’s lifeless body and gloat for even more good press. All anybody wants to know who is winning the shutdown

Well, sadly — no one.

By on

Republicans are spreading the rumor that Barack Obama is actually running the country while old Joe Biden is sitting on the White House veranda drooling and soaking up the sun under a pile of warm blankets waiting to die. While there is no evidence that this is true, and I am convinced that Biden is presently up to the duties of his office and infinitely better president than that wastrel Donald Trump, I find Biden’s age worrisome. So when I hear these whispers about Obama being in charge, it comforts me.

Not because I believe it to be true but because it reminds me that the American system of government prevents the most powerful person in the world from having too much power. As we have witnessed in the past 20 years of partisan warfare, the President can do very little without the support of Congress and the approval of the Supreme Court. Biden doesn’t have either and thus little is being done right now. The only unchecked power he has, and it is mighty, is to send missiles flying in the event of a sneak attack. So who are the Republicans trying to scare here?

Not me. I like Obama and he also is popular with a large segment of the American Electorate. He is a young man particularly in comparison to both Biden and Trump. He is a recent president so he is up on the latest issues. Obama is a Democrat, Biden is a Democrat — is there much of a chance that Obama would be doing anything differently from Biden? Why should this concern me?

The Republicans spread this lie as if this should be upsetting. All I can say is good then. There is someone stable at the helm. And, if given the choice between a senile old man that is being manipulated by a younger known politician and a mad man who doesn’t take anyone’s advice but his own and who’s understanding of the bigger world stopped somewhere in middle school. I am going with the senior citizen.

The Republicans can continue to spread this vicious piece of gossip for however long they want to but I don’t think many people are gasping from the shock. They are undermining their strongest argument against Biden for no good reason. The only thing I can come up with is that they think the general public hates Obama as much as they do. They must have forgotten that Obama handily defeated the Republicans twice. I am happy to see them fumble around with this issue as I think a stronger and potentially more damaging case can be made regarding Biden’s age. Fortunately the Republicans aren’t able to grasp what that is.

By on

Mark Tapscott at the Epoch Times reports that, according to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR), Unions spent $25 billion dollars on 2022 election. Which is really kind of remarkable because Federal Elections Commission (FEC) reported that the total amount of money spent on political campaigns was 8.9 billion dollars. You might have spotted a glaring difference between the two organization’s figures. I certainly did.

Why the difference? First, and this is pretty important, the NILRR is anti-union. They want to demonize the union movement so they fiddled with the figures to make the actual 54 million labor spent on 2022 campaigns $25 billion. After this little switcheroo, the relative modest spending becomes outrageously large, especially with the untampered figures from corporations. $25 billion says unions are this powerful behemoth who have an endless supply of money to force their collectivist ways on the poor employers of America.

How did $54 million become $25 billion? NILRR’s much broader interpretation of union political spending can be found here: “the bulk of unreported political power is wielded by government union officials. They’re armed with the monopoly power to negotiate salaries, pensions, and hiring practices for entire swaths of federal, state, and local government workers. This makes monopoly bargaining in the public sector, by its very nature, political.” So, everything a union does is political and, therefore, must be included in political spending. Voila, you now have a rich monster with billions to spend facing those poor corporations who are just trying to run their business.

It’s a blatantly unfair comparison. Why isn’t the same standard applied to corporate spending? In non-union shops, which is close to 90% of all American worker’s experiences, the companies have this same monopoly power to negotiate salaries, pensions and hiring practices. When there are no unions, the worker is on his own and the company has all the power. Does the NILRR consider the money spent on Union Busting as political spending? Technically, I am sure it isn’t but by the NILRR broad definition of political spending, it definitely should be.

I am confident that when you add up all the Corporate Spending on salaries, benefits, HR policies and union busting, there would be a much higher amount of money for corporate political spending. Then we can talk political spending for both Corporations and Labor. Until then I think the FEC’s figures on money spent directly on political campaigns is the only fair way to appraise political spending. It gives a much different story about who is spending more money than Tapscott and NILRR.