Tag: Republicans

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

One of the more telling aspects of both parties trying to gerrymander the electoral maps in states where they are the dominant party is that it sounds like both parties have given up on winning over enough members of the other party for a big win. Both parties prefer to rig the system where they can. Then they will rile their base and pick off enough undecideds to win a slim majority. Not a terribly confident strategy nor very promising strategy in getting things done.

It means that the nation is stuck in deadlock. The only way to make things happen is for people who don’t care about our political process and will ram their agenda through using extra-Constitutional methods — like Trump. Trump isn’t the problem. He is a symptom of a greater problem. The system is no longer working as it should. Changing the system, thanks to our clever forefathers, is nearly impossible without a supra majority.

To end this stalemate and hopefully save democratic institutions (or if you prefer republican ones), the country needs a modicum of co-operation between the two parties in order to make this happen. I just don’t see that happening in the present political circumstances.

It is all very depressing.

By on

One of the enduring mysteries of American Tax laws is why do the Rich need so much help.

Let me start with tax laws because this is where the Rich do their best to milk the rest of us. A tax bill is money owed the government for services provided. Now you may not like to pay taxes (who does?) but the political institutions that guide our communal living has determined this is the money a person owes. Citizens have an opportunity to change these laws by electing people of a similar mind in the frequent elections held in this country.

It is the price for living here in the USA — the greatest country on the face of the earth, right? But the Rich are constantly complaining that they need more money in order to juice the economy and if you give them more money it will actually help everyone else because the Rich will be spending money on their businesses. So since the election of Reagan in 1980, taxes have been routinely cut and tax breaks have been instituted to such a degree that many rich people and companies presently pay absolutely no income taxes.

How is this working for everyone else? Have the rich fulfilled their promise to make the rest of us rich with their selfless spending. Surely the Americans must have the richest poor people on the face of the earth. They must be swimming in luxury — great health care, cheap housing, good public education.

But this isn’t the story. Why hasn’t all this largess to the Rich had any effect? Hmm. Let me think about this. Perhaps they haven’t been juicing the American economy. How could this be? They claim to love this country so much, why hasn’t all this love and money translated into a more stable economic situation for everyone else. What could be wrong?

The Rich do have an answer. They just need even more tax cuts. They just haven’t been given enough money to juice the economy. This means everyone else will have to suck it up when cutting government funded programs for the poor and the middle class. The American taxpayer simply can’t afford to help everyone and it is vital that the Rich get even more money then, and only then, will the rich have enough money to spend the rest of us into prosperity.

Let’s try a little thought experiment. What if, instead of giving money to the rich, we gave it to poor and the middle class. They will buy groceries, cars, air conditioners, and a whole array of products that, you got it, will juice the economy. In fact, because there are more just plain folk than there are rich people, it might just juice the economy better and faster than giving money to the rich. I don’t know but I would like to give it a try. Giving to the rich hasn’t exactly worked as promised.

But the budget. We haven’t collected enough in taxes to pay for all this help. Right. Because we are giving the Rich so much back in tax reduction, we are going into debt and unable to afford actions that might help everyone else. Get out your handkerchiefs. Why is it that the only time the Republicans care about the budget deficit is when it involves expanding programs that help the poor. They don’t give a damn about the budget deficits when they are cutting taxes for the Rich which has exactly the same effect — budget deficits.

The whole premise of helping the rich in order to help the poor is so demented. It is a topsy turvy Alice through the looking glass view of living. Our most economically secure citizens — the people with the most money, the best healthcare, luxury vacations, personal airplanes and such — always need our help while we can’t help our least economically secure citizens who don’t have money, or healthcare, or even a safe place to lay their head at night. Helping the poor is always seen as bad while helping the rich is necessary. How does this make sense?

That this story keeps being told, with a straight face no less, is depressing. Years of low taxation and cuts in social services have shown, it to be patently false. But hey ho, I’ve got mine.

Until I don’t.

By on

I don’t know why Russiagate is such a big deal. It may be a little shady but it falls within the acceptable shadiness of American politics. I know Republicans want to arrest Barrack Obama and the Democrats are calling Tulsi Gabbard a liar. Gabbard is talking about Russia’s ability to hack voting machines while Democrats are talking about campaign money going to Trump or, at least, anti-Democratic PACS. Republicans will investigate and prosecute and will be disappointed.

The idea that the Russians were using cash to influence the 2016 election seemed like a weak argument to begin with. I agree that the Russians aren’t supposed to spend money on American politics but if they did and their candidate wins, I’m not sure where the problem is. The American people voted and, sadly, found the Russian propaganda more convincing. That is on the Democrats. They choose a terrible candidate and ran a shitty campaign.

Then again the Democrats accusing Trump of being a Russian mole is hardly refuted here. If the Russians contributed cash to anti-Democratic organizations, they were clearly hoping for a Trump victory. The Democrats have every right to tell the story and make the charge of Trump being a Russian asset. They may be wrong but when has hyperbole been absent in a political campaign. For example, Trump called Zoran Mamdani a Communist. Mamdani, by any reasonable assessment, is a Socialist but calling him a Communist makes hims sound so much more horrible. Trump knows it and that is why he used the word Communist.

It would be easier to consider Gabbard’s accusations against the Obama Administration’s use of government agencies against his political opponents if Donald Trump was a model of probity but he most certainly isn’t. Trump gleefully threatens anyone who opposes him with government investigation. Why is it OK for Trump to investigate and Obama can’t? Isn’t this just regular campaign malfeasance?

It is just more screaming about nothing that matters to the average man and woman on the street. It won’t convince Trump supporters to abandon him and it won’t elect Democrats to office. It is political noise. Distractions from the tariffs and Medicaid and anything that has an actual effect on people’s lives. This meaningless noise will absorb media attention until it doesn’t.

Oh yes, then there is the Epstein files. I pretty sure that the Democrats will be disappointed with any release of the Epstein files. If the Biden White House had evidence that Trump was having sex with underage girls, I am fairly certain they would have released it during the 2024 campaign. They may have evidence that he had been to Epstein’s island and that he was friends with Epstein but I doubt there is any smoking gun because if they had that evidence why in God’s name didn’t they release in the 2024 campaign? I mean not releasing it would be some serious campaign malpractice.

And don’t say it is because Democrats would never do that shit because I don’t believe you.

By on

The most mind boggling aspect about Qatar’s gift of an airplane to Donald Trump is his seeming lack of understanding that this is wrong and why he should pass on the gift. This isn’t a bottle of whiskey or a box of chocolates, this is an airplane.

There is a difference and, if he had paid attention to the HR presentations that most working stiffs suffer through every year, he would know why. The last company I worked for repeatedly reminded its employees that they never should take a gift over $100 because, even if everything is above board, it looks suspicious.

The best case scenarios on this, and I mean by that you can still plausibly claim to be honest, are still wrong. If someone has been kind or generous to you, you are more inclined to help them. This is unfair to other less generous customers and, more importantly, may cloud your judgment on what is right for the company. It shifts the power dynamic in a business relationship. The gift giver has this little bit of extra power over the gift receiver when making difficult decisions.

Trump, despite his unsubstantiated claim of being a good businessman, is clearly ignorant of modern business practices which are both pretty basic and universal. That he is unable to see the problem with this is shocking because I absolutely believe him. He doesn’t understand the power shift. He doesn’t understand why it would be wrong to give consideration to a country who has given him plane. I am sure he thinks it is all right to scratch your back if you scratch mine.

This should be more than troubling to Republicans. And lets face it, the Democrats just aren’t in any position to do anything about it. It has to come from Republicans. The sad thing is they think they are clinging to power. But whatever power they had is long gone. The only person who holds significant power in the Republican party is Trump. The rest are his lackeys. Sadly, they appear to be really suited for the role.

By on

I know that Donald Trump doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the poor but I think it is important to question him, nonetheless, on his intentions here. Getting rid of social welfare programs is all fun and games to him, but it will have a serious impact on poor people thus on everyone else in the community.

Contrary to popular opinion, social welfare programs work. The biggest drops in poverty have occurred during the expansion of federal social welfare programs during the 1930’s and the 1960’s. Conservatives like to think that just cutting these programs will somehow force poor people to go out and get jobs. This has never worked. Never.

And we know that because there were an awful lot of poor people around before social welfare programs existed. Indeed they made up a much higher percentage of the population than they do now. Churches and charities were unable to make up the difference. That was why there were so many poor people back in the good old days.

Even Jesus realized this. Matthew 26:11 “The poor you will always have with you.” So how does Trump, Musk and company intend to help them. Taking them off the dole is hardly helpful. People need housing in order to take showers so they can make a good impression with looking for a job. They need transportation in order to arrive at the job on time. They may need psychiatric counseling so that they are coherent enough to hold a job. They may need drug rehab or alcohol rehab. They may need job training so that they can work the available jobs. The poor need an awful lot of help to make companies see them as potential employees. Where is this help going to come from?

I do have a modest proposal here and it is from the Bible — a source that Republicans particularly like to refer to. Matthew 19:20 If you want to be perfect (a perfect Christian that is), sell what you own. Give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.

Come on Donald and Elon, you know what to do.

By on

In an incredibly weird tirade, Charlie Kirk, conservative political activist, spoke strongly against the Birth Control Pill. The pill is horrible for single women. It makes them unhappy and unmarriageable. The single woman who uses birth control pill will die lonely and childless. Worst of all, she will be ugly too. He skips trying to persuade young women, I guess they are too frivolous to understand the horrors of the Pill, and goes directly to their parents who should stop their daughters from making this terrible mistake.

Aside from a decidedly low opinion of women’s intelligence and their right to manage their own bodies, I am not sure what Kirk is prattling on about. His focus is single women but married women use birth control as well. Does the Pill make married women the ugly unhappy mess that it does to single women? He seems to be talking just about the Pill, are other means of contraception acceptable or do they have the same terrifying results? What is his endgame here? Does he want to make Birth Control illegal? He never says so but it seems to be the subtext here.

This antagonism towards birth control marries well with another increasingly heard concern for conservatives — the declining birth rate among women. Glenn Reynolds worries that the earth is depopulating because women all over the world are no longer giving birth at replacement levels. This is particularly irksome as these same conservatives oppose pro-environment actions that are based on scientific data that suggests environmental doom in the future. They claim that these scientists are often wrong, that human beings will discover some scientific feat that will address these worries and to far into the future to demand sacrifices based on data that may never come into play.

Well, all right then, why should I worry about scientific speculations about a declining population particularly since the world’s population will still continue to grow and an actual decline in population won’t occur until the end of this century. Just like the scientists predicting environmental disaster, could these baby bust scientists be wrong about their interpretation of the data? Could people decide to have more children as the population declines and this problem will solve itself? But, no, this is an urgent matter for Reynolds and needs to be addressed now before it is too late and no human being is left alive.

What is worrisome about these opinions is that this manufactured crisis is giving some religious zealots a reason to make birth control illegal. Which is all rather perplexing. Women make up over half of the voting population. Most of these women want to have some control over how often they get pregnant. Not to mention their husbands and boyfriends who want to continue having sex without the worry of new children to support. Forcing people to have more children now to prevent a crisis in the 22nd Century seems like political suicide. Why anyone would think this is an attractive political is beyond me.

But it will be fun to watch.

By on

I try to ignore the Trump family as much as humanly possible but they just are too difficult to ignore. They are always out there doing something, saying things and making people crazy. Sometimes you just have to break down and comment on what they are doing, knowing full well that they love every moment of attention they are getting. Good or bad, attention is attention and, for some reason, the Trump family love getting it and I apologize now for giving it to them. Forgive me but I must comment about something Trumpish.

The Trump men love to appraise women’s looks and then give their usually unflattering appraisal particularly if the woman is a political opponent (see Donald Trumps thoughts on Rosie O’Donnell and Carly Fiorina if you need some examples). Trump’s namesake Donald jr. got into the act recently with his unkind comparison of Michelle Obama to a football linebacker.

Oddly, he comments that this is a joke which was a lame way of trying to protect himself from criticism that he knew would be heading his way. He was joking. Ha ha. Right. Got it. Though I have to wonder would if his wife or sister would think it was funny to be compared to a linebacker? If he is just being funny that is. I am sure they would get the joke, right? They know his sense of humor best after all.

It’s the type of joke you would expect from a 12 year old boy trying to impress his friends by making fun of the smartest girl in the class. It is mean-spirited joke. The interesting thing for me, is that it was more important for Donald jr. to amuse his juvenile friends than to be a decent human being. He relishes in the hurtful nature of the joke.

You would think that the son of man who is running for president would understand this and not post this type of joke on social media. Of course, he is free to post whatever he damn well pleases, that he can’t discern what is appropriate and inappropriate is the problem. In Donald jr.’s mind, it is perfectly OK to publicly demean a woman’s looks.

That neither Trump seems worried about that is concerning.