TOON: Trump gets behind GOP elephant

Democrats Exploring Deal With McConnell On Gorsuch Nomination

I hope this story isn't true because

A) They have no reason to believe McConnell will keep his word

B) The truck case alone shows that Democrats should oppose him as an anti-worker extremist.

Democrats might lose anyway if they filibuster Gorsuch, but at least they will have stood for something, which might inspire more people to stand in line to vote for them.

a thought on surveillance state & mind of financial elites

Whites in the South in the Jim Crow era feared black men raping white women because they had raped black women with impunity for centuries and expected retribution.

Likewise, as Wall Street tries to take over public education, they think they can win over teachers with competition and "merit pay." A variation of this was just proposed in California, with tax relief for teachers to prevent them from taking jobs in other states.

In both instances, the very wealthy imagine the rest of us think and act exactly as they do.

So it is with the surveillance state that we find out more and more about with each new leak.

The intent of the mass surveillance is likely as much to catch us plebes plotting to storm the castle and take over through elaborate secret machinations because that is exactly what they would do.

However, the vast majority of us, even those who want change, don't want to take the place of the wealthiest individuals in the country and have no secret plans.

We would like to have a decent standard of living, a safe place to live, education and health care for ourselves and our kids, and a reasonable chance of decent world for our descendants to live in.

That aint no secret, and most of us don't have the time or means to plot to disrupt the Bilderburgers or whatever.

What will happen is what is already happening. People are refusing to cooperate here and there in increasing numbers, including the middle managers for the financial elite, both in and out of government. And those middle managers are the ones leaking the stuff that is ruining things for the ruling class.

What those at the top should really be worried about is all that surveillance infrastructure being turned on them.

If they cannot plot, and threaten, and buy politicians out of public view, much of their power is gone--especially if they depend on the rest of us buying stuff their company makes or borrowing money from them.

And I say, the sooner we turn the cameras and bugs the other way, the better.

Republican Senator Sends Cease-and-Desist Letter to Constituent for Calling Too Much

What a change one election has made.

If more politicians had this problem more of the time, we would have a better country.

Trump's increase in the Defense budget is almost as much as cost for free public college for all

who want to go.

One study put the cost of free public university education at around $62 billion a year (IF we stopped public funding of for profit Trump Universities).

We already spend more on our military than nearly all of the rest of the world combined, have bases in more countries than everyone else combine, and in several categories of weapons, we have no peers.

We have twice as many aircraft carriers as the rest of the world combined.

Only Russia has thousands of nukes like we do.

The UK, France, China, India, and Pakistan around 100-300 each.

Estimates about Israel's stockpile vary, but like four of the five above, they are our allies.

Russia and China are primarily threats to us if we go to them. Apart from Russia's nukes, both countries' military might shrinks exponentially the farther they get outside their own borders.

I think there's near zero chance of Trump proposing or signing off on free public higher education.

But this needs to be said.

On Trump & Russia: divide & conquer

If those in DC are more concerned about the Trump half of the Trump/Russia relationship, I wonder if Russia wouldn't be willing to throw Trump under the bus in return for a written non-aggression pact that includes covert and overt means of destabilizing Russia's immediate neighbors (by us and them) and guarantees not to interfere in elections covertly or overtly by Russia in the US and vice versa.

To the degree that Russia meddled in our election, they were likely reacting to some of the belligerent actions we have taken since the end of the Cold War and Hillary's rhetoric and record seemed like it would lead to armed conflict between us and them at least in Syria.

Of course if Russia is the primary target and Trump is just a pawn for BOTH sides, then it wouldn't matter if Putin was willing to do this.

Poll question: who do DC insiders want to punish more, Trump or Russia?

Note: average Americans who oppose Trump care about the Russia stuff, but attacks on minorities and civil rights, cutting crucial government programs, and open corruption probably loom larger.

It aint a "purity test," it's a job evaluation

If the people with modest houses hire the same landscaper to take care of their yard as the massive mansions across the street, and notice that the landscaper hardly ever works on their yard, and half the time he shows up, he throws the trimmings from the big house on their lawn, it is not a purity test to say they are doing a shitty job.

It's a job evaluation.

Likewise, it is not a defense of the shitty job to say they are doing more for us than a gang of con men, who sometimes convince some neighbors to pay for lawn care, and then never deliver at all, or "take care of" their lawn with a flame thrower.

If elected Democrats and party operatives don't take criticism from the base of voters seriously--DEMOCRATIC PARTY voters, not swing or Republican voters, they will continue to struggle and just barely win.

Also, if you are not loyal to those working and middle class people who are members of your own party, why would swing and conservative voters expect you to take care of them?

The New Dem/DLC/Third Way wing of the party does push for some progressive change. The problem is, too often the progressive change is structured to give the financial sector or some other corporate interest a big chunk of the money that was supposed to go a program to help the rest of us, when the government itself could deliver the program more cheaply and effectively.

A good example is Obamacare. Many aspects of the private insurance part were huge improvements. But the Medicare portion is more efficient and costs are driven up by the avarice of spoiled trust fund babies. Those insurance companies don't even seem grateful that Democrats delivered tens of millions of new customers to them, and keep jacking up prices to pad their profits.

If the only consideration was delivering healthcare at a good price to average Americans, there should have been a timetable for all health insurance companies to rein in their overhead or Medicare would start expanding until it covered everyone.

That kind of accountability would make giving the private sector a role more palatable because it would make it clear that in "public private partnerships," the public part was in the driver's seat.

RALL: Long Before Trump, News Media Wallowed in Alternative Facts

I would add one more comment to the "fake news" analysis of Iraq War excuses: anyone old enough to remember the Cold War knew that we and the Soviet Union had THOUSANDS of nukes AND the means to deliver them and destroy the whole world several times over. But neither side did because it wouldn't matter who fired the first shot: both side would be wiped off the map.

Why then would a medium small country with a handful of nukes launch one at us, when the best that they could hope for was to take out a city or two before we turned their entire country into glass and a footnote in history?

Some in Congress did ask such questions, but if the media ever covered it, they didn't do it very often.

How cool would it be if every GOP legislator Trump tapped for cabinet were replaced by DEMOCRATS?

It would be worthwhile for the party to at least put up a good fight for some of those seats and cut into the GOP's victory margins, especially for people like Jeff Sessions.

So if FBI was wiretapping Flynn in Russia talks, why not Kobach & co on Cross Checkvoter purges?

Even without that section of the Voting Rights Act being enforced anymore, isn't it some kind of crime to intentionally disenfranchise people without just cause?

And what are the chances that those assholes didn't pat themselves on the back for keeping blacks from voting?