Democrats organize to fight back

[Eric the Green]

(02-04-2017, 09:20 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 08:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You're the sellout if you don't get behind the opposition to Trump and the Republicans now and for the duration, by any legal and ethical means necessary.

-- why is it, that whenever l callout neolibturds, DINOS, & other assorted crappy Dems, you automatically assume l'm with the Donald?  I can take out 2 bags of trash @ once. So can most Greens l know. Can you?

No, I guess not, because we don't agree on which bags are trash, and which are just not the gourmet meal we would prefer. To complain about Warren is to go off the deep end and sabotage everything that is needed in politics, and to boost The Donald.

Warren has the backbone; I'm concerned about those Dems who don't.

[Marypoza]

(02-04-2017, 10:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 09:20 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 08:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You're the sellout if you don't get behind the opposition to Trump and the Republicans now and for the duration, by any legal and ethical means necessary.

-- why is it, that whenever l callout neolibturds, DINOS, & other assorted crappy Dems, you automatically assume l'm with the Donald?  I can take out 2 bags of trash @ once. So can most Greens l know. Can you?

No, I guess not, because we don't agree on which bags are trash, and which are just not the gourmet meal we would prefer. To complain about Warren is to go off the deep end and sabotage everything that is needed in politics, and to boost The Donald.

Warren has the backbone; I'm concerned about those Dems who don't.

-- something about her just rings hollow to me, like she's grandstanding or something. Like all this noise she's been making on b1/2 of Muslims. Not that ppl shouldn't stand up for Muslims, but why isn't Sen l'm Part lndian standing with the Lakota @ Standing Rock? Why isn't she speaking on b1/2 of (those she claims are) her own ppl? If she don't have their back, what makes you think she'll have yours, if it comes to that?  Dunno it's just a gut feeling l have, l don't trust her

that & she's been confirming the Donald's cabinet picks

Post her chart plz

[Eric the Green]

(02-05-2017, 05:10 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 10:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 09:20 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 08:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You're the sellout if you don't get behind the opposition to Trump and the Republicans now and for the duration, by any legal and ethical means necessary.

-- why is it, that whenever l callout neolibturds, DINOS, & other assorted crappy Dems, you automatically assume l'm with the Donald?  I can take out 2 bags of trash @ once. So can most Greens l know. Can you?

No, I guess not, because we don't agree on which bags are trash, and which are just not the gourmet meal we would prefer. To complain about Warren is to go off the deep end and sabotage everything that is needed in politics, and to boost The Donald.

Warren has the backbone; I'm concerned about those Dems who don't.

-- something about her just rings hollow to me, like she's grandstanding or something. Like all this noise she's been making on b1/2 of Muslims. Not that ppl shouldn't stand up for Muslims, but why isn't Sen l'm Part lndian standing with the Lakota @ Standing Rock? Why isn't she speaking on b1/2 of (those she claims are) her own ppl? If she don't have their back, what makes you think she'll have yours, if it comes to that?  Dunno it's just a gut feeling l have, l don't trust her

that & she's been confirming the Donald's cabinet picks

Post her chart plz

A feeling is not a substantial basis for an opinion; it's her words and actions that count. She has a backbone and she stands up for the truth. I don't remember what she has said or done about the DAPL. I can't imagine that she's not against it, or the Keystone either.
http://standwithstandingrock.net/senator...ding-rock/

I know she voted to confirm Ben Carson. She claims she extracted some promises from him. I disagree strongly with that vote and told her so in a comment. But, I don't agree with you that one vote I disagree with means that someone is vile trash.

In case you couldn't guess, I don't think her chart is good enough on my scoring system to beat Trump. She would lose like Hillary did. I have her chart but I don't think I can post it permanently.

[Marypoza]

(02-05-2017, 06:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-05-2017, 05:10 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 10:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 09:20 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 08:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You're the sellout if you don't get behind the opposition to Trump and the Republicans now and for the duration, by any legal and ethical means necessary.

-- why is it, that whenever l callout neolibturds, DINOS, & other assorted crappy Dems, you automatically assume l'm with the Donald?  I can take out 2 bags of trash @ once. So can most Greens l know. Can you?

No, I guess not, because we don't agree on which bags are trash, and which are just not the gourmet meal we would prefer. To complain about Warren is to go off the deep end and sabotage everything that is needed in politics, and to boost The Donald.

Warren has the backbone; I'm concerned about those Dems who don't.

-- something about her just rings hollow to me, like she's grandstanding or something. Like all this noise she's been making on b1/2 of Muslims. Not that ppl shouldn't stand up for Muslims, but why isn't Sen l'm Part lndian standing with the Lakota @ Standing Rock? Why isn't she speaking on b1/2 of (those she claims are) her own ppl? If she don't have their back, what makes you think she'll have yours, if it comes to that?  Dunno it's just a gut feeling l have, l don't trust her

that & she's been confirming the Donald's cabinet picks

Post her chart plz

A feeling is not a substantial basis for an opinion; it's her words and actions that count.

--yeah l know. But it's something l just can't shake. She seems so contrived to me. Maybe it's the timing. She'll speak out only when it's not controversial to do so. Like this stuff with the Muslims has been going on for months. And she's just now getting visible, speaking @ rallies?  

Eric Wrote:She has a backbone and she stands up for the truth. I don't remember what she has said or done about the DAPL. I can't imagine that she's not against it, or the Keystone either.
http://standwithstandingrock.net/senator...ding-rock/

-- thanx for the link. But did you notice the date on that  statement? A few wks b4 Xmas? After Tulsi had led the vets to Standing Rock... Jill campaigned there after Labor Day weekend. Bernie had been speaking out & @ rallies for Standing Rock since the summer. He introduced legislation keeping the Army from granting the easement, maybe Liz voted for it, so ok,  @ least she stands with them, but she's not very vocal about it. I mean these are supposedly her ppl, you'd think she'd be  shouting out loud, sticking her neck out. But she don't seem to stick her neck out on anything. She waits until it's safe 

Quote:I  know she voted to confirm Ben Carson. She claims she extracted some promises from him. I disagree strongly with that vote and told her so in a comment. But, I don't agree with you that one vote I disagree with means that someone is vile trash.

--well she confirmed 3 more

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/...inet-picks

Boston Mag don't say who they are & l forget their names (they were in my fb feed) 

& not vile trash either. The trash bags comes from last summer/fall when these binary thinking idiots would insist that if we Jill voters weren't voting for the hildabitch we must be for the Donald. Nope, we can take out 2 bags of trash @ once. As for Liz, she's just a sellout .

Eric Wrote:In case you couldn't guess, I don't think her chart is good enough on my scoring system to beat Trump. She would lose like Hillary did. I have her chart but I don't think I can post it permanently.

 
-- l wanted to see it myself, that's why l asked you to post it. I wanted to see why, l have flaky feelings about her. However l agree l don't think she'll win in 2020. She should of run last yr. Instead she jumped the shark. Or like M&L said (about somebody else) she's past her expiration date. I think the same can apply to Ms Liz, if not past it, she's getting there

[Eric the Green]

(02-05-2017, 08:35 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-05-2017, 06:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-05-2017, 05:10 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 10:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 09:20 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- why is it, that whenever l callout neolibturds, DINOS, & other assorted crappy Dems, you automatically assume l'm with the Donald?  I can take out 2 bags of trash @ once. So can most Greens l know. Can you?

I already explained that. I am less optimistic about Americans than you. I've seen them put Bush and Trump in the White House and creepy extremist Republicans in congress and keep them there. We can't expect perfection; we have to settle for whom we can get. This is America.

Quote:No, I guess not, because we don't agree on which bags are trash, and which are just not the gourmet meal we would prefer. To complain about Warren is to go off the deep end and sabotage everything that is needed in politics, and to boost The Donald.

Warren has the backbone; I'm concerned about those Dems who don't.

-- something about her just rings hollow to me, like she's grandstanding or something. Like all this noise she's been making on b1/2 of Muslims. Not that ppl shouldn't stand up for Muslims, but why isn't Sen l'm Part lndian standing with the Lakota @ Standing Rock? Why isn't she speaking on b1/2 of (those she claims are) her own ppl? If she don't have their back, what makes you think she'll have yours, if it comes to that?  Dunno it's just a gut feeling l have, l don't trust her

that & she's been confirming the Donald's cabinet picks

Post her chart plz

A feeling is not a substantial basis for an opinion; it's her words and actions that count.

--yeah l know. But it's something l just can't shake. She seems so contrived to me. Maybe it's the timing. She'll speak out only when it's not controversial to do so. Like this stuff with the Muslims has been going on for months. And she's just now getting visible, speaking @ rallies?  

I don't get that one. Trump's been in office for 2 weeks; that's what this is about-- what he's doing.

I think that is typical of Americans; we vote for style, not substance. Personality, not policy. It's pretty flimsy as a basis for choice IMO, but it's what I can see from my horoscope research too. A candidate has to be convincing on a gut level, although I think that's superficial and unfair myself. You voted for Jill. If she were a mainstream candidate from a major party, she'd have a good chance to win, according to my horoscope scoring.

Quote:

Eric Wrote:She has a backbone and she stands up for the truth. I don't remember what she has said or done about the DAPL. I can't imagine that she's not against it, or the Keystone either.
http://standwithstandingrock.net/senator...ding-rock/

-- thanx for the link. But did you notice the date on that  statement? A few wks b4 Xmas? After Tulsi had led the vets to Standing Rock... Jill campaigned there after Labor Day weekend. Bernie had been speaking out & @ rallies for Standing Rock since the summer. He introduced legislation keeping the Army from granting the easement, maybe Liz voted for it, so ok,  @ least she stands with them, but she's not very vocal about it. I mean these are supposedly her ppl, you'd think she'd be  shouting out loud, sticking her neck out. But she don't seem to stick her neck out on anything. She waits until it's safe 

Quote:I  know she voted to confirm Ben Carson. She claims she extracted some promises from him. I disagree strongly with that vote and told her so in a comment. But, I don't agree with you that one vote I disagree with means that someone is vile trash.

--well she confirmed 3 more

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/...inet-picks

Boston Mag don't say who they are & l forget their names (they were in my fb feed) 

& not vile trash either. The trash bags comes from last summer/fall when these binary thinking idiots would insist that if we Jill voters weren't voting for the hildabitch we must be for the Donald. Nope, we can take out 2 bags of trash @ once. As for Liz, she's just a sellout .

Eric Wrote:In case you couldn't guess, I don't think her chart is good enough on my scoring system to beat Trump. She would lose like Hillary did. I have her chart but I don't think I can post it permanently.

 
-- l wanted to see it myself, that's why l asked you to post it. I wanted to see why, l have flaky feelings about her. However l agree l don't think she'll win in 2020. She should of run last yr. Instead she jumped the shark. Or like M&L said (about somebody else) she's past her expiration date. I think the same can apply to Ms Liz, if not past it, she's getting there

I have her chart with birth time on my computer, in a virtual system only that I can't print out from right now, but the astro.com site does not, except maybe a temporary one. That's unusual, but we'll see. You really need to see it? I don't think she's going to be the candidate, so it's probably not important. Her chart confirms your suspicion that she doesn't doesn't have what it takes to get elected president. But that doesn't mean she can't be a good senator; as good as we can get, just about.

I think Liz is just getting going, and she's one of the best senators. But this is America; remember. We don't get the best in public office. Not only because our voters are not very smart and vote for kooks, but because of our money-in-politics system that the Republicans maintain. It's too hard on the politicians, too corrupting, and means they have to spend most of their time raising money. And now we have a founder of Citizens United in the White House, thanks to the guy who said he would drain the swamp, and instead has filled it with hungry alligators. That's just another indicator of just how stupid American voters are. It's pathetic. We can't expect better than Liz.

[Marypoza]

(02-06-2017, 02:00 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-05-2017, 08:35 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-05-2017, 06:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-05-2017, 05:10 AM)Marypoza Wrote: I already explained that. I am less optimistic about Americans than you. I've seen them put Bush and Trump in the White House and creepy extremist Republicans in congress and keep them there. We can't expect perfection; we have to settle for whom we can get. This is America.

Quote:No, I guess not, because we don't agree on which bags are trash, and which are just not the gourmet meal we would prefer. To complain about Warren is to go off the deep end and sabotage everything that is needed in politics, and to boost The Donald.

Warren has the backbone; I'm concerned about those Dems who don't.

-- something about her just rings hollow to me, like she's grandstanding or something. Like all this noise she's been making on b1/2 of Muslims. Not that ppl shouldn't stand up for Muslims, but why isn't Sen l'm Part lndian standing with the Lakota @ Standing Rock? Why isn't she speaking on b1/2 of (those she claims are) her own ppl? If she don't have their back, what makes you think she'll have yours, if it comes to that?  Dunno it's just a gut feeling l have, l don't trust her

that & she's been confirming the Donald's cabinet picks

Post her chart plz

A feeling is not a substantial basis for an opinion; it's her words and actions that count.

--yeah l know. But it's something l just can't shake. She seems so contrived to me. Maybe it's the timing. She'll speak out only when it's not controversial to do so. Like this stuff with the Muslims has been going on for months. And she's just now getting visible, speaking @ rallies?  

I don't get that one. Trump's been in office for 2 weeks; that's what this is about-- what he's doing.

I think that is typical of Americans; we vote for style, not substance. Personality, not policy. It's pretty flimsy as a basis for choice IMO, but it's what I can see from my horoscope research too. A candidate has to be convincing on a gut level, although I think that's superficial and unfair myself. You voted for Jill. If she were a mainstream candidate from a major party, she'd have a good chance to win, according to my horoscope scoring.

Quote:

Eric Wrote:She has a backbone and she stands up for the truth. I don't remember what she has said or done about the DAPL. I can't imagine that she's not against it, or the Keystone either.
http://standwithstandingrock.net/senator...ding-rock/

-- thanx for the link. But did you notice the date on that  statement? A few wks b4 Xmas? After Tulsi had led the vets to Standing Rock... Jill campaigned there after Labor Day weekend. Bernie had been speaking out & @ rallies for Standing Rock since the summer. He introduced legislation keeping the Army from granting the easement, maybe Liz voted for it, so ok,  @ least she stands with them, but she's not very vocal about it. I mean these are supposedly her ppl, you'd think she'd be  shouting out loud, sticking her neck out. But she don't seem to stick her neck out on anything. She waits until it's safe 

Quote:I  know she voted to confirm Ben Carson. She claims she extracted some promises from him. I disagree strongly with that vote and told her so in a comment. But, I don't agree with you that one vote I disagree with means that someone is vile trash.

--well she confirmed 3 more

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/...inet-picks

Boston Mag don't say who they are & l forget their names (they were in my fb feed) 

& not vile trash either. The trash bags comes from last summer/fall when these binary thinking idiots would insist that if we Jill voters weren't voting for the hildabitch we must be for the Donald. Nope, we can take out 2 bags of trash @ once. As for Liz, she's just a sellout .

Eric Wrote:In case you couldn't guess, I don't think her chart is good enough on my scoring system to beat Trump. She would lose like Hillary did. I have her chart but I don't think I can post it permanently.

 
-- l wanted to see it myself, that's why l asked you to post it. I wanted to see why, l have flaky feelings about her. However l agree l don't think she'll win in 2020. She should of run last yr. Instead she jumped the shark. Or like M&L said (about somebody else) she's past her expiration date. I think the same can apply to Ms Liz, if not past it, she's getting there

I have her chart with birth time on my computer, in a virtual system only that I can't print out from right now, but the astro.com site does not, except maybe a temporary one. That's unusual, but we'll see. You really need to see it? I don't think she's going to be the candidate, so it's probably not important. Her chart confirms your suspicion that she doesn't doesn't have what it takes to get elected president. But that doesn't mean she can't be a good senator; as good as we can get, just about.

I think Liz is just getting going, and she's one of the best senators. But this is America; remember. We don't get the best in public office. Not only because our voters are not very smart and vote for kooks, but because of our money-in-politics system that the Republicans maintain. It's too hard on the politicians, too corrupting, and means they have to spend most of their time raising money. And now we have a founder of Citizens United in the White House, thanks to the guy who said he would drain the swamp, and instead has filled it with hungry alligators. That's just another indicator of just how stupid American voters are. It's pathetic. We can't expect better than Liz.

--  that's ok, then. I don't need to see her chart. 
cheer up Eric. Gotta be optimistic. It's either that or not get up outta bed

[Eric the Green]

Sure, I am optimistic. But realistic.

[Eric the Green]

Stand with Bernie; stop our fraudulent president. Stop Gorsuch.

[Marypoza]

(02-06-2017, 12:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Stand with Bernie; stop our fraudulent president. Stop Gorsuch.

-- now there's my Prez!!  
Alternate facts, remember    

[Eric the Green]

Winter (the 4T) is here!

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-06-2017, 07:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Winter (the 4T) is here!

Ick...  Global warming shall melt the special  snowflakes.
 Years without winters upcoming.

[Eric the Green]

Republicans broke the Senate and now they're mad Democrats are playing by the new rules

By Laura Clawson
Monday Feb 06, 2017 · 11:10 AM PST
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/2/6...-new-rules

WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 16: U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) leaves after an election meeting of Senate Democrats to elect new leadership at the Capitol November 16, 2016 in Washington, DC. Sen. Schumer was elected as the incoming Senate minority leader.

Republicans have spent years obstructing and opposing and being the party of no as then-President Obama and congressional Democrats tried to get the nation out of economic crisis and implement a generally popular agenda. But now that Democrats are an opposition ready to fight Republican efforts to strip tens of millions of people of health coverage and install a Cabinet of ethically compromised billionaires, suddenly it’s shocking that we can’t all just get along. Politico offers up the shocking details:

Senate Democrats — the last line of Democratic defense — are slow-walking the installation of Trump’s Cabinet to a historic degree, so much so that Republicans haven’t even started yet on Trump’s legislative agenda. Republicans will eventually win all these confirmation battles, but it will be time-consuming and ugly.
Oh, my. (Good for them.)

How ugly has it gotten? Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) voted against the nomination of Elaine Chao for secretary of transportation. Chao happens to be the wife of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
Pardon me while I grab for my smelling salts. (Good for Schumer.)

"I don’t see how they sustain their anger and their lack of participation in the governing process very long and still come back in 2018. I just don’t think it’s an agenda for success," said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas). “So my hope is that once they sort of get over the fact that Donald Trump won … they’ll try to be more productive.”

Umm … excuse me? Barack Obama won a landslide victory in 2008—Electoral College and popular vote, too!—and Republicans opposed every damn thing he did for eight years. So it rings a little false to see Republicans being all pious about how very angry and unproductive Democrats are being as they face a president who lost the popular vote by nearly three million votes, appointed a white supremacist chief adviser, and started ramming an extremist agenda through in the face of record unpopularity.

You know how Democrats will sustain this anger? Republicans will keep doing terrible things. And how will Democrats come back in 2018? It’ll be a tough year in the Senate because the map is terrible for Democrats, but elsewhere … Democrats will be the party who’ve been fighting the terrible things Republicans have been doing. They’ll be the party of Not Donald Trump. They’ll be the party of Not Taking Your Health Insurance. The party of Not Privatizing Your Social Security.

[Marypoza]

(02-05-2017, 08:35 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-05-2017, 06:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-05-2017, 05:10 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 10:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 09:20 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- why is it, that whenever l callout neolibturds, DINOS, & other assorted crappy Dems, you automatically assume l'm with the Donald?  I can take out 2 bags of trash @ once. So can most Greens l know. Can you?

No, I guess not, because we don't agree on which bags are trash, and which are just not the gourmet meal we would prefer. To complain about Warren is to go off the deep end and sabotage everything that is needed in politics, and to boost The Donald.

Warren has the backbone; I'm concerned about those Dems who don't.

-- something about her just rings hollow to me, like she's grandstanding or something. Like all this noise she's been making on b1/2 of Muslims. Not that ppl shouldn't stand up for Muslims, but why isn't Sen l'm Part lndian standing with the Lakota @ Standing Rock? Why isn't she speaking on b1/2 of (those she claims are) her own ppl? If she don't have their back, what makes you think she'll have yours, if it comes to that?  Dunno it's just a gut feeling l have, l don't trust her

that & she's been confirming the Donald's cabinet picks

Post her chart plz

A feeling is not a substantial basis for an opinion; it's her words and actions that count.

--yeah l know. But it's something l just can't shake. She seems so contrived to me. Maybe it's the timing. She'll speak out only when it's not controversial to do so. Like this stuff with the Muslims has been going on for months. And she's just now getting visible, speaking @ rallies?  

Eric Wrote:She has a backbone and she stands up for the truth. I don't remember what she has said or done about the DAPL. I can't imagine that she's not against it, or the Keystone either.
http://standwithstandingrock.net/senator...ding-rock/

-- thanx for the link. But did you notice the date on that  statement? A few wks b4 Xmas? After Tulsi had led the vets to Standing Rock... Jill campaigned there after Labor Day weekend. Bernie had been speaking out & @ rallies for Standing Rock since the summer. He introduced legislation keeping the Army from granting the easement, maybe Liz voted for it, so ok,  @ least she stands with them, but she's not very vocal about it. I mean these are supposedly her ppl, you'd think she'd be  shouting out loud, sticking her neck out. But she don't seem to stick her neck out on anything. She waits until it's safe 

Quote:I  know she voted to confirm Ben Carson. She claims she extracted some promises from him. I disagree strongly with that vote and told her so in a comment. But, I don't agree with you that one vote I disagree with means that someone is vile trash.

--well she confirmed 3 more

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/...inet-picks

Boston Mag don't say who they are & l forget their names (they were in my fb feed) 

& not vile trash either. The trash bags comes from last summer/fall when these binary thinking idiots would insist that if we Jill voters weren't voting for the hildabitch we must be for the Donald. Nope, we can take out 2 bags of trash @ once. As for Liz, she's just a sellout .

Eric Wrote:In case you couldn't guess, I don't think her chart is good enough on my scoring system to beat Trump. She would lose like Hillary did. I have her chart but I don't think I can post it permanently.

 
-- l wanted to see it myself, that's why l asked you to post it. I wanted to see why, l have flaky feelings about her. However l agree l don't think she'll win in 2020. She should of run last yr. Instead she jumped the shark. Or like M&L said (about somebody else) she's past her expiration date. I think the same can apply to Ms Liz, if not past it, she's getting there

Eric check this out. Liz only confirmed 1 cabinet pick (the other is Nicki Haley for UN Ambassador) Bernie, otoh, confirmed 2 & my homeboy Sherrod confirmed 3 (plus Haley)
Booker the Hooker has only confirmed 1 so far as well (again, the other check is for Haley)

https://cabinetvotes.org/dem

I don't know where Boston Mag got that Liz confirmed 4 cabinet picks unless they are picks not listed on that site (which only shows 8 out of 12- Haley is UN Ambassador)

[Eric the Green]

Republican representatives in congress get an earful from aroused constituents.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/r...obamacare/

[Eric the Green]

When Senate Republicans confirmed Rep. Mick Mulvaney as Trump's budget director they aimed a big gun at Social Security -- despite Trump's campaign promise to never cut it.

Mulvaney is co-founder of the House Freedom Caucus, the most extreme element of the Tea Party. He described Social Security as a "Ponzi scheme" and argued that we must "end Medicare as we know it."

We were winning the Social Security battle. But it's back in the crosshairs -- and we need Democrats to fight with backbone. Will you sign our petition telling congressional Democrats and Republicans the public will punish any lawmaker who supports cutting Social Security and Medicare?

Sign the petition and tell Congress we want expanded benefits to meet the needs of our families, not cuts.

During his hearings, a senator asked Mulvaney if Trump knew of his desire to cut these programs when he nominated him to control Trump's budget. Mulvaney said, "The president knew what he was getting when he asked me to fill his role." Make no mistake, that is a threat.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee has been a leader in the fight to protect and expand Social Security since 2011 -- when even a Democratic White House supported cuts. Together with MoveOn, other progressive grassroots allies, and our friends in Congress, we changed the national debate from how much to cut Social Security to how much to expand it.

A big majority of Senate and House Democrats are now on record in support of expanding Social Security benefits.

But with Trump in the White House, Republicans controlling Congress, and Trump's cabinet packed with people more than happy to "throw grandma off a cliff," all this is at risk. Merely being on record won't be enough.

Democrats will have to fight with backbone or generations of grandmothers and grandfathers could suffer. We must send a signal that voters are paying attention and care deeply about this issue.

-- Progressive Change Campaign Committee

[Eric the Green]

Breaking News from Newsmax.com


Schumer Rips Trump's Speech: 'He's Got Big Trouble'

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Tuesday that President Donald Trump "talks like a populist, but the way he's been governing is totally the opposite, governing from the hard right."

"He's talked a good game on trade, but when he ran in the campaign, he said he would declare China a currency manipulator on the first day of his presidency," the New York Democrat told Wolf Blitzer on CNN. "It’s 40 days in, we haven't heard a thing, they're backing off.

Special: An Accountant’s Secret to Generate Effortless Income (Start Now)

"Infrastructure. Haven't heard a peep about any plan. Now, they say they're going to do it next year.

"The problem with President Trump is his speeches and the realities are very far apart," Schumer said. "The American people don't want a speech. Heard a lot of those.

"They want action — and the action he's giving them is disjointed. [Trump and his administration] don't know how to really run a government.

"But when he gives them action, he goes to hard right.

"The divergence between the speech-like campaign promises and reality is miles apart," he told Blitzer. "That's why he had a rough 40 days — and he will have a rough rest of his term until his reality catches up with the speeches.

"He's got big trouble."


From People's Action

MORNING MESSAGE

Richard Eskow
Trump Offers “A Nation of Miracles.” Your Move, Democrats.

Tuesday’s speech largely toed the Republican party line. Take infrastructure. On the campaign trail, Trump promised major government investment. On Tuesday, he promised a financial boon for corporations and bankers. He promised no American would go without healthcare. But the ideas Trump floated on Tuesday could have been written by the insurance executives he hosted on Monday – and probably were ... He has promised not to cut Social Security or Medicare ... But he pointedly refused to repeat that promise on Tuesday night.
Tone Deaf

Tone is meaningless, says Bloomberg’s Jonathan Bernstein:
“Governing, the old saw says, is choosing. To the joint session of Congress, Trump made no choices at all. It was an hour plus of cotton candy. I suspect it’ll get excellent reviews; a lot of pundits who have been brutal to Trump will welcome the chance to praise him, and I suspect everyone is pleased to have the president toss aside his clown act, at least for one night. But it’s a sugar high, and there won’t be much if anything remaining of it after a few hours.”

OurFuture.org’s Isaiah J. Poole slams Trump’s racism:
“[Trump] flung an amount of cynical racial exploitation and manipulation during his speech before a joint session of Congress Tuesday night that was unprecedented in recent memory … Without addressing the deep concerns communities of color have about police abuse of deadly force, Trump reprised a version of the law-and-order themes that dominated his campaign for the presidency … Even more pernicious was his use of African-American crime victims as poster images for his efforts to deport millions of black and brown immigrants who are living peaceably in our communities.”
Details, Details

Few immigration details. HuffPost:
“Hours before his speech to a joint session of Congress, the president reportedly told news anchors he was open to a legal status for some undocumented immigrants … Trump’s speech, however, gave no such indication, even though it mentioned immigration reform … The president only addressed one aspect of immigration legislation: the need to reform legal immigration to a ‘merit-based immigration system.’ … He discussed immigrants almost exclusively in the context of crime, terrorism and lowering Americans’ wages.”

Few health care details. HuffPost:
“…outside of some general platitudes that Trump has long endorsed, the president offered no new guidelines for a replacement to former President Barack Obama’s 2010 law … for the lawmakers actually familiar with the complexity of ‘replacing’ the Affordable Care Act, it was revealing that the president put the onus on Congress to resolve this issue. Compare that vague, lead-from-behind approach to Trump’s section on a tax overhaul, where he said, ‘My economic team is developing historic tax reform.'”

Few tax details. Bloomberg:
“President Donald Trump offered no new details of his plan to overhaul corporate and individual taxes — renewing questions about whether he supports a controversial proposal to tax U.S. companies’ imports while excluding their exports … Trump’s tax plans for individuals also remain to be clarified…”

“Donald Trump Goes All In for the Military-Industrial Complex” writes The Nation’s John Nichols:
“…the president imagined that the United States could cut taxes for wealthy Americans and corporations, rip tens of billions of dollars out of domestic programs (and diplomacy), hand that money over to the military-industrial complex, and somehow remain a functional and genuinely strong nation.”

Former Gov. Steve Beshear slams Trump in Democratic response. Politico:
“[He delivered] a direct shot at Trump’s support among working-class Americans, many of whom have benefited from the Affordable Care Act’s coverage expansion … ‘So far, every Republican idea to “replace” the Affordable Care Act would reduce the number of Americans covered, despite promises to the contrary,’ he said. ‘Mr. President, folks here in Kentucky expect you to keep your word. Because this isn’t a game — it’s life and death for people.'”
Back to (Not) Governing

“Republicans near make-or-break moment on Obamacare repeal” reports Politico:
“… Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has called a special all-members caucus meeting Wednesday to try and get his rowdy caucus in line … GOP leaders are facing pressure from both moderates and conservatives as they try to craft a bill … [They] are coming to grips with the growing possibility they’ll have to just put a repeal bill on the floor — and dare GOP lawmakers to vote no.”

Trump delays new travel ban. CNN:
“Signing the executive order Wednesday, as originally indicated by the White House, would have undercut the favorable coverage [from Trump’s address to Congress … ‘We want the (executive order) to have its own “moment,”‘ [a senior administration] official said.”

Trump’s trade representative on slow track to Senate confirmation. Canadian Press:
“…Robert Lighthizer’s approval as U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) could be delayed for months, amid partisan stalling and because past legal work for foreign governments means he needs a special waiver from Congress … Does that mean [NAFTA] talks might be held up for months? [Rep. Chris] Collins replied: ‘Yup.'”

Progressive Breakfast is a daily morning email highlighting news stories of interest to activists. Progressive Breakfast and OurFuture.org are projects of People's Action.

[Eric the Green]

Arizona Republicans Just Abandoned Bill To Criminalize Protesting Thanks To Public Outcry

BY COLIN TAYLOR

PUBLISHED ON FEBRUARY 28, 2017


The Arizona State legislature has elected to kill a bill that would criminalize protests in a huge victory for democracy in America.

Senate Bill 1142 would expand the state’s racketeering laws to include “rioting” but crucially expands the definition to include anyone planning a protest or planning to attend a protest, allowing the police to arrest them and seize their assets.

“What’s worse is that the person who may have broken a window, triggering the claim there was a riot, might actually not be a member of the group but someone from the other side” says Sen. Steve Farley (D-Tuscon).

Democrats complained that everything associated with rioting is already a crime and that this was nothing but an underhanded attempt to criminalize peaceful protest.

Sen. Andrea Dalessandro had a greater worry on the matter: “I’m fearful that ‘riot’ is in the eyes of the beholder and that this bill will apply more strictly to minorities and people trying to have their voice heard.”

After a loud public outcry, House Speaker J.D. Mesnard quickly backtracked off the bill and tried to pretend it never existed.

“I haven’t studied the issue or the bill itself, but the simple reality is that it created a lot of consternation about what the bill was trying to do. People believed it was going to infringe on really fundamental rights. The best way to deal with that was to put it to bed.”

Mesnard and his cronies need to be held accountable on election day for their attempt at undermining a fundamental pillar of American democracy. For now, the lesson we all can take from this is protest does work.

____

I note that People's Action mentioned that this kind of suppression might pass in some Republican-controlled states. Clearly unconstitutional stuff.

[Odin]

Stronger than Tea: The anti-Trump resistance is much bigger than the Tea Party — and it has to be

Quote:The anti-Trump resistance is not like the Tea Party, to which it is frequently compared. It’s much more serious, despite repeated denials in the mainstream media. True, it lacks a misleading, self-important moniker, and it’s only been around a few weeks or months, rather than years. But the Women’s March brought out more than 4 million people to more than 900 events on all seven continents. Tea Party protests on Tax Day in 2009 were an order of magnitude smaller in total, with the largest of them in the 10,000 range. Tea Party town halls didn’t gain steam until the August 2009 congressional recess, followed by the 9-12 rally that September, relentlessly hyped by Glenn Beck on Fox News, and falsely touted to have drawn 2 million people. It was really more like 70,000, as Nate Silver explained.  

Beyond all those particulars, the Tea Party was far more driven by outside money, organization and media promotion than the anti-Trump protests today. The Tea Party grew from more than 20 years of Astroturf organizing, financed largely by Big Tobacco, as well as Koch Brothers organizing, specifically employing the “Tea Party” brand since at least 2002. What’s more, its level of popular support was always more limited as well, rarely rising above 30 percent. It never represented a majoritarian point of view.  

Even within the GOP itself, non-Tea Party Republicans opposed Tea Party ideas on some of its core economic thinking, as Greg Sargent highlighted in January 2014 (“The Tea Party and the Hammock Theory of Poverty”). Most tellingly, Tea Party Republicans (and GOP leaners) overwhelmingly opposed raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour by 65 percent to 33 percent, while non-Tea Party Republicans and leaners overwhelmingly supported it by precisely the opposite ratio. The Tea Party represented an isolated minority that was wildly out of step with the rest of the country but wielded extraordinary power within a severely dysfunctional party and political system. There has been no comparable polling on the anti-Trump protests, but President Trump’s approval ratings remain well below 50 percent, so opposing him is clearly a majoritarian position.

The Tea Party’s power came from the ability of an organized anti-government minority to wreak havoc in an already long-gridlocked system. They basically don’t believe in governance, and our democracy is fragile enough that they have been able to start dismantling it, though nowhere near as rapidly or radically as they’d like. Anti-Trump protesters want to block the president’s agenda, clearly. But they’re definitely not anti-governance. To the contrary, they support significant enhancements in the effectiveness, responsiveness and scope of government to meet the challenges of the 21st century. They also embrace a much more diverse range of identities and confluence of movements.

It’s harder to build than to destroy, so the anti-Trump movement has a more difficult job before it, made even harder by the structures of American governance, the many veto points, and the enormous money power of the 1 percent. Facile comparisons that ignore these asymmetries misrepresent political reality, and serve to make the anti-Trump movement’s work even harder than it already is.  

While many mainstream pundits have equated the two movements, conservatives muddle things even more. A typical example is Rep. Raúl Labrador of Idaho, a House Freedom Caucus leader, who recently described the Tea Party as “a large group of people that organically got together eight years ago,” because they were upset with the Republican establishment as well as with President Obama. As Jane Mayer made clear in her book “Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right,” there was nothing organic about it:

Quote:Thomas Frank, author of “What’s the Matter with Kansas?”, had stopped by to see an early Tea Party rally in Lafayette Square, across from the White House, in February 2009. “It was very much a put-up job,” he concluded. “All the usual suspects were there, like Freedom Works, ‘Joe the Plumber’, and The American Spectator magazine. There were also some people who had Revolutionary War costumes and ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ flags, actual activists, and a few ordinary people,” he said. “But it was very well organized by the conservative groups. Back then, it was really obvious that it was put on, and they’d set it up. But then it caught on.” Frank argues that “the Tea Party wasn’t subverted,” as some have suggested. “It was born subverted.” Still, he said, “it’s a major accomplishment for sponsors like the Kochs that they’ve turned corporate self-interest into a movement among people on the streets.”

Make no mistake, it was a remarkable accomplishment, if one that also cost a lot of money. But it took the disastrous failures of the Bush administration, which destroyed the broader conservative brand, to provide an opening for the more radical Tea Party brand to catch on. The Democratic establishment has failed as well — though not as spectacularly, and not around a clearly articulated and agreed-upon ideological identity. But that failure reached a new crisis point with the election of Donald Trump, which in turn led to the anti-Trump movement. Here we can see one true point in common: Like the Tea Party, the anti-Trump resistance is a response to the failures of both parties.

Another symmetry is the influx of new activism and newly created organizations, alongside older, more established ones. Writing for the Hill recently, Heath Brown, author of a book about the Tea Party, argued that the Tea Party displayed “two important dimensions,” which he claimed the anti-Trump movement lacked: First, “bold imagery and clear symbolism,” and second, “the formation of a vast network of new organizations,” numbering around 1,000, citing the work of Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson. Brown’s first point is valid, though it actually illustrates my thesis about how deeply asymmetrical the two movements are. The Koch brothers’ organizations have been fooling around with that imagery, symbolism and faux history since at least 2002, and even before that in embryonic form.

But the second point is simply false. First of all, by 2012, the number of Tea Party groups had declined to 600, Skocpol said, though she considered that “a very good survival rate.” In contrast, today new anti-Trump groups are quickly growing. The Indivisible Guide website has a geographically organized directory of groups, that “are wholly independent; they are listed provided they agree to resist Trump’s agenda, focus on local, defensive congressional advocacy, and embrace progressive values.” Within 50 miles of my home in Los Angeles, there are 238 groups listed, of which 66 begin with “Indivisible” in their names — the bare minimum of new organizations. But that’s just L.A., what do you expect? Well, there are at least eight identifiably new groups within 50 miles of Omaha, six in and around Boise, Idaho, and 19 within 50 miles of Paul Ryan’s home district in Janesville, Wisconsin. And that’s just groups affiliated under one umbrella. There is no doubt that the Trump resistance is forming new organizations at a high rate, just as the Tea Party did — only much faster.

But the similarities are not as important as the differences, which can only be fully appreciated in terms of the much broader, long-standing asymmetry of American politics, laid out in detail by Matt Grossmann and David A. Hopkins in their book “Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats“ (my Salon story here). In a nutshell, the Tea Party represented a re-visioning of conservative politics in the wake of George W. Bush’s disastrous presidency, in line with the traditional ideological nature of the GOP, with its historical emphasis on who is a “true conservative,” who is most pure, most “principled,” most extreme, etc. Given how thoroughly Bush’s conservative project had failed, a complete makeover was imperative.

In contrast, the anti-Trump protests reflect the diverse nature of groups particularly interested in specific sorts of policies, rather than the ideologies used to justify or explain them. That diversity plays a much more significant role in the Democratic Party, and the broader political culture around and beyond it. The fragmentary nature of the Democratic coalition — as well as inherent tensions with its affluent funders — has created a very different history of relations between the party establishment and its activist base and the larger populations they represent. At the same time, the core policies that these activists push for have much broader support than the policies that conservative activists push. It is only in the realm of broad ideology, and the rhetoric spread around it, that conservatives can hope to gain majority support.

For example, as I pointed out in July 2015, Bernie Sanders embraced a full-throated progressive agenda that had very high levels of popular support. The “Big Ideas” poll commissioned by the Progressive Change Institute generated a long list of policies supported by 70 percent of the public or more, all of which were generally in line with Sanders’ agenda. They ranged from universal pre-K (77 percent) to an end to gerrymandering (73 percent), to debt-free college at public universities, a $400 billion annual infrastructure jobs program and Medicare buy-in for all (71 percent each).  

This magnitude of support for progressive policies is one side of the fundamental asymmetry of American politics, and a clear source of strength for progressives courageous enough to rally behind them. One root cause of this asymmetry was first uncovered by Lloyd Free and Hadley Cantril in their landmark 1967 book, “The Political Beliefs of Americans: A Study of Public Opinion,” which found that half the population qualified as ideological conservatives, based on questions about government interference and individual initiative, while two-thirds of the population were operationally liberal, supporting an activist federal government when asked about specific programs or responsibilities — stable or increased federal government spending on education, housing and urban renewal, adoption of Lyndon Johnson’s Medicare proposal, and the government’s responsibility to fight poverty.

In the last section of their book, titled “The Need for a Restatement of American Ideology,” Free and Cantril wrote:

Quote:The paradox of a large majority of Americans qualifying as operational liberals while at the same time a majority hold to a conservative ideology has been repeatedly emphasized in this study. We have described this state of affairs as mildly schizoid, with people believing in one set of principles abstractly while acting according to another set of principles in their political behavior. But the principles according to which the majority of Americans actually behave politically have not yet been adequately formulated in modern terms …

There is little doubt that the time has come for a restatement of American ideology to bring it in line with what the great majority of people want and approve. Such a statement, with the right symbols incorporated, would focus people’s wants, hopes, and beliefs, and provide a guide and platform to enable the American people to implement their political desires in a more intelligent, direct, and consistent manner.

As I’ve noted before, that restatement was never mounted. If we’d had it, it would have sounded a lot like Dr. Martin Luther King’s call for the Poor People’s Campaign, or like Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign. Instead, almost the opposite happened: Conservative ideology gained ascendency within the political class, pushing the country’s politics to the right. Racist reaction against the gains of the Civil Rights Movement played a significant role as well. More broadly, we can point to the more complex historical processes — of which increased economic inequality is just one highly significant example — associated with the turn toward a disintegrative, conflictual trend in American society, as described in Peter Turchin’s “Ages of Discord,” which I reviewed here last October. Those trends should peak sometime after 2020, providing an opening for more integrative, prosocial forces to gain traction — which is why there could still be a chance for that hoped-for restatement.

But as long as conservative ideology retains such a hold, there’s a strong tendency even for progressives to present their policies in a framework that reflects conservative assumptions, at least implicitly. Such an ideologically impaired presentation inevitably weakens progressive arguments, giving credence to all manner of false arguments. This is precisely the legacy of neoliberalism, as advanced by Bill and Hillary Clinton in the 1980s and ’90s, which was challenged repeatedly among both parties during last year’s election campaign.

To her credit, Hillary Clinton evolved in a much more progressive direction over the course of the campaign, but the lasting impact of neoliberal ideology goes far beyond any one political figure. The struggle to overcome that lasting impact will be one of the most important determinants of whether the anti-Trump movement ultimately succeeds — not just in stopping Trump, but in solving the festering problems that gave rise to Trump in the first place. In the best-case scenario, it will finally succeed in crafting “a restatement of American ideology to bring it in line with what the great majority of people want and approve.” It seems like such a simple, straightforward and obvious thing to do.

[pbrower2a]

The anti-Trump resistance must be bigger than the Tea Party, and for good reasons. First, Donald Trump has the majority of an authoritarian Establishment on its side -- people who hold that people whose beliefs are contrary to theirs deserves to be rendered permanently irrelevant. Second, Donald Trump is a dictator, and he has the legislative branch under control. The only questions about the Trump dictatorship are of its competence and ruthlessness. Third, an American dictatorship would be difficult to escape and could get away from much.

So we have no heritage of executive despotism? Neither did the Germans going into 1933.

Except for those Americans who have first-hand experience under a dictatorial regime we don't fully understand what we are dealing with. (OK, blacks of a certain age in the Jim Crow South... but that would now be people over age 60 who might know the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission as a KGB-like organization in the service of segregation).

[Kinser79]

(03-12-2017, 01:56 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The anti-Trump resistance must be bigger than the Tea Party, and for good reasons.

Do you have any numbers for this? From what I've seen its mostly wing nuts screeching in the streets. I've been to Tea Party events and Occupy events. I'm not seeing anything similar to Trump. Or is this just wishful thinking?

Quote: First, Donald Trump has the majority of an authoritarian Establishment on its side

And yet it is the Democrats and their darlings in Tech who want to censor the internet, even censor the President himself. Are you sure it is the GOP that has an Authoritarian Establishment? I mean there are authoritarians in the GOP but they are in the DEMs too. But whose calling for censorship and who isn't?

That's a rhetorical question.

Quote:-- people who hold that people whose beliefs are contrary to theirs deserves to be rendered permanently irrelevant.

Strange, I don't recall any Tea Partiers or hell even all 5 of the Klansmen in the country calling for punching communists, yet "it's no crime to punch a nazi" (never mind that while there are nazis around they clearly are not the likes of Milo Yiannopolos a gay jew who won't shut up about black cock).

Quote: Second, Donald Trump is a dictator, and he has the legislative branch under control. The only questions about the Trump dictatorship are of its competence and ruthlessness. Third, an American dictatorship would be difficult to escape and could get away from much.

Obama had the legislative branch under his control from 09-11. I notice you didn't call him a dictator then. Sure the GOP hacks on the board certainly did, but you didn't.

So then if Obama can have Congress in the control of his party, and be president and not be a dictator then how come Trump is a dictator under the same conditions? Because he's not on your particular team?

Partisan hack detected. Don't feel bad--it isn't news to anyone.

Quote:So we have no heritage of executive despotism? Neither did the Germans going into 1933.

Are you sure about that? Kaiser Willhelm II ran a pretty tight ship, as did Bismark before him. Or is that Fake History?

Quote:Except for those Americans who have first-hand experience under a dictatorial regime we don't fully understand what we are dealing with. (OK, blacks of a certain age in the Jim Crow South... but that would now be people over age 60 who might know the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission as a KGB-like organization in the service of segregation).

I know lots of people who have first hand experience with dictatorships--primarily Latin Americans but my Neighbor Lady survived the Holocaust (yeah she's pretty old but we check up on her...nice lady). Both types of such persons have detected no dictatorships.

I'm sorry PBR but to put it quite simply mature democracies have no history of reverting to autocracies. No matter how much anyone may wish for that to happen.