Making America Great part 2

White House releases budget proposal. I would like to know how cutting Meals on Wheels, a small program that keeps seniors from starving in their homes, makes America great again.

"In addition to the cuts at the E.P.A. and the State Department, Mr. Trump’s team is expected to propose a wide array of cuts to public education, to transportation programs like Amtrak and to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, including the complete elimination of the $3 billion Community Development Block Grant program, which funds popular programs like Meals on Wheels, housing assistance and other community assistance efforts."

Donald Trump Budget Slashes Funds for E.P.A. and State Department https://nyti.ms/2noIrxS

Oh, and guess what? Mexico ain't paying for that wall. I know we're all surprised.

Trump’s Border Wall Gets Billions in Budget Proposal https://nyti.ms/2m3E4YQ

This is essentially a prodeath budget that slashes lifesaving programs to fund war, war, war. https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-16/trump-proposes-historic-c...

More refugees since WW2, famine looming in several countries, inevitable hurricanes and earthquakes--
surely Americans viewing the inevitable sad images will oppose cuts to World Food Program, UNICEF, UN High Commission for Refugees?
Such cuts would make us something, alright, but not "great"!

Alarm bells ring for charities as Trump pledges to slash foreign aid budget
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/trump-budget-foreign-aid/

>3 sturlington: "to fund war, war, war" You mean to fund wealthy - defense contractors, defense contractors,defense contractors. The Department of Defense has actually cut their requests for funding in recent years and talking heads on CNBC say they might have trouble spending all the money.

Barny Frank mentioned that Senator John McCain {POW in Vietnam} is disappointed that the State Dept. cuts {"The State Department would be hit with a 28 percent reduction below fiscal 2016 levels that mainly targets international aid and development assistance; "} are being made with the implication that diplomacy is the way out of the current problems we are engaged in.

Former US Rep. Barny Frank went on to clarify that "new hardware" - boats, planes, guns will not help us anywhere as we already have plenty of those. Trump is pumping money into his rich friends who own the military industrial complex {my words} .

Frank also mentioned that soon Trump will need to say that short time deficit is not something to worry about, reversing his campaign rants. Also Trump's complaints about "the fiscal mess he inherited" is BS because he has the best economy since Clinton handed off a better than balanced budget, with a profit, to Bush.

::edited some repetitive words etc.:: - where are those proof readers???

> 'I would like to know how...makes America great again.'

The list of fillers for that must be over 100 by now.

>5 DugsBooks:

‘Let the gull’d fool the toils of war pursue,
Where bleed the many to enrich the few.
Where Chance from Courage claims the boasted prize;
Where, though she give, your country oft denies.’

--William Shenstone, From The Judgement of Hercules

Budget cuts will fall hardest on rural and small town communities Trump won. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/16/if-youre-a-poor-person-in...

According to the White House budget director, these programs like meals on wheels and after school programs to feed poor children should be cut because they "don't get results." Just disgusted. Keeping our most vulnerable citizens from going hungry is not a good enough result?

>9 sturlington: maybe we should cut the secret service details on whomever they are protecting. It's not like they "get results." They are hardly ever asked to step in front of a bullet.

>9 sturlington: would dysentery be a result?

>9 sturlington: Apparently those people got hungry again, so poor results?

The last thing we need as far as infrastructure investment is a fucking wall between us and Mexico. What we could use infrastructure investment on is roads, bridges etc.--things that could positively impact lives instead of playing to some people's idiotic fears. The truth is many bridges around this country are in very sad shape and have been neglected for far too long.

>13 lriley: So you're anti-wall, eh? Madre de dios!

#14--bridges better than walls.

Where did they get this guy? He is Tarkin-level evil.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2017/03/running-list-heartless-statements-abou...

Everyone who talked about how Clinton would be "just as bad" as Trump, you own this. This budget is on you. The people who will be hurt by these cuts are paying the price for your childish stompy-feet tantrum. This is your responsibility. I hope you are happy.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. It's Congress who decides what the budget will be; what the President puts out is only a suggestion and not often followed at all closely.

>18 jjwilson61: That's true. What they have accomplished today is making themselves look spectacularly heartless and given the opposition all kinds of fodder against them.

>17 StormRaven: Everyone who talked about how Clinton would be "just as bad" as Trump, you own this. This budget is on you.

Amen.

Even if the budget is completely revised by Congress, it still reveals who these people are. Everyone associated with Trump just seems evil. Almost cartoonish.

>17 StormRaven: Wow! A man who used to be reserved and to the point on LT is throwing a tantrum of his own:

'Everyone who talked about how Clinton would be "just as bad" as Trump, you own this. This budget is on you. The people who will be hurt by these cuts are paying the price for your childish stompy-feet tantrum. This is your responsibility. I hope you are happy.'

The problem is that such turds as 'you own this' and 'this budget is on you' and 'I hope you are happy' are sub-adolescent and do nothing to actually address the problem. Sure, Clinton would have likely had a budget we could stomach, but right now the problem seems to be 1) How to prevent this from happening; and 2) What went wrong and why? Anyone who followed the campaign, even those Democrats who could not stomach Clinton, would have given Trump very little chance of getting 30% of the vote, especially after the 'pussy grabbing' tape. Why did he win? How did he win? Jill Stein didn't do it. So what's really wrong over there and what can be done about it.

If Congress goes with Trump's budget proposal, it will be a bloodbath, Honey Badger Bannon's dearest wish. We will all notice loss of services taken for granted. I was heartened to hear my knuckle-dragging rep unexpectedly speak up for a program, but he and other Republicans will like a lot of Dirty Don's proposed cuts....

See table
Agencies Affected by Proposed 2018 Budget Cuts
at http://www.myfederalretirement.com/public/2018-budget-retirement.cfm

The full budget PROPOSAL (62 p) can be read at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/2018_blu...

Look out, entitlements:

...Conservatives are also skeptical that Trump’s budget will significantly reduce the deficit. The only way to accomplish that, they argue, is to overhaul entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. Those programs, along with other mandatory spending, help make up nearly two-thirds of all federal spending while Trump’s proposal only targets a third of it. | But Trump promised during the campaign that those programs, including Medicaid, would not be touched...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/capitol-hill-republicans-not-on-board-w...

What went wrong? Washington, DC is out of touch with the most of America and Trump the populist played to it. IMO, most Americans were sick and tired of politics as usual and, sadly, they thought Trump would be different. He's different alright in a very scary way.

One of the most dangerous problems we have in this country is the duopoly of the Democratic and Republican Parties who's only interest is maintaining their power base. It's insidious and a cancer on our country. Primaries should be open to all registered voters and not by party, campaigns should be funded where EVERYONE gets the same amount by putting all contributions into a general fund and split evenly between candidates for office, and somehow, neuter the lobbying industry.

I recommend the Independent Voter Network (IVN). It's non-partisan and is pushing for fairness in elections and to end government corruption.

Attacks on climate change programs are pound-foolish, from defense perspective:

Trump’s defense chief cites climate change as national security challenge
By Andrew Revkin, ProPublicaMar. 14, 2017 , 1:00 PM
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/trump-s-defense-chief-cites-climate-chang...
______________________________________________

Also pound-foolish, defunding of science. Article below has some details by agency on proposed cuts:

White House budget plan would slash science
Fiscal 2018 proposal calls for deep cuts in spending for EPA, NIH and other agencies

...Among the biggest science losers are the Environmental Protection Agency, which could see its budget shrink by 31 percent compared with 2017, and the National Institutes of Health, which faces an 18 percent spending slash. The Department of Energy’s Office of Science could lose about 17 percent of its funding while DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E — which supports research on promising energy technologies — faces complete elimination.

The bare-bones budget blueprint leaves out figures altogether for many science-related agencies. It doesn’t even mention, for example, the National Science Foundation, a major source of federal funding for basic research across scientific disciplines. NSF is currently operating on a $7.5 billion budget. Full breakdowns aren't available for most departments, so there's no information on what's to come for such programs as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (part of the Department of Commerce), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (part of the Department of the Interior) and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA (part of the Department of Defense). More details for these and other omitted agencies may be included in a full budget proposal that the White House expects to release in May...

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/white-house-budget-plan-would-slash-science

I was reading a load of articles this morning that dealt with Trumps proposed cuts to, or even complete defunding, of various agencies/programs. While some like NPR, PBS, and "the arts" stuff will be looked at by a lot of his supporters as "that highbrow shit no one needs", a LOT of the rest is stuff many of them count on to help them, or someone they know, survive. He's even proposing cuts to aspects of the SBA, INCLUDING disaster relief assistance. (So much for being pro business I guess.)

While, as was said above, these are just his proposals that have to go thru congress and are likely to be modified, you really have to wonder about some of them, and his "justifications" for them. Especially coming from a man who said he was going to do everything he could to HELP many of the people his proposals will hurt.

And as for his wanting to up the size of the navy? An article I read said it'll take YEARS to ramp up production to the point he wants. The skilled help needed to build all those ships doesn't currently exist, and there's the added problem of a lot of the workers would have to pass a security clearance which would cut the pool of available workers even more.

Does the Trump administration believe that the Meals-on-Wheels program is a failure because elders continue to die???

Does the Trump administration believe that the Meals-on-Wheels program is a failure because elders continue to die???

Either that, or they consider it a failure because seniors continue to need to eat.

Moronic and Nazi-flavoured sloganeering as the official title of an actual government document:



I thought Dubya scribbling biblical quotations on papers relating to the invasion of Iraq was the lowest moral and intellectual point someone holding his office could sink to, but I was wrong.

>29 LolaWalser: Don't worry, we will all forget about this once we go to war with North Korea (and China?) and the great big war machine starts up again.

>30 sturlington:

But what if that is called something stupid too?

Speaking of which, how funny is it that I didn't believe for days that "World's Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017" was indeed the OFFICIAL name of the Republican document? Okay, not very--but WHAT IS IT with this admin's penchant for kindergarten-speak?!

How can anyone out of grade school not cringe? If everything else fails, if nothing matters because one is amoral or immoral or evil or rich or a white man--isn't it at least a tiny bit embarrassing to be addressed by and as a complete moron?

Has anyone labelled it the Rich American's First budget yet?

>29 LolaWalser: >31 LolaWalser: What if all this is more 'naturally' US American than we want to think? What if this is an inevitability? Reagan seemed inconceivable at the time he was first elected. So did Bush.

>28 StormRaven: No, I think their just taking a page from Mao's playbook - let them die, note the decline in reports of people starving and report the decline as additional proof of how well the new policies are working.

>17 StormRaven:

"Everyone who talked about how Clinton would be "just as bad" as Trump, you own this. This budget is on you. The people who will be hurt by these cuts are paying the price for your childish stompy-feet tantrum. This is your responsibility. I hope you are happy."

Neo-liberal pseudo-left fake "democrats" "own this." Their pig-stubborn stupidity and ignorance-- The Donald is our dream-opponent!, Let's see, what color should the drapes in the state dining room be?, Concession speech? Why should I draft that?! It's my turn. Barrack and I have a deal. Any woman who doesn't support "I'm with her" has a special place in Hell, & etc.

those idiots "own this" and, frankly, they _very_ smugly and cynically manipulated the processes to leave better alternatives twisting in the wind. So, while not "happy", it's in all seriousness a terrible but absolutely required hard lesson that is being dealt here.

Those and the many idiot motherfuckers who refuse to see what was painstakingly explained and predicted to them early on--they own this. Like it or not. Don't want hard-as-Hell life lessons? Don't be friggin' idiots. I know, that's really complicated, but there you are.

Neo-liberal pseudo-left fake "democrats" "own this." Their pig-stubborn stupidity and ignorance-- The Donald is our dream-opponent!, Let's see, what color should the drapes in the state dining room be?, Concession speech? Why should I draft that?! It's my turn. Barrack and I have a deal. Any woman who doesn't support "I'm with her" has a special place in Hell, & etc.

Your invented narrative about "neo-liberal pseudo-left democrats" is the problem, and you've demonstrated that quite well with the raving lunatic stupidity of your response. Let's see the specific quotes backing up your lunatic claims. No vague hand-waving allowed. And no, no one "manipulated the process". We've gone over this time and again, and continuing to repeat this lie just makes you look stupider every time.

You're drooling on the carpet again. This budget is on you. You are responsible for the people who will suffer and die because of this budget. The best thing you and others who think like you can do for the republic would be to simply die before the next election. The people who won't be killed by your intransigence and foot-stompy tantrums would thank you for that service.

Almost the entire upper management of both the democratic and republican parties can be categorized as either neoliberal or neoconservative--all corporate friendly, all Wall St. friendly, all banker friendly and that includes Trump. He just has his own version of it--unless you don't think that Cheney and Bush didn't want to take away meals on wheels? Of course they did. It's all about how to make the already wealthy even wealthier. Lavish parties, tuxedos and gowns and bling--all outward signs of the decadent rich. Something for us plebs to look up to. The saving grace for the democrats is there are some congress people and even a few Senators who have been putting up some resistance to these trends--whether it's fighting against our corporate happy trade bills or for nationalized health care for everyone or against the oil and fracking companies polluting the fuck out of the world.

Hopefully Warren will stop wasting her time twittering with the orange fuckhead and get down to business because IMO she's the best hope--at least if she wants to be. She was the best hope this last time but declined to run and then sat on her hands when she could have done something Kennedyesque and possibly put Sanders over the top.

>36 StormRaven:

RE: "The best thing you and others who think like you can do for the republic would be to simply die before the next election. The people who won't be killed by your intransigence and foot-stompy tantrums would thank you for that service."

After you! This is your responsibility--you and others like you gave us Trump. Now you're stuck with him and you still can't figure out the goddamn obvious that's right under your frigging noses. So you so very truly and richly deserve this shit. You've more than earned it.

And, before I close, get this: until you can connect dot "A" to dot "B" and figure out the nursery-school political level, get used to the likes of Trump and worse since, until you and others like you get a fucking clue, you're going to be seeing more of them and living with them in charge.

And as for ranting and raving and "drooling", that's what I've been silently (untill today) watching this pathetic lot of you do--feckless wonders! Trump neither knows nor cares that you even exist.

You have a fucking Hell of a lot to learn and we have _zero_ indication of your ability to learn any of it. You made this mess so now you live in it. "Happy" or not, some of us see some tragic justice in that since you and yours wouldn't do shit in common-cause with the rest of us.

Enjoy the Trump administration. Trump, perhaps better than anyone, knows how much he really owes to your ilk.

Almost the entire upper management of both the democratic and republican parties can be categorized as either neoliberal or neoconservative--all corporate friendly, all Wall St. friendly, all banker friendly and that includes Trump.

Like it or not, corporations and banks are vital parts of the U.S. economy, and taking their interests into account to some degree is going to be necessary for any politician. Even the most radical elected officials agree that they have a place in the U.S. economy, and that their contributions cannot be completely ignored.

He just has his own version of it--unless you don't think that Cheney and Bush didn't want to take away meals on wheels? Of course they did.

They may have. They didn't. We know that those democrats that you despise don't want to do so, because they not only haven't, they have worked to expand such programs when the opportunity arose.

The saving grace for the democrats is there are some congress people and even a few Senators who have been putting up some resistance to these trends--whether it's fighting against our corporate happy trade bills or for nationalized health care for everyone or against the oil and fracking companies polluting the fuck out of the world.

Imagine if you have a president who wasn't opposed to national health care, and who would reconsider their support for trade agreements when presented with rational arguments, and who would be willing to impose limits on energy companies and promote clean energy alternatives. Oh wait, that would have been Clinton, and in your world she's an evil "neoliberal".

Hopefully Warren will stop wasting her time twittering with the orange fuckhead and get down to business because IMO she's the best hope--at least if she wants to be.

Warren is as "neoliberal" as all of the people you decry. You just haven't paid attention to her in that way because you want to be able to scream about how terrible those "other" Democrats are.

Your support for Warren while screaming about "neoliberals" is evidence for just how meaningless the term "neoliberal" is. It is just an epithet you like to throw around about people you don't like, but it is an empty term to indicate anything other than the fact that anyone who uses it in earnest is someone who's political arguments can be safely ignored because they are an idiot.

After you! This is your responsibility--you and others like you gave us Trump.

No, it is not. It is on you, people who had a valid and reasonable alternative, but threw a foot-stompy temper tantrum based upon a collection of lies, deceptions, and conspiracy theories.

You have a fucking Hell of a lot to learn and we have _zero_ indication of your ability to learn any of it. You made this mess so now you live in it.

Sorry, I'm not taking any "lessons" from a conspiracy theory loving nutjob who spreads lies and falsehoods every time they speak. I note that you haven't bothered to try and back up any of your claims about those "neo-liberal pseudo-left democrats", and I think it is because you know that if you do, you will be embarrassed. Again. Because then, the utter stupidity of the basis for your claims will be exposed. Again.

Instead, you'll froth at the mouth and do what you always do: Dodge, weave, evade, dissemble, and lie. It is all you have.

I sometimes hope that you get the political revolution that you keep dreaming of, because history tells us that the first people up against the wall might be guys like Trump, but the second set are going to be people like you.

>37 lriley: Hang in there Iriley, you're the sane voice among the three in the ring.

>39 StormRaven: 'Like it or not, corporations and banks are vital parts of the U.S. economy, and taking their interests into account to some degree is going to be necessary for any politician. Even the most radical elected officials agree that they have a place in the U.S. economy, and that their contributions cannot be completely ignored.'

And that is exactly why you and your people, who appear to be conservative Democrats, mainstream Democrats, whipped and beaten Democrats don't inspire people who want change. Corporations and banks of course are vital to the economy, but it is not vital that they are part of an oligarchic empire. It is not vital that they contribute to the grotesque maldistribution of income such as that in the US.

Oh, and by change, what I mean is, if I were still living in that shithole, change back to a modicum of fairness in daily economic life. Progressive income tax somewhat like in the 70s. Cheap university education, or free. And of course from there real change could be fought for on the health care front. But listening to you, I give up. You are not one to inspire faith in any politics you support. Your message is, basically, So What. or Could be Worse.

It's really, really hard for me to buy on any level the argument that the Democrats were not far left enough so Americans voted Nazis into the White House out of spite, yet I keep seeing this same take.

I would like to see the hateful language, exemplified in Post #38, banned from this site. No one should have to put up with a disgraceful outburst like this in a public forum. Is there not some form of oversight that would strike these items from the record?

>42 sturlington: It's hard for me to buy on any level any reason I have seen for the latest election going the way it did and it disgusts me to see language like 'it's on you' from anyone. If my #41 slipped into that at all I withdraw parts that did. I am just tired of such feeble tantrums from both sides, and particularly with assaults on those whose conscience told them to vot FOR someone rather than against.

>43 ivanfranko: There is an effective enough TOS and comments can be flagged and taken down. But I think what you are seeing between these two is in the democratic US tradition, actually, though neither are among the best rhetoricians of all time. And there is the argument that the substance of a slightly kinder post is uglier than the language of another. I find >17 StormRaven: to be among the ugliest posts I have ever read, but there is no reason it should not be seen. We ARE, after adults here.
'No one should have to put up with a disgraceful outburst like this in a public forum.' This is perhaps satirical, and if so, good joke and sorry I missed it at first.

>43 ivanfranko: When hateful language regularly trumps content, I click poster's name and BLOCK. I think it also hides previous posts? I am rarely tempted to peek at messages from blocked person (as is option), and others' responses to such posters usually confirms my decisions to block and not peek. Once I just needed a holiday from a particular fellow, but he had left LT by the time his "probation" was up. ;-)

>44 RickHarsch: Agree that the "it's on you" language is not helpful. I feel angry and frustrated about what's happening too, but Trump is a con man who played a lot of people. It's time to stop relitigating the election and deal with what's happening now.

>45 margd: Absolutely an effective strategy!

#39--on the subject of health care Hillary weighed in on that---that it would be too much of a bother to change the ACA as is. And the problem with the ACA is it left big Pharma and health insurance companies in charge of cost which made it lot closer to Romneycare than to what Hillary herself was fighting for back when Bill was president. Nice try but you're moving the goal posts. As far as her reconsidering her stances on trade agreements I simply don't believe that one. As far as Warren being a typical neoliberal--if you say so.

I find it interesting by the way that everyone you don't agree with is screaming or throwing tantrums. Really? If anyone is screaming--I'm sorry but it's you.

>46 sturlington: Agree that the "it's on you" language is not helpful.

Unlike, I think, StormRaven and some others, I don't actually hold people who voted third party (or not at all) accountable for Trump. I am 100% in favor of people voting their conscience. The only people I hold accountable for Trump are the people who voted for him.

But I live in a state that is in the throws of an extended and painful political identity crisis --shifting from red to blue to red, simultaneously hosting some of the most progressive communities I've ever seen, and also passing some of the most bigoted legislation proposed in my lifetime in 11th hour secret special sessions.

And thus I know plenty of "good, decent people" who held their noses and voted for Trump because they were caught up in the rhetoric of that identity crisis to such an extent that they ignored their own basic values, buried their own better natures, rationalized his terrible behavior, and disregarded the likely consequences of his all too blatant scapegoating, fear mongering, and shallow pandering to the worst feelings within us.

They weren't tricked. Trump has always been exactly what we see -- there's no hidden depths there, none at all. So yeah, I hold people who voted for him accountable for him. Especially the ones who say they weren't voting for Trump, they were voting against Clinton. It was their votes. It on them.

And I don't feel moved to empathize with their reasons or excuse their votes on the grounds that they were afraid for their future. God knows right now I am afraid for the future of me and mine.

>48 southernbooklady: Seeing as we live in the same state, I totally get where you're coming from. I have been wrestling with this since the election. Members of my family fall into that category of "good, decent people." The resurgence of hate I see right now has saddened and frightened me.

I will say one thing about this election: we know who's who now.

But here we are. I don't think it does any good now to go over and over the same ground again. I see some evidence that some people who voted for Trump are coming to rethink and regret their decision--that's good. But I don't think we make much progress in opposing his policies by continuing to yell at the people who voted for him. Neither do we have to try to empathize with or understand them. Either they'll come around on their own or they are who they are, so forget them (to put it politely).

The pundits been obsessed with Trump voters, but it's not as complicated as all the analyses have made it out to be (just as Trump, Bannon, et al. aren't playing multidimensional chess). I agree, the hidden depths are not there. Many of these people just aren't that smart. That's it. I'm not excusing their bigotry. They were sold a bill of goods that they would get "taken care of" because they're the "right people" and the other "takers" would get shut out. And in that sense, they were conned. But a toddler could have seen through the con. They played themselves, really, so they could continue to stick their heads in the sand and make believe that all the jobs aren't going away and that the culture isn't fundamentally changing, whether they want it to or not.

(That lets out all the people who voted for him because they're fundamentally selfish and they don't want to pay a cent in taxes more than they have to, even if it means tearing our entire society down. But those are the more traditional Republicans.)

A whole lot of people didn't vote this election. Our state and many others are gerrymandered to death and have restrictive voting laws, which makes it harder for many people to vote, as you well know. I think that's where we should focus our efforts. If there is anything good that has come out of this situation, I see that a lot of people are energized and mobilized. People aren't going to roll over for all this shit.

Yeah, merely exchanging insults online (or off for that matter) is pointless time-wasting, that's why I ignore the idiot brigade here.

But I think there's a danger to ignoring them in real life.

I don't think anyone should forget for a second not only who voted for and supported Trump but also what kind of rhetoric and things were said about Clinton, because all of that is still with you, those people are still with you, that language, opinions, mode of action are still with you.

I see no remorse or regret on the part of those who wanted to "burn the witch" and without that it's impossible to work with them against Trump. It's impossible to believe that they are, in fact, against Trump.

I am 100% in favor of people voting their conscience.

In theory it sounds great, but presumably everyone, even scum up to and including Hitler or Steve Bannon, has a right to vote their conscience. Let's remember the bigots who invoke conscience to oppress others. In practice, the preferences of one's conscience make a difference.

And what about those who WANTED to see everything burn to the ground, who WANT Trump to destroy everything? Who think that is the path to building a better society?

I see little difference between that position and the intentions of those who invaded Iraq despite the carnage and misery that was bound to cause. Both have justifications in some remote "better" future. Both inflict coldly pain and misery in the present. On some other people, of course. Blacks can suffer--what, are whites supposed to care? Women can suffer--are men supposed to care? Foreigners, Muslims, gays--what, "we" are supposed to care?

I think these things should be remembered because only constant reminding can prompt necessary re-examination of one's opinions, motives and, yes, conscience.

So those who thought invasion of Iraq was justified because that was the way to democratise it and remove the evil of Saddam's tyranny, should have their faces rubbed, metaphorically at least, in the blood of the dead. Daily. They should be told daily about the millions killed and fleeing. They should look daily at the pictured of cities flattened in the wake of their votes, their support, their troops. And asked how the balance of good and evil looks to them now.

Same with Trump and those who support him directly and indirectly. They should be made to face reminders of what they wrought daily. That's still far from the effect of their actions the victims have to live with...

on the subject of health care Hillary weighed in on that---that it would be too much of a bother to change the ACA as is.

That's not what she said. You are, at this point, simply lying. There is no other word for it. You are lying about Clinton to make yourself feel better.

As far as her reconsidering her stances on trade agreements I simply don't believe that one.

Why not? What is unique about her position on this that "you don't believe it", when she's clearly changed positions on other issues and stuck with it? Perhaps you don't trust her because you are comfortable lying, and you are projecting.

I find it interesting by the way that everyone you don't agree with is screaming or throwing tantrums.

You could start by not lying. That would be new for you.

I think many of those who voted for third parties or abstained did so because they genuinely believed the polls and their overwhelming pointing to a Clinton win. (Hell, one of the most insanely rabid "Killarians" in this forum started a thread about impeaching Clinton before of after inauguration, weeks--or was it months?--before the election. Now, I know nothing on earth could have changed THAT so-called mind, but it goes to show how widespread was the conviction that she'd win.)

I also think some fraction of those who supported Trump, overtly or covertly, didn't truly expect him to be, well, him. Those people I can't forgive, because what Trump was doing and saying was already way beyond the threshold of acceptable. All that pussy-grabbing meant nothing to them. Well, I hope they get to feel their balls, such as they are, twisted off slowly over the next four years.

I'm not interested in pointing fingers at the left or right for the mess we're in right now. We have Trump because he won. We don't have Hillary because... any number of reasons, but I blame the Democrat Party first and foremost. I could not in good conscience vote for Hillary because if I'd done what she'd done (mishandling classified, personal server, etc.) I'd be out of a job for sure (and rightly so) and probably prosecuted. I could not vote for half of the Republican candidates because of their policies and vitriol. So I voted for a third party candidate for president because I thought he was the best qualified and the least divisive. Before anyone jumps down my throat, it didn't make a difference. The state's electoral votes still went to Hillary.

I'm sick and tired of the status quo we have between the Republican and Democrat parties. The parties are betraying the people because they only care about their power base and not the voters. IMO, a lot of people voted for Trump because he was a political outsider. He was the anti-politician populist. So now Trump is elected and we're in the process of discovering that Trump is the same or worse than other politicians. He's hired his old cronies, he's staffed his cabinet with big money, and he's commencing a scorched earth policy.

Which leads me to the question, what now? How are we going to get out of the mess we're in? How are we going to bring integrity back to our country?

>53 pmackey:

I'm a foreigner with no vested interest in any of your political parties. My only interest, but extremely intense, is in the impact the US has on the globe we all share.

From that POV, here is the problem with your attitude: you "blame the Democrat Party first and foremost" and--it seems--want nothing to do with them. And yet Trump is riding behind the Republican banner, buoyed by an unprecedented Republican domination of Congress, and enjoying astronomical approval in the Republican camp.

Now, do you have any party other than the Democrats--whom you blame first and foremost, and want nothing to do with--who could take up battle with the Republicans?

I don't see it. So who exactly and how is supposed to take on Trumpism?

Can you organise a third party from scratch? From grassroots, embers of Occupy, weekend protests, anything? I'm wondering, not being rhetorical. Can you do it before the mid-term elections?

I could not in good conscience vote for Hillary because if I'd done what she'd done (mishandling classified, personal server, etc.) I'd be out of a job for sure (and rightly so) and probably prosecuted.

No, you would not have. When Comey said that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute under the facts presented, he was not lying. The way Clinton handled her e-mail server was, by previous practice, almost routine for government officials. Powell and Rice did much the same with their e-mail. The Bush White House conducted enormous amounts of business on a private e-mail server, and deleted thousands of e-mails on that server. The Trump White House is currently conducting official business on private servers. One of the big lies of 2016 was that Clinton's handling of her e-mail was somehow unusual or out of the ordinary for government officials.

The parties are betraying the people because they only care about their power base and not the voters.

If you believe that is true, then you haven't been paying attention.

>51 StormRaven: This election has cost you your equanimity, and it's only getting worse. I rarely flag anyone but myself, but enough is enough:

'You could start by not lying. That would be new for you.'

Three times using some form of lie in the post, ending with that. You need to be flagged away for your own sake.

Can you organise a third party from scratch? From grassroots, embers of Occupy, weekend protests, anything? I'm wondering, not being rhetorical. Can you do it before the mid-term elections?

Before the mid-term elections? No. Creating a successful national third party would be an endeavor that would take years to accomplish, and given the history of third parties in the United States, I don't think it is possible. The structure of U.S. elections, which use a first-past-the-post system, is such that a three party balance is unsustainable over any length of time. Third parties in the U.S. suffer one of three fates: They are either co-opted by one of the existing parties (which is what happened to the Populist Party), they supplant one of the existing parties (which is kind of what happened with the Republican Party, although the reality is more complicated than that), or they whither away to irrelevance (which is what happened to the Reform Party, and a bunch of other third parties).

To create a viable third party, you would have to create a structure that would supplant one of the existing parties, and that would require massive, sustained effort. You'd need to start running candidates across a broad spectrum of state and local offices, and show that your party has the ability to provide funds and support for those candidates. Right now, the only "third parties" in the U.S. don't do much besides have people make vanity runs for the Presidency and run a tiny handful of people for local offices - there are several hundred thousand elected offices in the United States, and in 2016, the Green Party had candidates running for something like 200 of them. Right now, there is simply no third party that could plausibly step up to replace either of the two major parties, and there is no other organization on the horizon that transform itself into a third party and do so either.

Three times using some form of lie in the post, ending with that.

Nope, I told the truth. lriley is lying. Clinton did not say "that it would be too much of a bother to change the ACA as is", what she actually said was something entirely different. Claiming she said what lriley said she said is a lie. Perhaps you should go back and reconsider your life choices when you throw your support behind lies.

Also, pointing out that someone is lying is not a flaggable offence, which makes your flag an abuse of the flagging system, and thus flaggable itself. You might want to refamiliarize yourself with the Terms of service before you start using flags.

Let me finally point out that I have had you blocked for a long time, and it is only through a glitch in the system that I even saw your bullshit. Your commentary is simply garbage. I concluded long ago that you have nothing to offer in a conversation that is worth caring about.

>54 LolaWalser: This is exactly the right thing to be asking. All of us have various issues with the way the system is currently structured, ways we believe it could be better. Yes, people in power tend to be self-serving--this is not a shock to anyone who knows the least bit about human nature. But, we have to deal with things the way they are. If you seriously oppose what Trump and the GOP in Congress are doing, your only real hope right now in 2017-2018 is the Democratic party. There is no other serious opposition. It would be damned nice if everybody with a conscience would put aside their pet issues and their purity tests and work together to keep our society from being dismantled.

We may not all like one another or agree--so what? The GOP somehow got evangelical Christians to work together with white supremacists.

I think the Democrats made some big mistakes in the last election. So we just throw them out and resign ourselves to the destruction of everything we hold dear? Go from a two-party system to a one-party system--how does that help? Or do we ask them (and ourselves) to learn from our mistakes and do better and win some damn elections as if our lives depended on it?

If you want things to change, how about getting involved and helping that change to happen? Just where I live alone, at least four progressive grassroots organizations that I know of have been formed since the inauguration. I'm sure you can find some new groups where you are.

>57 StormRaven:, >59 sturlington:

I don't understand all the reasons why things are the way they are, but suffice it to say that this is what I have been hearing about the US political system all this time and history too seems to prove it--it's an eternal seesawing between the Republicans and the Democrats, is it not.

And really, it seems there is no alternative--that one can rationally expect, as opposed to what any of us can dream up--but to use the part of the machine that is in the possession of Democrats to mobilise productively a resistance to Trump.

>58 StormRaven: you called him a liar when you said he could start by not lying and following it with that would be new for you. In my interpretation of the terms of sevice you are calling him a liar. By your definition that makes you a liar because he is not a liar nor have you shown he lied. You said he got Clinton's position wrong. You said that in at least two different posts but gave no evidence. You are frothing, not posting.
Your blocking of me is to my credit, and I thank you for it.

New Gallup poll shows Trump is down to 38% approval, an unprecedented low for a president still in a "honeymoon" period. Look for defections of GOP congressional representatives to start happening as they distance themselves from this train wreck.

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/843507898860888065

But among Republicans:

Why Republicans' support for Donald Trump is sky-high

After his first weeks in office, his approval rate among Republicans of 86% is second only to that of George W Bush among all of the party's presidents elected in the last 65 years.

They LIKE the train wreck.

>63 LolaWalser: Three out of four of those people are going to be very unhappy. Just a matter of time.

>36 StormRaven: "The best thing you and others who think like you can do for the republic would be to simply die before the next election."

-------------------------------

Speaking of "Old and in the way", these so-called "New Democrats" who, for me, are pictures of what is disastrously wrong with the U.S. national political scene, are _all_ a good deal older than am I.

Take your advice that I and others like me should drop dead for the betterment of the country's political affairs and present it to these friggining Dinosaurs who are, with few or no exceptions, "Democrats" in 'name' only.

Let them drop dead--- for the good of the country.

(Note: primary dates shown are the individuals' dates of birth.)

Herb Kohl
Politician
7-Feb-1935 (Date of Birth)

US Senator from Wisconsin, 1989-2013

Lois Capps
Politician
10-Jan-1938 (Date of Birth)

Congresswoman, California 23rd

Juanita Millender-McDonald
Politician
7-Sep-1938 (Date of Birth)

22-Apr-2007
Congresswoman from California, 1996-2007

Chuck Robb
Politician
26-Jun-1939 (Date of Birth)

US Senator from Virginia, 1989-2001

Darlene Hooley
Politician
4-Apr-1939 (Date of Birth)

Congresswoman from Oregon, 1997-2009

David Price
Politician
17-Aug-1940 (Date of Birth)

Congressman, North Carolina 4th

Max Baucus
Politician
11-Dec-1941 (Date of Birth)

US Senator from Montana

Bob Etheridge
Politician
7-Aug-1941 (Date of Birth)

Congressman from North Carolina, 1997-2011

Dick Gephardt
Politician
31-Jan-1941 (Date of Birth) & etc.

Congressman from Missouri, 1977-2005

Ben Nelson
Politician
17-May-1941

US Senator from Nebraska

Joseph Lieberman
Politician
24-Feb-1942

Former US Senator from Connecticut

Bill Nelson
Politician
29-Sep-1942

US Senator from Florida

Byron Dorgan
Politician
14-May-1942

US Senator from North Dakota

Bob Kerrey
Politician
27-Aug-1943

Governor and Senator from Nebraska
John Kerry
Politician
11-Dec-1943

US Secretary of State

John Breaux
Politician
1-Mar-1944

US Senator from Louisiana, 1987-2005

Susan Davis
Politician
13-Apr-1944

Congresswoman, California 53rd

Carolyn McCarthy
Politician
5-Jan-1944

Congresswoman, New York 4th

John Tanner
Politician
22-Sep-1944

Congressman from Tennessee, 1989-2011

Charlie Gonzalez
Politician
5-May-1945

Congressman from Texas, 1999-2013

Jane Harman
Politician
28-Jun-1945

Congresswoman from California, 1993-2011

Dennis Moore
Politician
8-Nov-1945

Congressman from Kansas, 1999-2011

Jim Moran
Politician
16-May-1945

Congressman, Virginia 8th

Bill Clinton
Head of State
19-Aug-1946

42nd US President, 1993-2001

Tim Johnson
Politician
28-Dec-1946

Former Senator from South Dakota

Mack McLarty
Government
14-Jun-1946

White House Chief of Staff, 1993-94

David Scott
Politician
27-Jun-1946

Congressman, Georgia 13th

Thomas Carper
Politician
23-Jan-1947

US Senator from Delaware

Hillary Clinton
Politician
26-Oct-1947

US Secretary of State, 2009-13

Bud Cramer
Politician
22-Aug-1947

Congressman from Alabama, 1991-2009

Eliot Engel
Politician
18-Feb-1947

Congressman, New York 17th

Zoe Lofgren
Politician
21-Dec-1947

Congresswoman, California 16th

See link: http://www.nndb.com/group/269/000093987/

---------------------

New Democrat Movement

GROUP

The right wing current of the Democratic party, characterized by its neoliberal economic policies, support of Israel, desire to increase defense spending, and links to heavy donors and fundraisers.

Believes that "left-wing" positions are not politically viable. Describes itself as "moderate and pro-growth". Probably responsible for erosion of the Democratic Party's historical labor and minority base due to support of treaties like NAFTA, lack of support for affirmative action and poverty programs, and their siphoning away of campaign funds from minority groups.

At the national level, the movement was founded by the Democratic Leadership Council (501c4 educational non-profit, founded 1984) and includes the House New Democrat Coalition (founded 1997), the Senate New Democrat Coalition (founded 2000), the New Democrat Network PAC (founded 1996), the misnamed Progressive Policy Institute (501c4 think tank, "Bill Clinton's idea mill", founded 1989), and the umbrella funding group The Third Way Foundation (501c3 non-profit, founded 1996).

Since coming to power within the Democratic Party with Bill Clinton's presidency, the New Democrats/DLC have worked towards "essentially the same purpose as the Christian Coalition... to pull a broad political party dramatically to the right" according to John Nichols of The Progressive.

DLC operatives actively worked to sabotage Howard Dean's candidacy for the US Presidency in 2004, claiming that the "far-left" Democrat was wrong to attack George W. Bush's tax cuts and national security policies.

Corporate contributors to the DLC and New Democratic Network include Bank One, Citigroup, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric, Health Insurance Corporation of America, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, Philip Morris, RJR Nabisco, Chevron, Prudential Foundation, Amoco Foundation, AT&T, Morgan Stanley, Occidental Petroleum, Raytheon, and many other Fortune 500 companies.

"(Democrats should) shift the primary focus from racism, the traditional enemy without, to self-defeating patterns of behavior (among blacks)" --Chuck Robb, 2nd DLC Chairman, Governor & Senator of the Great State of Virginia, White Man, 1986.

"I'm from the democratic wing of the Democrat Party" --Paul Wellstone, progressive Democrat, criticizing the New Democrat Movement.

"Democrats for the Leadership Class" --Jesse Jackson, progressive black Democrat, describing the DLC.

Official Website:
http://www.ndol.org

---------------------

>53 pmackey: , >54 LolaWalser: ,

& >59 sturlington:

>54 LolaWalser: LolaWalser: This is exactly the right thing to be asking. All of us have various issues with the way the system is currently structured, ways we believe it could be better. Yes, people in power tend to be self-serving--this is not a shock to anyone who knows the least bit about human nature. But, we have to deal with things the way they are. If you seriously oppose what Trump and the GOP in Congress are doing, your only real hope right now in 2017-2018 is the Democratic party. There is no other serious opposition. It would be damned nice if everybody with a conscience would put aside their pet issues and their purity tests and work together to keep our society from being dismantled.

We may not all like one another or agree--so what? The GOP somehow got evangelical Christians to work together with white supremacists.

I think the Democrats made some big mistakes in the last election. So we just throw them out and resign ourselves to the destruction of everything we hold dear? Go from a two-party system to a one-party system--how does that help? Or do we ask them (and ourselves) to learn from our mistakes and do better and win some damn elections as if our lives depended on it?

If you want things to change, how about getting involved and helping that change to happen? Just where I live alone, at least four progressive grassroots organizations that I know of have been formed since the inauguration. I'm sure you can find some new groups where you are.

No, it's not the right thing to be asking and, no, the Democratic Party as it is and as it has been is no hope at all against forces that are carrying on the ruin of the nation--because they're an integral part of those forces. >53 pmackey: 's points are quite good ones.

It's not good enough to reckon with one's obvious opponents, one's political adversaries in a system which, by nature, is an adversarial system in any and all cases, and take no reckoning or account of one's more dangerous foes, the false "friends." Before there'll be any progress, we have to reckon with the false friends in government and politics--these are the Obama-ite, Clinton-ite "New Democrats" and people of the "Democratic Leadership Council."

Political adversaries are a regular and intended part of the political processes. False friends pretending to represent one's interests while screwing one over is not a regular and acceptable part of that system. So, yes, though tragically necessary, getting rid of the fucking Obama-Clinton clique even at the "price" of seeing a straightforward opponent elected was indeed, important, necessary and, so, not not merely "worth it."

Among other things the Democratic party needs to run on issues not on celebrity or personality. They have to reconnect with their traditional voter base (that's black people, that's women who they fought for with ERA, that's the working class and working poor)...they need to bring in and engage the younger voter. If anything the Sanders campaign proved that a presidential run could be financed by small donations--that it didn't need to be funded by wealth entities. That seems counter intuitive still to too many of them. What would I do without my billionaires and bundlers? Bernie didn't need them and he didn't have problems raising money. Barack in 2008 raised a shitload of small donation money. This game of who can raise the most corporate campaign cash is bullshit and it's obscene. Find out what your base actually wants and create from that. They should fight for free college. They should fight not only for a higher minimum wage but a living wage. They should fight for national health care. These are things that will bring first time voters and younger voters into their camp. They should fight for infrastructure investment. They should be anti-war across the board. Distinguish themselves from their republican opponents. Support unions and stop selling out the working class. Support clean energy. Stop a Justice system that's been targeting black people for decades--having the highest incarceration rate in the world is a disgrace.

>67 lriley: I can't disagree with any of this. The Democrats do a piss poor job of putting a strong message out about what they believe in and who they will fight for. They also didn't seem to learn much from Obama's success.

>67 lriley: Among other things the Democratic party needs to run on issues not on celebrity or personality. They have to reconnect with their traditional voter base (that's black people, that's women who they fought for with ERA, that's the working class and working poor)...they need to bring in and engage the younger voter.

It would be nice, but the American voting public -- left and right -- responds to celebrity, not issues. That's been fairly constant in our history. We choose our leaders emotionally, not rationally.

They have to reconnect with their traditional voter base (that's black people, that's women who they fought for with ERA, that's the working class and working poor)...they need to bring in and engage the younger voter.

By and large, those voting bases voted heavily for Democrats in the last election (and in the elections leading up to the last election). The only one they "missed" on was white women. I'm not sure how prescribing them to "reconnect" with voters the results show that they are already clearly connecting with is of much help.

Among other things the Democratic party needs to run on issues not on celebrity or personality.

This is largely media driven. The Clinton campaign spent a lot of time trying to get their message out - one thing to note is that in the debates, Clinton spent more time talking about jobs and the economy than Trump, and far more time talking about policy than about her opponent's character, but the story the media reported was the personality-driven clash. Clinton's message was about almost all of the issues that you called out as being important, and was an array of policies aimed at accomplishing the goals you claim to have been most interested in. But that's not what the media reported on for the most part. Instead, the media reported a personality and celebrity driven message, because that's what sells, and they are in the business of selling.

Again, I think it comes down to getting more people out to vote, making it easier to vote, fighting voter suppression and gerrymandering. Especially targeting the enthusiasm if young voters. The Democrats could use some more charismatic, younger candidates.

Also, right now there is opportunity to capitalize on. The AARP is notifying all of its members how their representatives vote on healthcare. The AARP strongly opposes trumpcare. That's a powerful group and a large number of consistent voters that the Democrats could go after with some stronger messaging on health care. The Republican health care plan has abysmal ratings.

>71 StormRaven: I think suggestions in >67 lriley: can be better applied at lower level races. Honestly, we need to focus on Congress and state legislatures more. We need to get Democrats out to vote in midterms.

I think suggestions in >67 lriley: lriley: can be better applied at lower level races.

Possibly. Are there a lot of Democrats running for Congress, State offices, or lower offices who are relying upon celebrity to power their campaigns? I can only speak to those Congressional and State races that I have seen - which is a fair number, and I haven't seen that as a trend.

Honestly, we need to focus on Congress and state legislatures more.

I agree, but the consistent problem that Democrats face is that their base just doesn't show up in the off-season elections like the Republican base does.

Infrastructure and Trump's budget

10 Ways Trump's Budget Would Affect USDA

"The Water and Wastewater loan and grant program is challenged as duplicative and would be eliminated, for a savings of $498 million. The budget proposal supposes rural communities can instead receive private sector financing or use the EPA’s State Revolving Funds."

I work next door to this group. There really is no alternative financing available. Rural Development is the lender of last resort. These local Public Service Districts are composed of volunteers for the most part. They mostly get guidance from planning groups largely funded by the Appalachian Regional Commission, also (oops!) facing de-funding.

>74 StormRaven: I was really referring to the points >67 lriley: made about targeting certain voters and pushing certain messages that clearly distinguishes the Democrats and provides reasons to get excited about them. This is a higher level race but it exemplifies what I mean. When Kay Hagan ran for Senator against Thom Tillis, and had a distinct advantage, she did nothing to distinguish herself or her message or to make it seem like she was even for anything. All she did was distance herself from Obama. And she lost. She shouldn't have lost. I'm still mad about that.

At the presidential level, though, it is important to have someone who does have charisma and connects with people. Clinton, unfortunately, is not a good example because she has been the target of a multidecade smear campaign, and the press gleefully went after her for every little thing. Emails! I think she actually did connect with a number of people, including me, but the level of unwarranted vitriol that was raised against her was probably too much for anybody to overcome. But it is also true that the Democrats' messaging this past election cycle was very weak. Healthcare, for instance, is an area where they can clearly make a bigger push.

I have two big complaints about the Democrats. They're too fractured, and they're too timid. They need the "confidence of a mediocre white man."

>67 lriley:

"Among other things the Democratic party needs to run on issues not on celebrity or personality. They have to reconnect with their traditional voter base (that's black people, that's women who they fought for with ERA, that's the working class and working poor)...they need to bring in and engage the younger voter. If anything the Sanders campaign proved that a presidential run could be financed by small donations--that it didn't need to be funded by wealth entities. That seems counter intuitive still to too many of them. What would I do without my billionaires and bundlers? Bernie didn't need them and he didn't have problems raising money. Barack in 2008 raised a shitload of small donation money. This game of who can raise the most corporate campaign cash is bullshit and it's obscene. ..."

Indeed it is. And it "sends a message" which the excluded and the forgotten-about hear loud and clear: "money is all that ever matters and all that has ever mattered --and we accept that and have no intention of doing anything about it because, frankly, we have no hope that anything can be done about it."

When establishment "Dems" send that message out and it's received loud and understood clearly, they shouldn't expect a stampede of voters to their banners, nor expect hypocritical bullshit about "hope" and "change" to register with and convince anyone who can see perfectly well that he or she does not count politically. StormRaven, even if he might not openly celebrate these facts, simply takes them for granted and accepts them fatalistically--for him, there is nothing anyone ("not even" "the rich and the powerful") can do about this.

So we're supposed to suck it up and bear it.

Nope.

-------------------------

To others, generally, pmackey and lriley excepted:

Instead, have Trump for president. And take your* time to think seriously on these issues. You've* got a good three years to mull over the stupidity of doubling down on Thomas Perez.

>76 sturlington: She shouldn't have lost. I'm still mad about that.

I agree. Although, weirdly, some of my Democrat friends had the same complaints about her that they had about Clinton -- that she was cold, arrogant, dismissive, unfriendly. What they based these impressions on is hard to say, I never saw it. But I thought it was telling how easy it was for even "liberal" voters to find a female candidate unlikable.

But I agree that the Democrats are too timid. They seem unwilling to take a stand if it means potentially alienating voters, and thus in the process they only alienate voters.

>78 southernbooklady:

"Although, weirdly, some of my Democrat friends had the same complaints about her that they had about Clinton -- that she was cold, arrogant, dismissive, unfriendly. What they based these impressions on is hard to say, I never saw it."

Notice: (Anecdotal evidence that) you may live in a "bubble".

BY: Natalie Johnson Follow @nataliejohnsonn
June 6, 2016 1:38 pm

http://freebeacon.com/politics/tell-all-book-describes-hillary-clinton-sickening...

A former Secret Service officer has penned a scathing tell-all book about Hillary Clinton, describing her “erratic, uncontrollable and occasionally violent” disposition as unfit for the presidency.

Gary Byrne, who was posted outside of Bill Clinton’s Oval Office, details an environment of terror under the former first lady whose unpredictable fits of rage permeated among White House staff.

“What I saw in the 1990s sickened me,” Byrne writes in the book’s introduction, according to Page Six.

The book, Crisis of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill, and How They Operate, is set for release June 28—just one month before the Democratic National Convention. The exposé has already reached No. 1 on Amazon’s bestseller list due to pre-orders.

Byrne recalls Clinton often hurling obscenities at her husband, Secret Service agents, and White House staffers. He describes one “violent encounter” between the couple ahead of a national presidential address and a 1995 fight that left a blue vase shattered and a black eye on the former president.

“Hillary Clinton is now poised to become the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, but she simply lacks the integrity and temperament to serve in the office,” he writes in an excerpt obtained by Page Six.

“From the bottom of my soul I know this to be true. And with Hillary’s latest rise, I realize that her own leadership style–volcanic, impulsive, enabled by sycophants, and disdainful of the rules set for everyone else–hasn’t changed a bit.”

The Clinton campaign brushed aside the book’s claims, accusing Byrne of attempting to “cash in” on the 2016 race.

“It should be put in the fantasy section of the bookstore,” campaign spokesman Nick Merrill told Page Six.

Byrne’s book comes a year after investigative journalist Ronald Kessler published a tell-all about Clinton’s bitter treatment of the Secret Service.

In one encounter described by Kessler, a former Secret Service officer greeted Clinton, saying, “Good morning, ma’am,” to which she responded, “Fuck off.”

Details of Byrne’s book arrived just two days before Clinton is set to face-off Sen. Bernie Sanders (I, Vt.) in Tuesday's crucial California primary. Polling of the state shows the two Democratic presidential contenders in a virtual dead heat.
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Secret Service. Bookmark the permalink.

>70 StormRaven: And how was the turnout?

>43 ivanfranko:

"I would like to see the hateful language, exemplified in Post #38, banned from this site. No one should have to put up with a disgraceful outburst like this in a public forum. Is there not some form of oversight that would strike these items from the record?"

Move to Salford City ------

Jonathan Pie ("The Fear of Language") on Salford Quay's "Public-space protection order"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOc7ezwcJjI

a £1000 fine for saying "tits" too loudly"

"I'm sorry but no one has a right not to be offended."

Salford Quay's "Public-space protection order"

See: http://www.salford.gov.uk/crime-reduction-and-emergencies/anti-social-behaviour/...

The order

The effect of the order is to restrict persons, whether participating in water activities or not, within the restricted area from carrying out the prohibited activities, specifically identified within the schedule to this order, at all times.

The prohibitions in the schedule being:

Jumping from, climbing upon or hanging from any bridge to which this order applies or aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring such an act by another
Throwing of any object at anyone without their consent
Except in case of emergency, removing, displacing or otherwise interfering with any life saving equipment
Depositing or throwing into or onto the water any animal or any large object unrelated to water activities including wheelie bins
Using foul and abusive language
Urinating or defecating in any street or public space

Please see below for a full copy of the made order and a map of the effected area.

If you would like more information regarding this Order contact victoria.ryan@salford.gov.uk or by phoning 0161 686 5829.

Censorious twats should be sent to re-education camp for indoctrination therapy-- a tactic which is right out their own authoritarian mentalities.

3rd November, 1594 :

" Learning that some intend to erect a new theatre on the Bankside the Lord Mayor hath written to the Lord Treasurer begging him rather to surpress all stages than to erect any more. Nor will he allow the defence of these plays alleged by some that the people must have some kind of recreation and that policy requires idle and ill-disposed heads to be directed from worse practise by this kind of exercise. These plays, saith he, are so corrupt, profane, containing nothing else but unchaste fables, lascivious devices, shifts, cozenage, and matter of like sort that only the base and refuse sort of people, or such young gentlemen as have but small regard for credit or conscience, are drawn thither. Hence plays are become the ordinary place of meeting for all vagrant persons and masterless men, that hang about the City, thieves, horse stealers, whoremongers, cozeners, conny-catching persons, practisers of treason and such like; there they consort and make their mathes. Nor can the City be cleansed of this ungodly sort (the very sink and contagion not only of the City but of the whole realm) so long as plays of resort are by authority permitted. "

-- Rembrancia ii, 73 Quoted in Malone Society Collections, i, 74. And taken from An Elizabethan Journal, 1590-1594

edited by G. B. Harrison

>33 RickHarsch: "What if all this is more 'naturally' US American than we want to think? What if this is an inevitability? Reagan seemed inconceivable at the time he was first elected. So did Bush."

Reagan had political experience having been Governor of California for quite a time. So, incidentally, was Arnie Schwarzenegger, and it has come to something when Arnie looks like someone who could actually make a fist of running America compared to the current incumbent who couldn't run a bath.

As for Bush, he was at least part of a political dynasty.

>82 Tid: The difference you suggest is governmental experience. Dan Quayle had that. Sarah Palin had that. That's one point. The other is that, again, both Reagan and Bush were not up to the job--in 1980 the prospect of Reagan as president was laughable. So my argument would be a progression towards the more bizarre, and farther right. The Democrat presidents uphold this theory, as I see it, for both Clinton and Obama were both quite good for the wealthy and upheld basic US foreign policy dictates of Republican presidents.

>83 RickHarsch:

Good points. In much the same way, Eisenhower - while upholding basic US foreign policy dictates of a Republican president - was quite good for the poorer and more uneducated classes, perpetuating some of FDR's New Deal economics in that postwar "centre left/right consensus". Irrespective of party, presidents seem to resonate with the prevailing zeitgeist, which makes the current situation even more scary.

Trump's response to Syrian gas attack yesterday - he primarily blamed Obama's policy - has been criticized by Republicans and Joe Scarborough, of Morning Joe.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/690428/republicans-turn-against-trump-syria-im-ash...

So Trump has put on his big boy pants. ‘I now have responsibility’

“It's very, very possible that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much,” he added.

Five reasons why Bannon leaving the National Security Council matters

"Fifth, maybe, just maybe, the president is beginning to comprehend how difficult and serious foreign policy can be."

Arizona, armed.

the March4Trump rally

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/03/07/bringing-out-big-guns-phoenix-mar...

"The most popular accessory among the patriotic crowd was the American flag, but a close second was guns; not uncommon in an open-carry state, but rarely in such abundance. Many private citizens strolled around the booths with semi-automatic rifles slung from their shoulders or a Glock snug at the hip...
However, one group of rally-goers drew a great deal of attention. Some mistook them for the National Guard, as the 16 or so men and women were transported to the rally in military-style trucks devoid of license plates.

“That’s some expensive gear they’ve got there,” remarked a capitol policeman as he watched them patrol the grounds in groups of two and three.

They definitely stood out in matching desert camo uniforms, carrying AR-15s, sidearms and a half-dozen or so extra magazines each, with kneepads, Kevlar helmets, armor plate carriers and white wires spiraling down from their ears. They had patches on their shoulders bearing the Arizona flag and their blood type. No affiliation with any particular group or unit was visible, and the only identifying marks they bore were plastic nametags identifying them by obvious aliases such as “Achilles,” “Roman,” or “Preacher.”

“We are a private group here to protect and to serve” was all the group’s members would say, and the same line event organizers told reporters.

The assembled “soldiers” were actually members of the Arizona Liberty Guard whose Facebook page shows them conducting weapons training in the desert and abandoned houses."

___

And then a couple of weeks later the MAGA rally in Phoenix has heavily armed counter protestors.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/lemons-gun-totin-left-wingers-demonstrate-tr...

“Achilles,” “Roman,” or “Preacher.”

Morons Are Governing America.

You couldn't make it up.

But you wish you had.

Trump on Syria's Assad: 'Something should happen'

It sounds like he hasn't got a clue. SAD!

>87 2wonderY: “We are a private group here to protect and to serve”

Protect what? Serve who?

>91 southernbooklady:

"Protect what? Serve who?"

God's Kingdom against fags, queers, commies, trades unionists, Mexicans, liberals, Canadians, the Clinton dynasty, blacks, Asians, the media, Washington, unelected bureaucrats, judges, the UN, cross dressers, transsexuals, Native Americans, people who support and defend Native Americans, ecologists and environmentalists, Muslims, scientists, evolutionists, educationists, those who believe in climate change, welfare, Buddhists, California, New York, Cuba, Russia, so-called 'progressive Christians', socialists, fellow-travellers, the unemployed, the old, the sick, the disabled, Jews, atheists, agnostics, CNN, professors, campus protests, PBS, any kind of health service that's not private... etc

>91 southernbooklady: The existence of those groups and Steve Bannon on the NSC made me very nervous. I was reading up on how private militias were empowered in Germany in the 30s.

>93 2wonderY: At least Bannon's not on the NSC anymore.

>92 Tid: Good start, but Rabelais would have gotten at least ten times as many...

>92 Tid: It's easy to scoff, but of course such groups actually have a very specific and narrow notion of who they are protecting and serving: themselves and themselves. For all their touting of their own brave individualism, they actually demand a very high degree of conformity, and they don't tolerate much in the way of dissent. Really, I think the only reason they get away with it in the United States is because the country has so much space -- if you can't tolerate difference, then the easiest thing is to go live somewhere you don't have to see it or deal with it. And sure, you can run "practice drills" in the middle of the desert, because let's face it, it wouldn't be possible to do it in the middle of Los Angeles.

>96 southernbooklady:

Lest you misunderstand, I was actually scoffing at the private militia, not anything else. Looked at another way, they are really scary and sometimes it's necessary to whistle in the wind.

Guess what, guys and gals? The deciding factor for Trump voters was, indeed, racism. Are we at all surprised?

https://www.thenation.com/article/fear-of-diversity-made-people-more-likely-to-v...

It doesn't entirely make sense for the 9% of Obama voters they say switched to Trump. Did they become "afraid of diversity" only during his eight years? Maybe it's about latent racism getting reactivated by recession.

Also, no mention of the concomitant effect of misogyny. Again--TEN (at least) point difference between white men and white women on this. Unless we are to believe white men are bigger racists than white women. Which, I don't.

> 98

Guess what, genius - you may be completely wrong in your "analysis". Lol. -

Post 169 - https://www.librarything.com/topic/239432

> 99

That post made a lot of sense. I stand amazed.

> 102

Winner - Best Post on the Thread.

Congratulations, jj.