The recent media coverage of FFLOTUS’s signing of executive orders was a media stunt even though these E.O.’s are being executed. The current Congress will do little to stem this flow as it takes the attention from their activities. The Congress will continue to use this cover no matter the cost to the country at large. FFLOTUS sees executive orders as proof of his ability to manage the country and a photo opportunity. These E.O.’s will certainly bring legal challenges but to FFLOTUS any legal challenges is good for his as it keeps his name in the public space. This thinking may be a bow to the saying “any publicity is good publicity”. The advisors to FFLOTUS appeal to his ego when touting the use of press covered E.O. signing as opposed to working with Congress (which he owns) but brings less press coverage.
As an opinion: Anything done by FFLOTUS legal or not brings press coverage which all this Presidency is about. It is potentially a cover for the Congressional Republicans to create their own version of government with the tacit approval of FFLOTUS as long as he gets credit. Is it possible that FFLOTUS sees lawsuits of any kind a badge of honor and an opportunity to be in the spotlight?
Apparently, we have a showman (who thinks he’s a Shaman) seeking a legacy of “good Governance” through poor choices of Cabinet members as long as they are loyal. These choices are supported by the GOP as long as they can tout their “accomplishments” when elections come around once more. “Lest WE Forget!”
Comments Off on Debunking Myth #8: “Corporate tax cuts create jobs” BUNK! Robert Reich
Debunking Myth #8: “Corporate tax cuts create jobs” BUNK! Robert Reich Friends, I’m tired of hearing Republicans claim that we should reduce taxes on corporations because corporate tax cuts create jobs. It’s untrue. Also untrue are the repeated Republican assertions that tax increases on corporations, and regulations requiring corporations to better protect the health and safety of their consumers and workers and the environment, are “job killers.” Here’s the truth: Most American jobs are created by poor, working, and middle-class people whose increased spending on goods and services causes businesses to create more jobs. If most Americans don’t have enough purchasing power to buy the stuff businesses produce, businesses will lay workers off. If Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more Debunking Myth #8: “Corporate tax cuts create jobs” BUNK! Robert Reich Jul 19 READ IN APP (Please click on the above and see our video.) Friends, I’m tired of hearing Republicans claim that we should reduce taxes on corporations because corporate tax cuts create jobs. It’s untrue. Also untrue are the repeated Republican assertions that tax increases on corporations, and regulations requiring corporations to better protect the health and safety of their consumers and workers and the environment, are “job killers.” Here’s the truth: Most American jobs are created by poor, working, and middle-class people whose increased spending on goods and services causes businesses to create more jobs. If most Americans don’t have enough purchasing power to buy the stuff businesses produce, businesses will lay workers off. If they have more purchasing power, businesses will add jobs. In 1914, Ford boosted its workers’ wages. As a result, Ford employees — and the employees of other big firms who felt they had no choice but to raise their wages to compete in the job market with Ford — could afford to buy Model T Fords, enlarging the demand for Model T’s, thus creating more jobs at Ford (and at every other automaker). The Great Crash of 1929 ushered in the Great Depression of the 1930s because people didn’t have enough money to buy the goods and services the economy could produce. Which caused a vicious cycle of fewer jobs and even less money in the pockets of average people. The cycle ended only when the government stepped in through vast public spending on World War II. So when you hear that corporations need tax cuts in order to create more jobs, or that tax increases on corporations or regulations on corporations are job killers, know that this is baloney. The best way to create more jobs is to put more money into the pockets of more workers. Which is why we need a higher minimum wage, an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, and stronger unions that can bargain for higher wages. All these will increase demand for the goods and services businesses produce, thereby creating more jobs. Remember, it’s working people who create jobs when they have enough money in their pockets to buy.they have more purchasing power, businesses will add jobs. In 1914, Ford boosted its workers’ wages. As a result, Ford employees — and the employees of other big firms who felt they had no choice but to raise their wages to compete in the job market with Ford — could afford to buy Model T Fords, enlarging the demand for Model T’s, thus creating more jobs at Ford (and at every other automaker). The Great Crash of 1929 ushered in the Great Depression of the 1930s because people didn’t have enough money to buy the goods and services the economy could produce. Which caused a vicious cycle of fewer jobs and even less money in the pockets of average people. The cycle ended only when the government stepped in through vast public spending on World War II. So when you hear that corporations need tax cuts in order to create more jobs, or that tax increases on corporations or regulations on corporations are job killers, know that this is baloney. The best way to create more jobs is to put more money into the pockets of more workers. Which is why we need a higher minimum wage, an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, and stronger unions that can bargain for higher wages. All these will increase demand for the goods and services businesses produce, thereby creating more jobs. Remember, it’s working people who create jobs when they have enough money in their pockets to buy.
Cas Mudde, a political scientist who specializes in extremism and democracy, observed yesterday on Bluesky that “the fight against the far right is secondary to the fight to strengthen liberal democracy.” That’s a smart observation.
During World War II, when the United States led the defense of democracy against fascism, and after it, when the U.S. stood against communism, members of both major political parties celebrated American liberal democracy. Democratic presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower made it a point to emphasize the importance of the rule of law and people’s right to choose their government, as well as how much more effectively democracies managed their economies and how much fairer those economies were than those in which authoritarians and their cronies pocketed most of a country’s wealth.
Those mid-twentieth-century presidents helped to construct a “liberal consensus” in which Americans rallied behind a democratic government that regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, promoted infrastructure, and protected civil rights. That government was so widely popular that political scientists in the 1960s posited that politicians should stop trying to court voters by defending its broadly accepted principles. Instead, they should put together coalitions of interest groups that could win elections.
As traditional Republicans and Democrats moved away from a defense of democracy, the power to define the U.S. government fell to a small faction of “Movement Conservatives” who were determined to undermine the liberal consensus. Big-business Republicans who hated regulations and taxes joined with racist former Democrats and patriarchal white evangelicals who wanted to reinforce traditional race and gender hierarchies to insist that the government had grown far too big and was crushing individual Americans.
In their telling, a government that prevented businessmen from abusing their workers, made sure widows and orphans didn’t have to eat from garbage cans, built the interstate highways, and enforced equal rights was destroying the individualism that made America great, and they argued that such a government was a small step from communism. They looked at government protection of equal rights for racial, ethnic, gender, and religious minorities, as well as women, and argued that those protections both cost tax dollars to pay for the bureaucrats who enforced equal rights and undermined a man’s ability to act as he wished in his place of business, in society, and in his home. The government of the liberal consensus was, they claimed, a redistribution of wealth from hardworking taxpayers—usually white and male—to undeserving marginalized Americans.
When voters elected Ronald Reagan in 1980, the Movement Conservatives’ image of the American government became more and more prevalent, although Americans never stopped liking the reality of the post–World War II government that served the needs of ordinary Americans. That image fed forty years of cuts to the post–World War II government, including sweeping cuts to regulations and to taxes on the wealthy and on corporations, always with the argument that a large government was destroying American individualism.
It was this image of government as a behemoth undermining individual Americans that Donald Trump rode to the presidency in 2016 with his promises to “drain the swamp” of Washington, D.C., and it is this image that is leading Trump voters to cheer on billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy as they vow to cut services on which Americans depend in order to cut regulations and taxes once again for the very wealthy and corporations.
But that image of the American government is not the one on which the nation was founded.
Liberal democracy was the product of a moment in the 1600s in which European thinkers rethought old ideas about human society to emphasize the importance of the individual and his (it was almost always a “him” in those days) rights. Men like John Locke rejected the idea that God had appointed kings and noblemen to rule over subjects by virtue of their family lineage, and began to explore the idea that since government was a social compact to enable men to live together in peace, it should rest not on birth or wealth or religion, all of which were arbitrary, but on natural laws that men could figure out through their own experiences.
The Founders of what would become the United States rested their philosophy on an idea that came from Locke’s observations: that individuals had the right to freedom, or “liberty,” including the right to consent to the government under which they lived. “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” Thomas Jefferson wrote, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” and that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
In the early years of the American nation, defending the rights of individuals meant keeping the government small so that it could not crush a man through taxation or involuntary service to the government or arbitrary restrictions. The Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the Constitution—explicitly prohibited the government from engaging in actions that would hamper individual freedom.
But in the middle of the nineteenth century, Republican president Abraham Lincoln began the process of adjusting American liberalism to the conditions of the modern world. While the Founders had focused on protecting individual rights from an overreaching government, Lincoln realized that maintaining the rights of individuals required government action.
To protect individual opportunity, Lincoln argued, the government must work to guarantee that all men—not just rich white men—were equal before the law and had equal access to resources, including education. To keep the rich from taking over the nation, he said, the government must keep the economic playing field between rich and poor level, dramatically expand opportunity, and develop the economy.
Under Lincoln, Republicans reenvisioned liberalism. They reworked the Founders’ initial stand against a strong government, memorialized by the Framers in the Bill of Rights, into an active government designed to protect individuals by guaranteeing equal access to resources and equality before the law for white men and Black men alike. They enlisted the power of the federal government to turn the ideas of the Declaration of Independence into reality.
Under Republican president Theodore Roosevelt, progressives at the turn of the twentieth century would continue this reworking of American liberalism to address the extraordinary concentrations of wealth and power made possible by industrialization. In that era, corrupt industrialists increased their profits by abusing their workers, adulterating milk with formaldehyde and painting candies with lead paint, dumping toxic waste into neighborhoods, and paying legislators to let them do whatever they wished.
Those concerned about the survival of liberal democracy worried that individuals were not actually free when their lives were controlled by the corporations that poisoned their food and water while making it impossible for individuals to get an education or make enough money ever to become independent.
To restore the rights of individuals, progressives of both parties reversed the idea that liberalism required a small government. They insisted that individuals needed a big government to protect them from the excesses and powerful industrialists of the modern world. Under the new governmental system that Theodore Roosevelt pioneered, the government cleaned up the sewage systems and tenements in cities, protected public lands, invested in public health and education, raised taxes, and called for universal health insurance, all to protect the ability of individuals to live freely without being crushed by outside influences.
Reformers sought, as Roosevelt said, to return to “an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.”
It is that system of government’s protection of the individual in the face of the stresses of the modern world that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and the presidents who followed them until 1981 embraced. The post–World War II liberal consensus was the American recognition that protecting the rights of individuals in the modern era required not a weak government but a strong one.
When Movement Conservatives convinced followers to redefine “liberal” as an epithet rather than a reflection of the nation’s quest to defend the rights of individuals—which was quite deliberate—they undermined the central principle of the United States of America. In its place, they resurrected the ideology of the world the American Founders rejected, a world in which an impoverished majority suffers under the rule of a powerful few.
We should be prepared for extreme activities from this “Totus” administration. Remember this is a “leader” whose knowledge is limited to his own misunderstanding of how the real world works. Power and fealty are the only 2 things he gets and can’t properly wield!
WE are bombarded by ads for insurances related to our homes and automobile. These ads all tout their ability to protect your homes and autos from expensive repairs. Bear in mind that these policies are not the normal home insurances we have in conjunction with our homeowners and autos. These are policies to cover repairs and not catastrophic events such as complete loss of use, temporarily or permanent. All of these additional insurances all make the same promise in their ads and from their many unwanted or unrequested cold calls. All tout themselves as the best by “star” ratings. If you read the “fine print” in their contracts, you will find that these contracts are definitively slanted toward the company’s “benefit. The language is extensive and worded in a pseudo legal manner. These companies use out of country non- native English speakers as customer service. Many times there is a lapse in understanding due to the limited English understanding and often your words are being translated as you speak but not with the common understanding of the language (conversational English). The worst of it is the claim of “1000”s of qualified contractors they have access to, “qualified” is subjective and often nonapplicable. To be clear ” Do Not Accept any Statements as to how great they (the company) are. If you decide to look into any of them, please read the ratings and pay particular attention in the reviews of 3 stars or less. Even the big star ring can be suspect as rating companies make money off of these listings.
I’ve had a lot of conversations since Tuesday revolving around the question of why Donald Trump won. The economy and inflation. Kamala Harris didn’t do this or that. Sexism and racism. The border. That trans-inmate ad that ran a jillion times. And so on.
These conversations have usually proceeded along lines where people ask incredulously how a majority of voters could have believed this or that. Weren’t they bothered that Trump is a convicted felon? An adjudicated rapist? Didn’t his invocation of violence against Liz Cheney, or 50 other examples of his disgusting imprecations, obviously disqualify him? And couldn’t they see that Harris, whatever her shortcomings, was a fundamentally smart, honest, well-meaning person who would show basic respect for the Constitution and wouldn’t do anything weird as president?
The answer is obviously no—not enough people were able to see any of those things. At which point people throw up their hands and say, “I give up.”
But this line of analysis requires that we ask one more question. And it’s the crucial one: Why didn’t a majority of voters see these things? And understanding the answer to that question is how we start to dig out of this tragic mess.
The answer is the right-wing media. Today, the right-wing media—Fox News (and the entire News Corp.), Newsmax, One America News Network, the Sinclair network of radio and TV stations and newspapers, iHeart Media (formerly Clear Channel), the Bott Radio Network (Christian radio), Elon Musk’s X, the huge podcasts like Joe Rogan’s, and much more—sets the news agenda in this country. And they fed their audiences a diet of slanted and distorted information that made it possible for Trump to win.
Let me say that again, in case it got lost: Today, the right-wing media sets the news agenda in this country. Not The New York Times. Not The Washington Post (which bent over backwards to exert no influence when Jeff Bezos pulled the paper’s Harris endorsement). Not CBS, NBC, and ABC. The agenda is set by all the outlets I listed in the above paragraph. Even the mighty New York Times follows in its wake, aping the tone they set disturbingly often.
If you read me regularly, you know that I’ve written this before, but I’m going to keep writing it until people—specifically, rich liberals, who are the only people in the world who have the power to do something about this state of affairs—take some action.
I’ve been in the media for three decades, and I’ve watched this happen from the front row. Fox News came on the air in 1996. Then, it was an annoyance, a little bug the mainstream media could brush off its shoulder. There was also Rush Limbaugh; still, no comparison between the two medias. Rush was talented, after a fashion anyway, but couldn’t survive in a mainstream lane (recall how quickly the experiment of having him be an ESPN color commentator went off the rails.) But in the late 1990s, and after the Internet exploded and George W. Bush took office, the right-wing media grew and grew. At first, the liberal media grew as well along with the Internet, in the form of a robust blogosphere that eventually spawned influential, agenda-setting web sites like HuffPost. But billionaires on the right have invested far more heavily in media in the last two decades than their counterparts on the left—whose ad-supported, VC-funded operations started to fizzle out once social media and Google starting eating up the revenue pie.
And the result is what we see today. The readily visual analogy I use is: Once upon a time, the mainstream media was a beachball, and the right-wing media was a golf ball. Today, the mainstream media (what with layoffs and closures and the near death of serious local news reporting) is the size of a volleyball, and the right-wing media is the size of a basketball, which, in case you’re wondering, is bigger.
This is the year in which it became obvious that the right-wing media has more power than the mainstream media. It’s not just that it’s bigger. It’s that it speaks with one voice, and that voice says Democrats and liberals are treasonous elitists who hate you, and Republicans and conservatives love God and country and are your last line of defense against your son coming home from school your daughter.
And that is why Donald Trump won. Indeed, the right-wing media is why he exists in our political lives in the first place. Don’t believe me? Try this thought experiment. Imagine Trump coming down that escalator in 2015 with no right-wing media; no Fox News; an agenda still set, and mores still established, by staid old CBS News, the House of Murrow, and The New York Times.
That atmosphere would have denied an outrageous figure like Trump the oxygen he needed to survive and flourish. He just would not have been taken seriously at all. In that world, ruled by a traditional mainstream media, Trump would have been seen by Republicans as a liability, and they would have done what they failed to do in real life—banded together to marginalize him.
But the existence of Fox changed everything. Fox hosted the early debates, which Trump won not with intelligence, but outrageousness. He tapped into the grievance culture Fox had nursed among conservatives for years. He had (most of the time) Rupert Murdoch’s personal blessing. In 2015-16, Fox made Trump possible.
And this year, Fox and the rest of the right-wing media elected him. I discussed all this Thursday with Matthew Gertz of Media Matters for America, who watches lots of Fox News so the rest of us don’t have to. He made the crucial point—and you must understand this—that nearly all the crazy memes that percolated into the news-stream during this election came not from Trump or JD Vance originally, but from somewhere in the right-wing media ecosystem.
The fake story about Haitian residents of Springfield, Ohio eating cats and dogs, for example, started with a Facebook post citing second- and third-hand sources, Gertz told me; it then “circulated on X and was picked up by all the major right-wing influencers.” Only then did Vance, a very online dude, notice it and decide to run with it. And then Trump said it himself at the debate. But it started in the right-wing media.
Likewise with the post-debate ABC “whistleblower” claims, which Gertz wrote about at the time. This was the story that ABC, which hosted the only presidential debate this election, fed Team Harris the questions in advance. This started, Gertz wrote, as a “wildly flimsy internet rumor launched by a random pro-Trump X poster.” Soon enough, the right-wing media was all over it.
Maybe that one didn’t make a huge difference (although who knows?), but this one, I believe, absolutely did: the idea that Harris and Joe Biden swiped emergency aid away from the victims of Hurricane Helene (in mostly Southern, red states) and gave it all to undocumented migrants. It did not start with Trump or his campaign or Vance or the Republican National Committee or Lindsey Graham. It started on Fox. Only then did the others pick it up. And it was key, since this was a moment when Harris’s momentum in the polling averages began to flag.
I think a lot of people who don’t watch Fox or listen to Sinclair radio don’t understand this crucial chicken-and-egg point. They assume that Trump says something, and the right-wing media amplify it. That happens sometimes. But more often, it’s the other way around. These memes start in the media sphere, then they become part of the Trump agenda.
I haven’t even gotten to the economy, about which there is so much to say. Yes—inflation is real. But the Biden economy has been great in many ways. The U.S. economy, wroteThe Economist in mid-October, is “the envy of the world.” But in the right-wing media, the horror stories were relentless. And mainstream economic reporting too often followed that lead. Allow me to make the world’s easiest prediction: After 12:00 noon next January 20, it won’t take Fox News and Fox Business even a full hour to start locating every positive economic indicator they can find and start touting those. Within weeks, the “roaring Trump economy” will be conventional wisdom. (Eventually, as some of the fruits from the long tail of Bidenomics start growing on the vine, Trump may become the beneficiary of some real-world facts as well, taking credit for that which he opposed and regularly denounced.)
Back to the campaign. I asked Gertz what I call my “Ulan Bator question.” If someone moved to America from Ulan Bator, Mongolia in the summer and watched only Fox News, what would that person learn about Kamala Harris? “You would know that she is a very stupid person,” Gertz said. “You’d know that she orchestrated a coup against Joe Biden. That she’s a crazed extremist. And that she very much does not care about you.”
Same Ulan Bator question about Trump? That he’s been “the target of a vicious witch-hunt for years and years,” that he is under constant assault; and most importantly, that he is “doing it all for you.”
To much of America, by the way, this is not understood as one side’s view of things. It’s simply “the news.” This is what people—white people, chiefly—watch in about two-thirds of the country. I trust that you’ve seen in your travels, as I have in mine, that in red or even some purple parts of the country, when you walk into a hotel lobby or a hospital waiting room or even a bar, where the TVs ought to be offering us some peace and just showing ESPN, at least one television is tuned to Fox. That’s reach, and that’s power. And then people get in their cars to drive home and listen to an iHeart, right-wing talk radio station. And then they get home and watch their local news and it’s owned by Sinclair, and it, too, has a clear right-wing slant. And then they pick up their local paper, if it still exists, and the oped page features Cal Thomas and Ben Shapiro.
Liberals, rich and otherwise, live in a bubble where they never see this stuff. I would beg them to see it. Watch some Fox. Listen to some Christian radio. Experience the news that millions of Americans are getting on a daily basis. You’ll pretty quickly come to understand what I’m saying here.
And then contemplate this fact: If you think they’re done, you’re in fantasy land. They’re not happy with the rough parity, the slight advantage they have now. They want media domination. Sinclair bought the once glorious Baltimore Sun. Don’t think they’ll stop there. I predict Sinclair or the News Corp. will own The Washington Post one day. Maybe sooner than we think.
I implore you. Contemplate this. If you’re of a certain age, you have a living memory of revolutions in what we used to call the Third World. Question: What’s the first thing every guerilla army, whether of the left or the right, did once they seized the palace? They took over the radio or television station. First. There’s a reason for that.
It’s the same reason Viktor Orban told CPAC in 2022: “Have your own media.”
This is a crisis. The Democratic brand is garbage in wide swaths of the country, and this is the reason. Consider this point. In Missouri on Tuesday, voters passed a pro-abortion rights initiative, and another that raised the minimum wage and mandated paid leave. These are all Democratic positions. But as far as electing someone to high office, the Man-Boy Love Party could probably come closer than the Democrats. Trump beat Harris there by 18 points, and Senator Josh Hawley beat Lucas Kunce, who ran a good race and pasted Hawley in their debate, by 14 points.
The reason? The right-wing media. And it’s only growing and growing. And I haven’t even gotten to social media and Tik Tok and the other platforms from which far more people are getting their news these days. The right is way ahead on those fronts too. Liberals must wake up and understand this and do something about it before it’s too late, which it almost is.
Comments Off on Why WE Need to Stop Donald J. Trump!
Lest we forget is an often used but largely ignored quote that, in reality, we should always have in mind in this age of mass and fast communication. Reaching people widely through mobile phones and the internet has been a great tool for the world population as a whole, but modernly it has become a tool for the spread of misinformation. The phrase increasingly used to describe the purveyors of this misinformation has been articulated in one or more of the statements below.
POPULIST: Populism often entails presenting “the people” as the underdog. Populists typically seek to reveal to “the people” how they are oppressed. In doing so, they do not seek to change “the people”, but rather seek to preserve the latter’s “way of life” as it presently exists, regarding it as a source of good.
Fascism: is a far-right form of government in which most of the country’s power is held by one ruler or a small group, under a single party.
Autocrat: an absolute ruler, especially a monarch who holds and exercises the powers of government as by inherent right, not subject to restrictions.
It is hard to define Donald Trump as any if not all the above definitions fit to some degree. Previous owners of these descriptions were the fomenters of several wars in the modern age which left the world and countries in chaos. It is odd that with the lessening of Historic education and often religious zeal seem to go hand in hand. The people who espouse and follow the above tenets all follow the same path of destruction and suppression which end s up in public uprisings and falling governments. If we allow the election of Donald Trump as president to cite Donald Trump “we won’t have a country!”
Apparently, the supporters of LOTUS have no idea of his inability to govern. ANY positive achievements during his administration were not products of his brain. He has however managed to turn rational people into a national mob who sole purpose is to attack anyone perceived as other no matter how long their American lineage is and what they have accomplished. Without the multinational makeup of the United States, there would be no United States. The hope for the future is to remove the less than qualified members of the Government from service by the vote and make the effort to install reasonable replacements instead of cohorts who should not be working in the Government. Only in a “free” country can an indicted person run for Leader of the country. The advantage for voters is that the misdeeds and their effects are readily available through many types of media (including the biased ones). I would suggest to voters: each candidate comes with some baggage, that being said the key is to unpack that baggage and sort the dirty laundry!!
It is apparent the former President DJT is a danger to America and its allies. We must believe that whatever DJT promises to do if elected no matter how outrageous, are his intentions and purpose. His presidency would be a culmination of all of the evils that currently exist among the dictatorial leaders he so much admires. There will be mass deportations (or attempts) for anyone perceived as other no matter their citizenship (born or naturalized). It is unfortunate that through a systematic and steady erosion of what history is taught or altered that many do not get the benefit of the true past 100 years of history. Our allies will remain as steadfast for us as we have been for them. Keep in mind that these allies have similar national issues as we now experience and with that comes the extreme actions we see in the middle east. We are at a turning point where we need to fully back or retreat from support of some of our allies who appear to be riding the Despot train much to the delight of prominent leaders whose sole objective is backwards looking and attempting to create the conditions that caused the second great war which destroyed countries and millions of lives. It is clear that many voters are undecided, uncommitted or not voting, my question to those folks is “Do you want the type of “non-government that DJT will give us since he is (supposedly) one of the 1%? His type of governing preceded the Great recession and ultimately the Second world war. The Authoritarian and despotic rulers rose to prominence and decided to attack other countries who disagreed with their politics. If you believe enough is enough then do not vote for DJT!!
Listening and watching a variety of news outlets who were speaking to a range of American voters, I was struck by the seemingly underinformed and single-issue voters who have their opinions without recognizing that whoever is the countries’ leader has less to do with parties than personalities. Some folks are not comfortable with a potential female woman of color, some have an issue with a Braggadocios con man. The prize in all of this is who controls Congress! It has been clear for many years that big money has more control of our government than many realize. WE were warned by President Eisenhower about this when he was in office. This is an excerpt:
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
This means that the wealthy who have their own interests in mind will continue that line according to who the Titular head of the country is! In someone like DJT, they have a greedy self-serving person who caters to the 1% (who he is not part of and wants to be in spite of what he says). We must remember that many of our Congressional members are in the 1% and have no desire to hurt their own bottom line. If we do not dig deeper as voters, we are not serving ourselves and will continue to have a government (from top to bottom) which will serve us poorly. It is the practice in “politricks” to pander and misrepresent as it suits their personal agendas. Being informed on issues (old and new) makes for a informed voter. The choice has always been and will probably continue to be “lesser of two evils”!
Michael1942's Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.