State of the Union: Trump Era Tipping Point

Donald Trump
Donald Trump

It was a threat. Donald Trump threatened House Democrats on Monday in his State of the Union speech. In a nutshell, Trump said that there will be no legislation or peace while there are investigations of his administration.

“If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation,” Trump told a joint session of Congress on Monday evening.

I’m loathe to make predictions, but this feels like a Trump era turning point. What he’s saying is, “That’s a nice country you’ve got there, it would be a shame if something were to happen to it.”

Trump is specifically, publicly and adamantly threatening House Democrats to either back off or he’s going to punish the entire nation.

Richard Nixon did something similar in his State of the Union speech in January 1974. Nixon didn’t threaten anyone, but he called for the Watergate investigation to be ended. Nixon resigned in August that same year.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will handle Trump’s threat with skill and class.

Leave Bernie Sanders Alone

Bernie Sanders 2016

Democrats need to calm the fuck down about Bernie Sanders.

I voted for Sanders in the Maryland primary in 2016. I guess that makes me a “Bernie bro.” It’s a term I find deeply offensive. I also volunteered for the Hillary Clinton campaign. So I guess that make me what? It makes me a Democrat.

I’m a Democrat, but I’m a liberal first.

Here’s why I voted for Sanders. First of all, there was no chance Clinton wasn’t going to win Maryland. Secondly, I’m a lifelong, frustrated Democrat. The Democratic Party has been pretty shitty for a long, long time.

People now gush over the Bill Clinton years, but the Democrats of that era were endlessly annoying to liberals like myself. The crime bill was awful. They stuck by the war on drugs with vigor. They happily pranced down the road to deregulate banking and other industries. Yes, Bill Clinton Democrats did some good stuff, but it was painful incrementalism.

Democrats like Bill Clinton, and to lesser degree, Hillary Clinton, are conservative Democrats. They firmly believe that the best course of action is to play along with Republicans while slowly making progress on issues of social justice, equality and peace.

This is pragmatism and I hate that shit. That’s why I voted for Bernie Sanders. I wanted to show the Democratic Party that there are millions of us who want to see a Democratic Party that is far more liberal and one that embraces collective action with gusto and is clearly not conservative.

I certainly can understand the view of my more pragmatic Democrats who disagree with me. Their belief that incrementalism is the best path forward is not inherently wrong. I just don’t agree with it and that’s OK. At least, it should be OK.

For many Democrats though is that the belief Sanders and I share that the Democratic Party should be more progressive is not only wrong in their minds, but Sanders and I are scum of the earth. We shouldn’t even be allowed to be Democrats. Our support of aggressive progressivism is not welcome in the Democratic Party.

If you ask Tom Perez, if Sanders and I are welcome in the Democratic Party, he will undoubtedly say yes. If you ask Hillary Clinton if Sanders and I are welcome in the Democratic Party, she will say yes. But online, particularly on Twitter, the vitriol directed at leftwing elements of the Democratic Party can be vicious.

But I’m not worried about my feelings or Sanders’ feelings, we can handle it. What concerns me is that millions of young voters out there who want to see the Democratic Party move to the left will get turned off. We could lose these voters permanently. Undoubtedly, many have already been lost. They’ll spend their lives pointlessly voting for third party candidates rather than support the Democrat running.

It’s what happened to millions in my generation – Generation X. Hell, my first election ever was 1992. I didn’t vote for Clinton. I voted for Ross Perot. Again, at the time, I made the calculation that Clinton was going to win, but I wanted to send a message to the Democratic Party, that I want to see something different.

We called Democratic politicians at the time – Republican Lite. They were so desperate to look and act like Ronald Reagan. It was a nightmare for liberals like myself who despised Reagan.

Sadly, many of the people alienated by the 1990s Democratic Party were easy prey for the Republican Party. As often happens, as people get older they get more conservative. I feel like I’m getting more liberal as I get older, but for many it goes the other way.

After awhile these disenchanted liberals stopped voting for losing candidates like Ralph Nader and they started voted Republican. They probably wanted to be part of a winning election while still opposing the Democratic Party. In the 1990s and early 2000s, it was easy to rationalize, “There’s little difference between the Democratic Party and Republican Party, so who cares?”

My counter argument to that would be, if you really are a liberal, the best course of action is to engage with the Democratic Party. I support pushing the Democratic Party to the left, rather than destroying it. There were times in my life when I wanted to destroy the Democratic Party. In 2000, the Al Gore campaign was awful. He should have never lost to George W. Bush.

I got over that and supported John Kerry in 2004. I was horribly depressed when he also lost to Bush. That was a low point in my political life. But I became reinvigorated when Obama ran and won in 2008. That win was the high point of my political life.

Then 2016 happened.

The Democratic Party wanted to coronate Hillary Clinton the nominee and when that didn’t happen, people freaked out. Sanders’ people attacked Clinton’s people. Clinton’s people attacked Sanders’ people. It went back and forth with people getting blocked and banned on Twitter.

Sanders did way better than anyone expected. I think he did better than Sanders expected. He tapped into that anger people like myself carry with us about the Democratic Party. I wanted to express that anger with my primary vote and I did. I also believe Sanders’ progressive agenda is the best way forward for the party and the country.

Do I agree with everything Sanders has ever done in his political career? No, but I understand why he did some of them. Take the gun issue for instance. It seems crazy that a progressive would vote against gun legislation. But that’s because you’ve never lived in Vermont. I lived in Vermont and worked there as a reporter. I even met Sanders several times while covering stories. Vermonters, as a whole, do not support gun regulations. When I lived there, there was literally no state gun laws. You could carry a concealed pistol. You can drive around with a gun in your car. As long as you weren’t violating federal law, there was nothing you couldn’t do with a gun in Vermont and vermonters like it that way.

Since I moved from Vermont in 2014, they have passed some gun regulation laws.

So for Sanders to not support gun regulations at the federal level, that’s Sanders representing his constituency. That’s what politicians are supposed to do. He wasn’t wrong to do it, even if I disagreed with him doing it.

My point of this rambling screed is that Democrats need to calm the fuck down. We need to treat each other with a modicum of respect. It’s OK if you think Sanders sucks. It’s OK to explain why you think Sanders sucks. But it’s not OK to try to invalidate another person because they don’t agree with you. People who voted for Sanders aren’t Russian bots. We’re not “Bernie bros.” We’re Democrats. We’re Democrats who want to see the party embrace aggressive progressivism.

In 2018, we saw that work too.

Many newly elected Democrats support real and immediate progressive policies and reject incrementalism masquerading as pragmatism.

But when it comes time to vote, we’re all Democrats and we should all vote accordingly.

Special Counsel has a Nude Selfie

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has a nude selfie of someone. We don’t know who that someone is, but it’s apparently real.

A court document filed on Thursday, December 27, 2018, lawyer, Eric A. Dubelier, representing Concord Management and Consulting LLC challenges Mueller’s argument to withhold information from Dubelier’s client.

I’m not a lawyer, but apparently, Mueller is claiming national security as a legal basis to deny Concord Management’s access to evidence in discovery.

At the end of what is an oddly worded court document, Dubelier writes, “Could the manner in which he collected a nude selfie really threaten the national security of the United States?”

The document doesn’t say who is the subject of the nude photo, but it’s pretty clear that no one hopes that it’s Donald Trump.

Michael Flynn Court Documents

Here’s a list of some of the more interesting United States of America v. Michael T. Flynn criminal case.


Trump USDA Protects Puppy Mills

Back in 2017, the Trump administration took down a website that listed dog breeders cited for running puppy mills. I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for this information and today the USDA responded with useless data.

You can view all three of the documents that the federal agency sent me.

Response letter from USDA
List of Citations
List of resolutions

While the documents detail story after story of horrific of abuse by breeders, the data is worthless. The reason I submitted the records request was because the USDA had pulled offline data about breeders who abused animals so that people could know who the bad actors are in the breeding industry. This information is not a replacement of that because the agency redacted the names and addresses of the breeders cited and fined for abusing animals.

What’s strange is why does the USDA wants to keep people from knowing which dog breeders are abusing dogs? I’ve asked, but I don’t expect to receive an answer different than the lengthy legalistic reasoning in the response letter.

Photo Source: Houston Chronicle

Our Political Bitterness Is Destroying Our Democracy

We’re bitter.

Politically speaking, we’re very bitter. We’re a nation of bitter politics.

The most recent, obvious example is Bernie Sanders’ run for the Democratic party presidential nomination. When Sanders ran, and lost, Hillary Clinton Democrats freaked the fuck out.

To them, Sanders was invalid. He shouldn’t even have been allowed to run. The argument, apparently, is that because Sanders isn’t a self-proclaimed Democrat, he should be locked out of the Democratic primary process.

That’s a very un-democratic stance to take.

The same goes for those of us who voted for Sanders. We’re fake Democrats. We’re not legit. We shouldn’t be allowed to participate in our party’s nominating process because we’re not “real Democrats.”

But to me, that argument is total shit.

If you’re a Democrat, like I am, you should never fear listening to someone’s ideas. You don’t have to like their ideas. You don’t have to like the politician delivering them. But you MUST allow that person to speak.

Because when it’s all said and done, WE get to vote for the BEST candidate based upon our opinions about the candidates.

Hillary Clinton won the nomination. For Sanders to have won would have been a total fluke. He didn’t.

But none of this prevents Clintonistas from continuing to viciously attack Sanders and his supporters.

And for the record, while I voted for Sanders in the primary, I also volunteered with the Clinton campaign. That’s what “real Democrats” do. We listen to the arguments. We vote for who we believe is the best candidate. And when it’s over, we rally around the Democrat running in the general.

So please, stop with the bitterness, make your argument and leave it at that. Your fellow Democrats are legit, regardless of who they voted for in the primary.

Donald John Trump Stands with Saudi Arabia Over Our Own CIA

I don’t care about White House press statements. I rarely read them. But this one, clearly written by Donald John Trump, today stood out to me.

Set aside the content of the message for a minute and look at the quality of the writing. It’s fucking horrid.

The lede is: The world is a very dangerous place!

What a pile of worthless claptrap and it ends with a fucking exclamation point.

Trump has an Ivy League education and writes like someone completely uninterested in the written word. And there’s no doubt he wrote this himself.

The message Trump is sending with this statement is grotesque.

Trump is saying that the brutal assassination of one of our journalists – Jamal Khashoggi – is just what happens to terrorists.

Trump wrote:

Representatives of Saudi Arabia say that Jamal Khashoggi was an “enemy of the state” and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, but my decision is in no way based on that – this is an unacceptable and horrible crime. King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman vigorously deny any knowledge of the planning or execution of the murder of Mr. Khashoggi. Our intelligence agencies continue to assess all information, but it could very well be that the Crown Prince had knowledge of this tragic event – maybe he did and maybe he didn’t!

See, the Washington Post journalist was just another filthy terrorist who got what he deserves in this very dangerous world.

This “analysis” by Trump directly contradicts what our own CIA says happened. The CIA is certain that Saudi Arabia assassinated Khashoggi because of his work as a journalist.

But really, Trump doesn’t care about journalists getting assassinated. It won’t be long before Trump will be killing journalists here.

Statement from President Donald J. Trump standing with Saudi Arabia | The White House

Political Discourse: It’s Not the Internet’s Fault

Inevitably when the topic of the current state of political discourse comes up, it is agreed that it’s the Internet’s fault that it’s so bad right now.

Before we get into what’s to blame, let’s rewind this shit a bit.

When was political discourse in this country civil?

In May 1856, South Carolina Congressman Preston Brooks nearly beat to death Republican Senator Charles Sumner on the Senate floor. Brooks was upset because Sumner denounced slavery the day before on the Senate floor.

This is but one example of how low our political discourse has sunk over the last 244 years.

We owned people in the country. We committed genocide against Native American people. We had Jim Crow in which thousands of black people were lynched and millions terrorized by the KKK. Our politics in this country has always been disgusting. We fool ourselves into believing that we’re righteous when we are not.

But let’s bring the conversation back to today and the Internet.

Look at what technology does in every single area that it impacts. It creates specialization and fractions the institutions that currently exist.

Take cable TV for instance.

Before cable TV there were three channels – NBC, ABC and CBS. With cable and satellite TV there are hundreds of channels. Some of them just talk about animals.

The same thing is happening with the Internet and politics. Now that we have the capacity to read more than our local newspaper or watch the national nightly news on TV, we can pick and choose the news we want to consume.

So logically people are going to gravitate towards the news organizations that tell them the things they want to know. It’s also why the nightly news used to draw 30 million viewers and now it gets 10 million.

So racists read The Daily Stormer, The Daily Caller, Brietbart and Fox News. Liberals are going to read the Washington Post, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Motherjones, The Nation and watch MSNBC.

Does that mean we’re all less informed now than we were 150 years ago? Absolutely not. There’s never been a time in which more information being made more readily available and accessible hasn’t resulted in a more informed populace. It’s just not how things work.

Now I know what you’re thinking. But Fox News viewers believe shit that just isn’t true. That’s true. People are being manipulated but that’s also not a new phenomena, it’s just that thanks to the Internet those ill-informed people can broadcast their ignorant ideas on Twitter and Facebook.

The fact is, people who are on the wrong side of history want us to believe that the sky is falling and we can’t trust anything. They are going to tell us that none of us knows what we’re talking about and that we’re all just sheeple gobbling up the chum that is tossed into the water.

It’s all FAKE NEWS.

However, the Internet is not the reason why our political discourse has degraded. In fact, I will argue that there’s nothing wrong with our political discourse. The reason our politics looks so disgusting is that Republicans have elected a bunch of racists, homophobes, bigots and fascists to congress and the White House.

So when these people, like Steve King or Donald Trump speak, it’s a horrific experience to listen to. That doesn’t mean our political discourse is shit. Is it horrible to listen to Kamala Harris speak? Is it horrible to listen to what Cory Booker has to say? No, because they’re not assholes like King and Trump.

What that means is that the Republican party is a dark, disgusting place. What’s going to end up being the result of the Internet’s impact on politics is that instead of the GOP and the Democratic party, there are going to be more political parties in the future.

Where we had only NBC, CBS and ABC, we now have the Food Network, Comedy Central and Animal Planet.

It’s what happens to everything that is impacted by technology.

It’s taking a bit longer for political parties to fractur because there are very powerful people who don’t want it to change and there’s no profit motive to create a new political party. In fact, there’s a strong disincentive to do so.

Eventually the Republican party is going to reap in a bad way allowing racists and bigots to capture the party. They’re going to need to form a new party.

It will happen to the Democratic party too, but it may take longer simply because the disagreements among liberals like Bernie Sanders and establishment Democrats like Hillary Clinton are much more nuanced than the differences between Steve Schmidt and Steve King.

Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General Says the Trump Administration Sucks Balls

Steady yourself. What I’m about to tell you is going to blow your goddamn mind. The Donald Trump administration is woefully inadequate, incompetent and just basically total shit.

The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General issued a 25-page report outlining all the ways the Trump administration failed while implementing Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy against immigrants coming in via the US-Mexico border.

The child separation policy provided no way to keep track of kids and their parents. Well over 100 of the 2,500 children taken from their parents remain separated right now – tonight.

Basically the report concludes what we’ve all known – the Trump administration sucks.

You can read the here.

Papadopoulos Gets 2 Weeks, Martha Stewart Should Get an Apology

Donald Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos got a two-week sentence after pleading guilty to lying to the FBI.

Someone else lied to the FBI and went to prison not too long ago.

Martha Stewart, in 2004, was found guilty of lying to the FBI. She served five months at a federal prison camp. It’s true that Stewart was found guilty after going to trial. She was also found guilty on several additional felonies. Papadopoulos plead guilty to the one felony.

But it’s also a true that Stewart’s crimes were about making money. Papadopoulos broke the law as part of a criminal conspiracy to undermine democracy and install a Russian Manchurian candidate in the White House – the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Maybe the sentences are just for both Stewart and Papadopoulos. It doesn’t sit well that this guy gets only two weeks in jail. And he recanted previous statements about his admitting to working with Russian spies to help Trump steal the Oval Office.

He claims he doesn’t remember doing it.

And Robert Mueller’s prosecutors said as much to the judge. They said that Papadopoulos should get some jail time because he wasn’t forthcoming with investigators.

Stewart got 5 months. Papadopuolos two weeks.

Federal Prison Camp, Alderson in West Virginia

Federal Prison Camp, Alderson in West Virginia

But on October 8, 2004 at approximately 6:15 am, Stewart reported to the Federal Prison Camp, Alderson in West Virginia. She would not be released until March 4, 2005.

Mueller’s prosecutors said Papadopoulos’ sentence “should reflect the fact that lying to federal investigators has real consequences, especially where the defendant lied to investigators about critical facts, in an investigation of national importance, after having been explicitly warned that lying to the FBI was a federal offense.”

The lawyers for Papadopoulos argued that he wasn’t as bad as Trump.

“The president of the United States,” his lawyer Thomas Breen argued, “hindered this investigation more than George Papadopoulos ever could.”

Claiming there are worse criminals than the defendant is an odd choice. Another person’s crimes don’t lessen someone else’s crimes.

Maybe two weeks locked up is the appropriate sentence for Papadopoulos, but it seems weak for the little twerp. He worked with Russian spies to install a Russian asset in the Oval Office. That should be a mitigating factor when sentencing. The full six month maximum should have been the sentence. That would send a message to people that lying to the FBI will get you locked for half a year.