Our country’s privileged few used to exert their control through political surrogates. Now, thanks to Trump, they’re taking a more hands-on approach.
I wonder how long it will take Trump supporters (outside the 1%) to see that they have been HUUUGELY conned.
During Obama's first two years as POTUS the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the GOP had zero opportunity to "beat back". The Democrats lost control of Congress because they failed to advance any "help to share the wealth" while advancing two of the most lucrative corporate welfare schemes ever...bankster bailouts and the ACA.
Had the Democrats "helped share the wealth" during those two critical years they would continue to conttrol Congress and Trump would not be moving into the White House on Jnauary 20.
luv from Murka
The Trojan Horse at least tried to appear innocuous. Or even interesting. Anyone who looked with any intention saw Trump for what he was. Which goes to say a lot about his voters. I think they could stay stuck in their denial for a long time.
Don, I think that our democracy has been a little shabby and threadbare for a while now but this election was something to take the cake! Overlong and way too much money. As Bill Moyers says, we have the best democracy money can buy. But honestly, it's just a total charade.
And I agree with you. Obama is the constitutional lawyer who perfected extra-judicial killing. And he totally did not act in his two years. He was sooo obedient to his handlers.
This day was always going to come but there are, in fact, few restraining factors for wholesale grift from Mr. Trump and he and his handlers know it.
Why does de Voss hate public ed? Only thing I can think of: racism and far right theocracy.
The sad reality is that whether Clinton or Trump elected, the US voter would have been conned.
Trump just worked a "better con".
Share the wealth? Tend to one some repugs and dems were or are in mortgage fraud. Notice that Bernie and Warren are the only ones who really address it with any candor. Obama's messagea; Let's move on.
The typical US voter: "Oh, I don't vote," or "It said so on TV."
Yes, the bailouts and ACA and no trials for the poor innocents of Wall Street. Disgusting.
I think that many are too stupid or too busy at WalMart of watching Reality TV( remember DT is a reality TV star) to even care. Or they didn't vote at all.
ray, I've long ago gotten totally sick of this BS about the democrats having total control. People like you love to pretend there is no filibuster and that every last democrat is a solid 100% vote.
Nothing to worry about with POTUS Trump and the GOP controlling both houses of Congress then ?
I can understand the apathy, but not doing anything leaves where there was an alternative, Stein, just leaves those who didn't vote as complacent.
There were those who said as far back as the late 1990s that what the middle class did to the poor (demanded the end of basic poverty relief), the rich would do to the middle class.
Odd. I didn't come across a single person who was apathetic. We found ourselves in a complicated situation. Much of the Republican voting base deeply opposed Trump, much of the Dem voting base deeply opposed Clinton. This left roughly half the country with the choice of scattering their votes among the array of third party candidates, knowing that only a D or R would be elected, or withholding their votes. Neither choice indicates apathy.
That contradicts everything I've heard from ordinary people. Everyone I've encountered was extremely concerned.
No one talks about "sharing the wealth." True, years ago both Sanders and Warren spoke out powerfully about US poverty and the need for legit poverty relief. Times changed, and both dumped the poor, acknowledging no one worse off than low wage workers.
We needed those who had the courage to shine a spotlight on our poverty crisis -- proof of the grave failures of our deregulated capitalism. Warren and Sanders proved no to be the ones.
When it comes to those who are fortunate enough to have jobs: The US shipped out a huge number of jobs since the 1980s, ended actual welfare in the 1990s, creating an abundant surplus of job-ready people who are desperate for any job at any wage. There is no logical reason for businesses to pay more.
I may be mistaken, but I think it is Greg Palast who has a book by that name. I doubt Bill Moyers is that radical.
You say there is no logical reason for businesses to pay more. But isn't that the short sighted perspective of "I gotta get mine while I can?" Logically, pumping more money into the pockets of the workforce gives the economy a boost and makes products affordable. Miserly wages keep people out of stores because they have to pay rent, eat, and keep themselves warm. Business ethics in America resemble those of Charles Dickens' time, where the roots of exploitative capitalism were at their worst, and which eventually created the conditions for the birth of Marxism and other populist movements.