RBG… A Critical Look at Our Leaders Staying in Office Too Long

by with 3 Comments FeaturedPolitics

2020 has struck again. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died at the age of 87. Her appointment to the court was historic and she fought long and hard as a liberal justice. While America mourns her death, I can’t help but worry about whom President Trump might pick to replace her.

It’s actually quite a paradox that America can’t fully grieve her death because we are more concerned about her replacement. And while we must be equally concerned about her replacement we should take a critical look at what led us to this juncture. A critical look at our leaders staying in office until their death is worth a discussion.

This year alone we have seen Representatives Elijah Cummings and John Lewis die in office. Both were ill before their deaths, just as Ginsburg. So why didn’t they expedite their retirements upon learning of their illnesses? There’s an argument that once you reach a certain age the brain slows down when you retire. There’s something about a routine work life that helps senior citizens age well and stay mobile as their mental faculties continue in full force. But what happens when our leaders get sick and refuse to step down with a proper succession plan?

I want to first examine former Washington DC, “Mayor for Life” Marion Barry, who died in office while serving as the city’s Ward 8 Councilmember. When he died in 2014 there was no plan on whom would succeed him in office. One day he was the council member and the next day the seat was vacant with no heir apparent. The political fallout resulted in nearly 20 people running for office.

We can look at the deaths of Cummings and see a similar pattern. He died, his wife ran along with several other people but ultimately Kwame Nfume wins, who was the previous US Representative for Maryland’s 7th District. Cummings didn’t have an heir apparent.

With Lewis, his death was a bit different. While it wasn’t anticipated, a replacement was quickly named, Georgia State Senator Nikema Williams. She will still have to run after completing the remaining of his term, but the point here is that he died in office.

In Ginsburg’s case, she could have retired while President Barack Obama was still in office. She would have been 82 at the time of her retirement during his last days as president. One can assume she hoped Secretary Hillary Clinton would win and wanted to leave the opportunity for Clinton to appoint the next Justice, but that’s not how the story ended. Clinton lost.

Now we have Donald Trump and we are in a position where we are wondering whom he might select as he’s already given the public a preview of his likely picks. But we arrive back at our original question. Why didn’t Ginsburg retire when she had all her mental faculties? Why not put America and a democratic president in the best position to appoint another liberal justice? Was it because the appointment would have gone to a Black leader? Was maintaining White Supremacy working in her hope that the next president would be Clinton? We don’t know, but what we do know is that her dying wish was to serve out her term and let the next president choose her replacement. Maybe she thought she would make it to 2021 to see if a new Democratic leader would be elected. And even that isn’t a given.

While her service to this country’s justice system is laudable, the way our leaders prepare to leave is important. And Ginsburg did not do her liberal colleagues on the bench any justice by staying in longer than her health would allow. America must learn this lesson. President Trump and Senate Majority Leader are already planning to push a nominee through for confirmation before the election which is in less than 50 days.

We can mourn Ginsburg’s death but we must learn a critical lesson. Banking on a Democrat leader to help save our country may never happen. And even when Democrats win we don’t know what he or she will exactly do.

Pass the button while there is still time. Time to recruit a new leader, time to mentor a new leader, time to truly show a successor the road map to be successful. We can admire legacy more when it is properly preserved.

Washington, DC US Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton is aging in her seat and should consider early retirement so she doesn’t go down in history like these other great leaders… leaving a powerful office untended due to political prowess to hold on.

Similar Read: GOP Hypocrisy Laid Bare

What Does It Mean To Have Two Old White Men Running For The Democratic Primary In 2020?

by with No Comment FeaturedPolitics

The 2016 election was historic. Hillary Clinton became the first woman ever to secure the Democratic Party’s nomination for president. While her run for president was historic, unfortunately, she did not win against Donald Trump. 

However, after her run, unprecedented drives of women – more than ever before – began stepping up to run for office across the country and at every level. So, it was no surprise that the 2020 election for president would see a historic level of women running. Major Democratic ticket contenders included NY Senator Kristin Gillibrand, MN Senator Amy Klobuchar, CA Senator Kamala Harris, Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, author Marianne Williamson, and MA Senator Elizabeth Warren. Of these six women, Gabbard remains in the race, but her campaign is not viable.  Warren was the last serious candidate to drop out, falling hard after Super Tuesday where she had a poor showing. 

So what does this mean for a primary that has seen upwards of fifteen-plus candidates enter and leave the race? 

Some Americans are saying this country is ready for a woman president; however, their actions are not matching their words. Arguably, Warren was the Democratic Party’s best chance for a woman candidate, but she did not win a single state during the four early primary contests (IA, NH, NV & SC) and she fell flat during the 14-state Super Tuesday contest. She didn’t even win her home state which is a bad indication of support. 

Even more than her loosing and ultimately dropping out, we now face a primary that is likely to showcase a contested convention with two old White men. Our moderate candidate being former Vice President Joe Biden and our liberal candidate being Bernie Sanders. 

As a self-proclaimed woman advocate, it’s extremely hard to look at a contest that seemed so promising with a diverse field of candidates running from age, gender, race and sexual orientation to dwindle right back down to what we’ve been used to in this country – old white men. 

While Gabbard remains in the race, clearly unviable, Warren dropping out sends a strong signal that what this country preaches it clearly doesn’t practice. We already have a president who has proven himself to show clear bigotry and sexism towards women. What we should be running toward are more women who can represent the more than majority voting population of this country – women. 

While I believe we will have a woman president within the next decade, I can’t help but wonder what message we are continuously sending by advancing old White men.

What the 2019 Election Results Say about 2020

by with One Comment FeaturedPolitics

Tuesday night’s election results have been spun by every pundit to project onto the 2020 presidential race. When put in context, some of the highlights are relatively meaningless. Matt Bevin’s loss in the KY governor’s race is not an accurate representation of the political dynamics in Kentucky. Bevin has repeatedly appeared on the list of the most unpopular governors in the country. It says something about the strength of the KY GOP to nearly carry an incumbent with a 2:1 unfavorable rating to a near tie with the setting Attorney General who is the son of a popular former governor. It also says something that the GOP swept the rest of the statewide races by landslide margins, including the election of the states first Republican (and African-American) Attorney General. In Mississippi, the Lt Governor defeated a popular 4-term Attorney General. People can quibble about the margins in these races, but the real story is not what happened in Mississippi or Kentucky. The election results that matter occurred in Virginia. 

For the first time in nearly 3 decades, Democrats control every statewide office and the state legislature. The political trend in Virginia has benefitted Democrats, but it is a similar trend in other states. George W Bush carried this state by 8 points in both of his elections. Before the 2006 election, the GOP had large majorities in the state legislature, both senate seats, and 2 of the 3 state constitutional offices. The growth of the DC metropolitan area in northern Virginia has fueled the blue resurgence, but the tide in suburban areas is a growing threat to Republican electoral prospects.

In the initial post-mortems of the 2016 elections, the media focused on the rural midwestern counties and communities that flipped from Obama to Trump, but they overlooked the counties and communities that flipped from Romney to Clinton. For all of the blue-collar working-class White voters that broke the Blue Wall of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, there were just as many college-educated middle-class Whites and Latino voters in suburban districts that stayed just beneath the media radar because it did not flip a Romney state to Clinton. While Trump’s margins in working-class states across the Deep South and Midwest were incremental improvements over Romney, he did significantly worse in Texas, Georgia, Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada. 

We are witnessing a seismic political reorganization around new issues that shatter the red/blue narrative that has lingered since the 2000 election. Some issues like abortion and guns will not be affected by this shift, but others like immigration, trade, and global relationships/competition will become the new litmus tests. States with a heavy reliance on international commerce and immigrant labor like Texas and Arizona will continue their transition into purple states, while rustbelt states with a skepticism of global influences like Kentucky, Iowa, and West Virginia will continue become more red. 

John Edwards spoke of ‘Two Americas,’ and while he was technically right, his analysis for why this exists is not. The ‘Two Americas’ are not necessarily the right vs poor, it is urban/suburban vs rural and old vs young. States with growing senior populations and states that have fallen behind in the technology revolution of the last decade are the real base for Trump’s political party. As the percentage of college grads increases, Trump’s grip on the state decreases. This trend started under Obama, but Trump has accelerated it. It also means Trump’s coalition cannot win a national election, but like 2016, it is possible for his opponent to lose it. 

Similar Read: The Trump Doctrine: What Ukraine Says About Trump’s Foreign Policy

shutterstock_1124433791

Kamala or Bust?

by with 5 Comments CultureFeaturedPolitics

California U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (D) is running for President of the United States. So are three other women.  She is joining a field of candidates who will be nothing short of amazing. Women and men of color are declaring their candidacies and that in itself is historic.  What’s also historic is 2020 will have more women candidates run than ever before.  There are so many positives to celebrate, but Democrats are too busy tearing down their own candidates before any debates even start.

Specifically, there’s lots of debate around Kamala. She’s a historically black college or university (HBCU) graduate, born to immigrant parents, pledged a Panhellenic sorority, Alpha Kappa Alpha, Inc. and most notably the former top cop of California, having served as the State’s Attorney General.

We can now dismiss with the pleasantries because the not-Kamala-choir is ready to sing. Since she made her presidential announcement, which was literally 2 days ago on the Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday, several articles have come out about her. Some are in support, but many are critical of her record as San Francisco Attorney General and her state role as Attorney General.  Even more, there has been a ton of social media traffic about her race. And even more than the social media traffic is the HBCU stans and notably Howard University graduates and students who are vehemently defending her existence.

As a graduate of an HBCU, I understand the pride that comes with seeing one of our own run for any elected office, let alone running for president. And as a graduate of Howard University I also understand how my fellow alumnae might walk around with our heads held high and our egos on 10000. However, one thing the HBCU and Howard experience has taught me is to trust but verify. Measure twice and cut once.

As an ardent supporter of women running for office I am elated to see a woman of color run for president after the historic run of Shirley Chisholm. After Hillary Clinton’s historic run in 2016, I think there is an urgent need to have a woman president. Heck we need more women in elected office everywhere. And we definitely need more women of color. But again, it is important that we give Kamala the same critical assessment that we are giving all other candidates, Democrat, Independent and Republican. The blind loyalty and undying support of her candidacy can be exciting if you are going to support her without any consideration of another candidate. But to do so because she went to your school or pledged your sorority is questionable.

Over the last few weeks, several articles have come out about her time as a prosecutor. Some of her actions have been questioned in pieces like The New York Times opinion piece and the article written in The Intercept about her survival as a candidate in the age of the Black Lives Matter movement. These articles point out her stances on controversial cases that some would deem “on the wrong side” of convictions or her silence on stances she might have taken on issues related to criminal justice.  But there are also pieces written that highlight many of her reforms and why she is favorited to get an endorsement by former President Barack Obama.  Notwithstanding her professional experience, which she will have to explain, it would be prudent for all to carefully consider why you support her candidacy over collegiate and social group affiliations.  Afterall, attending a ‘proclaimed’ elite university and joining a sorority has yet to prove anyone is ready to become the next president.

This article was originally published on 1 January 2019.

Critiquing the Candidates

by with One Comment FeaturedPolitics

Record, platform, and history do matter in the Democratic primary, and pointing out the differences does not harm the candidates, it strengthens the team. 

20 candidates have declared their run for the Democratic Party nomination for the 2020 presidential election. That’s a massive list filled with candidates from different backgrounds, different experiences, different platforms, and different visions for the future. Already, conversations and social media comment boards are filled with opinions on who the front-runner is, who has the ability to sustain a run, or who can unite the party. Also included in these discussions (arguments), is why one should never criticize another candidate by bringing up their record or any other unfriendly information for fear that Democrats will weaken their own eventual nominee. Comments such as, “Democrats eat their young again,” or “here we go again with Democrats badly damaging each other -save it for the general election!” Not only is this idea unfair, but it is misguided and will lead to a flawed nominee rather than a strengthened team.

In 2016, there were two candidates for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. The argument that Sanders damaged Clinton and her ability to win in the general election has been proven false by many metrics. Hillary Clinton, largely, ran a campaign for the presidency that lacked substance and a clear vision. Mostly, she ran on a platform of ‘I’m not Trump.’ She failed to energize voters and create a high voter turnout, particularly among young people. Verified exit polling numbers show that the 18-29 year old demographic only created 13% of the electorate, with roughly 29% of the electorate coming from the demographics of 30-49 years old, 50-64 and 65+, however, all four of these demographics represent about the same population. Further, Bernie Sanders could have 1 created a contested convention and required super delegates to cast the final nominating votes, which many of his supporters probably would have liked considering the ethically questionable things the DNC did during the primary season, but he stood on stage and waited for five minutes for the cheering to subside before conceding the nomination to Hillary Clinton. He then campaigned on her behalf for the rest of the election, across the country and using his extensive network to urge his supporters to get out and cast a ballot for Hillary Clinton for president. During the 2016 primary season, there were no negative ads run by Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders, or vice versa. Neither of the Democratic candidates ever told their supporters to vote against the other should they win the nomination, or not to vote at all. But, what they did do is to expose the Democratic electorate to truths about each others history, past voting records and what they would do differently. The impetus was on the nominee to excite the Democratic base, get out the vote and create a platform that people would want to vote for. As has been well documented, Clinton failed to do this by running a moderate campaign with few specifics except that she would be better than Donald Trump. She did not see what was so exciting for much of the electorate in a candidate like Sanders or, in a much different way, Trump, and did not speak to these people about what they needed from the government. She avoided states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan because they have been reliably Democratic – and she lost 2⁄3 of them. She did not create a campaign that felt authentic to Americans who don’t believe politicians are authentic, and she lost because of it.

Bernie Sanders offered Hillary Clinton an opportunity to be in touch with the electorate, to answer for a voting record that many Americans viewed as questionable, and to create a platform for the general election that would appeal to further voting blocs than what Democrats have traditionally enjoyed. He offered her a stronger campaign, but she did not capitalize on it – this does not mean he harmed her campaign. Similarly, in the current primary season, the Democrats and their supporters, are going to expose the history, experience, voting records, policy stances and many other things about each other. While this absolutely must remain civil and rooted in fact, and there should be no negative ads run against each other, the sheer breadth of candidates is going to open additional voting blocs to the eventual nominee, should they have the vision and insight to see it and act on it. By listening to the voters, who they donate to, who they show up for at rallies, what policies they like and don’t like, and being able to speak to those voters in the general election, the nominee will be strengthened. By having their ‘dirty laundry’ aired out in the primary, they will have an opportunity to formulate an answer for it, evolve on unpopular stances, and adapt their platform to reach more voters. If a fair, honest and open election is held, no Democratic voter should be able to say the nominee does not represent them when all is said and done, and a formidable candidate will represent the team in the general election. 

1 “An examination of the 2016 electorate, based on validated voters ….” 9 Aug. 2018, https://www.people-press.org/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-vote rs/. Accessed 29 Apr. 2019. 

This article was originally published on 1 May 2019.

Mueller’s Russia Investigation: Why this Big NothingBurger will be Trump’s Saving Grace

by with No Comment Gen Z

Let’s face it folks… It’s been over two years since the FBI used real Russian Collusion via Hillary’s Campaign financing, the infamous Trump Dossier through Fusion GPS, and Russian Operatives to start investigating Trump for fake Russian Collusion.  And it’s been a year and a half since Mueller started spending millions of dollars trying to prove Russian Collusion… and NOTHING.  They used the Hillary-financed fake (or at least unverified) dossier to start surveilling Trump’s associate, Carter Page, and others.  And yes, they did ‘tap’ Trump Tower looking for information. They said they did all this to protect poor vulnerable Mr. Trump from the big bad Russians, yet they did not surveil the Hillary campaign who actually did get hacked by the Russians!  Hmmm? Seems odd… almost like they had other reasons for doing so? 

So after two years and many lives of very decent (Gates, Papadoplous & Flynn) and some not so decent (Manafort & Cohen) people being ruined by this investigation, there have been many indictments.  The charges so far include tax evasion and lying to the FBI, but nothing to tie any of these men to Russia and certainly not collusion. Mueller is ruining lives by trying to force these men and others to take plea deals so he can squeeze them for other information on Trump or bury them with legal fees if they don’t falsely admit to lying.  It’s a sad time for our Constitution when an individual’s rights and freedoms are violated for political reason or any reason for that matter.

So how is Mueller’s Russia Investigation Trump’s Saving Grace?  

It starts with the fact that after 2 years, NO American citizen has been charged with anything even close to collusion with the Russians.  Zero.  And that is very significant.  Trump has tweeted ‘no collusion’ and ‘witch hunt’ with regard to Mueller’s investigation hundreds of times, which in essence established the benchmark Mueller needs to hit to prove that the investigation was worthwhile — proof of Trump working with Russia to influence the election. For many of his supporters, anything short of that mark is indeed a sign that Mueller has come up dry.  And that may prove to be Trump’s saving grace. 

One of the main issues facing the President is campaign financing.  That story alone is exceptional in the history of presidential campaign behavior.  Even the idea that a President would be implicated in an illegal payoff to secure an election would be an unusual occurrence in U.S. history, especially one where he won by less than 100,000 votes in 3 key states. 

Trump set the high standard of misbehavior at ‘direct collusion’ months before any of this other stuff emerged. For every new revelation about criminal activity by people related to the Trump campaign or for every new development in the campaign finance story, the immediate response from Trump and his base is consistent: “Where’s the collusion? Show me the collusion.”

Imagine if this Russia investigation or these campaign finance allegations didn’t exist?  Imagine if Trump’s evolving lies about what happened were the most significant issue the President faced? The direct pressure he faced would probably be more significant.  The Russian Collusion ‘Witch Hunt’ will never implicate Trump in any criminal activity. The fact that it occupies the public’s minds right now instead of the campaign finance issue gives Trump cover.  So, for all of his dislike of the Mueller Russia Investigation, it just might end up being his Saving Grace.

The Turkey Is Almost Done

by with No Comment Diversity & InclusionFeaturedPolitics

Democrats were hoping for a “blue wave” in this weeks Midterms elections. Though the “blue wave” failed to make shore for nationally followed races such as Beto in Texas, he lost by the thinnest of margin which is encouraging by any standard. The other nationally followed races for Governor in both Georgia and Florida are still too close to call and on the verge of a runoff election. Some Democrats were looking for more than a wave, rather a Tsunami. Polls regarding the approval of the Trump administration have been historically low, and the midterm elections were seen as the chance for said Democratic wave to begin the drowning of Trump’s influence through Congress, which would build momentum for a hopeful defeat of Trump in 2020. Though the wave wasn’t a big enough splash in certain places, the blue wave did swallow up enough seats to take over the House of Representatives.

So a Tsunami didn’t happen, but historic waves did make landfall, and the waves were dominated by women. Surfing to shore were the following:

Two Muslim women to Congress, both equally being the first to do so.

The first Native American woman to Congress…

The first lesbian mother to Congress… 

The youngest woman ever elected to Congress… 

The first Black woman ever elected as the Attorney General of New York… 

Also, the first every openly gay man was elected Governor of Colorado.

In my opinion, that’s a splash to be proud of. 

In addition to people, major progress was made nationwide regarding policies. Marijuana is now legal in Michigan, and medically legal in Utah and Missouri. The unsung victory from the midterm elections was without question Amendment 4 passing in Florida, which now grants voting rights to nearly 1.5 million Floridians who were former felons. (I’ll stress that importance in a little bit.) 

Twenty years ago (1998), there was no such thing as legalized Marijuana, and gay marriage was still illegal! We now have an openly gay Governor and legal Marijuana of any usage in ten states. That’s important.

Here in Texas, Hillary Clinton lost by 9% to Trump in the 2016 Presidential election. Two years later, Beto O’ Rourke lost by less than 3% to the well-funded incumbent in Republican Senator Ted Cruz (in the largest red state in the country). The fact that Beto realistically only had a punchers chance against Cruz and almost come away with a victory, is a victory. Here’s why the “moral victories” in Texas are a sign of possible change. For Republicans, big states in which they depend on like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, can have blue tendencies. Not Texas. Texas is counted on to hold down the GOP fort, due to its 38 electoral votes, second to only California’s 55. The next pure red states with as many electoral votes are Georgia with 16, North Carolina with 15, and Arizona, Indiana, Tennessee each with 11. I think it’s important to note that the unaspiring candidate in Hillary Clinton only lost by nine points in Texas with very little effort in campaigning, and Beto who actually campaigned barely lost. Such improvement in only two years should awaken the Democrat brass to start putting more money and effort into Texas for maybe not a blue wave, but a good ole Texas blue twister to stir things up. 

The way Andrew Gillum destroyed his Republican opponent Ron DeSantis, sparred with Trump via twitter, performed extremely well in the gubernatorial debates, and considering the changes in demographics… Gillium should have won by double digits. Gillum is down by less than .5 percent, which means they’re likely headed towards a recount. Is it not a fair assumption that the 1.5 million formerly convicted felons who just had their voting rights restored could’ve helped him out? 

I know Democrats and Progressives didn’t win every seat they wanted to; however, the numbers are increasing in the right direction in this nation. It’s like hearing “still not done” being yelled by grandma in the kitchen on Thanksgiving regarding the Turkey and her famous side dishes you’ve been patiently waiting for all day. The food isn’t done but you can smell how close it is. You can even see the plates coming out the cabinet. And that’s okay, long as you stay in your chair and don’t get up. No one can take your spot and you’ll be sure to get first dibs on whatever you. 

Was Michelle Obama Wrong?

by with 6 Comments CultureFeatured

In 2016, Michelle Obama left attendees at the Democratic National Convention in awe after finishing her speech in support of Hillary Clinton’s bid for President. A speech that will surely be remembered for decades was highlighted by her now famous moto that has probably been echoed and repeated more than a billion times since…

“When they go low, we go high!” 

In reference to not stooping to the level of a figurative bully, how could anyone regardless of their socioeconomic background or political beliefs disagree? It’s a perfect example to set for our children and followers alike. It’s also a courageous and impressive thing to say regarding an opposition who has taken shots at the legitimacy of your husband’s citizenship and faith, who’s been accused of sexual misconduct by numerous women, and who’s incited violence at his protests… to say the least. I don’t think anyone on the left would’ve faulted Michelle for stooping low. But she didn’t, she stayed high just as she informed and directed millions of people do to that evening in Philadelphia, PA.

Except, there’s one problem.

In reference to the 2016 election, she was wrong… dead wrong. Candidate and soon to be President Donald Trump went low, extremely low… and won. Hillary and Democrats tried to go high, much higher than Trump and his surrogates, and they lost. How did this happen?

Did Hillary run a bad campaign? Maybe

Did FBI Director Comey’s announcement about her emails hurt her campaign? Maybe

We could go on and on about who and what potentially impacted the election. But in the game of politics, can Democrats continue to go high when their opposition is willing to do whatever it takes to win?

Regarding our moral compass, the ramifications of going high have and will continue to cost Dems and their constituents a lot. Countless criminal justice reforms have been rolled back, LGBT protections have been reversed, environmental regulations have been cut, we’ve imposed tariffs on our allies, the Courts upheld his travel ban which could last for decades, he’ll get to nominate another Supreme Court Justice (Kennedy’s resigned – 6/27/18), and Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling which legalized abortion, will likely be on the table in the near future. It hasn’t even been 2 years, and that’s just a few of the going high costs that will hurt Dems for years to come.

So looking back, and looking forward, was going high worth it… when going so low paid off?

Subscribe for free to receive similar content. 

Elizabeth Warren Agrees, DNC Cheated Bernie

by with One Comment Media
In an interview Thursday [11/2/17], CNN’s Jake Tapper asked Elizabeth Warren, “Very quickly Senator, do you agree with the notion that it was rigged?” Without hesitation, Warren answered “Yes.”
The DNC has nobody to blame but themselves seems to be the sentiment many picked up in the Politico article that highlighted excerpts from Donna Brazil’s new book set to be released November 7th. Nearly a year after Hillary Clinton’s shocking loss to Donald Trump, Donna Brazile, the former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee, is making strong claims against the DNC and others.
What are the claims? President Obama left the DNC in significant debt ($24 million in debt to be exact), and Debbie Wasserman Schultz was not a good leader and a terrible fundraiser are among them. The biggest claim; however, states that Hillary rigged the DNC and Bernie never had a fair chance to win the nomination.

“If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity. I had to keep my promise to Bernie. I was in agony as I dialed him. Keeping this secret was against everything that I stood for, all that I valued as a woman and as a public servant. “Hello, senator. I’ve completed my review of the DNC and I did find the cancer,” I said. “But I will not kill the patient.” I told Bernie I had found Hillary’s Joint Fundraising Agreement. I explained that the cancer was that she had exerted this control of the party long before she became its nominee. Had I known this, I never would have accepted the interim chair position…” – Donna Brazile

She regretfully called Bernie to discuss the findings of her investigation. Despite basically telling Bernie he had been cheated, she quickly went on say that his support was needed to secure Hillary’s victory.

“but here we were with only weeks before the election… I had to be frank with him. I urged Bernie to work as hard as he could to bring his supporters into the fold with Hillary, and to campaign with all the heart and hope he could muster. He might find some of her positions too centrist, and her coziness with the financial elites distasteful, but he knew and I knew that the alternative was a person who would put the very future of the country in peril. I knew he heard me. I knew he agreed with me, but I never in my life had felt so tiny and powerless as I did making that call. When I hung up the call to Bernie, I started to cry, not out of guilt, but out of anger. We would go forward. We had to.” – Donna Brazile

This is a stunning revelation – maybe great leadership in her ability to focus on the big picture and try to get Bernie and his supporters on board? Or maybe not, considering CNN fired her for apparently sharing debate questions with Hillary prior to one of the presidential debates.
I’m sure people from Hillary’s camp and others at the DNC will respond to this article and Donna’s book that comes out in a few weeks. Whether some of her claims or all of them are true, its appears that our political system is broken at best and corrupt at worse.
If Donna’s claims regarding Hilary and the DNC are true, where does this leave the party?
How will this hurt their voting base and ability to attract millennials and/or working class voters who decided to vote for Trump in 2016?
Want to read similar content from the Left, Center, Right? SUBSCRIBE for only $2/month.

Trump is NOT a Racist… He’s Worse

by with No Comment Uncategorized

Trump might NOT be a Racist… He could be something worse.

Trump appears to be a megalomaniac who unconditionally supports whatever group or individual who supports him. 

So far, he has targeted the most fanatical and unwavering groups of voters: 

-Pro-Gun

-Anti-Immigrant

-Pro-Religious Freedom

-Anti-LGBTQ

-Pro-Police (Regardless of Brutality)

-Anti-Black Lives Matter

-Pro-Military Expansion

-Anti-Globalism

-Pro-Big Business

-Anti-Government Programs

-Pro-Birth

-Anti-Planned Parenthood

-Anti-Tax the Rich

-Anti-Universal Health Care

He targets these people because he knows that:

1. They will never waver in their support for him, regardless of his egregious mistakes.

2. They are very disciplined voters. 

Only 58% of Americans voted in 2016. That means Trump only needs 29.1% of the country to support him and actually vote. Trump does not care if 70.8% of the country is for or against an issue, so long as his positions line up with the 29.1% of people who will definitely vote for him (his base). 

But to think that Trump is a racist because he supports the Alt-Right or other blatantly racist organizations is a mistake. Trump supports anyone or anything that supports HIM.

If everyone in the Black Lives Matter movement supported Trump and voted for him unconditionally, he’d say (and at least pretend to do) whatever they wanted him to. As it were, Trump does not see this group as obtainable, loyal to him, or worth pursuing so he goes after the lower hanging fruit: the fanatical, simplistic White Nationalists who don’t require much persuading to gain full support (just some coded, “dog whistle” type statements that they hear loud and clear as supporting their cause while everyone else is skeptical of the true meaning).

If Trump knew that he’d be unconditionally backed by:

-Pro-Gun Law Reform

-Pro-Immigrant

-Anti-Religious Infiltration of Public Institutions

-Pro-LGBTQ

-Anti-Police Brutality/Discrimination

-Pro-Black Lives Matter

-Anti-Military Imperialism

-Pro-Globalism

-Anti-Big Business Monopolies/Deregulation

-Pro-Government Programs

-Pro-Planned Parenthood

-Pro-Taxing the Rich

-Pro-Universal Health Care

He’d support THOSE groups instead… (in other words, he’d be Hillary Clinton: another megalomaniac who definitely could have been the subject of this writing had SHE won).

This recent DACA flip-flop is remarkable evidence of Trump’s neglect for any real values and gravitation towards whatever he thinks will make him appear more favorable. Perhaps he doesn’t feel supported by the anti-Dreamers in the GOP as they have not helped him create any meaningful legislation since taking office. Consequently, Trump sees a victory for himself as siding with the Democrats who support DACA because together they might create the first success of his tenure in office (even if he completely trashes a hallmark value of his campaign and Presidency: getting undocumented immigrants out of the country). 

But this is the dangerous thing about power and politics. These men and women don’t necessarily believe in anything. They just want your vote, your money, your supportive social media posts, and your shaming and harassing of the people who oppose them. Maybe integrity, honesty, and consistency should rank above policy when choosing the next leader of our country. 

Want to read similar content from the Left, Center, Right? SUBSCRIBE for only $2/month.