RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: Independence Day in the Shadow of a Tyrant-Twit Print
Tuesday, 04 July 2017 10:57

Rosenblum writes: "A majority of senators and representatives will try to keep on enabling presidential madness. We have to make it blindingly clear in 2018 that, later if not sooner, they'll be out of our Congress and looking for real jobs."

Donald Trump speaks to supporters at a rally. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Donald Trump speaks to supporters at a rally. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)


Independence Day in the Shadow of a Tyrant-Twit

By Mort Rosenblum, Mort Rosenblum Dispatches

04 July 17

 

fter an infantile tweet in which he feigned punching out CNN and by extension a "fake" press that exposes his conflicting interests and mobbed-up heartless past, Donald Trump told a rally: "I'm president, and they're not."

For once, he was right. Until we can fix that, he personifies a new America: mean and selfish and willfully ignorant, a great nation ready to leave an imperiled planet in the lurch with no sense of the damage that does to itself.

Our options are few. The 25th Amendment requires a sycophantic cabinet to act. Impeachment is long and complex. If either succeeded, would we really want a fundamentalist Mike Pence, fortified by savior status at election time?

But we can defend our credible news organizations and box in Trump at every turn. We can challenge his edicts, thwart his cabinet's depredations and in 2020 evict him from our White House with the most humiliating defeat in history.

A majority of senators and representatives will try to keep on enabling presidential madness. We have to make it blindingly clear in 2018 that, later if not sooner, they'll be out of our Congress and looking for real jobs.

Democrats are in disarray, hardly free of blame. For Republicans, that excuses nothing. We are adrift in the same boat; neither party benefits by blasting holes in it. Consider the shoals ahead.

Stephen Hawking, at 75, just told BBC: "We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible. Trump's action could push the Earth over the brink, like Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees, and raining sulfuric acid."

Irrational policies abroad increase terrorism geometrically, threaten war and cede global dominance to China. At home, Republican health care reductions to fund tax cuts amount to manslaughter. Americans will die, victims of callous greed.

A Pew poll in 37 countries found confidence in the United States dropped from 64 percent to 22 percent since January. Only Russia and Israel favor Trump over Barack Obama. Europe is now adjusting to an après-America world.

Beyond parties or policies, our soul and spirit are at stake. If we do not act now, an entrenched oligarchy will further erode basic freedoms and widen the gap between the haves and the haven't-got-a-chance. It can happen here.

People who know better defend Trump, no matter what, because he fattens their fortunes now at the expense of everyone's future. That's not deplorable, it's monstrous. They con a disaffected suffering mainstream and exploit a cultist fringe that follows a demagogue with the zealotry of Jonestown Kool-Aid drinkers.

Today's technology allows a demagogue to speak directly to voters and to slime a non-existent collectivity - "the media." That undermines faith in the seasoned reporters any democratic society must rely upon as its eyes and ears.

Here is an example of how this plays out:

During the campaign, Trump's people invited photographer Chris Morris to a rally as part of his candidate profile for Time magazine. Chris is a cool hand, with experience in places like Chechnya where pissing off authorities can be fatal.

He took a half step out of the press pen because someone blocked his angle. Secret Service agents, our civil servants, slammed him to the ground. He expelled an understandable, and not illegal, "fuck you."

Today, Trump nuts still hound Chris by message and even voicemail at his Florida home. His kids have been hassled in school. I asked him for a sampling.

Two were brief. "Hey chris, did you learn your lesson yet? Don't get rude with our US forces or you're going to eat floor you little cunt." "I never laughed so hard in my life when you lifted your head off the concrete and made the perfect crybaby liberal bitch face."

A third, shorn of some foul insane rambling, portrays a segment of America that showed up at the polls when so many other eligible voters did not bother:

"Oh my, how dare a member of the secret service drop your pathetic loser ass on the floor after you get in his face. Um, yeah buddy welcome to the new America where we stop listening to stupid fucktards like you and your leftist coconspirators. I was...rooting for formal federal charges for your assault...That would give you a solid 11 to 20 years to think about why maybe you should understand more fully why you're a terrible human being...You are a pathetic nothing and watching you die like a dog on a dirty floor would give me nothing but the most joy. You are a fascist liberal crybaby cunt and you deserve to get the shit kicked out of you on a steady basis because you are what's wrong with this nation right now..."

Right. Welcome to the new America.

This is Trump's basest base, deranged cretins who can be whipped into lynch-mob frenzy. But stepping back to see less pathological examples of this mentality, the danger is beyond terrifying.

Trump cares only about what he sees in the mirror. He reacts to perceived slights like an invertebrate stuck with a pin. Adulation he craves demands tough-guy swagger. He thrives on hapless scapegoats and simplistic bellicose bluster.

He bulls ahead with policies that trash our wilderness, destroy our subsurface, poison our waterways and plunder Native-American heritage. In his fact-free isolation, he ignores widespread protest to tell us that no one objects.

Abroad, totally out of his depth, he faces a despot loonier than he is. Kim Jong-un threatened in January to test an ICBM. He tweeted dismissively, "It won't happen." Kim chest-bumped back. Today, on July 4, North Korea fired a missile that could reach Alaska. Trump paused from warring with a TV personality for another tweet: "Does this guy have anything better to do with his life?" Be very worried.

I've reported on demagogues for decades. They let police get away with murder. They retool schools to produce a ruling class and barely literate indentured servants. They team up with tyrants and pillage national wealth at will.

In most places, citizens suffer in silence or risk prison if not the morgue. In a democracy, they only have to stop bemoaning their fate and change things. This is the day when we celebrate ridding ourselves of an overweening monarch. So?

Once we remember that we are supposed to run our country, we can start serious reform. Demand that Congress and state legislatures act now - or else. Read. Listen. Sound off. Proselytize. Show up at town halls, as many now do, and chant, "Do your job." When it is time to vote, drive hordes to the polls.

Our greatest danger is feeling overwhelmed. It seems as if an individual voter is powerless against a rigged system, gerrymandered and corrupted by big money. But who else besides individuals can do it? With democracy, you use it or lose it.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Two Questions About Trump and Republicans That Stump Progressives Print
Tuesday, 04 July 2017 08:10

Lakoff writes: "Why don't Trump supporters turn against Trump even though he is doing things that hurt them? (like taking away their healthcare)."

President Donald Trump is joined by Vice President Mike Pence and senior staff in the Oval Office. (photo: Andrew Harnik/AP)
President Donald Trump is joined by Vice President Mike Pence and senior staff in the Oval Office. (photo: Andrew Harnik/AP)


Two Questions About Trump and Republicans That Stump Progressives

By George Lakoff, George Lakoff's Blog

04 July 17

 

rogressives are stumped. They are asking these questions over and over again on social media, TV, and radio:

1) Why don’t Trump supporters turn against Trump even though he is doing things that hurt them? (like taking away their healthcare)

2) Why do Republicans hate the Affordable Care Act, and why are they so transparently acting to give wealthy people a tax break by making healthcare unaffordable?

Here is the short answer: All politics is moral. Supporting Trump – and gutting public healthcare resources in order to provide tax cuts for the wealthy – fits perfectly within the strict conservative moral worldview, which is hierarchical in nature. Voters don’t vote their self-interest. They vote their values.

The longer answer requires a deeper explanation.

Let’s start with the place where all ideas and questions originate – the brain.

Most thought (as much as 98% by some accounts) is unconscious. It is carried out by neural circuitry in our brains. We have no conscious access to this circuitry, but it’s there. This is basic neuroscience.

When it comes to politics, progressives and conservatives essentially have different brains. The unconscious beliefs conditioned in their brains are nearly exact opposites.

Here are two statements you will almost certainly agree with if you’re a progressive:

1) In Lincoln’s words, the American government should be a government of, by, and for the people.
2) Citizens care about other citizens, and work through their government to provide public resources for all — resources required for the wellbeing and freedom of all.

These imply just about all of progressive policies.

With a government of the people, those in the government are not separated from those outside. There is two way communication and transparency, and response to the people’s concerns.

With a government by the people, those in the government have the same basic experiences as those outside. The government therefore responds with empathy to the basic needs of its citizens.

A government for the people cares for its citizens and gives necessary help as a matter of course. There is no democracy without care.

The second principle – the need for public resources – has been essential to American democracy from the start. From the beginning, the Private Depended on Public Resources.

Public resources, including roads and bridges along with public education, a national bank, a patent office, courts for business cases, interstate commerce support, and the criminal justice system are necessary to have private enterprise. These public resources include protection — not just a military and police, but protection from harm by unscrupulous corporations either by poisoning products, the air, water, etc. or by unscrupulous banks, mortgage holders, and investors. These protections are carried out by “regulations”: protective laws and agencies.

Over time those resources have included sewers, water and electricity, research universities and research support, and technologies like computers and satellite phones.

Private enterprise and private life utterly depend on public resources. These public resources provide freedom: freedom to start and run a business, and freedom in private life.

You’re not free if you are not educated, because your possibilities in life are limited.

You’re not free if you have cancer and no health insurance.

You’re not free if you have no income — or not enough for basic needs.

And if you work for a large company, you may not be free without a union. Unions free you from corporate servitude. They free you to have a living wage, safety on the job, regular working hours, a pension, health benefits, dignity.

If you’re a progressive, you most likely agree with these ideas. If you’re a conservative, you may be apoplectic by now.

It should be clear that most progressive policies follow from these basic, largely implicit and unconscious, principles. When we state them consciously and overtly, we can see where questions (1) and (2) come from.

Why should Trump voters support him when his government does not supply necessary care, when it can hurt them deeply, threatening their health and possibly their lives by, say, taking away their health care? Why should Republicans, who are Americans after all, hate the Affordable Care Act, which was for the people, and which supplies care of the most essential kind for tens of millions of Americans?

From a progressive point a view, questions (1) and (2) are mysterious, especially when you ask them together. What do they have to do with each other — support for a Trump who harms them and hate for government care?

One Answer to Both Questions: Moral Politics

All Politics Is Moral. Progressives and conservatives have opposing moral worldviews. When a political leader proposes a policy, the assumption it that the policy is right, not wrong or morally irrelevant. No political leader says, “Do what I say because it’s evil. It’s the devil’s work, but do it!” Nor will a political leader say, “My policy proposal is morally irrelevant. It’s neither right nor wrong. It doesn’t really matter. Just do it.”
Everyone likes to think of himself or herself as a good person. That means that your moral system is a major part of your identity. To vote against your moral identity would be to reject your self.

What Are Conservative Moral Values?

In my 1996 book, Moral Politics, I examined how political values tend to arise from the fact that we are all first governed in our families. The way that your ideal family is governed is a model for the ideal form of government. This is often a matter of how your real family is governed, though some people rebel and adopt an opposite ideal.

Conservative moral values arise from what I call the Strict Father Family.

In this family model, father knows best. He decides right and wrong. He has the ultimate authority to make sure his children and his spouse do what he says, because what he says is right. Many conservative spouses accept this worldview, uphold the father’s authority, and are strict in those realms of family life that they control.

In this moral worldview, it is his moral duty to punish his children painfully when they disobey. Harsh punishment is necessary to ensure that they will obey him (do what is right) and not just do what feels good. Through physical discipline they are supposed to become disciplined, internally strong, and able to prosper in the external world.

What if they don’t prosper? That means they are not disciplined, and therefore cannot be moral, and so deserve their poverty. In this conservative view, the poor are seen as lazy and undeserving while the rich deserve their wealth. Responsibility is thus taken to be personal responsibility, not social responsibility. What you become is only up to you, not society. You are responsible for yourself, not for others.

The Conservative Moral Hierarchy

The strict father logic extends further. The basic idea is that authority is justified by morality (the strict father version), and that, in a world ordered by nature, there should be (and traditionally has been) a moral hierarchy in which those who have traditionally dominated should dominate.

Why do conservatives love Trump (who harms them) and hate healthcare (which helps them)? It makes more sense when you consider the conservative moral hierarcy.

The Conservative Moral Hierarchy:

• God above Man
• Man above Nature
• The Disciplined (Strong) above the Undisciplined (Weak)
• The Rich above the Poor
• Employers above Employees
• Adults above Children
• Western culture above other cultures
• America above other countries
• Men above Women
• Whites above Nonwhites
• Christians above non-Christians
• Straights above Gays

Sound familiar?

On the whole, conservative policies flow from the Strict Father worldview and this hierarchy. Trump is an extreme case (he wants to be the ultimate strict father), though very much in line with conservative policies of the Republican party.

(Please bear in mind that many, if not most, conservatives are bi-conceptual, that is, “moderates” in that they have a strict father major worldview together with a nurturant minor worldview on some issues or other. Those moderating issues vary from person to person. But in their major worldview, they fit the Strict Father pattern.)

The Two Questions

1) Why don’t Trump supporters turn against Trump even though he is doing things that hurt them? (like taking away their healthcare)

Most Trump supporters have Strict Father morality. It determines their sense of right and wrong. They see Trump as bringing America back to their values in a powerful way, making their values respectable and in line with the way the country is being run. Trump’s presidency has given them self-respect. Their self-respect is more important than the details of his policies, even if some of those policies hurt them. On the whole, they like the way he has restructured the government and what he is doing throughout the government.

2) Why do Republicans hate the Affordable Care Act, and why are they so transparently acting to give wealthy people a tax break by making healthcare unaffordable?

Strict Father morality insists on a particular notion of self-responsibility. Being taken care of by “the government” is seen as immoral because it gives the government an authority above strict father principles. The care of the Affordable Care Act in itself violated the moral sense and the very identity of conservatives – even those who benefit greatly from it.

Moreover, the Affordable Care Act attempted to help people lower on the conservative Moral Hierarchy: the poor, African-Americans and other minorities, women, and so on.

The Mandate to buy insurance went directly against self-responsibility overall, giving Americans responsibility for their fellow Americans. It also went against the laissez-faire market ideology because it put constraints on insurance companies.

And why do conservatives love tax breaks for the rich? Because, in the Conservative Moral Hierarchy, the rich are better than the poor. The poor deserve their poverty. They rich deserve their wealth.

Conservative hatred of the Affordable Care Act makes sense when you understand the mechanics of their moral worldview.

The Importance of Understanding

These two questions provided an opportunity to write about moral bases of progressive and conservative thought and how they manifest in our politics. At a time when the country is tearing itself apart, when progressives and conservatives each see the other as immoral and un-American, and as attacking what is right, we must begin to understand why this is happening. We won’t be able to address the problem until we do.

For further reading, please read A Minority President: Why the Polls Failed, and What the Majority Can Do.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
A 165-Year-Old Reminder of the Promise of July 4 Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=27423"><span class="small">Editorial Board, The Washington Post</span></a>   
Tuesday, 04 July 2017 08:10

Excerpt: "The year was 1852, and the Fourth of July speaker was Frederick Douglass. The subject then, with civil war just over the horizon, was one of leadership and character, particularly devotion to a cause greater than oneself."

American flags in Batavia, Illinois. (photo: Jim Young/Bloomberg)
American flags in Batavia, Illinois. (photo: Jim Young/Bloomberg)


ALSO SEE: ‘I Must Mourn’: Frederick Douglass on the Meaning of July 4th to the Slave

A 165-Year-Old Reminder of the Promise of July 4

By Editorial Board, The Washington Post

04 July 17

 

et us take a break, at least for a few minutes, from the palace intrigues and temper tantrums at the White House to revisit a time when the country faced crises a great deal more ominous. The year was 1852, and the Fourth of July speaker was Frederick Douglass. The subject then, with civil war just over the horizon, was one of leadership and character, particularly devotion to a cause greater than oneself.

Douglass made his oration in Rochester, N.Y. (It was actually delivered on July 5.) The great abolitionist was clear in stating that July 4 did not mean the same things to him and other African Americans as it did to most of his audience. Yet he addressed the crowd as “fellow citizens,” and though he spoke of “your” holiday, he alluded to a common set of beliefs and to the hope for a future in which all Americans, enslaved and free, would realize the promise of July 4, 1776, if only they paid heed to what was actually declared on that day.

“Fellow citizens,” he said, “I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. .?.?. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory.

“They loved their country better than their own private interests .?.?. Your fathers staked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor on the cause of their country. In their admiration of liberty, they lost sight of all other interests. .?.?. They seized upon eternal principles, and set a glorious example in their defense. .?.?.

“Your fathers, the fathers of this republic, did, most deliberately, under the inspiration of a glorious patriotism, and with a sublime faith in the great principles of justice and freedom, lay deep, the corner-stone of the national super-structure, which has risen and still rises in grandeur around you.”

This from a man who had been whipped and otherwise abused in America before escaping slavery and becoming the nation’s most eloquent voice against that cruel institution. Most of the remainder of his speech consisted of an exhortation to comprehend the evils of slavery and the need to abolish it, but there was in it an element of optimism, a faith in the power of republican ideals to someday overcome the evil practices of the day and unite people in a way that no bonds of race, religion or ethnic affinity could do — and to create a nation that would stand as an example to the world. Today, 165 years later, we can aspire to be worthy of that clear-eyed but optimistic faith.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Parsing Hype From Reality in North Korea's ICBM Claim Print
Tuesday, 04 July 2017 08:09

Klug writes: "If North Korea's claim Tuesday of its first ICBM test-launch is true, it has barreled over a red line that the world has long called a tripwire for potential nuclear disaster. As always with North Korea, however, it's hard to tell how wide the gulf is between reality and rhetoric."

Soldiers last week at the birthplace compound of Kim Il-sung, North Korea's founder and grandfather of the current leader, Kim Jong-un, in Pyongyang, the capital. (photo: How Hwee Young/EPA)
Soldiers last week at the birthplace compound of Kim Il-sung, North Korea's founder and grandfather of the current leader, Kim Jong-un, in Pyongyang, the capital. (photo: How Hwee Young/EPA)


Parsing Hype From Reality in North Korea's ICBM Claim

By Foster Klug, Associated Press

04 July 17

 

f North Korea's claim Tuesday of its first ICBM test-launch is true, it has barreled over a red line that the world has long called a tripwire for potential nuclear disaster.

As always with North Korea, however, it's hard to tell how wide the gulf is between reality and rhetoric.

Analysts, for instance, believe the latest missile may be able to hit Alaska, a marked improvement on past efforts and potentially placing it in the intercontinental ballistic missile category, but far from backing North Korea's claim it can now "strike anywhere on Earth."

Skeptics will also ask how North Korea can claim mastery of such a complicated technology after only one test.

That said, the message from North Korea seems clear: If not stopped, it is now only a matter of time before one of the most dogged countries on Earth achieves its goal of being able to hit all parts of the United States.

Here is what Tuesday's potentially game-changing claim might mean:

---

WHY IT MIGHT BE AN ICBM

The claim has the air of the inevitable for some North Korea watchers.

The country has, with single-minded determination, been devoting its best and brightest, and a huge amount of its tiny financial resources, to this goal for generations.

The pace has quickened dramatically under leader Kim Jong Un, who took over in 2011. Since late 2012, North Korea has placed two satellites into orbit with long-range rockets, which outsiders see as clandestine tests of missile technology.

Last year, North Korea conducted its fourth and fifth atomic bomb tests and claimed a series of technical missile and atomic breakthroughs.

After what North Korea said in March was a ground test of a new type of high-thrust rocket engine, Kim Jong Un was quoted as saying that the "whole world will soon witness what eventful significance the great victory won today carries."

Outside analysts say the missile's potential range, if fired at a normal trajectory, could be more than 6,000 kilometers (3,750 miles), which would make it technically an ICBM.

---

WHY IT MIGHT NOT BE

It is difficult, maybe impossible, for outsiders to understand exactly what happened in the launch.

"It's something that only North Koreans would know," said Kwon Sejin, a professor at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology in South Korea.

Maj. Gen. Cho Han Gyu, director of operations at South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a televised briefing that the missile showed an improved range over an intermediate-range missile North Korea tested on May 14. But he said South Korean and U.S. intelligence authorities are trying to determine if the North had indeed fired an ICBM.

Some doubt whether North Korea has mastered the technology needed to build a re-entry vehicle that is crucial for returning a warhead to the atmosphere from space so it could hit its intended target. Or whether North Korea can build a warhead small enough to fit on a long-range missile.

Chae Yeon-seok, a professor at South Korea's University of Science and Technology, said radar and satellites can track a missile's flight but not the specifics of the missile's technology. "We cannot verify if a warhead lands in the ocean without any problem," he said.

---

WHY IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER

Persistence.

North Korea, whose ethos of self-reliance is akin to a national religion, has for decades sought to build weapons that can combat U.S. and South Korean "hostility."

Nothing has stopped the country's tenacious progress - not sanctions, not threats, not diplomacy.

A U.S. and South Korean attack would end North Korea's ruling class, but it would also kill huge numbers of South Koreans who live an easy drive from the world's most heavily armed border.

This means that without finding the right solution, it may only be a matter of time before reality matches North Korea's propaganda, which on Tuesday called the test the "final step toward completing the nation's nuclear military strength."


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The 25th Amendment Is a Fantasy. Rick Perry Is Not the One You've Been Waiting For. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=17940"><span class="small">Judd Legum, ThinkProgress</span></a>   
Tuesday, 04 July 2017 08:08

Legum writes: "Trump's unhinged tweet on Sunday morning - a video of Trump beating up a man with a CNN logo superimposed over his face - spurred calls to remove Trump by invoking the 25th amendment."

Donald Trump. (photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
Donald Trump. (photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)


The 25th Amendment Is a Fantasy. Rick Perry Is Not the One You've Been Waiting For.

By Judd Legum, ThinkProgress

04 July 17

 

rump’s unhinged tweet on Sunday morning — a video of Trump beating up a man with a CNN logo superimposed over his face — spurred calls to remove Trump by invoking the 25th amendment.

The 25th amendment was passed after the assassination of President Kennedy to clarify the line of succession if the president is killed or incapacitated. Section Four allows for the removal of the president in the event “the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

The calls for a 25th amendment “solution” spanned the political spectrum. From the left, an impassioned plea from former MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann.

From the right, conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, who has been floating the idea since May.

The concept took hold on Sunday, with the hashtag #25thAmendmentNow trending nationally on Twitter.

Spoiler: This is never going to happen.

One thing that is seldom discussed is the actual procedure, outlined in the constitution, to remove the president via the 25th amendment. It is much more difficult than impeachment.

First, you need both the Vice President and a majority of Trump’s cabinet to submit a written declaration that Trump is unable to carry out his duties. To give you an idea about how unlikely this is, watch this cabinet meeting from last month where each cabinet member takes turns lavishing Trump with praise.

This is perhaps the group of people least likely to turn on Trump. At the time of this meeting, Trump had already made many ill-advised tweets — from attacking the media to suggesting he taped his conversations in the White House.

But that’s not all. Even if the cabinet decided to invoke the 25th amendment with a written declaration, a two-thirds majority of the House and Senate is required to actually remove Trump from office.

The process for removal via impeachment is much simpler. It only requires a majority vote in the House and a two-thirds majority in the Senate. This is also almost unfathomable in the current political environment — almost every Republican in Congress continues to support Trump — but there is an election in 2018 that could change the calculation.

There is an effort in Congress to invoke the 25th amendment without support from Trump’s cabinet. The 25th amendment allows for a declaration of incapacity by “such other body as Congress may by law provide.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) has introduced a bill to create an “Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity.” The bill commission “would be a nonpartisan panel appointed by congressional leaders composed of four physicians, four psychiatrists and three others — such as former presidents, vice presidents or other former senior U.S. government officials.” He’s attracted a couple of dozen Democratic co-sponsors.

But even if Raskin’s bill somehow became law and the new commission found Trump was incapacitated, Vice President Pence could still effectively veto the commission’s recommendations. Even if Pence went along, it would still require a two-thirds majority of the House and the Senate to actually remove Trump.

Attention is a precious resource. The focus on the 25th amendment, which is little more than a fantasy, has the potential to distract from less sexy but more pressing matters. The Senate, for example, is still trying to cobble together votes from their health care bill, which could cost 22 million people their health insurance. Focused engagement on a few key Senators could make a huge difference. The 25th amendment will not.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 Next > End >>

Page 1592 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN