People who kicked ass in 2017

In the heat of the moment, our attention has often been drawn to the cast of scoundrels, traitors and cowards who dominated the centers of power this year. However, 2017 will probably be remembered more for the unlikely and often surprising people who became heroes by resisting those scoundrels. It may not seem like it now, but 2017 was a year rich in heroes.

There isn’t room to celebrate all the people who moved our country in a more hopeful direction in 2017, but here are a few of them.

Tarana Burke

This is so consistently true it should be treated as a national rule – behind most prominent developments in American life there is a black person whose originating efforts are forgotten. Twenty years ago, Tarana Burke lit the flame that would become the #MeToo movement.

In 1997, Burke committed her life to supporting survivors of sexual abuse. This October, in response to the publication of allegations against Harvey Weinstein, Burke’s friend Allyssa Milano retweeted Burke’s “#MeToo” idea and a two-decade long overnight success story was born. The resistance has been defined by women’s refusal to remain silent, and the #MeToo movement has been the cornerstone of that defiance.

Leigh Corfman

As a vulnerable 14-year-old, Corfman was molested by a local Alabama District Attorney, an experience she kept quiet out of fear and intimidation. Forty years later, she ended that man’s reign of abuse by finding the courage to speak out. Corfman and three other women shared their stories with reporters from the Washington Post. As the youngest of Moore’s known targets, her story became the anchor of the case against him. Thanks to brave stands by Corfman and others against bigots, powerful politicians, and venal religious hypocrites, Alabama has its first Democratic Senator since the Dixiecrats switched parties. The entire country owes her and her fellow survivors a debt of gratitude.

Shannon Coulter

First, attack your enemy’s revenue stream. In 2017, Shannon Coulter’s #GrabYourWallet campaign was a dead-simple, lethally effective tool for social organizing. By publishing a list of retailers doing business with the Trump family, Coulter gave ordinary people a simple, daily guide to changing America. Her movement had a twin, the anonymous ‘Sleeping Giants’ project which sought to make consumers and retailers aware of businesses that supported Brietbart. That project has cost the site well over eight figures, while also devastating the credibility it had carefully achieved. This is how revolutions probably work in the age of social media.

Colin Kaepernick

NFL Quarterback Colin Kaeperick’s season started with him losing his job for refusing to abandon his protest against police violence. As the season comes to an end, he may be part of an ownership group buying the Carolina Panthers.

Current Panthers owner and creepy old cracker, Jerry Richardson, announced plans to step down and sell the team after his settlements of sexual and racial harassment claims went public. Sean ‘PDiddy’ Combs is trying to assemble a purchase with a group of multi-millionaire black athletes, including Stephen Curry and Kaepernick. If we’re lucky, next year Carolina might play home to the NFL’s Black Panthers.

Russell Moore

Moore was on last year’s Political Orphans list of people to watch. As one of the few major evangelical leaders who didn’t sell his soul to the Trumpists, he’s had a tough, but successful year. I won’t repeat here the more detailed writeup I did a week ago. Suffice to say, Russell Moore is shaping up to be America’s answer to Germany’s Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Robert Mueller

What has Robert Mueller done in 2017? No one really knows, which is an incredible accomplishment for the highest profile investigation in our history. A couple of indictments and guilty pleas have marked the Special Council’s progress and left powerful Trump officials rattling with rage, but the rest of the team’s activities have remained carefully secret. Their ruthless professionalism has been one of the most promising developments of the year.

The activists behind the Indivisible movement

Success is the greatest revenge. A group of Democratic activists decided to slice through their stunned horror at Trump’s victory to assemble an effective resistance organization. Just weeks after the election, Ezra Levin, Jeremy Haile, Leah Greenberg, and Angel Padilla had produced a handy, sharable guide to the resistance that took off like wildfire. They borrowed and adapted tactics from the Tea Party Movement to fit a progressive agenda, then began assembling an infrastructure around it.

They became a powerful grassroots force in the Virginia election, helping to turn an otherwise blah off-year affair into an historic Democratic rout. They poured resources into the Alabama Senate race, playing a pivotal role in local turnout. Having made an indelible mark on 2017, they are now turning their attention toward the national elections next year.

58 Comments

  1. I just saw this earlier and LMAO. It’s written by a Brit and he’s not pulling any punches but I think it sums up what the majority of us feel.

    Dear Fucking Lunatic,

    I read with interest your recent interview with The New York Times. I couldn’t get past the bit about your being the most popular visitor in the history of fucking China — a country that’s only 2,238 years old, give or take.

    Do you know how fucking insane you sound, you off-brand butt plug? That’s like the geopolitical equivalent of “that stripper really likes me” — only 10,000 times crazier and less self aware.

    You are fucking exhausting. Every day is a natural experiment in determining how long 300 million people can resist coring out their own assholes with an ice auger. Every time I hear a snippet of your Queens-tinged banshee larynx farts, I want to crawl up my own ass with a Union Jack and claim my sigmoid colon for HRH Queen Elizabeth II.

    We are fucking tired. As bad as we all thought your presidency would be when Putin got you elected, it’s been inestimably worse.

    You called a hostile, nuclear-armed head of state “short and fat.” How the fuck does that help?

    You accused a woman — a former friend, no less — of showing up at your resort bleeding from the face and begging to get in. You, you, YOU — the guy who looks like a Christmas haggis inexplicably brought to life by Frosty’s magic hat — yes, you of all people said that.

    You attempted — with evident fucking glee — to get 24 million people thrown off their health insurance.

    You gave billions away to corporations and the already wealthy while simultaneously telling struggling poor people that you were doing exactly the opposite.

    You endorsed a pedophile, praised brutal dictators, and defended LITERAL FUCKING NAZIS!

    Ninety-nine percent of everything you say is either false, crazy, incoherent, just plain cruel, or a rancid paella of all four.

    Oh, by the way, Puerto Rico is still FUBAR. You got yourself and your family billions in tax breaks for Christmas. What do they get? More paper towels?

    Enough, enough, enough, enough! For the love of God and all that is holy, good, and pure, would you please, finally and forever, shut your feculent KFC-hole until you have something valuable — or even marginally civil — to say?

    You are a fried dick sandwich with a side of schlongs. If chlamydia and gonorrhea had a son, you’d appoint him HHS secretary. You are a disgraceful, pustulant hot stew full of casuistry, godawful ideas, unintelligible non sequiturs, and malignant rage. You are the perfect circus orangutan diaper from Plato’s World of Forms.

    So happy new year, Mr. Pr*sident. And fuck you forever.

    Oh, and Pence, you oleaginous house ferret. Fuck you, too.

    Sincerely,

    Everyone

  2. I know this blog post is about political heroes, about people who worked within the centers of power, but I nominate the heroes of Hurricane Harvey, the people of all stripes who sacrificed their own safety to rescue people regardless of race, creed, or political persuasion. These people did not act with an eye on politics or public policy, but by throwing all that aside, they succeeded in showing that, when left to our own devices, regardless of who the president is, or who controls Congress, or how the media loves to keep us outraged and divided, we can come together and prove the naysayers wrong. Although their actions had nothing to do with politics, they made one heck of a political statement.

    1. Here, here, Tutt! I second the nomination.

      I’ve taken a long hiatus but decided to come back occasionally as a public service and to add a bit of diversity to this homogeneous group. (Now don’t all thank me at once.)

      Also, the latest “Brain Rules” book said that “friendly” argument was beneficial for brain health and was antiaging.

      Win-win.

      Tutt, I wish you and yours a very Happy New Year! I was so happy to see your positive post about the heroes of Hurricane Harvey.

      1. Thanks, OV. I also read somewhere that subjecting the brain to the same arguments, friendly or otherwise, over and over again, can drive one bonkers, sometimes resulting in dementia. 🙂

        I expect Chris’s next blog entry to provide a list of suggested political resolutions for 2018. The only resolution I have that is even remotely political is to get most, if not all, my news from print sources.

        From me and mine, I wish you and yours a safe New Year’s Eve and a healthy and peaceful New Year.

      1. True, but I prefer print because I find the experience of reading on actual paper to be more “quiet.” My mind feels more focused and calm when I read a newspaper or magazine. I know that newspapers and magazines also contain ads and your eye can be easily distracted by a myriad of other articles and photos, but I think the online experience provides way more distractions, especially the comments sections, which are so predictably negative they’re like a train wreck that we actively seek out, sometimes reading the comments before or instead of the article itself.

        I don’t watch TV, but I would say I get most of my news from radio — BBC World Service and NPR — and even their constant chatter sometimes gets on my nerves. I would say radio is best for news bulletins, and newspapers and magazines are best for detailed analysis.

  3. On the subject for women voting for misogynists, an interesting piece from Vox:

    https://www.vox.com/conversations/2016/10/25/13384528/donald-trump-women-stephanie-coontz

    Now I am a feminist in the traditional sense of the word- I feel that ability and effort, rather than gender, should determine what options for life a person has to choose from. I never put down any women who wanted to be stay at home mothers. I saw it as their choice, no skin off my nose, and I was free to do otherwise. Live and let live. But I may have to reconsider that philosophy, as some of these conservative types appear to be endangering my right to choose. If these choices cannot coexist, then it’s war (in the political sense).

    1. Fly, the vox article was complete and utter claptrap. Stephanie Coontz doesn’t have a clue. Why spin a nonsensical narrative about Trump voters, when you can ask actual Trump voters? (Like me. 🙂 )

      While the following article isn’t supportive of Trump, it gives you an idea of who made his election possible.

      https://newrepublic.com/article/138754/blame-trumps-victory-college-educated-whites-not-working-class

      “The failure to engage the white working class has been described as a grave tactical error, and that may well be true, given the slim margin of victory in swing states. But the media’s obsessive focus on this voting bloc would leave you to believe that Trump’s voters largely live in areas hit by the decline in manufacturing, are suffering from economic anxiety, and turned out last Tuesday to voice their disdain for smug urban elitists. But this narrative paints a misleading picture of the typical Trump voter, and by doing so, lets off the hook an entire class of voters who are at least as responsible for Trump’s victory: middle-class and wealthy suburban whites, who also came out in droves for Trump and who make up a larger part of his coalition. “

      1. >] “Fly, the vox article was complete and utter claptrap. Stephanie Coontz doesn’t have a clue. Why spin a nonsensical narrative about Trump voters, when you can ask actual Trump voters? (Like me. ? )

        Curiously, if you had an actual argument to make about why Coontz is wrong, you failed to mention it, instead opting to divert onto a broader argument (which, if we’re going there, I’d recommend this – https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-nationalists-delusion/546356/ – as a better one) about Trump voters in general.

        Why is that, I wonder?

        Really though, what’s wrong with the idea about women with comparatively few economic opportunities wanting to preserve their relationship with a “male breadwinner”, if it at least keeps them and their families going? What’s the alternative, standing on the side of so-called ‘feminism’ and watching their quality of life get flushed right down the crapper? Who would willingly choose that road?

    2. What jumped out at me from that excellent article:

      “What institutional and organization tools can we develop or mobilize so people feel that they have some place they can take their grievances other than to a strongman, or some place to vent their frustrations other than taking them out on some scapegoat?”

    3. “Really though, what’s wrong with the idea about women with comparatively few economic opportunities wanting to preserve their relationship with a “male breadwinner”, if it at least keeps them and their families going? ”

      Nothing is wrong with that. My problem is when they start scapegoating the wrong people. There have been cads as long as there have been men. The prospect of economic independence for women who want it didn’t create men who decide to bail on family responsibilities. Yes, this change in gender roles is a major societal earthquake, but one of the gists I got from this article is that there’s not enough onus put on the men here. They’d rather blame the women who have other options.

      Another reason why the UBI needs some serious consideration.

      1. To clarify, I didn’t say that so as to justify their actions, or anything of the sort. I merely meant it as a means to understand how they could be duped into voting for the Conartist-in-Chief, nothing more.

        That aside, as tremendous a step forward as a UBI would be, the more I’ve talked with people about it, the more I think it needs a lot of work before it’s ready for prime time. Just as one small example, calling it a “citizen’s dividend” might make for a more palatable title.

        Additionally, adopting some modest requirements over the course of a lifetime, such as for a minimum level of community service every year or so, would be a fairly easy sell, I’d think. Americans see the fraying of societal fabrics happening all around us, and so what’s the harm in trying to mend them, even if only a little bit at a time by having citizens be around each other a little bit more?

        There are plenty of tweaks we can make here and there, and still have the heart of the basic income intact at the end.

  4. I nominate a controversial hero: Rahm Emmanuel (mayor of Chicago for those not into Illinois politics).

    Trump made Chicago the laser focused poster child for most of his assaults on cities, liberals, minorities, and any other bogeyman he could think of. Most likely because it’s Obama’s hometown (although it has plenty of problems, to be sure).

    Rahm has done his best to not take this lying down. Whether it was to publicly declare Chicago a sanctuary city, or call Trump’s bluff on sending in the Feds to “clean out” the city’s crime, he’s fought that battle in a way plenty of other democratic mayors haven’t.

    I liken Rahm to Arnold Schwarzenegger during George W Bush’s time. When GWB banned the NIH from funding research involving fetal tissues, Schwarzenegger famously created a state fund for California researchers to continue their work.

    But the main reason I’m nominating him is because he’s now turned the tables. The Chicago Climate Accord is being signed by 40 North American mayors (plus many worldwide), who’ve essentially recreated the Paris Accord, pledging their cities to comply with the environmental restrictions that Trump has rejected.

    I think Rahm, whether he initially wanted to or not, is becoming the local/state pointman in openly resisting Trump. No other governor or mayor that I’m aware of is doing so as openly as him.

    I’m hoping Rahm (and the rest of the mayors) convert the climate summit into a regular meeting of the country’s largest cities. Other cities are following him on the environment, and if he plays his cards right, they may follow him on other issues, thereby creating the political infrastructure / will for the cities to finally band together and exert their collective power. Given that the vast majority of the nations people and economy is located in cities, this could be a powerful force indeed. Definitely something to watch in 2018!

    1. I agree and the City Lab link affirms. What needs to be noted is that big city liberal mayors in red states are hand-cuffed by majority GOP Legislatures who control state funding, policies and laws. Were it not for our judiciary – many of whom are at least trying to maintain rational order – even mayors of huge cities like Houston are restrained. Still – the appeals process to conservative districts continue to perpetuate bad law and bad policy. I applaud Emmanuel’s leadership but he is, at least, a liberal mayor with a liberal state lege.

    2. One issue I have with Emmanuel- the whole coverup of the Laquan McDonald shooting. It’s been alleged that release of the video was deliberately delayed until after the last mayoral election. 3 of the officers involved have been indicted, but not yet tried. That’s a huge storm cloud hanging over him, and there are questions that he has yet to answer.

      1. Agreed, that was a huge fail, one that no one has really been punished for (including Rahm). The Chicago PD is still not reformed, likely due to the forces Chris talked about with blue state machines and their alliance with public sector unions…

    3. I did not know who the mayor of Detroit was until I ran into this video. It is Mayor Mike Duggan talking about Detroit and himself so I don’t know if it can be taken at face value. But he does talk about redlining in the past and maintaining affordable housing, and mixed income neighborhoods. I thought it was very worthwhile.

  5. San Yuan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz, who, in spite of the Sideliner-in-Chief’s best nonefforts, has been a tireless advocate for her fellow Puerto Ricans (our fellow Americans) to get them the help they need and who has been an open, and quite vocal, pain in Trump’s ass every chance she gets. A true fighter who doesn’t know the meaning of giving up.

  6. In support of the Indivisible quartet and Tarana Burke – here’s a good article on their contributions and that of the women who organized the Women’s March on Washington – Carmen Perez, Linda Sarsour, Bob Bland (#Nasty Woman) and Tamika Mallory- and inspired women all over the world and in cities large and small in the U.S. in their own efforts! You’ll learn how a grandmother (Teressa Shook) started it all – from HI!

    Note: All women. In a year that has held so many disappointments, women have been shining points of light.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/29/womens-march-tamika-mallory-feminism-2017?

    https://www.wmagazine.com/story/womens-march-on-washington-activists-organizers

    1. I think people should be leery about the whole “Puerto Ricans will turn Florida blue” line. Puerto Rican politics revolves around status not Democrats vs Republicans. The Popular Democratic Party (aligned with the national Democratic Party but somewhat more conservative) supports an ‘enhanced’ version of the current territorial status with more features of a state but without actually becoming a state. In other words, they support a fantasy that’s not constitutionally viable. Your either a territory or a state … can’t be both. The New Progressive Party supports Puerto Rico becoming the 51st state and is unaligned with either national party although my personal involvement with the statehood movement has led to me to believe that most party members are Republicans or at least lean to the right. That said, there are some Democrats in the party including the current governor (Ricardo Rossello). Again, those that are Democrats tend to be more like Joe Manchin and less like Nancy Pelosi. There’s also the Puerto Rican Independence Party but they are basically irrelevant, if they get 3% of the vote it’s a good showing.

    1. I second that suggestion. The group should include the progressive states and their AGs as the article mentions. Without getting into details or a research project, I would guess that the populations of the cities and states that were represented in the various agreements, “We are still in” movement and forums mentioned in the article represent the majority of the population in the U.S. and perhaps their portion of the US GDP.

      And definitely the resistance of the Women of America needs to be emphasized and the “real men” who support the women and actively support and participate in The Resistance.

      1. I mentioned the three women because their claims were largely ignored by feminists. At times, they were vilified.

        Bill and Hillary were largely protected by liberals despite the fact that many women had accused Bill of sexual improprieties and Hillary verbally attacked and tried to demean the women who were brave enough to come forward.

        The Clintons behavior and hypocrisy may have been among the tipping points in the 2016 election and helped pave the way for the Trump presidency starting in 2017.

        Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey’s courage had implications for 2017 and beyond and should have a place with other women who came forward to report sexual abuse.

      2. >] “Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey’s courage had implications for 2017 and beyond and should have a place with other women who came forward to report sexual abuse.

        Perhaps, but in this case you’re just using them as political props to take a pot shot at the Clintons again.

        Needless to say, your obsessive compulsion to do this at every turn doesn’t speak well for your supposed comfort with your vote last November. 🙂

      3. Ryan, Are you suggesting I have Hillary Derangement Syndrome? …. Maybe!

        The larger issue here is that liberal women have a tendency to focus on only those women who share their beliefs and ignore women who don’t. Conservative women who don’t agree with liberal stances such as on abortion are largely shut out.

        Broadrick, Jones, Willey and other women’s sexual assaults didn’t cause any ripples in the big liberal pool. Hillary and other Democrats called these women trailer trash or bimbos without any real repercussions from other liberals.

        Heck, Ted Kennedy caused the death of a young and woman and was reelected year after year. He was the cowardly “lion of the senate.”

        Up until recently, women who have been victimized by liberal men have been treated unfairly. Look back on the horrible things liberals said about Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp.

        Then too, women who don’t toe the liberal line are excluded. The women’s marches aren’t for all women.

        We share the same gender but liberal women don’t care a whit about us.

      4. “The larger issue here is that liberal women have a tendency to focus on only those women who share their beliefs and ignore women who don’t…..We share the same gender but liberal women don’t care a whit about us.”

        Many, not all, but many, conservative women back candidates who would roll back hard fought gains in women’s rights if they could. Abortion is a major issue, yes, but it’s not the only one. While the molestation charges against Moore stole the headlines, he was already an appallingly unfit candidate based on his demonstrated contempt for the 1st, 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments. There are other RWNJs in the state legislatures who try to legislate things like the “miscarriage police” or proclaim that single mothers are the source of all that is bad with society, so much so that’s even an abusive husband should be endured rather divorce. They work against fair pay laws. They slash at the social safety net.They pass bullshit concern trolling abortion roadblocks that anyone who passed a biology class can see have nothing to do with concern for women’s health. They refuse to meet on the common ground of the abortion debate- reducing unwanted pregnancies, and block policies and programs that work (see what the GOP did in Colorado with sex ed for teens). So many conservative women enthusiastically back all that and more regressive sexist crap with their votes (and I haven’t even mentioned the racist baggage), and you think it’s unreasonable that some of the liberal women have decided to write them off? If you support people who would impinge on my rights, I don’t have much common cause with you.

        “Look back on the horrible things liberals said about Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp.”

        I fail to see why Tripp deserves any sympathy. She pretended to be Lewinsky’s friend, and then betrayed her, not as an investigation of any crime, but as a political gotcha. That very low treachery, and IFAIK she hasn’t owned up to her despicable actions. As for Lewinsky, she was not the innocent victim in the way you conservatives like to portray her. Do not forget that SHE initiated the affair. She bears equal guilt with Bill Clinton for what happened. But that never should have been relevant to Paula Jones’ harassment suit (which I have no grudges against- she had every right to go to court). Consensual affairs, even inappropriate ones in the workplace, are NOT harassment. Lewinsky did deserve some of the flak she got, but not all of it. She’s a victim of the backlash going too far. I give her credit for eventually taking responsibility for what she did and talking about cyberbullying.

      5. Fly, let me get this straight.

        If you worked for a large company and a gullible intern told you she was having an affair with the married CEO, would you be concerned? Would it enter your mind that even if the affair was consensual, the CEO would still be taking advantage of the intern because of the power imbalance between them?

        In an academic setting, say one of the professors was having an affair with a grad student he was advising. The grad student said the sex was consensual. Would you take any action at all?

      6. “Fly, let me get this straight.

        If you worked for a large company and a gullible intern told you she was having an affair with the married CEO, would you be concerned? Would it enter your mind that even if the affair was consensual, the CEO would still be taking advantage of the intern because of the power imbalance between them?”

        I would define appropriate ways to act on “concern” to be things like warning the intern that it would be highly unlikely her paramour would dump his wife for her and things would likely end very badly for her. Depending on the situation and what was at stake (would the scandal harm the company?) I might also have a word with the CEO. But the intern is an adult, and I can’t make her choices for her. Linda Trip’s version of acting on “concern” was to secretly record private conversations and turn them over to a special prosecutor.

        “In an academic setting, say one of the professors was having an affair with a grad student he was advising. The grad student said the sex was consensual. Would you take any action at all?”

        Actually yes. Where I work that is absolutely verboten, and I’d have to report it. But I’d first let the parties involved know that I knew, so that they could have a chance to end it. The student would probably have to get a different advisor.

      7. “The larger issue here is that liberal women have a tendency to focus on only those women who share their beliefs and ignore women who don’t. Conservative women who don’t agree with liberal stances such as on abortion are largely shut out.”

        Well, the issue is that these women are for freedom to choose what is best for their bodies. No one has the right to tell them they are nothing more than walking incubators. Conservative women want that right to choose taken away and fall in line with the religious patriarchy.

        Unfortunately, discussion over. The line is drawn.

        As far as Lewinsky being some gullible intern, I didn’t buy it. Young women from all over the country go to DC with the sole intent of finding a politician to sleep with. They are turned on by power and all groupies have their niche. Some are into sports figures, some rock n rollers. Monica was a political groupie and instigated it. I do not agree with the bullying she received though. Bill was a womanizer and fell into the trap, as many others have, but an affair is a far cry from self-proclaimed “grab ’em by the pussy” shit gibbon in office right now. Remember, Newt Gingrich, who was so involved in the whole impeachment process, had a mistress the whole time too.

        There is a strong stench of “it’s okay as long as you’re a Republican” stinking up the GOP right now.

        Anyways, enough for now. Have a hootenanny at the hacienda tonight I have to get ready for.

    1. You were so disgusted by Bill Clinton’s sexual harassment / assault that you decided to punish his wife, who had nothing to do with it, by voting for another sexual harasser / assaulter? That’s great logic objv… Shows your true dedication to fighting sexual harassment.

      1. “Those who fixate on any means to reinforce desired endpoints will always be limited in their ability to contribute to rational discussion.”

        Does the fixation on Trump by those here and those in the media indicate a loss of rationality?

      2. Assuming you frequent this blog because of the quality of the commentators and the outstanding posts by our blog master, I think it’s safe to deduce that the vast majority concur about Trump. The ones I worry about are those who find him and his agenda and minions, rational.

      3. WX, Both candidate were bad choices when it came to their histories of harassment or protecting abusers (in Hillary’s case).

        Neither candidate had the moral high ground. I had to make a decision on which candidate would chose the best supreme court justice to replace Scalia. A vote for Clinton or a secondary candidate would have meant a vote for overthrowing the balance of the supreme court.

        For all his faults, Trump was the one who was best suited to get the economy humming. Electing a Democrat meant another four years of wading through molasses and more duplicative, wasteful government. Honestly, don’t any of you feel that the government should be made more accountable and efficient?

      4. “For all his faults, Trump was the one who was best suited to get the economy humming. ”

        Can you cite even one instance where trickle down has worked?

        Also a “humming” economy at the expense of gutted consumer and environmental protections is not a good deal in the long term.

      5. Fly,

        Easy!

        I’ve lived in two small cities where trickle down economics was readily apparent.

        The major employers (in this case energy, medical devices and chemicals) provided well paying jobs to their skilled employees. The employers and employees paid local taxes and made donations and volunteered at numerous charitable organizations. The major employers supported local schools and sports teams.

        Other businesses prospered as well since houses had to be built, repairs done, people needed to buy food and other goods, and of course, wanted to eat out at local restaurants.

        Trickle down economics works.

      6. Objv, your examples of employers providing jobs and other benefits to the community is correct. But it is NOT what critics of trickle-down economics mean. It usually means that taxes are reduces, especially on the rich, then they spend that money to raise everybody’s standard of living.

        I don’t know how the businesses in those small towns you are familiar with passed on their good fortune to others, but it sometimes does not happen. If taxes on the incomes of the upper management were cut tremendously, are you sure they would immediately be passed on to the workers? Sometimes it happens but usually not. Usually after the entrepreneur passes the business on to “professional management things change. In general the rich buy larger homes, bid up the price of art or fine art, and then pass on the rest to their layabout children. (The remark about the children of the rich is an ugly and unfair generalization but one that is said about the poor everyday.)

        I suspect you will read this as blah, blah blah, trickle down works, blah blah.

        I read your links about Hillary, but I have read previous articles that were more balanced. She may be a tough conniving politician but I don’t see any reason to vote for the unlikable 5th grader we now have in office. Unless you think the guy he appointed to the supreme court is worth it. Again, you probably read, blah blah, Hillary’s a conniving politician, blah, blah.

        Before the internet, it was obvious that one side of the political divide was lying. Reading offerings from both sides got me nowhere. So I went to the Government Printing Office and ordered. the “Historical Statistics of the United States”. Guess what? Republicans were lying then too. Lies about regulations, lies about taxes. And this was way back during Reagan’s term. Republicans during the recent past raise the deficit and Democrats lower it. Democrats remove regulations. Its true! Look up who removed the regulations on gas and airlines. The one area that Republicans have helped to deregulate is finance. i.e. banks before the banking crisis. (Who knows where the present admin will accomplish in that regard).

        Molly Ivins once said, “If you want to see who’s lying to you, start with race.”

      7. “Honestly, don’t any of you feel that the government should be made more accountable and efficient?”

        I missed this the first time. Did you type that with a straight face? You think you’re going to get better accountability from someone who won’t release his tax returns, or visitor logs, and has conflicts of interest out the wazoo??? Trump has never had to be accountable in his whole spoiled, pampered life. That’s one of his biggest unfit factors.

  7. Thank you for that list. I had not heard of Ms. Burke, and as a woman I owe her something. I like to know who has my back!

    Russell Moore is on a very short list of religious leaders who have my respect and who I’d actually give the time of day to. I hold moral courage in high esteem, regardless of philosophical/political differences. The Franklin Granhams, Jerry Fallwell Jrs, and all who follow them are dead to me. I will not waste one precious nanosecond of my time in attempting to engage them, until and unless they recognize just how badly they erred in supporting the Mango Mussolini.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.