Tag: Republicans

Remember When the Balanced Budget Amendment Was A Thing?

$37 Trillion in Debt and Counting

BILL ASTORE

JUN 30, 2025

With the U.S. national debt sitting at $37 trillion, it’s hard to imagine a time when Congress argued for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Remember when Republicans had a reputation for fiscal conservatism?

According to the non-partisan CBO, President Trump’s big beautiful bill will add another $3.3 trillion in debt over the next decade. At the same time, the bill cuts health care to poor people. This from the New York Times:

G.O.P. Bill Has $1.1 Trillion in Health Cuts and 11.8 Million Losing Care, C.B.O. Says

Analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that Republicans’ new version of the legislation would make far deeper cuts and lead to more people becoming uninsured than previous proposals.

Who needs health insurance, am I right?

Yearly interest on the national debt is now higher than the Pentagon budget, which is truly saying (and spending) a lot.

Where is all the money going? Leaving aside the cost of servicing the national debt, most of discretionary spending goes to the Pentagon, Homeland Security, and similar forces of aggression and repression. New nuclear weapons, for example, may cost $2 trillion over the next 30 years. A misnamed “golden dome” (leaky sieve is more accurate) allegedly to protect America against nuclear missile attacks may cost $500 billion or more over the next decade or two. And nothing costs as much as foreign wars, as we learned from the disastrous Iraq and Afghan Wars, which may end up adding $8 trillion to the national debt when all the bills come due.

While achieving a balanced budget isn’t easy, there are two easy ways to come closer:

  1. Tax the rich.
  2. Stop making war, downsize the empire, and focus the U.S. military on national defense and defense alone.

Option (1) is out since the rich own the government. (Welcome to Plutocracy USA.) Option (2) is also out since the military-industrial-congressional complex is the fourth branch of government and arguably the most powerful. All presidents appease it, whether their names are Bush or Biden, Obama or Trump.

So, Congress and the President do what they always do: Serve the rich and kowtow to the MICC, the National (In)Security State. Any “balancing” to be done with the federal budget will be done on the tired backs of the poor and disadvantaged. They have no lobbies, no money, no say.

Can the working classes pull America up by their collective bootstraps? America’s workers have achieved miracles before, but this is too big of an ask even for them.

A Revealing Poll by NBC News Tells People How and What to Think

W.J. Astore

Forget about peace or reductions to military spending

According to an NBC News poll, America is rooting for Ukraine but Trump prefers Russia. Seriously. That’s the gist of the headline.

The intent of this poll wasn’t to analyze how Americans think about the Russia-Ukraine War or Trump or military strength. It was to control how they think by giving them only the most constrained choices.

Let’s take a close look at the results and the NBC headline. According to NBC News:

When asked where they believe Trump’s sympathies are, 49% choose Russia, 40% say they think Trump favors neither side, and 8% choose Ukraine. Another 3% say they are not sure.

So, a majority of Americans, 51%, believe Trump is either carefully neutral on the war, a Ukraine supporter, or they don’t know. A minority (49%) believes he sympathizes with Russia. But the headline says Americans believe “Trump prefers Russia.”

The photo that accompanies the NBC article shows Trump lecturing Zelensky.

Interestingly, I see no question about whether the Russia-Ukraine War should end after three long and bloody years so that lives are saved, or whether the U.S. should stop sending billions in weaponry to Ukraine with virtually no oversight as to where the weapons end up.

Further on, Americans are asked whether we should focus more on domestic affairs or whether we haven’t been strong enough globally. A majority of Americans believe we should focus on domestic affairs. But note how there’s no choice given for opposing war and preferring peace. Americans aren’t asked if they think the government is relying too much on military force. You have only two options: focus more at home, or strengthen the U.S. position abroad. 

Interestingly, it’s Democrats who are most concerned with strengthening America’s position abroad, with nearly six out of ten taking this position, whereas six out of ten Republicans want to focus on domestic affairs. That is a remarkable result, as Democrats have supplanted Republicans as the party of military interventionism and “strength.”

Again, NBC didn’t bother to ask directly whether Americans would prefer peace and substantial reductions to military spending. You are not supposed to have those preferences, so you’re not asked about them.

The bottom line of this poll and article is simple: Real Americans support Ukraine. Only 2% of Americans support Russia. Trump is overly sympathetic to Russia.

Apparently, real Americans can’t support peace nor are they allowed to consider significant reductions to spending on wars and weapons. To do so would be un-American, or so NBC News seems to suggest.

Moving Rightwards in America

W.J. Astore

Ratcheting Up America’s Problems

On Twitter/X, I stumbled across this useful image that visually captures the U.S. political scene:

The modification I’d make to this illustration is with the caption. It’s not only Republicans who turn everything rightwards—Democrats help too. Consider Kamala Harris’ embrace of Dick and Liz Cheney during her campaign of ill-fortune. Or her embrace of military lethality and her celebration of Israel’s “right” to “defend” itself as it wages genocide in Gaza.

It’s Republicans and Democrats who are turning this country rightwards even as Democrats block any appreciable movement in progressive or “leftist” directions.

Mainstream Democrats will always say they need to do this as allegedly it’s the only way they can win, which is pure BS, as Harris’ defeat recently shows. It’s the old “fake left, run right” tactic, and corporate-friendly Democrats keep using it, if only to keep the money flowing.

No matter. Liberal magazines like The Nation are telling me that Harris lost because of “bigotry,” not because she embraced the Cheneys and left workers behind. I guess President Obama won two terms because of bigotry?

Given this “ratchet effect,” America desperately needs a political revolution, as Bernie Sanders in 2016 was wont to say, as rightist Hillary Clinton ran against Trumpist Donald Trump. (Trump makes populist noises, but his guiding light is self-aggrandizement.) 

As Democrats offer rightist candidates like Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, Republicans give us a plutocratic “man of the people” (never mind the contradiction here) like Trump. Facing that grim “choice,” sensing that Clinton and Harris and Democrats like them are not what they say are, many Americans opt for the scrutable plutocrat and his friends. Elon Musk, anyone?

And thus America’s problems are ratcheted up.

P.S. A hearty “Happy New Years!” to all my readers wherever you are!

Blame

W.J. Astore

When candidates lose an election, they are primarily responsible 

If Kamala Harris loses this election, can we please not blame Jill Stein, Susan Sarandon, Vladimir Putin, the usual suspects?

If Donald Trump loses this election, can we please not blame immigrants, voting machines, and various alleged forms of ballot- and ballot box tampering? And god knows what else Team Trump comes up with?

When candidates lose elections, they and their campaigns are primarily responsible. Sure, there’s always the possibility of bad breaks, bad luck, even occasional attempts at cheating. (Find me some votes in Georgia!) But usually one candidate and one campaign simply ran a better, smarter, more dynamic race.

For all you Kamala Harris and Donald Trump supporters out there, you should be prepared for your candidate to lose, and, if so, you should want them to lose with grace. No one likes a sore loser.

So, for example, Harris may win the popular vote but lose the election in the electoral college. If that happens, it will be likely due to her tepid campaign messaging and her total support of Israel, which is costing her votes in critical swing states.

If Trump loses, a critical factor will be Republican messaging on “women’s issues,” the biggest one being abortion. Trump’s own inconsistencies and inconstancy will also be a factor. Sure, MAGA loves Trump, but many other Americans see Trump as divisive, bombastic, and unreliable. Trump’s rallies, where he’ll say virtually anything, convinces more than a few Americans that he’s the very opposite of a “very stable genius.”

An excerpt from the New York Times (see below) yesterday explains why Harris may yet lose. Again, it’s not because Stein will steal “her” votes or Putin will brainwash his American comrades; rather, Harris has run a careful, often shallow campaign that simply may not generate enough voter enthusiasm on Nov. 5th.

Hopefully, we’ll know by Wednesday who won, and we’ll also witness the loser bow out with some grace and dignity. A man can dream …

The famous Rudyard Kipling quote featured at Wimbledon

The New York Times on the Harris campaign and its weakness:

Harris has run a strikingly cautious campaign. Game theorists would describe it as a low-variance strategy. She and her aides avoided moves that might have gone very well — and might have gone very poorly.

Can you name her campaign’s central theme, for example? Many of her main messages are vague (“when we fight, we win”), Trump-focused (“in it for himself”) or both (“turn the page”). Asked on television how her presidency would differ from Biden’s, Harris said, “There is not a thing that comes to mind.”

She could have taken a different approach. She could have run on the populist, anti-corporate message that is helping Democratic Senate candidates — or gone in the opposite direction and portrayed herself as a business-friendly centrist. She could have picked an issue, like housing, and signaled that it would be her No. 1 priority, much as health care was for Barack Obama. Instead of offering a bold, thematic message, Harris has announced a series of modest policies.

Her low-variance strategy is also evident in her decision not to explain why she reversed her stances on immigration and fracking. Many voters say they want to know more about Harris — who became a candidate only three months ago — and she hasn’t always filled in the blanks.

The strategy is evident with the Middle East, too. She didn’t pick as her running mate the popular Jewish governor of Pennsylvania partly because many Israel critics opposed him. Her campaign also didn’t invite any Palestinians to speak at the Democratic convention, which may hurt her in Michigan. When possible, Harris has avoided conflict.

All these decisions have benefits, to be clear. Making the Middle East more salient is rarely smart in American politics. Explaining why she changed her mind about the border could have made her look weak. Doing more town halls and interviews to explain her views could have exposed one of Harris’s weaknesses: Although she is an excellent debater, she can struggle in less structured settings.

But if Harris loses, her caution will look problematic. 

According to the Times, the basic weakness (and strength) of the Trump campaign is Trump himself. Are enough Americans ready for another four years of MAGA? We’ll know soon enough …

Thursday Thoughts

W.J. Astore

A Vote for Harris Is a Vote for Cheney (It makes as much sense as a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump)

+ As if the world wasn’t hazardous enough, we now have to deal with exploding pagers, walkie-talkies, even solar power systems, apparently. Thank you, Israel.

+ Yet another article suggests that a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Trump—and Russia. Maybe a vote for Stein is just a vote for Stein?

+ Yet another letter from more than 100 senior Republicans associated with the national (in)security state is telling me to vote for Kamala Harris for President. Maybe a vote for Harris is really a vote for Republicans and a neocon foreign policy?

+ Strangely, I’ve been accused of “hating” Trump because I dare to criticize him. No, I don’t “hate” Trump. I simply believe he’s not the right person to be president.

+ I got my usual fundraiser letters from Biden and Harris. There’s no vision or platform in these letters. It’s all about saving America from Trump and the end of democracy. There’s also vague talk about a better future. And that’s it. How inspiring!

+ Jill Stein got into trouble recently for being reluctant to dismiss Putin as a “war criminal.” What is a war criminal? Without consulting a legal definition, I’d describe a “war criminal” as someone who pursues aggressive war.  Of course, most leaders claim whatever war they’re pursuing is “defensive.”  They even avoid the term “war,” e.g. Obama’s “overseas contingency operations,” Putin’s “special military operation.”

So, “war criminal” is a bit like pornography, not always easy to define, but you know it when you see it. So, sure, Putin is a war criminal, but so too were LBJ, Nixon, Bush/Cheney, Obama, and Biden. Just look at Biden’s ongoing and fulsome support of Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Seriously, what the U.S. did in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia were war crimes on a massive scale.  The Iraq invasion in 2003 under the false pretense of WMD was a war crime.  Meanwhile, the people who get punished for war crimes are usually low-level corporals and LTs.  It’s never generals and most certainly never presidents.

+ Trump, or TDS if you prefer, has enabled the rehabilitation of war criminals like Bush and Cheney, with establishment Democrats eagerly embracing both these men.

Now beloved by Democrats everywhere

+ A vote for Harris is a vote for Dick Cheney makes more logical sense than a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump. Meanwhile, if you vote for Trump, you’re likely to get Dick Cheney as well, because I don’t believe Trump has the ability to resist the Pompeos, the Boltons, the generals, and the usual suspects he’ll surround himself with.

+ If Harris loses the election in November, it won’t be because of Jill Stein.  Or Russia. Or even Bracing Views.  It will be because not enough people believed in her. But if Harris does lose, I expect the DNC will blame the voters for racism and sexism, Putin for election interference, and Jill Stein for stealing votes from Harris. Naturally, Harris and the DNC will not be to blame. Now, if they win, all credit will flow to Harris and the DNC. It’s nice to be able to run for office where even if you lose, it’s not your fault.

Readers, what’s on your mind this Thursday?

Bonus thought: I feel like political criticism has become a bizarre zero-sum game in America. If I criticize Trump, that means I’m helping Harris. If I criticize Harris, that means I’m helping Trump.

Can’t I criticize both of them? Because I want neither of them to win. That may be unrealistic, I realize, but neither candidate speaks to my principles, beliefs, priorities, and goals.

So then I’m told: It’s the American system. Take it or leave it. And I suppose I’d like to leave it, meaning I’ll vote Green. And then I’m told that’s a vote for Trump! Or I’m told that’s a wasted vote.

So the only “valid” vote is for Harris–or Trump. But each side pretty much hates the other, so how is a vote for either “valid”?

Because both parties take unaccountable dark money, both are corrupted, both don’t answer to the people, both are tools of the plutocrats.

If I want to embrace and defend democracy, why would I vote for either of these parties?

And the usual answer is: Because Harris (or Trump) is the lesser evil. But does voting for evil ever make sense? Shouldn’t Americans be able to vote for the greater good?

“Peace” Seems to Be the Hardest Word

W.J. Astore

Bipartisan Support in America for More War

With apologies to Elton John and Bernie Taupin, “peace” seems to be the hardest word, for both Democrats and Republicans.

This is hardly surprising. The National Security State is the unofficial fourth branch of government and arguably the most powerful. Presidents and Congress serve it, and the SCOTUS carves out special exceptions for it. Back in the days of a bit more honesty, it was called the Department of War. And so it remains.

Let’s say you’re like me and you see war as humanity’s greatest failing. We kill and maim each other, we scorch and kill every living thing in the path of our weapons, we destroy the environment, we even have the capacity to destroy life on earth via nuclear weapons. War—it really is good for absolutely nothin’, unless, of course, you profit from it.

Gaza after an Israeli bombing attack. Anyone want more war?

So, who are you going to vote for in America who sees the awfulness of war and who’s willing to pursue diplomacy and peace instead? Democrats? Republicans?

Generally speaking, Democrats are fixated on war with Russia. They support massive aid to Ukraine and are against negotiations. They also support massive aid to Israel in its ongoing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. And they fully support the military-industrial-congressional complex (MICC) and soaring spending on weapons and war, including “investing” in new nuclear weapons.

Republicans are much the same, except they tend to see China rather than Russia as the main threat, e.g. Donald Trump and J.D. Vance are willing to negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine War. But, in the main, Republicans fervently support Israel in its genocide, are outspoken critics of Iran (Got to punch them hard, Vance recently said), are willing enablers of the MICC, and also vote for massive spending on weaponry and war, including nuclear weapons.

Neither major U.S. political party, the red or blue teams, is pro-peace. Both are pro-aggression and pro-empire. They just occasionally choose different targets for their ire, even as they accuse the other team of “weakness,” of being “Putin puppets” or “Manchurian candidates.” 

As I’ve said before, the only word or sentiment apparently forbidden among the red and blue teams is “peace.” If you want an antiwar candidate in America, you have to go outside the two main parties to the Greens or similar fringe parties.

In America, “antiwar” is defined by America’s propaganda machine, otherwise known as the corporate media, as weak and unAmerican, because “the health of the state” is war.  Every election, whether the red or blue team prevails, the National Security State, the old War Department, wins. And humanity loses. 

The last mainstream candidate for the presidency who spoke consistently of peace was George McGovern in 1972. Unless we the people demand peace, we will continue to get war. In fact, in a bizarrely Orwellian way, colossal military spending and incessant wars are sold to us as keeping America safe. “War is peace” is quite literally the message of the National Security State and its Ministry of Truth, the corporate-owned media.

What is the solution? Here’s one possible approach: Whenever America deploys troops overseas, those troops most immediately in harm’s way must be drawn from the ranks of America’s most privileged and their children. So, corporate CEOs, Members of Congress, lawyers at White Shoe firms, private equity billionaires and millionaires and their progeny, Hollywood celebrities and America’s best-known sports stars: those Americans who prosper and profit the most from empire should be the first to serve it. And that service must be made mandatory, no exceptions, no way to buy your way out or plead that you have “higher” priorities.

Those who want war should serve in war, leaving the rest of us alone. This rule, more than any other, might just keep the chickenhawks from screeching for more war with Russia, or China, or Iran, or North Korea, or Syria, or somebody. A few minutes at the front, facing bullets and shells and cluster munitions while hearing the screams of the dying, might just cure these wannabe “warriors” of their fever.

Want a war? Go to war. And leave the rest of us in peace.

What Is the 2024 Election All About?

W.J. Astore

For Democrats, it’s Trump; for Republicans, it’s immigrants; for Americans, it’s a wasteland

The 2024 presidential election: What a wasteland.

Democrats want to make the election about Donald Trump. And abortion access. Republicans want to make it about immigration. And Joe Biden’s fitness for office.

Please, for the love of Mike, make it stop.

The Bernie Sanders of 2016 is much missed. Sanders challenged war-hawk Hillary Clinton on issues that mattered to Americans. Issues like a $15 federal minimum wage. Affordable health care for all. Comprehensive student loan debt relief and more affordable college education. Policy proposals that actually helped working-class Americans. Those issues are now dead in 2024.

Foreign policy is especially bleak. The Biden administration is enabling genocide in Israel; most Republicans fully support this. Biden is planning a military strike of some sort against Iran; most Republicans are urging him to strike harder. The bipartisan consensus in DC is to rubber-stamp whatever Bibi Netanyahu wants, to give the Pentagon everything it wants, and to pursue more wars overseas. The only debate is over which foreign country is more dangerous to America. China? Russia? Iran? Maybe even North Korea? It doesn’t matter. The result is the same: more money for war, no money for peace.

I can’t recall an election season less connected to the concerns of middle- and working-class Americans. Democrats are fundraising by stressing fears about Trump and abortion access; Republicans are fundraising off fears of America being swamped by immigrants due to the Democrats’ “open border” policy.

Meanwhile, this is a sample of headlines from mainstream media coverage of the election, taken from NBC News this morning:

Takeaways from the 2024 cash dash: Legal cases drain Trump as Biden builds reserves

More than $27M in Trump campaign fundraising went to legal costs in the last six months of 2023

Nikki Haley’s super PAC spent big to fuel her rise. It started 2024 with little left.

RFK Jr.’s presidential campaign spent more than it raised last quarter and left $5.4M in the bank

Where are the issues that matter to Americans? The “cash dash” is what matters to NBC, not issues like health care, wages, inflation, personal and national debt, the availability of affordable housing, mental health care, and so on.

Meanwhile, I can’t recall the last time I saw an article in the mainstream media that seriously argued for major reductions to Pentagon spending and concerted efforts in diplomacy instead of constant warmongering and weapons exports.

Trump-Biden is a wasteland. Don’t vote for the tools and fools. Find candidates who actually want to help America without killing massive numbers of foreigners overseas.

Good luck to all of us—we’re going to need it.

Biden and Trump Win New Hampshire!

W.J. Astore

The American People Lose

Surprise! The results are in from New Hampshire and Donald Trump won a clear victory over Nikki Haley and Joe Biden won with write-in votes.  Dean Phillips (Biden 2.0) was a distant second and Marianne Williamson a disappointing third. Interestingly, even though Phillips had a respectable showing, the Democratic chair in New Hampshire suggested he should drop out of the race to ensure a Biden/Harris victory in November. In short, there should be no alternative to Biden/Harris because that’s how democracy works best!

A “strong second” for “scrappy” Haley?

Nikki Haley, though losing in NH, did fairly well because a lot of independent and “undeclared” voters decided to cast their lot with her. Trump, exit polls show, held a commanding lead among self-identified Republican and conservative voters. Trump commands the base, the most strongly committed Republican voters, so it’s difficult to imagine a path for Haley to the nomination.

Trump versus Biden redux is looking very likely for 2024, a Caligula versus Nero scenario for the new Roman Empire. I get to cast my primary vote on Super Tuesday early in March, and the only thing I’m certain of is that I won’t be voting for Trump or Biden.

Never has it been so glaringly obvious that America needs an alternative to the duopoly and the “choices” it provides for POTUS.

America may be deeply in debt, but we the people of the United States are totally bankrupt politically.

Democrats Keep Control of the Senate

W.J. Astore

Democracy Is Saved!

I woke up today to the news the Democrats will keep control of the Senate through 2024. Democracy is saved! I guess the Russian bots didn’t steal the election this time around, nor did election deniers mount a coup against democracy. The status quo prevails in America. What great news for all workers, all those who are struggling to make ends meet, to learn that nothing has fundamentally changed in the best of all possible countries.

Heck, it’s even good news that Republicans are likely to gain a narrow majority in the House, thereby demoting Nancy Pelosi to House Minority Leader. I can look forward to House impeachment proceedings against various Democrats, because such proceedings are truly what working-class Americans want and need from their government.

President Biden promised to take action to codify Roe v Wade into law if the Democrats won, so I suppose he’ll weasel his way out of this promise if the House tips Republican. Not that his action was going to change anything, since Biden refuses to touch the Senate filibuster.

What we can look forward to is two more years of divided, do-nothing government in Washington, DC, with politics being dominated by Donald Trump’s new run for the presidency against Sleepy Joe and Giggles Harris. Happy days are here again!

Of course, a “divided” Congress will still come together to support massive Pentagon spending and a blank check of military aid to Ukraine. Nothing unites Democrats and Republicans like weapons and wars.

What you won’t see, of course, is a higher federal minimum wage, single-payer health care, or anything else the working classes could truly use. America, of course, is an oligarchy and Congress and the President serve the oligarchs. As George Carlin memorably said: “You have no rights” — and no say.

Ready for a depressing repeat?

One clear result from this election is Joe Biden’s commitment to run again in 2024, when he’ll be 82 years old. Truly, anyone can be president in America, as long as the oligarchs sign off on you. Biden running again reminds me of the Weimar Republic in Germany in the early 1930s, when Paul von Hindenburg, also in his eighties, ran against and defeated a certain Adolf Hitler in 1932. Of Hindenburg it was said that the men around him “shoved him — with dignity.” And I suppose the operatives around Biden will also shove him about, with (or without) dignity, as age takes its inevitable toll on him. 

Biden will likely keep Kamala Harris as his vice president, not wanting to admit his mistake in picking her. Put charitably, Harris has been a non-entity as VP, so she’s perfect for the job, but if Biden runs and wins in 2024, there’s a decent chance she could become president during Biden’s second term. Of course, the oligarchy vetted and picked her exactly because she’s predictable and obedient to power. But some people will crow about how amazing it is to have a Black Asian female president when her views and allegiances are almost exactly the same as a white Catholic male president like Biden. But, you know, diversity!

So it’s two more years of hearing Democracy is in peril because Trump is running again when we all know or sense that whatever democracy we had ended in America decades ago, and most certainly by 1980. (Of course, America was founded as a republic by a bunch of privileged white guys, who weren’t exactly trusting of democracy, seeing it as mob rule.) Still, I like to think there’s hope in America, because more and more people are waking up to the harsh realities we face as a people. Don’t tell me I’m wrong about this; I’d like to keep a scintilla of hope, if only to preserve my own sanity, which will be sorely tested in the run up to the 2024 election.

So here’s to another two years of “democracy,” American-style, meaning no democracy at all. I wonder why an obvious con man like Trump gains so much traction here in the land of the not-so-free?

When Losing Is Winning

W.J. Astore

Corporate Democrats Would Rather Lose to Republicans than Enact Progressive Reforms

Call me cynical, but the establishment Democratic Party would rather lose to Republicans, even those Maniacal Trumpers, than win with strong progressive candidates.

The reason is obvious: money. The Democratic Party is all about raising money. The best way to raise money is to do the bidding of the corporate overlords. That’s why you don’t see firm commitments to a $15 federal minimum wage, or single-payer health care, or reducing the Pentagon budget. The Democrats are a pro-business, pro-rich, pro-establishment party with a large hierarchy that thrives on corporate cash. Whether it wins at the polls or loses, it still wins at the one “poll” that matters, and that’s raising corporate cash.

Consider the “big names” in the Democratic Party. The Obamas, the Clintons, the Bidens, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Kamala Harris, and so on. They are all bought and paid for. They have all been corrupted by money, willingly so. They see it as their right to cash-in on their public “service.” They are the servants of Wall Street, Big Pharma, the military-industrial complex, and other power centers. That’s how they attained thier positions in the first place.

It’s something of a truism that Democrats would rather lose to Republicans than submit to a progressive agenda like the one espoused by Bernie Sanders. (Forget about Ralph Nader; to the Corporate Democrats, he may as well be the antichrist.)

Things are so bad that the Democratic establishment is actually funding Trumpian Republicans, thinking that the latter will be unelectable because they’re too far right, too batshit crazy. But, my fellow Americans, there’s plenty of room on the right, and plenty of support for batshit crazy positions in this land of ours.

America is a strange bird with two right wings. I guess that’s why we don’t soar as a country anymore. We just flap aimlessly in circles on the ground, our withered left wing incapable of providing balance and lift.