James Comey ABC Interview

My thoughts as I watched the interview with George Stephanopoulos:

* Mafia. Loyalty to the family first. Period. You don't snitch, instead go to jail. This is indeed Trump's entire way of life and thinking. But, whereas the mafia can buy off & influence high-placed people, Trump can "only" pardon.

* Comey said that with that now (in)famous walk-across-the-room encounter with Trump, it was all about Trump "establishing dominance" and making him part of "the family."

* George should have stated that the Steele dossier was initially financed by the GOP, an often not-mentioned crucial fact. 

* Look, when all is said and done, Hillary was just really really stupid regarding her personal emails. To decide to use a personal server, while knowing you were going to run for president in 2016, was just dumb. In the end, to the extent the emails hurt her, it was all her fault. And if she was paranoid (why?), was it worth the risk of an eventual hugely distracting perceived scandal? (which is what happened)

* True point by Comey, that the reason he felt more of an obligation to disclosing Hillary email developments vs. Russian election meddling was because the Hillary "scandal" was fully public, whereas the Russian election was not. It's easy to look back now and blur the two, as if they were equally known then, but was not the case. Therefore if he chose to not comment on the Hillary email controversy he'd potentially be viewed as favoring her, and yet if he commented on, at the time, hazy Russian meddling, he'd be viewed as disfavoring Trump.

* Regarding Obama's inauguration crowd size vs. Trump's, Comey said this was empirical fact, no dispute. And from that he believed Trump was just a liar. But Comey didn't go far enough, he pulled back on the reigns. All politicians shade the truth or lie. But Trump is beyond that, instead an outright pathological psychopath re lying. In fact, many if not most politicians can't even relate to Trump's "talent" for lying!!

* Honest loyalty?? George is right, he said Trump likely took that as "we have a deal." If there's one thing Comey clearly came off as during this interview it's he's very naive. He may be different within the FBI, but this interview had him looking like Opie in the Andy Griffith show. Too much "aw shucks" and not enough healthy cynicism. Even if he was just trying to be polite or get through an awkward dinner, he NEVER should've agreed to honest loyalty. Did he forget that he headed FBI? And he already knew "the family" was all about loyalty! it appears he simply didn't have the guts, as he admitted. A very honest admission, but still sad. I ask, didn't he need such guts in the FBI on a daily basis given the constant tough decisions? Is Comey honest but spineless?

* George says, re Trump asking Comey to let Flynn off the hook, shouldn't Comey have said more?! Comey says maybe -- maybe?!! Another too polite moment? Gutless? Comey's way of escaping awkward moments?? Look, that's OK if you're a very proper and polite host of a dinner party and not head of the FBI! We of course want the FBI head to be honest and upstanding, but also confidently forthright and able to speak out forcefully at all times. So when does Comey finally get that gumption?  Oct 28, 2016, the Hillary email announcement. Ugh.

* Watching this interview, the video backdrops, it occurred to me: why is the FBI building still named after J. Edgar Hoover?? Given all we now know about Hoover, this shouldn't be.

* We're reminded that the day after the Comey firing, Trump has Russians in the Oval Office. OMG, just the optics!!! But it's Trump showing us who are his true friends. Comey reminds in this interview that no other Americans were in room. Plant surveillance bugs everywhere!

* When Trump tweets he hopes there's no tapes, Comey (correctly) is hoping for tapes. Innocent people who tell the truth want tapes! Compare that to Trump's behavior regarding Mueller, where it's all about shutting it down and fear of discovery. Oh yeah, that screams "innocent."

* Trump clearly obstructed justice as per the Lester Holt interview, plain as day. How does Trump's base not see this? Unless they're unaware because they only watch Fox News (which is completely possible).

* Where is Obama?? His last tweet was March 25th, about Loyola-Chicago in NCAA tourney. Really? No comment about Comey, or Trump, or Syria, or.... I've been asking this question for months on Twitter, where is Obama? Given an atypical POTUS with Trump, to say the least, I would think Obama would sh*t-can the obligatory respectfulness of a prior POTUS and instead speak out. But no....

* If Trump fired Mueller, Comey says it would be a shame if Trump were impeached, that instead the voting public should decide in 2020. WTF? 

* The interview concludes with Comey stating the obvious: Trump is unfit to be president, due to a lack of morality. But c'mon, there are multiple reasons why he's unfit, we can debate the order, but key point is it's a list. Plural. But then Comey says don't impeach? That it would "short circuit" the process? 
But doing so could save lives! And if it's agreed Trump's unfit to be POTUS, get him out now!! We have a REPRESENTATIVE democracy, the people we voted in need to back the Constitution for us today, not in 2020!! More proof that Comey can be very dense. Comey is opting for that McConnell chicanery re Garland, wait till next election -- no, do it now!

* Comey concludes with, "This president does not reflect values of this country. " True dat! But unfortunately Trump's values DO reflect the values of Rupert Murdoch, Fox News, the alt right and the too-many angry Americans who have been brainwashed into believing Trump's BS. 

Corporations Need To Force Fox News To Be More Responsible

At some point, Laura Ingraham must've decided that Ann Coulter's act was getting old and it was time for a new right-wing, repugnant blond she-devil. Fox News agreed, hiring Ingraham to host her own prime-time show. Along with Sean Hannity, she has been one of Trump's biggest cheerleaders.

But like Hannity when he went too far with Roy Moore, Ingraham has had to eat crow for going too far with criticism of Parkland survivor David Hogg. And why did she apologize? Because she actually realized how wrong she was? Hah! As with Hannity, it was due to corporate advertisers boycotting her show, i.e. it was due to $$$.

There's no changing the likes of Ingraham and Hannity. They're craven dim-bulbs that make a very nice living by being provocative and outlandish, speaking hate and vitriol, fabricating lies and fake news, anything to get their lemming viewers riled up and pissed off.

But what cuts all the crap is $$$. Threaten to take away dollars, and suddenly Laura and Sean (via Fox News directive) get responsible and attempt to retract whatever garbage they spewed.

This should become a trend. Corporations should increasingly use their tremendous ad $$$ leverage to make Fox News act responsibly. It's sad but it seems to be the only thing that works with Trump TV. Perhaps the constant threat of advertisement boycotts could force Fox News to change its ways, to lessen the misrepresentations, distortions and outright lies, and actually broadcast fact-based news.

David Hogg obviously understands this power structure and immediately called on people to pressure corporations to pull ads. It worked. He didn't waste time with what Laura likely wanted, to get into an infantile back/forth tweet war of insults and barbs. Instead, Hogg outsmarted her (even with his meager 4.1 GPA).

This won't be the last time Ingraham, or Hannity, or Tucker Carlson go too far with their ignorant tweets or comments. And we just need to remember what young David Hogg did.

David Brooks is making me bald

Another column by David Brooks, another instance of my reading and trying hard not to pull my hair out.

As is usually the case with Brooks, he is convinced he's writing about very profound and "deep" ideas, when it's just not the case. I am too often embarassed for him, making reading his columns that much more cringe-worthy. (And please, in no way do I profess to be a Mensa candidate -- all the more worse for Brooks).

In his latest "thought piece," Brooks is apparently struggling (surprise!) with a chicken and egg dilemma: do we arrive at opinions on our own independently, or do we just adopt them from membership groups? Original thought or groupthink? Meanwhile, Rome (aka USA) burns, but I digress.

Brooks writes:

Busy fighting communism and fascism, people back then emphasized individual reason and were deeply allergic to groupthink.

We don’t think this way anymore, and in fact thinking this way can get you into trouble.

This is exactly the kind of Brooksian generality that drives me nuts! Just lazy prose. People back then what? Oh sure, back then people were all about "individual reason" and were not in any way susceptible to "groupthink" -- really? Show evidence! Brooks is much like Fox News: say or write it, and -- poof -- it's true. No need to provide proof with facts and sources. Just sound off with generalizations that seem to sound right (to him), don't bother doing any actual research to bolster and support your claims.

It's like my older relatives who wax nostalgic about the "good old days" (1950s), mentioning several positives, but of course selectively leaving out many negatives. Preferring to just broadly generalize based on memories and notions. I'll dare to say to them, "But what about the many diseases then (now gone)? What about how women were regarded as second class citizens? What about racism? What about intolerance for gays? Bullying in schools? What about the pollution and lack of protective regulations?" By then, I get brushed aside with a hand gesture, not wanting to be heard. Facts are often inconvenient and bothersome.

More from Brooks:

How many times have we all heard somebody rise up in conversation and say, “Speaking as a Latina. …” or “Speaking as a queer person. …” or “Speaking as a Jew. …”?

Now, when somebody says that I always wonder, What does that mean? After you’ve stated your group identity, what is the therefore that follows?

The inference being that the person is about to say something that stems from his/her group identity and not anything originating independently from the individual. Again, more lazy thinking based on a tired notion and assumption. How does Brooks draw this conclusion? And frankly, I believe when a person makes this sort of intro to a statement, it's not to then expound a groupthink-derived idea or sentiment, but rather is simply letting the listener know that the person has at least some direct relevance to what is about to be said. In other words, rather than saying something that is likely an assumption or commonly-held notion (Brooks' forte), the person is giving a helpful heads up "been there, done that, i.e. I know at least a little about what I speak."

But no, Brooks just assumes that whatever comes next is group-based dogma or platitudes, the person just regurgitating cliches adopted from his/her "kind."

Brooks continues:

When I started, it was very important for opinion writers to never think of themselves as a Republican or a Democrat. We were individual inquirers, not polemicists for some political team. Over the years, many people stopped making that distinction.

Classic Brooks. He writes about something almost not realizing that it tends to go against the point(s) he's trying to make. Brooks is Republican (he may deny it -- ignore). What political party is known for lemming-like behavior, in which the members all predictably circle the wagons, fall into line and back the chosen candidate 100%? It's certainly not the D party!! Herding cats is easier than getting Democrats to universally agree on most things. But Republicans started with 17 (?) presidential candidates, narrowed it down to Trump, and despite many in the party complaining, we've seen GOP voters staunchly back Trump. No groupthink there!

But I'm sure Brooks will claim he's spreading the blame and his criticism. It's meant for all sides, not just one. Right. Read the column, you tell me.

Brooks writes:

[I]n the 1990s, African-Americans strongly supported tougher criminal justice laws. Now opinion has shifted and a majority of African-Americans strongly oppose them.
<..>
Why are people’s views of global warming, genetically modified foods and other scientific issues strongly determined by political label? That seems ridiculous.

Is that true about African-Americans in the 1990s? Am I to just assume Brooks is correct?

As for science-based, factual issues such as global warming and GMOs, yes, it is ridiculous that the Republican Party has increasingly become about non-science and non-facts and nonsense.

Our political system is based on the idea that persuasion and deliberation lead to compromise and toward truth. 

Just hilarious. Which political party is more to blame for lack of compromise? Which party steadfastly refused to work with Obama as president? In 2012, which political party was Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein referring to when they wrote, "ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition"? And which party is willfully ignorant of facts and the truth, and repeatedly looks to mislead and distort and con? You guessed it, the Republican Party.

But it's more dignified and "fair" for Brooks to employ the oft-used false equivalency canard, that both sides are guilty. And he gets to then shake his head and hands in frustration, stating that "he's confused."

Oh please.

Another reason why Democrats lose elections (despite being on the right side of issues)

Question: Why did it take horrific pictures of ex-wives with black-eyes to alert everyone to the security clearance problem in the White House? More so, how is it Democrats in DC didn't first get word of this serious problem and inform the media?

I have to believe if Obama or Hillary were POTUS, Republicans would've been all over this scandal, early, finding out about it through leaks and word of mouth (which flow like water in Washington). Next thing the Fox News channel is covering it 24/7, demanding resignations and even impeachment.

As it was, Obama had to run a super-tight ship ethically because he knew that even a hint of scandal, no matter how baseless, would get out and spread like wildfire. Republicans are forever trying to find wrong-doing to hopefully hang Democrats -- to the point where they usually just fabricate "scandal" (see Benghazi).

Yet with Trump, we have a scandal-o-rama, seemingly nonstop incidents of real wrong-doing, often involving very serious violations. But how often are Democrats credited with uncovering any of these? Again, in this case of Porter's security clearance problem, which gravitated to Kushner and others, we the public can thank the media after explicit photos were released. Initially, it was a MeToo scandal with Porter needing to leave for prior domestic abuse, but then with further scrutiny it morphed into a national security scandal. And only then did we see a bunch of Dem politicians scurry to MSNBC and CNN to pile on condemnation.

This is one reason why Democrats lose more elections than they should, especially since they tend to be on the right side (the side most Americans favor) with most issues. They're simply too polite and respectful when it comes to playing hardball politics. They need to be more cagy and savvy when it comes to uncovering "dirt" on the other side. (And of course I mean real, actual scandal -- unlike Republicans and their many fake BOMBSHELL scandals (yawn)).

With this administration, uncovering scandal is as easy as falling out of a boat and hitting water. However, Trump doesn't have to worry with Schumer, Pelosi et al on the beat.

Conservatism In Exile -- Really?

This morning on Morning Joe, Joe and the gang were waxing nostalgic for the good old days of true blue conservatism. You know, like it was back when Reagan was in office.

I'm no spring chicken and I fully recall those days. I call "fake news!" What are Joe et al thinking about?

Look, I get that Trump and today's GOP would have anyone wanting to disassociate from anything even remotely resembling this rotten cast of characters. But let's keep it real.

As I've said repeatedly, Trump didn't just appear on the scene out of nowhere. He's not some invader from outer space who seduced one party into having him as their nominee.

Rather it's been a gradual evolution (actually devolution) of the Republican Party that has resulted in Trump as POTUS. Admit it! Don't rub your eyes in disbelief, trying to figure out how we got here. The lineage has been fairly straightforward. Reagan to Gingrich to GW/Cheney to Tea Party to Trump. Go ahead, wince, but that's more or less been the regression.

I have argued that today's GOP and Trump simply represent "conservatism" on steroids, to its extreme. And it's just very difficult for many to accept this ugly reality -- understandably.

Joe Scarborough never actually explains what he means by the conservatism he longs for, other than to just mention the name of Reagan and his supposed legacy (much of which has become folklore).

Let's revisit much of what occurred in the 1980s or during the heyday of "real" conservatism.

• Reagan cut taxes and blew up the deficit. So has Trump and today's GOP. 
• Reagan's tax cuts were skewed towards favoring the rich and wealthy. So are Trump's tax cuts. 
• Republicans then were against government spending -- unless a Republican was POTUS, then it was OK. The same holds true with Trump and today's GOP.
• Re spending, Reagan emphasized the military. Trump and today's GOP the same.
• Reagan was big on rolling back regulations. Trump and today's GOP the same.
• Reagan was not hugely pro-environment (see James Watt). Trump and today's GOP same, to say the least!
• Conservatives then were very much pro-gun, pro-NRA, don't infringe on their rights to bear arms. Not true today?
• And of course the anti-abortion holds true then and now....

What am I missing? What is Joe Scarborough recalling that I seemed to have either forgotten or misinterpreted? Seriously. Enough with this mushrooming group of "recovering" Republicans (Scarborough, Frum, Kristol, Will, etc.) who seemingly pretend that their party was once something wholly different than what we're observing today. Me thinks they doth protest too much. 

Pennsylvania Gerrymandering Obviously Undemocratic

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently ruled that the state's congressional district map needed to be redrawn. Of course, Trump weighed in against the Court, tweeting, "Hope Republicans in the Great State of Pennsylvania challenge the new 'pushed' Congressional Map, all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. Your Original was correct!"

The original map was correct? Really? I suspect that like everything the POTUS says, the truth is likely the opposite.

Before Trump won PA by the slimmest of margins (with the help of Russian meddling and Comey's preelection letter), the state had sided with the Democratic presidential candidate for the last six elections, going back to Bill Clinton in 1992. That's right, 6-0 for the "D" candidate.

As for registered voters in the state, here's the breakdown:

Democratic: 48%
Republican: 38%
Other: 14%

Clearly, Democratic voters outnumber Republican in PA.

And yet Pennsylvania has 13 Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives and just 5 Democrats. That's right, 72% of their 18 U.S. House seats are Republican despite PA obviously being a "D" state.

At the state level, Pennsylvania has 155 Republican state representatives and just 98 Democratic reps, or 61% of the state House seats are Republican.

I think the verdict for the Supreme Court was a no-brainer, one a 5th grader could've deduced.

The unfortunate reality is this type of egregious gerrymandering remains in place in several other states. It's fair to surmise that with a more level playing field, Republicans would not be able to win House majorities at either the federal or state levels, so they must rely on these undemocratic district maps to jerry-rig the vote count in their favor. (Not to mention the enactment of widespread voter suppression measures).

With the 2010 Republican gerrymandering combined with Trump as POTUS, the United States has likely never been more undemocratic.

Trump and the plunging stock market

Over the last few days, the stock market has been plunging, effectively wiping out two months worth of gains.

But where are the Trump tweets now concerning the market? He's been stone silent on this topic, a topic he has loved to comment on repeatedly since taking office. Whenever the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) hit a new high, we heard about it. The rising stock market became synonymous with Trump, largely due to him taking full credit for its rise.

I cannot ever recall another president in history so frequently commenting on the market. Past presidents likely realized that:

1) The stock market is an incredibly complex apparatus that moves for many reasons, most of which even the "experts" cannot fathom at the time (markets discount the future, making it difficult to ascertain why prices are rising or falling in the here and now). That said the POTUS is only one of several factors impacting the market at any given time.

2) If you bought it, you own it. Prior presidents fully understood that if you want to take credit for a rising stock market, you better be ready to likewise accept blame for when stocks inevitably head south.

But as we know, Trump is "different" and likely too ignorant to realize both #1 and #2.

The fact remains that Trump's constant tweets and reminders about the market hitting new highs was and is incredibly irresponsible. We all know he's a shameless huckster, a two-bit salesman who will hype the hell out of anything that benefits him. But there are laws and regulations about "selling" when it comes to stocks, bonds, etc. Financial advisors and the like have to be very careful about what they say when it comes to hyping or promising investment performance. They're expected to err on the side of caution, to be prudent and transparent when discussing not just reward but more importantly, risk.

All of these laws and regulations are to protect the investor. It's very easy for someone to get caught up in the hysteria of a rising market, which increasingly makes them susceptible to acting on emotion as opposed to reason. An unscrupulous, dishonest advisor could take full advantage of this situation -- if not for the laws and regulations.

Yet laws and regulations to Trump are just bureaucratic red tape that stand in the way of prosperity. They're a hindrance and not to be taking seriously.

Just imagine how many people were overly influenced by Trump's tweets and incessant mentions of stock market highs, allowing it to color their judgment and perhaps they increased their allocation to stocks above and beyond what was prudent for them. Which was great while the market climbed higher each day, but now with stocks seemingly in free-fall, it's not so fun anymore.

So how many millions or billions of dollars of stock market gains were due to Trump's deliberate, non-stop hyping? And isn't he then on the hook for the losses too? If this stock market downturn continues, can we expect to see investors increasingly blame Trump for their losses? I mean, according to him, it appeared stocks could only go in one direction.

I'm just curious to see how he'll blame things on Obama and/or the Democrats.

Who's to blame for the government shutdown?

I would argue -- as Sen. Graham apparently does -- that Trump's staff (specifically John Kelly and Stephen Miller) is to blame for this shutdown, and therefore ultimately Trump himself.

It's my understanding that more than one bipartisan compromise has been presented to Trump, and given he's an awful negotiator AND has no real strong policy beliefs, he was ready to go with any of these compromises -- BUT Kelly and/or Miller convinced him to decline. Both are immigration hawks, but more so they likely reminded Trump that compromise would not go over well with "his base." 

And if there's one thing we can learn from his one-year in office, Trump will do anything to appease or please his "base" supporters. 

Just another lie when he said, "I will be president for all Americans." Nah, more like 30%-35% of Americans.

Trump knows only one thing about Norway....

It's not surprising Trump mentioned the country of Norway amidst his "sh*thole" ordeal. Norway is somewhere between 85%-90% white. That fact is likely one of the few that Trump knows cold.

Of course, the irony is lost on clueless Trump that Norway also happens to be one of the most socialist countries in the world. As in Bernie Sanders socialist. Norway has universal health care, tuition-free college education, one-year paid maternity leave, 52% of workers are unionized (vs. 10% in U.S.).

And despite being so socialist, Forbes magazine ranked Norway as one of the top-10 best countries in the world to do business (U.S. was just #18).

Finally, Norway is perennially near the top of the list when ranking the happiest countries.

No doubt Trump knew none of these other facts, only the one about Norwegians' predominant skin color.

Stock Market Performance: Obama vs. Trump

Trump's incessant, one-note tweets can be loathsome and tiring, but his constant reminders about the stock market hitting new highs are especially irksome. As with nearly everything Trump utters, let's try to apply a little perspective and, gulp, facts to gain a more realistic understanding.



The chart above shows that the S&P 500 bottomed at 676.53 on 3/9/2009, not long after Obama was inaugurated in 2009. Using the same time frame, the S&P 500 closed at 2364.87 on 3/9/2017 for Trump.

The total return for the S&P 500 from the 3/9/2009 low to 3/9/2017 was 311%. Since 3/9/2017, the S&P 500 has risen by 15% (through yesterday).

Trump has a LONG ways to go to match Obama's stock market performance, and yet Obama rarely said a word about the market hitting new highs during his eight years. Meanwhile, Trump blares from the rooftop....

P.S. And modify the date ranges if you must, e.g. use inauguration day to inauguration day. The message remains: Obama will look exceptionally good and Trump has quite a ways to go to take such a victory lap.

Coming to a theater near you....

A buddy film for the ages....

The Flynn plea deal is just one more step towards the truth

As I often do, I watched Fox News coverage of the Michael Flynn plea deal (always must check in to see what propaganda is being fed to "the base"). And as is often the case, it's as if I'm watching a channel from another planet. A little bit of Flynn news, followed by the tax bill, Steinle verdict, Conyers, Franken, the failure of liberalism, etc. It's no wonder Obama recently said, "Those who watch Fox News and those who read the New York Times occupy completely different realities. If I watch Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me."

Something I continue to hear on Fox is the refrain, "this latest bit of news is primarily bad for X, but still doesn't show or prove anything towards collusion with Russia." And "X" in this case is Flynn, but not long ago it was Manafort and Papadopoulos.

Rather than look at the bigger picture and how this Flynn plea fits into a progression of events leading to what will likely be a momentous conclusion, Fox News (and those on the right) prefers to compartmentalize each new revelation, judging it in isolation and framing it as "no big deal." Flynn's plea deal simply means Flynn lied and now he alone is paying the price for that misdeed, period. It says nothing about any wrongdoing by Trump, namely collusion with the Russians.

This is like watching the Super Bowl last year and at half-time stating the Patriots suck and the Falcons rule. Not so fast....

Mueller is currently fighting (and winning) battles to eventually win the war. The Flynn deal is just another step taken towards resolving the investigation. Mueller is leveraging players by obtaining their cooperation through plea deals as a means to discovery of what truly occurred, whether it be colluding with the Russians OR obstructing justice, or both. This is Law School 101 stuff.

And mind you, the fact that Flynn's deal is so lenient (plead guilty on just one count?!) given the laundry list of violations and possible criminal acts against him, it says Flynn had much to offer Mueller, which should make Trump et al VERY worried. Notice also no word of Flynn's son, who likely was saved as part of the deal -- again, emphasizing that Flynn presumably has ample significant information to hand over to Mueller. 

As they say, this is a marathon, not a race. It's why Trump has repeatedly wanted to shut down the investigation. The longer it drags on, the closer Mueller gets to the actual truth. And if Trump was not afraid about the actual truth coming out, then he would have no problem with Mueller's investigation. But he does have a problem with it, biggly.

But I thought he wasn't going to golf as much as Obama?

When it comes to the presidency, playing golf may seem like a trivial matter, but in this case it's just another example of how Trump worked the mother-of-all cons to slip into the White House.

All In with Chris Hayes recently aired a devastating extended video clip on this topic. After explaining how Trump has spent about 1/3 of his time in office at a Trump property, there is a collection of a video clips showing Trump on the campaign trail repeatedly dissing Obama for playing too much golf and how when Trump is president he would rarely, if ever, go golfing.

Fact: Trump is currently on pace to double the amount of golf Obama played. Double.

This from a loud-mouth gas bag who did not shut up about Obama playing golf, making it almost a central issue in his campaign. As shown in the video, Trump's criticism was relentless and incessant.

There is a growing laundry list of items making plain how Trump is the ultimate hypocrite. Draining the swamp (not), being a president for all (not), reduce presidential executive orders (not), investigate election fraud (not), to name a few. Oh, and play less golf than Obama (not).

If there's one thing in which Trump is truly a master, it's conning people. Trump supporters are not so much "deplorables" as they are "gullibles."

More evidence the GOP tax bill is a big con job

The GOP tax plan got a triple whammy of brutal reviews

The tax bill will:

1. Raise taxes on the majority of taxpayers.
2. Not significantly boost economic growth.
3. Substantially increase the federal deficit.

Yet Paul Ryan and his cast of merry minions would have us believe quite the opposite. 

It's not just Trump who can work the big con, Republicans have been pulling this three-card Monte crap for many years. In fact, Trump is the logical leader of the GOP. Together they hoist flimflam on a daily basis, deceiving and outright lying to the public. And for the most part, getting away with it.

Bizarro USA

If you just listen to Trump (and read his many tweets), you'd think the country adored him and was heading in the right direction, or at least the direction most Americans would embrace and applaud.

However, if you look at polls, it says quite the opposite.

Above are the latest polls compiled by RealClearPolitics.com (hardly a left-wing web site, for those who care). So let's see what they say about the current state of things....

Trump Job Approval: 40% Approve, 56% Disapprove (average of the 4 polls)

Well that's pretty clear, people disapprove of Trump by a huge 16% margin. How could this be? According to Trump, he's beloved, OR he's not getting enough love (predictably, he says both). After all, the stock market is soaring and the economy is humming, what's not to like?

Truth be told, the stock market had already tripled during Obama's time in office, so Trump has a long ways to go to surpass that figure. And the economy was doing quite nicely when Obama exited, so how much of what we're seeing with the economy isn't still just spillover from the Obama years? When do economic stats officially become Trump's?

But put another way, assuming everything is just hunky dory, then why the 16% disapproval spread? Either Americans do not believe or feel that things are so great, despite what Trump wants us to believe, OR things are in fact going well but regardless, people happen to disapprove of Trump.

Or it could be that despite economic conditions, people believe things aren't going so great for them AND they disapprove of Trump. The two polls above concerning the "Direction of Country" average to 59.5% Wrong Track vs. 33.5% Right Direction, for a whopping 26% difference siding with the country being on the wrong track.

So people disapprove of Trump by a 16% margin and they believe the country is on the wrong track by a 26% margin. Wow.

The other two remaining polls have the Democrats slightly ahead by 3% in a generic Congressional vote, and then Moore has pulled back ahead by 2% over Jones. Both of these polls are within the statistical margin of error making them not all that significant. However, I would love to see a non-Alabama-voter poll on the Alabama race, i.e. I'd love to see what the rest of the country feels about this high-profile Alabama contest. I have a feeling Moore would be well behind Jones.

What does that matter? It would be another reflection of what the entire country thinks about something, as opposed to just the state of Alabama. And again I'm willing to bet that in a national poll, Moore would be double-digits behind Jones.

But what about other subjects, how do they poll? Well let's see, the FCC announced yesterday that they plan to overturn net neutrality, where does the public fall on this topic? Americans favor net neutrality overwhelmingly. How about Obamacare? People favor the ACA. Global warming? Most Americans believe that climate change is real and is man-made. The Republican tax bill? The majority of people oppose it. The border wall? Most people do not want it.

You get the picture. On almost every issue, the majority of Americans are against what Trump (and Republicans for that matter) is for or believes. I can't recall a time when the country was so across-the-board opposite of the president. It's Bizarro USA!

How can this be called a representative democracy? The fact is it's not, or it's a deeply flawed one. Rather, today's America is a byproduct of 1) the Electoral College, an outdated mechanism that subverts the popular vote and instead indirectly elects the president, and 2) gerrymandering, where too many district maps are excessively partisan in favor of Republicans.

The Electoral College was adopted as a compromise and centered on slavery -- needless to say, it has outlived its original purpose and should have long ago been repealed. The fact that a Wyoming vote counts 3.6 times more than a California vote should be reason enough to get rid of this archaic, undemocratic system. No voter should count more than any other in a true democracy.

As for gerrymandering, just look at Michigan as an example of how bad things have become. In last November's election, Michigan voters basically split 50/50 in the state and yet Republicans sent 9 representatives to DC as opposed to just 5 for the Democrats. The SCOTUS is expected to rule on gerrymandering over the next several months, stay tuned.

But clearly it seems that we currently have a government that does not represent the beliefs or will of the majority. There's no way to MAGA as long as this condition holds.

Fox News (Sans) Election Night Coverage

Fox News coverage of last night's election was near nonexistent.

From Slate:

Laura Ingraham's show began at 10, and Ingraham used the majority of her hour on segments about the armed civilian who attempted to intervene during this weekend's Texas shooting, the question of why liberals are "so offended and bothered by prayer," disgraced O.J Simpson detective Mark Fuhrman's opinions about gun control, and Trump's achievements in "confronting evil." She finally made it to Virginia at 10:50, whereupon viewers learned that Gillespie lost because he actually didn't imitate Trump enough.

This from the self-proclaimed "fair and balanced" propaganda news channel. 

I know Fox viewers live in a bubble, but weren't they even wondering what was going on? I'm fairly certain most people knew that it was election night, which typically involves results -- you know, winners and losers. And yet Fox seemingly decided, "f*ck our viewers, the dim bulbs, they don't need to know about the bad news, besides it will just upset them!"

The timing of Trump's globe-trotting trip has seemed a bit too well-timed to me. Perhaps expecting this bad news, better to get out of Dodge, thus avoiding the questions and hard reality. 

But his trip also allowed for -- wait for it -- yes, a diversion. Is it just a coincidence that Trump's speech last night started right around when most news channels would be covering the election results? Hmm.

First dominos to fall....

Last night's election results were the first dominos to fall. Granted, Luther Strange may have been the actual first falling domino, but with Republican candidates in VA and NJ being soundly defeated, hopefully the domino chain reaction continues into next November.

Will these results serve as a head-slap to the GOP, that they need to become more like Flake and Corker and breakaway from Trump? We'll see, but I remain highly skeptical. As it is, the conservative diversion apparatus is blaming the VA loss on Gillespie not cozying up enough to Trump. Nice, blame the victim. But by all accounts Gillespie did eventually steer hard right towards Trump, embracing the dog-whistle, racist tactics that Trump's base finds so appealing. All for naught.

To me, the most eye-opening result on the night was the win by transgender candidate Danica Roem. I thought it was startling not because Danica won, but rather because she beat a staunch anti-LGBT conservative, Robert Marshall, who the Washington Post describes as "a 13-term incumbent who called himself Virginia’s 'chief homophobe' and earlier this year introduced a 'bathroom bill' that died in committee."

How does a district go from putting a guy like Marshall in office for 13-terms and then do a 180-about-face and elect Danica? And she didn't just win, she trounced him, winning by a huge 9% margin! I'm both elated and confused. Did the voters suddenly wake up out of a 13-term coma and realize how wrong they were on so many issues? Does this local race speak volumes about the direction Trump has taken the country and the resounding blowback??

The next several months should be very interesting....

The Sh*t is Starting to Hit the Fan

Yesterday had to be Black Monday for the Trump administration. The indictments and guilty plea are obviously not good news for many in the White House.

And yet if you tuned into Fox News, it's as if they were reporting in a parallel universe, seemingly oblivious or in denial given the day's events. Rather than cover (won't bother saying "report fairly") the Mueller news, viewers were treated to nonstop hysterics about Hillary, Uranium One and the secret dossier (and cheeseburgers?). There was hardly a mention of Manafort or Papadopoulos. Instead, you would've thought Mueller indicted Hillary and Obama!

Never mind that the Uranium One supposed scandal has for years been known by most people in the media, and has been proven false. But what the heck, Fox decided it was at least worth trying to throw that spaghetti against the wall, it may stick. After all, their lemming viewers believe everything told to them. So the right-wing diversion apparatus (RWDA?) had this canard all cued up and ready to go for the Mueller announcement.

As for the secret dossier, snore. The big revelation was that this opposition research -- first initiated by payment to Fusion GPS by a right-wing, Republican-donor outfit, the Washington Free Beacon -- was eventually paid for by the DNC. Where is the crime? All campaigns do "oppo research" and very often it's unseemly and perhaps shady, but again both sides do it and it's been occurring for decades.

So on a historic day like yesterday, the RWDA decides to blare across the airwaves what appear to be two huge nothing-burgers (a phrase the RWDA loves to use).

Meanwhile, Team Trump is trying to distance themselves from Pappy, attempting to characterize him as a very minor player in their campaign. Oh really? When asked in the past to name a few of his foreign policy advisers, Trump has stated Papadopoulos by name, one of the first people mentioned. But this young man was some unknown minor player? Hmm, I have a feeling he had a much larger role than is being confessed.

Stay tuned as this is not a race but instead a marathon. Mueller is methodically and carefully playing his cards. We're just in the first inning.... 

By the way, I'm trying to post more on Twitter, please follow me there (as well as here): https://twitter.com/TheAngryLiberal

What's Up with John Kelly?

Here we all thought John Kelly was the sane one in the White House, the parental keeper of boy Trump. And then Kelly holds that press conference, attempting to defend, or at least explain, what Trump did during the phone call to the Gold Star widow. Ugh.

Kelly rambles on in his press conference in a very heartfelt manner, but ultimately lies about Rep. Wilson and calls her an "empty barrel" for good measure.

Huh? Did anyone expect to hear that? From the supposed adult in the White House?

I'm left making excuses for Kelly. Is he becoming like Trump, gradually taking on Donald's worst qualities due to being cooped up with a sociopath for so long? Or is it some form of Stockholm syndrome? With Kelly feigning alliance with Trump by lying and insulting, hoping to stay in his good graces and not get fired -- thus able to continue to protect our country from a madman??

Or is Kelly actually more like Trump than we'd like to admit, a crass liar?

Sadly, this is where we're at as a country, where we have to second-guess the WH Chief of Staff because the president is a lunatic. Where we go to bed at night hoping that people other than the president himself will keep us safe.

Could the Founding Fathers ever have imagined this?

Trump's childish, bullying actions could cause a nuclear war, according to experts

Just great. Nuclear war started by tweets from an orange fool.

In today's NY Times:

Veterans of diplomacy and national security and specialists on North Korea fear that, whatever their intended result, Mr. Trump’s increasingly bellicose threats and public insults of the famously thin-skinned Mr. Kim could cause the United States to careen into a nuclear confrontation driven by personal animosity and bravado.

“It does matter, because you don’t want to get to a situation where North Korea fundamentally miscalculates that an attack is coming,” said Sue Mi Terry, a former intelligence and National Security Council specialist who is now a senior adviser for Korea at Bower Group Asia. “It could lead us to stumble into a war that nobody wants.”

And while his bombast may be a thrill to Mr. Trump’s core supporters, there is evidence that the broader American public does not trust the president to deal with North Korea, and is deeply opposed to the kind of pre-emptive military strike he has seemed eager to threaten.

Some senior administration officials acknowledge privately that Mr. Trump’s rhetoric on North Korea is not helpful, although they question whether it will alter the discussion, given how far Mr. Kim has come in his quest to develop a nuclear weapon that could reach the United States.

The three current and retired generals advising Mr. Trump — Jim Mattis, the defense secretary; Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, his national security adviser; and John F. Kelly, his chief of staff — as well as Rex W. Tillerson, the secretary of state, have all chosen their words on North Korea more carefully, emphasizing the role of diplomacy and the grave stakes of any military confrontation.

“All three of the generals fully realize the carnage that would result from a war on the Korean Peninsula,” James G. Stavridis, the former NATO commander and current dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, said on Sunday.

“Knowing each of them personally, I am certain they are counseling operational caution, measured public commentary and building a coalition approach to dealing with Kim Jong-un,” Mr. Stavridis, a retired admiral, said in an email. “But controlling President Trump seems incredibly difficult. Let’s hope they are not engaged in mission impossible, because the stakes are so high.”

Christopher R. Hill, a former ambassador to South Korea who served Republican and Democratic presidents, argued that the comments could badly undercut Mr. Trump’s ability to find a peaceful solution to the dispute, playing into Mr. Kim’s characterization of the United States as an evil nation bent on North Korea’s destruction and relieving pressure on the Chinese to do more to curb Pyongyang.

“The comments give the world the sense that he is increasingly unhinged and unreliable,” said Mr. Hill, the dean of the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver.

Mr. Hill, who as envoy to South Korea under George W. Bush was the last American to hold formal talks with the government in Pyongyang, said he and Condoleezza Rice, then the secretary of state, routinely advised Mr. Bush to “avoid the personal invectives,” because “they never help.”

“My sense from four years of those talks is that getting personal is not helpful,” Mr. Hill said. “Who could be telling Trump otherwise?”

Yet current and former senior officials said it was clear that Mr. Trump would continue his brinkmanship, particularly his belligerent tweets, no matter what his advisers do or say. One former administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal policy workings, said nobody, including Mr. Kelly, could control the president’s social media utterances, despite what his military advisers thought about them.

The tweets most likely have forced Mr. Mattis and Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as other national security officials, to spend a significant amount of time on the phone reassuring counterparts about Mr. Trump’s intentions.