Headline: More than half of arrested Portland anti-Trump protesters didn’t vote in Oregon
And while I’m pretty ticked off about it, I absolutely called it last week.
For background, there have been countless protests of hundreds of thousands of people around the United States at the election of Donald Trump for president. These people took to the streets because they were angry. Not just because their candidate lost, but because the candidate that won is probably one of the most divisive people to ever seek this nation’s highest office. Doesn’t matter that he’s said horrible things about women, about minorities, about those of different religious backgrounds, about veterans, and those who have given the ultimate sacrifice for this country.
But regardless of what you criticize him for, we all should have done our civic duty and voted. But one media company has gone out and done some investigation, and it turns out that more than half of the protesters that have been arrested in Portland, Oregon didn’t even vote! Tese actions are the moral equivalent of a straight person saying that a gay person cannot get married. Yes, that’s a harsh thing to say – but it’s the same thing. The straight person shouldn’t have any say in a gay couple’s future that holds any value because they have nothing to do with it. Well, these protesters didn’t even vote, for an election that they are protesting.
I call bullcrap.
A Democratic heavyweight runs for office against a Republican outsider. There’s a fierce battle, but the Democrat, with a little bit of documentation baggage behind her, thinks they have things locked up. And by the time she realizes she’s in trouble, there’s nothing she can do but sit back and watch the returns roll in, with her Republican opponent claiming victory.
No, this isn’t about Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump, 2016. This is Martha Coakley versus Scott Brown for the 2010 Massachusetts Senate special election to succeed the late Ted Kennedy.
The similarities between Clinton’s presidential race and Coakley’s Senate race are pretty striking, though at least Scott Brown boasted a better political resume than Donald Trump. The environment of Massachusetts is one with a left-leaning tilt, especially as it has given us the Kennedy political empire. But the 2010 race was a wake-up call to the Democratic party that they cannot take any environment for granted. Coakley was someone with extensive governmental service, and Brown considered himself far outside of the Republican establishment, two positions that are pretty analogous to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Coakley even had her own email scandal to have to deal with, for which she was criticized immensely.
In the end, Coakley took a week long vacation that, while it didn’t sink her campaign, caused her to be caught off guard when she returned to the campaign trail. For Clinton, it wasn’t a vacation, but rather a Republican-generated scandal that killed her momentum. By the time Clinton realized that she was in trouble in the rust belt, it was too late to be able to recover. And while she tried to recover, she went about it completely wrong, with attacks on Trump instead of tailoring her message to Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. If she had acknowledged the issues with the economic problems those three states were facing, and given a plan to address them, then we may well have seen a much different outcome.
The 2010 election of Scott Brown does have a silver lining for Democrats, which should give the party hope for life after the folding of the Clinton dynasty. While Scott Brown served two years, he was defeated in 2012 by a liberal firebrand, Elizabeth Warren, who is up for reelection in 2018. Warren, along with Bernie Sanders, is one of the most nationally popular, left-leaning Senators in the chamber, which is a good thing for Americans, because they fight for the common man, not the super elite.
So take heart, Democrats. Get your party in order, get a strong progressive to fight for the little guy, and put the country back on the right path in 2018 and 2020.
I tend to be a political science junkie, and so the 2016 Presidential election is one that I’ve kept a close watch on. Additionally, as a gay man and as someone who is a feminist, I tend to look at the election with extra scrutiny, especially on the Republican side of the fence.
Knowing a bit about Donald Trump for a while, it was absolutely no surprise that in a 2004 interview, he called pregnancy a wonderful thing — as long as you were not an employer. If you were, then pregnancy was a complete inconvenience. Why? Because it would make the United States less competitive if companies had to pay for maternity leave.
So that makes it all the more puzzling why Trump has changed his tune and decided that paid maternity leave is just fine. He put forth a new policy that would be woefully underfunded if he took office, because he plans to pay for the six week maternity leave by cracking down on unemployment benefits fraud, which is only about $3 billion per year (whereas Trump’s plan would cost many times that).
What’s worse is Trump, both Donald and Ivanka, went on national television and while introducing Donald’s plan, lied about Hillary Clinton’s. They actually said that Mrs. Clinton actually had no plan, which is a surprise to me since it’s been part of Clinton’s website for more than a year. But what’s worse is Ivanka defended the plan, and abruptly ended an interview with Cosmo when the magazine asked if the plan covered gay dads. Because gay men don’t have kids, right? Right?
The absolute worse thing about Trump’s plan is that it’s only focused on the wealthy. Why? Because it’s a tax cut, not a tax credit. And as a tax cut, with Trump’s proposal of being able to deduct childcare expenses, this is focused so much on the wealthy that it would be a blip on the financial impact of regular Americans. While a middle class family would be able to deduct a small amount from their tax burden, people like the Trump family would be able to deduct tens of thousands of dollars per year. For example, if each of Donald Trump’s grandkids — he has seven — had a nanny, and the Trump clan had a family reunion, Ivanka and Donald Trump III (the two Trump children who have provided Trump with grandkids) would be able to fly their nannies out with their children — and deduct their First Class airfare, hotel accomodations, salary, bonuses, and the like.
But Trump is a champion of the middle class. Yeah, right.
Yes, it’s true. Donald Trump, at a rally in Mississippi, declared that Hillary Clinton is a bigot. Why? Because she “only sees minorities as votes, not people.” And lest you think we’re making this up, there’s video of it – everywhere, including the hilarious look on one woman’s face when he says it.
Okay, so let’s take the comment at face value. Is she a bigot? Well, to pull just one of her accomplishments out of her history, as First Lady, she helped to spearhead a law that led to covering more than 8 million children – regardless of race – who weren’t previously covered. The law is referred to as SCHIP, for State Children’s Health Insurance Program, and is what has helped many, many children since it started.
Currently the percentage of minority children in the United States is about 50.2%, according to 2014 figures. So overall, Hillary Clinton has helped more than 4 million minority children in the United States. Does this sound like something a bigot would do?
Contract that with Donald Trump. The same Donald Trump who said that blacks are lazy. Who said he didn’t trust black people to count his money. The same Donald Trump who refused to rent to black people (though he was quick to point out the settlement for this discrimination “didn’t amount to a guilty verdict”.
So tell me, which one of these two people sound like a bigot? It’s not Hillary Clinton, that’s for sure.
So everyone knows about TheHill.com and all the major news sites, and probably faithfully visit them to get the latest news about the 2016 race for the White House. But there’s one site that seems to be lower on the radar, and yet it doesn’t deserve to be. Why? Because it is not only consistently updated on a daily basis, but it’s probably some of the best analysis of what is going on, as well as what to expect in the coming days. As a news aggregate site from multiple sources that is used to formulate and hypothesize, it’s honestly second to none.
I’m talking about Electoral-Vote.com of course.
I followed this site religiously in the 2008 and 2012 Presidential race, as well as the 2010 and 2014 Senate races. The insight here is very well done, and I cannot recommend it enough. I’m not affiliated with the site in any way; I’m just an admirer.
So check out Electoral-Vote.com and see what you’ve been missing!
One thing that people of religious backgrounds, especially Christians who think they have been wronged by gay people gaining the same rights and responsibilities that straight people have had for years, is that they will tell you religion is very sacred to them. But they’ll also tell you that religion is something that is protected by our Constitution here in the United States. Indeed, that first amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
So honestly, it is confusing to me when I read that US District Court Judge John Gerrard ruled that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn’t a real religion. He stated that it was a parody, brought forth by those who were trying to fight creationism being taught in Kansas. And indeed, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was started by a man during that time, in response to what Kansas was doing. Gerrard ruled that the religion was only a parody, and thus did qualify as a “real religion”, ruling against a Nebraska man who is serving time in a prison that prohibits him from worshiping the way that his religion calls for.
While the case may be called “silly” by some, it’s a fundamental crack in the wall of what the State considers a religion – and that’s dangerous. What if an anti-Islam judge rules that Muslim people are not worthy of having their religious views respected? What if a gay judge rules that people like Pat Robertson and all those of the same ilk that are virulently anti-gay disqualifies Judeo-Christian values as a religion? Would that be right?
So while we are a nation that respects people for their deeply held religious beliefs, as well as the right to have no religious beliefs, we have honestly not only a step back for personal rights, but have started down a dangerous path from which there could be no turning back.
So, did you hear that because Germany had gun control laws back in the 1930s, that allowed Hitler to take power and kill millions of Jews? No? Well it’s what Ben Carson is saying. But why would he say something like that?
Because it’s a dog-whistle talking point to get votes. “They’re coming for your guns!” is the rallying cry, and suckers fall for it every time.
But Ben Carson doesn’t care about that. Even if Politifact declares it “False” (their term – I call it a big fat lie), he doesn’t care. All he cares about is getting another few percentage points in support.
Currently, we’re running both this blog (ProudLiberal.org) as well as 2016candidates.zone – a breakdown of the 2016 US Presidential candidates. You may notice crosspostings from our secondary site to this one – or you may not. Some items when clicked on from ProudLibearl.org will take you to our secondary blog for commenting and such.
I was reading a bit by Lindsey Graham, who so eloquently said:
I knew about the crazy as hell, since that refers to Donald Trump. But Doctor Ben Carson, who is now riding high in the first position in Iowa, tried to kill someone? Well, I looked into it, and Lindsey Graham is right.
To quote from the CNN story:
“As a teenager, I would go after people with rocks, and bricks, and baseball bats, and hammers. And, of course, many people know the story when I was 14 and I tried to stab someone,” Carson said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Are you kidding me? Carson admits that when he was 14, he tried to kill someone – and this guy is topping the polls for the Republican nomination?
Want even more scary news? Check out ThinkProgress’ awesome “13 Ridiculous Things Ben Carson Actually Believes.”
And their families, too!
In trying to defend the bigoted Kim Davis, who refused to allow her or her staff to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, Rick Santorum seriously stuck his foot in his mouth. He tried to say that what Kim Davis went through was the exact same thing that one of the people killed in Columbine – shot because of her religious beliefs – that both situations are comparable, and equal.
He couldn’t be more wrong. If you want to make a comparison, then compare her to George Wallace, standing in the doorways at the University of Alabama, decreeing “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” Because if there’s a comparison, that is the closest.