"How stupid are the people of Iowa?"
This is in reference to a doubt Donald Trump had about the fact that Ben Carson tried to stab someone in his youth. Apparently it was partially right as Trump came in second in Iowa in the Primaries.
Donald Trump video getting completely idiotic over Iowa stupidity...
As a passionate Progressive, I would still welcome a loophole in the Donald Trump presidency, but until that happens, the left must look ahead to what we have to work with. Right now the Democrats are in something of a shambles, with Hillary Clinton no longer able to lead the Party and a new leader not yet even emerging. My choice, of course, is Bernie Sanders, and also the choice of most other Progressives, but the legions of politicians has grown quiet, until we are able to swallow the inauguration of Donald John Trump. That will be hard to do for many.
For the new DC chairman, the early choice, Keith Ellison, Minnesota congressman and ally of Bernie Sanders, has run into trouble. Politico reports...
"On the heels of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s troubled tenure as DNC chief, the issue of whether Ellison will commit full-time to the job poses a threat to his candidacy..."
My guess is that Wasserman-Schultz had the time but she just wasn't competent enough for the job. CNN says that, "...2017 will be a year for the history books." We knew that the day the Electoral College met and made its grim decision. That quiet you hear out there across the country are those voters of sound mind who didn't vote for Trump, and who are holding their breath in fear of the future. Most individuals are capable of handling most challenges sent their way, but the worst thing to confront is the unknown. Donald Trump is the epitome of the unknown.
Celebrities shun Donald Trump like the plague video...
With GOP control of both Houses of Congress, and a Republican in the White House, the outlook is fairly dim for the left, particularly for Progressives. Democrats have steadily moved to the center, which is one goo reason the Party is losing so many elections. Republicans have staunchly maintained their conservative positions on issues, establishing an identity that supporters can follow. The Dems are fractured with no single ideology to look up to, nor any individual to carry the torch. Until they find that, there could be even more Donald Trumps. God forbid.
Here is a recent quote from Newt Gingrich, a politician that should have been relegated to just cutting the yard a long time ago, re. Barack Obama's legacy...
"His legacy is like one of those dolls that, as the air comes out of it, shrinks and shrinks and shrinks. He's in this desperate frenzy."
Politico describes Gingrich's personal life as, "...a hot mess." As an example, "In April 1980, Newt filed for divorce while his wife, Jackie, was in the hospital fighting uterine cancer. "As far as politics goes, Politico says he is, "...The man who poisoned Washington." Further...
"More than anyone else in the modern history of Congress, it’s Gingrich who observers credit for bringing the hyperpartisan, obstructionist approach to Washington that we associate with the capital to this day."
And all this time we blamed Karl Rove. But enough about Newt Gingrich who should put out to pasture like Arizona Senator, John McCain, both of which outlived their usefulness--if it was ever there to begin with--years ago. But Gingrich has the nerve to question President Obama's legacy when his own will read like an empty book. Apparently, the outdated Gingrich forgot....
President Obama rescued an economy trashed by former President Geo. W. Bush
He gave health insurance to millions who did not have it
Obama has led the global push for climate change to save the environment
Struck the landmark nuclear deal with Iran, slowing down the nuclear race
President Obama passed the legalization of same-sex marriage
There's more but you get the idea...this is a man with a legacy. And what I don't really understand is why the media continues to give voice to completely outmoded politicians like Gingrich and McCain. But I guess we'd rather see another blast about the two of them than anything else from T-rump.
Donald Trump said this when disparaging Hillary Clinton over her stand on gun control. Here is Trump's actual brainless comment...
"I think that her bodyguards should drop all weapons. They should disarm. Take their guns away, she doesn't want guns. Take them, let's see what happens to her. Take their guns away, OK. It will be very dangerous."
Thanks to amNewYork.
Media video on Trump statement...
This is the incoming president that will have his finger on the button. God help us!
I am all for creating jobs, something Progressives make a major priority in their ideology. Donald Trump spewed how he would help the working man during his 2016 campaign then picked Andrew Puzder as his Labor Secretary. Puzder is against sick leave, expanding overtime pay, wants to repeal Obamacare and most of all, is reluctant over raising the minimum wage. But that's not what this post is all about. If Lockheed is screwing the U.S. government in the building of the F-35, and it would appear they agree to a change, I am for correcting this, even if it means the loss of some jobs.
146,000 jobs, both within Lockheed and its suppliers, is what the company estimates are the number that depend on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. The incoming U.S. president says, "...due to the "tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35 I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable" fighter jet to possibly replace the F-35." Here's how Marilyn Hewson, CEO of Lockheed responded...
She had a "..."very good conversation" with Trump Friday, the day after he tweeted that he was considering replacing the costly F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with a modified version of a cheaper jet. I've heard his message loud and clear about reducing the cost of the F-35. I gave him my personal commitment to drive the cost down aggressively. We're ready to deliver."
So, what does that mean in terms of the new aircraft she had in mind in relation to the F-35? Did Lockheed overprice the F-35 to begin with? Were the overruns just for the purpose of jacking up the price? Was the F-35 allowed to continue overpriced and with overruns just to bring revenue to states like Texas and California? Or, is this all just a continuation of the cooperative efforts between big business and Congress to bring pork to the states to get representatives and Senators re-elected and fill the greedy coffers of corporations? You be the judge. Check out this YouTube video...
But what will a cheaper version of the F-35 mean to the men flying it? Will it be as effective, have the same armor plate protection, run on the latest technology, and there are even more questions? And yet another question arises, why didn't they build the less expensive version in the first place? Did Lockheed propose the over-priced model and Congress approved it because of the political donations from Lockheed? Bingo! $2.6 million dollars to be sure. The majority spread around Republicans can have an amazing effect on people's decisions.
So, back to having to agree with a psychopathic lunatic. Yes, if a cheaper F-15 is just as effective, just as well armored with the latest technology, I am in favor of building that and getting rid of the other version. Sorry for the jobs but this is probably a major reason for the size of the U.S. budget.
However, why do I keep feeling there is something here that will end up in Donald Trump's pocket?
Donald Trump gets his military advice from news shows.
CHUCK TODD: "Who do you talk to for military advice right now?"
TRUMP: "Well, I watch the shows. I mean, I really see a lot of great — you know, when you watch your show and all of the other shows.
