Thursday, May 18, 2017

Liberal Rant Concerning Religion, Youth Discipline and Conservative Lies

Religion was put into schools when Congress added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950's. And which God would you prefer? The god of the Baptists, Protestants, Catholics, Old Testament, New Testament, Mormons, Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Sunni Arabs, Shiite Arabs, Buddhists, Taoists, or Wiccans? Or the Church of England, as our founding fathers were supposed to belong to? Do you want kids taught that evolution is just a theory (like gravity and dinosaurs)? Shall we be Climate Change deniers? Do you want respect for others and ethics and morality taught, or do you just want to tell kids to behave because God will punish you if you disobey?

Do you really think the founding fathers wanted this to be a Christian nation? Or that we must have religion in order to have values? Do you want to continue to deny people's rights with Old Testament value judgments? Was the prohibition of the establishment of religion clause in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution put in clandestinely by Revolutionary War atheists?

Discipline problems with today's youth? Don't blame a lack of religion or religious values. The 60's were a rejection of authoritarianism, sexism, racism, greed, ignorance, and hypocrisy, and the effects were long-lasting. Parents since then have had multiple theories of child-rearing thrown at them, and too many abdicate their responsibilities or just don't understand them. Add to that the stresses of decreasing wages and benefits over the last 30+ years. And the problems were not absent before the 60's. What was absent was openness, honesty, and public discourse. Mental illness was a stigma, and so were sexual, physical and mental abuse. Pregnancies were hidden, and too many died from back-alley abortions.

Yes, things need to change. But do you think we should be heading back to a time of poorhouses, no worker's rights, no affordable health care, no minimum standards for health care insurance coverage, no environmental or consumer protections, no protections from Wall Street shenanigans or bank speculations with depositor's money, no protections for people's retirement accounts, no anti-trust regulations or food and drug protections? Are you advocating no heating assistance for the poor, no Head Start for preschoolers, no community block grants, no infrastructure spending bills, Medicare changed to private health plans with ever increasing costs and fewer benefits, the elimination of women's healthcare, the defunding of Medicaid, no ethics oversight for government officials, inadequate pay for our military troops, the militarization of police forces along with inadequate training, no rights against discrimination, the right of states to eliminate provisions regarding pre-existing conditions, privatization of Social Security, a worship of individual responsibility and an abdication of social responsibility? Then congratulations. You fit right in with today's radical conservatives. 

You should have lived in the 1890's or the 1920's. Do you still think being a liberal is about hating our country or wanting pure socialism or communism? Then you have no clue what love of country really means, and you certainly don't understand that we are a representative democracy. We are not supposed to be a corporatocracy (government dominated by corporate business interests) or plutocracy or oligarchy, and the government is supposed to provide for and promote the general welfare (as in health and wellbeing) of its citizens, otherwise known as We The People.

So go ahead and continue to believe and regurgitate the lies of the radical conservatives of how they are the ones who want fiscal responsibility, and that they are the party of morality and justice and prosperity for all and the protectors of America's values, that they are the solution to rampant crime, decaying inner cities, radical terrorist infiltrators, godless science. Keep waving those guns and flags and be secure in your ignorance and hate. Keep them foreigners away and those tree-hugging animal-loving whale-protecting hippies in their place and put the God of your choice into your schools. Keep them brown and yellow and black and olive and red and pink and rainbow-colored people away from you and your womenfolk.

But leave me out of your world of fantasy and delusion.

Monday, May 8, 2017

Minnesota's National Popular Vote Bill Stalled?

E-mail sent to Minnesota State Representative Jeff Backer (R-12A):

The National Popular Vote bill seems to have stalled in the Minnesota legislature. Also, lists the "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote" bill twice, HF44 and HF845. 

The Electoral College dates back to a time when there was no popular vote for President in more than half of the states. Four elections have resulted in the presidential candidate who lost the popular vote becoming President, including the elections of 2000 and 2016. The race for electoral votes means that the majority of campaigning occurs in only a small number of states. And in states that are not competitive, issues of concern to voters are ignored. Voters in non-competitive states that have a winner-take-all system are disinclined to vote since the votes of the minority party in that state literally do not count. That is disenfranchisement on a massive scale, and it also means that those people do not vote on all of the other down-ballot races and issues.

"There is a certain dark irony to the fact that a system designed to prevent the people from choosing an unqualified demagogue has resulted in the election of an unqualified demagogue not chosen by the people." It is long past time for the Electoral College to be relegated to the dustbin of history. Voters today are incensed that their choice was not respected and that the system relegates too many of them to the sidelines. It is time for Minnesota to move beyond the 1700's and into the 21st century.

Sunday, May 7, 2017

Letter to the President

Lying about crowd sizes, voter fraud, insurance coverage, transparency, and about your accomplishments? Claiming that you are draining the swamp? Nominating people who lie about their foreign connections and entanglements? Admiring despots and dictators? Cheering your choice for SCOTUS while the Senate changes the rules to be able to confirm him to fill the stolen Supreme Court seat? Pushing lies about your predecessor? Subscribing to discredited conspiracy theories? Nepotism? Unleashing horrors upon people and their families who have lived here for decades and are productive members of society? Proposing massive cuts in spending on social programs because they interfere with the philosophy of greed and irresponsibility? Refusing to put your assets and companies into a blind trust and then refusing to reveal what they are so that we may not see your conflicts of interest? Accepting payments from foreign governments when they patronize the companies you refused to put into a blind trust? Tweeting rumors and opinions about companies even though that affects stock prices and appears to facilitate insider trading? This is wrong. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Cutting Medicaid, gutting health insurance and giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy? Do wealthy people need tax relief? Is universal health care such as that enjoyed by most other western countries somehow communist or socialist and against your philosophy of individual responsibility without social responsibility? Your philosophy of individual responsibility doesn't extend to paying employees enough so that they can be individually responsible. Are you afraid that bankruptcies due to medical bills (including for those who are insured) will diminish? WRONG.

Cheering on and crowing about the potential loss of health insurance for over 20 million people and the potential catastrophic rise in health care costs for countless other people, especially those who are elderly, poor, or already sick? The AHCA should be titled 'The Unaffordable Unhealthy Uncaring Repeal and Erase Act.' WRONG.

Allowing states to ban Medicare for non-working people? Why? Because they have made "bad choices"? Such as illness, unemployment or underemployment, age, gender, race? Or somehow chose to be a victim of crime? Or because they have to stay at home to care for a parent or child? Or because they live in the wrong place and so are not afforded equal protection? Basically telling them to just say no to poverty as if it was that simple? WRONG.

Allowing discrimination? Are you being wronged when you are not allowed to discriminate, and can't see that preventing someone from harming others is not the same as harming others? Are you afraid of Christian morals or do you somehow think it doesn't apply to you? WRONG.

Gutting federal agencies? Are you unhappy with environmental protections, worker protections, fiscal responsibility, food safety, consumer protections, public education, sane energy policies, and equal justice? Or are those concepts against the philosophy of greed and unfettered capitalism? Against your moral code of absolute social irresponsibility? Because doing things in the public interest might mean the wealthy paying their fair share? Because it might impede increasing our military budget which is already larger than the combined military budgets of the next seven countries? WRONG.

Denying climate change? Do you think science is just a theory? Do you disagree with more than 97% of scientists studying climate change and the expressed opinions of 195 other countries? Is the truth inconvenient because it might take money away from the 400 richest families who have more than what 150,000,000 Americans have? WRONG.

You have made your administration into the most corrupt and uncaring one in the history of our country, and you have been in office less than four months. Add that to your list of accomplishments.

Saturday, May 6, 2017

Is Rape a Pre-existing Condition Under the AHCA?

For those people who point out that the AHCA does not explicitly make rape and sexual assaults pre-existing conditions, you need to understand that the consequences of those crimes CAN be labeled as pre-existing conditions. And when pre-existing conditions are allowed to be determiners of whether or not you get health insurance, or whether at some point they can cancel your insurance because of "nondisclosure" (usually when they don't want to pay for something expensive), then the AHCA is worthless and immoral, and should be relabeled as the Unaffordable Unhealthy Uncaring Repeal and Erase Act. To essentially make rape and sexual assault grounds for denial of health insurance and possibly medical care is barbaric and inhumane. I say that to willingly exacerbate the effects of those crimes is to be an accessory after the fact. Bring that up at the next town hall!

Friday, May 5, 2017

More GOP Medicaid Shenanigans - A Liberal Rant

In response to an article concerning states disallowing Medicaid coverage for people who are not working.

Republicans assume that people who are unemployed or underemployed or ill or who have any number of other barriers have simply made bad choices. Only the "good" deserve health care insurance. They're all for individual responsibility (though they don't equate low wages with inability to be responsible for one's self), and have no tolerance for social responsibility. Theirs is the party of Greed and flawed morals and no compassion or empathy or sense of religious values. They think that they are being wronged when they are not allowed to discriminate, and can't see that preventing someone from harming others is not the same as harming others. Their God is unfettered capitalism. Capitalism free from regulations protecting workers, the environment, consumers, the old, the sick, the disabled, children, or even the responsibility to pay their fair share in taxes. They value working money more than worker's sweat, and they have no scruples about how they accomplish their goals. They are radical conservatives. They are disgusting, and can't smell their own hypocrisy.

States Are Quietly Pushing To Take Medicaid Away From The Unemployed

ObamaCare Dissatisfaction and the AHCA

Were you dissatisfied with the ACA and are now welcoming the GOP AHCA health care plan? I suppose you think your pre-ACA coverage was great because it was cheap. But that insurance was more like a coupon for anything other than routine doctor visits.

Insurance companies would practice denying coverage for expenses, claiming treatments were experimental, etc. They would also terminate policies of sick people they didn't want to cover because of "pre-existing" conditions which had occurred outside of the history window that they asked for on applications. People were even kicked off of insurance because they had acne treatments as teenagers!

Maybe you actually had insurance that was good, but most people did not. The most common reason for bankruptcies was unaffordable medical expenses, even with insurance. ACA had mandated benefits forcing insurance companies to actually pay for needed health care, and they had to cover you even if you had pre-existing conditions. For those who made enough to qualify, the exchanges along with subsidies finally got them the insurance they needed.

Expanded Medicaid was supposed to take care of people who made too little to qualify for the ACA insurance exchanges, but Republicans sued and got that to be optional for individual states. If you can't afford insurance, I would suspect you live in a red state that opted out of the Medicaid expansion. Go cry to those radical conservatives that have been working so hard to make sure you are not covered. Blame them, not the ACA. And look into Universal Coverage that most other western countries already enjoy, at a much cheaper price than we pay. Don't believe the GOP lies; they are not fiscal conservatives and they do not care anything for working people. Ask them also why wealthy people need "tax relief."

Wednesday, May 3, 2017

Common Sense Alaskan Wildlife Regulation Gutted

In response to HJR 69/SJR 18 becoming law, and which nullifies the Department of the Interior rule relating to “Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska” (81 Fed. Reg. 52247 (August 5, 2016)):

I doubt if even one congressman actually read the text of the "rule" they voted to kill. Their bill nullifying the rule is two sentences long. The rule they killed is pages and pages of clarifications of existing regulations, tweaking of existing regulations for compliance with other laws, changes to the proposed regulations in response to thousands of comments and input from the public and from American Indian tribes and other agencies, both federal and state.

But hey, them congresspeople are against anything that sounds like it restricts their freedom to rape and pillage our environment. They must be from a different planet because they sure don't care about ours.

HJR 69/SJR 18 passed both the Senate (52 - 47) and House (225 - 193) by simple majority votes and was signed into law by President Trump on April 3, 2017, becoming Public Law No. 115-20. - 115th Congress House Joint Resolution 69
Federal Register 08/05/2016-18117...

Friday, April 28, 2017

H.R. 1180 Working Families Flexibility Act of 2017 (Comp Time Scam)

H.R. 1180 would "allow" employees to bank up to 160 hours of overtime pay (4 weeks at time-and-a-half pay), to be used when taking time off at an approved and non-work-disruptive period as allowed by the employer.

How this is supposed to give working families flexibility is not explained. Although such banking of overtime is supposedly subject to prior approval by both employee and employer, in practice the employee would have no power to refuse to be paid at some future date instead of the next payday.

Such banked hours would be subject to possible employer bankruptcies and fraud, and relies on the fairness and honesty of the employer. Also, no interest would be paid to the employee for funds banked by the employer.

"Under current law, an employer that honestly wants to give an employee time off to compensate for the sacrifice of working extra hours can do so. No legislation is required. The employer simply pays for the overtime when it’s worked and then gives the employee unpaid time off when the employee requests it. The employee gets the money first and the leave later.

"The comp time bill turns this around — to the detriment of the workers. It gives employers the right to hang onto their employees’ overtime pay for months and months without paying interest on it or necessarily ever giving compensatory time off. Calling this a scam is being gentle."

"...Imagine a Wal-Mart sized employer with a comp time bank holding 100 hours of overtime pay for each of 100,000 employees paid $10 an hour. That’s a $100 million loan, interest-free from the employees to Wal-Mart."

Sunday, April 23, 2017

Why Oppose Universal Healthcare?

Republicans are opposed to universal healthcare because their philosophy is personal responsibility alone, not social responsibility. Any program or policy which interferes with taking care of one's own is something which must be eliminated. Conservatives want to cut the part of government that helps its citizens, because that violates individual responsibility and therefore is against their "moral" code. The fact that their policies mean that too many people cannot fulfill their own individual responsibilities (such as income, healthcare, protecting their family) doesn't register. It is always the victim's fault, whether it is lack of decent healthcare or being ripped off by predatory companies and individuals.

The Republican philosophy is all about greed and how to justify it. In their minds poor people are lazy and undeserving. The fact that social responsibility might help their bottom line is not part of their reality. And they have crafted so many ways of conning people into believing that their way is best, including messaging, word choices (tax "relief"), lies ("death panels"), and fear-mongering. That plus dirty tricks (gerrymandering, voter restrictions, Citizens United) keep them in power.

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Malfeasance

Concerning Aaron Swartz and Justina Pelletier, a response to mis-characterizations of the people involved.

Aaron Swartz was never convicted. He was, however, hounded to death. Mr. Pelletier was given no alternative but to commit his crime in order to free his daughter from her 13 months of torture. If the actions of the Boston U.S. Attorney's office don't seem egregious to you, perhaps you have not understood the details of these two cases. Their office is hardly alone in their malfeasance and their disregard for judicial standards, common sense, ethics, and legality. I have personally experienced too many examples, including as a victim of crime, of this level of incompetence and indifference from our justice system.

Carmen Ortiz was overseeing prosecution efforts against Aaron Swartz [see note] for a crime which caused no physical harm and no economic harm. Further, the institution involved declined to press charges, and their attorney asked the lead prosecutor to drop the charges. Instead, more charges were added with the potential for 50 years in federal prison and $1 million in fines. Shortly after a counter-offer for a plea deal was rejected, Mr. Swartz committed suicide.

In the case of Justina Pelletier, Boston's Children's Hospital misdiagnosed her as having a psychiatric problem, then essentially kidnapped her and took her off of the medications she needed. Carmen Ortiz was the Boston U.S. Attorney who refused to investigate the hospital, dismissing numerous attempts by other people and organizations to get her to act. Her father's efforts on Justina's behalf were thwarted, and in desperation he knocked out the hospital's internet service. His action was successful in generating media attention and freeing his daughter from her 13 months of torture. In return, the same Boston U.S. Attorney's office is vigorously prosecuting Justina's father after having refused to investigate the hospital.

Huffington Post - "Senator Rubio And Governor Scott – Please Help: He Dead, She’s Paralyzed, And I’m Imprisoned"
The Guardian - "Aaron Swartz stood up for freedom and fairness – and was hounded to his death."
Wikipedia - Aaron Swartz

Aaron Swartz was a computer genius who crafted software solutions such as RSS which are still widely in use. He was an activist who made it his mission to make public documents available without charge. He was charged for attempting to download academic articles from JSTOR which were behind a pay-wall at Boston's MIT. There was no physical harm and no economic harm done, and JSTOR declined to press charges. JSTOR's own lawyer had asked the lead prosecutor to drop the charges. Instead, even more federal charges were added so that he was looking at 50 years in federal prison along with $1 million in fines. A 6-month plea deal was offered and declined, and a counter-offer was rejected. Carmen Ortiz was the U.S. Attorney overseeing the prosecution efforts.

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

Rich Freeloaders

People who work hard for a living are tired of freeloaders - the rich who pay less as a percentage of taxes, corporations that pay little or no taxes and companies with record profits that receive subsidies. The wealthy have abandoned the principle of social responsibility and subscribe exclusively to the concept of individual responsibility. That concept is based on the myth that poor people are lazy and have made bad choices, and it is their own fault that they are poor. The wealthy send their money to work and are taxed only on the profits, while taxes are levied on most of the income of people who actually work.

At the same time, the radical conservatives want to eliminate worker protections, discrimination protections, environmental protections, and free K-12 education. They want bigger banks, bigger tax cuts for the rich (including dropping capital gains taxes to zero), no financial or consumer safeguards, privatized Social Security and Medicare, no Pell grants for students, no minimum wage, no heating assistance for the poor, no Head Start for preschoolers, no community block grants, no infrastructure spending bills, no healthcare insurance assistance and insurance protections, and a budget increase for our ridiculously massive military (with little going to soldiers).

Congress decides on the budget; the president only proposes an outline. Trillion-dollar deficits are the GOP's method of choice for an excuse to cut social spending. Conflating the federal budget figures with Social Security (with its own revenue stream) gives them an excuse to raise retirement ages and cut benefits (which has no impact whatsoever on the federal budget and its deficits), and gives them reason to privatize Social Security and gain access to profits from administrative overhead fees.

Want smaller government and lower taxes? Try living in Somalia.

Saturday, March 4, 2017

Berkeley Riots - What Really Happened

150 masked agitators? Molotov cocktails? Does that really sound like a liberal protest?

A story on Breitbart BEFORE the event said that Yiannopoulos (formerly a writer and senior editor for Breitbart News) was, at the very institution which would be affected, going to "call for withdrawal of federal grants and the prosecution of university officials who endanger students with their policies”.

The police and Berkeley cancelled the event because of the "riot" and out of concern for public safety. Berkeley was going to let Yiannopoulos have his free speech even in the face of Yiannopoulos' reputation as a white nationalist, defender of pedophilia and "professional outrage generator". The rioters caused an estimated $100,000 damage to the university and additional damage to the downtown area. It now appears that Black Bloc, a mostly anarchist loose group of protesters known for violent tactics and for concealing their identities, along with the violent "extreme-left" group By Any Means Necessary, engineered the riot. It was not a student protest.

Yvette Felarca leads the outside group By Any Means Necessary. In a Breitbart article she was said to have expressed no regrets for her group's use of violence at Berkeley. She said they were setting an example for the left, who have been far too timid for way too long.

Robert Reich said that he "wouldn't bet against" the possibility "that Yiannopoulos and Breitbart were in cahoots with the agitators." This was followed immediately by a story on Breitbart that "Robert Reich Lies, Claims Breitbart News Organized Berkeley Riots." Speculation versus claim.

Within hours, Trump accused the university of not allowing free speech and promoting violence, and threatened to withhold federal funds (which was what Yiannopoulos was supposedly going to call for).

Yiannopoulos on Fox News the next day said the incident proves that Berkeley doesn't deserve federal grants.

The FBI has joined campus police and the local police department to identify the rioters who "assaulted innocent people and destroyed private and public property in order to suppress the free speech of someone they didn’t agree with."

And you think the big story is Robert Reich lies?? Grow up.

Originally posted as a comment to a YouTube video, Robert Reich : The resistance report, February 24, 2017.

Sunday, February 26, 2017

Who are you, really?

Just saying, “I’m not an islamophobic, xenophobic, homo/transphobic, racist” isn’t convincing to anyone but those who already agree with you. If this isn’t who you are in your heart, you’re going to have to be the ones to show the rest of us who you really are. Your actions are the best argument for who you really are, what you really believe. We cannot see into your hearts. Your condescension, hostility and political support, your treatment of LGBTQ as malformed deviants, are what we see. You talk about how you’re not racist, but then we see you fall in behind a president who surrounds himself with white supremacists. How would Christ treat Muslims? Does not the Bible enjoin God’s people to welcome the foreigner? We hear you talk about family values, then see you support a politics that tears children from the arms of their parents.

You support people who are opposed to Social Security, minimum wages, affordable health care, Medicare and Medicaid, fiscal responsibility, sane gun laws, food safety laws, worker protections, environmental protections, financial and consumer protections, and protections against discrimination. You call people who support those things bleeding heart liberals, socialists, not real Americans, moochers, and unpatriotic. You support people who practice voter suppression, who oppose ethics oversight, who oppose immigration reform, who vote consistently to benefit the already wealthy, who pass laws that benefit large corporations and don't do anything for or even hurt small business, who lower taxes on the rich and then blame assistance programs for deficits, who call Social Security the biggest federal expense and ignore that it has its own revenue stream, and who support an administration that wants to deconstruct federal agencies and flat out lies over and over to our faces.

Is this really who you are? If not, then you have a funny way of showing it.

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Stop Voting Against Your Self-interest

Do you think that the Republican Party best represents the interests of  the working class?

It is primarily Republicans who call Americans lazy. They think people would rather live off of the government tit than have a job. That's Ayn Rand's premise, and House Majority Leader Paul Ryan named Rand his favorite author. That is the conservative's main excuse for eliminating government assistance programs. As for Democrats, they understand that Americans don't want jobs that don't even pay minimum wage. Ask yourselves why Republicans won't simply issue work visas to Mexicans so they don't have to stay here to make money. Hint: Then they would be legal and would have to be paid more.

Republicans call 47% of the populace "moochers," including people on Social Security who paid into it their whole working lives. (And don't believe the lie about Social Security being the biggest federal expense; it has its own revenue stream, has a $2.8 trillion Trust Fund and its accounting is separate by law from the federal budget. It is not an "entitlement" as conservatives use the term.) The real moochers are companies that pay so little that they force workers to get assistance from the government to make ends meet. When their workers get food stamps, companies are the beneficiaries.

Ask yourself who better represents the working class.

Democrats want higher minimum wages and worker protections. Republicans want to eliminate minimum wages, safety rules (OSHA), job age requirements, and regulations concerning hours worked and overtime. Democrats want the rich to pay their fair share; the tax burden in this country has been shifted to the middle class. Those at the top send their money to work at making more money, and the profits are taxed at a lower rate than the incomes (not profit) of people who work. Money is valued more than sweat.

Democrats are pro union; Republicans eliminated most unions because that is how their opponents were funding campaigns. Now both parties are dependent primarily on the wealthy and on corporate donations.

Democrats want universal health care as most other western countries have. Medical debts are the primary reason for personal bankruptcies today. Instead, we have a Republican plan (a modification of RomneyCare) which was created by the conservative Heritage Foundation. So we have for-profit insurance companies with 20% administrative overhead issuing plans with ridiculous deductibles and high co-pays (an insurance company between you and your doctor). And we are still forcing companies to pay for health insurance for their workers which is an expense not burdening their foreign competitors.

We have free trade instead of fair trade, so American companies are forced to compete with companies who do not have to follow the same standards of product safety, worker wages and worker safety, environmental protections, and fiscal responsibility.

Finally, Republicans are no longer fiscal conservatives. Their philosophy is to drown the Federal government in a bathtub (remember Grover Norquist and his pledge that Republicans signed?), with the main tool being to force elimination of programs and agencies by starving the government of funds. Of course, they are better at reducing revenues than expenses.

Stop voting against your self-interest. Start voting smarter.

Saturday, February 11, 2017

Why Us Liberals Have a Problem with Trump

Want to know just a few of the reasons why "liberals" have a problem with Trump? Trump signs executive orders without reading them, except perhaps the title (that's how Bannon got a seat on the National Security Council). He turns any occasion into a speech about himself or his enemies. He nominates unqualified people for cabinet posts. Steve Mnuchin, Trump's Treasury nominee, took over a bank and went into a foreclosure frenzy using unethical practices at the height of the financial crisis. In addition to practicing robo-signing, he foreclosed on a 90-year-old homeowner over a 27-cent payment error with her insurance. Betsy DeVoss, Department of Education nominee, knows nothing about public schools. Trump claims to be smarter than anyone, yet some of his spoken sentences make no sense, and on numerous occasions he displays his ignorance. He contradicts himself constantly, sometimes within the same sentence. Some of his reactions display emotional immaturity ("No, you're the puppet."). He regularly attacks and belittles people instead of saying why they are wrong. He promises whatever he thinks people want to hear. He promised less expensive healthcare that will cover everyone, "just putting the finishing touches on it," then says maybe we'll get a replacement for the ACA in 2018 (presumably after the elections). He promises to drain the swamp, then loads his staff and nominee choices with Wall Street insiders, predators, industry insiders, and white supremacists. He insults foreign leaders and does not prepare for conversations with them. The excuse for the Australian debacle was that it was five pm and he had a long day. Isn't Trump the one who said Hillary didn't have the stamina to be president? His secret plan for getting rid of ISIS turned out to be getting 100 generals together and giving them 30 days to come up with a plan to get rid of ISIS. He signed an executive order overriding a regulation which stated that financial advisors must act in your best interest, avoid conflicts of interest when possible, and must be transparent with you about his or her compensation and fees. In other words, he gave the go-ahead for people handling your retirement account to cheat you. He obsesses about the popular vote, claiming that millions voted illegally for Hillary. In person voter fraud is rare. From 2000 to 2014 there were only 31 confirmed cases of voter impersonation fraud out of more than a billion votes cast. Voter suppression, however, is alive and well. We are told to treat the president and the office with respect, that Trump supporters had to put up with eight years of Obama with nary a complaint. How long did Trump claim that Obama was an illegitimate president? How long did the Republicans practice "Just Say No" to anything Obama wanted, even if it was in our best interests? For almost a year Obama's Supreme Court nominee never got a hearing, and McConnell vowed to block any nominee for four more years if Hillary won. And now McConnell wants a hearing on Trump's pick for SCOTUS, saying to treat him fairly like the Republicans did for Obama's nominees. You wanted facts? Those are just a few of them. Read the Republican party platform, read the Republican bills which have misleading titles, listen to what Trump and the Republicans say and do, and decide for yourselves if the Republican party is acting in your best interests and is truly the party of fiscal conservatism. Fact check the lies, such as lies about Social Security with its 2.8 Trillion Trust Fund (Treasury Bonds) and separate revenue stream and separate accounting (by law), with claims that it is broke and is the biggest federal expense.

Are you really against minimum wage laws? When people don't make a living wage, they need government assistance. When taxpayers have to fork out money to help a business's workers, that is corporate welfare. Look it up and get educated. Or call us snowflakes and stay ignorant. Your choice.