Displaying 1 - 10 of 30 Comments
Donald Trump is taking notice. His latest tweet: "The so-called angry crowds in home districts of some Republicans are actually, in numerous cases, planned out by liberal activists. Sad!" Keep up the good work liberal activists...you are getting to Trump's head.
One can certainly argue whether Trump won the election or Clinton lost the election. It is a combination of both considering how tight the race was. It is a fact that Obama's base did not turn out in the numbers needed for a victory for Clinton, They didn't vote...or they voted for a 3rd party candidate. On the other hand, Trump's base turned out in big numbers for him, but his base of support was not that much different than Romney's in 2012. Republicans vote with their tribes. Democrats apply purity tests looking for the perfect candidate and sometimes they stay home.
Before writing this article, I spent time in Mormon blogs reading the differing views of Mormons on this issue. It would seem those opposed to MoTab participating are very passionate about adhering to the church's teachings and that participation represents hypocrisy. Others argue that the church is political neutral and that MoTab should participate. The MoTab website itself has zero comments -- you can read into that what you want, but that was the first place I looked. I like unofficial Mormon blogs where Mormons can speak freely.
Here is an excerpt from the petition circulating amongst those Mormons opposed to their choir participating in the inauguration:
Petition: Mormon Tabernacle Choir Should NOT Perform at Trump Inauguration
"We believe the incoming president has demonstrated sexist, racist, misogynistic, and xenophobic behaviors that do not align with the principles and teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
"The Church's participation will harm this spectacularly talented and beloved choir's image, misrepresent the diversity of Mormons worldwide, and sends the wrong message to LDS children as they will perceive the Church's participation as endorsement of a man whose words and actions do not align with our values."
Yes, it may ultimately become necessary for Dems to invoke the "nuclear option" and reduce the criteria to a simple Senate majority. Republicans are absolutely ruthless in the way they treat the Supreme Court as their political tool for undoing Congressional or Executive actions and Justice Scalia was one of the worst political hacks. They could approve Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland in the lame duck session, in the expectation that Clinton would find a more liberal nominee. However, that is even a bridge too far for McConnell et al. I would guess the nuclear option on SCOTUS nominations is about a 50:50 possibility.
While hearings on Supreme Court nominations can be held with a Senate Democratic majority, the 60 vote filibuster rule remains. Republicans could effectively block all of her Scotus nominations for the next four years.
President Obama has now said that Donald Trump is “unfit” for the presidency, lacks “basic knowledge” of world affairs and is “woefully unprepared to do this job.” Media sources say this is unprecedented for a sitting president to attack an opposing party nominee in such strong language. We can only hope for more of this from President Obama in the months ahead.
Being either a reformative or a transformative progressive also implies that as a progressive, that real “progress” can realistically be made given the reality of the political situation. With the current political divide in our country, more progressivism can be accomplished under reformative presidents as any gains, no matter how small, are considered successes.
The radical progressives, on the other hand, often have a populist and idealistic appeal, but in the end they can fall short of their goals because their worldviews are enslaved by their demands for political purity, e.g. no compromises. No compromises translate into no progress.
There are also “in between” characteristics where one can be both transformative, depending on the opportunity, but otherwise function day-to-day as a reformer. That describes President Obama and his list of progressive accomplishments.
For those who are paying attention, Bernie Sanders won the North Dakota caucus on Tuesday evening by a "yuge" margin. At exactly the same time, Hillary Clinton won the primary in South Dakota. The demographics of the two states are similar. However, the South Dakota primary was more inclusive with a considerably larger voter turn-out. Another piece of evidence that caucuses are undemocratic and should be scrapped.
Probably the two most qualified people to step into the presidency are Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. The 73 year old Biden would be an excellent choice, but I'm not so sure he would want the job. Also Hillary might want to select someone who would be groomed for carrying on the Obama/Clinton legacy after her eight years in office.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 30 Comments