One reason to boycott Facebook is because Zuckerberg is a selfish idiot. Just sayin’

Conservatives tend to rally around war mongering without requiring the slightest bit of justification.  There were no WMDs after all in Iraq.  Qasam Soleimani was assassinated because as rumor has it, he was planning to plot against us.  No evidence of these assumptions ever seems to be required.  Cost, both human and financial, be damned.

When the Iraq war was waged by George W. Bush in 2003, cable viewers could watch bombs explode on targets on CNN every day.  I think most people thought it was a really cool display of our technology.  Entertainment even.  Lets gather around and watch some more brown people die.   It’s 6,000 miles away and looks like a well designed video game on TV.

This is where the problem lies now.  It’s easy to be entertained by war when it’s other people’s children doing the dying.  It’s also easy to be entertained by war when it seemingly doesn’t cost us anything.   Free entertainment.  And we alway seem to win.  What a cool country we live in.

To the average American, a real test of whether or not it’s cool would be if everyone had an equal chance of participating in the war games.  Hmm, hold on a minute.  I just like to watch.  That’s what I thought.

This is why I’m thinking the only solution that will force people to get real about whether or not they really support a movement towards war, is if we reverted back to the mandator draft.  I believe it would nip this kind of thinking in the bud. Oh it’s my kid who might have to be on the front line?  Wait just a minute now.

Another test would be if we had to use pay-go for the war costs.  If everyone’s tax bill went up $5,000 / year to pay for the ongoing war, can you imagine the push-back?  Well, I think we should do it but I’m not going to be the one paying for it.  Indeed.  You don’t have to worry about that because it’s on the credit card.  You’ll be dead when the bill comes due, but your kids won’t be too happy.

Lloyd Bentsen, in the 1988 Vice Presidential debate said it best.

You know, if you let me write $200 billion worth of hot checks every year, I could give you an illusion of prosperity, too.

Here is where we are right now. A picture is worth 1000 words.

Paula White and Jerry Falwell Jr. are great examples of why candidate endorsing churches should be taxed. These are mini cults preying on the weak, violating separation of church and state.

I have no issue with issue endorsing, but candidate endorsing crosses the line.

It’s probably way too early to be speculating on anything to do with the democratic primaries.  At this point all we have is the media’s rankings which is mostly based on fund raising success or lack thereof.

Not long ago I was leaning hard towards Kamala Harris.  The original reasons that attracted me to her candidacy still exist.  She’s smart.  She’s tough.  She’s kind and very likable, and perhaps best of all, she’s not at risk of being an octogenarian during her first term.  Sure, go ahead and accuse me of agism.  See if I care.  I really don’t at this point.

As time goes on, the more I see of Mayor Pete, the more I like the idea of his candidacy.  Here are my reasons.

• He’s incredibly intelligent and articulate
• He’s a veteran so he comes with creds on foreign policy to some extent.  He’s served his country honorably.
• He’s from Indiana, so he cannot be viewed as a “coastal elite” which is the ball and chain that I think Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris would have to shake off with the midwest voters.
• On healthcare he’s a realist for the public options vs. medicare for all.  There are a lot of people who would be extremely upset if they had to give up their employer paid healthcare.
• He’s young

At this point I can’t get excited about Sanders, Warren, or Biden.  I would support them in a heartbeat over any republican of course but Pete Buttigeig would be a complete breath of fresh air into our political system.  The voter turnout for young people would be off the charts.  After all, it’s going to be their country 20 years from now, no?  Someone from their generation should be guiding the direction of it.   Especially now with critical climate decisions in the equation.

I only mention this because I like the idea of being an early adopter.  It’s kind of like investing.  Everyone knows Amazon is a great stock now, but the ones who bought at $50/share are the visionaries.

Count me in the Pete Buttigeig camp fairly early.   The chance that he gets the nomination are probably pretty slim, but not if people keep an open mind.

That’s what did the democrats in the last time.  Wasserman-Shultz declared Clinton the heir to the thrown before the primaries even got off the ground.  Let’s hope that doesn’t happen this time.

Chuck Todd had a political analyst from Iowa on Meet The Press last Sunday. To be sure there were some interesting stats about what the people from the great state of Iowa were concerned about. My question is: Who gives a shit what Iowans think? It’s 6 bloody electoral votes. Iowa isn’t the “pulse” of the American heartland. It’s a small state out in the middle of nowhere with a bunch of farms and a few universities.

I’d like to believe that we live in a county where “diversity of opinions” is a good thing.  I really would like to believe that.  But I cannot.

With the onset of the Great Recession we saw the origins of the Tea Party movement, ostensibly a group of conservatives who were very concerned about our national debt, the budget deficit and government spending.  They were successful at handcuffing then speaker Paul Ryan from negotiating any progress with progressives in the house.  With a republican majority and speaker, it was all but guaranteed nothing would get done.  Week after week they would appear on the Sunday News shows and express their outrage over government spending!

The problem for the Tea Party now is that they appear to have selective outrage.  When a republican holds the White House, subsidies for farmers is suddenly okay.  The vote for massive tax cuts for the wealthy on the promise that they will pay for themselves with a booming economy.

The problem is twofold.  1)  The promise of the tax cuts paying for themselves was a lie and they knew it, and 2) Republicans suck at math.

Debt and deficits have grown at worse rates under republican leadership since Ronald Reagan introduced his infamous Trickle Down theory.  Tax rates for the ultra wealthy went from 70% down to 39% and with capital gains at 15%, what we’re seeing is the upper tier pays less in percentage (~23%) than their hired help does.

Today they are fully trained in the New Gingrich mold of switching the conversation to “entitlements” as the root cause.  The problem here is, social security isn’t an entitlement.  We paid into that program and are owed the money.

No, the problem is that corporations and the wealthy haven’t been paying their fair share.  70% down to 23%.  Do the math.

But they are the job creators comes the rallying cry from the peanut gallery!  Bullshit.  The lessons of the past 4 decades have told a different story.  They haven’t created living wage jobs.  If anything they have outsourced more.

And now with a Republican holding the White House and record deficits, the Tea Party is conspicuously absent from the conversation about debt and deficits.  In fact, they vote in block to expand the very thing they were reportedly enraged about: big government spending.

I can only draw one conclusion from this: Tea Party Republicans are full of shit.

@chrislhayes

Look, if the president says it’s 72 degrees and sunny out then it’s 72 degrees and sunny out! That’s just how it is! It’s in the constitution. Look it up. #MAGA