Gary Kasparov: If It’s Far-Right vs. Far-Left, The Far-Right Wins

Posted on August 14, 2025 by Derik Schneider

“If people feel they’re being forced to choose between two extremes, the majority will always tack right.

Earlier in the week, I threw this quick observation up on Substack Notes:

Lost elections are rigged, won elections are fair. Good job numbers are real, bad ones are fake. Sex trafficking is bad, unless the traffickers will blame your enemies. Crime is bad, unless the criminals are pro-Trump. This isn’t 4D chess, or even tic-tac-toe, just Autocracy 101.

There were a lot of replies. But one comment from a reader named Edward stuck out to me:

I agree and we were getting the same bullshit from Dems. Yes I am doing whataboutism! DEI is autocracy. MAGA and the Woke are bad.

This is indeed whataboutism, so some credit for your candor.

I won’t argue with the notion that far-right and far-left—far-anything—is bad. However, there are a few fundamental points that a simplistic comment like this misses.

The first is that people are often willing to overlook the most extreme expressions of their own side.

The mainstream left downplays the problems of the radical left. Look how quickly many Democrats rallied around Zohran Mamdani without scrutinizing his support for “seizing the means of production” and “defund the police” or holding him accountable for his dodging on “globalize the intifada.” This wasn’t just a mechanical endorsement because he’s the party’s nominee. In many cases, we’ve seen a bear-hug embrace from prominent Democrats.

On the mainstream right, you have people who privately recognize that the far-right is dangerous, but enable or support it anyway. Some, like our friend Edward, will even publicly concede the point: MAGA is bad, but “MAGA and Woke are [both] bad,” therefore, MAGA is acceptable.

Where is the danger?

The false equivalence between far-right and far-left is practical, not philosophical—again, in theory, both extremes are bad.

Today, the most immediate danger in America and much of the democratic world comes from the far-right. That’s not because the idea of fascism is worse than the idea of communism (reds have killed more people, anyway), but because the far-right holds the levers of power in Washington and is rising across Europe and even in Japan.

More to the point, if people feel they are being forced to choose between one extreme or another, they will swing right. The Nazis never had a majority in the Reichstag, but they were always well ahead of Ernst Thalmann’s communists. Nearly a century later, the Nazis’ successors in the AfD still outpace the Left Party. In France’s 2017 presidential election, leftist Jean Luc-Melenchon finished fourth in the first round of voting. In 2022, he finished in third. He never qualified for the second round. Far-right candidate Marine Le Pen did, both times.

Why the far-right beats the far-left

The far-right positions itself as trying to preserve or restore something, whether some racial-demographic balance or the nation’s bygone glory days. The far-left, by contrast, is seen as trying to disrupt, overthrow—a total departure from tradition.

Understood through this lens, we can see why people, against their better judgement, treat MAGA as a safe bet. The writing has been on the wall for years. In 2019, nearly half of all Americans said that the Democratic Party was moving too far to the left, while only 37% felt the Republicans had moved too far to the right (and Trump was two years into his first term at this point!).

I don’t point any of this out because I like the way things are going, but because it is simply a fact: far-left excess enables far-right overreach.

Democrats gain nothing of strategic value by indulging this wing of the party. Bernie Sanders was never able to secure a presidential nomination among Democrats; to insist he could have won a general election is to deny reality. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the lone representative of the DSA-aligned left among top contenders for the 2028 Democratic primary, and she is polling in the middle of the pack below several more moderate alternatives. If Democrats really want to put up a serious fight against Trump’s demagoguery, then they should stop indulging radicals and remember that the far-left is more loud than it is popular.

P.S. Whether you agree or disagree, let’s continue the discussion—in the comments, and on a Zoom call. Yes, Zoom! I’ve recently announced new Zoom calls for paid subscribers so that we can have a real conversation. Check it out and please consider joining…

Source:Garry Kasparov has a few moves of his own.

From Garry Kasparov

I’m going to get to what Garry Kasparov is talking about here. But last week I argued what I at least would call mainstream socialism. And here is some of what I said about that:

“I mean if you want to call today’s Socialists “Modern Socialists”, thats fine. But what the Robert Reich’s of the world and many others on the left-wing in America talk about, when they’re talking about their own political philosophy, it’s what the rest of the world calls social democracy, or even just a democratic form of socialism. Mr. Reich made that clear his blog post about socialism, when he said:

“Whether it’s called socialism, democratic socialism, or enlightened capitalism, societies need to pool resources for the common good…

From The New Democrat

My colleague Erik Schneider wrote his own piece about what Garry Kasparov is talking about here. And here is some of what he said about that on Tuesday:

“My first response here is: if you don’t like the Pat Buchanan’s, the David Duke’s, the Rick Santorum’s, the George Wallace’s, (from way back) and today, the Donald J. Trump’s of the world, taking over our government and politics in America and giving them so much power over everyone else… you can’t ignore and leave behind 10s of millions of Americans, simply because you don’t like their culture, or what part of the country their from, where they went to school, etc…

From The New Democrat

What Erik was talking about and arguing is that when Democrats ignore people who for a longtime were loyal Democrats, who voted for Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson… overwhelmingly, these voters look to other alternatives. Especially right-wing demagogues who simply want their votes and money, but wouldn’t do a damn thing for them, ever. They wouldn’t even spit on 1 of these voters when they’re literally burning on fire, to help put the fire out. But they’ll be more than happy to take their votes and their money from them.

When the “Republicans” go far-right, it’s because Democrats and even mainstream Republicans ignore blue-collar, working-class, populist voters. But when Democrats go far-left (and Mr. Kasparov got into this as well) it’s only in response to counteract the far-rightism of people who call themselves Republicans. And what happens when American voters only have a choice between 2 extremes: the far-right and far-left:

Since 1972, the Democratic Party has only nominated 1 presidential candidate for President, who could be classified as a left-wing politician, Senator George McGovern. Not just MAGA, but some even mainstream Republicans like to view Barack Obama as a Socialist. But it’s hard to even write “Barack Obama is a Socialist”, without at least smirking. Socialists certainly don’t see Mr. Obama as 1 of them.

But since 1972, Republicans have nominated 3 far-right candidates for President: Donald Trump in 2016, 2020, 2024.

My point here is, that the Democratic Party has a whole, doesn’t even like Socialists and doesn’t want Socialists representing, certainly not for President. And outside of the U.S. House of Representatives, it’s hard to find any Socialist who holds any major public office right now. Without Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, there are no even Socialist Democrats who currently hold state office in America right now. And New York City electing Zohran Mamdani as its next Mayor this year, won’t change that.

I think the real point here for Democrats is, if you think you need Socialists to vote for you and you speak to your concerns and try to work out some differences that you have with them and even negotiate with them, (like a big tent Democrat would) that’s fine.

But when you try to use socialism as your own philosophy and try to make it the face of the Democratic Party, (and I think this Gary Kasparov’s main point here) it’s a big political loser for you. Because Mr. Kasparov said so himself (rightly or wrongly) American voters tend to see even far-rightists, as people who stand up for tradition and protecting American tradition. Whereas they see far-leftists as people who are trying to blow up the system and give Americans something that they’re completely unfamiliar with.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

Posted in New Left, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Jessica Riedl: The Last Fiscal Conservative

Posted on August 13, 2025 by Rik Schneider

“Jessica Riedl (formerly Brian Riedl) is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, focusing on budget, tax, and economic policy. Previously, she worked for six years as chief economist to Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) and as staff director of the U.S. Senate Finance Subcommittee on Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Growth. Before that, Riedl spent a decade as the Heritage Foundation’s lead research fellow on federal budget and spending policy.

She also served as a director of budget and spending policy for Marco Rubio’s 2016 presidential campaign and was the lead architect of the 10-year deficit-reduction plan for Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign.

A prolific researcher, Riedl has published nearly 600 studies and articles since 2001 on federal spending, taxes, deficits, and economic policy, and has assisted in the writing of several New York Times best-selling books. She often testifies before Congress, works directly with congressional leaders, and briefs top-tier presidential candidates on fiscal and economic policy. Additionally, Riedl is frequently sought out nationally as a popular public speaker on unsustainable federal spending and deficit trends.

Riedl’s op-eds are regularly published in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Post, CNN.com, Vox, The Daily Beast, The Dispatch, and other publications. Her economic policy expertise is also cited hundreds of times annually by reporters and columnists in top national newspapers and magazines. Riedl regularly discusses economic policy on all major TV networks, as well as high-profile radio programs and podcasts.

Washingtonian Magazine named Riedl one of the 500 most influential policy professionals in Washington D.C.—including one of the 26 most influential within economic policy—in 2022, 2023, and 2024.

Riedl holds a bachelor’s degree in economics and political science from the University of Wisconsin and a master’s degree in public affairs from Princeton University.”

Source:Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Jessica Riedl.

From the Manhattan Institute

Never-Trump Conservative Charlie Sykes interviewing Jessica Riedl on his podcast:

“Jessica Reidl: The Last Fiscal Conservative”

Source:To The Contrary With Charlie Sykes & Jessica Riedl.

From To The Contrary With Charlie Sykes

I think the quote “A government big enough to give you everything, is big enough to take it away… (regardless of who originally made that statement) is really app here. And I think President Gerald Ford when he became President in 1974 (for reasons that anyone who has strong grasp of American history already knows) put it really well when he said:

“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”

From the Gerald R. Ford Library & Museum

This is something Democrats when they’re back in power and have complete power again (which they will, perhaps in just a few years) really need to think about. But this is about the MAGA government right now, which is what I’ll focus on today.

British historian brilliantly once said that: “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”. So what does that mean?

I means when one person or group in power think that they’re untouchable, they start doing bad and unpopular things that they wouldn’t normally do because they believe that there is no one there to hold them accountable. We’ve seen this even with dictatorships around the world that collapse because the people there have finally had enough and are finally fed up (to put it lightly) with the authoritarianism, the corruption, especially the poverty when their lives are a real struggle and the people with close ties to the national regime are doing so well. The recent example of this is with Syria with the fall of the Assad Regime.

America has never had a dictatorship, (at least not yet) but to put the Acton quote in an American political sense… you go back just 32 years ago (and if you are a Gen-Xer or older, that’s not very far back) Democrats had just been reelected in the House and Senate and Bill Clinton is now President of the United States.

The last time there was a Republican Senate before 1995,, was 1985-86, the last time there was a Republican House of Representatives before 1995, was 1953-54. So Democrats had a lot of power in Washington, even with 12 years (1981-93) of Republican presidential rule, for the previous 38 years.

To make a long story shorter… you had Democratic representatives and senators who thought they would never ever be ranking minority members, let alone ever have to worry about losing their Senate or House seat, until election night 1994. In 1994, Republicans win 52 seats in the House, 10 in the Senate and take back Congress for the 1st time since 1953.

From 1994, go up 10 years later, George W. Bush is reelected President, Republicans not only hold the House, but add a few seats, Republicans had 4 seats to their Senate majority, and Bush Republican strategist Karl Rove is talking about a permanent Republican majority. Because of all the gerrymandering that Republicans states were doing in the 1990s and 2000s to retain their House majority indefinitely. And a lot of the Senate seats that were up for reelection in 2006, were red states that G.W. Bush won easily twice. 2 years later, Democrats win back the House with 30 seats and 6 in the Senate, to give them back the Congress for the first time since 1993-94.

And of course with 2010, Republicans win 62 seats in the House and a bunch of state legislatures and governorships… 8 years later, Democrats win 40 seats in the House, when the mainstream media thought they might just win back the majority, but it would be tight and they win a bunch of governorships and legislatures as well.

My point here (and yes, I have a point) government power in any functioning democracy, especially in a developed country, is never permanent. And just because the voters decide to let one party have both the executive and total control of the legislature… that’s not some gift from the voters that the party can do whatever the hell it wants to with. It’s just an opportunity for that party to govern, to even govern by themselves, but not to govern past the mandate that was given to them by the voters and not to govern irresponsibly, especially thinking that they’ll be in power indefinitely. And this is 1 lesson that both Republicans and Democrats never seem to learn when they’re in power.

Somehow I feel the need to talk about “Jessica Riedl: The Las Fiscal Conservative”. (Perhaps that’s because that’s the title of this post and I haven’t talked about her, yet) This is going to sound really strange… but I actually disagree with the title of my post. Actually, it’s Charlie Sykes title. But we can discuss technicalities later. (If we both have gone days without sleeping)

Jessica Rield is not “The Last Fiscal Conservative”. I’ve never met the woman, only know about her because I saw her on Margaret Hoover’s PBS Firing Line show 2-3 weeks ago. And from that interview and listening her talk to Charlie Sykes and reading up on her a little bit, I would grant that she’s a “fiscal conservative”. Whatever that means anymore, I’m not sure.

But again go back in fairly recent political history, when Republicans control both the executive and Congress, “fiscal conservatism”, is like fish without water: it dies in front of your eyes. (Does that rhyme?) “Fiscal conservatism”, is almost nothing more than a political tool that Republicans use against Democrats, when there’s a Democratic President, especially with a Democratic Congress as well.

But when Republicans are back in absolute power, again “fiscal conservatism”, is like fish without water. And to use an ethnic joke: when Republicans have complete power at the Federal level, they borrow and spend like drunken Irish sailors, who have like a 2 week leave. And they leave their bills and mess for the rest of the country to pay and to clean up. And the same damn thing is happening once again in 2025, even with the high interest rates and rising inflation in the economy.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

Posted in Charlie Sykes, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Will Marshall: In a liberal Society, Equity is a False Idol

Posted on August 12, 2025 by Erik Schneider

“Over the last two decades, progressive activists have introduced lots of sententious words and euphemisms into the U.S. political lexicon.

Examples include microaggression, intersectionality, cisgender, BIPOC, Latinx, “the unhoused” (that is, the homeless), returning citizens (ex-convicts) and “pregnant persons” (formerly “women”).

For those not up to speed on the latest academic conceits and ideological fads, including non-college voters streaming out of the Democratic Party, progressives might as well be speaking Esperanto.

They have also infused old words with new meanings. Take “equity.” Specifically, it means ownership in a house or stocks. But in its new meaning, it is used more generally as a synonym for fairness.

Now, it has become a pillar of DEI — the hallowed trinity of diversity, equity and inclusion that defines today’s “social justice” ethos. In this context, “equity” conveys a demand for something stronger than mere equality.

The National Association of Colleges and Employers, an enthusiastic advocate of DEI, parses the difference by defining equity as “fairness and justice” that is “distinguished from equality.”

“Whereas equality means providing the same to all, equity means recognizing that we do not all start from the same place and must acknowledge and make adjustments to imbalances.”

After the George Floyd-Black Lives Matter summer of 2020, bureaucracies set up to inculcate DEI spread like kudzu throughout government, colleges and public schools, philanthropies and private companies.

Job applicants were taxed with describing how they would endeavor to advance diversity, equity and inclusion in their daily work.

Democrats duly clambered aboard the equity express. On his first day in office in 2021, President Biden ordered federal agencies to develop Equity Action Plans to advance “racial equity and support for underserved communities through the federal government.”

But DEI’s reign was brief. Working class voters, across racial lines, saw it at best as a distraction from their struggles with high living costs and worries about immigration and crime, and at worst as a coercive regime set up by self-righteous elites to correct their thoughts and speech.

Their antipathy toward progressive moralizing played a significant role in sinking Kamala Harris and the Democrats last year and returning the failed coup plotter, President Trump, to the White House.

The president believes he won a mandate to stamp out all vestiges of DEI in America. His minions are firing anyone in the federal government associated with diversity and affirmative action programs.

In yet another example of executive overreach, Trump also is threatening private colleges, businesses and civic institutions with political retribution if they don’t fall in line.

How should Democrats respond to this MAGA version of cancel culture? The same way they should have responded to the left-wing original — by standing up unequivocally for liberty of conscience and free speech.

But they should also reflect on the ferocity of the public backlash against a sectarian identity politics that subordinates the general welfare to the pursuit of “equity” for favored groups.

Maybe it wasn’t such a bright idea for progressives to abandon Martin Luther King’s dream of a colorblind society in favor of group preferences, DEI, critical race theory, and related ideas that fragment Americans along lines of race, ethnicity, gender and sexuality.

Fixating on the differences between groups makes it impossible to build a broad, center-left alliance, especially when non-college Americans, a majority of the electorate, are either left out of the left’s hierarchy of victimized groups or assigned the oppressor role.

Democrats, however, should reject race essentialism and equity not because they’re unpopular, but because they are illiberal.

In America’s liberal tradition, individuals have inalienable rights and liberties, not groups. That many originally were excluded from equal citizenship is reason to apply these principles universally, not discard them…

Source:Columbia Business School with a look at Progressive Policy Institute President, Will Marshall.

From The Hill

The great comedian, as well as political and social satirist George Carlin had some great observations about what he called “soft language”, which is what Mr. Marshall is talking about here as well, but put it differently:

“George Carlin says soft language hides reality and makes life less lively.
Euphemisms are words that make harsh things sound nicer but can cause misunderstanding.
Using soft language, people might miss the real message because it hides the truth.

Soft language is a phrase coined by American comedian George Carlin to describe euphemistic expressions that “conceal reality” and “take the life out of life.”

“Americans have trouble facing the truth,” Carlin said. “So they invent a kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it” (Parental Advisory, 1990).

Under Carlin’s definition, euphemisms are the closest synonym to “soft language”, although the “softness” is implied to be an effect of the euphemism’s usage. When a euphemism is used, its purpose is to soften the impact of something shocking, crude, ugly, embarrassing, or something along those lines. Carlin’s point is that this indirect language may spare us some discomfort, but at the cost of vividness and expressiveness.

A corollary to this is jargon, which is specialized language for particular fields. On the surface, its intention is to express specialized ideas more clearly and specifically. In practice, however, jargon-heavy language tends to obscure the point rather than clarify it….

From Thought Co

And here is George Carlin’s 1990 standup appearance about what he called “soft language”:

“One of my favorite George Carlin bits in which he describes the sterilization of the American language. From the 1990 special Doin’ it Again.”

Source:Rob Logan with a look at comedian George Carlin from 1990.

From Rob Logan

My first response here is: if you don’t like the Pat Buchanan’s, the David Duke’s, the Rick Santorum’s, the George Wallace’s, (from way back) and today, the Donald J. Trump’s of the world, taking over our government and politics in America and giving them so much power over everyone else… you can’t ignore and leave behind 10s of millions of Americans, simply because you don’t like their culture, or what part of the country their from, where they went to school, etc.

The next Democratic nominee for President in 2028, could get 100% of left-wing vote. And no, I’m not talking about Progressives. I’m talking about hard-core, leftists, people who sometimes can even make Socialist Bernie Sanders seem somewhat mainstream… but even if the next Democratic nominee gets 100% of the socialist vote in the next presidential election, in and outside of the Democratic Party, this person even completely shuts out the Green Party nominee, (where all Democratic Socialists should live and belong) the Democratic will still lose to the “Republican” nominee in 28. Assuming it’s only Socialists who vote for the Democrat.

At least pre-Donald Trump and his so-called MAGA movement, in order to win a presidential election in America, you had to lead a big tent political party to win the election. That might not still be the case with the so-called Republicans today. I mean Donald Trump basically won in 16 and 24, by running to the right of even Pat Buchanan… certainly George Wallace from 1968. He at times, could look like an escaped mental patient, who decided to run for President while he was on the run and somehow won anyway. Why? Because to do a lot of small town, blue-collar voters, the Donald Trump’s of the world, don’t look like mental patients. Perhaps they’re crazy Uncle Joe, but they see the Trump’s of the world as fighting for them and as very entertaining.

But the big tent standard, sill applies to the Democrats. Whether it’s fair or not, when Democrats look and sound like escaped lunatics, they get held accountable by the mainstream media and Independent voters. And when “Republicans” do that:

“Well, we know they’re crazy. But someone here has to be responsible and show some real leadership. And we pick the Democrats to do that for us. And when they try to out-crazy the Republicans, we’ll vote for the Republicans because we know they’re crazy and it’s not an act”.

Mark Twain once said: “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

I think this could be applied to Democrats, at least mainstream Democrats in how they respond to MAGA. Except I would amend that to say: never try to out-crazy, crazy people, because they’re crazy and know how to be crazy. And you are just acting, anyway. And 1 crazy party in America is too much for a solid majority of Americans, anyway.

So if you are a Democrat right now, especially a mainstream Democrat and you actually want to get elected President and not just run to to raise your profile, you need to be a big tent Democrat. And big tent Democrats I’m sure will have some Socialists and coffee house hipsters, who think they’re the coolest people in the world because they speak their own social language and put down or “own” anyone who speaks different from them.

But the next Democratic nominee for President is going to need all the mainstream Democrats as well and they’re also going to need blue-collar Democrats, who voted for Donald Trump 3 times because they somehow got conned into believing that he represents them and fights for them. As well as Independents from all social and economic backgrounds, who are tired of the political dysfunction, the corruption, and chaos in Washington and think maybe there’s a Democrat who can lead the country responsibly again.

And to Will Marshall’s first point about what George Carlin called “soft language” and where he said:

“Over the last two decades, progressive activists have introduced lots of sententious words and euphemisms into the U.S. political lexicon.

Examples include microaggression, intersectionality, cisgender, BIPOC, Latinx, “the unhoused” (that is, the homeless), returning citizens (ex-convicts) and “pregnant persons” (formerly “women…

That’s 1 of my points here as well. You don’t win presidential elections in this country by trying to convince more than half of the country that they’re ignorant and aren’t capable of speaking for themselves, so you are going to try to do that for them.

All this “soft language”, trying to make people feel better than they deserve to feel and trying to replace terms that might not seem as offensive as the real term that actually describes who someone is and what the actual truth is… American voters aren’t children. That should be obvious enough. Otherwise, they wouldn’t even be eligible to vote. Most intelligent, sane, and sober people, (which seems like a very small club in America every passing day) can handle the truth, if you just give them a chance to hear it.

As Will Marshall also said: “How should Democrats respond to this MAGA version of cancel culture? The same way they should have responded to the left-wing original — by standing up unequivocally for liberty of conscience and free speech…

In any true free society, you are going to have people who not just make more money than others, but make a helluva lot more money than others, because they either had better opportunities, or did a better job of taking advantage of the opportunities that they were given. That’s why in a liberal democracy, like America, total equality, especially total wealth equality, is never the goal. The goal in a true liberal society, is quality opportunity for everyone and what they do with the real chance at freedom, is up to them.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Threads

Posted in The Hill, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Kasie Hunt: ‘Unsettling & Unprecedented’: DC Mayor Reacts To Donald Trump’s Police Takeover

Posted on August 11, 2025 by FredSchneiderUS

“Mayor Muriel Bowser said President Donald Trump’s action today “is unsettling and unprecedented.” She again advocated for full statehood for Washington, DC, after Trump said he has decided to placed the city’s Metropolitan Police Department “under direct federal control” and deploying the National Guard to crack down on crime.”

Source:CNN with a good look at Mayor Muriel Browser (Democrat, Washington)

From CNN

I guess I could approach my response here in multiple ways… so that’s exactly what I’m going to do.

As someone who grew up in Bethesda, Maryland (which is literally next door to Washington) in the 1980s and mid 90s, crime was always a huge issue with this city. Which is why Washington was the homicide capital of America in the 1980s and early 90s, and 1 reason, along with the bad public education system and high poverty, why Washington went from a city of 800 thousand people or so in the 1950s and 60s, before it got it’s own democratic government in 1973, to 550,000 people or so by 1995.

But this is not Mr. Barry’s Washington anymore. (Anyone familiar with Washington D.C. and its modern history will get that reference) By the late 1990s, Washington solved its debt and deficit crisis. Tony Williams becomes Mayor in 1999 and really the last 25 years or so, including under Mayor Browser, Washington has been a pro-private enterprise, tough on crime city. And as a result, people have moved back into this city and now they’re 700,000 people and still growing.

And of course like any other big city, (500K people or more residents) in America, Washington has crime, serious crimes, violent crimes… seriously, violent criminals. But this is America, we have a lot of freedom, as well as access to things that can hurt innocent people. And unless Donald Trump gets his way, we will still be a free society and not a police state by the time the President leaves office, for good, in January, 2029. And because we’re such a large, diverse, free country, we have more crime than most large, developed countries, especially in our big cities and metro areas, where most Americans live. But as President Trump’s own DOJ has said, violent crime is down 25% so far in 2025.

I guess my second response here is more than a question than anything else. Why now? Donald Trump ran on fighting crime and bringing down crime rates in 2024. According to his own DOJ, crime is down a quarter in 2025 alone. You would think he would be congratulating the Major the Metropolitan Police Department for that, instead of trying to take over their own police department for them.

And my 3rd response is more humorous than anything else. If you think big government is not big enough and you want it bigger… that’s why you voted for Donald Trump in 2024. That’s why you voted for Deficit, Tax Hike, and Takeover Don. Who needs democracy and local government’s, when The Donald is in charge of everything?

If you are familiar with authoritarian countries around the world… you know they have 1 big, thing in common: they all have national, unitarian government’s. A unitarian government, especially in an undemocratic country, like Egypt, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, (just a few examples) is where most of the government power in the country, is centralized not just with the national government, but the head of state as well. So when you federalize municipal government’s, even just the police department, you are telling the people there that Big Government (that some people call Uncle Sam) knows what’s best for them. And you are not intelligent enough to decide for yourself who should run and govern your own city.

MAGA will never believe this, (perhaps especially their cult leader Donald Trump) but Washington is not Greenwich Village, New York, or Haight Asbury, San Francisco, or some hippie commune in Northern California, or Maine, or some place. It’s a large, well-run, pro-capitalist and private enterprise, tough on crime, big, American city. It’s not some leftist hellhole where people who have it tough in life and come come from rough backgrounds, are able to get away with murder and other violent crimes. You don’t believe me, spend some time here and check out all the restaurants, museums, stores, theaters, and have a great time in 1 of the greatest big cities that America has to offer.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Threads

Posted in CNN, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

John Lockwood: Why Don’t I Vote? I’ll Let George Carlin Explain It To You

Posted on August 8, 2025 by kireschneider

“I don’t talk politics. I let the logical thought process I share with George Carlin explain my stance on the matter.”

Source:John Lockwood with a look at George Carlin making himself comfortable.

From John Lockwood

As I said about this back in December:

“In Defense of Politicians”, that would never be 1 of my lines. Not even if I was a defense lawyer defending a politician. I would be in there in court telling the judge:

“I’m here to defend the politician”. But if I win this case, as soon as it’s over, I’ll be the first person telling the public how big of an asshole I think this person is. And why I’ve never voted for this politician. Well, not after the first time…

My point here is it’s not just the politicians. It’s not just the voters either. It’s just mostly the voters. As George Carlin said:

“Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don’t fall out of the sky. They don’t pass through a membrane from some other reality.

They come from American parents, American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses, American universities, and they’re elected by American citizens.

This is the best we can do, folks. This is what we have to offer. It’s what our system produces. Garbage in…garbage out…

From The New Democrat

So I guess I’m debating George Carlin about who sucks when it comes to American democracy: the politicians or the voters. But as George Carlin said so himself:

“Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don’t fall out of the sky. They don’t pass through a membrane from some other reality.

They come from American parents, American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses, American universities, and they’re elected by American citizens.

This is the best we can do, folks. This is what we have to offer. It’s what our system produces. Garbage in…garbage out…

And the other thing here is whether people have a… let’s say credible right to complain when they don’t even bother to vote or not. And as Carlin said so himself, while 65% of the electorate (give or take) is voting every 2 years, he’s home screwing himself. (And he would use stronger language) My point is people who don’t even bother to vote… you are screwing yourself in multiple ways.

When you don’t even bother to vote, you are not doing your part to protect yourself and the rest of the republic from the crooks, the liars, the assholes, the wannabe political reality TV stars, the big government statists, who think the government knows how to spend your money better than you and is even better at running your life than you. Why? You are too busy staring at your phone, texting the person who is right next to you, watching your favorite “reality TV” shows, trying to find out which rehab your current favorite celebrity is staying at, etc. to give even give 1 damn about the future of your own country.

I don’t think this should be even a debate about voting versus not voting. And I don’t think people should be required to vote by law either. I think this really should be a debate about smart voters, versus people who vote, but don’t do it intelligently. American democracy can never be better than the people that it’s supposed to represent. Because American democracy are the voters themselves and the people that we elect to represent us.

And when we don’t do our part to make sure that we are getting the best representation possible to represent us in public office, we instead get the crooks, the liars, the assholes, the wannabe political reality TV stars, the big government statists.

I will close on a somewhat positive note here. When voters take democracy seriously, especially liberal democracy, like ours, seriously… with all the protections, the individual rights and responsibilities, the checks and balances, our limited government, the rule of law, seriously… they don’t just vote, but they know who they are voting for before they make those choices.

But when American voters don’t take our liberal democracy, seriously, they vote for people because they think they’re cool, they look Hollywood, they look like they could be a professional “reality TV” star, they like their political catch phrases and soundbites, or they just vote for people who tell them what they hear, without bothering to do any homework about that candidate’s past record before running for the current office they’re running for, we get a lot of bad government and politicians, because we have bad voters who elected them into office.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

Posted in George Carlin, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Yaron Brook: PATHETIC!! Leftists HATE Your Jeans!! Sydney Sweeney & American Eagle

Posted on August 7, 2025 by Ederik Schneider

“American Eagle is維standing firm behind its controversial campaign starring Sydney Sweeney, which features advertisements with the slogan: “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans.” The campaign plays on a pun of “great genes,” sparking widespread leftist outrage online as woke leftists accuse the brand of celebrating Sweeney’s white heritage and slender physique.”

Source:Yaron Brook is damn right here.

From Yaron Brook

Before I say what I really want to say here, I must confess to something. American Eagle is probably my favorite clothing company. It’s not just their denim jeans, which are very comfortable and beautiful… even their indigo skinny jeans that are even very comfortable in the summer and look great with black shirts, belts, and boots. So if I sound bias at all here, that’s why.

So my broader point here and Yaron Brook got into it as well… this is really just about race and color with the “WOKE-Left”. If the model here was African, or Asian-American, even Spanish-Latino (that leftists don’t consider to be white) and the model was saying that she has great jeans, (jeans with a J) no one is freaking out about this. That’s the point that I would add to what Yaron said. But the woman with light hair, sort of light in complexion, light build, looks like she could be some preppy girl from the suburbs, someone the far-left would call “white privileged”, they freak out over this commercial.

And I guess my past point here is, as unpopular as Donald Trump and “MAGA” are today, the far-left seems to be addicted to reminding voters why the Democratic Party is unpopular as well. They seem to have this uncontrollable desire to remind voters:

“Hey, you might hate the Republican Party right now, but before you go to the voting booth, don’t forget to remember how much we suck as well and how crazy and out-of-touch we are with you. Do you really want a political party like us even in-charge of a local fruit stand, let lone running part of the Federal Government right now?”

But if that’s not bad enough, when they take these crazy positions, they seem to feel the need to try to get their friendly voices in the media to stand behind them, whether it’s on MSNBC, or CNN, or even freakin Stephen Colbert who lost his job on CBS, because he’s seen as too friendly with “WOKE-Left” in America.

So American Eagle is standing by their commercial and so is Sydney Sweeney. Why? Because they haven’t done anything wrong here and apparently their commercial and these long, baggy, denim pants (that some people call jeans) that have been in style in America this entire decade, are popular. Which is how private enterprise in a liberal democracy, is supposed to work.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

Posted in The New Democrat, Yaron Brook | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Robert Reich: So Much for Socialism

Posted on August 6, 2025 by Derik Schneider

“The Trump regime is using the specter of socialism to make America even more authoritarian. The regime will lose.

When Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem unleashed her ICE shock troops on Los Angeles last month, she said: “We are not going away. We are staying here to liberate this city from the socialist” leaders.

Minutes later, California Senator Alex Padilla was forcibly removed from the press conference and put in handcuffs.

The specter of socialism is being used by Trump and his goons to make America even more authoritarian.

Trump even threatens to “run” New York City if its voters choose Zohran Mamdani — a Muslim of Indian descent and avowed democratic socialist — as their next mayor. “We have tremendous power at the White House to run places when we have to,” says Trump, warning that he might step in and take control if New Yorkers elect Mamdani.

Trump is using the word “socialism” to slam everything the public needs and to justify cruel cuts in the nation’s safety net.

Trump’s just-enacted Big Ugly Bill will push more than 11 million Americans off Medicaid. Another 2 million Americans will lose food stamps. The savings will help finance a big tax cut for the wealthiest Americans.

But the next time they’re up for election, Republican lawmakers may be shocked to discover how many Americans prefer the “socialism” of Medicaid and food stamps to the socialism-for-the-rich tax cuts in the Big Ugly.

Medicaid alone has 83 percent favorability. Among Republicans, it’s a remarkable 74 percent.

Trump and his lackeys are living in another century if they think they can use “socialism” as a cudgel.

As early as 2011, the Pew Research Center found that almost as many voters under the age of 30 held a positive view of socialism as of capitalism.

During the 2016 Democratic primaries and then again in 2020, young people all over America wore buttons reading “feel the Bern” in honor of democratic socialist Bernie Sanders.

Whether it’s called socialism, democratic socialism, or enlightened capitalism, societies need to pool resources for the common good…

Source:Robert Reich talking about something he knows very well, but has never officially embraced as his own philosophy.

From Robert Reich

Since I originally started blogging back in 2009, during the early days of the Great Recession, first on Free State MD (both on WordPress and Blogger) I’ve been interested in socialism (both democratic and otherwise) and have been writing about it (off and on) for the last 16 years.

The classical definition of a Socialist, is someone who believes in:

“The common ownership of the means of production and the idea of a post-capitalist society. It involves a move away from private ownership of factories, land, and other resources, towards social or collective ownership, often with the goal of achieving greater equality and social justice.”

And to a certain extent (CNN anchor Abby Phillip is the perfect example of that) that’s still the mainstream media’s definition of who is a Socialist. Which is why closeted Socialists like the Robert Reich’s and others, are able to hide behind “Progressive” and in some cases, but fewer cases today, “Liberal”.

But outside of the Communist Republic of Korea, almost no one in the world anymore, believes in eliminating property rights and private enterprise, all together. Regulating those things, even taxing them heavily, sure. If you are what the rest of the developed world calls a Social Democrat, or even a Socialist.

And this blog talks about classical liberalism and versus what some people call “modern liberalism”… The problem there, is what’s called “modern liberalism”, is essentially the opposite of liberalism. I mean “modern liberalism” has as much in common with liberalism (or what some people call “classical liberalism”, as what socialism has in common with conservatism. 1 philosophy is about protecting the collective and using government to do that. The other philosophy is about the individual and conserving the individual’s, individual rights.

I mean if you want to call today’s Socialists “Modern Socialists”, thats fine. But what the Robert Reich’s of the world and many others on the left-wing in America talk about, when they’re talking about their own political philosophy, it’s what the rest of the world calls social democracy, or even just a democratic form of socialism. Mr. Reich made that clear his blog post about socialism, when he said:

“Whether it’s called socialism, democratic socialism, or enlightened capitalism, societies need to pool resources for the common good…

Before Alexandria O. Cortez and her Socialist Squad and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, leading the fight with their political fists in the air, there was Ted Kennedy, at least to a certain extent in the 1980s and 90s, as well as Jesse Jackson from those 2 decades, George McGovern in the 1970s, there was Norman Thomas, who from 1928-48, was the Socialist Party’s nominee for President an amazing 6 times. His approach to socialism was:

“Norman Thomas advocated for a democratic socialist approach, distinct from Marxist or Leninist models. He emphasized achieving socialism through gradual, democratic reforms within the existing political system, rather than revolution. He believed in public ownership of key industries and economic planning, but also championed individual liberty and civil rights, making his vision a democratic and evolutionary one.”

However, his vision for a socialist society did not necessarily exclude all forms of private enterprise. In 1944, a report on his book, “What Is Our Destiny?”, mentioned that he advocated for a mix of “private enterprise and consumers’ cooperatives side by side with public ownership of land and natural resources, money and credit and the great monopolies, including public utilities,”.

From The New York Times in 1944.

When I think of a Liberal, I think of someone who believes in liberal democracy and all the individual rights, responsibilities, and checks and balances that comes with liberal democracy. That’s literally where “liberal democrat” comes from: someone who believes in liberal democracy.

When I think of a Progressive, I think of someone who believes in progress through limited government action. Not someone who thinks government should dominate society and try to manage people’s lives for them… like let’s say a Communist. (Just to use as an example)

And when I think of Socialist, (in the democratic sense) I think of someone who believes in social democracy, including the checks and balances that come with democracy, including the rule of law and separation of powers. But someone who wants a national government big enough to make sure that no one ever has to go without the basic necessities of life. And using government to make sure that no individual becomes so powerful, that others have to suffer as a result.

But even with the modern definition of “socialist” and “socialism”, we still have have closeted Socialists in America, including Robert Reich, even when their ideological leaders and heroes, have already embraced the socialist label, NYC mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, to go along with Bernie Sanders and the so-called Squad in the House, led by Alex Cortez and others. Even though “socialist” and “socialism”, perhaps have never been more popular in America today, especially with young people.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

Posted in Robert Reich, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Matt Lewis: Mike Murphy On ‘Donald Trump’s Lame Duck Era’

Posted on August 5, 2025 by Rik Schneider

“Join Matt Lewis and veteran political strategist Mike Murphy, co-host of Hacks on Tap, as they dive into the latest political firestorm!

From Trump’s economic tariffs sparking market uncertainty to new developments in the Epstein files, they unpack the chaos surrounding the former president.

Murphy shares his take on Trump’s fading “Maga magic,” the cultural war traps hurting Democrats, and why 2028 could see JD Vance vs. AOC. Plus, insights on pop culture’s grip on politics and a nostalgic nod to Michigan’s music legends.

Don’t miss this candid, no-holds-barred discussion! Subscribe for more political deep dives!

Check out Mike Murphy’s Substack: Howling at the Moon and visit evpolitics.org…

Source:Matt Lewis talking to political pollster & strategist Mike Murphy.

From Matt Lewis & The News

I saw this conversation over the weekend and it was very good. Mike Murphy is always very interesting, intelligent, great sense of humor and comedic timing, as well as 1 of the last of the true Conservatives in or outside of the “Republican Party” right now. And so is Matt Lewis for that matter. Which is why I listen to both men here. But there was 1 point that Mr. Murphy made in the 11th minute of this video that I think is the key point that he made in this conversation. And that’s what I’m going to talk about today.

So, back in 1976, sort of the mid point of the Great Deflation in America, not just economically, but politically as well, when the country was trying to move past and recover from the Vietnam War and the Watergate era, being a politician, especially a Republican politician who had anything to do with Richard Nixon, was about as popular as a Kanye West performance at a KKK rally. Or, a meat lovers buffet at a hippie farm… tuxedoes and trench coats on a nude beach. Perhaps you get the point by now. And because of all of this, peanut brain, (perhaps a bad joke) I mean peanut farmer Jimmy Carter, from Plains Georgia, wins the presidency in 1976.

So how did then Governor Carter when the presidential election in 1976? You could just say “because, he got more votes then President Gerald Ford and won the Electoral College”. And of course that would be true. But how he did that, is the real question here.

So during Governor Carter’s 1976 Democratic National Convention acceptance speech, there was this key line from that speech:

“We want a government as good as the American people. We can have an American government that has turned away from scandal and corruption and official cynicism and is once again as decent and competent as our people.”

To translate what Governor Carter was saying at Madison Square Garden, in Manhattan, New York, back in the sumner of 1976: “I want the government to be as good as the American people”.

So when Mike Murphy in talking about the Jeffrey Epstein story, says:

“We’ve turned politics into a reality show, the fact that the pandering, underage, sex trafficker, billionaire buddy of Trump secret file might have Trump’s name in it, is far more important… You know, politics is pop culture now, to our great harm. So it’s a much more entertaining story. That’s 1 of the big problems that we have, politics doesn’t seem in people’s mind to have high stakes anymore. It’s all this entertainment and cheep conflict. You know in the old days, you vote wrong, your kid might wear olive grab in the jungle somewhere. Or, you might have a great depression… people took it more seriously. “What am I’m going to watch mow: Real Housewives From Hell, or White House Follies With Donald Trump…

My point here is that Jimmy Carter’s vision as far as what type of government we should have when it comes to morality and character, is here now. It’s been here at least since Donald Trump’s 1st presidency and you could perhaps go back to the 1990s with Bill Clinton. And I’m sure Mr. Carter didn’t have this in mind where everything in America, including our own damn government and politics, is nothing more and no more serious than a tabloid celebrity culture newscast, or “reality TV show”.

When you vote for unserious, unqualified people to do serious jobs, they appoint unserious and unqualified people, people who are only the most loyal to the person who won the election, to work for them. And bad shit happens. (To be frank) But since we’re still a democracy, even a liberal democracy, (unless Donald Trump is able to destroy those things) the voters who now don’t like our government and our politicians, but voted for those politicians who’ve gave us this style of governing, only have the people that they see in the mirror to blame for this.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

Posted in Matt Lewis, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Eric Schnurer: Decline & Fall

Posted on August 4, 2025 by Erik Schneider

“Never-Trump strategist Rick Wilson recently told an interviewer that whether Trump or J.D. Vance is president is irrelevant because, “It’s two separate pathways of Hell.”

My last post, The World Turned Upside Down, argued, however, that the “different constituencies of the Trumpist movement” include:

(1) fundamentalist nostalgists, (2) outright illiberal authoritarians, (3) seemingly-libertarian post-liberal techno-futurists who might better be described as “crypto-fascists,” and (4) the forces of chaos.

So, it’s actually four “separate pathways of Hell.”

Vance represents the third of these, Trump the fourth. This post will tackle the first: the challenge of the “fundamentalist nostalgists,” those who insist – as have others throughout history – that our society is in a moral rot and the only solution is to turn the clock back to a supposed former era of conservative political, moral, and religious orthodoxy.

Assuming there is indeed a dire need to Make America Great Again (as opposed simply to, say, keeping it that way), is this the way to do it? History suggests otherwise…

Source:Governing Magazine columnist Eric Schnurer.

From Eric Schnurer

I think I mostly agree with Eric Schnurer’s post here. I guess I would just add 1 faction to it.

If you know anything about Donald John Trump, you know that the only 2 things that he believes in, are himself and absolute power for himself. He’s not interested in political philosophy and doesn’t really practice any particular political philosophy. I’ve made this point before but if he thought acing and talking like a Socialist… hell, a Communist, would guarantee himself absolute power over anyone who even tries to confront him and challenge his power, that’s what he would talk and act like.

Donald Trump chose American, Anglo-Saxon nationalism, 10 years ago, because he saw a group of Americans who thought America wasn’t just going to hell (to paraphrase Eric Schnurer) but has been there at least since the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

And DJT rightly calculated that if he became their leader, (cult hero or icon, god even, would be more accurate) he could use these people (which is exactly what he’s been doing) to not just become President of the United States, (which is something he thought about doing since his early 40s) but obtain absolute power for himself and be untouchable for the rest of his life. If you think about it, his “MAGA” movement, is the best con he’s ever pulled and probably the best political con ever pulled in American history, as far as how successful he’s been with it politically.

So I guess where I slightly disagree with Eric Schuner is how about many factions of the so-called MAGA movement there are in America:

The main core of “MAGA”, are the religious (perhaps far-right cult would be more accurate) and cultural fundamentalists, who see themselves, as the “real Americans”, because their families have been in America since the 1600s and they are Northern European ethnically. But that’s not Donald Trump’s wing of this movement.

Donald Trump and I would argue J.D. Vance, are part of the oligarchic wing of this movement. And these are people… the Elon Musk’s, the Kevin O’Leary’s, the Peter Thiel’s, who are very wealthy and believe that the rich should and do own America and everyone else are essentially just guests in their country. Including lower-educated, hard-working, small town, blue-collar Americans, who couldn’t be more loyal to Donald Trump, if he was the only person allowed to ever run for President and every American was required by law to vote for President, or go to jail for not voting.

But then you have this very unserious, reality TV, Donald Trump wannabe wing of “MAGA”, that just like their cult hero, are only in politics at all, to obtain absolute power for themselves. All these former and current “reality TV stars” who are in bed with Donald Trump (perhaps not just politically) and see themselves as Donald Trump. Todd and Julie Chrisley, who 2-3 months ago were still in prison, but they got pardoned by President Trump, simply because they support the President politically. And the Chrisley’s would just be 1 example of that. And these are people who essentially believe that as long as they support Donald Trump 100% of the time, they’ll never be in trouble for anything.

So 10 years ago, anyone who wasn’t “MAGA”, was referring to this movement as Nationalists, or Christian Nationalists. But I’m done with that. To be a Nationalist:

“A person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations”.

From the Oxford Dictionary.

And these folks don’t love America. They love their own people, their own corner of the store, their own neck of the woods (So to speak) When you think your country has been in hell for the last 60-65 years, when most if not all the available evidence is to the contrary, you are not much of a patriot, or nationalist. Are you?

Whatever you want to call MAGA… they just represent what can happen to a country when it’s own people take their own democracy for granted and in a lot of cases don’t even bother to vote, or perhaps even worst… don’t even know who they’re voting for before they vote. And we get stuck with the most unintelligent, unserious people, who think American democracy is nothing more than the latest “reality TV show”, running our country for us, because we didn’t do what needed to protect our country from people who should be in Hollywood, or some place, instead of trying to run our government for us.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Threads

Posted in The Donald, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Kasie Hunt: Iran Launches Retaliatory Strikes Against Israel

Posted on June 13, 2025 by FredSchneiderUS

“Iran fired hundreds of ballistic missiles toward Israel, according to state media, in response to Israel’s unprecedented strikes. CNN heard explosions in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.”

Source:CNN with a look at Tel Aviv, Israel.

From CNN

So what is this Israeli-Iranian confrontation about? I’m not breaking any news when I say that the Islamic Republic of Iran wants to not just be a nuclear power, (they might already be there) but they want nuclear weapons as well, to guarantee the security of their Islamic State and regime. Sure, they might put some of that nuclear power in their economy, but this is about guaranteeing their indefinite survival of their Islamist government. Just like with North Korea that has nuclear weapons simply to preserve the indefinite survival of their Marxist-Communist State.

And the State of Israel, along with the European Union and the United States, simply do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons, for obvious reasons: Iran is an Islamist terrorist state already. You allow them to have nuclear weapons and they become a much larger problem.

But my main point here and I’m probably going to sound pretty partisan here, but the words and policies of every politician, especially the President of the United States, really matter… and when you promise “world peace”, and claim to be the “peace candidate” and there won’t be any wars on your watch, and you promise to end the Russian War in Ukraine on day 1 of becoming President and if anything that war has been escalated and Ukraine might even have the advantage now… all these things are really bad not just for Donald Trump, but his presidency, as well as the credibility of America.

The President saying he can guarantee “world peace” and if anything there are more military conflicts on his watch. Plus, Ukraine which is an ally of America, not even sharing the fact that they were going to bomb Russia, inside of Russia and The White House not knowing about that until after the fact. All these military conflicts, make President Trump look very weak and out-of-touch, as far as what’s going on in the world right now. Which is bad for America, not just him.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Threads.

Posted in CNN, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment