Friday, April 1, 2016

Don't Get Fooled Again.

The other night when Chris Matthews pushed Trump on Choice, The Donald got lost. The other two Republicans waffled, Ted Cruz said of course a woman wouldn't be punished, so did John Kasich. Never the less they both want to ban abortion, using the word "ban" is a softer way of saying illegal.

If abortion is illegal, there would have to be a law against it. How would you write a law that has no penalties? None of the Republican candidates have an answer for that question, because the issue, until the other night, hasn't come up. The Pro-Life people have been used as a useful voting bloc. Republicans get them all riled up with promises about getting rid of Roe v Wade and the Pro Life people vote for them. Useful tools.

If abortion is against the law, every pregnancy would have to be monitored from conception to birth. Who would do the monitoring of every pregnant woman in America? The cops? Would there be a Federal department created to do the monitoring or would it be left to the states?

In 2015 there were 3,999,386 children born in the US. Think about that number because it's obvious the Republican Presidential candidates haven't.

All three talk about education, of the three only Kasich, as the governor of Ohio,  has had to deal with education directly. When Kasich took office Ohio had the 5th best schools in America, He initiated his "reforms" and now Ohio schools are ranked 23rd. Good job. Kasich wants to get rid of the US Department of Education, probably to duck the monitoring and ranking of student success. Trump and Cruz agree, the Department of Education has to go along with those nasty, unhappy, overpaid teachers..

Ted Cruz wants to abolish the IRS, make the tax codes simpler and easy to use, of course he also wants to lower rates on the highest incomes. Somebody needs to ask the "Tailgunner Ted" who is going to collect the new, lower, simpler and easier taxes if we have no IRS. Is he going to create a new department? From scratch?

The pundits all say Trump is a "New Kind" of candidate, he is not. All three are peddling the same old Republican orthodoxy the party has been selling since Reagan.

If you want to know what the US would look like and be like with Republicans controlling all three branches of government take a peek at Kansas and Louisiana... .

Those two states aren't alone.

These fcking people drive me crazy!


  1. Just don't take them seriously.

  2. I hope the Catalyst speaks for a majority of voters. The lack of proportionality in what passes for election coverage these days makes the Trump ascendency look large and powerful. But in truth hasn't he only garnered votes from a portion of republican primary or caucus participants, which in turn are only a minority of eligible voters in a shrinking party? Doesn't this mean the Trump rise is really only among a fraction of a minority in a fringe element? In truth isn't Trump a tempest in a tea pot? More accurately a tempest in a cracked pot at a teaparty party?

  3. Be interesting to see if our two pundits (and I mean that in a good way) above are correct. In my small Montana town I see no evidence of a Trump support base, but nobody here liked bush either.
    I do hope they are both correct, and as Tom implied Clinton would win in a landslide this November.
    I think Clinton because I don't think Sanders has some intangible that will carry him over the hump.