by

We’re the majority here

Republicans have done such a good job at pretending they represent America and that we Democrats are just a bunch of liberal extremists that it’s convinced even some Democrats.

The facts are the exact opposite.

Let’s start by remembering that Democrats have won the popular vote in every Presidential election in the last 30 years except one. And then let’s look at the most recent poll results from Yahoo News/YouGov (which gets high ratings from Nate Silver’s 538 page).

The majority of Americans agreed with all of the following, and in some places by huge margins:

  • $2,000 relief checks: 74% to 13% 
  • Increased federal funding for vaccination: 69% to 17%
  • A national mask mandate: 57% to 32%
  • Raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour: 58% to 31%
  • Giving all Americans the option of buying Medicare-like public health insurance: 57% to 22%
  • Eliminating tuition at public colleges and universities for families making up to $125,000: 47% to 33%
  • Stopping family separation at the U.S.-Mexico border: 64% to 20%
  • Halting construction on the border wall with Mexico: 45% to 42%
  • Ending the ban on travelers from Muslim-majority countries: 42% to 35%
  • Creating a pathway to citizenship for young immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children: 61% to 23%
  • More federal funding for research and development to assist domestic manufacturing: 65% to 13%
  • Rejoining the World Health Organization: 57% to 28%
  • Rejoining the Paris Climate Accords: 48% to 30%
  • Cutting carbon emissions to zero by the year 2050: 54% to 23%
  • Investing in renewable energy infrastructure: 65% to 17%
  • Reversing the recent tax cuts for Americans making more than $400,000: 50% to 30% 

A majority also supported the House impeachment of Trump, with a plurality supporting a Senate conviction (48% to 41%).

Every single one of these issue is a winning issue for Democrats. Democrats should run with it and stop trying to deal with Republicans who, in the guise of “unity,” want us to do what a minority of Americans want instead.

by

Hypocritic Oaf

Darrin Bell

by

Impeachment is a win/win for Democrats

Sure, the Republicans are going to fight against a second Impeachment, but there are two possible resolutions:

First: They agree and we get Trump removed from ever holding office again. We set the standard for the future that a President doesn’t get a break from encouraging an insurrection against his own country; that he’s not above the law. We show that the United States stands for something. And those Republicans that do the right thing and join us will get attacked by the crazies in their party, who will run Trumpies against them in the next primary, thus making them easier to beat. The infighting in the party only benefits us.

Second: They don’t do that. (This is much more likely. I mean, come on, how can you have a trial when the jury is full of co-conspirators?) Trump remains popular, might run again, might start a new party that will siphon votes away from Republicans. (Or he gets arrested and can’t lead his sheep from jail). We get to hang this unpopular ex-President around the necks of those Republicans who placed politics above the country. The longer Trump is away, the less his popularity will carry him. Moderates and independents won’t look back fondly on the Trump years, and the support Trump had does not always flow to his sycophants.

So yeah, those Democrats who are saying his impeachment is ridiculous or a waste of time aren’t looking at the big picture here. Pelosi and Schumer know exactly what they’re doing.

by

The Insurrectionists

Clay Bennett
by

My favorite Bernie photoshops

Poor Bernie at the inauguration! He’s old and cold, and looks kind of sad, so everyone tried to cheer him up with these pictures. I’m sure he’s taking them in the way they are meant — not mean-spirited at all. Here are some of my favorites. Click on them to enlarge.

by

Funny ’cause it’s true

Matt Bors
by

A sigh of relief

You know what I’m really looking forward to? Going days if not weeks without thinking about the President. Because he’ll be doing his job competently like he’s supposed to.

For instance, I have no idea what President Biden is thinking right now. Isn’t it grand?

by

Dumb man walking

Pat Bagley

by

No, we don’t need to bring the Fairness Doctrine back

Many liberals complain that we need to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine” to prevent Fox News and other right-wing outlets from spouting constant lies.

While the right-wing lie machine is indeed a problem, bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is not only a bad idea, it wouldn’t solve the problem.

The Fairness Doctrine was established in the late 40s to apply to radio and television, and it required broadcasters to provide equal time to opposing views. It was eliminated during Reagan’s attack on all government regulations.

Doesn’t the doctrine seem to violate the 1st Amendment, by regulating what you can say on your own radio or TV show? Well, yes and no. The Supreme Court held that TV and radio were different than newspapers or magazines (which never had to follow a “Fairness Doctrine”). There were limited frequencies available — only so many TV and radio stations could fit on the same dial in the same area. Therefore, the government needed to regulate those frequencies to prevent overlap and confusion. And if you wanted a license to broadcast, the government could put restrictions on your license: Only so many commercials per hour, no obscenity, public service announcements, and equal time to opposing views.

This never applied to cable, which doesn’t need “frequencies.” There is an infinite number of cable stations that could exist, so the government cannot regulate it in the same way. The Supreme Court even ruled in one case that it could not be applied to newspapers or magazines since there was not a limited number that could exist, and the same logic applies to cable.

So even if we brought back the Fairness Doctrine, it would not affect Fox News or other cable stations at all.

And why would we want it to? Seriously, do you really want that? Think about it. It would have to apply to everyone. You really want Rachel Maddow to say “And now, for an opposing view of what I just talked about, here’s ten minutes of Rush Limbaugh”? No, that’s not why I watch MSNBC.

The other thing to consider is that even when we had this, it didn’t work very well. Not all views are equal. Yet, in order to meet the requirements of the Doctrine, TV stations had to give time to the most ridiculous things. “And now, to counter our learned doctor who spoke of his wish for everyone to get a vaccination to fight the covid virus, here’s a guy who has a web page claiming this will place microchips in our skin so that Bill Gates can track our moves and better gauge where to send the chemtrails.” TV stations would cave in to ridiculous “equal time” provisions so as not to lose their licenses.

So no, we don’t need the government regulating free speech and violating the 1st Amendment. Whenever you think that way, ask yourself how that can be used against you. Imagine if Trump had been re-elected and was given the right to demand “equal time” and regulate TV stations and cable news that way. You think they’re going to go after Fox, or will they attack all the stations they consider “fake news”?

 

by

Sorry for his loss

Steve Sack