Today I read in the news that Donald Trump wants to dismantle Dodd-Frank. He apparently said it was impossible for bankers to function.

That quote caught my attention immediately. It’s obviously campaign rhetoric, not the actual situation. Frankly the banks seem to functioning just fine. There’s scant threat of a recession. The bank closures we saw after the bubble popped in 2008 have all but abated and jobs have been added every month for years. I guess I’m having trouble seeing what the problem is from my layman’s perspective.

If Trump starts monkeying around with Dodd-Frank, doesn’t that mean he’s playing with the status quo, which in this case seems to be working just fine? What ever happened to the ideology of not fixing something that doesn’t seem to be broken?

And why does Trump suddenly love bankers? I thought he always says that Hillary is in the pocket for Wall Street and that he didn’t need them or their money. Suddenly they are deserving souls in dire need and he’s the knight in shining armor riding in with his executive pen to save the day? None of this passes the smell test, but hey – Trump knows best, at least according to the typical Trump voter. Whatever he says is truth, no matter how ridiculous.

And why do Trump voters support giving the keys to the regulatory kingdom to a guy who has been most able to manipulate his own finances using loopholes and courts and every other tool at his disposal? In other words, Trump is a guy who’s made himself filthy rich whilst running many businesses into the ground. And yet the Trump voter is ready to trust the guy with the economy while he disables the very safeguards that were put in place to stop banks from abusing the system? None of the geniuses who want to vote for this guy are taking him seriously. He’s telling them exactly what he’ll probably do and they’re all fine with it. The very same people who stand to be laid off in a Trump economy are ready to vote for him because he’s going to fix things. Whelp, he’s going to fix things for them alright.

First, he’s going to take away their health care. Then he’s going to allow banks to write shady mortgages that endanger the economy and finally, he’s promises to roll back libel laws so he can more easily sue and intimidate anyone who dares to print criticisms of him or his policies. And STILL, the Trump voter is perfectly okay with all of this.

They want the insane running the asylum. They want the fox guarding the hen house. I’m sure there are more analogies I could remember to quote, but you get the idea. Thinking that Trump is out for the country is a joke at best and self-delusion at worst. He’s out for himself just like he’s always been out for himself. Pure and simple. And he’s not even bothering to hide his intentions. Instead, he’s simply going to smile and tell the typical Trump voter that, hey, it’s really a good idea if we abolish Dodd-Frank, because, you know, he said so. And the Trump voter, well, they’ll love him for it.

Oy vey.

Why is giving money to a candidate considered free speech? Free speech means you can say or write whatever you want without fear of imprisonment or worse. That’s free SPEECH. It doesn’t mean you can DO whatever you want. You can’t rob a bank, for instance. Why does donating to a politician somehow qualify as ‘speech’? This isn’t speech. This is clearly a financial transaction. Giving money to politicians isn’t necessarily saying anything at all. It might be a kickback, bribe, or just a donation with no particular issue in mind. Making donations a first amendment issue is like making sales a first amendment issue. Both are financial transactions. One says you support a candidate, the other says you support a product. Why is one speech and the other not? You could then argue, for instance, that the government must allow me to purchase C4 explosives or that fully automatic rifle with extended clip and silencer – you know, because of free speech.

This is absurd for a number of reasons. First of all, if donations are a form of free speech, then wouldn’t rich people have more of a ‘voice’ than the poor? Would that not give the rich more opportunities to ‘speak’ than the poor? I’m not sure that’s what the framers of the constitution had in mind. But in practice, this is what happens. The rich spends millions while the average person can’t afford to donate anything substantial to politicians in the first place. I think everyone can understand speech isn’t something that you should need to be able to afford. The rich shouldn’t have a larger voice with which to speak.

Financial transactions are not ‘speech’ and should not protected by the constitution like actual speech is. What we’re really protecting here is the ‘right’ of the rich to have more influence on our politicians and our lives than the majority of citizens. We’ve handed them the keys to the kingdom and called it a ‘right’. Good work, all you idiots who made this happen. When the ‘wrong’ people have all the money to spend, then what will you think of your success?

Today news broke that the Democrats have a nuclear option when it comes to the supreme court nomination of Mr. Garland. 
Evidently the Democrats only need to offer up a rare procedural trick which would essentially cause a simple majority vote to take place leading to the eventually up or down vote on the judge. Senator Grassley, the Republican in charge of the process reportedly said, “There’s nothing we can do about it” when asked about whether he could prevent the eventual vote.
So, while Republicans in congress constantly accuse the president being an amateur, of not leading, or of leading from behind,  these same people continuously lead their flock into fights they can’t possibly win. Each time they end up being out-maneuvered by the president whether it’s the budget, debt ceiling, foreign policy, or, well, you name it.
 
  • Ted Cruz led a useless attempt to defund the ACA and ended up shutting down the government for nothing. Beyond that, the Republicans have voted dozens of times to defund or repeal the law.
  • The Republicans led an effort to reign in Obama’s climate policy.
  • The Republicans and Tom Cotton led an effort to reign in Obama’s Iran initiative.
  • Now the Republicans have picked a fight they seem to be unable to win with the Supreme Court pick. They lose no matter what happens.
Meanwhile, President Obama must be scratching his head. Why would the Republicans continue to take public positions when they can’t possible previal?
He must wonder if losing over and over (and over) is considered great leadership by the Republican base. In the end, our President Obama usually gets whatever he wants. Perhaps this so-called ‘amateur’ isn’t so dumb after all, eh my Republican friends?

Today a prominent member of our intrepid cast, Senator Paul Ryan, came to the realization that the entire crop of 2016 presidential candidates is bat-shit crazy. Donald Trump reportedly bit the head off a Mexican immigrant during a rally in Tempe and spit it out into the eager hands of a waiting Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Ted Cruz issued a statement calling Trump a ‘stupid-pants’ for stealing his idea.

Senator Ryan’s next move was one of desperation….

3 pane strip 032916

 

3 pane strip 032716

Our intrepid geniuses are hard at work devising a plan to keep us safe in this dangerous world. If it weren’t for these deep thinkers, we wouldn’t stand a chance. Let’s all celebrate the fact that we’re lucky enough to have such amazing people calling the shots.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.