When it comes to populism from Rump Dump Trump, it includes hatred of all the people that Republican Supply-side Jesus (the polar opposite of the real Jesus) wants them to hate, especially Muslims and undocumented immigrants (except his wife).  However, when it comes to his economic plan, he embraces the Tinkle Down policies of Paul Lyin’ Ryan.

From the beginning of Donald Trump’s campaign, there has been a nagging inconsistency in his approach to economic issues. On trade and immigration, he has broken with Republican dogma, arguing that the influx from abroad of cheap goods and low-wage workers has undermined the job prospects and living standards of ordinary Americans. [his own products excluded] On tax policy, however, Trump has stuck to the standard G.O.P. script, promising a slew of tax cuts skewed toward businesses and the rich. To be sure, until Monday, Trump hadn’t talked much about his tax plan, but the broad outlines of it were there on his Web site, serving as a reminder of the limits of his populism.

Trump rolled out his original tax plan last September, after his Republican-primary opponents accused him of lacking policy specifics. I thought at the time that adopting trickle-down economics represented a strategic error for a candidate who was promoting himself as a new type of Republican. Instead of saying he’d slash business taxes and bring the top rate of income tax down to twenty-five per cent, Trump could have promised tax cuts and tax credits targeted specifically at middle-class Americans, citing the fact that wealthy Americans were doing fine and didn’t need another handout. For instance, he could have suggested raising the upper-income cut-off on Social Security contributions and using the cash this generated to pay for higher benefits for everybody. Or he could have eschewed tax cuts aimed at the wealthy in favor of expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, which boosts the take-home pay of low-income working families.

It’s true that without any offsetting cuts in spending, such a tax plan would have raised the hackles of deficit hawks—but the plan he did introduce raised those hackles anyway. A plan aimed at the middle class, however, could have complemented Trump’s populist line on immigration and trade, wrong-footed the Democrats, and allowed him to claim he had a three-pronged approach to raising wages and living standards. In short, it would have made him a much more formidable candidate.

The problem was that moving in that direction would have signalled [sic] that Trump was a genuine populist insurrectionary, rather than a cosseted billionaire who plays one on television… [emphasis added]

From <The New Yorker>

Click through for more of this excellent analysis.

Lawrence O’Donnell provided some analysis of his own, and it’s superb.

Now, if Trump is elected, there will be no money for infrastructure, and he and his Republican Rectumite cronies will have to raise vast sums to pay for his huge increase in welfare for the 0.1%.  They will take it from YOU.  The poorer you are, the more they will take.

The US is the most Bushwhacked country in the world.  Prescott Bush kept trading with Hitler, even after the US entered WWII.  That was before we I coined the strike system.  Then GHW Bush was elected President.  Strike One!!  GW Bush became history’s worst President.  Strike Two!!  Jeb ran for President.  Strike Three!!  Introducing Strike Four!!

For the first time, a member of the Bush family has put his thumb on the scale for Donald Trump.

Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush, son of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, told state party activists on Saturday that they should hold their nose and get in line behind the Republican nominee.

"From Team Bush, it’s a bitter pill to swallow, but you know what? You get back up and you help the man that won, and you make sure that we stop Hillary Clinton," Bush said at a training meeting for members of the State Republican Executive Committee, according to the Texas Tribune. Video of his remarks was captured by an audience member.

As the Texas GOP’s victory chairman, the eldest Bush son is tasked with ensuring Republican wins statewide in the 206 election. But his endorsement, no matter how reluctant, is striking given the bruising treatment his father received at Trump’s hands during the primary contest… [emphasis added]

From <TPM>

Bush Barf Bag Alert!!

The more people become Thump Humpers, the more we have to fight to make sure he never holds any office anywhere.

The left is split between a majority that makes defeating Trump their priority, and a small, but vocal minority that makes defeating Clinton their priority, in the mistaken belief that a third party candidate can win.  Although I am a pragmatist, rather than an idealist, I agree with my more idealistic friends on almost every issue.  Here’s an excerpt from an editorial that points out an area where we can work together.

…The frightening, violent bigotry Trump has conjured could swallow a lot of people before it consumes itself. Even if he loses, angry Trumpistas would still roam freely, with access to automatic weapons and heavy machinery.

I’m more excited about protesting President Clinton La Segunda than being governed by her. Under George W. Bush, were there any national progressive policy victories? The mass movements of the Bush years sought to stop bad things like the Iraq War and the Sensenbrenner immigration bill. Mass movements of the Barack Obama years — Occupy, Black Lives Matter, climate change, dreamers — had the luxury to advocate systemic change and did indeed win some policy. That’s not lesser, it’s not evil at all.

First-term Obama and Clinton El Primero enthusiastically marginalized progressives. They wanted to be pushed to the right but not the left. Progressives fell for it and demobilized. Let’s not do that this time.

I’m not loyal to Democrats, but I’d be a lot more impressed by the Green Party if they had anything at all to show for the last 16 years — the last time we had the exact same conversation.

Berners who want to keep pushing Bernie Sanders’ agenda can focus on down-ticket races, especially the Senate. The Senate has the sole power to confirm appointments and approve treaties. This would be enough to, for example, stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership, ratify a major climate change treaty, showcase progressive policies in cabinet confirmation hearings and confirm judges. Sanders Democrats and progressive independents could successfully elect and hold senators to these goals, if we got our act together, which we probably won’t.

The Democrats need to net at least four extra seats to flip the Senate, which is more attainable than 30 seats to win Congress. Republicans have 24 Senate seats up, and Democrats only 10. States with competitive Senate races are also swing states for the presidential races, so using Trump to drag Republican senators down is a twofer.

The closest Senate races are in Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The only current Democratic seat that looks vulnerable is the race to replace the retiring boringest [sic] Senator from Nevada: Harry Reid. On the upside, there’s the chance to topple John McCain and Marco Rubio, which would be so fun. Five of the Democratic candidates invited Bernie to campaign with them because they, for example, share his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership… [emphasis added]

From <San Francisco Chronicle>

Every election, I find myself repeating myself.  We need to be building the movement the day after the election, but it seems that every year, most progressives return to working on favorite issues and expend no effort on movement building.  Can you imagine where we might be, if Bernie had started to organize in May of 2013 instead of May of 2015? 

For now, the next President will be Clinton or Trump.  That won’t change.  But at least we can agree to elect as  many down ballot progressives as we can, and when we are better organized, the White House will not be out of reach.

Michel J. Morell used to run the CIA, where he worked for over thirty years,  From what I know of him, he’s so far right, that I would do not agree with most of his views, but on this subject, he is in a better position to know than almost anyone else, and I think his points about Trump are completely valid.

During a 33-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, I served presidents of both parties — three Republicans and three Democrats. I was at President George W. Bush’s side when we were attacked on Sept. 11; as deputy director of the agency, I was with President Obama when we killed Osama bin Laden in 2011.

I am neither a registered Democrat nor a registered Republican. In my 40 years of voting, I have pulled the lever for candidates of both parties. As a government official, I have always been silent about my preference for president.

No longer. On Nov. 8, I will vote for Hillary Clinton. Between now and then, I will do everything I can to ensure that she is elected as our 45th president.

Two strongly held beliefs have brought me to this decision. First, Mrs. Clinton is highly qualified to be commander in chief. I trust she will deliver on the most important duty of a president — keeping our nation safe. Second, Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security…

…The dangers that flow from Mr. Trump’s character are not just risks that would emerge if he became president. It is already damaging our national security.

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was a career intelligence officer, trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump’s vulnerabilities by complimenting him. He responded just as Mr. Putin had calculated.

Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.

In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation… [emphasis added]

From <NY Times>

Photo Credit: Who Hijacked Our Country

Sadly, Putin is also using another US politician to help him put Trump in the White House.  RT News (formerly Russia Today) is under Putin’s complete control, and has focused their coverage for several days on attacking Clinton, while giving positive coverage to Jill Stein, including many interviews.  As much as a like Jill, I can’t see how she could be accepting this help from a Russian propaganda outlet, without knowing she’s working with Putin.  Perhaps her opportunism ha Rump Dump Trumped her idealism.