From the very beginning, Donald Trump has had difficulty understanding that the Justice Department is not like every other cabinet office. He does not have unilateral control of it. The Justice Department can bite back at him, and he doesn’t like it.
It may be hard to believe, but in the history of the United States, we have never had consecutive Democrats elected to the presidency. Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson both became presidents because of the deaths of their predecessors.
So, if Howard Schultz wants to run as an independent in 2020, I will beg to differ with other progressives and say that it’s okay, but with a major caveat.
Harris was speaking to an audience stacked in her favor. What was missing was representation of the voters that Hillary Clinton seemed to forget in the 2016 presidential election. The white blue-collar Reagan Democrats who were Donald Trump’s margin of victory in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
What was not mentioned was that Trump not only did not express empathy for federal workers, he did not even acknowledge their existence.
It can be very difficult to make Donald Trump look good to reasonable people, but Nancy Pelosi may be trying to do so. If she portrays the Democrats as the party of intransigence and inflexibility, she is giving Trump a gift that he neither deserves nor could ever earn.
Is this what it’s come to? Someone running for office must have a background story that is so gripping that we think that he or she came out of a Dickens novel. If the candidate can’t wow the socks off voters with how compelling his or her “womb-to-candidacy” story is, she might as well forget about running.
Somehow, I was led to believe that voting was a fundamental part of democracy. And when a majority exists, and not vote can take place – well, that more than just a shame; it’s not democracy.
Kamala Harris, California’s junior senator and perhaps a 2020 presidential candidate, is walking into the quagmire of political correctness with a nominee for the federal court in Nebraska. It has to do, in part, with religion. Most politicians tend to avoid questions related to religion because the risk of offending someone is far greater than the payoff of criticism, however justified.
If you were divorced in 1876 and were considering re-marriage next year, do you really think that voters in the state in which you live would be the proper authority to determine whether or not it is a good idea? Well, if you add the interests of a billionaire to the equation, this is precisely what you get, at least in Missouri.