Trump Thread

[Husar]

Trump actually signed something productive into law.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...bill/2076/text

Given that many have already suspected that he has dementia of some sort....what if it's just another selfish move?

[a completely inoffensive name]

There was also a very good prison reform bill that was passed.

I will have to give it to the GOP, they did work with Dems on some good bills that were needed.
Note that neither the bills mentioned got any significant press attention until their passing, lest the public see compromise in action.

[Montmorency]

There was also a very good prison reform bill that was passed.

I will have to give it to the GOP, they did work with Dems on some good bills that were needed.
Note that neither the bills mentioned got any significant press attention until their passing, lest the public see compromise in action.

The federal prison bill wasn't actually that significant, affecting as it did a small subset of the federal prison population, which is itself a tenth of the overall prison population. It is an improvement, at least for sentencing going forward. Hey, I'm not going to resist making life easier for 5 or 10 thousand people here or there. But it's no 'great compromise', it is (or should be seen as) boilerplate.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The federal prison bill wasn't actually that significant, affecting as it did a small subset of the federal prison population, which is itself a tenth of the overall prison population. It is an improvement, at least for sentencing going forward. Hey, I'm not going to resist making life easier for 5 or 10 thousand people here or there. But it's no 'great compromise', it is (or should be seen as) boilerplate.

Your expectations are too high. If this bill got out in front of the public early, it would have been pounced upon as being soft on crime, same as with any bill that treats prisoners as anything more than cheap labor.
That fact that most Republicans agreed to come to the table at all on this topic, whether it was for 5 prisoners or 5 million, took some amount of political courage.

[Montmorency]

Your expectations are too high. If this bill got out in front of the public early, it would have been pounced upon as being soft on crime, same as with any bill that treats prisoners as anything more than cheap labor.
That fact that most Republicans agreed to come to the table at all on this topic, whether it was for 5 prisoners or 5 million, took some amount of political courage.

Did it? Why did Republicans in both chambers overwhelmingly support the bill of it was so politically costly?

What I'm telling you is that your posture sets our expectations dangerously low, like an uncle calling their 10-year-old nephew a math whiz because they correctly answer, "What is 12 x 12?" Just say "cool" and go on with working; blowing an accomplishment out of proportion isn't productive.

If this bill got out in front of the public early,

Also, interesting point - if this bill had "got out" in front of the public, it would mean that the media were prioritizing it as something to report on, something to invest prime time into. And if they were prioritizing it as a subject, it would be because the Republicans were prioritizing it. Because Republicans often set the media's agenda (e.g. Obamacare criticism, Benghazi, Ebola, Clinton emails, migrant caravans).

It follows that mainstream conservatives were not interested in opposing or bashing the legislation before the nation.

It's boilerplate, dude.

[Strike For The South]

The reform bill is a pebble in the ocean.

The United States criminal justice system is a failure and has resulted in this country having 1/4 of the worlds total prisoners. There needs to be a massive concerted effort to fundamentally change it. A black man in America has more than double the chance of being in prison than someone during Stalins gulag. That is not justice.

[Montmorency]

The reform bill is a pebble in the ocean.

The United States criminal justice system is a failure and has resulted in this country having 1/4 of the worlds total prisoners. There needs to be a massive concerted effort to fundamentally change it. A black man in America has more than double the chance of being in prison than someone during Stalins gulag. That is not justice.

There has been a talking point going around for a few years that the US imprisons more people now than Stalin's gulags did at their height. This is basically untrue.

HOWEVER

While accounting that Stalin's USSR had more or less half the population of the contemporary United States (WW2 = more or less), it is true that America's incarceration rate and absolute numbers are quite comparable to the Stalinist system, which is certainly scary.

From the link above:

The U.S. has 760 prisoners per 100,000 citizens.

It is no hyperbole to say that the US prison industrial complex is unacceptable, especially for a country that purports itself the world’s preeminent democracy. But it is hyperbole because placing the US next to Stalinism (and Nazism for that matter) is inherently hyperbolic. The rhetorical move is supposed to provoke an emotional reaction not stimulate critical awareness. And as much as American liberals would like to think that the numbers of bodies ensnared in the US prison industrial complex is as bad, if not worse, than Stalinist Russia, the situation is far more complicated.

Here I don’t mean the quality of the Stalinist system No one is claiming that the US system is worse than Stalin’s forced labor camps. I only mean the quantity of humans in both systems.

The Stalinist penal system was a complex network of punishments and detentions: prisons, noncustodial forced labor, corrective labor camps, forced labor detention (katorga) special settlements, and corrective labor colonies. I won’t go into the meanings and various differences between these. Though experts make clear distinctions between these various units, to the popular mind, they all fall under the general name of gulag. The numbers of people, which also included children, in this penal machine at any given period remains partial. Up 20 percent of the gulag population was released every year, new inmates went in, corpses went out, some even managed to escape. But exactly how many people under Stalin’s correctional supervision is unknown.

Check the graphs in the link, as I won't reproduce them.

If the US has up to 2.5 million people incarcerated at some point in time, that is less - though only slightly less! - than the number of people in Stalin's gulag system in 1938-40, and a little more than 1935-7. If 6 million Americans are held under "correctional supervision", then the analogous number is not really know for prewar USSR, which may well be higher.

According to the straight numbers, the Stalinist system did not exceed the US’ six million during the years of the Great Terror. In 1938, there were 2.7 million people in the “gulag.” But this doesn’t include everyone under Stalinist “correctional supervision.” Therefore it doesn’t take account of prisons and released gulag prisoners who were forced to carry “Form A” which detailed their past crime, prison term, the deprivation of civil rights up to five years, and restricted where they could settle. There were roughly 2 million people released from the gulag between 1934 and 1940 which etches the Stalinist number closer to the United States.

Of course the Stalinist system reached its peak shortly before his death, upon which it was rapidly dismantled, and here the gulags were clearly absorbing more in absolute numbers than the American penal/carceral system ever has.

This means an estimated 7.4 million people were under Stalinist correctional supervision 1953, exceeding Zakaria’s and Gopnik’s 6 million for the United States. Again the numbers are probably higher since these numbers don’t include everyone in the Stalinist penal system.

Things get even more complicated when you consider the gulag population per 100,000 citizens. According to Eugenia Belova and Paul Gregory, the Soviet institutionalized population in 1953 was 2,621,000 or 1,558 per 100.000. When you include special settlements, the numbers jump to 4,301,000 or 2,605 per 100,000. This puts the 760 per 100,000 in the United States into perspective.

So the takeaway should be that, while the US has never really exceeded Stalinism's excesses (EDIT: Leaving aside the early years), it does come frighteningly close, at least in raw numbers. Which is bad. Real bad.

A more interesting comparison might be to Maoist China (which had about double the population of the contemporary US, as opposed to 50-60% like the USSR) and to contemporary China, which imprisons relatively few people but seems to have quite a lot in reeducation camps and the like, such as the notorious figure of up to 1 million Uighurs alone.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Did it? Why did Republicans in both chambers overwhelmingly support the bill of it was so politically costly?

What I'm telling you is that your posture sets our expectations dangerously low, like an uncle calling their 10-year-old nephew a math whiz because they correctly answer, "What is 12 x 12?" Just say "cool" and go on with working; blowing an accomplishment out of proportion isn't productive.



Also, interesting point - if this bill had "got out" in front of the public, it would mean that the media were prioritizing it as something to report on, something to invest prime time into. And if they were prioritizing it as a subject, it would be because the Republicans were prioritizing it. Because Republicans often set the media's agenda (e.g. Obamacare criticism, Benghazi, Ebola, Clinton emails, migrant caravans).

It follows that mainstream conservatives were not interested in opposing or bashing the legislation before the nation.

It's boilerplate, dude.

The reform bill is a pebble in the ocean.

The United States criminal justice system is a failure and has resulted in this country having 1/4 of the worlds total prisoners. There needs to be a massive concerted effort to fundamentally change it. A black man in America has more than double the chance of being in prison than someone during Stalins gulag. That is not justice.

In 2019 one of my resolutions was not to be so mad and stressed about everything. It is very tiring. I want to practice a more pragmatic reformist philosophy. Where I can push for the big goals but remain pleased with steps forward, no matter how small. I just can't sustain my political engagement if every act is to be judged against a criteria that will undoubtedly cause it to fall short of the target. And it is certainly worse to burn out and become numb to political events at this time.

[Montmorency]

In 2019 one of my resolutions was not to be so mad and stressed about everything. It is very tiring. I want to practice a more pragmatic reformist philosophy. Where I can push for the big goals but remain pleased with steps forward, no matter how small. I just can't sustain my political engagement if every act is to be judged against a criteria that will undoubtedly cause it to fall short of the target. And it is certainly worse to burn out and become numb to political events at this time.

You know I'm an arch-pessimist, but I'm only saying restrain the hoopla, which isn't the same as indulging in bitter and maudlin futility-mongering. But if you genuinely need to feel this rhetoric toward maintaining that "optimism of the will"... that's troublesome.

[Strike For The South]

In 2019 one of my resolutions was not to be so mad and stressed about everything. It is very tiring. I want to practice a more pragmatic reformist philosophy. Where I can push for the big goals but remain pleased with steps forward, no matter how small. I just can't sustain my political engagement if every act is to be judged against a criteria that will undoubtedly cause it to fall short of the target. And it is certainly worse to burn out and become numb to political events at this time.

I'm not mad or stressed. It simply is not enough. It really is not anything tangible. It is better than stasis, I will grant you that.

@monty There is a massive racial element to those numbers and it is one of the reasons why the majority still supports insane "tough on crime" measures. There is a whole cottage industry (since 1776) around convincing white people that black people are dangerous. That is a whole nother thread though.

A reminder for tonight, There is no crisis at the border. There is no need for a ridiculous wall. Trumps desire for one is equal parts vanity, base whipping, and racism. Any attempt to declare an emergency will be challenged and that challenge will succeed. Just one more norm that we will have to codify.

This obsession with illegal immigration is an effort to squeeze a group of people. It is not an to get rid of them (which would hurt the bottom line) so much as it is an attempt to strip them of their voice while the country extracts their labor. Fear is the goal here. It is unacceptable.

[Husar]

There has been a talking point going around for a few years that the US imprisons more people now than Stalin's gulags did at their height.

Why even go there? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...rceration_rate

The US tops the list of per 100k, imprisons 3-4 times as many people (per 100k) as Venezuela and yet it keeps bitching about how oppressive Venezuela supposedly is.

The next decent country on the list is Luxembourg at 145 and that's a tax haven...
So the next decent first world country on the list is actually Germany at 172 with 75 per 100k.
(yes, British colonies, tax havens, baguettes that riot over environment taxes, countries with nazi parties in the government and incompetent Belgians don't count )

Ok, maybe you have the UK at 140, but they're Brexiteers...

Anyway, you don't need to compare the US to Stalin to see that it's either a country that breeds criminals or one that imprisons way too many people. Pick your poison.

[Montmorency]

@all above: Yes.


Meanwhile, Trump supporter reacts to government shutdown and attendant deleterious economic impact:

A few miles away, another prison employee, Crystal Minton, accompanied her fiancé to a friend’s house to help clear the remnants of a metal roof mangled by the hurricane. Ms. Minton, a 38-year-old secretary, said she had obtained permission from the warden to put off her Mississippi duty until early February because she is a single mother caring for disabled parents. Her fiancé plans to take vacation days to look after Ms. Minton’s 7-year-old twins once she has to go to work.

The shutdown on top of the hurricane has caused Ms. Minton to rethink a lot of things.

“I voted for him, and he’s the one who’s doing this,” she said of Mr. Trump. “I thought he was going to do good things. He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.”

(Sorry ACIN, this might raise your blood pressure more than mine)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Listening to the speech right now. We don't build walls because we hate those outside, but because we love those inside. LOL

[Husar]

Listening to the speech right now. We don't build walls because we hate those outside, but because we love those inside. LOL

That incidentally also explains all the prisoners...

[Montmorency]

I'm sorry to post so much, but amazing bullshit keeps happening.

Trump wants your money for the wall (but actually legally is a campaign donation and definitely going to his pockets):

Official Website of Donald J. Trump for President
SECURE THE BORDER
The American people are demanding Democrats finally put America First and BUILD THE WALL....but Chuck and Nancy simply won’t listen.

That’s why I want to do something so HUGE, even Democrats and the Fake News won’t be able to ignore.

We need to raise $500,000 in ONE DAY.

Please make a special contribution in the next FIVE MINUTES to our Official Secure the Border Fund to add your name to the President’s list.

You don't want your name on the President's list.

Listening to the speech right now. We don't build walls because we hate those outside, but because we love those inside. LOL

Liberal media bias:

In 2014, Obama was ready to announce a series of executive actions on immigration in the wake of the collapse in negotiations over a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill.

[...]

This was, naturally, very controversial. And Obama, naturally, wanted to try to make it less controversial by convincing people that it was a good idea.

Conservative pundits were, at the time, pushing the notion that Obama was essentially seizing power like a Latin American dictator, so essentially anything that refocused the conversation on banal policy details would have played to his advantage. TV networks, however, didn’t give him what he wanted, in part because it was November sweeps time, but officially because he was playing partisan politics rather than addressing a true national emergency.

A network insider tells Playbook: “There was agreement among the broadcast networks that this was overtly political. The White House has tried to make a comparison to a time that all the networks carried President Bush in prime time, also related to immigration [2006]. But that was a bipartisan announcement, and this is an overtly political move by the White House.”

[Husar]

Re: The Border Wall:

[rory_20_uk]

The man flip-flops mid sentence - so that he said the opposite over a decade ago isn't really that surprising.

[Montmorency]

Re: The Border Wall:

I see your irony and raise you this:

Trump the Conman Builds a Wall, 1958

Judge: You here about Trump?
Concerned Citizen: Yes sir, what're you gonna do about 'im?
Judge: Whaddaya want me to do?
CC: Stop him.
Judge: From what?
CC: From taking the town?
Judge: Can you prove that that's what he has in mind?
CC: Wh- it's obvious.
Judge: Heh, but can you prove it? In order to arrest him, a sheriff has to have a charge! And Trump hasn't given him a thing to go on.
CC: Well *sigh* there's gotta be a way to stop 'im.
Judge: Well if there is, I don't know it. Ahh, it's a funny thing.
CC: Sir?
Judge: When we were kids, we were all afraid of th' dark. And we grew up, and we weren't afraid anymore, but - it's funny how a big lie can make us all kids again.

Narrator: Obie had checked the town. The people were ready to believe. Like sheep, they ran toward the slaughterhouse - and waiting for them was the high priest of fraud.
Trump: I am the only one. TRUST ME. I can build a wall around your homes that nothing can penetrate.

...

???: You're under arrest, Trump.

We live in a comic book universe.

[Husar]

The man flip-flops mid sentence - so that he said the opposite over a decade ago isn't really that surprising.

I don't really think he is flip-flopping, he just has different standards for poor people and for the children of rich people.
When rich people talk about how to increase social mobility, most of them are simply lying. I doubt they actually want to become poor and/or see others become as rich as they are.

[rory_20_uk]

I don't really think he is flip-flopping, he just has different standards for poor people and for the children of rich people.
When rich people talk about how to increase social mobility, most of them are simply lying. I doubt they actually want to become poor and/or see others become as rich as they are.

He is constant on self-enrichment for him and himself and "winning" things.

But look at Stormy Daniels saga - the story repeatedly changed. He was for and against the Iraq war. Mexico was going to pay for the wall and then he said he never said that; he's great at technology and also said he doesn't do the email thing; the President is responsible for government shutdowns under Obama, took responsibility for it at the start then now it is everyone but his.

Whenever I've heard people talk about social mobility and redistribution of wealth I've yet to hear any of them express the view that they'd loose something by this: those poorer in the UK think they should get more from the richer, not that everyone in the UK should be giving to the truly poor abroad; of course the UK housing should be sorted out... but I've yet to hear home owners advocating schemes that would impact on them.

[Husar]

He is constant on self-enrichment for him and himself and "winning" things.

But look at Stormy Daniels saga - the story repeatedly changed. He was for and against the Iraq war. Mexico was going to pay for the wall and then he said he never said that; he's great at technology and also said he doesn't do the email thing; the President is responsible for government shutdowns under Obama, took responsibility for it at the start then now it is everyone but his.

Whenever I've heard people talk about social mobility and redistribution of wealth I've yet to hear any of them express the view that they'd loose something by this: those poorer in the UK think they should get more from the richer, not that everyone in the UK should be giving to the truly poor abroad; of course the UK housing should be sorted out... but I've yet to hear home owners advocating schemes that would impact on them.

Absolutely, I just don't think his flip-flopping is necessarily responsible in this case, because it's the same with many people who hold these "positive thinking" speeches in front of students. To some extent it even seems as though the students at elite universities get to hear different things than other students.

And yes, obviously people who complain about factory relocations to China don't give a damn about unemployed Chinese people. That's one reason I don't like these "national socialists" like Corbyn a whole lot either. They'll throw people in other countries under the bus to help "their own" either because they're stuck in tribal thinking or because it would be too complicated to think of solutions for everyone.

[Montmorency]

Whenever I've heard people talk about social mobility and redistribution of wealth I've yet to hear any of them express the view that they'd loose something by this: those poorer in the UK think they should get more from the richer, not that everyone in the UK should be giving to the truly poor abroad; of course the UK housing should be sorted out... but I've yet to hear home owners advocating schemes that would impact on them.

One obvious and immediate obstacle is that countries have no jurisdiction over one another. And services need local delivery for sanity and humanity. It's unavoidable that a true transnational framework is necessary to distribute resources between world regions, like... a commonwealth, yeah. I can't think of a way to bootstrap an incipient commonwealth except top-town by revisionist left-wing parties in power.

Globalism remains unfinished in the mirror of Wilsonian ideals. The fact is, in the short-term there are few laterally-cooperative ways for countries to harmonize interests that don't already exist. I do agree that all reformist political organizations should at least be hinting at the need for it, even if few can articulate much on the spot.

Social mobility hot take: no one deserves to be rich.

Social housing: The majority of Viennese live in housing built, owned, or maintained by the government. In the 1960s Sweden expanded its housing stock by 1/4 (net 1/5) as it embarked on the Million Home Program to construct 1 million units all around the country in 10 years (the US equivalent would be 50-million+ units in a decade). To this day there is a housing surplus in much of Sweden. Social housing must be for all citizens, not a dumping ground of the bottom income decile.

By the way, India is having another hundred-million-man strike. We need a billion striking worldwide somehow. While there are a billion to strike.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm tired of local newspapers being filled every week with right wing letters to the editor. Should I improve my writing skills by sending in my own letters and make the medium more competitive?

[Husar]

I'm tired of local newspapers being filled every week with right wing letters to the editor. Should I improve my writing skills by sending in my own letters and make the medium more competitive?

You can just copy passages from Das Kapital, no need to improve any skills. Competition is a tool of right wing politics.

[Montmorency]

I linked this song in one of the year's first posts here.

Today I heard the song playing in the supermarket.

I feel vindicated.

Social housing: The majority of Viennese live in housing built, owned, or maintained by the government. In the 1960s Sweden expanded its housing stock by 1/4 (net 1/5) as it embarked on the Million Home Program to construct 1 million units all around the country in 10 years (the US equivalent would be 50-million+ units in a decade). To this day there is a housing surplus in much of Sweden. Social housing must be for all citizens, not a dumping ground of the bottom income decile.

A correction here. I underestimated the Swedish population in the 1960s, which was up to 8 million. With a contemporary US population of ~330 million, the equivalent today would be 40+ million units. Or, if comparing 1968 Sweden to 1968 USA (200 mil ppl), 25 million units.

EDIT: And for further context, the US housing stock today is ~140 million units according to the Fed. Proportionally, 1/4 of 140 million would be 35 million - compared to 40. The point is to emphasize the monumental nature of the Swedish program, and how replicating it in the US from Fairbanks, Alaska to Miami, Florida might as well count as a Wonder of the World, a boom of Chinese proportions. TBH we don't need to go that far with rampant construction, which of course is notorious for ecological and social externalities.

I'm tired of local newspapers being filled every week with right wing letters to the editor. Should I improve my writing skills by sending in my own letters and make the medium more competitive?

What if we all - chipped in? Collaborative letters are probably a real thing.

[Montmorency]

A correction here. I underestimated the Swedish population in the 1960s, which was up to 8 million. With a contemporary US population of ~330 million, the equivalent today would be 40+ million units. Or, if comparing 1968 Sweden to 1968 USA (200 mil ppl), 25 million units.

EDIT: And for further context, the US housing stock today is ~140 million units according to the Fed. Proportionally, 1/4 of 140 million would be 35 million - compared to 40. The point is to emphasize the monumental nature of the Swedish program, and how replicating it in the US from Fairbanks, Alaska to Miami, Florida might as well count as a Wonder of the World, a boom of Chinese proportions. TBH we don't need to go that far with rampant construction, which of course is notorious for ecological and social externalities.

Jesus, with that sweeping analogy including Miami, Florida - did I somehow forget Puerto Rico existed? Where does a state program of social housing have more relevance in the Union? The bias is real.

And just for even more context on what a build of 40 million units would mean - China's housing stock is currently 'only' (not more than) 250 million units - against US 140 million. And think of how much Chinese stock is outright geographically mal-apportioned from the outset.

5-10 million would be an appropriate level over 10 years for actual policy IMO. Local implementation with federal funding and vigilant oversight. Hopefully also drives down market incentives to disproportionately invest in luxury/high-end development.

40 million. That's Вставай страна огромная-tier. If Sweden can into houses, don't let no mutha tell you America can't.

What if we all - chipped in? Collaborative letters are probably a real thing.

I'm serious, btw.

[Shaka_Khan]

https://www.asbestos.com/news/2018/0...r-deaths-rise/
https://www.asbestos.com/news/2018/1...imports-surge/

[Montmorency]

LaGuardia Airport in New York stops flights (i.e. shuts down) for a short period, and Trump immediately caves and agrees to end the shutdown, which has lasted more than a month, brought economic deprivation to several millions, and could have sent our GDP growth negative had it continued to the end of winter (so what is that - maybe 0.5% shaved off the baseline already?). Trump still threatens to use emergency powers tho.

Also, a lot of other shit has been going on, but while we're on the topic of the shutdown - on why the shutdown would never hurt Trump's core support no matter what:

Ineffective government also played to long-held biases and anxieties about race. One white Kansas parent who identified as a GOP supporter insisted that school budget cuts were justified because “blacks just use school funds to rent party buses.” More frequent were vague concerns about ways that minorities or immigrants usurped undeserved resources, such as when one respondent claimed that, “the Mexicans, their food stamps, everything they want, we’re paying for it.”

Such concerns sometimes led to people standing on “principle” even when it harmed them. I’ll never forget how a man pulling an oxygen tank because of severe lung disease told me he would rather die (and soon did die) than receive benefits from the ACA because it used “my tax dollars” on “Mexicans and welfare queens.” Data that my research team amassed showed how these kinds of mortal trade-offs shortened lifespans, and sometimes disproportionately harmed white communities that form the core of GOP support.

This is the essence.

To the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell's heart, I stab at thee; For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.


Also, in good news for labor militancy, usually-conservative union leadership may be growing more open to fomenting the general strike in hard times. (To be clear, such a strike would be nominally illegal for federal and many state employees.)

President of Flight Attendants Union Suggests General Strike to End Government Shutdown

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Federal workers here tonight - Stand Up.

Flight Attendants and aviation workers - Stand Up.

Nurses who count on the medicine we deliver on our planes - Stand Up.

Everyone who flew to this conference - Stand Up.

Anyone who believes it is a crime to make people work without pay - Stand Up.

Federal workers, We’ve got your back!

The country sees no solution in sight, but Labor can lead the way. Dr. King rallied us by reaching for the mountain top. He didn’t seek integration of just ONE school, he sought freedom in our schools for ALL children. He didn’t seek integration of just ONE lunch counter, he aspired to have us ALL “sit down together at the table of brotherhood.” And sisterhood, Dr. King!

Today, people are starving for this kind of leadership. They are hungry for answers where some would say there are none. Through our Labor Movement, we have the answers for them and together we can lead the way.

We need to follow Dr. King’s lead and think big. Think big like the hotel workers who took on the largest hotel chain the world and won. Think BIG, like the teachers in Los Angeles who this very minute are taking on powerful hedge funds to save public education for our children.

Dr. King said that “With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together.”

Now listen to me… We can end this Shutdown together.

Federal sector unions have their hands full caring for the 800,000 federal workers who are at the tip of the spear. Some would say the answer is for them to walk off the job. I say, “what are you willing to do? Their destiny IS tied up with our destiny – and they don’t even have time to ask us for help. Don’t wait for an invitation. Get engaged, join or plan a rally, get on a picket line, organize sit-ins at lawmakers’ offices.

Almost a million workers are locked out or being forced to work without pay. Others are going to work when our workspace is increasingly unsafe. What is the Labor Movement waiting for?

Go back with the Fierce Urgency of NOW to talk with your Locals and International unions about all workers joining together - To End this Shutdown with a General Strike.

We can do this. Together. Si se puede. Every gender, race, culture, and creed. The American Labor Movement. We have the power.

And to all Americans – We’ve Got Your Back!

[Strike For The South]

The essence is racism which is cozily cloaked in a "personal freedoms" mantra.

It's one of the reasons I refuse to call the white supremacists who make up the backbone of Trumps coalition Nazis. Calling them Nazis takes the blame off of America. Nazi is something you can use to hand wave America homegrown white supremacy.

[Strike For The South]

Also the federal workers will get paid but the contractors apparently won't.

How on brand for this president.