Nick Gillespie: Did MAGA Kill The Tea Party?

"Former Rep. Justin Amash and Fox News’ Kennedy join Nick Gillespie to examine how MAGA populism reshaped the Tea Party’s limited-government mission, why Congress no longer acts as a check on power, and what it will take to spark a new libertarian revival... 

From Reason Magazine

"In 2008, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) ran for the Republican presidential nomination and did surprisingly well with a campaign focused on stopping the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, ending the Federal Reserve, and reducing the size and spending of the federal government. Two years later, the Tea Party movement burst on the scene, bringing people like Paul’s son Rand to the Senate and one of today’s guests, Justin Amash, to the House of Representatives. In 2012, Ron Paul again ran for the GOP nod, finishing second to the eventual nominee Mitt Romney, and helping to usher in what The New York Times called “the libertarian moment.”

What happened to the Ron Paul Revolution’s and Tea Party’s promise to shrink government, especially once Donald Trump and the MAGA movement emerged in 2015? Did the broad-based alliance that rose to cut spending and limit power transmogrify into one that prizes wielding the state instead of restraining it?

Today’s episode was recorded live on Saturday, August 9 at Ron Paul’s 90th Birthday BBQ in Lake Jackson, Texas. The guests are former Rep. Amash and Fox News personality Kennedy. They talk with Nick Gillespie about how the MAGA movement grew out of the Ron Paul Revolution and the Tea Party and redirected the right’s anti-establishment energy toward expanding government power rather than limiting it. They also discuss why Congress refuses to legislate, whether social media has expanded freedom or increased anxiety, and if Gen Z is libertarian or conformist." 

Source:Reason Magazine talking to former U.S. Representative Justin Amash & Reason Magazine anchor Lisa Kennedy. 

From Reason Magazine

From Britannica about the early days of the 20th Century Tea Party: 

"Tea Party movement, conservative populist social and political movement that emerged in 2009 in the United States, generally opposing excessive taxation and government intervention in the private sector while supporting stronger immigration controls...

From Britannica

The Tea Party at it's best, (I guess from a Liberal Democratic perspective) was movement of lots of ordinary Americans, who were literally getting screwed by the Great Recession and were very angry at Washington for that, during a time when the national debt was growing out-of-control, when trillion-dollar budget deficits were now the norm. And you had all these constitutional and fiscal conservatives in this movement who got reelected to Congress because they were against big government, high debt and deficits. 

But then Donald Trump runs for President in 2015-16, wins in 2016 and now all the sudden debt, deficits, and big government, are no longer concerns with the Tea Party, because their man is now in-charge and those things don't matter to them, as long as they're in charge. 

You can blame MAGA for a lot of things, but most of their members either at the activist level or who are in public office, are politicians at heart. If running against high debt and deficits, and shrinking the size of the Federal Government, we're popular and winning issues for them, they would still be running on those issues. 

It's 1 thing to go after the national debt and deficit, when the other party is in power and you don't expect anything to ever be done about that, as long as the other party is in power, or at least controls The White House. But it's another thing when you are now in complete control of government and now have the power and responsibility to deal with those fiscal issues and then have to run on the fact that you've just cut all these government programs or reformed them, to help deal with the deficit and debt. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Robert Reich: Donald Trump’s “State Capitalism”

"It would be communism under any other dictator

If “state capitalism” were proposed by Democrats or progressives, it would be considered socialism or communism. Done by a neofascist president — as chronicled by the The Wall Street Journal — it’s simply considered inefficient (as the Journal concludes).

But Trump’s state capitalism is already large and growing, and it’s profoundly altering what we once thought of as the private sector. Consider what Trump has done in recent weeks:

Allowed Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices to license artificial intelligence chips to China on condition they pay the United States 15 percent of the money they make.

Demanded that Intel’s CEO resign (the CEO met with Trump yesterday to plead his case).

Proposed that the Defense Department take a 15 percent stake in MP Materials, which mines critical minerals.

Allowed Nippon Steel to take over U.S. Steel on condition that Nippon pay a “golden share” of the proceeds to Washington.

Reserved the right to personally direct some $1.5 trillion of promised investment from America’s trading partners into the United States.

Never before in peacetime has the United States owned so many critical businesses. Never since World War II has the American public owned as much of the private sector.

Karl Marx might have been thrilled. Is the proletariat finally becoming the bourgeoisie, owning the means of production? Not a chance.

It’s unclear what the “United States” means when the deals Trump has struck give the United States ownership rights in corporations, but it’s certainly not the people.

How do America’s ownership rights get exercised? By whom? Who holds the equity, and where is it held? It appears that all this is up to the whims of Trump.

In reality, Trump’s state capitalism is just another part of Trump’s growing fascist state, extending his personal arbitrary control into what had been the private sector of the U.S. economy.

Recall that in Trump’s first term, CEOs spoke out when they disagreed with his policies on immigration and trade. After his bigoted “you had some very fine people on both sides” response to the violence in Charlottesville, CEOs resigned from his business advisory panels. After he orchestrated an attempted coup in 2021, they shunned him.

Now, CEOs are showering him with donations and praise. They can’t kiss his derriere enough. Jeff Bezos won’t run editorials critical of Trump in his Washington Post. CBS won’t allow “60 Minutes” or Stephen Colbert to oppose him (when Colbert’s contract runs out). The bros of Silicon Valley don’t dare say a word against him (look what happened to Musk).

As with other aspects of Trump fascism, Trump has extended his power by exploiting greed and fear.

Much of the public is playing along because he has also tapped into a deep vein of distrust in the system we previously had. American free-market capitalism has done wonderfully well for a few at the top, but most working families are less secure than in living memory, and their real (inflation-adjusted) wages have barely risen for decades.

At least since the bailout of Wall Street, most Americans have concluded that the economic game is rigged against them — and they’re right. So when Trump promised he was on their side, they believed him. (He wasn’t, of course.)

In addition, China is eating our lunch in what are considered the industries of the future — solar cells, semiconductors, batteries, super-computers, and AI — creating another opening for Trump to assert power over the private sector by arguing that national security requires it.

Rubbish. Several of the deals noted above are likely to compromise national security.

Trump’s state capitalism has nothing whatever to do with public ownership, socialism, helping the working class, or improving national security.

It’s all about centralizing ever more control over America in the Oval Office. It’s simply another power grab by Trump — just like his usurpation of Congress’s authority over spending and tariffs, and his new threat to occupy Washington, D.C., with federal troops.

Make no mistake. Trump’s ever-increasing power is an ever-growing threat to the rule of law and democracy.

This is what fascism looks like."

Source:Robert Reich actually arguing against socialism. Perhaps the Atlantic Ocean has finally run out of water as well. 

From Robert Reich

From CNN's reporting today about the U.S. Government getting $10 billion from Intel to have an official stake in that company: 

"President Donald Trump said on Friday he reached an agreement with Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan that would involve the struggling chipmaker giving the United States a company stake worth $10 billion, a deal model that Trump said he hopes to revisit with other companies.

“I said, I think you should pay us 10% of your company,” Trump said of his conversations with Tan. “And they said yes.”

Trump said the deal will was a win for both sides.

“I think it’s a great deal for them. And I think it’s a great deal,” Trump said in the Oval Office on Friday. “He walked in wanting to keep his job, and he ended up giving us $10 billion for the United States.”

Two weeks ago, Trump called for Tan’s immediate resignation following reports about his alleged connections to China.

The agreement Trump announced is part of an effort to help boost semiconductor manufacturing in the United States, although it is not immediately clear how involved the Trump administration aims to be in strategic decision-making at the company.

Trump also said he would do more of these types of deals. His administration has been weighing opportunities to take similar stakes in various US companies in critical industries, two people familiar with the White House discussions on the matter told CNN last week.

Intel declined to comment following the Trump announcement. The chipmaker’s stock (INTC) rose 7% on Friday." 

From CNN

From what my colleague Rik Schneider wrote about President Trump back in May, responding to Conservative columnist Kevin Williamson's argument that Donald Trump is a Socialist: 

"I could give you old cliche to talk about whether or not Donald Trump is a Socialist or not, by saying: "If it quacks, like a duck, walks like a duck.. but hopefully you want to hear something more interesting than that. I sure as hell want to say something even more original and interesting (ha, ha) than that. 

I think what's going on here, is the President and The White House know they're in trouble: 

House Republicans are freaking out about not just losing the House in 2026, but getting blown out and not having much of an opportunity about winning it back in 28. 

Senate Republicans are even worried that maybe even their majority will be at risk in 26, because of what House Republicans are worried about as well, which is who unpopular the President is, especially as it relates to his economic policy. 

And The White House is out of believable, positive spin, The Donald himself has even run out of decent lies in how to spin his bad economy, (I guess the Trump tariffs have even hurt TrumpLies.Inc) so they're desperate and are trying to come up with anything that they can think of at the time, to try to justify (because they can't spin) the weaknesses in the American economy right now. 

So Donald John Trump: the Manhattan real estate mogul, the self-proclaimed billionaire, the "king of reality TV", sounding like a Socialist, because he's talking about sacrifice and the need for Americans to cut back. When no one in his White House, including himself, would ever even consider cutting back anything that they enjoy in life, to benefit someone else who isn't doing as well... I don't think there's anything more to it then what I just laid out. Donald Trump is not a Socialist... but he's a desperate politician, to the point if sounding like a Socialist is what he needs to do to improve his political fortune, that's exactly what he will do." 

From The New Democrat

And from what Rik Schneider wrote about The Socialist Don yesterday: 

"My real point here is it's not Democrats (at least not left-wing Democrats) who are freaking out about the Trump Administration's using the U.S. Government to purchase a stake in Intel. Most of the opposition is coming from the Right, in some cases, even the far-right, especially if you look at where Erick Erickson has been on cultural issues the last 20 years or so. 

So if you are a die hard MAGA follower, who has been living in this political cult the last 10 years or so... you are so lost in space, that you might be able to make 1 of Charlie Manson's followers seem very sane and sober. But if I were try to talk to you anyway, (perhaps like some dedicated shrink who simply wants to try to help as many of my patients as possible) and even use reason (which is very out-of-style right now) to try to get you to see the light here, I would tell you too look at the Kudlow's, the Erickson's, the Steve Moore's, because they would tell you why this is such a horrible idea. 

As Erick Erickson's said on his blog post: 

"When the federal government took control of General Motors, GM no longer engaged in risk assessed based on shareholder value and economic value, but in political risk... 

I would add to that, once the Feds become part of a private company, that company starts taking more bad risks because they now know they have the taxpayers there to bail them out. Unlike if they are completely in private hands, there's no guarantee of even a private buyout if they go under or pile on so much debt from their own bad investments, that they either have to be bailed out, or go into public bankruptcy... 

From The New Democrat

As Robert Reich said so himself: 

If “state capitalism” were proposed by Democrats or progressives, it would be considered socialism or communism. Done by a neofascist president — as chronicled by the The Wall Street Journal — it’s simply considered inefficient (as the Journal concludes).

But Trump’s state capitalism is already large and growing, and it’s profoundly altering what we once thought of as the private sector. Consider what Trump has done in recent weeks... 

Take out the word "Progressives" and replace it with "Socialists", Mr. Reich is 100%, damn right about this. If this were Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, (or God forbid) Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, or Alex Cortez proposing this in the future, as President, the Republican Party (or what's left of the Republican Party) would immediately be calling for the impeachment and removal by Congress, of that President, because they would say that person is a Socialist or Communist. 

But since its Manhattan, New York, real estate/reality TV mogul, Donald John Trump, they call this "state capitalism", or economic nationalism. I guess in their far-out in outer space, warped view, "state capitalism" and "economic nationalism", sounds more patriotic to them. 

As we've said before, when even Conservatives are arguing that what you are doing is socialist, or you are acting like a Socialist, and you are a registered Republican, (whether you are actually a Republican in reality, is a different question) wouldn't you at least listen to those folks?

Does anyone whose currently not institutionalized, or off their medication, who isn't high or drunk... who wan't born last night, seriously want to argue that Kevin Williamson, Larry Kudlow, Steve Moore, and Erick Erickson, (just to name a few economic Conservatives opposed to President Trump's "state capitalism") are (as Rik Schneider said yesterday) radical Hippies or flaming Socialists? 

Seriously, I challenge anyone who currently meets the mental condition that I just laid out, to try to argue that these men are radical Hippies or flaming Socialists. And no, your word alone won't be good enough on that. If you think you can, feel free to comment on this post on The New Democrat's Blogger or WordPress pages, or reply to us on our Threads and Twitter pages.

Again, The New Democrat is a center-right, classical liberal (if you don't like liberal) JFK Democrat blog, in philosophy. That's what my personal politics are as well. So of course we're not fans of socialism, or what the Nazi-Right would call "state capitalism". But if our word is not good enough, you should listen to real-life Conservatives who oppose this as well. Unless you are currently drunk, high, institutionalized, or off your medication. For competent, sober people, who are open to President Trump's "state capitalism", but are open to another viewpoint on this, listen to the Conservatives on this. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Larry Kudlow: 'This Idea Makes Me Very Uncomfortable'

"'Kudlow' panelists Steve Moore and Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., discuss a potential U.S. government stake in Intel and 2026 tax cuts." 

Source:FOX Business anchor Lawrence Kudlow.

From FOX Business

Erick Erickson has weighed in on the Trump Administration's state socialism proposal as well: 

"Time and time again, when the government gets involved, the leviathan grows and both the Middle Class and small businesses get the shaft. Innovation stalls and economic growth slows. Go back to the buckets. As the government issues more debt, more people buy public debt instead of investing in the public sector. The government’s bucket fills up with money that does not go to shareholders, workers, investors, innovation, or growth.

The Trump Administration is now bragging that over $150 billion has been generated from tariffs. Some of that comes from American businesses. But some of that comes from American consumers. More of it will come from consumers soon as companies raise prices. That is more money in the government bucket, not the private sector bucket.

Now, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is urging the government to become the largest shareholder of Intel. Some defend it by citing national security reasons, ignoring the government does not own shares in other defense contractors. Others defend it because Trump is in charge, so damn the principle. But like with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, General Motors, etc. all this will do is increase burdens on American taxpayers, decrease efficiency in the private sector that will slow growth, and puts a major American microchip company in the position of doing what the government wants, not what is best for the company...

You can read Erick Erickson's full blog post.

Austrian-British economist Friedrich Hayek I believe has always had the best quote about socialism: 

"If socialists understood economics, they wouldn't be socialists".

I'm going to give you a little background on both Larry Kudlow and Erick Erickson before I weigh on what the Trump Administration is trying to do here with their state socialist proposal here. 

From what I wrote back in May in response to what Conservative columnist Kevin Williamson wrote arguing about President's Trump's... let's say socialist tendencies: 

"I could give you old cliche to talk about whether or not Donald Trump is a Socialist or not, by saying: "If it quacks, like a duck, walks like a duck.. but hopefully you want to hear something more interesting than that. I sure as hell want to say something even more original and interesting (ha, ha) than that. 

I think what's going on here, is the President and The White House know they're in trouble: 

House Republicans are freaking out about not just losing the House in 2026, but getting blown out and not having much of an opportunity about winning it back in 28. 

Senate Republicans are even worried that maybe even their majority will be at risk in 26, because of what House Republicans are worried about as well, which is who unpopular the President is, especially as it relates to his economic policy. 

And The White House is out of believable, positive spin, The Donald himself has even run out of decent lies in how to spin his bad economy, (I guess the Trump tariffs have even hurt TrumpLies.Inc) so they're desperate and are trying to come up with anything that they can think of at the time, to try to justify (because they can't spin) the weaknesses in the American economy right now. 

So Donald John Trump: the Manhattan real estate mogul, the self-proclaimed billionaire, the "king of reality TV", sounding like a Socialist, because he's talking about sacrifice and the need for Americans to cut back. When no one in his White House, including himself, would ever even consider cutting back anything that they enjoy in life, to benefit someone else who isn't doing as well... I don't think there's anything more to it then what I just laid out. Donald Trump is not a Socialist... but he's a desperate politician, to the point if sounding like a Socialist is what he needs to do to improve his political fortune, that's exactly what he will do." 

From The New Democrat

This is what I wrote about Mr. Kudlow back in March: 

"The title of this video is: "Karoline Leavitt: Trump is Working 24/7 To Bring Down The Cost of Living". But if you bothered to watch the video (and I don't blame you if you didn't) nothing in there about bringing down the cost of living in America. Which by the way, Donald Trump promised he would "eliminate inflation on day 1 of his presidency". You got of a lot of talking points and claims from Karoline Leavitt about what the Trump Administration is doing, with no facts to back her up. And Larry Kudlow as well Ms. Leavitt blaming the current problems with the economy on Joe Biden. But nothing in there about what the Trump Administration is doing to bring down the cost of living. 

And after announcing new tariffs on Canada and Mexico today, which will just make groceries more expensive, along with deporting farm workers, which affects the price of eggs and milk in America, you would think Kudow & Company would want to talk to the White House Press Secretary about how the President plans to make the cost of living in America more affordable, since it's now more expensive since he became POTUS 6 weeks ago." 

From The New Democrat

This is some of what I wrote about Mr. Kudlow back in June: 

"Like a lot of other people and things that Donald John Trump has touched right before they died, (to paraphrase Rick Wilson) Larry Kudlow before Donald Trump took over the Republican Party and turned it into the MAGA Party... was a neoconservative, supply-side, business oriented and economics oriented, Northeast, country club, Republican and political commentator. But now he acts like Donald John Trump is God himself and backs everything that he does and goes out-of-his-way to make it 100% that he always backs The Don 100% of the time, regardless of what the President is doing and saying. 

The President could call for nationalizing private universities and banks because he doesn't like their politics and Kudlow would claim: "The President is standing up for real Americans". 

I would love to know who kidnapped Larry Kudlow and who they got to replace him. The guy on FOX Business looks like Kudlow, but he sure as hell no longer sounds like him." 

From The New Democrat

And here's a little background on Erick Erickson: 

"Erick Woods Erickson (born June 3, 1975) is an American conservative talk radio host, blogger, and former politician. He hosts a three-hour weekday talk show on WSB 95.5 FM and 750 AM in Atlanta, which is syndicated to other radio stations around the U.S. He also writes a political blog called The Resurgent. Prior to this, he was editor-in-chief and CEO of another conservative political blog called RedState.[2] He was a political contributor for CNN from 2010 to 2013, and afterwards was a contributor to the Fox News Channel before leaving the network in 2018... 

From Wikipedia

I give you all of this background, profile information of both Larry Kudlow and Erick Erickson, because I think there's a runaway pandemic as it relates to insomnia and I think if people just read this stuff, they'll fall asleep and immediately start to catch up on the last 6 months or so that they've gone without any real sleep. Actually, I have another reason for doing this. Some might even argue that it's even better than the first 1. 

My real point here is it's not Democrats (at least not left-wing Democrats) who are freaking out about the Trump Administration's using the U.S. Government to purchase a stake in Intel. Most of the opposition is coming from the Right, in some cases, even the far-right, especially if you look at where Erick Erickson has been on cultural issues the last 20 years or so. 

So if you are a die hard MAGA follower, who has been living in this political cult the last 10 years or so... you are so lost in space, that you might be able to make 1 of Charlie Manson's followers seem very sane and sober. But if I were try to talk to you anyway, (perhaps like some dedicated shrink who simply wants to try to help as many of my patients as possible) and even use reason (which is very out-of-style right now) to try to get you to see the light here, I would tell you too look at the Kudlow's, the Erickson's, the Steve Moore's, because they would tell you why this is such a horrible idea. 

As Erick Erickson's said on his blog post: 

"When the federal government took control of General Motors, GM no longer engaged in risk assessed based on shareholder value and economic value, but in political risk... 

I would add to that, once the Feds become part of a private company, that company starts taking more bad risks because they now know they have the taxpayers there to bail them out. Unlike if they are completely in private hands, there's no guarantee of even a private buyout if they go under or pile on so much debt from their own bad investments, that they either have to be bailed out, or go into public bankruptcy. 

As I've said before, (or something close to this) Larry Kudlow, Erick Erickson, and Steve Moore, are no one's radical Hippies or flaming Socialists. Pre-Trump, both Kudlow and Moore would be what you would describe as Northeastern, country club, neoconservative, supply-side, Republicans. They were people who believed that government should be out of the private sector and just let companies operate freely in what they would call a free market. 

Erick Erickson, perhaps a little to the left (key word being little) but he's basically the Gen-X, male version of someone like a Phyllis Schlafly from the 1960s and 70s. Very radical as a right-wing culture warrior, but not a racist or an ethnic bigot. But someone you could describe as a true believer when it comes to what has been called Christian Nationalism. But someone who combined his radical, right-wing cultural war politics, with a more conservative-libertarian view of government when it comes to economic policy. 

So when even have people who are true Conservatives when it comes to economic policy, tell you that state socialism is a really bad idea and you are also on the Right, you should at least listen to them. Unless you are not a Conservative, and more of a State Socialist and someone who thinks: 

"Nazism wasn't that bad. Maybe we should try that here so our companies could be pro-American again". 

Or however you would phrase that yourself. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Marc Defant: The Contradiction At The Heart of Gender Debates

"Gender identity has become one of the most pressing–and polarizing–topics in today’s cultural landscape. Major medical associations have embraced a variety of gender-affirming treatments, ranging from counseling sessions to lifelong hormonal therapies and even surgeries. Their rationale is that these interventions help alleviate severe distress among people who experience a disconnect between the sex they were born with and the gender they identify as. In the same breath, however, many of these organizations and prominent voices also describe gender as largely a “social construct”–something molded by cultural norms rather than by biology.

That claim raises a fundamental paradox. If gender truly rests on external expectations, why do some advocates support irreversible medical procedures–especially in children–as a primary response to gender-related distress? On the flip side, if there is a strong biological basis for gender identity, then why do we invoke social factors so frequently? For parents, policy-makers, and health professionals trying to do right by patients, these questions create a tangle of uncertainty. Even more critically, children and teenagers lie at the center of an ethical storm that involves decisions about their bodies, their long-term health, and whether or not they should receive life-changing medical treatments before they’ve reached adulthood.

The Rise of Gender-Affirming Care 

Over the past decade, a growing number of adolescents have presented to clinics with gender dysphoria–a term describing psychological distress that arises when someone’s gender identity does not align with their biological sex. Many point to increased visibility on social media platforms, greater cultural acceptance, and shifting diagnostic criteria as drivers of this trend. More public conversations have lowered the stigma that once surrounded topics of gender identity, thereby encouraging more families to seek out professional help... 

Source:Marc Defant with an article for Skeptic Magazine.

From Skeptic Magazine

So what Marc Defant is talking about here is the difference between what people define themselves as when it comes to their gender and what people actually are when it comes to their DNA and their physical equipment... the sexual components that they were born with that separates males from females. 

Most people, I'm sure most Americans, (at least) define their gender based on what it is. They define their gender as male, because they were born male, or female because they were born female. Or this is how straight people tend to define their gender. But for the 5-10% of us who aren't straight, it's not as easy. 

I wouldn't say this person was a friend, because we were somewhat friendly growing up in the few years that we went to school together and it turns out he was sort of friendly with a guy I hanged out with growing up as well and they grew up in the same neighborhood. 

And then the first guy that I mentioned here (let's call him Joe) and I got reconnected after going a few years without seeing each other, on Facebook, when I first joined FB back in 2009. To make a long story shorter (and I'm not going to mention his name, because he doesn't even know that I'm writing this) he came out to me as gay shortly after we reconnected on Facebook back in 09. And we exchange phone numbers, email addresses and started talking about a lot of different things, discovered that we had a lot in common, other than our sexualities. 

Joe for whatever reasons, seemed very comfortable talking about his own sexuality and what it was like being gay, with me. Maybe he knew I'm not a homophobe, and he was familiar with my liberal politics and how much I support individual's freedom of choice. But I always got the idea from Joe that he didn't equate one's sexual preference with one's sexuality. That they were 2 different things, that there was nothing related between both a gay man and a feminine man. That just because because you are gay doesn't mean you are also feminine as a man. And that's true in the sense... I mean Joe is what you could call a "bear" or a "masc" as a gay man. I mean he's 6'0, 300 pounds, looks like he could've been an NFL nose tackle, a very butch, looking and sounding, but gay man. 

But and I'm sure pop culture and social media has something to do with this, but when most people think of gay men, they don't think of Hollywood action stars, or tough cops, or private detectives, military drill sergeants, pro football players, etc. They think of guys who work at hair salons, who are fashion designers... they think of the queens (if I can use that word) that they see on those Bravo "reality TV" shows. 

And because of this, as far as how at least some gay men are so sensitive about how their sexuality is portrayed, or parodying, especially if they're either still in the closet, or they are like Joe and are a "bear" and hate the idea that they themselves, or gay men like them, are automatically seen as queens, (again, if I can use that word) just because they're attracted to men, instead of women, you have this new, left-wing political correctness movement, that apparently ignores science, or never took in school, failed every year of it, (to put it bluntly) who say there aren't really any genders anymore. Or there's more than 2 genders. 

So all those people who've transitioned from male to female and vice-versa... that didn't actually happen, if you bothered to take the no gender movement seriously on this. And while you are doing that, you might as well take every "UFO spotter" seriously as well. 

As I mentioned before, I'm a Liberal because I believe in freedom of choice... just as long as it comes to personal responsibility as well. Not the only reason why I'm a Liberal, but my belief in free choice and free speech, are at the top of my list. If men who don't see themselves as men, they have the right to do that and could go transition to a female, or live as a queen. (Again, if I can use that word) 

But let's not try to convince intelligent, sane, sober, people (who are more unique in America as everyday passes) that men aren't men and women aren't women, or there's some new gender going on, or genders don't even exist. Unless you are looking to become the newest members of the UFO Spotters Society. 

You can follow me on Threads. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Harry Litman: MAGA FINALLY CAVES on EPSTEIN FILES?

"Harry breaks down a breaking development in the Epstein File saga. The Justice Department has agreed to share with the House Oversight Committee documents from the Epstein investigation. " 

Source:Talking Feds With Harry Litman with a look at Jeff, Don, and Pam. Perhaps you can tell for yourself who is who.

From Talking Feds With Harry Litman

From CNN: 

"The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform intends to make public some files it subpoenaed related to the Jeffrey Epstein case, though it will first redact them to shield victims’ IDs and other sensitive matters, a committee spokesperson said Tuesday.

The panel is expected to start receiving materials from the Justice Department on Friday, though it appears the public release will come some time after that. The spokesperson said the committee would work with the Justice Department on the process.

“The Committee intends to make the records public after thorough review to ensure all victims’ identification and child sexual abuse material are redacted. The Committee will also consult with the DOJ to ensure any documents released do not negatively impact ongoing criminal cases and investigations,” the spokesperson said.

Many Republicans have called for more transparency surrounding the case and the release of records related to the matter – and the issue has roiled the House... 

From CNN

The New Democrat has been thinking about this story for about a month now (give or take) which is why we haven't weighed in on this at all, except from what you see on our members social media pages, including the official page for The New Democrat on Threads and Twitter. But if you want to know what I think about this, I'll tell you anyway and I have a slightly different perspective from what you see from other commentators who also want to see the Epstein files as well. 

When you think of Donald Trump's base, at least if you took a stereotypical view of his base, you would think his voters are nothing but rural, country bumpkins, who are Anglo-Saxon-Protestants, who only live in the smallest towns in America. And that's a part of his base, no question.

But there's another part of DJT's base, including in New York City... Manhattan, even, out in Los Angeles as well, who also like him, or at least his lifestyle and how he presents himself to the public. And those folks are about as white-collar, well-educated, upper class, metropolitan, professional celebrity types, who are more interested in someone's cultural "brand" and how they appear in pop culture, then anything to do with their morality. These are people where bad boys and bad girls are considered cool. And honest, hardworking people are considered to be so "old school" and so "yesterday" with this professional celebrity community. 

Thanks to Donald Trump and his political reality TV and professional celebrity movement that he personally launched 10 years ago, along with social media, we are way past the days when a sex scandal, and adulterous affair... having kids with your mistress, when you are married, even a serious criminal scandal, can bring down 1 politician. Especially if that politician has a loyal following. 

Professional celebrities today are more popular. when they have a bad boy or bad girl image and have been involved in criminal activities, even have done time in prison, then they would be if their records are completely clean. I think we are going to see that with Sean Combs and others as well and before Mr. Combs. The current President of the United States, is literally a convicted felon, who if he wasn't reelected President, would probably be getting ready for 2 different criminal trials and looking at serious prison time. Who only ran for President in 2024, to tay out of prison and get back at his political opponents.

The speculation (and I'm sure it's true) is that the reason why President Trump doesn't want his Attorney General Pam Bondi, to release the Epstein files, because he knows he's all over them and it would be very embarrassing for him. Even though there's probably nothing in them that could probably incriminate him of anything relating to Jeffrey Epstein. 

But my point is, for reasons that I've already laid out, is Donald Trump literally has nothing to lose here in releasing them. He's already the most unpopular 2nd term President, at least in the television and internet age. People who dislike and hate him now, won't dislike and hate him more after those files are released to the public. 

When the far-right of the Republican Party was talking about "family values", morality and character, the need for these things in our government, that was just something they used to attack Democrats. That's not what they care about. Someone could literally be a convicted felon, a serial liar and adulterer... if that person is on their side and represents their political values. And Mr. Trump's professional celebrity base, would probably just view him as a bigger "rockstar" and "badass", after the Epstein files are released. 

The main lesson from Watergate that both Republicans and Democrats have failed to learn the last 50 plus years, that once a bad story is about to break, or has broken, is that the worst thing that you can do is to try to cover it up. What you do, is what a good lawyer would do in court: get the bad information and evidence about your side out, before the opposition and the media does it for you. Get ahead of the story and put your own spin on it, before you lose the narrative of it. 

As long as The White House and Trump DOJ try to cover up this story, the longer it will be in the news, along with the slowing economy, rising prices, everything else that has gone wrong since Donald Trump became President again. And that's not where you want to be going into an election year. So of course they should release the redacted portions of the Epstein files to Congress and the public as soon as possible. 

You can follow me on Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Bloomberg News: President Trump & Ukraine's President Zelenskiy Meet in Oval Office

"US President Donald Trump said he hoped to secure an agreement for a trilateral meeting with Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskiy as he welcomed the Ukrainian leader to the White House for high-stakes talks on bringing an end to Russia’s war on Ukraine.

“If everything works out well today we’ll have a trilat and I think there will be a reasonable chance of ending the war when we do that,” Trump told reporters. “We’re going to work with everybody, and we’re going to make sure that if there’s peace the peace is going to stay long term.”

Trump has accelerated his push to stop a conflict that has persisted despite months of US diplomatic efforts and his campaign-trail vow to end it on his first day in office. The tone between the two leaders was notably improved from Zelenskiy’s last visit to the Oval Office in February.

Trump says a ceasefire was not necessary for other countries to agree to recent peace deals." 

Source:Bloomberg News with a look at President Volodmyr Zelensky (Ukraine) and President Donald J. Trump (America)

From Bloomberg News

It's not often that I and or anyone else from this blog ever quotes Hillary Clinton about anything, because she comes off as so staged and lacking in any spontaneity and original thinking whatsoever. But she had the perfect line last week when Russian President Vladimir Putin was in the news because he was about to meet President Trump in Alaska. She said: 

"I would nominate President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, if he can bring an end to the war in Ukraine, without Ukraine having to give up any of its territory. That might be a slight paraphrase, but it's very close. Even closer than Sarah Palin's backyard from Russia. (Ha, ha) 

I mean if Donald Trump want to be the "strongman", the great world leader that he's always claiming to be, that's how he could earn his political and legacy bones. (So to speak) Get Russia out of Ukraine, without Ukraine giving up any of its territory. That's Ukraine's position and that's President Zelsnsky's position right now as well. 

As far as President Trump's claim that Washington is safe enough for people to go out to restaurants again, since he sent Federal law enforcement to the city las week. He said during this press conference: 

"President Trump said Monday that restaurants in Washington, D.C., are more crowded than they’ve been in a long time, despite data suggesting restaurant attendance amid his police takeover has taken a dive.

Trump, at an Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, said the result of his federal takeover is that D.C. is now safe, a week after he brought in the National Guard and federalized the police.

“The press says, ‘He’s a dictator, he’s trying to take over.’ No, all I want is security for our people. But people who haven’t gone out to dinner in Washington, D.C., in two years are going out to dinner, and the restaurants the last two days were busier than they’ve been in a long time,” the president said during an Oval Office meeting.

“Friends are calling me up, Democrats are calling me up. And they’re saying, ‘Sir, we want to thank you. My wife and I went out to dinner last night for the first time in four years, and Washington, D.C., is safe and you did that in four days,’” the president said.

He also shared that another friend told him his son was going to dinner and praised the federal law enforcement in the nation’s capital.

“I said, ‘Would you have allowed that to happen a year ago?’” Trump said. “He said, ‘No way. … What you’ve done in incredible.”

Data from OpenTable found that seated diners in Washington last week started to drop dramatically compared to last year, after Trump first announced he was taking federal control of D.C.’s police department and deploying the National Guard in the city, in what the administration has described as an effort to fight crime. 

Beginning Monday, Aug. 11, seated diners at Washington restaurants, according to online reservation numbers, started to drop dramatically in comparison to the prior year, dipping 16 percent. On Wednesday, the number of seated diners at restaurants with reservations fell 31 percent, and Saturday’s drop was 20 percent.

During the Oval Office meeting, conservative commentator Brian Glenn offered more anecdotal support for Trump’s argument. He said he recently went out with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) in D.C., joking, “if you can walk around D.C. with MTG and not be attacked, the city is safe.”

From The Hill

I never expect Donald Trump to even try to tell the truth, or even be honest, especially when he's off the cuff, like at a press briefing. But you still have to call out his garbage and nonsense (to be real kind) every time he throws this trash out there, so people don't take him seriously and think he's telling the truth. 

There aren't as many people going out in Washington right now, who don't already live there, 1 week later after the President's law enforcement takeover of the city. The fact that they restored the city's chief of police last week, is an indicator that what the Feds are doing here, isn't going very well, or making much of, if any difference... other than preventing economic activity, like eating out, because of the Federal occupation of Washington. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Yaron Brook: Agapia Stephanopoulos, Tucker Carlson & Candace Owens

"Tucker Carlson and Agapia have been spreading misleading narratives about Israel, twisting events to fit a biased, anti-Israel agenda. By cherry-picking facts, omitting key context, and framing Israel as the perpetual aggressor, they distort the truth and fuel a one-sided narrative that ignores the nation’s legitimate security concerns and the complexity of the conflict." 

Source:Yaron Brook with a look at 3 "nutcases".

From Yaron Brook

Before I get into how Yaron Brook feels about Tucker Carlson, I want to give you an idea about what Tucker Carlson might actually be as a media personality. He was interviewed by C-SPAN anchor Brian Lamb back in the fall of 2018 and Mr. Lamb essentially asked Mr. Carlson about how Carlson would describe his own politics and here is that interview here: 

"Tucker Carlson talked about his book, Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution." 

From C-SPAN

They have part of Carlson's past career in this interview. His early media career goes back to the mid 1990s. Back then, he was a columnist for the neoconservative Weekly Standard. He was there for the next 10-15 years, before Barack Obama becomes President of the United States and when the Tea Party wave hits in 2009-10, he joins FOX News as 1 of their commentators and anchors.  

My point here is Tucker Carlson, goes from an establishment, neoconservative Republican, in philosophy, to more of a conservative-libertarian, who is constantly bashing neoconservatism and Middle Eastern wars of the 2000s and the so-called War On Terror... to by the time the Tea Party is essentially over (thanks to Donald Trump) to being 1 of Donald Trump's most loyal supporters, who would probably literally kiss Donald Trump's ass in public, (if it always kept Trump on his side) just to show how loyal Tucker is to Donald.

If Yaron Brook wants to call Tucker Carlson a "Conservative, "Christian Nationalist", "Christian Conservative", he obviously has that right. But and I never met Tucker Carlson personally, (I see too much of him in the media) but I'm thinking that if you privately asked him what his politics are, he wouldn't be able to answer that for you. As with Brian Lamb, he might give you a short history lesson about where he's been on certain key issues... but I look at Carlson the way I now look at Secretary of State Marco Rubio: he is whoever he feels he needs to be, to get through the current political and cultural movement in the country. To put it simply: Tucker and Marco are political chameleons, not men of principle.

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Gary Kasparov: If It’s Far-Right vs. Far-Left, The Far-Right Wins

"If people feel they’re being forced to choose between two extremes, the majority will always tack right.

Earlier in the week, I threw this quick observation up on Substack Notes:

Lost elections are rigged, won elections are fair. Good job numbers are real, bad ones are fake. Sex trafficking is bad, unless the traffickers will blame your enemies. Crime is bad, unless the criminals are pro-Trump. This isn’t 4D chess, or even tic-tac-toe, just Autocracy 101.

There were a lot of replies. But one comment from a reader named Edward stuck out to me:

I agree and we were getting the same bullshit from Dems. Yes I am doing whataboutism! DEI is autocracy. MAGA and the Woke are bad.

This is indeed whataboutism, so some credit for your candor.

I won’t argue with the notion that far-right and far-left—far-anything—is bad. However, there are a few fundamental points that a simplistic comment like this misses.

The first is that people are often willing to overlook the most extreme expressions of their own side.

The mainstream left downplays the problems of the radical left. Look how quickly many Democrats rallied around Zohran Mamdani without scrutinizing his support for “seizing the means of production” and “defund the police” or holding him accountable for his dodging on “globalize the intifada.” This wasn’t just a mechanical endorsement because he’s the party’s nominee. In many cases, we’ve seen a bear-hug embrace from prominent Democrats.

On the mainstream right, you have people who privately recognize that the far-right is dangerous, but enable or support it anyway. Some, like our friend Edward, will even publicly concede the point: MAGA is bad, but “MAGA and Woke are [both] bad,” therefore, MAGA is acceptable.

Where is the danger?

The false equivalence between far-right and far-left is practical, not philosophical—again, in theory, both extremes are bad.

Today, the most immediate danger in America and much of the democratic world comes from the far-right. That’s not because the idea of fascism is worse than the idea of communism (reds have killed more people, anyway), but because the far-right holds the levers of power in Washington and is rising across Europe and even in Japan.

More to the point, if people feel they are being forced to choose between one extreme or another, they will swing right. The Nazis never had a majority in the Reichstag, but they were always well ahead of Ernst Thalmann’s communists. Nearly a century later, the Nazis’ successors in the AfD still outpace the Left Party. In France’s 2017 presidential election, leftist Jean Luc-Melenchon finished fourth in the first round of voting. In 2022, he finished in third. He never qualified for the second round. Far-right candidate Marine Le Pen did, both times.

Why the far-right beats the far-left

The far-right positions itself as trying to preserve or restore something, whether some racial-demographic balance or the nation’s bygone glory days. The far-left, by contrast, is seen as trying to disrupt, overthrow—a total departure from tradition.

Understood through this lens, we can see why people, against their better judgement, treat MAGA as a safe bet. The writing has been on the wall for years. In 2019, nearly half of all Americans said that the Democratic Party was moving too far to the left, while only 37% felt the Republicans had moved too far to the right (and Trump was two years into his first term at this point!).

I don’t point any of this out because I like the way things are going, but because it is simply a fact: far-left excess enables far-right overreach.

Democrats gain nothing of strategic value by indulging this wing of the party. Bernie Sanders was never able to secure a presidential nomination among Democrats; to insist he could have won a general election is to deny reality. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the lone representative of the DSA-aligned left among top contenders for the 2028 Democratic primary, and she is polling in the middle of the pack below several more moderate alternatives. If Democrats really want to put up a serious fight against Trump’s demagoguery, then they should stop indulging radicals and remember that the far-left is more loud than it is popular.

P.S. Whether you agree or disagree, let’s continue the discussion—in the comments, and on a Zoom call. Yes, Zoom! I’ve recently announced new Zoom calls for paid subscribers so that we can have a real conversation. Check it out and please consider joining...

Source:Garry Kasparov has a few moves of his own.

From Gary Kasparov

I'm going to get to what Garry Kasparov is talking about here. But last week I argued what I at least would call mainstream socialism. And here is some of what I said about that: 

"I mean if you want to call today's Socialists "Modern Socialists", thats fine. But what the Robert Reich's of the world and many others on the left-wing in America talk about, when they're talking about their own political philosophy, it's what the rest of the world calls social democracy, or even just a democratic form of socialism. Mr. Reich made that clear his blog post about socialism, when he said: 

"Whether it’s called socialism, democratic socialism, or enlightened capitalism, societies need to pool resources for the common good...

From The New Democrat

My colleague Erik Schneider wrote his own piece about what Garry Kasparov is talking about here. And here is some of what he said about that on Tuesday: 

"My first response here is: if you don't like the Pat Buchanan's, the David Duke's, the Rick Santorum's, the George Wallace's, (from way back) and today, the Donald J. Trump's of the world, taking over our government and politics in America and giving them so much power over everyone else... you can't ignore and leave behind 10s of millions of Americans, simply because you don't like their culture, or what part of the country their from, where they went to school, etc...

From The New Democrat

What Erik was talking about and arguing is that when Democrats ignore people who for a longtime were loyal Democrats, who voted for Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson... overwhelmingly, these voters look to other alternatives. Especially right-wing demagogues who simply want their votes and money, but wouldn't do a damn thing for them, ever. They wouldn't even spit on 1 of these voters when they're literally burning on fire, to help put the fire out. But they'll be more than happy to take their votes and their money from them. 

When the "Republicans" go far-right, it's because Democrats and even mainstream Republicans ignore blue-collar, working-class, populist voters. But when Democrats go far-left (and Mr. Kasparov got into this as well) it's only in response to counteract the far-rightism of people who call themselves Republicans. And what happens when American voters only have a choice between 2 extremes: the far-right and far-left: 

Since 1972, the Democratic Party has only nominated 1 presidential candidate for President, who could be classified as a left-wing politician, Senator George McGovern. Not just MAGA, but some even mainstream Republicans like to view Barack Obama as a Socialist. But it's hard to even write "Barack Obama is a Socialist", without at least smirking. Socialists certainly don't see Mr. Obama as 1 of them. 

But since 1972, Republicans have nominated 3 far-right candidates for President: Donald Trump in 2016, 2020, 2024. 

My point here is, that the Democratic Party has a whole, doesn't even like Socialists and doesn't want Socialists representing, certainly not for President. And outside of the U.S. House of Representatives, it's hard to find any Socialist who holds any major public office right now. Without Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, there are no even Socialist Democrats who currently hold state office in America right now. And New York City electing Zohran Mamdani as its next Mayor this year, won't change that. 

I think the real point here for Democrats is, if you think you need Socialists to vote for you and you speak to your concerns and try to work out some differences that you have with them and even negotiate with them, (like a big tent Democrat would) that's fine. 

But when you try to use socialism as your own philosophy and try to make it the face of the Democratic Party, (and I think this Gary Kasparov's main point here) it's a big political loser for you. Because Mr. Kasparov said so himself (rightly or wrongly) American voters tend to see even far-rightists, as people who stand up for tradition and protecting American tradition. Whereas they see far-leftists as people who are trying to blow up the system and give Americans something that they're completely unfamiliar with. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.