Category: Rants

It will disappoint some of you to hear that I find all of the arguments involving the 25th Amendment and Trump to be silly. My take on the purpose of that Amendment is to deal with a president who is comatose, alive in a vegetative state (e.g. Ariel Sharon in Israel), or bedridden in such overwhelmingly bad health that he doesn't have the time or ability to do the job (e.g. someone dying of end-stage cancer). Could a president's mental competence short of that be a reason to trigger the 25th? Sure, in theory. But add partisan politics to the mix and I think there is essentially zero chance that presidential incapacity could ever be agreed upon short of the individual being inert.

Short of the president wandering around screaming at imaginary dragons like we all too often see among the homeless, "The president is nuts" is never going to work. It's just too subjective, and people who want to believe the president is fine will always be able to construct an argument for that.

So with the caveat that I absolutely do not believe that the Trump Problem will be solved by the 25th Amendment I've paid very little attention to any of the (extensive) takes out there about him suffering dementia or something similar. Eric Levitz offered another such take today. Unlike anything previous, there is one thing about this piece I have to admit is stunning. Watch this 1980 interview with Trump. It's short. Try to forget how much you hate Trump for a second and just watch this with, if possible, neutral feelings:

That is, without overstatement, a completely different person. Nobody's going to mistake him for Socrates, and he still (of course) comes off as an arrogant dick. But ignore what he's talking about and just listen to his voice and demeanor. He has a normally-sized vocabulary. He speaks in a normal tone at a normal volume. His responses are relevant to the questions. He cites facts – several times mentioning a specific building or price. He makes a joke, and it's appropriate in tone and context ("If you have any at that price, I'd love to buy them.")

There are plenty of ways to explain this away if you're so inclined. He's much younger, he's motivated to make a good impression, and he's speaking about (perhaps) the only topic he really knows anything about. But Levitz's point is made regardless – the ranting, repetitive, incoherent mess we hear interviewed today is a departure from this person's track record in the public eye. While still a smarmy ass, 1980s Donald Trump spoke in full sentences like a normal human and didn't struggle to string two thoughts together. He talked as if he knew more than six adjectives. He sounded – god help me – like an educated rich kid.

Diagnosing Trump from a distance is futile. A political majority large enough to declare Trump incompetent could just as soon impeach him, which is cleaner and less fraught with questions. With respect to specifics like what appeared to be slurring during a recent appearance or his weird glass-grasping which ignited speculation about his motor skills, I don't find armchair diagnoses terribly persuasive. There is no doubt, though, that something beyond ordinary aging is at play here.

Comparing audio or video of a person talking over time usually surprises in how much they sound the same, not how they have grown into a totally different person.

Whether the explanation is internal or external – A viable hypothesis, for example, is that Trump has conditioned the way he speaks in public to positive reinforcement from sycophants and strategic attempts to give the media what it wants – something has changed. And it has changed quite a bit.
buy prednisone online rxbuywithoutprescriptiononline.com no prescription

The 25th Amendment isn't going to solve this problem, but it is hard to deny that for whatever reason, Donald Trump no longer acts like he used to.

In a span of eight hours on Tuesday, January 2, the President used Twitter to:

-Spread InfoWars-level conspiracy shit about Deep State, undermining the Justice Dept. and legal process
-Taunted North Korea in game of nuclear chicken
-Took credit for the safety of commercial air traffic
-Unveiled upcoming awards for the worst media outlets and reporting, continuing to target and delegitimize the critical media
-Threatened Palestine with economic sanctions

This is, to strip our current situation down to its essence, exhausting and beyond insane. There is no reason we need to live like this.
https://www.health-advantage.net/wp-content/themes/mts_schema/lang/pot/augmentin.html

This does not have to continue. It continues because of the false narrative that Congress can't remove the president unless red-handed evidence of him committing a crime is uncovered. That simply is not true. Impeachment was added to the Constitution explicitly separated from the normal legal process. While a range of opinions exist on exactly what does and does not constitute impeachable offenses, any practical understanding of the process points to the conclusion that an impeachable offense is whatever a given Congress says it is at a given point in political time.

To play one of conservatives' favorite games, let us imagine what the Founders would say if we asked them, "Can a president be impeached for no specific crime but for being really, atrociously bad at being president?" Nothing in the historical record suggests that the people who put the Constitution together would dispute that poor performance and bad behavior are sufficient grounds for impeachment.

I am on the third day of the flu so I will cut directly to the chase: Everyone, Republicans included, can see where this is going. It is inevitable that this guy is going to start a shooting war somewhere, either through his bad temper and poor impulse control or because he is so stupid he will stumble into it by accident.
https://www.health-advantage.net/wp-content/themes/mts_schema/lang/pot/priligy.html

This does not have to happen. And it's going to look mighty strange after it happens to look back at all the really obvious warning signs and rationalize why Congress did not act.

Republicans can get everything they want out of Mike Pence, but they are terrified of the primary challenges they'll face if they are perceived as the people who betrayed Trump.

History offers us some pretty strange explanations for important events unfolding but I think this will top them all. "Everyone recognized that he was insane but we couldn't come up with a reason to impeach him that Fox News viewers would accept" and "I was scared of a Tea Party challenger" will stand out as particularly feeble reasons in a century or two when humanity tries to figure out what in the hell happened during the Great Insanity of the early 21st Century.

In 1997, at the end of my first year of college, someone gave me a copy of Baffler #10, noted Matt Roth's still-outstanding article on the cult of Amway ("Dreams Incorporated") and said, "Read this."

I had previously read as a one-off – what male in the 1990s did not read it with So Cool glee – Steve Albini's "The Problem with Music" from Baffler #3. But the publication didn't register with me at the time. It was just a photocopied article by a guy who made it seem very appealing to be a dick.

I was 14-15 or thereabouts. It wasn't a time where anything stuck.

But with that copy of Baffler #10, which I still have, I became an addict. I've been a subscriber (including their long hiatus period) since then, which it pains me to realize is 20 years. The day they re-emerged from hibernation in the wake of the financial crisis was one of the happiest of that time period for me.

They're back! It's all gonna be ok!

I know a lot of people have strong and usually valid criticisms of the operation, especially in the Thomas Frank years. It is the journal of criticism without proposing solutions. It is, as a friend put it recently, the guy sitting in the corner pointing and laughing and feeling superior. It borders dangerously on Comic Book Guy territory on occasion. Some of you who have followed Gin and Tacos since 2002 or whatever might notice that these are the same criticisms one can (with justification) make about my writing. The influence on my approach to writing has not been subtle.

One thing that always kind of broke my heart, though, was that I could never get them to tell me I was good enough to be anything but a fanboy. I think the first time I submitted something was around 1999-2000. In the past year I've pitched 3 or 4 ideas they didn't take, some of which became very successful hits in other outlets. Part of me was never going to be satisfied until I got in there.

On Thursday, they published my piece on the long tradition of the Pentagon and White House trying to convince Americans that nuclear war really isn't so bad – it's survivable, we swear! – at times that coincide with American presidents who want to engage in belligerent, dick-waving foreign policy.

Fallout shelters, for example, are a thing the White House only talks about when there's a president eager to ratchet up the arms race. The newest incarnation is missile defense – It's cool, we'll just shoot 'em down! – which explains why the piece is entitled, "It's a THAAD, THAAD, THAAD World", although that's a little inside baseball for most readers.

To anyone on the internet I know this is just another piece of Content, another thing flashing past on the social media feed that may or may not provide an interested reader with a few minutes of enjoyment. To me, though, this is a goal that I've had on simmer for two decades and I can't tell you what a great capstone to what turned out, ironically, to be a great year for me individually even though the country and the world are going solidly to shit.

I don't want to preempt my sappy end-of-year post too much, but I'm really thankful to all of you who have supported me whether for a day or a decade.

It really would not be possible for me to achieve some of these writing-related goals without you. I'm a lucky sonofabitch.

Political parties are not nearly as strong as many Americans, even some who are paid to observe the political process, realize. They cannot control the actions of every person who is elected to office under their banner. Hell, even party leadership in Congress can't really control their own caucus these days (certainly not like they used to). So as a preface to the following, realize that there is no centralized authority that can make this happen. It's a mindset that needs to be adopted, not a policy change that can be made.

There is little doubt that Democratic candidates are benefiting from the work of highly enthusiastic activists and supporters in the era of Trump. This is not entirely surprising; logically, if you can't get people fired up with the current status quo then you might as well throw in the towel and disband as a political party.

Unfortunately the Democratic Party has a long track record since 1980 of failing to deliver much of what its activist base wants. We get a lot of reaching across the aisle, bipartisan overtures, Triangulation, and incrementalism, but not much in the way of strong, forceful leadership on policy. And it's one of the major reasons it was so hard for Hillary Clinton, for example, to fire up turnout. Too many potential voters have picked up on the pattern of big promises and very minimal results.

Obama half-delivered (the ACA is both a great political success and a half-assed attempt to cover everyone while still appeasing insurance companies) and it probably clinched his second term. Rightly (to her critics) or wrongly (to her supporters), Hillary Clinton was seen by too many people as the kind of New Democrat centrist who would get elected and not really push hard for anything progressive. Let's not argue whether or not that's true – at this point it doesn't matter. It's about the perception.

Some of it is unfair. The Democratic Party can indeed point to things it has done while in power.
buy temovate online gilbertroaddental.com/wp-content/languages/new/generic/temovate.html no prescription

Some of it is fair, though. What do you expect LGBT people to think about your likelihood of fighting for them when it takes you 20 years in public life to come out and support gay marriage (once it is sufficiently popular)? What are black and hispanic voters going to think when the party speaks forcefully to them during elections and then…kinda tends to ignore things that they want thereafter? Misinformation doesn't help, but the perception is based at least somewhat on past experience. That is the first thing Democrats need to do a better job of: Stop making excuses (Russian bots! Fox News! Bernie Bros! Jill Stein!) even if those things really did hurt them in the past. Look at your own actions and ask sincerely, "How did WE fuck up? What can WE do better?"

This is a long way of saying that the wave of activism that pushed through recent Democratic successes is not likely to last long if the people elected revert to the old Let's Be Centrist ways. That's not someone coming from the outside and screwing the Democrats. That is a self-inflicted wound, pure and simple.

In Virginia, the newly-minted Democratic Governor gave a truly insane interview to the WaPo in which he claims that what voters really want is bipartisanship (at a time when the opposing party is not only totally uninterested in cooperating productively but is becoming a quasi-white nationalist movement pushing salted-Earth economic policies) and that he is worried about costs so he may not get behind Medicaid expansion. Medicaid expansion is, for the record, overwhelmingly popular in the general public and virtually unopposed among liberals.

You can excuse people who worked their asses off to push a very underwhelming Northam campaign over the finish line reading this and thinking, why did I bother? The obvious answer is that he's better than the Republican. This is undoubtedly true. But if Democrats haven't figured out yet that "This guy's an empty vessel, but the Republican is worse!" is not enough to fire up the people it needs to come out and vote for them, then they're never going to figure it out.
buy neurontin online gilbertroaddental.com/wp-content/languages/new/generic/neurontin.html no prescription

I don't mean to belabor the point or be unfair to Northam (who always was a moderate, so this isn't a turn for him) but just imagine how delusional you have to be as a politician to have lived through the last two years and think that the right response is to try harder to play nice with the right.

Doug Jones, for his part, started by stating that the sexual harassment claims against Donald Trump don't merit any more discussion. I get the whole "It's Alabama, he can't go full liberal on them" argument, and I understand it. But Donald Trump is as popular as the flu right now. Taking shots at Trump counts as kicking someone while they're down. Talk about a simple play – say "Yes, we need some answers on that" and you've committed to nothing but at least created the impression that you're serious about it – and Jones fumbled it. What is he trying to do? Signal that he's not interested in doing anything to irritate a deeply unpopular, failing demagogue of a president?

Parties are coalitions. Democrats rely very, very heavily on women, African-American and Hispanic voters, the young, and combinations thereof. And if you can't occasionally deliver for your key constituents – Republicans are flawless at this – then they are going to lose interest in working to get you elected. They won't turn on you and vote Republican necessarily; but they won't work their asses off for you when they expect that after the election you won't even pretend like you're serious about the things they care about.

The modern GOP, for all its awfulness, just understands governing and politics so much better than the Democratic Party that it's kind of embarrassing. Get elected, ram through some things that reward the people who got you elected, and then ask them to do it again next time by promising to deliver more. Try it sometime and you might be surprised how well it works, folks. Instead we get soft centrists telling us that if they act enough like Republicans they may win back some of the White Working Class. Oh boy!

It's too early to hit the panic button on any of the recently elected Democrats, but I know for absolute certain that "bipartisanship" is not what any voter wants. Voters want to win. They want to win elections and win something tangible in terms of policy as a result. Especially given the state of the contemporary GOP, nobody is going to be pleased by playing nice except David Brooks and Chuck Todd.

I don't advocate turning Democratic Primaries into purity tests, nor in intra-party squabbling throughout general elections. Objective one is absolutely: Get these bastards out. But that objective will be more difficult to accomplish the longer the party's office holders demur on taking off the gloves and showing a willingness to fight back. How can you expect the voters to fight hard for candidates who don't show a willingness to do the same?

The most significant failing of American foreign policy during the Cold War was the pervasive unwillingness to establish a limit to the value of anti-communism. There was no conception that the returns of anti-communist policy was, at some point, not worth the cost. That is why, to make a very long story short, the U.S. supported one vile dictatorship after another for four decades – choices that we are paying for in the most visceral terms to this day.

Among the worst regimes we supported (and suffice it to say the contenders for that title are many) was the Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines. It had it all – brutality, corruption, repression, and above all the cockiness to not even try to hide its crimes. If you were alive in 1983 you remember that Marcos had the opposition leader, Benigno Aquino, assassinated the moment he stepped off a plane at the country's major airport. Just walked up to him, shot him in the back of the head in the full view of anyone who cared to look, and walked away.
online pharmacy flagyl best drugstore for you

That's ballsy. Your average dictator arrests him and does it in a dark jail cell.
buy premarin online buy premarin no prescription

Only someone fully confident that nothing he does will ever have consequences would do it this way.

People were pretty horrified all around the world, and even the Pentagon started to get a little queasy about being associated with the regime. But – and I will never forget the first time I read this many years after it happened – Ronald Reagan made an admission in a press conference that was, if nothing else, startlingly and unusually honest. Referring to the two massive U.S. military facilities our country maintained with the blessing of Mr. Marcos – Subic Bay Naval Station and Clark Air Force Base, both cornerstones of the global reach of American military power into Asia – Reagan said, instead of defending Marcos's actions, "I can't think of anything more important than those bases."

And that was the problem. When literally nothing is more important than achieving your goal, you are inevitably going to do some pretty reprehensible things to achieve it. There has to be a line. A limit. Some point at which you say, OK, we are paying in prestige, dignity, and human decency more than the goal of presenting a strong military face to Global Communism is worth. Maybe we could put the bases somewhere else. Maybe we could stop backing this guy and find someone equally amenable but considerably less awful.

During the Cold War, that almost never happened. American policy under leaders of both parties and of different generations was, "No cost is too high if we can convince ourselves that it is fighting communism." And that is why it was, in so many ways, horrible policy. That is why we are embroiled in wars and conflicts that are, in direct and indirect ways, consequences of the repressive regimes we propped up.

I'm going somewhere with this. The history lesson is just a bonus.

It is trendy for people, myself certainly included, to feel hopeless about the future of American politics right now. It is equally trendy for commentators to predict "the beginning of the end" of the current group of people in power. Time will tell where that turning point truly is. But I believe that the decision made two weeks ago in the White House, in the Senate, and in the Republican National Committee to reverse course and endorse Roy Moore was a mistake that in the long run will turn out to be very significant for the right. By failing to make what was a very easy play – disown Moore and claim some sort of moral high ground – they signaled that literally nothing is more important to them than maintaining power. Nothing. There is no "bridge too far." And if you will support a pedophile if you think it will help you pass some legislation, then why should anyone believe that collaborating with a foreign power to influence an election is beyond possibility?

Why, for that matter, should anything be considered beyond possibility?
buy albuterol online buy albuterol no prescription

Moore was insane and a borderline joke candidate even before the 14 year old girls stuff came out. He had a strong challenge in the primary. The national GOP was not happy about his candidacy. Rather than following through with what, in whatever they have that passes for a soul, they knew was the right thing to do, they instead convinced themselves that Triggering Libtards was a more important goal than basic human decency.

I'm not a huge fan of arguments based on moral authority. The argument that gay marriage is wrong because "it's immoral," for example, is sophomoric and unpersuasive.
online pharmacy furosemide best drugstore for you

But if you have no line you're willing to draw based on morality, you will pay the price in the long run for the terrible decisions you make as a result. If you can't say what is beyond the pale for you or your party, it raises the very strong possibility that nothing is.

This should have been a slam dunk for the GOP. Disown the guy, throw him under the bus, and say "Look, one Senate seat that will be on the ballot again in 24 months is not worth embracing this piece of shit." Then boast about how you're willing to draw the line somewhere and bask in the rewards. Instead, they doubled down on a question that was already lingering from their decision to embrace Trump – what, if anything, won't these people do to get what they want?

History is littered with examples of what happens when the answer is "Nothing." Over time, none of them work out especially well.

Senate Republicans are promising to vote within 72 hours on a bill nobody has read but will affect every aspect of the economy from the individual to the national level for the next decade. There is a good chance that nobody has read it because it has not been written, which in turn reflects that it does not exist.

The Washington Post has a writeup of the latest "drama" and how it exposes as wholly imaginary the GOP's confident projections that the tax cuts "pay for themselves" with robust economic growth:

Several deficit-hawk senators, such as Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), are demanding that some kind of “trigger” be added to the bill, which would raise taxes later if the plan’s tax cuts end up adding to the deficit.
online pharmacy ventolin best drugstore for you

The bill would boost the deficit by $1.4 trillion in the short term. Some Republicans have argued that the spectacular growth unleashed by the plan would offset that, but Corker and company (and many economists) are skeptical; hence the demand for a tax-hike trigger. As of now, how this trigger would work, and whose taxes would go up, are unspecified.

It offers an opportunity to put their confident predictions on the line, in other words, which means that they have no intention whatsoever of putting anything like this in the bill because every single one of the people voting to support this shitshow knows that any talk of policy or data to support their predictions is simple window dressing. Everyone knows that nothing close to these predictions will happen, but they don't especially care because they want to pass the bill anyway.

More on that in a second. But first, note the underlying flaw in this part of the same WaPo piece:

But Republicans face two challenges. The first is to sell this primarily as a middle-class tax cut, so voters accept it. They do this by front-loading a bunch of preferences for the middle class along with cuts to individual rates across the board. The second challenge is to do this while simultaneously making the case that the plan would not balloon the deficit, to hold on to deficit-hawk senators and because if it raises the deficit in the long term, procedurally it can’t pass by simple majority with only Republican votes.

It amazes me how many people in the media and political world still fail to understand that this is not chess. The GOP will sell it "primarily as a middle-class tax cut" by repeating over and over, with the assistance of its pliant media mouthpieces, that this is primarily a middle-class tax cut. That's it. There is no trick. Make it so by repeating it. They will say that's what it is and in the minds of people inclined to think anything with the phrase "tax cuts" in it is good, that will be enough. Look, here's some chart from Heritage or some interest group nobody has ever heard of. Need more proof? Have the boys at AEI whip up a white paper. Doesn't matter what's in it; nobody reads that shit anyway.

It is frustrating to watch the Democrats talk themselves in circles about policy because that word does not mean to conservatives what it means to other people.
buy diflucan online buy diflucan no prescription

For Republicans, cutting taxes is not the means to a policy end. It is the policy. That's it. Cut taxes because cutting taxes is inherently good and right. It's not "Cut taxes to stimulate economic growth." The second half of that sentence gets tacked on to appeal to the Beltway media and certain mushy centrist intellectual types. A few Kool-Aid drinkers and dullards aside, not even the Republicans who chant the mantra believe it. They just know it's good optics to say "It will stimulate economic growth." The goal is not economic growth.
online pharmacy furosemide best drugstore for you

The start and the end of the process for the right is cutting taxes.

This is similar to what I talked about a lot last year with public vs charter schools. The right's goal is not to fund charter schools because they believe "Charter schools are better at educating kids." They just want to shut down public schools.
buy lexapro online buy lexapro no prescription

That is the goal, and it's a fatal mistake to go into a debate on that issue with charts and graphs and white papers on Student Outcomes and Assessment thinking that the goal is how best to educate children. They don't give a good goddamn if charter schools are better or worse or the same; they just don't want to pay for public schools and instead would like the resources of the state directed back into their own pockets.

The death of our political process is going to be a bunch of technocrats and DLC-style Liberals wonking themselves into a frenzy while the right steals or destroys everything that isn't nailed down. And they'll smile and say, sure, go do some more research and get some CBO scores or whatever, and while they're distracted the handful of interests that are returning us to the era of Robber Baron capitalism will empty the last of the till into their briefcases and laugh their asses off on the way to their offshore havens.

These are the salad days of political writing on the left. If nothing else, Trumpism has been a boon for criticism.
buy grifulvin online buy grifulvin no prescription

As most of you are well aware, there's more good, relevant material out there than any person with a job and a life can possibly consume.

As this American Experiment progresses, though, the better an article is the sadder I end up feeling by the end. And this is not simply because good writing today observes a sad state of political and social affairs. It stems from the gnawing feeling that none of this really matters and we're doing it mostly for the historical record at this point. In post-factual politics the most any of us can hope for is that 200 years from now, if anyone is still around to appreciate it, someone will recognize that we were right.
buy kamagra gold online https://www.mabvi.org/wp-content/themes/mabvi/images/new/kamagra-gold.html no prescription

Mike Konczal, as some long-time readers know, is one of my best friends in the world and offers some of the best takes on economic policy that you can find at any price. His latest piece up on Vox, "Republicans are Weaponizing the Tax Code," is of typical high quality. I recommend it unconditionally. But when I first read it, by the end I felt a deep sense of futility. We are past rational politics to the extent that I don't even know who might be persuaded by a piece like this. It serves mostly to reinforce to people on the left that we are indeed screwed. Deeply, most likely irrevocably, screwed.

The older I get the more it becomes clear that technocracy is the Achilles Heel of the left and the entirety of modern conservatism is set up to exploit it. Liberals and centrists see The Economy as data – facts and figures, evidence and causality.
buy zovirax online buy zovirax no prescription

On the right, the economy isa feeling. And that's why no amount of data parsing and research makes a lick of difference when they are in control. Strengthening the economy is as simple as screaming "The economy is roaring!" and that is precisely why The President* does it so often. Jobs are "coming back" because they keep saying "The jobs are coming back." That's all there is to it.

I don't believe that everything is hopeless, but I do believe that this is not an argument the left is losing because it lacks sufficient data and supporting evidence. There is a strong emotional component to this and we have to figure out how to appeal to it more effectively.
buy viagra super active online https://www.mabvi.org/wp-content/themes/mabvi/images/new/viagra-super-active.html no prescription

We keep giving the correct answer to the wrong question; even if what farther left candidates propose is not all practical or feasible, there are real benefits to running candidates who have passion and appear to stand for something. Focus less on what is being said – as hard as that is for us to do – and more on how it is being said and what the speaker can make an audience feel. We can sort out the details with time. One thing is for certain: wonkery, despite being important and having a crucial role, is not enough.

To expect anyone with a pen or a keyboard to "change things" is unfair and unrealistic, but I can't shake the feeling lately that all these "Look how bad this thing is" takes are not serving a purpose (Even as, yes, I add to that pile myself). When we realize how little reality, facts, and logic matter to the current implementation of policy, maybe we should all stop cranking out material highlighting the flaws and consider what we might do that is more productive.

If I had the answer, I'd be out there peddling it. If I knew what would help, I would do it. But if there were a chart or graph or white paper that could win this fight, it would be won by now.

Back by popular demand, I'm doing another run of "Everything is Terrible All the Time" shirts. Switching things up, also by request, to do 3/4 sleeve baseball-style tees instead of plain black. As usual there will be men's/unisex and women's shirts. And rounding out the list of demands, I'll also have 3x this time in addition to XL and XXL.

This is a pre-order! You will not be receiving your shirt for 3-4 weeks from the date of this post. However, you will have them before Christmas for those who might want to buy them as gifts for that Gin and Tacos fan in your life, or maybe just someone with depression. I'll get these to you by Dec. 24 if I have to drive it to your house personally.

These are Canvas brand, as with previous shirts. Check out their sizing guides (men's and women's). Note that USPS shipping outside of North America now costs over .

I'm sorry the international shipping is so high, but otherwise I'm paying you to buy these. Understand that I'm not making money from gouging you on shipping.

You can embiggen that preview image. Paypal only (yeah yeah, Peter Thiel owned it 15 years ago, sue me). Be sure to choose the proper button below. First is Domestic ( shipping), second is International ( shipping).

buy Overnight Drugs online buynoprescriptionrxxonline.net no prescription

Don't dawdle – the sooner you place your orders, the sooner I can have these on their way to you.

If you require 3XL, please contact me via Facebook for instructions (the number of options per order button is limited, sorry!)

Domestic

International (including Canada)

This political environment requires us to get pretty creative in the search for silver linings.
online pharmacy flagyl best drugstore for you

If anything positive can be extracted from the Roy Moore situation, it could be the beginning of the end of the discourse fetish that afflicts far too many people on the left.
buy cymbalta online jersey-hemp.com/wp-content/languages/new/online/cymbalta.html no prescription

Look, talking things out and being willing to compromise are clearly the best ways for a political system (and society) to resolve differences. No one disputes that. Unfortunately, some people have let raging optimism or self-interested motives blind them to the fact that the modern conservative movement is made up largely of people who have no interest in any kind of good faith conversation. Over and over we've heard that if we are just nicer to the White Working Class Trumper, he and she will eventually come to the light, and the discord in our political system can always be resolved by Reasonable People coming together and talking it out.

It's a fantasy. It just isn't true. Obama fell for it, insisting that he would give the GOP the benefit of doubt that they would negotiate "in good faith" long past the point at which any reasonable person who isn't a total sucker could believe that.

Some voters are won over easily by the short-term promises and tribal dog whistles of right-wing populism, easily enough that perhaps they would change their mind if presented with different viewpoints. But there are vastly more conservative voters who simply aren't going to be persuaded. Roy Moore has given us pretty firm evidence of that, evidence that future Democratic candidates may do well to keep in mind.

It is safe to say – and I'm willing to go out on quite a limb here – that a person who straight-up admits that they would rather vote for a serial pedophile than a Democrat is not a person worth talking to, nor one whose opinions will be affected by discourse.
buy propecia online jersey-hemp.com/wp-content/languages/new/online/propecia.html no prescription

Don't reach out to them. Don't waste your time talking to them. The only way to deal with them is to out-organize, out-motivate, and out-vote them. That begins with Democratic primaries producing candidates that their base of likely supporters actually gets excited about, not candidates that the party must guilt-trip and brow-beat supporters into supporting.

Stop the Listening Tours. Stop the Cletus Safaris into Trumpland to try to "figure out" a demographic that is rapidly disappearing. Above all, stop insisting that if we all just come together and Have a Beer and talk things out we are going to bridge the divide between the pure nihilism and authoritarian tendencies of the Trump right and the rest of the world. They are not listening. They don't want to be your friend. They most likely hate your guts just for not being one of them. They've demonstrated repeatedly, and to an almost comical extreme with Roy Moore, that they are not interested in evaluating the political world objectively. They will do whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to support their team.

I do not understand what is so compelling about finding a way to save and convert vicious, obstinate white people who vote Republican when 46% of Americans of voting age do not vote and they are disproportionately Asian, black, and Hispanic. There are far more votes to be won, and it will be far easier to win them, among people who do not vote than among these mythical white conservatives who are going to become your friend and start voting Democratic because we're nice to them.
online pharmacy lexapro best drugstore for you