60% Of House Democrats Vote For A Defense Budget Even Bigger Than Trump’s

Are we shocked? Really? Because both parties represent the military-industrial-complex:

For the 2017 fiscal year that ends on September 30, the Obama budget called for $582.7 billion, which included a base budget of $523.9 billion and the “overseas contingency operations (OCO) budget” of $58.8 billion. The Trump administration wanted to add about $54 billion. As the Defense Department’s own budget numbers showed, it requested $574.5 billion in base budget and $64.6 billion in OCO for a total of $639.1 billion.

Ah, the pikers. Today, the House passed a $696.5 billion defense bill that makes Trump’s look positively reasonable in comparison.

There have been indications the House would insist on more spending than the White House did. The final vote by party is — or maybe it’s should be — surprising. A huge number of Democrats voted for the measure.

There are currently 240 Republicans and 194 Democrats in the body, with 1 vacancy. Out of the Republicans, 227 voted in favor and 8 voted against this bill, making 230, with 10 apparently missing in action. Of the 194 Democrats, 117 voted for the bill and 73 voted against, with 4 not voting. In other words, of the party that supposedly opposes rampant military spending and the Trump administration, 60% voted for this bill.

‘A Better Deal’ is more of the same from Democrats (Opinion, CNN)

Hillary scowl

Do we want more of the same? Or do we create our own party? The choice is clear. Because there is not much choice between Dems and Republicans. They are both screwing us over:

Democrats would like voters to believe the party’s slogan for its new economic agenda rolled out Monday, “A Better Deal,” describes a program aimed at fighting for regular people — even though it mostly rings like a sales pitch for a discounted item at a shopping mall. Worse, the specifics of the strategy are a path to more electoral failure, because “A Better Deal” embraces falsehoods about economic power while leaving a bankrupt system unchallenged.

KING: Will Hillary join crowd of Democrats who bail on promises?

The Democratic Party cannot be trusted. They make promises before every election then immediately break them after.  Hopefully we’ve finally learned our lesson and we will no longer support a two-party system that keeps power by lying to us:

I’m bothered because she sucked the wind out of the Democratic Party’s sails, dominated the superdelegates and left state parties with only a tiny fraction of the funds they raised together to spend on her campaign. Then, when she lost, and we were left the impending Trump presidency, she moved on.

I get it. Losing a presidential election must be absolutely devastating. Losing one to Trump — even more so. However, my beef is not so much with Clinton, but with the fact that we’ve seen this before.

Save

KING: Will Hillary join crowd of Democrats who bail on promises? was originally published on The 99 Percenters

Hillary’s ties to Monsanto mean more GMOs, less transparency in labeling

Source: Natural News, by J. D. Heyes This year’s choice of presidential candidates being offered by the two major political parties could not be more unorthodox, and clearly there are things about both of them not to like. GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump is lewd, has no filter whatsoever and prone to saying (and […]

via Hillary’s ties to Monsanto mean more GMOs, less transparency in labeling — sentinelblog

Save

Save

The boring truth about the 2016 election is that it didn’t change anyone’s mind

Despite the reported “tawdriness” of last night’s presidential debate, the presence of a sex tape-obsessed TV star and a war within the Republican party, don’t believe what you hear: The 2016 presidential race is actually the least volatile in the past sixteen years, and Republican candidate Donald Trump has never come close to taking a…

via The boring truth about the 2016 election is that it didn’t change anyone’s mind — Quartz

Save

Clinton, Trump to square off on national security issues

How is that the two party monopoly gets to decide who can debate? How is that democratic? And how is it that the media goes along with this farce? We must demand that more than two candidates be allowed to debate? If there can be 14 people debating during the Republican primaries, then there can be more than 2 for the general election. Fair is fair. Especially given that we have two of the worst candidates running for president in the history of our country. That is a direct result of not having choice. Let’s not forget, no one knew who Bernie Sanders was until he began to debate Hillary in the Democratic primaries:

NBC News Commander-in-Chief Forum with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump starts at 8:00PM. You can watch on 22News or right here on WWLP.com. NEW YORK (AP) — Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will take the same stage for the first time Wednesday night, aiming to position themselves as best prepared to lead in turbulent times…

via Clinton, Trump to square off on national security issues — WWLP.com

Save

With school just weeks away, Chicago teachers join together for strike training

CHICAGO — Today about 50 Chicago teachers joined with workers representing other public and private-sector unions for strike training. The national group Labor Notes organized what was called the “Chicago Troublemaking School” held today in a rented space at UIC. WGN’s cameras were not allowed inside the workshops, which covered topics like secrets to successful…

via With school just weeks away, Chicago teachers join together for strike training — WGN-TV