N.Y Times article this morning
"Trump is never going to admit his win was anything but a record-shattering triumph. But his preening, and his whining about being persecuted by the intelligence services, really twists the knife.
Since the election, the media and many Democratic politicians have wrung their hands over their failure to pay attention to the legitimate anger in the Trump-tilting parts of the country. And good for them.
But it’s time to remember that there are about 66 million Clinton voters who have a right to be angry, too."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/opinion/trump-sex-and-lots-of-whining.html?_r=0
= new reply since forum marked as read
Just sayin.' Feel free to use. 
And a 15 usd per hour living wage
I agree. The degradation of unions starting with Raygun is shameful and can be pointed to for the beginning of the end for the middle class
I don't know why progressives are asleep at the wheel on these issues at times? Or more likely it's simply that the forces of greed, regression, and concentration of wealth and power just take such gargantuan continuing effort to stave off... it's a full time job in itself...most people don't have the time or energy. They've successfully turned us from citizens into consumers...of cheap toxic Chinese junk.
I became woke on worker's unions reading Zinn's A People's History. Should be required reading.
Thanks for your post.
Well, it looks as though we'll be waiting til Doomsday, since he's now declared he will NEVER release his tax returns.
This is such a horribly sucky precedent (fitting - for a horribly sucky so-called "pResident"
- because future Mitt Romneys and the rest of 'ems who'd rather not have to show everything can point to him and say "SEE? HE didn't do it and he went all the way to the top. So why should I?" Or as my friend the GOP loyalist insisted to me - "there is no LAW that a candidate has to produce his/her tax returns..." Well, I don't give a fuck about whether there's a law or not. It's a long-running, long-understood, and long-complied-with convention that candidates do so, for transparency's sake, so it's all out in the open what kinds of conflicts or funky stuff or corner-cutting may be in there that will - repeat - WILL (not would. WILL) compromise a potential Commander-in-Chief.
