Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for June 24, 2018

But what if the voters want cruelty?

It would be nice if we had some intelligence, common sense and civility in our politics.

Cruelty and cowardice flow from Trump like a leach field from a fouled septic system.

Could have cut out all that verbiage and just said that they’re against taking away entitlements from people who don’t pay taxes.

How about being kind, instead? That would set you above many, many politicians, even the ones who are technically “not cruel.”

Beware the pacifistic riot.

She’s no Lacy but she’s still young.

Republicans don’t think they are being cruel, they just think they are following the rules laid down in their Bible…Mein Kampf!

Akcherly, isn’t “don’t be cruel” a riff on “don’t be evil”, the abandoned Google slogan?

We have 862 days to find a person who would make a better President than Trump. For starters, Bernie Madoff isn’t available and Anthony Scaramucci has had his chance. Reply starting with name followed by reason.

Republicans consider cruelty to be an asset…a POSITIVE personality trait…

How about YES WE CARE as a slogan?

Just think you’ll have 6more yrs of trump

As liberals, we have to find our way through the battlefield without getting bogged down in the goofiness of the faux outrage of the right wing. As Jon Stewart said in reference to the recent Sam Bee controversy regarding a criticism of Ivanka in which she used the C- word, “Trump doesn’t give a sh*t about the word c*nt.” He went on to say, “Create your own moral code to live by, but don’t be fooled into trying to make concessions that you think will mollify them. Please understand that a lot of what the right does, and it’s maybe their greatest genius, is they’ve created a code of conduct that they police, that themselves don’t have to, in any way, abide.”

GT: Maybe they could change “We’re not cruel” to “Yes we care”—it is not as funny for the strip, but in the real world we have to think about a positive message, somehow, in the world of trump.

If not being cruel were a sellable campaign theme, an entirely different set of people would be in Congress.

Latest Randy Rainbow video

http://youtu.be/ygYA7Au9th0

Sort of like Google saying “Don’t be evil.”

Pretty sure there’s a Marty Stuart song we could pair up with that chant and make it more catchy.

Another JS saying the same old stuff. Say, where’d the last one go? I guess they roll out the new one after the last one flames off.

Interesting that today’s strip from 2018 follows the previous week’s worth of reruns from 1990, in which a much younger Joanie Caucus is an aide to the highly principled Rep. Lacey Davenport.

As weak as that may sound, it actually takes a lot of strength to resist being cruel.

“We’re not worthy!” – from Wayne’s World

Hair Fuhrer is doing exactly what Vlad and the Giant Banks want him to do:

Keeping us Distracted while they steal everything that isn’t Nailed Down.

And prying out the nails holding down the Good Stuff.

https://www.rockthevote.org

“When did the idle rich class become “job creators” worthy of praise and admiration?”

Notice “idle” and “class” are used not to differentiate some rich from others but as appositives, to call all rich people idle and treat them as a different class, people — if we even admit their humanity — not us, not worthy of our decent consideration, not even worthy of being allowed outside their deserved cages.

So, without the subliminal messages: How are rich people job creators?

They create jobs whenever they finance industries which hire workers. Those factories did not just build themselves. They also created jobs when they financed the building of those factories.

Sometimes they screw up and their businesses will fail without more funds from other rich people. In those cases they are just job-savers, but that should be worth something.

Even if some actually ARE idle, they also create jobs through their purchases: food, drink, drugs, cars, planes, boats, houses — whatever they spend their money on.

Stepping back one pace, we also have all the expenditures their immediate employees make which also employ those who provide them. Then THOSE make other expenditures which give jobs to others (a reduced proportion, of course, but some).

Simply taking some or all their money in taxes would also provide jobs and provide other services, but they would somewhat reduce the incentive to generate even more wealth and jobs.