How much longer will Americans allow themselves to be abused by Republicans?

Thom plus logo Ever since the 1920s, when big business took over the GOP leading directly to the Republican great depression, Republicans have fought to give taxpayer dollars to billionaires and giant corporations while they actively try to screw working people and the poor.

Both Bush and Trump lost the national vote and only got in because of the electoral college loophole. The majority of Americans have not elected a Republican for president since 1988, because the majority of Americans know what the Republican party is really all about.

Now the Republican war on average Americans has gone into high gear and they are trying to use the coronavirus crisis to further impoverish average Americans.

As the pandemic and unemployment rate get worse, Republicans are fighting among themselves over whether they should cut the $600 a week unemployment benefit to $400, $100, or zero.

Meanwhile, of course, they want hundreds of billions of dollars in additional subsidies, tax breaks and outright gifts to giant corporations, hedge funds and even to individual billionaires.

Instead of helping unemployed workers and the poor the GOP wants to send federal secret police into our cities to tear gas our mayors and citizens and shoot at journalists and protesters.

America is at a crossroads and will soon decide whether we are going to be a country based on white supremacy, fear, and greed or if we are going to embrace the values of equality, respect and support for people in need.

For 40 years, the GOP has worked to reduce America to Third World status, and today they have nearly accomplished that job. Across America, they're purging voters from the rolls and trying to make it hard or even impossible to safely vote this fall; it's a desperate attempt to hang onto power that will only work if we let it.



Calson's picture
Calson 2 years 27 weeks ago

George W Bush was made the president in 2000 because the US Supreme Court justices moved to halt the vote recount in Florida. In particular Antonine Scalia and Sanda Day O'Connor had publically stated their hatred for Al Gore. Scalia was also in the pockets of the energy industry and so he was also protecting his patrons.

stopgap's picture
stopgap 2 years 27 weeks ago

Let’s face it, the US has always been a schizophrenic, yin yang duality of white supremacy, greed and fear to validate and facilitate our western expansion, contrasted with a sense of morality, justice and equality as a result of the era of enlightenment. Even this represents a revolutionary important governmental evolution that recognized that all people are equal in the eyes of the law. From our modern perspective its hard for the majority of us to believe that there was ever any doubt about this.

Enter Donald Trump…proving that not only is there a substantial portion of the population that is still mired down in Medieval ethics unable to evolve to a higher plane. They are so bitter that they were subjected to the leadership of a black president, in response they rabidly embraced the ascension of the most morally corrupt, perversely deviant, pathological lying, despicably sadistic biped to be their messiah, as long as he validated their own greed and sense of white superiority…the nation be damned!

Republicans can only understand the concept of “the carrot and the stick” as the proper method of controlling behavior. Should, by some miracle, Democrats regain control of the government…Republicans must be shown a lot more “stick” and a lot less “carrot.”

stopgap's picture
stopgap 2 years 27 weeks ago

The most telling thing about Trump supporters is, that the more Obama did to rescue the US from economic collapse, end the mortgage crisis, bring healthcare to tens of millions, save the American auto industry and regulate banking to insure that the average person would not be screwed out of their life savings, the more the Trumpers despised him. The more Trump does to bankrupt the treasury by funneling money though tax breaks to the rich, steal taxpayer money by scheduling government events and using taxpayer money to accommodate foreign representivies at his properties, incredible bungling of the Covid-19 crisis resulting in over one hundred forty thousand American deaths and on and on and on, the more they adore him.

“person man woman camera tv”…what a fucking genius!

deepspace's picture
deepspace 2 years 27 weeks ago


One of the most absurd untruths perpetrated by corporate media financial pundits, their Wall Street masters, and right-wing "think" tanks, which until recently has been consistently reflected in polling concerning Trump's single most important advantage among low-information and ill-informed voters (the power of propaganda), is that Republicans are good for the economy -- the real economy -- much more so than Democrats.

History proves otherwise. But reliable Republican voters, especially Trump supporters, are not interested in the truth; they only want to believe convenient and comfortable lies that fit their delusional worldviews -- pablum fed to them by stovepiped "news" sources spinning the self-dealing agendas of the rich, the powerful, and the few.

NormaE's picture
NormaE 2 years 27 weeks ago

I believe that what Trump and the Republicans are doing (i.e., related to Covid 19 and immigration) is GENOCIDE against Black and Hispanics. Do you have statistics on the percentage of Blacks and Hispanics who have died of Covid 19 compared with the total who have died??

alis volat's picture
alis volat 2 years 27 weeks ago

People are already referring to this era as The Reckoning. That is an action term or it can mean a settlement. I prefer to call it The Reflection. It suits the times. The origin of reflection is the Latin word reflectere meaning “to bend backwards, turn away” as a verb, or as a noun it’s “a remark made after turning back one’s thought on a subject”.

The ability to disseminate information and capture images of humans and their interactions has become remarkable. It truly has forced us to see where we are, what we are doing, and to reflect on where we’ve been. By taking a good look in the mirror, perhaps we can reclaim the status of the word "humanity".

To do so we must get through this last horrible bit of anxiety and fear while we do the WORK. Onward and upward until we can look at ourselves and say "that looks better!"

Legend 2 years 27 weeks ago

Thom had Beyond Nuclear on yesterday to discuss the 60 million bribery case in Ohio with First Energy and its 2 Nukes in Ohio. It also own 2 reactors in PA. There is also a recent case in SC where SCANA was building 2 reactors. The CEO is convicted of pocketing about a Billion. You can bet that there is a similar scandel in GA where they are building 2 reactors to the tune of $30 billion. An example of The potential corruption in the nuclear industry is in how many cancelled plants there are.

xuereh's picture
xuereh 2 years 27 weeks ago

There are three Democrats that have signed on to the "TRUST Act" of Mitt Romney.

They are Kristen Sinema, Joe Manchin and Doug Jones of Alabama, none of them are up for election this cycle, and thus feel free to take a bribe from Wall Street. I sincerely hope that Pelosi does not take this up, but expect to be disappointed.

Legend 2 years 27 weeks ago

The Republicans are very good at giving bills great names that basically do the opposite of what they are. The Trust Act. Is a Republicon bill to cut Social Security and Medicare.

MagnusReputo 2 years 27 weeks ago

Remember when Obama asked for a stimulus package to recover from the bankster recession of 2008 and Mitch said "Oh no, the deficit, what about the children?" The Trump economic upturn was due to the enormous tax cut that was an artificial stimulus (creating a huge deficit). As soon as the dems are back in, Mitch will say "Oh no, the deficit caused by Covid, we need to privatize Social Security and cut Medicare/Medicaid to reduce the national debt."

stopgap's picture
stopgap 2 years 27 weeks ago

Xuereh, Better double-check your research. Doug Jones is up for election this cycle and we have our fingers crossed and are holding our breath. He won the 2017 special election to replace Jeff Sessions who became Attorney General. That term is up 1/3/2021. Not sure how that affects your conclusion, but thought you might want know.

stopgap's picture
stopgap 2 years 27 weeks ago

If ever there was a name of an institution that exemplifies the word “oxymoron “ its the term “Electoral College.” What institution that embraces the word “College” as part of its identity, would have against the will of the majority, offered George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump as the product of their intellectual, scholarly cogitations.

In every case that the Electoral College has been called on to perform their duty, when this arcane technicality is contrary to the outcome of the popular vote, the results have been catastrophic.

And now the very term “American Democracy” is in danger of becoming obsolete due to their cowardice. Who the hell are these people? It is truly amazing that a group, relatively unknown and seemingly unaccountable to the American public, can be the final arbiters of disastrous electoral decisions affecting the fate of every American and the planet itself.

avn013's picture
avn013 2 years 27 weeks ago

xuerex: The same Mitt Romney who voted for impeachment and who will not be seeking re-election? What am I supposed to make out of these? That politicians (all over the spectrum) take the (their) “correct” decisions in their last term?

stopgap: interesting insinuation that Reps (“conservatives”/pro “free marketeers”) are increasing our debt, thus, opening (widely) the path to bankruptcy (with their “voodoo” economics) and Dems(“socialists”/ pro (benevolent) “government”) try to save money, zero the deficit (if I am not wrong Clinton managed it, before it went red again). I agree with you that this is a general cocnlucion valid for the last 4 decades (and based on my partial knowledge). At the same time, I would like to add that this has happened and continues to happen elsewhere. Socialist in Europe have taken what are traditionally thought conservative measures, and vice versa. In a somewhat extreme case, conservatives nationalized companies, socialists privatized them, and conservatives semi-nationalized them. It is as if the content of words like “socialism” and “conservatism” has “rotated” b y almost 180 degrees since after WWII.

As for the Electoral College, it is just a peculiarity. If enough of us want to replace it with something else or even with nothing, I presume there is a due process. In the mean time, as far as I know the members of the Electoral College are NOT obliged to vote in a specific way. In principle they could vote according to the popular vote or to their boy/girl-friends wish or randomly or whatever. In principle, the member of Electoral College are RESPONSIBLE for choosing president and vice-president. It is their problem if they just want to party or cast their vote after serious deliberation. In some sense the Electoral College performs like one of our juries. Whether our political system should have one or not is an ongoing debate, mainly academic, and should not be judged by occasional results that some people like and some not.

deepspace: Are “black and white” arguments, a good way to resolve the divisiveness pursued by the “other” side? Such arguments appear more “ferocious”, but in the long run, history has shown that they end up twisted and not differing essentially from authoritarian ones. Trying to speed up evolution (beyond a certain point) is as “bad’ (stupid?) as trying (beyond a certain point) to stop it. The vast majority of our constitution and our laws, I believe, are very reasonable. The “devil” lies in the implementation. That is why it is important to educate (and train) properly the people whom we are going to vote in positions of implementing the Law (including the Law officers who give speed tickets or arrest a citizen to investigate whatever lawful).

stopgap's picture
stopgap 2 years 27 weeks ago

"What is the sound of one hand clapping?"

deepspace's picture
deepspace 2 years 27 weeks ago

And... the more time seeking an answer, the more air swishing back and forth.


Worn out door knobs's picture
Worn out door knobs 2 years 27 weeks ago


In a historic 9-0 ruling, the Supreme Court requires state electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state.

Lantana's picture
Lantana 2 years 27 weeks ago

Thom. If Biden wins, why can’t he just replace the head of the fed, Powell? That way, Powell could not start any downturn or depression . Biden is going to have a lot of change ups to do, and he will not be helped because trump will not have a transition team. trump does not have a working team now, just a bunch of Yohos.

Congrats on #8!

stopgap's picture
stopgap 2 years 27 weeks ago

No quite “Door Knobs” The court ruled that the 38 states plus the District of Columbia, currently requiring Electors to go along with the popular vote, have that right. And the 12 states that allow their Electors to vote for whomever they feel is warranted, still have that right. In other words, the court ruled states have the right to require Electors to honor the results of the popular vote, or NOT. The court did not rule that states are required to force Electors to go along with the popular vote. States have he right to do either. States have the right to require or not to require. Its up to the states!!

Worn out door knobs's picture
Worn out door knobs 2 years 27 weeks ago


You're wrong! Here's what Justice kegan wrote. "Today, we consider whether a State may also penalize an elector for breaking his pledge and voting for someone other than the presidential candidate who won his State's popular vote. We hold that a State may do so," Justice Elena Kagan wrote. No mention of states having a right to allow someone to vote for who ever they please. I'm sure if that occurred, the winner of the popular vote in that state would sue and have the vote reversed based on the supreme court's decision.

avn013's picture
avn013 2 years 27 weeks ago

Worn out door knobs: Thanks for the link, which also led me to

I had no idea about faithless electors, nor did I recall those of 2016. If I am not lost into translation, the elector has indeed the power to vote according to her/his “consciousness”. Funds for a fine of $1,000 can easily be raised by those who believe in the faithless elector (or at least his/her cause). Also, according to “your” link the topic runs “much deeper” and “deep” enough for a Harvard Law professor to get involved. (

With this new (for me) info, I think I support the existence of the Electoral College. Peculiarity? Yes. But if it can give rise to debates ((@ the High Court level !!!) involving hobbits from the “Lord of the Rings” it definitely is a modern (as opposed to anachronistic) “luxury” of our system. The path to Knowledge/Education needs very much the refinement that comes from such debates, and as stated by Professor L Lessig: “Obviously, we don’t believe the court has interpreted the Constitution correctly. But we are happy that we have achieved our primary objective—this uncertainty has been removed. That is progress.” (And progress is (always?, at least within by life-span) dynamic, not static.

avn013's picture
avn013 2 years 27 weeks ago

stopgap: One of the “classic” koans? Zen 101?

This is “next” level for this blog. It also reminds me that I found this blog after “running into” Thom’s interesting “explanation” (more of an opinion) about “where money REALLY came from” ( for reasons related more to “Giri” and “Gimu” than to economics and politics. So, in some respect, your koan is a “step in the past” (Thom’s past).

A couple of links for koans in case anyone is interested: and Due to age I neither have the stamina nor the time to go through all these koans.

But, I think that deepspace’s comment (“And... the more time seeking an answer, the more air swishing back and forth.”), although humorous forgets that “enlightenment”, if reached, is instantaneous and (therefore) in a sense timeless.

In addition koans are simple (very simple) exercises. As a good engineer or scientist will tell us, solving many exercises is good practice, but no guarantee that one can solve (or even begin to solve) a REAL problem. Exercises are on purpose gross and exaggerated simplifications of the real problems (reality) that surround us. Being able to solve them does not mean that we are ready to face reality. But still is better than avoiding/ignoring them, since there does not seem to be another way on the path of knowledge (

stopgap's picture
stopgap 2 years 27 weeks ago

Door Knobs, I suggest you get a dictionary and look up the words MAY and MUST. No where the in Kagen’s statement does it say states MUST punish electors for breaking their pledge, it says they “may” punish the elector for not voting for the candidate that won the popular vote. Their are still 12 states that do not make such a requirement and they still have the right to do so. And states still have the right to alter their state constitution, either way, if that state pleases, which of course is not easy task. Nonetheless, they still have that right. Nowhere in the judgement does it say states are required to make electors vote for the candidate that won the popular vote, it says they “may” require the elector to do so.

So you’re statement that the “Supreme Court requires state electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote in that state” is not accurate. The ruling only says that states have the right to make such a policy.

Big difference between may and must!

Legend 2 years 27 weeks ago

Kind of like should and shall.

Worn out door knobs's picture
Worn out door knobs 2 years 27 weeks ago


It's a 9-0 decision. If you believe a candidate is going to lose an election because rogue electors vote for a candidate other than the winner of the popular vote in that particular state we'll....justice kegan did NOT differentiate between the different state laws. One more point, the presidential election is a Federal election. How the president is elected is protected by the constitution. The only way to change that is by an amendment to the constitution. This case was brought before the Supreme Court because some states tried to say they had the right to allow the electors to vote for other than then that states winner. It's over. Move on.

whatabout's picture
whatabout 2 years 27 weeks ago

Thom, how about an entire three hour show telling us what it is like waking up with the taste of pepper spray and burning buildings in your mouth every morning because you choose to live in a city that has no political leadership is always one revolution away from happiness.

Karen’s in the city of Portland unite, a better world through psychotic bitchery!!!!!

Legend 2 years 27 weeks ago

#28 unfortunately this is what happens when you have 50 million unemployed and cannot even go to school due to an inept POTUS. They demonstrate. The rest of the world is doing much better than us.

deepspace's picture
deepspace 2 years 27 weeks ago

Whatabout's post pushing Trump's fallacious characterization of the Portland protests ended on a note of truly repugnant sexism -- true to form with the misogynistic daddy figure by whom subservient Trumpees love to be dominated. "Whip me 'till it hurts, big macho man!!!!!!"

deepspace's picture
deepspace 2 years 27 weeks ago

What is "enlightenment," avn013? Or rather, what is it not?

stopgap's picture
stopgap 2 years 27 weeks ago

You’re right Door Knobs, I was wrong. It was actually 32 states and the District of Columbia that are involved in the case, not 38. That means that 18 states, not 12 states do not require their electors to necessarily vote for the candidate that won the popular vote in that state.

This is a quote from the CNN report you posted. “In all, 32 states and the District of Columbia have laws that are meant to discourage faithless electors. But until 2016, no state had ever actually punished or removed an elector because of his or her vote”.

Yes, the vote was 9-0 affirming that those 32 states have the right to require their electors to vote for the candidate that won the popular vote and punish them if they do not do so. But nowhere does it say that the other 18 states are required to do the same. It’s a states right matter and each state has the right to make the choice as to what they require from their electors.

The case was never about forcing all states to require all electors to vote for the popular vote winner. I was simply about allowing the states that do require their electors to vote for the popular vote candidate, to be punished if they do not. This decision does not affect the 18 states that do not require electors to vote for the popular vote candidate, unless they should change their state laws to conform to the states that do.

Believe me, I realize that this is a fact that you will never admit to and you will always believe that you are right. You can believe it all you want, but that doesn’t make it so.

And, by the way, even though this concerns a Federal election, states have great latitude about how they conduct these elections...where they put their polling many polling places...laws concerning early voting...mail in ballots...voter eligibility requirements...etc...etc. I've lived in 4 different states and each state has different laws regarding elections. Federal or otherwise.


stopgap's picture
stopgap 2 years 27 weeks ago

D-nobs, Actually all the links you posted agree with me. In each case they said states “CAN” force electors to abide by the popular vote. In none of the links do they say, states MUST force electors to abide by the the results of the popular vote.

The Supreme Court, in this instance, never heard a case requiring all electors be forced to abide by the popular vote. The case brought before them was about states (currently 32) having the right to force electors to abide by those states laws. And that is what the 9-0 vote was all about. But if states do not have laws requiring electors to abide by the results of the popular vote, as some states don’t, then they are still not required to force electors to abide by the popular vote.

Worn out door knobs's picture
Worn out door knobs 2 years 27 weeks ago


Please provide a source for your "knowledge". You haven't even bothered to read the sources I've provided. Here is the first paragraph from the NBC reference.

WASHINGTON — "The 538 people who cast the actual votes for president in December as part of the Electoral College are not free agents and must vote as the laws of their states direct, the Supreme Court ruled Monday."

I guess Ron White is right.:))

stopgap's picture
stopgap 2 years 27 weeks ago

Ok D-knobs, Below is a link to the National Conference OfState Legislatures. However I’ve taken the liberty of pasting in the part that pertains to my argument.

Faithless Electors

There is no federal law or constitutional provision requiring electors to vote for the party that nominated them, and over the years a number of electors have voted against the instructions of the voters. In 2004, a Minnesota elector nominated by the Democratic Party cast a ballot for John Edwards, the vice presidential running mate of John Kerry--thought to be an accident. Electors generally are selected by the political party for their party loyalty, and many are party leaders, and thus not likely to vote other than for their party's candidate.

In 2016, there were seven faithless electors, the most since 1972—three Democratic electors from Washington state cast their votes for Republican Colin Powell, instead of Democrat Hillary Clinton; one Democratic elector from Washington state cast his vote for Faith Spotted Eagle, a woman who is a member of the Yankton Sioux Nation; one Democratic elector from Hawaii cast his vote for Bernie Sanders, instead of Hillary Clinton; one Republican elector from Texas cast his vote for John Kasich, instead of Donald Trump; and one Republican elector from Texas cast his vote for Libertarian Ron Paul. The last time an elector crossed party lines was in 1972, when an elector nominated by the Republican Party cast his ballot for the Libertarian ticket.

Some states have passed laws that require their electors to vote as pledged. These laws may either impose a fine on an elector who fails to vote according to the statewide or district popular vote, or may disqualify an elector who violates his or her pledge and provide a replacement elector. In July 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional for states to enact this type of law. The states with laws that attempt to bind the votes of presidential electors are below:

States With Laws That Attempt to Bind the Votes of Presidential Electors










New Mexico


North Carolina



District of Columbia





South Carolina













Most of the laws cited above require electors to vote for the candidate of the party that nominated the elector, or require the elector to sign a pledge to do so. Some go further: Oklahoma imposes a civil penalty of $1,000; in North Carolina, the fine is $500, the faithless elector is deemed to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed. In South Carolina, an elector who violates his or her pledge is subject to criminal penalties, and in New Mexico a violation is a fourth degree felony. In Michigan and Utah, a candidate who fails to vote as required is considered to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed.

Additional Resources

Worn out door knobs's picture
Worn out door knobs 2 years 27 weeks ago


Nice try, The sources you provide predate the supreme court decision and are irrelevant. Do you have anything after the Supreme Court Decision?

avn013's picture
avn013 2 years 27 weeks ago

deepspace (#31): I will attempt the "rather", with the disclaimer: read and accept or not accept at own risk.

Enlightment is not what people think enlightment is.

Worn out door knobs & stogap: interesting debate and links. Attmpting to bind the vote is (in my mind) like removing the elector (as a role) and replacing her/him with a waiter who will serve a preselected result (dish) to the populace. If that will turn out to be the case i suggest that the term "elector" is replaced by "waiter" or "servant" so that the naive part of the populace does not expect much more from them, or from the application/interpretation of the bill of rights.

stopgap's picture
stopgap 2 years 27 weeks ago

D-knobs, One last effort. Quote from the Washington Post regarding the decision.

“The court’s decision doesn’t eliminate that possibility completely. Not all states explicitly require conformity, and the opinion does not force them to set up such systems.”

Legend 2 years 27 weeks ago

Stopgap, it is like arguing with a doorknob. In this case a worn out one. When the framers of the Constitution came up with the Electoral College it was 13 states. They could never of seen the population shifts coming. Small population states get much more bang for the buck than large population states. The popular vote is Democratic. The Electoral College is not.

Mark Ahrens's picture
Mark Ahrens 2 years 27 weeks ago

Concerning Republican Registrars refusal to certify election results: given the pandemic is raging and early voting presents a condition where someone casts their vote by Mail yet has passed away weeks before Election Day, possibly the Reps could point to tens of thousands of voters having died of Trump Death during the 50 days prior to November 3, 2020. This situation feeds into Trumps Vote by mail reliability asserting that someone other than the dead voter actually cast their ballot. Nevertheless, good folks have to turn out and vote responsibly!

Thom's Blog Is On the Move

Hello All

Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.

Please follow us across to - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.

From Unequal Protection, 2nd Edition:
"Hartmann combines a remarkable piece of historical research with a brilliant literary style to tell the grand story of corporate corruption and its consequences for society with the force and readability of a great novel."
David C. Korten, author of When Corporations Rule the World and Agenda for A New Economy
From Unequal Protection, 2nd Edition:
"If you wonder why and when giant corporations got the power to reign supreme over us, here’s the story."
Jim Hightower, national radio commentator and author of Swim Against the Current
From Cracking the Code:
"No one communicates more thoughtfully or effectively on the radio airwaves than Thom Hartmann. He gets inside the arguments and helps people to think them through—to understand how to respond when they’re talking about public issues with coworkers, neighbors, and friends. This book explores some of the key perspectives behind his approach, teaching us not just how to find the facts, but to talk about what they mean in a way that people will hear."
Paul Loeb, author of Soul of a Citizen