After taking a knee, Kaepernick now stands for something much bigger

Last Thursday, Houston Texans quarterback DeShaun Watson tore his ACL in practice. Watson has been sensational to this point, helping turn the Texans into true contenders in their conference and one of the scariest teams in football. Watson, if you’re not a football fan, is a strong-armed quarterback with all the agility of a running back or wide receiver. While he can sling the ball around the field, he’s also extremely dangerous when he chooses to tuck the ball and run with it.

Fortunately for the Texans, there just happens to be a guy in free agency with that exact skill set. So naturally, the Texans signed two quarterbacks who have been unemployed since the preseason and couldn’t out-run a gimpy turtle. Unsurprisingly, the Texans then proceeded to lose on Sunday in embarrassing fashion to the lowly Indianapolis Colts.

And so Colin Kaepernick — who has completed nearly 60 percent of his passes, thrown for over 70 touchdowns to only 30 interceptions, and has rushed for over 2,300 yards and 13 touchdowns — loses out to two guys who have thrown a combined 17 touchdowns, 19 interceptions, and less than 100 yards rushing between the two.

Stop telling me this is about football.

Kaepernick, whose national anthem protests have bled into a larger conversation (even drawing the ire of Donald Trump and pizza-lookalike chain owner Papa John) continues to watch his career be destroyed simply for taking a stand.

You know, so to speak.

Rantt News on Twitter

Trump in Alabama says NFL owners should "get that son of a bitch off the field!" when a player kneels during anthem

While largely serving as a distraction for Trump and his apologist fanbase, the anthem protests do bring up a larger question — what exactly should be the rights of employees to protest at work?

Constitutionally speaking, there are none. The First Amendment’s right to protest protects citizens only from the government, not private employers. States have implemented varying levels of protections for employees, but none explicitly stating that employees have the right to political protests in the workplace.

It makes sense, for the most part. Political protests in your office would be largely pointless and a distraction. Chanting “White Lives Matter” or “Not My President” while kneeling at your Varidesk isn’t exactly a practical solution to anything.

It cannot be said that the same scenario applies to something like the NFL and its players. The players protesting during the national anthem are not creating a disturbance, nor are they impeding workplace productivity. While technically “on the clock,” they haven’t really begun working until kickoff.

No team has lost a game because their players did or didn’t kneel beforehand, nor can it be proved that the anthem protests have had any effect on television ratings. While it’s indisputable that the NFL’s ratings are indeed down, it’s also worth pointing out that television ratings overall are down — and the NFL is still doing better than most.

Players do not consider the demonstrations a distraction. Only the media, the owners, and Trump apologists are distracted by it. You will note none of those people are actually on the field. None of them will be throwing, catching, blocking, tackling, kicking, or running, so what they believe is a distraction is pointless and irrelevant.

In fact, players have said the attempts to stop the protests are distracting than the demonstrations themselves, as the Pittsburgh Steelers discovered this season.

So, again, what is the problem?

For most, the problem is the demonstration is working. A CBS/YouGov poll found that 73 percent of those asked believed the protests were to call attention to racism, while 69 percent believed they were about police brutality. Despite Trump, Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, and guy-who-melts-cheese-over-play-doh Papa John (the official pizza provider of the alt-right!), the conversation regarding the cause of the protests persists. When these people speak out over the protests, it forces people to look into — or forces the media to mention — what exactly they’re protesting. For better or worse, this leads to a conversation.

And therein lies the difference between NFL players — or anyone with a national platform — protesting at work versus you marching in to your job at Subway and refusing to make any sandwiches with white bread. Your protests have disrupted the workplace and accomplished nothing otherwise, whereas the protests started by Kaepernick have led to a larger discussion. That discussion is taking place on television, on ESPN pre-game shows, cable news, the halls of Congress, all the way to the dinner table.

With a camera pointed on them and the simple act of kneeling at the right time, these players — led by Kaepernick’s example — have started a national dialogue that will not go away so long as they continue their peaceful demonstration. The only people this hurts are the ones who will already find themselves on the wrong side of history.

Kaepernick was never going to be a Hall of Fame quarterback. It was unlikely he would be remembered solely for his play as there have been many above-average quarterbacks to come before him. However, this demonstration has cemented his place as a difference-maker in a way he likely never imagined. His personal short-comings aside (not voting, the cops-as-pigs socks, the Fidel Castro t-shirt, etc.), Kaepernick has started something larger than himself, larger than the NFL, and larger than a few influential racists who ignorantly believe they can bully away a much-needed look in the mirror for America’s justice system and society as a whole.

If you’d like to help support projects like these, please consider helping us fund our operation by joining our community

What We’re Offering

$3 — Make A Difference! Support Independent Journalism, get exclusive posts, and become a founding member of Rantt, Inc.

$10 — Join The Team! 24/7 access to Rantt’s #Newsroom on Slack. Here you’ll be able to spectate & speak with the writers, editors, and founders as we discuss news and current events in real-time.

$20 — Get Published! Work one-on-one with your own personal Rantt Editor to develop and write stories that you’d like to see published on our site. You come up with the story and we’ll make sure it’s Rantt ready in no time!

To see more of our offerings, check out our Patreon.

JOIN US

Rantt Media is creating Context-rich analysis & journalism | Patreon

Thanks again for everything. We love and appreciate you!

Sincerely,

The Rantt Team

Stay in the know and subscribe to our newsletter by following us on Rantt

Follow us on Twitter: @RanttNews

Join us on Facebook: /RanttNews

NFL Blackballing Colin Kaepernick Amplifies The Importance Of National Anthem Protests was originally published in Rantt Media on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

When prisoners are viewed in dollar amounts, the outcome is anything but rehabilitating

Americans enjoy freedoms not heard of in other countries. We have freedoms of speech, expression, and a free press. We are able to openly oppose our leaders and even insult them without fear of reproach. For instance, if I wanted to call America’s current leader a sentient Cheeto lacking a moral compass or ideology other than the pursuit of ego-boosting wealth and superficial pleasures with all the intelligence of a poorly-trained chihuahua, I am free to do so.

America is great, isn’t it? However, one might be surprised to learn that the country with all these freedoms also incarcerates more than any country on earth — and it’s not even close.

There are worthy conversations to be had about the causes of mass incarceration, but that’s not why we’re here today. Instead, let’s take an inside look at an often overlooked subsection of incarceration in America: private, for-profit prisons.

Private prison companies like GEO Group and CoreCivic (formerly Corrections Corporation of America) will tell you they exist to ease the pressure of overcrowding that mass incarceration has caused. They will tell you they work in tandem with the government to perform a public service.

In reality, however, they exist only for profit. They make their money on the misfortune and misery of others and are a cancer on American society.

What follows are personal stories from my time as a Correctional Officer (from February 2014 to July 2015) in a private jail. Because these are mega corporations with overpaid lawyers, I will refrain from name-dropping the specific jail. It has since been acquired by one of the two big private prison companies, showing how they continue to expand the multi-billion dollar industry.

Half-Baked Training

The initial hiring process was much like any other; I was interviewed by the Deputy Warden of Security, run through a background check, and received a call with my start date. My father is a Correctional Officer in a public, government-operated jail, as are other extended family members, so I came in excited and eager to share my own experiences.

The first surprise was the pay. While family members I knew were paid an average of over $20 per hour (to start), I was shocked to learn the starting pay was a paltry $12 per hour for the first three months, with a bump to $14 per hour after the initial 90 days in an area with a high cost of living.

My spirits were dampened, but I was in school and had bills, so I took what I could get.

Had I looked into the varying pay rates at all, the pay wouldn’t have been such a shock. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median salary of a CO in a private jail is just over $30,000 per year, while the same CO in a public jail makes roughly $39,000 annually.

Naturally, the differing pay rate is a cost-cutting measure. After all, these are private companies with shareholders to please. That drop in pay saves them money, but also affects the quality of candidates, as I would soon discover.

The training lasted four weeks and consisted of both classroom work and shadowing current officers. While there were genuinely helpful portions of the training, such as hands-on defensive tactics and restraints, teaching of the force continuum, and how to interact with inmates, there was also a lot of training devoted to how to avoid lawsuits and the history of the organization.

By itself, learning about the organization and minimizing the jail’s exposure to potential lawsuits isn’t a terrible thing, but it becomes an issue when it receives the same, if not more, time than practical training like how to effectively use handcuffs.

In all, there were two days devoted to using handcuffs and learning defensive tactics like pressure points, holds, and takedowns. For comparison’s sake, there was equal time devoted to how to use fire extinguishers and learning the names of the higher-ups.

Shadowing, I believed, would be more helpful. Surely the other officers would want cadets properly trained since they would very quickly become their co-workers and, in some cases, their only backup in an emergency.

Instead, we were confronted mostly with officers who didn’t want to be bothered. They were busy, they had things to do, and were not at all interested in showing us the ropes. Occasionally there was an officer who would make an attempt, but for the most part, we were told to find a chair and stay out of the way.

We were also informed not to pass that information along to the instructors because they would find out if a new class complained about their training or lack thereof. They would know the new class of cadets were snitches and no one would want to work with them.

I expected that behavior from inmates, not officers. It would become abundantly clear during my time there that a large portion of the officers blurred that line regularly.

In the middle of the fourth week, we were given a test on what we had learned thus far. This test, it turned out, would decide if we had passed the training. Why was it given in the middle of what was supposed to be the fourth and final week of training? Because they needed multiple days to re-test those who didn’t pass the first time, of course.

See, while the test technically decided if one would keep their job or not, no one was actually fired for failing. Instead, they were walked through the test to ensure they would pass and could begin work the next week. If the test was given on a Friday, they wouldn’t have time for the inevitable re-testing.

Inevitably, a few people in a class of about a dozen (I don’t recall an exact number anymore) failed. They spent the next couple days testing while the rest of us passed the time.

We were given a certificate of completion on that Friday and told to report to work the next week. We were now all Correctional Officers.

Hooray?

On The Job

The day-to-day of a CO isn’t as exciting as it may seem on Orange Is The New Black or other shows — though I will admit the show does a good job of exploring the issues with private prisons after Litchfield’s acquisition by MCC, a fictional private prison company — so there isn’t really much to tell in that regard.

We were expected to do an initial count, which included making sure everyone was present and moving, and then do so every half hour at varying times. Other than that, it was really monitoring prisoners’ movements around the jail.

There were visits to medical, their lawyer or public defender, visitation, groups, and even jobs for the lucky few. For the most part, however, the inmates stayed in the dayroom playing cards, watching the one TV that picked up only what the antenna could bring in or walking laps for exercise. The units did not have access to a yard, so they were inside at all times.

The units at this particular jail were set up like a hub inside, while separated into six different sections. There was a control room (or “bubble”) in the center with control panels — be they physical panels with buttons or in rare cases on computers — that sat on the second tier with windows that could see into the four pods or blocks. Directly beneath the bubble was a vestibule with four doors to the blocks.

The blocks were separated by V-shaped areas that contained one basketball net and a cage in the roof that allowed fresh air. There were four blocks and only two of these V-shaped areas — which we unironically called “the yard” — meaning the blocks had to share the only thing even resembling outdoor space.

Each unit was assigned three officers. One ran the bubble and the other two had blocks ‘A and B’ or ‘C and D’. ‘A’ and ‘D’ block held 55 inmates, while ‘B’ and ‘C’ held 48. This meant one officer was responsible for up to 103 inmates at a time, but could only see 55 or 48 at once.

Needless to say, that caused issues. The lack of visibility led officers, at times myself included, to conclude that the easiest way to keep an eye on the inmates was from the bubble, where one could quickly see out the windows into the dayroom and the yards.

This meant increased visibility but a decrease in response times and a lacking presence of authority. Each officer decided the pros and cons and acted accordingly, though there were certainly drawbacks no matter what the approach.

Poor set-up is an issue many prisons have, but in a private prison with sub-par staff the issue was exacerbated and sometimes even meant an inmate winding up injured or even dead.

Inadequate Mental Health Care

One of the biggest issues facing prisons today is the inability to care for the sick and mentally ill. After spending time inside, I can attest the situation is even worse than anything you have heard in the media.

As far as caring for the sick or infirm, the jail largely treated them as a nuisance not worth the time or effort. There was a small medical section devoted to those who needed more constant care that sometimes shoved as many as six inmates in one room. They were given cots to sleep on with absolutely no space to speak of, even those requiring wheelchairs.

Medical was split into two sections — upper and lower — stuck in the middle of the jail. Lower medical was on the ground floor, naturally, so there were usually people walking by should an inmate need something. Upper medical, however, was a much different story.

It took a flight of steps to reach and rarely saw any activity. Because medical was in the middle of the jail, there were no windows. The only other people these inmates saw were nurses twice a day, inmates delivering food three times a day, and officers sporadically doing count. Some were fortunate enough to have cellmates, but not all.

Otherwise, they had no human interaction or sunlight.

The issues of those kept in medical ranged from those with physical handicaps to those so mentally distressed they had to be kept separate and near medical staff at all times.

One such inmate was kept separate and often wound up in the padded room — yes, they’re real — because he would chew on his own arms to the point they would bleed and require stitches. He would then proceed to chew on the bandages to get to the stitches, opening the wounds all over again.

Another was a man with such advanced dementia he could no longer use the bathroom on his own and was forced to wear a diaper. If the nurses were able to bathe him, he would shout “Rape!” at the top of his lungs. Often times the nurses didn’t want to be bothered and he would be kept in a soiled diaper for days on end until it began spilling over onto his bed.

More than once I witnessed the man sleeping in his own filth.

Inmates with mental health needs not requiring a stay in medical were housed on their own block of the Maximum Security unit, where I worked for over a year. The unit’s four blocks were split in Administrative Segregation, or “the hole,” maximum security offenders, protective custody, and then the mental health block where they were kept with 40–50 other inmates.

Maximum Security was assigned five officers — one per block and one in the bubble. The jail would rotate us around the five positions, so I wound up working the mental health block several times. It was here I witnessed the most egregious failings of the jail’s medical care.

Twice a day, nurses would go around the jail with a pill cart. For most inmates, the pills were often over the counter medications to help with intestinal issues or occasionally something to treat chronic illnesses. It was not uncommon for the jail to run out of these medications and not replace them for days, even weeks.

This meant inmates with Multiple Sclerosis and other severe, chronic conditions would go untreated. The angry outbursts were met with shrugs and an invitation to the hole if they didn’t calm down.

While that’s bad, nothing was worse than watching a mentally ill inmate go from almost level to a complete breakdown over the course of a week because the jail could not be bothered to get their medication. Unfortunately, it happened more than I can count.

One inmate in particular sticks out as particularly heartbreaking; he was a former Marine and, while I never knew his exact diagnosis, I know he had delusions and hallucinations that would sometimes make him violent depending on what he happened to be seeing or hearing.

He began his stay at the jail in the medical unit after attacking the officers who were working intake. A mountain of a man — probably 6'4" and pushing 300 pounds — with military training was not easily subdued, but he took his meds and was eventually moved off medical to the mental health block, where he continued making steady improvements.

During casual conversations with him, he was articulate and well-mannered, showing the discipline learned through service. There was one occasion where he even threatened another inmate for daring to talk back to me and my fellow officers (not encouraged behavior, but the thought was nice).

However, one day, he was told they were out of his medication. He was disturbed, but stayed calm and respectful, assured by the nurse the medication would be coming within a few days. Every day for the next week he asked for his medication, every day told it still hadn’t arrived.

After being off for a few days, I returned to work and was assigned the mental health block. I walked on to do my count and was greeted by this inmate as was his custom. This time, however, he was kneeling by the open tray slot in his door, with an open Bible on the floor outside his cell.

I asked him if he’d like his Bible back, and was informed it was there so he could read it to his daughter, who was visiting him.

It wasn’t much longer before that gentle giant was back in the medical unit, kept by himself and suffering from less pleasant hallucinations.

Recounting the story fills me with an anger that’s hard to describe. This is just one story of many like this, but this sticks out as not just failing a human being, not just failing a fellow American citizen, but failing a veteran who at the very least has earned proper medical care.

Instead, he was the victim of the bottom line.

Solitary Confinement

Let me first note I do believe there are instances where, for short periods, solitary confinement is a useful tool. It becomes dangerous when abused and used for extended periods of time, which this jail did constantly — even to those who didn’t deserve it in the first place.

As mentioned above, sometimes the only infraction by an inmate to result in solitary confinement was a medical issue. Inmates that were deemed a pain to deal with because of their physical or mental illness were stashed in the upper part of medical and locked away.

Those in the Special Management Unit (or SMU) were kept alone in their cells for months at a time. Yes, these were the worst of the worst in terms of violence on staff or other inmates, but they were kept in their cells 23 hours a day with no sunlight and no interaction besides officers a few times a day.

When they did come out, they did so in shackles.

They had access, like the other blocks, to a slab of concrete with a basketball net and a cage in the ceiling that allowed fresh air. In the yard, their shackles were taken off. While some took this as an opportunity to pick up a basketball or do a little exercise, most just went into the corner with the most sunlight and sat there, staring blankly ahead.

Even juveniles brought to the jail waited their time out in solitary confinement. The youngest I saw come through was 14 years old, and he was kept in a single cell by himself for 23 hours per day, just like the rest. They were not to speak with one another or interact in any way. Fortunately, their stay was usually short-lived.

Studies have been done on the effects of solitary confinement, with horrifying results. The most famous, by University of Wisconsin psychologist Harry Harlow in the 1950’s, showed the effects on monkeys.

Per PBS Frontline:

Harlow placed rhesus monkeys inside a custom-designed solitary chamber nicknamed “the pit of despair.” Shaped like an inverted pyramid, the chamber had slippery sides that made climbing out all but impossible. After a day or two, Harlow wrote, “most subjects typically assume a hunched position in a corner of the bottom of the apparatus. One might presume at this point that they find their situation to be hopeless.” Harlow also found that monkeys kept in isolation wound up “profoundly disturbed, given to staring blankly and rocking in place for long periods, circling their cages repetitively, and mutilating themselves.” Most readjusted eventually, but not those that had been caged the longest. “Twelve months of isolation almost obliterated the animals socially,” Harlow found.

Sound familiar?

While the situations described sound abhorrent, it’s important to note this particular jail was, relatively speaking, not that bad in their abuse of solitary confinement. Often times the rules were relaxed and inmates supposed to be in solitary were allowed extensive contact with others, even allowed out at the same time.

In other private prisons, especially those meant for ICE detentions, the situations are much worse.

Officers Blurred The Thin Blue Line

Most correctional officers are good people who believe in what they’re doing as a public service. That is true of those I know and even of those I worked beside. However, the movie trope of the dirty officer willing to bring in contraband — which is anything not authorized by the jail — is unfortunately true.

During my relatively brief stay, I witnessed no less than a half dozen officers lose their jobs because they were caught bringing in contraband. In addition, at least one caseworker was fired for improper contact with an inmate.

Some were caught with the contraband on them coming into the jail, others were found out because inmates are a gossipy bunch, and yet others simply chose the wrong inmates to trust. The ideals behind “no snitching” tend to go out the window quickly when an inmate is looking at added time or even just a trip to the hole.

One officer was paid $500 by an inmate’s cousin to bring in a cell phone. Another was simply buttered up to the point she, out of the kindness (and naiveté) of her heart, brought in gum and sunflower seeds. That’s right, she lost her job over gum and sunflower seeds for an inmate that rolled on her the minute someone came across the contraband.

One inmate was caught with a cell phone (it’s a popular commodity, as you might imagine), and rolled on the officer who brought it in before it was even confiscated. He was already in the hole at the time, so I’m not sure why exactly he was so willing, but he sang like a canary.

I never received a story on the others past “they brought in something they shouldn’t.” Honestly, I didn’t care too much for details, I was just happy to see them go. Officers like that made the rest of us less safe.

This sort of thing happens in every jail, but the incentive to bring in contraband for an officer in a private jail is astronomically higher than one in a public jail.

Think about it: If an inmate offers you $500 to bring in a cell phone, it might at first sound like a tempting offer. That’s a pretty easy feat, they’re only asking for a flip phone — something just good enough to make calls and send texts — and who doesn’t like easy money?

If you’re an officer in a public jail, you’re making an average of $39,000 annually. Include overtime and some top-notch benefits and that figure goes way up. Your bills are paid, you’ve got some in your pocket, and the insurance is just too good to give up, why would you risk all that for a quick $500?

You likely wouldn’t. And that’s not even mentioning the real possibility that you could wind up a resident in the jail yourself if you’re caught. For most officers, that risk-reward assessment just doesn’t add up.

Now imagine you’re like one of my coworkers or the thousands of others working in a private jail. You’re sometimes making half of what the officers in the next county over are making, you’re barely making ends meet at a high-stress job, and the benefits are minimal if they exist at all. Are you going to risk that job for a quick $500?

Well, yeah, you might. And that’s not even mentioning the fact that you’re unlikely to face any legal ramifications whatsoever.

Oh, right, I guess I didn’t mention that of the people I saw fired, precisely zero of them had charges pressed against them.

Why would a public jail run by the government press charges while a private jail run by a publicly-traded company avoids it completely? As is the case with most things, it boils down to money — money and public perception.

For a public jail, the news that an officer has been caught and is being prosecuted likely comes across as the government holding their own accountable and weeding out the bad ones. Even if that’s not how it plays in the media, a public jail stands to lose very little from bad press.

A private company, however, has a lot to lose.

First of all, it plays terribly in the media. A corrupt officer in a private jail will always read as a failing of the parent company to provide oversight and as an indictment of the entire for-profit prison industry. And what happens when a publicly-traded company gets bad press? Stock prices fall.

What happens when stock prices fall? A lot of people lose money.

It quickly becomes easy to see why private jails are less likely to prosecute, which officers at those jails understand. If the absolute worst-case scenario, in their mind, is losing their job, that’s a lot less scary than losing your job and potentially winding up on the wrong side of the bars.

The incentive is therefore much higher in a private jail to give something like that a try as the risk-reward assessment tilts in the wrong direction.

However, quick disclaimer: don’t take the attack on private jails as an endorsement of all government-run jails. Low pay and poor benefits is an issue in many of those as well, but it’s much more likely in private jails, as the average salary disparity shows.

Some government-run jails are also guilty of not only failing to prosecute but keeping on bad officers, as well. The key difference, however, is it’s a problem in government-run jails, but the norm in private, for-profit jails.

Honey Buns And Coffee

Besides something as bad as bringing in contraband, the line blurred in other ways as well.

Some officers were not above extorting inmates, sometimes for no reason at all other than they wanted some snack the inmate had. In jail, snacks are currency — specifically honey buns and coffee.

My first day on a real unit (working third shift), a veteran officer asked me if I would like some coffee to help keep me awake. I said that would be great, but I didn’t see any coffee anywhere on the unit. He told me to hang tight and walked onto one of the blocks.

A couple minutes later he returned with coffee and a cup of Ramen noodles. I innocently and naively asked him where he got them, to which he responded with a cell number. Perplexed, I asked him why an inmate would willingly hand over what little items he had.

He laughed and told me the inmates understand that if they don’t, they will lose their work detail. For many inmates lucky enough to get a job within the jail, this is their only source of income and the only way they can afford to buy anything from the commissary.

The cup of noodles and packet of coffee was likely a full day’s labor.

He assured me this wasn’t just something he did, everybody did it and, eventually, I would be doing it too. Throughout my time, I learned he was half right — an awful lot of officers partook, but I can honestly say I never did.

Inmates would even offer sometimes with the thought they might as well get in my good graces before I made them turn something over, but to me it felt a bit like the scene out of the Disney Robin Hood remake where the mean Sheriff of Nottingham takes the last gold coins from the old dog in a cast.

As I said, most officers were good people who didn’t abuse their authority. The environment, however, bred a winner-take-all attitude that permeated through the ranks. It’s important to keep in mind — before I’m called an “inmate hugger” — most of these inmates had only been accused of crimes, not convicted.

Still, there was no Robin Hood fox to protect them from officers abusing the badge and intentionally blurring the already thin blue line.

Death By Poor Design

I alluded previously in the “On the Job” portion at the beginning about the poor design of the jail leading to injury and even death of inmates. In one such instance, the jail’s poor — even negligent — set-up led directly to the death of a distressed inmate.

As mentioned previously, the units, and therefore the blocks, were separated into two tiers. This meant cells on both the top and bottom tier. Of the 10 units in the jail, only two had fencing on the second tier. The fencing ran from the second tier platform to the ceiling to prevent inmates from jumping.

The unit housing the new arrivals, arguably the most vulnerable inmates in the jail, was not one of the two outfitted with fencing.

The following story was not witnessed first-hand but passed on from witness officers.

One night, after a new batch of arrivals was strip-searched and placed in their temporary cells, the nurse came on to the unit to hand out medications. As is customary for the new arrivals, cells are simply opened in batches and any inmate expecting any medication waits in line by the nurse’s pill cart.

During this process, there are two officers present on the block. One officer stays with the nurse while the other is there to handle any miscellaneous issues including retrieving inmates from their cells or locking them back in, if necessary.

One batch of inmates finished receiving their medications and were locked back in, so a batch of cells on the top tier was opened. As one cell door swung open on the top tier, an inmate saw his opportunity.

As described by the officer, the inmate ran out of his cell and dove head-first between the railing, landing directly on his neck. Life-saving procedures were initiated by the nurse on the scene, but the inmate was pronounced dead at the hospital hours later. He never regained consciousness.

Whether it was cost control or simple incompetence, the jail did not take the steps to prevent something like that happening. It’s worth pointing out this was not just an old jail unequipped with modern upgrades — it was built brand new in the late 90's.

This one instance is by no means an outlier, either. From 2005 until earlier this year, a span of 13 years, this particular jail has had no less than 14 deaths, with at least six of them suicides. While some are truly unavoidable, still others come as a result of poor health care, undertrained and underqualified staff and, yes, by poor design.

The Future of Jailing

This story only scratches the surface of my experience within the correctional system but is told with the hopes of shining a light on just a few of the injustices and inadequacies present in today’s jails — especially those run by private corporations.

When profit becomes the goal in running a jail, there is no hope for rehabilitation. The average person might not sympathize with the harsh conditions found in private prisons and perhaps even applaud an unpleasant stay, but this a short-sighted view.

These people will eventually be thrown back into society. Is it therefore in our best interest to reintroduce them as more educated and better prepared to be productive members or to inflict as much psychological pain on them as possible in pursuit of some poorly-contrived notion of justice?

As is, our method of jailing does not work. According to a study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the recidivism rate — or the rate of prisoners who return to jail — was 68 percent within three years and 77 percent within five years.

Clearly, there is little rehabilitation or “correction” taking place at what appear to be ironically-named “correctional” facilities.

Some localities, states, and even the federal government have decided the fix to an already broken system is to introduce private prisons, an idea that only exacerbates the issues. The fix, however, is more obvious than it seems.

Rather than putting dollar amounts on prisoners and encouraging incarceration, we must shift to a society emphasizing rehabilitation. Drug addicts, for example, are not cured by a stint in jail. Instead, send drug offenders to rehab so they have a chance at recovery.

Rather than simply locking people away and telling them to behave better next time, give them the tools necessary to be productive in society and competitive in a labor market that demands specialized skills more than ever before. Without these tools, we produce only more hardened criminals not only for our present, but often times across generational lines.

There must be a societal shift in our thinking. Investing in bettering the lives of those we deem criminals may seem counterintuitive but our instinct to only punish has proved a failure not only recently, but for centuries. If the goal of incarceration truly is for the betterment of society, then there is no other option.

If we are to be a compassionate and civil society, we must eliminate the very existence of for-profit prisons. These corporations have only their shareholders’ interests in mind, not society’s. While they remain, the American legal system will never truly have a chance at reform.

Rantt Is Expanding — Join Us

First off, we’d like to start this by saying thank you! For being a loyal reader. For aiding in our mission to speak truth to power. And for making the choice to embark on this journey with us. These are turbulent times so your patriotic vigilance is appreciated and more needed than ever before.

Since we’ve launched in November, we’ve grown into a 14 person organization based in Washington, DC. We have a growing list of contributors and hundreds of thousands of brilliant and patriotic monthly readers like you. And now, we’re expanding. Rantt is ready to hire on a full-time Editor, launch our weekly podcast, build out our new website, expand our writing staff, and provide you with even more hard-hitting stories that get to the heart of issues you care about.

So, we’re launching on Patreon. We’d rather rely on the support of our readers than rely on coverage-corrupting advertising. You can help support our efforts by donating/subscribing and joining the community.

DONATE HERE

Rantt Media is creating Context-rich analysis & journalism | Patreon

Stay in the know and subscribe to our newsletter by following us on Rantt

Follow us on Twitter: @RanttNews

Join us on Facebook: /RanttNews

Write with us: Be Heard

I Worked In A Private Prison — They Are A Cancer On American Society was originally published in Rantt Media on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

For generations, Republicans have taken the moniker of “pro-life” and used it to attract those opposed to abortion. So many fervently oppose the practice in any form they will turn a blind eye to the rest of the harmful Republican agenda if it means nothing other than the opportunity to eliminate abortion once and for all.

Those voters will never turn blue. I’m talking to you, Bernie Sanders. Just forget it.

However, there is a large segment of the population that is both repulsed by the Republican agenda and turned off by Democrats who see abortion as black-and-white the same way Republicans do, but from a completely different side. Whereas some Republicans want to argue that it’s wrong all the time no matter what, some Democrats want to claim it’s wrong to question a woman’s right to an abortion at any time no matter the circumstance.

Both of these hypothetical stances are wrong and both alienate the more centrist voter. The only question is whether Democrats will realize this and get on the same page to attract this type of voter before it’s too late.

The official stance for Democrats has remained somewhat murky, only to get clarified and then a lot murkier following the campaign of Democratic candidate for mayor of Omaha, Nebraska Heath Mello.

Mello was supported by the Democratic National Committee and Sanders, as well as liberal website/fundraiser Daily Kos, only to lose support from Daily Kos after it came out that Mello had sponsored a 20-week abortion bill as a member of the Nebraska state legislature.

While Sanders maintained his support for Mello, the relatively new DNC chair, Tom Perez, seemed eager to officially set the party line.

Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health,” Perez said in a statement. “That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state.”

“At a time when women’s rights are under assault from the White House, the Republican Congress, and in states across the country. We must speak up for this principle as loudly as ever and with one voice.”

And thus, the Democrats’ party line was set. As of April 21st, 2017, any Democrat seeking DNC support would have to 100 percent support the pro-choice platform as currently defined.

That lasted almost 13 whole days until House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said something completely different.

“This is the Democratic Party,” she said. “This is not a rubber-stamp party.”

“I grew up Nancy D’Alesandro, in Baltimore, Maryland; in Little Italy; in a very devout Catholic family; fiercely patriotic; proud of our town and heritage, and staunchly Democratic,” she told the Washington Post. “Most of those people — my family, extended family — are not pro-choice. You think I’m kicking them out of the Democratic Party?”

“In our caucus, one thing unifies us: our values about working families. Some people are more or less enthusiastic about this issue or that issue or that issue. They’ll go along with the program, but their enthusiasm is about America’s working families.”

So, How Do Democrats Reconcile the Two?

Democrats must acknowledge that, yes, there are deal-breakers. The idea of outlawing abortion with no exception must always be off the table as it’s barbaric, not to mention unconstitutional.

However, Democrats must also end the practice of acting like questioning the morality of abortion is always inherently misogynistic or simply unreasonable.

It is reasonable for a person to feel uneasy about the practice while still accepting it is up to a woman to make the final decision — though again, to be very clear, doing otherwise is a deal-breaker. Rational beings may still wrestle with emotions that do not necessarily reflect thought-out conclusions.

For those who simply cannot move past the idea that Democrats will allow abortions and the GOP will not, perhaps the angle of preventing unwanted pregnancy — and therefore the need for abortion entirely — would be enough to entice them to offer their support.

Democrats can say they are going to make it their mission to end abortion as we know it by ending unwanted pregnancy as we know it. They do this by expanding programs that offer contraception to not only women, but men as well. Not only in the form of condoms, but vasectomies and the promise to fund male birth control as well.

Additionally, mandate sex education in public schools across the country that teach young adults how to use contraception safely and effectively. If women who do not want to become pregnant are able to avoid it, then there is no need for abortions.

Knowing, however, there will always be the need for safe and effective options for women in need of abortions, also pledge that Planned Parenthood and like will always have the funding needed to make sure women never need to feel uneasy about their safety should they need to terminate a pregnancy.

Abortion is unpleasant. If it has become an option, it is likely something has gone wrong. The idea should be to prevent it at all costs — and women should have the help necessary to do that every step of the way — but should an abortion become necessary, we must make sure it is safe and effective. That must be what Democrats push in every election cycle from 2018 onward.

It’s an especially good message considering the current “pro-life” party’s message boils down to “suck it up, slut.”

Then again, the GOP has never truly been pro-life.

Trump and the GOP are Anti-Choice, Not Pro-Life

It’s difficult, for example, to call your party “pro-life” when your president puts forth a budget that would significantly target the poor and, specifically, poor children. Per the New York Times:

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known commonly as food stamps, would be cut by $192 billion over the next decade. Medicaid, the health program for the poor, would be cut by $800 billion, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, commonly known as welfare, would be cut by $21 billion.

While those numbers sound bad, it actually gets much worse. Days laters, Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney would admit the cuts to Medicaid are actually closer to $1.3 trillion.

Jan Schakowsky on Twitter

In @HouseBudgetDems hearing, OMB Director Mick Mulvaney confessed that @POTUS' Budget of broken promises will cut Medicaid by $1.3 Trillion. https://t.co/4N70ti8Kb0

In addition to the President’s cruel budget cuts, the CBO score on the American Health Care Act, which passed the House approximately three weeks ago, confirms our worst fears: it’s essentially a death sentence for millions of Americans.

According to the CBO, the AHCA would leave approximately 23 million Americans without insurance over the next 10 years.

Additionally, with states given the ability to opt out of the Affordable Care Act’s Essential Health Benefits requirements, people in those states with pre-existing conditions, mental health issues, substance abuse issues, and even pregnant women would likely be unable to afford medical care.

If pregnant women are unable to afford being pregnant, what exactly do we think they are going to do with that pregnancy? Hold on to that thought, we’ll come back to it.

Finally, per an example given by the CBO, older Americans will also be charged substantially more for their health insurance. You will note older Americans as the ones who use health insurance the most and therefore as the ones who need it to be the most accessible.

A 64-year-old making $26,500 would pay $1,700 in premiums annually under Obamacare. In a state making those “moderate” changes to its market, that 64-year-old would pay $13,600, and in a state with no waivers, the cost would be $16,100. That’s more than nine times that person’s premium under the Affordable Care Act.

The budget cuts plus the passage of the AHCA make one thing very clear: the GOP cannot lay claim to the “pro-life” party moniker. Should their cruel policies be enacted as law, people will die. That is not hyperbole nor is it simply opinion, it is an undeniable fact.

If people with pre-existing conditions can be charged astronomical prices for health insurance, they will die. We have seen this before. It happened every day before the passage of the ACA, and it seems at least one GOP Representative is beginning to catch on to his mistake.

Mark Meadows, who chairs the House Freedom Caucus and pushed the revised version of the AHCA through the House, was apparently caught off guard — after being initially optimistic and in high spirits — when shown by reporters the CBO’s findings that the AHCA would be catastrophic to those with pre-existing conditions.

Listen, I lost my sister to breast cancer. I lost my dad to lung cancer. If anybody is sensitive to preexisting conditions, it’s me. I’m not going to make a political decision today that affects somebody’s sister or father because I wouldn’t do it to myself.

In the end, we’ve got to make sure there’s enough funding there to handle preexisting conditions and drive down premiums. And if we can’t do those three things, then we will have failed.

Meadows reportedly said this while fighting back tears. His ignorance to the effects of a bill he helped push through is inexcusable, but perhaps he’s finally starting to get it.

GOP Policies Will Lead to More Abortion — Not Less

As with people suffering from pre-existing conditions, pregnant women will be subject to skyrocketing healthcare costs, perhaps priced out of health insurance altogether. What, then, do Republicans believe will happen to those pregnancies?

They will end.

And if Republicans have their way, there will be no safe way for that pregnancy to end because Planned Parenthood — the only option for millions of women — will not be able to provide that woman who cannot afford pregnancy an abortion either because they’ve been “defunded” directly or because Medicaid — their primary method of funding — has been slashed so deeply they can no longer operate.

So what Republicans will have effectively done (in their ideal world) is forced that woman into making one of a few decisions:

A) She can keep her baby but be driven to bankruptcy by medical bills and not be able to provide for the baby anyway — Oh, and she can forget food stamps or Medicaid because that’s gone too

B) Eliminate a pregnancy that she may otherwise want to keep in order to avoid financial ruin, but in doing so risk her own health because she has no safe choice for an abortion

I challenge any Republican voter or elected official to explain to me how they see those options as ideal in any setting or to point to a flaw in my logic that would actually create a different option. As it stands, these are the options the GOP would create — all so their buddies can have tax breaks.

This fight really boils down to branding. Somehow, Republicans have convinced voters for decades they are the party defending the lives of those who cannot defend themselves. They say this with a straight face while at the same time proposing massive cuts to programs helping the poor and slashing taxes for their rich friends.

It isn’t a secret, it’s been done out in the open, but for whatever reason Democrats have been unable to change the tune. Democrats are the party fighting for the middle class. They are the party fighting to preserve the safety social net. They are the party fight for women’s rights.

And they are damn sure America’s pro-life party. They just have to let the American people see it.

Stay in the know and subscribe to our daily briefings by following us on Rantt

Follow us on Twitter: @RanttNews

Join us on Facebook: /RanttNews

Write with us: Be Heard

Democrats Are America’s Pro-Life Party was originally published in Rantt Media on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Less than a month before the 2016 election, and shortly after the release of the now-infamous Access Hollywood tapes, Paul Ryan told others in the party he would no longer defend Donald Trump. Instead, he was going to focus on making sure Hillary Clinton, who seemed destined to take the White House, didn’t have a Democratic congress at her disposal.

Fast forward past WikiLeaks, Anthony Wiener, and the nightmare that was November 8th, 2016 to today and Ryan is singing a very different tune.

Ryan has most recently defended Trump concerning the firing of FBI Director James Comey as well as the memo Comey allegedly wrote after Trump asked him to end the investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

However, this is far from the first time Ryan has rushed to play Trump’s white knight these past six months.

Trump’s Voter Fraud Claims

On November 27th, Trump introduced us to this bit of lunacy:

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally

No one is better at being wrong in fewer characters than Trump. Not only did he not win the Electoral College in a “landslide” but he didn’t win the popular vote and there is zero evidence that “millions of people” voted illegally.

But of course facts aren’t going to stand in the way of Donald Trump and Ryan isn’t going to hold him to some impossible standard like telling the truth.

“It doesn’t matter to me. He won the election,” Ryan said when pressed on Trump’s tweets. “The way I see the tweets you’re talking about, he’s basically giving voice to a lot of people who have felt that they were voiceless. He’s communicating with people in this country who’ve felt like they have not been listened to. He’s going to be an unconventional president.”

“Who cares what he tweeted, you know, on some Thursday night, if we fix this country’s big problems?” he added. “That’s just the way I look at this.”

Translation: I, Paul Ryan, do not care to check the Executive on facts if it means tax cuts for the wealthy.

Muslim Ban

After Trump’s first Muslim Ban was dropped with almost no warning, the country was thrown into a fit of chaos. No one was quite sure who was allowed and who wasn’t, which led to even Green Card residents being refused entry into the country.

Set aside for one second the blatant attack on the Constitution by attempting to exclude one religion and all the moral issues one should have with such policy — Trump’s team couldn’t even get the execution of the ban right.

CBS News on Twitter

What is happening is something we support... we need to make sure that the vetting standards are up to snuff," Paul Ryan says of travel ban https://t.co/iX6YkOLkLl

In typical Ryan fashion, he also set aside the unconstitutional nature of the ban, as well as its moral failings, and instead decided the real issue was simply the poor “rollout” of it.

“I think it’s regrettable that there was some confusion on the rollout with this,” Ryan said, per The Hill. Then, moments later, he said it again: “Regrettably, the rollout was confusing.”

Translation: I love that we’re keeping Muslims out, but I’d really like to be more efficient about it.

“So-Called Judge”

After a judge blocked Trump’s aforementioned Muslim Ban, Trump lashed out via — where else? — Twitter:

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!

The tweet was seen by many as an attack on the judiciary, but gosh darn it all, Paul Ryan just didn’t see it that way.

“I think what’s most important are the actions,” Ryan said. “This administration is honoring the ruling, and this administration is going through the proper procedures to deal with the ruling to try and get the ruling overturned. They’re going through the appeals process, they’re respecting the separation of powers in the process. Look, I know he’s an unconventional President. He gets frustrated with judges, we get frustrated with judges. But he’s respecting the process, and that’s what counts at the end of the day.”

Translation: What’s everyone so mad about? At least he didn’t declare himself a dictator, right?

Firing Flynn Weeks Too Late

Back in early February — what feels like a lifetime ago — Trump was forced to fire his National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn. News broke that Flynn had several inappropriate conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, regarded in American intelligence circles as a top Russian spy, and had apparently “misled” Vice President Mike Pence, who went on record defending Flynn against allegations of wrong-doing.

Even at the time there was talk that Trump knew all about Flynn’s improprieties thanks to Sally Yates’s warning, but he kept him on as his NSA for over two weeks anyway. We now know President Obama warned Trump shortly after the election about hiring Flynn and it appears as though Pence also knew Flynn was under federal investigation, even if he perhaps was unaware of the contacts with Kislyak.

At the time, it was a huge scandal for Trump as he was forced to make Flynn the shortest-serving NSA in history and furthered calls for a new, broad-ranging investigation into Trump’s dealings with Russia.

However, off in the distance, Ryan put down his 25-pound weights, cranked up the Rage Against the Machine on his iPod and rode in to defend Trump once more.

“National security is perhaps the most important function or responsibility a president has. And I think the president made the right decision to ask for his resignation,” Ryan said at a news conference. “You cannot have the national security adviser misleading the vice president and others.”

It’s a pretty vanilla statement until he was asked about reports that Trump knew Flynn was dirty from the very beginning, to which he replied “I’m not going to prejudge any of the circumstances surrounding this.”

Translation: Please stop asking me to do my job. Please.

James Comey Firing/Memo

After Comey’s abrupt and shocking firing, Ryan stuck mostly to the same lines the rest of the party did. He’s the president, he has the right to fire him, and other responses that didn’t actually address the issue.

Ryan also once again pushed back against the idea of a special prosecutor, claiming congress could sufficiently investigate the connections between Trump and Russia, all the while denying they really existed.

A week later, when news dropped that Comey had kept detailed notes during his meetings with Trump, and specifically one meeting wherein Trump asked Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn, Ryan promptly showed off his flexibility by sticking his entire foot in his mouth.

“We can’t deal with speculation and innuendo, and there’s clearly a lot of politics being played. Our job is to get the facts and be sober about doing that,” he said.

Yes, because if there’s one thing Republicans are known for over the past decade or so, it’s their slow and deliberate method of fact-gathering regardless of party affiliation.

Ryan also claimed that it was “obvious” people were out to hurt Trump, implying once again the memo and leaks were purely political. Ryan has stuck to this theme since the election and doesn’t appear to be backing off.

What’s Next?

With all the insanity surrounding Trump and his administration, it’s unlikely the next few weeks will be any calmer. However, Trump just might be on his own for a while as Ryan deals with his own PR nightmare.

The Washington Post obtained a transcript of a conversation between Ryan and other GOP leaders, in which they acknowledge Russia was behind the hacking of the DNC and even “joke” that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin pays Trump and congressman Dana Rohrabacher.

All parties initially denied the conversation ever happened. Then they were informed there was a tape. Now they claim it was all a big joke. Something tells me Ryan is going to be wrapped up in defending that for a while.

The larger point here is the lengths Ryan goes to defend Trump, even knowing he was aided by the Russians and acknowledging just over six months ago the man was indefensible. Despite multiple paths for impeachment, Ryan continues to defend the indefensible rather than doing his job of providing a check and balance to the Executive.

The question is: to what end?

Seemingly, the answer is tax cuts. For whatever reason, Ryan is on a crusade to throw people off their health insurance, destroy Medicare/Medicaid, and give the richest people in the country the largest tax cuts possible.

Perhaps this comes from a true belief that this is the way a country should be governed, perhaps it’s something more nefarious like simply lining his own pockets with dark money from very happy millionaires, or perhaps it’s a mix of both.

Ryan has a chance to do the right thing for the country and really, in the long run, the right thing for the GOP as a party. Instead, he has sacrificed the safety and security of the country by keeping it in the hands of a man unfit and incapable to be president in exchange for perhaps a few short-term wins.

At the moment, Ryan may feel like he’s winning with the rollbacks of Obama-era environmental protections, passing the AHCA through the House, and whatever other disastrous policy pushes he has up his sleeve, but one thing is for certain: history will not be kind to him if he continues down this path.

Stay in the know and subscribe to our daily briefings by following us on Rantt

Follow us on Twitter: @RanttNews

Join us on Facebook: /RanttNews

Write with us: Be Heard

Paul Ryan Is A Coward was originally published in Rantt Media on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

With control of the House, Senate, and the presidency, Republicans have proved they are unable to govern. Donald Trump has had to rely largely on Executive Orders for governance and even their promise to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act grows less likely by the day.

However, there is one area in which Republicans are unmatched in their competency: their ability to take common words and phrases and turn them into propaganda, effectively gaslighting the entire country.

These words and phrases can be heard in nearly every Republican speech, be it on the campaign trail or on the floor of the House or Senate, because they’ve been effective. Many Americans have been sucked in without even knowing it, a slave to the GOP propaganda machine.

Below are just a few of the GOP’s greatest hits from over the years.

Patriot

What it should mean: “a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors.”

What it actually means: Essentially the same thing, except instead of “supports their country” it now means “supports their party.”

When Republicans talk about being a patriot, they do not mean they have the best interest of the country at heart. If they did, they wouldn’t be aiding and abetting Trump in his robbery of the American people. Instead, they mean they stick up for their Republican idea of what the country should be.

More specifically, a white male-dominated Christian capitalist utopia.

Pro-Life

What it should mean: The ideal that all life is sacred, from the unborn to the elderly, from the extremely rich to the downtrodden and less fortunate, regardless of race, sex, creed, sexual orientation, or religion.

What it actually means: No abortions.

Republicans have latched to the term “pro-life” when what they really mean is “anti-choice.” If the GOP were really pro-life, they would not also be pro-war, pro-death penalty, and actively trying to dismantle the social safety net. They do not fight for life, they fight against choice.

Job Creator(s)

What it should mean: Entrepreneurs, be they large or small, who have established a business model that requires the employment of others to sustain and further the company.

What it actually means: Rich people who make a living paying workers as little as possible and not offering any kind of benefits other than a meager paycheck while raking in a fortune and donating to political campaigns.

The term “job creators” has morphed into a euphemism for “wealthy donors I don’t want to alienate by doing things like making them pay a living wage, providing health benefits, or paying their fair share in taxes.” You can hear this term in nearly every Republican stump speech.

Family Values

What it should mean: The idea we should all strive for a country and government that does its very best to create an environment in which the family unit — traditional or otherwise — can thrive. A communal sense of togetherness should be the driving force of policy.

What it actually means: “Family” in this context is one man, one woman, and children. Nothing else actually counts as a “family” and the “values” part once against mean white and Christian.

This term is brought up to scare people whenever the idea of social progress comes up. It’s a term that burrows into the heads of white, Christian families everywhere as something that must be protected at all costs. This term is brought up when things like transgender people using the bathroom is discussed, and usually ends with stories like these.

(Spoiler Alert! It’s a collection of Republicans doing gay and/or illegal stuff)

“Get the Government Out of Your Bedroom”

What it should mean: The government shouldn’t try to legislate what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom.

What it actually means: A deep, burning desire to do the exact opposite.

Republicans often use this phrase when discussing things like contraception, thinking that somehow mandating coverage of birth control is government interference in the bedroom. They fail to see the irony in supporting archaic anti-gay legislation while they shout this phrase from their podiums.

Federal money for Viagra is fine though. Because men!

Average American

What it should mean: The “average American” should refer to the middle class, working person regardless of race, gender, or religion.

What it actually means: It means white, Christian people.

Are we all noticing the trend here? Come on.

This term has more recently gotten a bit more specific to mean anyone currently working or who has worked in a coal mine or factory of some kind as Republicans pander to the Rust Belt.

A Few More…

Liberal Elites = College-educated, professors, and/or media types
Bad Hombres = Mexicans
Takers = Poor minorities who need welfare
Forgotten Man = Lower and middle-class white men
“Grab ’em by the pussy” = Locker room talk

Politicians have always looked for a way to brand their policy and put a spin on certain words and phrases to benefit their agenda, but Republicans have taken it a step further. They don’t simply practice in buzzwords, they have gone over the brink into full-blown propaganda.

Whether it’s the work of people like Frank Luntz, who creates many of the dog-whistle phrases for Republicans, or Josh Holmes, former Mitch McConnell staffer who first coined “repeal and replace,” Republicans have fallen into a cycle of propaganda first, policy second.

Josh Holmes on Twitter

My notecard from our March 2010 meeting where "repeal and replace" was born.

Or as in the case of “repeal and replace,” just propaganda.

Stay in the know and subscribe to our daily briefings by following us on Rantt

Follow us on Twitter: @RanttNews

Join us on Facebook: /RanttNews

Write with us: Be Heard

Words And Phrases Republicans Use To Gaslight America was originally published in Rantt Media on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Over the past couple of years, Bernie Sanders has become something of a folk hero to a large portion of the country.

The senator from Vermont is one of only two independents currently serving in the senate. Sanders frequently calls out Wall Street, pharmaceutical companies, and the big banks. He opposes war, foreign intervention, and trade deals he feels negatively effect American workers.

His presidential campaign, though unsuccessful, proved a candidate can earn large sums of campaign cash without the help of large, corporate donors. As a result, Sanders consistently ranks as one of the most popular political figures in the country.

However, while Sanders dreams big and talks a good game, scratching past the surface reveals a man full of bark with very little bite.

Political Beginnings

Bernie’s introduction to public office came in 1980, when he successfully ran for mayor of Burlington, Vermont. The successful campaign came after four consecutive failed bids for both the House of Representatives and Governor of Vermont as a member of the Liberty Union party, a left-wing party found only in Vermont.

Before that, Sanders considered himself a “political activist” and remembered his introduction to politics as being extremely important.

“A guy named Adolf Hitler won an election in 1932,” he told the Christian Science Monitor. “He won an election, and 50 million people died as a result of that election in World War II, including 6 million Jews. So what I learned as a little kid is that politics is, in fact, very important.”

Here is perhaps the first case of Sanders’ idealistic speech not matching up to his pragmatic actions. While claiming politics was very important to him at an early age, he has also admitted to not voting until nearly 40 years old.

“Actually, I didn't (vote when turning 21). Politics interested me in the sense of basic social issues such as social justice, poverty, the condition of black people or war and peace issues, but I would say, I certainly did not gravitate towards electoral politics. I think probably, I won’t swear to it, that the first time I voted was in the state of Vermont, probably for myself.”

It’s great that Bernie was aware of the plight of others. Social justice is perhaps the most worthy cause anyone can champion. However, it’s foolishly idealistic to believe that things will change simply by griping about them. Even protesting has its limits in creating social change if the protesters are unwilling to back up their beliefs at the polls.

Go back and read the quote again. Not the one about not voting, the one about how he discovered elections are important.

Alright, now read the one about not voting.

Only a wide-eyed idealist could say these things and not think they conflict with one another. If you believe elections are important because one gave rise to Hitler and therefore the Holocaust, why don’t you believe in them enough to vote in your own state’s or country’s until you’re the one on the ballot?

It seems like an obvious question to those of us who have been hitting the polls since our 18th birthday, but Bernie and his supporters seem to lack this basic sense of pragmatism. There is a desire for revolution and an up-ending of the entire system, but it comes from a belief that simply wanting it hard enough will be sufficient.

An “Impotent” Legislator

Perhaps that’s why in approximately 25 years in the House and Senate, Sanders doesn’t have a ton he can point to as an example of change he has championed and seen accomplished. In fact, those who work with him are even hard-pressed to think of any.

According to Politico, when asked to name specific instances of Bernie’s influence, Senator Tammy Baldwin was stumped.

“Um,” she said, pausing for a full eight seconds while thinking, “I’m sure I could. In terms of the things that he talks the most about, is when he was chair of the Veterans Affairs committee. But he actually compromised on a whole heck of a lot. Back in … it’s not coming to my mind right now.”

While it’s true Sanders did help veterans attain better and quicker health care, that is only one of three bills he sponsored that has become law. The other two were renaming USPS locations in Vermont.

While Baldwin tried to help out a colleague, one of Sanders’ former colleagues in the House of Representatives, Barney Frank, was not so forgiving.

“His legislative record was to state the ideological position he took on the left, but with the exception of a few small things, he never got anything done,” said Frank. “Senators are not impotent.”

Sanders likes to point to different things he did not support and fought against, such as the war in Iraq, DOMA, the TARP bailouts, the PATRIOT Act, and other bills that later would prove unpopular as examples of his impact as a legislator. However, he conveniently leaves out votes against the Brady Bill, which mandated a waiting period when purchasing a firearm, and in favor of the now-infamous Clinton Crime Bill of 1994, among others.

He was all too happy, however, to attack Hillary Clinton on such past issues while ignoring his own. This is the impulse of Bernie Sanders: everyone must past the purity test.

Except Bernie Sanders, of course.

Becoming a Democrat?

After years of presenting himself as a maverick totally independent of the two parties — to the point of even refusing to caucus with Democrats while he was in the House because they couldn’t pass his purity test — Sanders saw an opportunity in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election.

Suddenly, with an opportunity to bolster his national recognition, Bernard Sanders found a bit of pragmatism in an old coat jacket and decided now was the right time to become a Democrat.

After nearly 25 years, Sanders switched party affiliations and ran against Clinton in the Democratic primary. The move was seen as largely inconsequential at the time, but would prove to be a big part of the Democrats’ undoing.

While he held off in the beginning, trying to still brand himself an independent with a “D” next to his name, Sanders couldn’t help but revert to his old ways. The debates with Clinton, civil at first, got nasty and more personal the longer the primary went. The more states Sanders won, the more savage he became.

Sanders attacked Clinton for her past voting record, though it largely holds up to his own. He even at one point called the former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State unqualified for the presidency. Then he began to claim the DNC had rigged the election against him.

Sanders, unknowingly or otherwise, was laying the foundation for what would later become central themes of Donald Trump’s campaign.

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

Bernie Sanders says that Hillary Clinton is unqualified to be president. Based on her decision making ability, I can go along with that!

We all know how the story of the primary ended: Clinton wound up building an insurmountable lead that included a raw vote advantage of approximately 4 million and more delegates than Sanders could have hoped to gain with the few states remaining.

However, Sanders refused to drop out. At one point he even vowed to take it all the way to the convention, a move that would have torn Democrats more than his campaign already had.

Even once he finally did drop out, his endorsement of Clinton and the Democrats as a whole was lukewarm at best.

“I also look forward to working with Secretary Clinton to transform the Democratic Party so that it becomes a party of working people and young people, and not just wealthy campaign contributors: a party that has the courage to take on Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the fossil fuel industry and the other powerful special interests that dominate our political and economic life.”

Sanders could not have released a more passive-aggressive statement if he read it out loud while rolling his eyes and doing the “blah blah blah” motion with his hand. In that statement he told all of his supporters that Democrats were not working for them and officially cast them as “the lesser of two evils,” a theme that would push many Sanders supporters away from Clinton and Democrats.

After officially dropping out, his support would become more steady as he campaigned with and for Hillary. Perhaps seeing the threat of a Trump presidency scared him enough to bring his wits about him for a while, but to the chagrin of the majority of the country, it wasn’t enough.

Well, Maybe Not

During the primary, Sanders was attacked by some for not truly becoming a Democrat. He signed the paperwork and used the DNC when convenient, but still seemed to be pushing his own agenda and keeping other Democrats at arms-length. When asked about his status as a Democrat during the primary at a New Hampshire town hall, Sanders said:

“Of course I am a Democrat and running for the Democratic nomination.”

A couple months later, Sanders’ campaign manager Jeff Weaver unequivocally stated Sanders was not just a Democrat now, but would be a Democrat forever and ever.

“Well, he is a Democrat, he said he’s a Democrat and he’s gonna be supporting the Democratic nominee, whoever that is,” Weaver responded in a Bloomberg interview with Mark Halperin.

“But he’s a member of the Democratic Party now for life?” Halperin pressed.

“Yes, he is,” Weaver said.

And so he did, right up until the election was over.

After the election, Democrats attempted to regroup, recognizing they could grow and expand by bringing Sanders into a leadership role with the party, hoping to attract the young progressives who so fervently supported him the primary. With that idea in mind, Democrats created a leadership position specifically for Sanders, appointing him the head of Democratic Outreach.

However, even with a shiny new appointment at the head of the Democratic party, Sanders once again backtracked.

“I was elected as an Independent and I will finish this term as an Independent,” Sanders said.

Sanders seemingly left the door open for a party switch after this current term was complete, but has all but slammed shut even that possibility. Instead, Sanders has decided to keep his independent status while using the Democrats as a way of expanding his national profile.

A Saboteur From the Inside

Since Trump’s inauguration in January, Sanders has consistently attacked Democrats and undercut them from the inside. Even knowing the Democrats face an uphill battle in fighting anything Trump and a GOP-controlled congress wants to do, Sanders can’t seem to quit stroking his own ego.

The DNC, on the other hand, has done everything they can think of to appease him and his supporters.

There was a contentious vote for a new DNC leader to replace the interim chair, Donna Brazile. Tom Perez, former Labor Secretary under President Obama, and Keith Ellison, a representative from Minnesota and devoted Berniecrat, sent the election into a second round. To the chagrin of the Berniecrats, Perez won.

However, in a move to unify the party, Perez immediately named Ellison his №2 and began attempting to reform the party’s image. So far, Ellison has been helpful in attempting to reunite the party, despite some ridiculous comments about President Obama.

Sanders, however, wrench in hand, has been nothing but harmful.

In the first special election since Trump’s inauguration, James Thompson, a Berniecrat, ran for the House seat vacated when Mike Pompeo became CIA Director. Thompson performed especially well, losing by only seven points in a district that voted +27 for Trump in 2016.

Sanders did not support Thompson in person, vocally, or in writing. He ignored the campaign almost completely, yet saw fit to lecture Democrats on doing the exact same thing he did.

“It is true that the Democratic Party should have put more resources into that election,” Sanders said on CNN’s “State of the Union” of the Thompson campaign.

On its face, it’s easy to buy in to the sentiment. The DNC and DCCC should have absolutely done more to help Thompson. But Bernie seems to forget he’s a party leader now and the failures of Democrats are his as well, despite his unwillingness to call himself a Democrat.

Speaking of which, Sanders also remained conspicuously silent regarding Jon Ossoff and his campaign to take Georgia’s 6th District, vacated by current HHS Secretary Tom Price.

In fact, before the jungle primary in which Ossoff nearly won outright, Sanders had not spoken about the election. Not until after the primary was over did he even mention Ossoff, and even then it was only to undercut him.

“I don’t know,” Sanders replied when asked if Ossoff is a progressive.

“If you run as a Democrat, you’re a Democrat. … Some Democrats are progressive and some Democrats are not,” he said.

Sanders released a much stronger endorsement of Ossoff a few days later, but it still shows his unwillingness to simply help the Democrats in resisting the Trump agenda. Most recently, Sanders decided it would be a great idea to come out and attack the entire foundation of the party.

“I think what is clear to anyone who looks at where the Democratic Party today is, that the model of the Democratic Party is failing,” Sanders said on CBS’s Face the Nation.

Democrats must become “a grassroots party, a party which makes decisions from the bottom on up, a party which is more dependent on small donations than large donations.”

Again, the sentiment isn’t necessarily wrong. However, in a time when Democrats are doing all they can to resist a budding facist, it appears as though the effort to resist Trump really only counts if it’s his idea.

Even if that idea means supporting a candidate who opposes abortion, despite the Democratic party’s official stance to the contrary.

Again, that’s the purity politics of Bernie Sanders.

Moving On From Here…

Sanders is an extremely popular politician, and for good reason. Many of his ideas are rooted in common sense and the way a government should be run. For example, his call for parties to operate from the bottom-up, fighting big banks and Wall Street, demanding health care for everyone, and making sure everyone pays their fair share.

On these issues, Bernie Sanders is right. The message itself is great, but the delivery is horrendous. Attacking the only party attempting to fight for the middle class, the environment, health care, and many of Sanders’ other pet projects defies reason.

Yes, Democrats need some introspection, but do that without leading people to the “lesser of two evils” conclusion.

Again.

This fight is simple. Democrats are attempting to do the right thing for the country. Republicans are not. That should be the main theme behind every speech Bernie gives.

If changing the party really is what drives him, perhaps he could start by joining it. Talk of change comes off less harsh and more sincere when it’s coming from the inside rather than an outsider who just lobs critiques with no practical solutions.

Sanders’ job is supposed to be about bringing people into the Democratic party, but how can he do that when he won’t join himself? If someone tries to get you to enter a restaurant but only tells you repeatedly they need to change their entire menu and all their ingredients and, by the way, that person refuses to eat there or even walk in the building themselves, are you going in?

No. It defies all logic.

Democrats have hitched their wagon to Bernie. There is no going back now, unfortunately. The only thing left to do is hopefully convince Bernie that he is harming the party, and the cause, whether he realizes it or not.

And only when Bernie realizes that strong idealism must be partnered with an even stronger sense of pragmatism will there be any hope of Democrats truly taking the next step in re-taking congress and the White House.

Stay in the know and subscribe to our daily briefings by following us on Rantt

Follow us on Twitter: @RanttNews

Join us on Facebook: /RanttNews

Write with us: Be Heard

Bernie Sanders Has Always Sacrificed Pragmatism For Idealism, But Now It’s Hurting Democrats was originally published in Rantt Media on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Senate Democrats are currently in a lose-lose position. While the filibuster of Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court is noble, it is likely a futile effort to think they can keep Gorsuch off the bench.

Traditionally, a Supreme Court appointee has needed 60 votes to make his/her way to the bench. This threshold forces the parties to come together and compromise on an appointee rather than simply pushing through whatever the majority party is feeling at the time.

However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is ready to throw that tradition out the window and invoke the so-called “nuclear option” that would reduce the threshold of confirmation from 60 to 51. This option would effectively end any and all input from the minority party on Supreme Court nominees moving forward, kill the filibuster, and leave the country at the whim of the majority.

Donald Trump has told McConnell to just go ahead and do it, but he’s not exactly a planner. The option is unpopular even among Republicans like Senator John McCain, but he has made clear he will vote for it anyway.

“I find myself torn between protecting the traditions and practices of the Senate and the importance of having a full complement of justices on the Supreme Court,” McCain said, per the Huffington Post. “I’m left with no choice. I will vote to change the rules an allow Judge Gorsuch to be confirmed by a simple majority.”

McCain, of course, confronts his own hypocrisy with this statement as he had no objection to the unprecedented treatment of Merrick Garland, President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee who was never even granted a hearing, and also vowed not to allow Hillary Clinton a SCOTUS nominee should she win the election.

So, the issue here is do the Republicans look long-term and decide to stick with what’s best for the country and potentially beneficial to them down the road or take the road of instant gratification and blow the whole thing up?

Without any cooperation from Democrats, McConnell will go nuclear. He has made that perfectly clear and, given the treatment Judge Garland received, it would be foolish to think McConnell is bluffing.

This is where the Democrats’ liberal base is going to get upset, but they’ll just have to deal with it; Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer needs to make a deal with McConnell and the Republicans.

As it stands, the biggest issue Democrats have with Gorsuch isn’t even so much his past rulings — which are indeed worrisome — but more so that his appointment takes place while the sitting President is under an FBI investigation that could lead to charges of treason if allegations prove true.

Therefore, Schumer needs to find a way to put the nomination on hold while the investigation proceeds, but also keep the filibuster in place. The only way to do this is tell McConnell that if he puts off a vote on Gorsuch until after the investigation is concluded, and Trump is cleared, Democrats will support Gorsuch and the filibuster remains intact.

However, if Trump is impeached and removed, Republicans agree Gorsuch’s nomination is tainted and vote him down or allow him to remove himself from consideration.

How likely McConnell is to even listen to such a deal depends on how much he actually wants to save the filibuster for the future and whether or not he believes Trump may have done something wrong.

Despite his recent rhetoric, McConnel has made impassioned cases to save the filibuster in the past. Of course, that was all the way back in 2013 when the Republicans were the minority in the Senate, so it’s tough to tell how much the practice really means to him.

If McConnell feels even a shred of responsibility to keep the filibuster, then his decision could come down to how he feels about Trump’s potential guilt. If he believes Trump may have colluded with Russia, he might want to get Gorsuch through as quickly as possible before any connection to Trump becomes forever tainted. If he truly believes Trump is innocent, he just might be willing to wait.

Either way, this entire process will leave neither side unscathed. For Democrats, they could see their voice as a minority taken from them and a right-wing judge placed on the bench for the next 40 years. For Republicans, they could set themselves up to be judged harshly for eliminating the filibuster, especially when the time comes they find themselves in the minority once again.

The proposed deal isn’t perfect by any stretch, but it could allow both parties to save face. The more extreme sects of the respective bases won’t be happy, but the average American, even partisans, want to see compromise. This deal would show a willingness for compromise while allowing the Senate to keep its coveted status as the senior chamber of congress.

But don’t hold your breath.

Stay in the know and subscribe to our daily briefings by following us on Rantt

Follow us on Twitter: @RanttNews

Join us on Facebook: /RanttNews

Write with us: Be Heard

Democrats Must Make A Deal On Neil Gorsuch Nomination To Save Filibuster was originally published in Rantt Media on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

War Could Boost Donald Trump’s Approval Ratings, But Not For Long

As Donald Trump’s poll numbers continue to plummet, the dangers of his presidency begin to rise. As a narcissist looks to save his legacy — and his brand — unthinkable options quickly find a place at the table.

On March 28th, Trump’s approval rating cratered to 35 percent, and remains low. Per Gallup, he has enjoyed two days of net favorability, and that was by exactly one point.

Trump has failed on his promise to defeat ISIS in 30 days. He has failed to repeal Obamacare. He continues to be subject to an investigation that could amount to treason. At this point, he and his staff could look to the past to determine the quickest way a president can boost favorability.

Hint: it doesn’t come from anything legislative.

Before the Gulf War, the elder George Bush enjoyed a favorability of 60 percent. After the Gulf War began, those approval ratings jumped 27 points to a resounding 87 percent.

Fast forward 10 years to the presidency of Bush 43. Like his father, Bush enjoyed a relatively high approval rating (certainly better than anything Trump could currently hope for), but saw it skyrocket after the 9/11 terrorist attacks from 57 percent to 87 percent.

It doesn’t take a ton of political insight to see what’s going on here: Americans like war-time presidents.

They like them at first, anyway.

Bush Sr. saw his support fall off a cliff shortly thereafter because he still couldn’t get anything done legislatively (unfortunately, Americans paying higher taxes can indeed read lips). Bush 43 saw his approval drop off after the 9/11 attacks, but watched them spike once more in the wake of the Iraq invasion.

The short-term increase in support actually has a name in Political Science. It’s called the “Rally ‘Round the Flag Effect” because a time of war or national crisis brings a people together around the one thing they all assuredly have in common, the flag.

By extension, the leader waving the flag becomes the rallying point.

Were war to suddenly break out, Trump becomes the symbol of American patriotism. Suddenly, questioning the president is equivalent to questioning America. The effect can be seen during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the capture of American hostages in Tehran, and of course the aforementioned Gulf War and 9/11 attacks.

It wouldn’t matter to Trump that their approval ratings dropped immediately after the wave of patriotic fervor wore off. He thinks by the day and cares for nothing more than his brand. If he believes war will make America like him, even for a little while, it’s something he’d consider.

How plausible is this scenario?

Given his actions thus far, it’s not a stretch to think this is already being planned out as a backup. We heard the insane rant about how the United States doesn’t win wars anymore:

Combine that with the increased drone strikes, relaxed rules of engagement, presence of 1,000 additional American soldiers in Syria, the verbal attacks on NATO and other American allies, his cozying-up to Vladimir Putin and Russia; the recipe for a disaster is there just waiting to be mixed together.

For Trump, an armed conflict would simply work as a proxy war between him and his wavering ego. Every attack he gives the green light, every widow he can trot out on national TV, every time the number of casualties on the other side goes up, Trump would feel better about himself.

The investigation into Russian ties would fall to the wayside, even with Mike Flynn’s upcoming testimony, as would any questions of the Emoluments Clause.

Given the spy novel in which we are all currently trapped, nothing is outside the realm of possibility. Trump and his administration are under an immense amount of pressure at the moment. Simply wagging the dog and gaslighting via tweets will eventually not be good enough.

He’s going to need something big to take the heat off, even for a little while.

He has the ability to send troops where he desires and the votes in the House and Senate to pay for all of it. He has the means, the opportunity and, should his numbers continue to drop and the investigations pick up, he’ll have the motivation.

Falling Approval Ratings For Donald Trump Increase Chances Of War was originally published in Rantt Media on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Republicans in D.C. are officially the dogs who caught the car.

For years they’ve symbolically voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act — or Obamacare — with no real plan for what that would mean because they knew President Obama was never going to sign on to repealing his landmark legislation. That’s the chase.

In November, they won control of the House, Senate, and the White House. The bumper was in sight. Just a matter of waiting for Inauguration Day and they’d finally get that car they’d been chasing for six years.

So they clamped on, hopped in the driver’s seat, wagged their collective tails in celebration…and immediately peed all over the seat and started stress-eating the steering wheel.

Eventually they squatted and pooped out what’s less-than-affectionately being called TrumpCare (officially the American Health Care Act), though it’s likely more accurate to call it RyanCare. Either way, it has all the popularity of cleaning up after your dog with a thin napkin. In the rain. At about 4:30 in the morning.

It’s not popular, is what I’m saying. In fact, according to Public Policy Polling:

PPP’s newest national poll finds that there is very little support for the American Health Care Act. Only 24% of voters support it, to 49% who are opposed. Even among Republican voters only 37% are in favor of the proposal to 22% who are against it, and 41% who aren’t sure one way or another. Democrats (15/71) and independents (22/49) are more unified in their opposition to the bill than Republicans are in favor of it.

The Affordable Care Act continues to post some of the best numbers it’s ever seen, with 47% of voters in favor of it to 39% who are opposed. When voters are asked whether they’d have rather have the Affordable Care Act or the American Health Care Act in place, the Affordable Care Act wins by 20 points at 49/29. Just 32% of voters think the best path forward with the Affordable Care Act is to repeal it and start over, while 63% think it would be better to keep what works in it and fix what doesn’t.

Obamacare now enjoys a plurality approval rating and easily outpaces the Republican alternative. Even Republicans hate this bill. However, that hasn’t stopped Donald Trump from going so far as to threaten Republican House members with losing their seats if they don’t vote for the bill.

Despite what Trump says or does, that might already be the case.

Obamacare is highly unpopular among Republicans (though gaining in popularity), but that largely comes from pure ignorance of the bill and, for some, not even recognizing that the ACA and Obamacare are the same thing. They may not respond well to the name, but they love what it entails.

While it’s true that TrumpCare would keep the most popular portions like requiring insurers to cover pre-existing conditions and allowing children to stay on their parent’s health insurance until they’re 26, essentially killing access to Medicaid and drastically reducing federal subsidies for the low-and middle-class are key pieces to the Republican legislation.

Those provisions would hurt Trump supporters the most, which is why the AARP has come out against the bill. The AARP is one of the largest special interest groups in the country and hold a lot of clout with voters. Losing their backing would be devastating to re-election campaigns in 2018.

For vastly different reasons, the Koch Brothers — major Republicans donators — also hate this bill. They, like the Freedom Caucus, don’t believe the bill goes far enough in removing government influence and repealing Obamacare.

This leaves Republicans with their backs firmly in a corner with a lose-lose decision to make while taking several groups into account.

First, does it matter to them if Trump is on their side or not? Well, given his popularity at a dismal 37 percent, Republicans might be wise to distance themselves from Trump anyway. His support won’t mean much if a majority of the country is against him next November.

Secondly, how much do they rely on endorsements from groups like the AARP and money from donators like the Koch Brothers? Odds are the support of the AARP and the money is a bigger help to them in 2018 than anything Trump can provide.

Lastly, and most complicated, are the voters.

Republicans have promised for six years to repeal Obamacare. The phrase “repeal and replace” was uttered perhaps more than “cash me ousside” and with perhaps less forethought. However, if this is the “replace” option, can they afford to go through with it?

If they repeal Obamacare only to watch as collectively millions of their constituents lose health insurance, they won’t have the Democrats to blame. Even voters not particularly focused on politics know the Republicans are running the show at the moment and will blame them if their health insurance goes away.

If they vote against this bill and kill it, it’s unlikely they would be able to come together on something brand new that would garner enough support to pass through both chambers of congress before the midterm elections. If Obamacare is still in place come 2018, voters will also hold them accountable for breaking a key campaign promise.

They’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. They have been lambasting Obamacare for six years, only to watch it grow in popularity. Constituents have turned out in droves to fight for the preservation of the bill, only to be met with accusations they’re paid protestors and immediately dismissed. Even diehard conservatives will not forget such a slight.

The only option Republicans had was to present the country with a bill that was truly better than Obamacare. If it meant even one person lost coverage, it wasn’t going to work. If premiums went up one dollar, it was doomed. What they came up with was a bill that would kick 24 million off insurance and raise premiums as much as $13,000 for some — all the while giving billions in tax breaks to the top two percent.

To put it simply, the Republicans have made nearly every mistake with this bill they possibly could. For some, it will mean an end to their political careers. For Republicans in general, it will mean a short-lived stay in the driver’s seat.

Donald Trump And Republicans Have Already Lost On Healthcare was originally published in Rantt Media on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

In American politics, the term “third party” is often given to any party other than Democrat or Republican. For example, Greens and Libertarians are called “third party” voters despite the obvious numbering issue we have going on.

That being said, neither of the third parties (stick with me) wield any significant political power. In fact, only two senators identify as neither Republican nor Democrat: Angus King (I-ME) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

Hello, welcome to the segue.

As the title may have tipped you off, Bernie Sanders represents one of the best possibilities for a significant third party in the United States. He ran for president as a Democrat and caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate (as does King), but is significantly more progressive and left-wing than mainstream Democrats.

Sanders pushed many left-wing views that centrist Democrats have avoided, such as a “Medicare For All” system and debt-free college. He also aggressively attacked Wall Street and pharmaceutical companies, which have traditionally bankrolled many Democrats.

Given no real chance against mainstay Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries, Sanders shocked the political world and gained a real grassroots sort of following. While it wasn’t enough to win him the nomination, it’s a group that has not gone away.

Millennials (18–35) and first-time voters made up a large portion of his base and, while many eventually would vote for Clinton, these are people who do not consider themselves Democrats. Like Sanders, they worked with Democrats simply because they’re not Republicans

Oh, look at that, another segue!

According to Pew Research, 41 percent of Millennial voters do not consider themselves Democrats or Republicans. In fact, that 41 percent makes up the plurality, giving independent voters among Millennials a seven-point edge over Democrats (34 percent) and a 19-point edge over Republicans (22 percent).

Since 1992, that puts independents at plus-seven, Democrats at plus-1, and Republicans at minus-five among Millennials.

Clearly, this is a trend that isn’t losing momentum any time soon, despite a slight dip in those calling themselves independent for a highly-partisan 2016 election that likely proves an aberration.

That brings us to the least-obvious contributor to a third party: Donald Trump.

It would appear as though Trump and the Republicans are a united front in their valiant efforts to bring back pollution, unregulated banking, and taking health insurance from sick people — and they absolutely are — but Trump’s base represents a totally different era of “Republican.”

Well, by “different era” I mean just recycled version of the 1950’s, but I think we’re on the same page. Don’t get nitpicky on me.

What we see from these Trump Republicans (Trumplicans?) is a group of people even further to the right than the Bernie Democrats (Berniecrats?) are to the left.

You know the people. The frogs on Twitter, the people who words like “cuck” or “beta-male” and usually describe themselves as “not politically correct!!!” which really just means “racist.”

But I digress. You know the people.

An example of the difference we see can be found in the recent rollout of the ironically-named “American Health Care Act.” Mainstream Republicans are fawning over the bill while those to the far right hate it because it leaves too many people with insurance, I guess.

Breitbart writers and readers make up a large portion of the far right Trumplican (TM) movement.

The aforementioned site has even gone to such lengths as outright attacking not only the bill itself, but its author Paul Ryan. They recently released leaked audio of Ryan distancing himself from Trump before the election, upon which I assume Ryan was immediately deemed a beta-male cuckservative.

Between Donald Trump splitting Republicans, Bernie Sanders splitting Democrats, and the rise in Millennials who already don’t view themselves as belonging to either party, the time is ripe for a third party (or two) to take root in the United States.

As the trends show, Democrats and Republicans are losing their hold on the voting population. As the parties both continue to disappoint even their base, the desire for a party of their own grows.

It’s still possible the Berniecrats and Trumplicans are simply remembered as vocal sects of their parties, a la the Tea Party, but the number of disillusioned Millennials only grows. As the parties move further from the center, what we will likely see first are the fringes break off into their own parties. From there, the desire for a centrist party likely takes root among independents.

What we’re left with likely looks something like Liberals, Democrats, Centrists, Republicans, and Conservatives. Branding isn’t exactly my thing, but you get the idea.

The final question is, should this all come to pass, are we better or worse off with four or five parties instead of two? To answer that, I leave you with this from John Adams:

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

And George Washington:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Millennials And The Potential Rise Of A Third Party was originally published in Rantt Media on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.