The Republican president has a job approval rating around 40 percent. The GOP has an unfavorability rating around 56 percent. And Republicans trail Democrats by nine points in an average of “generic ballot” polls.

All of which makes it notable that the Republican National Committee is trouncing the Democratic National Committee when it comes to raising money, especially from small donors.

The numbers are striking. In June, the RNC raised $13.5 million to the DNC’s $5.5 million.

For 2017 so far, the RNC has raised $75.4 million to the DNC’s $38.2 million.

The RNC started the year with $25.3 million in cash-on-hand. Now it has $44.7 million. The DNC started the year with $10.5 million in cash-on-hand. Now, that has fallen to $7.5 million.

As of June 30, the RNC reported $0 in debt. The DNC reported $3.3 million in debt.

A look inside the numbers is even worse for the DNC. Looking at collections from small donors — that is, those who contributed less than $200 — the RNC raised $10.5 million in the months of May and June. The DNC raised $5.3 million from small donors in the same time period.

The RNC’s money total is a record — more than was raised in any previous nonpresidential election year. That is true for June, and for all of 2017 as well. The $75.4 million raised this year compares to $55.4 million for the same period in 2015; to $51.2 for the same period in 2014; to $41.1 million for the same period in 2013, and so on going back.

“It’s definitely a reflection of support for President Trump,” said RNC spokesman Ryan Mahoney. “Our small-dollar donors are giving at a record pace because they believe the RNC is supporting President Trump, and they like that.”

The obvious reason for the Democrats’ troubles is that they lost the White House, the House and the Senate last year. Now, the party appears to have a particularly bad hangover. One data point: In 2013, after Republicans lost their second presidential election in a row and many believed the party faced years in the electoral wilderness, the RNC still raised more money in the January-June period, $41.1 million, than the $38.2 million the Democrats have raised so far this year.

There is much discussion about the intensity of Democratic opposition to President Trump, and indeed Democrats showed a lot of fundraising enthusiasm in the losing Georgia sixth-district congressional race that turned into a referendum on the president. But the fact is, the passions behind The Resistance have not, or have not yet, turned into support for the main vehicle of opposition to Trump, the Democratic Party.

Democrats have simply not gotten over the Hillary-Bernie split that plagued the party last year. And they have not decided what they will be in the future. Remember, this is a party that won the White House in 2008 and 2012 on the strength of the Obama coalition of minorities, young people, and the college educated — the group political journalist Ron Brownstein calls the “coalition of the ascendant.”

It’s not an exaggeration to say that many believed demographics favored them so heavily that they were virtually guaranteed Democratic victories in the years ahead. And then the Trump victory reminded them that there are still a lot of working-class voters in the country who aren’t necessarily natural Democrats.

This week, Democrats led by Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi rolled out a new agenda, which they call “A Better Deal,” which is designed to appeal to those disaffected voters. And not a minute too soon. When a recent ABC-Washington Post poll asked, “Do you think the Democratic Party currently stands for something, or just stands against Trump?” — just 37 percent said the party stands for something, while 52 percent said it just stands against Trump, and 11 percent had no opinion.

So now Democrats have a huge job in front of them. And it is unclear whether Tom Perez, the Hillary Clinton-backed candidate who won the DNC chairmanship in a divisive battle with Rep. Keith Ellison earlier this year, is the man to do it. Last month, in explaining another dismal fundraising period for the Democrats, Perez distanced himself from the problem.

The new fundraising numbers don’t predict what will happen in 2018. But they do say what is happening now. And that is, despite his problems there is enough support for Trump in the Republican base to set new small-donor fundraising records, while Democrats have yet another measure of the work that lies ahead.

Byron York is a nationally syndicated columnist.

(37) comments

Steve Fouga

"Why are Republicans trouncing Democrats in fundraising?"
1) the Dems just lost an election they should have won; thus rank-and-file has no confidence in the leadership, for good reason.
2) The Dems don't have a coherent, compelling agenda.
3) Because of the above reasons and the fact it's not an election year, big donors haven't weighed in, in a big way, yet.
4) The leader of their party isn't campaigning for the 2020 presidential election. In fact, I can't see that there IS a leader of the Democratic party.

Carlos Ponce

The Democrats chief fund raiser for the past 8 years was Barack Obama. During his first term he attended 321 fundraisers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-extends-long-term-trend-of-fundraising-presidents/2014/07/26/668cda78-14d8-11e4-9285-4243a40ddc97_story.html
As of August 2014 that number was over 400.
He's still fundraising - for himself.[whistling]

Carlos Ponce

The Democratic mantra of demonizing the opposition is finally getting stale after decades of use. But they just got a new one that sounds like a Papa John's Pizza ad. "Better Deal" - but the specifics are the same things they've offered in the past. And they don't work.

Emile Pope

"The Democratic mantra of demonizing the opposition is finally getting stale after decades of use..." Realy? The Republicans invented it. Remember Newt? Maybe instead of repeating Republican talking points you should crack open a history book...

Carlos Ponce

Perhaps Emile needs to read his History book. Do you not recall the demonization of Ronald Reagan? Democrats blasted him for not funding AIDS research. Problem is that AIDS was not identified nor named until well into his administration. Once identified, Federal money rolled in. This among other things. And before that there was the demonization of Gerald Ford, but you were probably still in diapers then so we'll forgive you for that lapse. And what exactly did Newt do to raise your ire? Read from CNN how Democrats demonized Newt by taking what he said out of context making it look like he wanted Medicare to "whither on the vine".
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9607/15/ads.jackson/index.shtml
But as late as 2011, Progressives still LIE about it.
https://thinkprogress.org/newt-medicare-should-wither-on-the-vine-gingrich-praises-wyden-ryan-premium-support-plan-6c9104482fed

Jim Forsythe

Ronald Reagan   40th President of the United States January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989
Between June 1981 and May 1982 the CDC spent less than $1 million on AIDS and $9 million on Legionnaire’s Disease. . This drastic lack of funding would continue throughout the Reagan years
The President wanted to underfund research  .
When told that the top AIDS scientist had said the Administration's budgets were ''not nearly enough at this stage to go forward and really attack the problem,'' Mr. Reagan replied: ''I think with our budgetary restraints and all it seems to me that $126 million in a single year for research has got to be something of a vital contribution.
Most of the money came from the Congress.
However, a House appropriations subcommittee  voted to boost the Administration's proposed budget for AIDS research at the National Institutes of Health next year by $70 million, which would double the amount of research proposed at that agency by the Administration. Congress has increased the Administration's proposed spending levels for AIDS research in each of the last three budgets. Total health research spending by the Federal Government was estimated at $4.96 billion in the fiscal year 1985 and is to rise to $5.20 billion in the fiscal year 1986 which begins Oct. 1.

History of AIDS
The epidemic of the immunodeficiency disease AIDS, which began in Sub-Saharan Africa in the 1930s as a mutation of the chimpanzee disease SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus), which was named Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), found its way to the shores of the United States as early as 1960
1981  By the end of the year, there were 270 reported cases of severe immune deficiency among gay men - 121 of them had died
1982  In September, the CDC used the term 'AIDS' (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) for the first time
1983  By the end of the year the number of AIDS cases in the USA had risen to 3,064 - of this number, 1,292 had died 
In January 1983, AIDS was reported among the female partners of men who had the disease suggesting it could be passed on via heterosexual sex
1984  By the end of 1984, there had been 7,699 AIDS cases and 3,665 AIDS deaths in the USA
1985 By the end of 1985, every region in the world had reported at least one case of AIDS, with 20,303 cases in total
1986 By the end of the year, 85 countries had reported 38,401 cases of AIDS to the World Health Organization. By region these were; Africa 2,323, Americas 31,741, Asia 84, Europe 3,858, and Oceania 395

 First reported in the medical and mainstream press in 1981, it was not until October 1987 that Reagan publicly spoke about the AIDS epidemic in a major policy address. By the end of that year, 59,572 AIDS cases had been reported and 27,909 of those women and men had died. He and his administration did almost nothing during the first seven years of the epidemic. AIDS research was chronically underfunded. Community education and prevention programs were routinely denied federal funding.

Carlos Ponce

"Between June 1981 and May 1982 the CDC spent less than $1 million on AIDS and $9 million on Legionnaire’s Disease. . This drastic lack of funding would continue throughout the Reagan years"
Nice try Jim. AIDS wasn't even NAMED until September 24, 1982!!!!!!!
https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/history/hiv-and-aids-timeline

Carlos Ponce

To blame Ronald Reagan for the lack of funding for a disease the CDC didn't have a grasp on, not even a name, is STUPID, STUPID, STUPID! Yet you will find that excrement on Leftist websites.

Jim Forsythe

 Funding was not given at a level that was needed when AIDS first started to grip the USA.
As a result, it was able to explode into a major problem in the USA..
AIDS wasn't even NAMED until September 24, 1982!!!!!!!  and AIDS research was under funded, even after this date.  
HIV  research was also under funded.
1981  By the end of the year, there were 270 reported cases of severe immune deficiency among gay men - 121 of them had died

When told that the top AIDS scientist had said the Administration's budgets were ''not nearly enough at this stage to go forward and really attack the problem,'' Mr. Reagan replied: ''I think with our budgetary restraints and all it seems to me that $126 million in a single year for research has got to be something of a vital contribution.
Most of the money came from the Congress.
However, a House appropriations subcommittee  voted to boost the Administration's proposed budget for AIDS research at the National Institutes of Health next year by $70 million, which would double the amount of research proposed at that agency by the Administration. Congress has increased the Administration's proposed spending levels for AIDS research in each of the last three budgets. Total health research spending by the Federal Government was estimated at $4.96 billion in the fiscal year 1985 and is to rise to $5.20 billion in the fiscal year 1986 which begins Oct. 1

To blame Ronald Reagan for the lack of funding is putting it were it belonged. Hard to blame the House appropriations subcommittee  when they increased funding.

Carlos Ponce

The CDC asks for money according to need, Congress votes it into their budget, the president signs the budget bill. To blame President Reagan for insufficient funding shows someone in serious need of a lesson on how the government works.

Jim Forsythe

The Administration's budget is set by the President. It is a shows what the President thinks is important. Just as Trump let it be known that the wall is important in his request , Reagan , let it be known how important the research for HIV and AIDS was to him, by the low request of funds. The House appropriations subcommittee saw the need and increased the funding requested by Reagan , to a much higher level.
To try and say, a President has no input in the budget process, is  trying to minimize the President's part in the budget.
Reagan insufficient funding request, was not what Congress passed.

"When told that the top AIDS scientist had said the Administration's budgets were ''not nearly enough at this stage to go forward and really attack the problem,'' Mr.. Reagan replied: ''I think with our budgetary restraints and all it seems to me that $126 million in a single year for research has got to be something of a vital contribution."

Carlos Ponce

"The Administration's budget is set by the President." The president proposes a budget but the power of the purse rests with the House. That's high school government. So $125 million wasn't enough. It never is for Liberals who think they can spend, spend spend to solve any problem.

Jim Forsythe

Following discovery of the first cases in 1981, it soon became clear a national health crisis was developing. . Those infected initially with this mysterious disease -- all gay men -- found themselves targeted at an unprecedented level .
To be able just to understand what was happening , required a large amount of funding. The proposed funding of $125 million was less than $1 per adult, per year at that time.
 If more funds were spent at the start of the HIV/AIDS problem , we may have had less deaths, and would have had a better understanding about HIV/AIDS sooner, and how to treat it. The total cost may have been less in the long run.

Were did President Reagan look for direction?
" A significant source of Reagan's support came from the newly identified religious right and the Moral Majority, a political-action group founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. AIDS became the tool, and gay men the target, for the politics of fear, hate and discrimination. Falwell said "AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals." Reagan's communications director Pat Buchanan argued that AIDS is "nature's revenge on gay men."

Carlos Ponce

"Following discovery of the first cases in 1981, it soon became clear a national health crisis was developing." Really? ONE CASE and they jump to the conclusion it was a national health crisis????? Where are you getting this garbage from?

Carlos Ponce

I found your source which you neglected to cite: Allen White, a gay man who was a former San Francisco reporter who wrote for the Sentinel gay newspaper. He died in 2009. Biased reporter.

Jim Forsythe

 The  AIDS/HIV epidemic escalated at a very fast rate.
 Before HIV was identified as the virus that causes AIDS, tracking the course of the epidemic depended on reporting AIDS diagnoses to public health departments

Following discovery of the first cases in 1981  , IT SOON BECOME CLEAR a national health crisis was developing.
  Soon ---   in the  near future , not at this time, 
June 1981
  By the end of the year, there were 270 reported cases of severe immune deficiency among gay men - 121 of them had died. The next few years, saw the numbers increase at a very fast rate.
1983  By the end of the year the number of AIDS cases in the USA had risen to 3,064 - of this number, 1,292 had died 
 In 2015, 18,303 people were diagnosed with AIDS. Since the epidemic began in the early 1980s, 1,216,917 people have been diagnosed with AIDS.

As of 2016 about 675,000 people have died of HIV/AIDS in the USA since the beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic

"IT SOON BECOME CLEAR a national health crisis was developing." Seeing that other parts of the world were dealing with it, one could see what was about to happen in the USA .
1959
The first known case of HIV in a human occurs in a man who died in the Congo, later (from his preserved blood samples) confirmed as having HIV infection
Genetic studies of the virus indicate that, in or about 1966, HIV first arrived in the Americas, infecting one person in Haiti. At this time, many Haitians were working in Congo, providing the opportunity for infection

Carlos Ponce

Non reliable, biased sources to back your claims. No wonder why you don't cite your sources. History records Ronald Reagan as one of the best presidents of the United States. the author of the pieces you cite probably lost friends to AIDS and struck out at Reagan. No one is buying - except you.

Jim Forsythe

This is some of the ones I used. If you want the rest, I will provide. They are in reverse order, of use.  Some I only used a word or two, and some I used for ideas.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/hiv-aids-numbers-statistics-worldwide_n_1682936.html
http://www.medwiser.org/hiv-aids/around-the-world/aids-in-africa/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/8920567/HIVAids-a-timeline-of-the-disease-and-its-mutations.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_HIV/AIDS
http://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/fact-sheet/the-global-hivaids-epidemic/
http://www.medwiser.org/hiv-aids/around-the-world/aids-in-africa/ 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/hiv-aids-numbers-statistics-worldwide_n_1682936.html 
http://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/fact-sheet/the-global-hivaids-epidemic/ 
https://www.bing.com/search?q=epidemic%20definition&FORM=O1HV1
https://www.bing.com/search?q=soon&FORM=O1HV1
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-01-03
http://www.amfar.org/about-hiv-and-aids/facts-and-stats/statistics--united-states/
http://www.medwiser.org/hiv-aids/around-the-world/aids-in-the-usa/
https://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/aids/timeline80-87.html 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_the_United_States 
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5021a2.htm 
https://www.bing.com/search?q=HOW%20MANY%20DIDED%20FROM%20AIDS%201982&FORM=O1HV1  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_the_United_States
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Reagan-s-AIDS-Legacy-Silence-equals-death-2751030.php
https://www.bing.com/search?q=president%20and%20the%20budget&FORM=O1HV1 
https://www.bing.com/search?q=aids%20funding%20by%20year&FORM=O1HV1 
https://www.bing.com/search?q=cancer%20research%20cost%20in%20last%2040%20years&FORM=O1HV1
https://www.bing.com/search?q=trump%20bear&FORM=O1HV1 
https://www.bing.com/search?q=how%20much%20did%20aids%20research%20cost&FORM=O1HV1 
https://www.bing.com/search?q=budget%20for%20aids%201985&FORM=O1HV1 
https://www.bing.com/search?q=ronald%20reagan%20aids%20funding&FORM=O1HV1
https://www.bing.com/search?q=is%20hiv%20the%20same%20as%20aids&FORM=O1HV1
https://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/10/ignoring_aids_the_reagan_years 
http://www.thebody.com/content/art32196.html  
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/06/01/ronald_reagan_and_aids_correcting_the_record_122806.html
https://www.avert.org/professionals/history-hiv-aids/overview

Carlos Ponce

Looking at the "sources" one can see your lack of discernment. Some of them quote Allen White who was a gay rights activist writing for a gay tabloid in San Francisco. Fake news.

Carlos Ponce

By the way, according to PBS, HIV in humans is said to have originated before 1931. Ronald Reagan was a student at Eureka College at the time.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/aids/virus/origins.html

Jim Forsythe

An international team of scientists say a "perfect storm" of population growth, sex and railways allowed HIV to spread. A feat of viral archaeology was used to find the pandemic's origin, the team report in the journal Science.They used archived samples of HIV's genetic code to trace its source, with evidence pointing to 1920s Kinshasa

"Fake news"  or news you do not agree with. Which part is fake , and what part is not with you think is right.
If you ask me for sources , do you expect the ones you use? 
if you looked at all my sources , are you going to buy a Trumpy Bear, I am!
A gay tabloid writer, made it fake news?
Did a national health crisis  not happen?
Up to and including 2016,about 675,000 people have died of HIV/AIDS in the USA, is this not true? Is this FAKE NEWS?
Since the epidemic began in the early 1980s, 1,216,917 people have been diagnosed with AIDS in the USA. Is this not true?

I  take it you know Allen White and his work . As I do not , I will take your word on who he is and what he wrote. 
AIDS/HIV was affecting the gay community , so who better to report on it.

Carlos Ponce

Fake News is that President Reagan did not fund AIDS research, that more money would have found a "cure". To date no cure has been found. Ronald Reagan lost several Hollywood friends to AIDS including Rock Hudson. He went by what the CDC, doctors and advisors told him.

Jim Forsythe

No one said he did not try to fund research at a low level. Underfunding and no funding are to different things. Funding was needed to find out what was causing the  HIV/aids outbreak. The quicker (which cost more money) the research was started, the quicker they could give  people a way they could try and protect themselves . Remember when we had no idea how to protect ourselves . 

"Fake News is that President Reagan did not fund AIDS research"
Now you are saying  President Reagan funded Aids research?
"The president proposes a budget but the power of the purse rests with the House. That's high school government."
"To blame President Reagan for insufficient funding shows someone in serious need of a lesson on how the government works."

Maybe the President was not aware of how bad it was becoming, until it hit home, when one of his friends contracted AIDS.
Oct 2,1985, actor Rock Hudson, 59, becomes the first major U.S. celebrity to die of complications from AIDS "The first cases of AIDS were reported in 1981 and the earliest victims were gay men who often faced public hostility and discrimination. As scientists and health care officials called for funding to combat the disease, they were largely ignored by President Ronald Reagan and his administration. Rock Hudson was a friend of Reagan’s and his death was said to have changed the president’s view of the disease. However, Reagan was criticized for not addressing the issue of AIDS in a major public speech until 1987; by that time, more than 20,000 Americans had already died of the disease and it had spread to over 100 countries. By 2006, the AIDS virus had killed 25 million people worldwide and infected 40 million others."

Trying to find a Cure update . 
By Edward Leano , Christian Post Contributor
Mar 27, 2017 | 2:03 AM
While antiretroviral therapy with virus-suppressing drugs has made significant progress in reducing the deadliness of the disease, a complete cure still eludes the worldwide medical community. Researchers have found a biomarker molecule that can be a first step to designing treatments that can completely eliminate the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), and not just suppress the viral load in a patient.
It's the first time that AIDS researchers have found a way to distinguish HIV-free cells from healthy cells that carry latent HIV. According to MedPage Today, investigators have discovered a molecule that can serve as a biomarker to target cells that are latently infected with the virus.
The findings, as reported in the science journal Nature, opens the possibilities for research about ways at destroying the HIV "reservoir." This reservoir, cells scattered around a patient's body that carry the virus, have been the bane of treatments that promise to cure HIV infection by suppressing the virus, only to find them rebounding in numbers sometime after treatment is stopped.

Carlos Ponce

This is getting old. So you and a few others have a distorted view of the 1980s. Too bad. Reagan haters, Trump haters, haters gotta hate.

Jim Forsythe

Just because what I think, and what you think, do not match, does make me a Reagan hater.
I'm not a Trump hater , but I do not like some of the thing he does. He just fired  Anthony Scaramucci
Did you hate Obama ? How about Bush?
Just like you , I lived thru the  80's. What you consider a distorted view, is just a view different than yours.
Not everyone has a far right view on the world.


Carlos Ponce

Haters gotta hate.

Jim Forsythe

Just because someone does not agree, does not mean they hate.
DO YOU HATE? Do you hate Obama? How about Bush? Bill Clinton?
Did you consider voting for Hillary Clinton? 
I considered voting or Trump. The reason I did not vote for Trump, has come true.
Also I looked at Johnson, did you?

Carlos's quotes.
"To blame Ronald Reagan for the lack of funding for a disease the CDC didn't have a grasp on, not even a name, is STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!"
."By the way, according to PBS, HIV in humans is said to have originated before 1931."
 "Fake News is that President Reagan did not fund AIDS research"
Now you are saying  President Reagan funded Aids research? What about high school government?
"The president proposes a budget but the power of the purse rests with the House. That's high school government."
"To blame President Reagan for insufficient funding shows someone in serious need of a lesson on how the government works."


Carlos Ponce

Haters gotta hate.

Jose' Boix

What a travesty; money, money, money! Such a waste supporting a total and absolute lack of leadership and civility by both parties. A legislative political debacle on both the Federal and State levels.

George Croix

".... a total and absolute lack of leadership and civility by both parties..."

No way to argue against THAT.
They all pretty much suck.
They will put up with ANYTHING to get what they want, and even EAT THEIR OWN for the same reason. They have hordes of minions ready and willing to cast votes that don't care about anything but themselves
Both are expert at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Civility is now defined as who can be the most pleasant and reasonable sounding while lying through their teeth in our face.
There's a reason why people will spend millions to get a job worth thousands....
EACH time we fall for the promises, and put in place all that was needed, we are told, to make those promises happen, and each time it's a joke on us.
Time long past for a VIABLE third Party...and not some whacked out Socialist idiots isolationist reality-escapees.
BUT, unless/until such comes along that can WIN IN THE PRIMARIES AND SHOW THE STRENGTH TO WIN A GENERAL ELECTION....we'll continue to have to vote for the same ineffective, lying, and/or all-about-me lesser-of-two-evils-as-we-see-them types in the two Majors, or else just toss that vote down a 'protest' rathole.
This is OUR fault.
All politics is local, and when local sounds like an Italian opera warm up singling "me, me me me me" we get what we've voted for....or more accurately, what we've PAID for....those of us who actually pay, anyway.....the rest get a free ride to cancel votes out...

George Croix

"...OR isolationist reality escapees..."
Close enough....

PD Hyatt

It could be because people are sick and tired of the progressive demon-crat socialistic message and heavy handed garbage that they put out and legislate.... Democrats used to have a good message, but once they invented the so called great society and enslaved all of the poor and people who don't want to work with all of the government give aways, they have become horrible. We The People need to elect people who want to CUT government and all that they do and start empowering people to learn how to live without looking for handouts.... I wish the government would realize that the money that they waste is OUR money and that they need to stop giving it away.... When you give away enough people will stop working and start looking for handouts and that is not the way that God made us to be!

George Croix

Mr. Hyatt, I got sick of that Democrat all-in-one-pot, dependency-as-a-way-of-life, identity politics crap decades ago, never having cared for Communism/Socialism.
Am now sick of the Republican we-promise-to-do-this-or-that-but-only-if-we-get-our own-personal-way, never having cared for people claiming to be team players but only on the Myway or Highway team.
SIX months with a majority all around, and zippidy-do-da accomplished LEGISLATIVELY, and still plan to take a vacation.
Not lesson one learned about the temporariness of executive orders....
The SHAME is, it's STILL several orders of magnitude better than the clown act that recently left, and the other one which almost took over.
imo

Emile Pope

Republican talking points about Democrats equate to nothing without evidence. What is ridiculous is that people support a party that has done nothing for the working class since Eisenhower and wonder why their station in life hasn't changed.

Carlos Ponce

Do you really think the Republican Party has done nothing for the working class? If you bothered to see one of Trump's recent rallies you will see the working class in HUGE numbers attending, applauding Trumps accomplishments in creating jobs, keeping jobs in this country. As someone once said, " Don't watch the polls, watch the people." Of course if you watch an anti-Trump, fake news network you would not know this.

George Croix

Jobs.
Something that the working class need to be working class.
Not /min wage or 29 hour week jobs...real 40 hr jobs at decent pay. Something largely wiped out by 'fundamental change'...
Welfare checks and unemployent checks and food stamps.
That's the dependency class.
Something accelerated with every Democrat administration since Lyndon's gazillion dollar failed 'War on Poverty', in the vain hope...still... that if you just give Joe enough of John's money without requiring anything from Joe to get it that good'ol Joe will keep you voted into office to keep those 'subsidies' flowing.
Eventually, the left will have to stop lying to itself and others about how Democrats are 'friend of the working man' if John ever wakes up and owns up to the fact his 'friends' are taking his hard earned money and giving it to people who vote for MORE of it.....and just giving him a bird in exchange...and maybe a SNAP card....
I wonder what part of 'working' escapes the lefties.....maybe it's considered work now to spend time signing up for government aid....

George Croix

ps:
Below is a list of unions, which represent WORKING PEOPLE, that DO NOT...DO NOT... owe their very existence and the good paychecks/benefits provided to their members, the working class employee, to bigger businesses that can afford to pay those checks and bennies...businesses demonized by some of the very people cashing their good checks, and certainly by the fantasy spinners about the Democrat Party being for the 'working man', when in reality they are for the non-working man, happily taking from worker John to give to non-worker Joe.
For my entire lifetime, so far, anyway....
This does not devalue the contributions of both the Good workers and Good unions, which I personally appreciate greatly and owe a huge debt of gratitude to, but anyone who does not believe the above is true can simply look on their paycheck or yearly summary of benefits and see who's name is on the payer line of the checks.
This is not the 1800's or even most of the 1900's with their terrible abuses.
And one CANNOT become middle class by cashing a check from the Gov't. support pile...it's not so that there is more 'bang for the buck' there...
The brainwashing claiming that 'the working man' is indebted to the Democrat Party, which takes his money away from him rather than help him maximize it (MINIMUM wage??? Isn't MAXIMUM wage better...???) like big business is at least capable of doing, and might well do more of if not regulated to death, is one of the great mind control successes of the last 50 years...at least....
imo....

Here's that list:
1)


Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.