* unless you know her history, that is.
Before there was #NeverHillary there was #NoMoreClintons.org:
Thursday, June 9, 2016
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
Faux News Exposed!
This weekend we learned that there actually is a ton of faux news out there, but it's not coming from Fox. It's coming from the Obama administration, and they are proud of it! Just when we thought the Obama presidency couldn't be more like bad fiction, we learned that the guy running Obama's foreign policy is actually an aspiring novelist who regularly feeds fiction to the gullible and overwhelmingly liberal press. (If that sounds like hyperbole to you, you may not know that there is not a single Republican covering this President.) Can't make this stuff up, folks.
Remember that lame story about Benghazi being about a video? Remember that lame story about the Iran deal being about nuclear weapons? Turns out these were false narratives spun out of whole cloth from Obama's propaganda shop. We learned about this only after Obama's foreign policy novelist bragged about it in a NY Times Magazine piece that ran Sunday, May 8th. He refers to himself as a "ventriloquist" feeding lines to the Washington press corps. (The "p" is silent for you MSNBC, NPR, and NYTimesers) They lap up the fictitious narratives and repeat it out to the masses as in an "echo chamber". (Everything in quotes, for those of you "27 year olds... who know literally nothing", is actually from the mouth of Obama's novelist.)
As if that wasn't enough of an affront to both the credibility of Barack Obama and his stenographers in the media, we also learned that Facebook is suppressing conservative news stories and promoting liberal ones. The guy in charge of this operation at Facebook is an Obama/Clinton donor. Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, who run the whole enchilada, make no secret of their leftist politics, yet they sanctimoniously claim Facebook as a paragon of transparency and fairness. (Gee, I wonder if this post will be trending on FB anytime soon?)
And just today, James Rosen, one of the few adults in the Washington press corps., and a Fox News reporter, discovered that eight minutes of his questioning of a State Department spokesperson in 2013, where she openly admits the State Department misleads the American people, was mysteriously edited out of the official video record. These are Soviet tactics, folks! This is banana republic stuff! Without all the delicious bananas, of course.
And just today, James Rosen, one of the few adults in the Washington press corps., and a Fox News reporter, discovered that eight minutes of his questioning of a State Department spokesperson in 2013, where she openly admits the State Department misleads the American people, was mysteriously edited out of the official video record. These are Soviet tactics, folks! This is banana republic stuff! Without all the delicious bananas, of course.
In other words, the only news bureau not taking dictation from Obama's propaganda shop is ironically the one they refer to as "Faux News".
Again, can't make this stuff up.
Here's a summary of all this:
Here's a summary of all this:
Thursday, May 5, 2016
Trump vs. Clinton - Milton Friedman's Ultimate Test
So Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the two best people we have come up with to be the next president. What do we do now?
I would suggest, as I do on many sticky occasions, that we turn to the wisdom of Milton Friedman:
I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.
Milton Friedman
Many Americans believe Hillary and Donald are precisely the wrong people. But according to Dr. Friedman they can still do the right things under certain circumstances.
Recall in 1992 when Hillary's husband Bill was elected president with less than a majority of the electorate. Most Americans thought he too was the wrong person for the job. For his first two years he raised taxes, pursued big government, the economy stagnated, and the stock market lagged. The Democrats lost big in the mid-term congressional elections of 1994. In came Newt Gingrich and The Contract With America. Low taxes, free trade, limited government, and welfare reform were the order of the day. The economy went on a tear. Stock market gains were unprecedented. The budget got nearly balanced. And to this day Bill Clinton is known for the strong economy that came after he "triangulated" and signed into law many of the planks of Newt's contract. Bill Clinton was forced to do the right thing despite being the wrong person.
Can the electorate make it "politically profitable" for Hillary or Donald to do the right thing despite being the wrong people? Based on the example of Barack Obama I think we have a much better shot if our next "wrong person" is not a "historical first" from a politically favored class of citizens. Donald will not be coddled by the media, Hollywood, academia, or anyone for that matter. He will not be given the benefit of any doubt. He will be held to the highest of standards each and every day.
Hillary? The historic "First Woman President"? Not so much.
Hillary? The historic "First Woman President"? Not so much.
And also there's this to ponder: Donald Trump has never:
- Been an accessory to rape
- Smeared women abused by his spouse
- Jailed a filmmaker to cover-up his own incompetence
- Attacked a country for no good reason and caused chaos on two continents
- Made billions selling U.S. Govt. favors
- Lied under oath
- Violated several U.S. laws regarding classified information
- Jeopardized U.S. national security by using an unsecured email server
- Stonewalled Freedom of Information requests
- Lied to the American people about official U.S. business
- Turned the IRS into a "gestapo"
- Looted the White House
- Sold secrets to the Chinese
- Lied about fake sniper fire in Bosnia
- Been pals with Saul Alinsky, Sidney Blumenthal, and Karl Marx (OK, I made the last one up...sort of.)
- Been fired for lying on a Watergate committee
And this:
And this:
And this:
But, of course, also this: ;-)
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
Socialism is the Darwin Award for Economic Ignorance
Pop quiz:
- Who is the father of modern socialism/communism?
- Who is the father of modern capitalism?
Conversely, if you are asked who the father of modern capitalism is, odds are you'd either draw a blank, or be mostly wrong.
If you attended a public school in the U.S., chances are most of your teachers were union members. Unions were prohibited for most government workers prior to the 1960s because organized labor in the U.S. began as a communist/socialist movement. Public sector unions were seen as a huge conflict of interest. But that changed in the 1960's under Democrat John F. Kennedy, and since then government workers, including school teachers, have flooded into organized labor. That's not to say all teachers and organized laborers are socialists. Most probably don't even think in those terms, but the politics of organized labor leans undeniably in that direction. You may or may not have been taught Marxism in school, but you probably weren't taught anything positive about "capitalism"!
If you attended a college in the U.S., particularly in recent years, you are very likely to have been taught Marxism. Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto" is the third most assigned book at U.S. colleges today. That's out of all the books ever published! The next most assigned book in economics, capitalist or otherwise, is not even close.
So how did you answer the second question above? In one sense the answer to that one is again... Karl Marx. Yes, Karl Marx is both the father of modern communism/socialism AND the father of modern capitalism. Karl Marx was the person who defined that term for the masses in his risible critique of 1860s capitalism, "Das Kapital".
Many scholars credit a Scotsman named Adam Smith as the person whose ideas most influenced our economic system. Adam Smith’s book, “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” was actually published in 1776. (That date rings a bell, no?) But the word capitalism wasn't in common use in Adam Smith’s day. He never used it. We mistakenly call our economic system capitalism because that's what Marx and the critics called it. The name unfortunately stuck.
If everyone knows what "Marxism" is, why doesn't everyone know what "Smithism" is? Because it’s not taught, except to select economics majors. According to the Open Syllabus Project, Adam Smith is assigned at a rate about 25% compared to Karl Marx. "Smithism" never became a word the way "Marxism" did. You can go through K-12 and well beyond in schools in the U.S. and never hear the name Adam Smith, never learn about his ideas, and never understand the influence those ideas had on the founding and success of our country.
Pop quiz:
- What is Supply Side Economics?
- What is Demand Side Economics?
· Supply side economics is the theory that people will SUPPLY (create) more value if they are allowed to function in a free market.
· Demand side economics is the theory that people will DEMAND (consume) more value if wealth is redistributed to them.
These are opposite approaches for achieving different economic goals. Supply Side seeks to optimize overall economic vitality (Smithism). Demand Side seeks to stimulate consumption (Keynesianism), or at times to redistribute wealth (Marxism).
If you look up supply side economics on Wikipedia, you’ll find a thorough entry along with plenty of criticisms. If you look up demand side economics, you’ll get... crickets. The language in this case does not favor the Marxist/socialist demand side ideology. Hence, it is not even defined. [UPDATE: There is now a short and inaccurate entry on Wikipedia for Demand Side Economics. When the first version of this piece was written in 2016, there was only a re-direct to "Keynesianism".]
Pop quiz:
The financial crisis of 2008 was caused by:
A) Greedy bankers, deregulation, George W Bush, and capitalism
B) Socialism
No event had a more profound impact on this country's recent tilt towards socialism than the financial crisis of 2008. It is said that history is written by the victors. That has never been more true than in the wake of the financial crisis. Democrats controlled the government commission that wrote the post-mortem. Barack Obama won the presidency. Democrats had both houses of congress. And liberals made the movies and wrote the books explaining the crisis to the masses. Unfortunately, everything they told you was a deliberate deception designed to exonerate socialism, and scapegoat capitalism.
The fact is, the financial crisis of 2008 was a perfect demonstration of the failures of socialism. Redistribution of wealth, in this case redistribution of mortgage credit, was at the heart of the financial crisis. At times, the support for this redistribution was bi-partisan, but the ideology behind it was socialist/demand side regardless of who was advocating.
It all began with the affordable housing goals promoted by Democrats in the early 1990s, which lowered mortgage requirements. It accelerated in the mid 1990s under Democrat Bill Clinton with further loosening of mortgage standards, pressure on banks to write loose loans, and mandates for government backed companies FNMA (Fannie Mae) and FHLMC (Freddie Mac) to buy all the new mortgages. It finally reached its apex in 2007 under Republican George W. Bush, while Democrats including Senator Barack Obama, ran both houses of congress.
All of the risk from this socialist redistribution was supposed to be assumed by the federal government, mostly in the form of the afore mentioned government backed companies. Fannie and Freddie were ground zero for the financial crisis. No government official took more money from these two companies, and at a faster rate, than the junior Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama. His closest competitors in that money grab included Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Hillary Clinton. If this is news to you, it's because they wrote the history.
What they told you was that it was a perfect storm involving greedy bankers, deregulation, and the natural flaws of capitalism. It was a plausible argument designed to deceive. Bankers today are no greedier than their banking forebears. So why did they suddenly engage in such risky lending? Because they were coerced to do so.
Deregulation also had nothing to do with it. Canadian banks are lightly regulated compared to their U.S. counterparts and none of them failed. Why the difference? Only in the U.S. was mortgage credit redistributed. To make matters worse, government regulations encouraged financial institutions to load up on mortgage backed securities. Unfortunately, when the scheme went bad the damage quickly spread to the private financial sector bringing the entire global financial system to its knees.
In summary: You were indoctrinated to be a socialist. You were indoctrinated to call our system capitalism. You've been deceived about the benefits of socialism. You've been deceived about the evils of free markets. And you've been deceived about the perils of national socialism. If you still think socialism is great after all that, congratulations, you've earned a Darwin Award in Economics!
Pop quiz:
A) Greedy bankers, deregulation, George W Bush, and capitalism
B) Socialism
Most likely, you are 100% certain the correct answer is A.
No event had a more profound impact on this country's recent tilt towards socialism than the financial crisis of 2008. It is said that history is written by the victors. That has never been more true than in the wake of the financial crisis. Democrats controlled the government commission that wrote the post-mortem. Barack Obama won the presidency. Democrats had both houses of congress. And liberals made the movies and wrote the books explaining the crisis to the masses. Unfortunately, everything they told you was a deliberate deception designed to exonerate socialism, and scapegoat capitalism.
The fact is, the financial crisis of 2008 was a perfect demonstration of the failures of socialism. Redistribution of wealth, in this case redistribution of mortgage credit, was at the heart of the financial crisis. At times, the support for this redistribution was bi-partisan, but the ideology behind it was socialist/demand side regardless of who was advocating.
It all began with the affordable housing goals promoted by Democrats in the early 1990s, which lowered mortgage requirements. It accelerated in the mid 1990s under Democrat Bill Clinton with further loosening of mortgage standards, pressure on banks to write loose loans, and mandates for government backed companies FNMA (Fannie Mae) and FHLMC (Freddie Mac) to buy all the new mortgages. It finally reached its apex in 2007 under Republican George W. Bush, while Democrats including Senator Barack Obama, ran both houses of congress.
All of the risk from this socialist redistribution was supposed to be assumed by the federal government, mostly in the form of the afore mentioned government backed companies. Fannie and Freddie were ground zero for the financial crisis. No government official took more money from these two companies, and at a faster rate, than the junior Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama. His closest competitors in that money grab included Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Hillary Clinton. If this is news to you, it's because they wrote the history.
What they told you was that it was a perfect storm involving greedy bankers, deregulation, and the natural flaws of capitalism. It was a plausible argument designed to deceive. Bankers today are no greedier than their banking forebears. So why did they suddenly engage in such risky lending? Because they were coerced to do so.
Deregulation also had nothing to do with it. Canadian banks are lightly regulated compared to their U.S. counterparts and none of them failed. Why the difference? Only in the U.S. was mortgage credit redistributed. To make matters worse, government regulations encouraged financial institutions to load up on mortgage backed securities. Unfortunately, when the scheme went bad the damage quickly spread to the private financial sector bringing the entire global financial system to its knees.
The deceptions about this animated the Occupy Wall Street movement, got Barack Obama elected twice, and are responsible for the acceptance of openly socialist candidates like Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez today. They are also part of the continuing campaign that has mischaracterized the mortgage market as an example of free-market failure.
The frightening thing about this is, if history is written by the victors and they engage in deception, aren't we doomed to repeat it? Fannie and Freddie own just about every new mortgage written since 2008, and the socialist policies promoting home ownership and borrowing accelerated under Barack Obama. We are currently in the process of building a second real estate bubble. Adding to that are new socialist bubbles in national debt, student loans, auto loans, and equity prices.
Pop quiz:
People love Scandinavian socialism because:
A) Scandinavian countries are happy, healthy, productive, prosperous, AND socialist
B) They misunderstand Scandinavian economics and history
Scandinavian success came long before their experiment with socialism. They were happy, healthy, productive, and prosperous prior to the 1960s when they first began their turn towards socialism. Socialism had nothing to do with their success. But sixty years of high taxes and socialism has slowed their growth and momentum. Until recently, Sweden and Denmark spent more than 100% of their private sectors on government - an obviously unsustainable level. In response, socialist Europe has been freeing their economies and sharply turning away from socialism. Switzerland, Ireland, and the U.K. are economically freer than the U.S., and Sweden, yes "socialist" Sweden, is essentially tied with the U.S. in economic freedom today. (According to the Heritage Foundation rankings.)
Here's the thing: National socialism has never produced anything long term other than misery, poverty, totalitarianism, and death. Think Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea. The NAZIS, who brought about the holocaust, WWII, and directly or indirectly caused the death of 70 million people, were known by the German acronym for "National Socialists".
So, that's at the national level. And long term. At the local level, socialism can survive a bit longer. Local socialism does not eliminate the incentive killing aspects of socialism, but it does avoid the inevitable monetary collapse. That's because local governments cannot create money and therefore tend to be more fiscally responsible. National governments can hide their insolvency, plunder future generations, devalue currencies, manipulate interest rates, and cause much bigger problems down the road.
This is an important point that deserves repeating; socialism cannot work long term at the national level. The national level is where money is created and controlled. Our system was never designed to be a socialist system. The Constitution implied that the states were the proper place for redistributive experimentation. The conflict of interest at the national level is just too great. National politicians will eventually destroy the currency, borrow too heavily, undermine the work ethic, and undermine national defense in an attempt to gain and maintain power. The founders knew that. It is happening today. We doubled our national debt during just Obama's eight years. Interest rates were artificially held near zero for that entire time. If and when rates normalize to historical levels, the debt service alone will cause the kind of pain socialist nations have felt throughout history. We are not immune.
The frightening thing about this is, if history is written by the victors and they engage in deception, aren't we doomed to repeat it? Fannie and Freddie own just about every new mortgage written since 2008, and the socialist policies promoting home ownership and borrowing accelerated under Barack Obama. We are currently in the process of building a second real estate bubble. Adding to that are new socialist bubbles in national debt, student loans, auto loans, and equity prices.
Pop quiz:
People love Scandinavian socialism because:
A) Scandinavian countries are happy, healthy, productive, prosperous, AND socialist
B) They misunderstand Scandinavian economics and history
Scandinavian success came long before their experiment with socialism. They were happy, healthy, productive, and prosperous prior to the 1960s when they first began their turn towards socialism. Socialism had nothing to do with their success. But sixty years of high taxes and socialism has slowed their growth and momentum. Until recently, Sweden and Denmark spent more than 100% of their private sectors on government - an obviously unsustainable level. In response, socialist Europe has been freeing their economies and sharply turning away from socialism. Switzerland, Ireland, and the U.K. are economically freer than the U.S., and Sweden, yes "socialist" Sweden, is essentially tied with the U.S. in economic freedom today. (According to the Heritage Foundation rankings.)
Here's the thing: National socialism has never produced anything long term other than misery, poverty, totalitarianism, and death. Think Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea. The NAZIS, who brought about the holocaust, WWII, and directly or indirectly caused the death of 70 million people, were known by the German acronym for "National Socialists".
So, that's at the national level. And long term. At the local level, socialism can survive a bit longer. Local socialism does not eliminate the incentive killing aspects of socialism, but it does avoid the inevitable monetary collapse. That's because local governments cannot create money and therefore tend to be more fiscally responsible. National governments can hide their insolvency, plunder future generations, devalue currencies, manipulate interest rates, and cause much bigger problems down the road.
This is an important point that deserves repeating; socialism cannot work long term at the national level. The national level is where money is created and controlled. Our system was never designed to be a socialist system. The Constitution implied that the states were the proper place for redistributive experimentation. The conflict of interest at the national level is just too great. National politicians will eventually destroy the currency, borrow too heavily, undermine the work ethic, and undermine national defense in an attempt to gain and maintain power. The founders knew that. It is happening today. We doubled our national debt during just Obama's eight years. Interest rates were artificially held near zero for that entire time. If and when rates normalize to historical levels, the debt service alone will cause the kind of pain socialist nations have felt throughout history. We are not immune.
Friday, April 1, 2016
Newt Gingrich - The Untold Story!
Newt Gingrich has been all over the news this election cycle opining on this or that, and acting as a sort-of GOP elder statesman. What very few people know though is that Newt Gingrich has a secret love child, the actor/comedian Jack Black! Here now the shocking proof ICYMI:
Newt Gingrich and son Jack Black share a laugh.
Newt Gingrich and son Jack Black share a laugh.
"She just has one of those asses you gotta grab!”
The Family Christmas Card
“Why can’t you f*%#ing idiots understand this?"
"Temper? Who's got a temper?"
Me and Dad
Me and Dad when we used to drop acid together.
(Happy April Fools Day!)
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Is Donald Trump the Golfing Gorilla?
There's an old golf joke that goes something like this:
A guy trains a gorilla to hit a golf ball and then takes wagers claiming his gorilla can beat any golfer. Several golfers take the bet only to pull out and lose after seeing the gorilla hit the green with a 500 yard drive. Finally, an astute pro takes the bet and stays in long enough to see the gorilla putt. The gorilla steps up to the ball, lines up his putter, eyes his 18" putt, and WHAM...hits the ball another 500 yards!
This reminds me of Donald Trump's campaign. He has been like the gorilla off the tee up to this point, outdriving the field of seventeen wanna-bees with his bold, brash, unapologetic, and downright nasty play. But now he's on the green and putting for the win. Does he have the wisdom and discipline to dial it back and act more like a seasoned pro than a Twitter addicted low-brow primate?
Donald Trump is comfortably in the lead in the delegate count at this point. His 736 dwarfs Ted Cruz's 463. So, what does he do? He attacks Heidi Cruz for not being as young and hot as his wife, thus further alienating the female half of the electorate. He continues with his Twitter rants against enemies real and imagined, thus alienating the remainder of the electorate. And he stands by his campaign manager after he's charged with battery for grabbing a reporter, an act caught on tape, thus showing what a great and just manager he'd be as president!
Ummm...looks like he's stepping up to his putt with a driver. Unfreaking believable...
(UPDATE: This was written BEFORE his insane abortion, nuclear weapons, and Supreme court comments!)
Saturday, March 19, 2016
Forget What The Donald Says
Donald Trump talks some serious shit. His mouth is like a perpetual motion BS fountain, spewing nonsense and ignorance into the atmosphere where it gets inhaled and sickens anyone who gets within range. So, I guess that makes him exactly like just about every other politician... ever!?
OK, maybe Trump's BS has another gear beyond what most politicians have, but I chalk most of that up to the fact that this is his first foray into politics. And this is the big stage. Also, years ago I read his book, "Art of the Deal" and know that his technique involves a boat-load of hyperbole, which is just a civilized word for BS.
So when it comes to politicians, I tend to focus more on results than words. When a politician says the debt is too high, and then doubles it, I have a problem with that. When a politician promises me my premiums will fall, I can keep my doctor, I can keep my plan, and none of that is true, I've got a problem with that. When a politician tells me a video caused a terrorist attack and it turns out to be a bold faced lie, I've got a problem with that.
At some point a politician's words become meaningless and all we are left with is... his actions. What has he done? What were the results? Did his BS produce the Shangri-La he promised? This becomes all that matters when it comes to politicians.
With that in mind, and with Donald Trump looking all but inevitable as the GOP nominee, I offer the following comparison:
OK, maybe Trump's BS has another gear beyond what most politicians have, but I chalk most of that up to the fact that this is his first foray into politics. And this is the big stage. Also, years ago I read his book, "Art of the Deal" and know that his technique involves a boat-load of hyperbole, which is just a civilized word for BS.
So when it comes to politicians, I tend to focus more on results than words. When a politician says the debt is too high, and then doubles it, I have a problem with that. When a politician promises me my premiums will fall, I can keep my doctor, I can keep my plan, and none of that is true, I've got a problem with that. When a politician tells me a video caused a terrorist attack and it turns out to be a bold faced lie, I've got a problem with that.
At some point a politician's words become meaningless and all we are left with is... his actions. What has he done? What were the results? Did his BS produce the Shangri-La he promised? This becomes all that matters when it comes to politicians.
With that in mind, and with Donald Trump looking all but inevitable as the GOP nominee, I offer the following comparison:
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Who’s Inciting Violence?
There’s lots of talk about coarse rhetoric inciting violence in this
election. Most of it directed at Donald
Trump. He’s been bluntly critical of those disrupting his rallies, he's offered to pay the legal fees of those who are charged after confronting disrupters,
he praised a man who punched a disrupter, and he's said and done a number of insensitive
things regarding his detractors.
Pretty bad stuff, I agree.
But if you are looking for a real villain inciting actual violence,
which has resulted in actual death, destruction, and civil unrest, I contend
you are looking in the wrong place. The
real inciter of violence is not at Mar-a-Lago; he’s in the White House.
By now everyone knows that “hands up, don’t shoot”, the
narrative after Michael Brown’s shooting, was a lie. What everyone seems to forget is that Trayvon
Martin, and later Michael Brown, were the sparks for Black Lives Matter, which
in turn began a war on police, which in turn spawned an unprecedented spike in
the assasination style murders of police around the country along with widespread
riots in numerous cities.
Do a Google search of “Obama speaks out against Black Lives
Matter” or “Obama speaks out against hands up, don’t shoot”, or “Obama speaks
out in support of the judicial system after Trayvon Martin.” You’ll get crickets. In fact, you’ll get the opposite. Obama spoke out and offered tacit support to those
calling for violence in all cases. These
movements have openly called for murder. They have chanted things like, "What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now!" and, “Pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon!”. Actual deaths have resulted. Actual riots have resulted. Millions in property damage has resulted. And Obama tacitly supported it all.
Moreover, Obama has used violent rhetoric throughout his
political life. In 2008 in Philadelphia
he told supporters: “If they bring a
knife to the fight, we bring a gun, because from what I understand, folks in
Philly like a good brawl.” He was given
a pass. He has subtly, but obviously, given
his detractors the middle finger. Not
figuratively, but literally. His
supporters laughed and applauded.
He turned the IRS into a Gestapo to harass his opponents. His supporters looked the other way.
So you tell me, who has actually incited violence? Who has actually incited murder? Who has actually divided this country?
If you are of the opinion that Donald Trump cannot be
forgiven for his failure to set a tone of reconciliation, that's your right. I am not defending Trump here. What I am doing is pointing out hypocrisy. In other words, show me where you spoke out against Barack Obama's more serious transgressions, which resulted in actual violence and death, or I gotta call BS on your selective outrage.
(Update: Trumps critics on both sides are accusing him of calling for riots if he is denied the nomination despite being the clear leader. He did no such thing. I myself have speculated the equivalent for either side if a clear leader were denied at either convention. This is just common sense. Trump was clear to say he would have no part in such nonsense, but this is ignored by his detractors. Anyone who thinks millions of Sanders supporters, or Trump supporters, would quietly accept their votes being nullified is seriously delusional.)
(Update: Trumps critics on both sides are accusing him of calling for riots if he is denied the nomination despite being the clear leader. He did no such thing. I myself have speculated the equivalent for either side if a clear leader were denied at either convention. This is just common sense. Trump was clear to say he would have no part in such nonsense, but this is ignored by his detractors. Anyone who thinks millions of Sanders supporters, or Trump supporters, would quietly accept their votes being nullified is seriously delusional.)
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
Understanding Trumpism – A Noteworthy Coincidence
No doubt about it, Donald
Trump is a different kind of politician.
Politics has always been a nasty business, but it is usually done quietly through delegation. Politicians will publicly smile, speak in platitudes and niceties, and then privately turn their
goons on their enemies. They will
weaponize the IRS, have your cat killed to send you a message, issue threats
through third parties, or have surrogates break into your campaign office. Never do they personally and publicly get mean. Not Trump.
He has cut out the middleman.
He’ll publicly call you a bimbo, stupid, fat, loser, liar, weirdo,
mock your disability, threaten to sue you, say everyone hates you, etc. And his fans love it. Why is this?
What has changed?
Most of us grew up with
some form of the Golden Rule being drilled into our heads. “Do unto others as you would have others do
unto you.” In other words, be a decent person, and don’t be a jerk. But there was also another maxim we grew up
with, “Nice guys finish last.”
Obviously, we got conflicting advice.
Trumpism is the triumph of
the latter over the former. The Golden
Rule, otherwise known as the ethic of reciprocity, a principle found in just
about every religion in the world, is dead in America today. And it was slain by the ethic of “Nice guys
finish last.” So I got to wondering,
what was the origin of “Nice guys finish last”?
It turns out that Donald
J. Trump and “Nice guys finish last” were born at the same time and in the
same place! Both were born around the summer
of 1946, and both in New York, NY. Interesting, no?
Leo Durocher was the
manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1946 when he said what eventually got boiled
down to its sound-bite form as “Nice guys finish last.” Donald Trump was born at the same time in the bordering
borough of Queens and had that aphorism germinating in his brain his entire
life. Now we are reaping the
fruits.
One bit of irony and
hypocrisy in all this is that many of the people who are apoplectic over Trumpism have for twenty years supported the most beloved man in the Democrat party, Bill Clinton, who did things that make Donald Trump look like a boy scout. So to those freaking-out over Trumpism who support Clintonism I say, “You might want to put
some ice on that.” ;-)
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Donald Trump - Some Perspective
Granted, Donald Trump has his flaws. He's certainly not my choice. At this point, a rehashing of Trump's strengths and weaknesses is useless. It is becoming increasingly clear that he can win the GOP nomination. So, it's time to put Donald Trump in perspective.
By that I mean, who will he likely be up against? It looks like Hillary Clinton will not be indicted by Barack Obama's DOJ (big surprise!), and will likely be the Democrat nominee. So how does Trump stack up?
- Been an accessory to rape
- Smeared women abused by his spouse
- Jailed a filmmaker to cover-up his own incompetence
- Attacked a country for no good reason and caused chaos on two continents
- Made billions selling U.S. Govt. favors
- Lied under oath
- Violated several U.S. laws regarding classified information
- Jeopardized U.S. national security by using an unsecured email server
- Stonewalled Freedom of Information requests
- Lied to the American people about official U.S. business
- Turned the IRS into a "gestapo"
- Looted the White House
- Sold secrets to the Chinese
- Lied about fake sniper fire in Bosnia
- Been pals with Saul Alinsky, Sidney Blumenthal, and Karl Marx (OK, I made the last one up...sort of.)
- Been fired for lying on a Watergate committee
The thing about our government that is truly sad in 2016 is that we have abandoned the founders design. The thing that made us exceptional among nations, the thing we call "American Exceptionalism" was the founders design of a strictly limited government designed to do a few basic things and then focus on securing the natural individual rights of the people. We long ago abandoned that model. Like it or not we have a totalitarian democracy at this point. Combine a totalitarian government with a jackass charismatic leader, like Barack Obama or Donald Trump, who you don't like, and it's a recipe for large scale discontent. Presidents were never supposed to be this important or this powerful in the U.S.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)