Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Regressive Candidates Bernie and Hillary Are Losing Ground

OK, a foreword on the title. I must admit that both parties are regressive. We have one playing to the far left and the other unable to imagine any clear political identity at all. But clearly over the past 35 years, both have in fact worked tirelessly to destroy the republic and concentrate power. Both have conspired to crush constitutional rule into the dust to give corruption an air of legitimacy. Individual rights have vanished completely leaving organized groups to compete for favors through bribery.

This is not progress, either political or social.

Americans have been disappointed in the gaggle that now controls the Republican Party. The RINO movement, initiated by Ronald Reagan when Southern Democrats were being driven from their old political home, has been in control ever since. In the tradition of Reagan, their talk is heavily socially conservative while their politics is within easy reach of the far left. Fool us once, Reagan is particularly well-known for the country's transition from means-tested welfare programs to an all out welfare state in which personal life was forced into arbitrary political control. Reagan made it sound socially conservative and even pretended it to be fiscally responsible. While the overwhelming expansion of the welfare system still lines the pockets of politically connected people, made further dictatorial abuses of the presidency possible (essentially pre-approved by the courts), and ultimately lead to the abolishment of traditional marriage, RINOs like Paul Ryan continue using the same strategy to expand other programs.

But the 10s of millions of people who know they've been screwed don't want to be fooled again, making establishment RINO candidates guaranteed losers.

What needs to be said about the Democrats? Hillary has been running for president for at least 16 years and likely had planning sessions before that. She was given a New York Senate seat in 2000 as a stepping stone and was forced into the position of Secretary of State in order to have government experience on her resume. Having proven herself incompetent, unworthy, and corrupt, she once again played on name recognition and early campaigning to take a lead in the polls; just as she had in her earlier run and as Mitt Romney did in the years before 2008 and 2012. There were advantages when running unopposed and as with Romney, most fake “news” operations took up the game of “front-runner” in her support.

Then we have the clown candidate Bernie Sanders. Sanders just gets right out there and says to Hell with the USA. What he wants is a dictatorship that will allow him to hang his political opposition and take what he wants from everyone else. No lie is too big and he doesn't even try to be subtle about it. His followers are used to calling people names when they don't agree rather than having any clue. Ultimately, as far as this race is concerned, it will help the fake “news” shills characterize Hillary as politically “moderate”. And to quote her, “What difference does it make?” She doesn't really have much of what Americans would describe as a political ideology. She just wants to steal all your stuff.

Hillary and Sanders are slipping in the polls against every R-candidate. With the exception of global warmer John Kasich and Romney supporter Rand Paul, recent polls show Hillary and Bernie are in virtual ties. Eliminating statistical outliers, the D-Party shill polls and Fox revenge polls, it's a steady trend. This is in sharp contrast to July polls when Hillary's early entry had her 20 points ahead of Donald Trump. Back then, people still weren't sure whether The Donald was serious or whether he'd “self destruct” in a few weeks.

Whether a greater realization of things as they are is replacing the imaginary partisan propaganda in voting decisions or people are just plain confused and fed-up with the shallow mendacity of familiar political faces, the sense of an anti-establishment outsider seems to be crushing even the heaviest and most entrenched new-age nitwits in the political arena. It will be interesting to see if a Trump nomination will sufficiently effect the public mind that more than a minority of voting age Americans will bother to show up to vote in November.

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

George Takei is Completely Wrong

George, you seem to be a good man. I even agree with the spin title MSNBC gave to your interview. “Indiana Law Effects All Americans.” Unfortunately, your own Boycott Indiana title is a bit confusing.

George, is it really OK to hate, attack, and punish a large number of people based on the state they live in? What's next? Hanging black people because of the color of their skin? Decapitating homosexuals for their lifestyle choices? Sending people to gas chambers because they don't phrase things in a way you don't see as sufficiently PC, their ethnicity or religious background? Where is the boundary to barbaric attitudes if not at barbarism?

Don't get me wrong. I think it's great that you and Brad have had some wonderful vacations. I've been disappointed in some myself. But I've never threatened local business owners who've been great and given good service because some other business somewhere else had a problem with some customers who might have had the same skin color or sexual orientation as me or shared some aspect of my political perspective. Conscience doesn't work that way.

George, you seem like a smart man. I take it that you can understand that the idea that same-sex couples are fighting for civil rights died out years ago. The vast majority of Americans supported the rights of same-sex couples, but leaders of the LGBT movement rejected their sincere offers to make things right. Instead, they wanted conflict – which keeps the movement going and the donations flowing in. Instead, they worked for and succeeded in eliminating the rights of others. They cheated same-sex couples out of the equal rights they sought, and instead destroyed marriage (regardless of sexual orientation) and the rights related to family and in fact, one's own individual existence. That definitely effects all Americans, in fact.

It's just a scam now George; a cheap and tawdry scam. I don't understand why you're part of it. I think you're a good man and a smart man, and certainly you don't need the money that some people are making from the conflict. It's just wrong.

Sunday, January 11, 2015

How Mitt Romney Can Win in 2016

We all know what a dead-beat political field looks like in a presidential election. On the Republican side, the only bright spot over several cycles has been Ron Paul, and he's not likely to run again. As we have seen, that opens up the possibility of a dead horse nominee. That was Mitt Romney in 2012.

That doesn't mean that he can't win the election. He just needs to tweak his campaign a bit. Before leaping into the strategic bombshell, let's review his qualifications.

Romney was born into the Political Class and has spent his entire adult life either as a lobbyist or working closely with lobbyists. He's probably second to none at selling favors, which means he can easily come up with a tone of money for any campaign. Among other things, his political and eventual industry connections got him into a one term governorship in Massachusetts and later onto the presidential ballot. As Massachusetts governor, he was known to have gotten along well with Democrats; after all, Massachusetts is a Democratic Party stronghold. As governor, he implemented ObamaCare in the state before Obama did.

It's simple really. The right doesn't like him at all and he'll never win as a Republican. If he wants to prove he can beat rivals in the Democratic Party, he should do it in their primaries, running as a Democrat. In that race, "repeal and replace ObamaCare" could actually be appreciated by voters. If he can beat the likes of Hillary Clinton (who won't be the nominee) and the presumptive nominee Joe Biden, he'll have earned the chance to compete against the last surviving dead-beat from the Republican Party race.

Oh wait, he hates fags, keeps a portfolio of women, loves to fire people, and makes fun of the unemployed. Never mind.