Welcome, Добро пожаловать, Welkom, Bienvenue, Bienvenido, 歓迎, υποδοχή

This site has been relaunched. It had deviated from its purpose. It will now only focus on concepts, not individual people, although certain concepts will use people only as examples not in judgement. Many of the old posts will be rewritten but in different light. All opinions will be respected. This site is not meant for any debate but leave comments if you desire. If you are looking for a specific topic look to the right, scroll down, and click on label that is closest to your research.

April 6, 2017

#17 Democratic filibuster is a cry for help

The latest battle in the broken American congressional system is the pick for Supreme Court justice.  It started of course last year when Antonin Scalia died and left a vacancy in the Court.  There needs to be nine justices to complete the court, although it has not always been that way.  It needs to be an odd number of justices in case there is a split decision there will never be a tie.  So why is this such a huge issue?  Both sides feel this will push the system towards their agenda.  But in all honesty, it won't change much.  Democrats especially think this will hurt them because of the abortion issue. Spoiler alert:  we have had a conservative Court before since 1973 and guess what...abortion is still legal.  It will remain legal because to get the law changed, there has to be a court decision that someone has to appeal to get to the Supreme Court.  It can't be made into an amendment because it takes 2/3 of Congress or 2/3 of state legislatures to even consider the change.  That isn't going to happen.  Both sides know this.  So again, why is this justice selection such  an issue?  Pride.

When Obama chose a person after the death of Scalia, he didn't pick someone based on what was best for the country, he picked someone based on who would uphold his "legacy" the most.  He could have worked with the GOP to try and find someone but he didn't.  He chose someone as fast as possible (one month, three days) to get someone in there; Merrick Garland.  That is not how you choose someone.  The GOP of course being the majority did what they should have done; checked the power of the president. Although, Garland was not the most liberal pick Obama could have chosen but still liberal enough (Liberal?).  Now, the GOP could have perhaps at least put it to vote.  They had enough votes not to confirm him.  However, given Obama's past they could not have taken the chance because if they voted no on him then Obama would have some justification of placing him there by an executive order.

Fast forward, now that Obama administration is part of history (THANK GOD), all of his nominees and appointments matter less or have expired.  Trump now picks Neil Gorsuch, a moderate conservative, although some say he is not, (Conservative?).  Trump at least had months to think about this and chose someone who many, even Democrats, liked.  But why is there still an issue?  Pride. Because the GOP stopped Obama's choice, the Democrats are automatically not going to confirm him or at least filibuster the vote.  That is just cry for help.

They lost the election.  They lost American confidence in their party.  They blame everyone and everything for their problems.  It wouldn't matter who Trump picked, unless it was Sanders or Clinton, and even then they may not have voted for them either.  The Democrats are only doing this in spite of the President.  It has nothing to do with Gorsuch.  It is only for revenge.  And for that reason the GOP have every right to use the nuclear option.  The same procedure that Harry Reid used when he didn't get his way, Nuclear option, in 2013.  But what will you hear the Democrats say? "That this is no way to handle the situation".  Well, you should have followed your own advice.  That is almost how you got Obamacare passed and that is how you ran things for years.  Justice is served.

Note: Trump as a person is not supported on this blog but political cry babies are less tolerated.

December 3, 2016

#16 The End of the Democrat Party

The first run of this blog started in 2008 was an attempt to get the population to understand what the future held if Obama became president. It didn't work. We failed twice of doing the right thing. The country is going in the wrong direction and it was predicted here. Most of the old posts were deleted. This blog started over again in 2014 because the anger got too much to hold onto inside after 6 years of total stupidity. Below was a prediction this blog made in 2008 after the election that year. It was called the end of the Republican Party.
"The Republican Party has seen the end of its existence as we know it. The party of Lincoln, Roosevelt (the good one), and Reagan is vanishing from the face of the earth. What happened to it? It lost its principles and its fire power. Too many GOP candidates are allowing the media to beat them up. They are allowing Hollywood to take over their campaign. They have given up on traditional conservative values thereby alienating the Christian base it once held close. It had been said that the Christian Right-wing conspirators put George W Bush into office. Pew Research Center says that 78% of "evangelical" White Christians voted for Bush in 2004. While 13% of Black Christians also voted for Bush. Adding these together the Christian vote may have been strong enough to carry Bush into a second term. The numbers for this election are not final but some sources say the number of white Christians dropped to around 70% while Black Christians dropped even more significantly. Race is not the issue but this is how media separated things for us. Undoubtedly, the only reasons why most Christians even stayed with the GOP was due to Sarah Palin. But in the end many saw her as not ready. The GOP also lost many due to Sen. McCain's maverick position. Many felt he would not stick to conservative values when needed. Then there are some who felt President Bush lost touch with the American people and if McCain was going to take his place it might end up the same. And then the last group voted for Obama as a protest against all of President Bush's policies. All of these added to the defeat of Senator McCain. But the bigger picture is the GOP might go down with him. The Constitution and Libertarian Parties may see huge rises in their support. The only way the GOP can gain momentum is by consolidating with other conservatives and/or by courting the so-called religious right or by completely changing its core values.  But it is the opinion that we have seen the death of the GOP."

After that election the GOP basically started to divide.  We saw the rise of the Tea Party faction, the strength of the Libertarian sect, and the pathetic attempt of the "establishment" to look more relevant. Due to these events mentioned and the last eight years that post proved to be true.  So, now that we have gone through 8 more years of disaster we can basically assume this is the end of the Democratic Party as we know.  The Democrats will be making changes.  They will be going extreme.  They will look for their base to swing hard left.  Some of this as a response to Trump, some because the Democrats have lost touch with the average person.  Either way the Democrats will never be the same.  They have lost the ideas of Roosevelt and Kennedy.  They will praise Obama for the next four years but will move even father away from him.  Voices like Sanders will be screamed.  Hillary will look like a moderate.  And maybe even nut cases like Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean will gain popularity again, if they can lie to the youth and gain their support.

November 13, 2016

#15 Here is why Donald Trump won.

Some people are claiming the only reason why Donald Trump won the election is because of racism. (ex: Whitelash) Some are saying it is sexism. Some are saying because the system is broken. All of these do have some valid points and no doubt these are definite factors that help contributed to his victory, but overall they are incorrect summations of the situation. Basically, the underlying tone of comments such as some are saying means Trump won because of the "racist white male".

So what do you say about all of those who consider themselves a "minority" and still voted for him? More than twenty percent of Hispanics voted for him (Latino Vote). Over forty percent of women voted for him (Woman vote).  About 8% of black voters supported Trump.  Did they "white lash" their own vote? Yes, there was a factor involved that involves what has been said, but bottom line this was a referendum on two things:

1. Obama's failed policies, just to name a few:
  • Ideas like "cash for clunkers" created prices of cars to go up negating any buyer
  • Millions went on unemployment but are not even counted in the numbers because they gave up looking for work
  • The debt is now over $19 trillion dollars, almost tripling what it was
  • He promised to cut the deficit in half.
  • Lies about Obamacare, such as rising premiums
  • His deals like the one with Iran that put us at risk
  • His pen is mightier than the sword approach (both domestic and foreign)
  • His divisiveness about issues instead of being the healer of a nation.
  • Lying about his "transparency"
  • Spying on people, IRS scandal
  • Rise of ISIS, calling it JV instead of dealing with it
  • Solyndra failure
  • "Fast and Furious" scandal
  • Apologizing for America being powerful and successful
  • Disrespecting the 911 families with his veto
2. Clinton's untrustworthiness and deceptions:
  • Scandals after scandal that include perjury, illegal activities (of all types)
  • Her change of views, her empty promises to whatever group she was talking to
  • Benghazi
  • The emails
  • Her cover-ups about women Bill slept with
  • Her words about groups that didn't support her
  • The behind the scenes scandals of the debates and Bill's weird meetings with officials
  • Hillary's problems
You can give any excuse you want.  And without Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago she would have been handed her butt on a silver platter.  She and Obama were her worst enemies.  Trump is an idiot with all the things he did but this was against the last 8 years.  They are angry with the divisiveness.  They are angry with the slow recovery.  They are angry with the lack of action.  They are angry with the wrong action.  They are angry at the arrogance and narcissism.  Most of the people who voted for Trump only did it so she would not get elected.    They are afraid of the lack of trust.  Half of the rest did it because they did not want the same thing Obama has been doing.  They are afraid she would carry on the same stupidity of the last 8 years.  Half of the rest probably think Trump actually has good ideas.  He did run a few businesses for years and is a billionaire due to some this decisions.

None of this is to praise Trump.  He is not a conservative, heck he used to be a Democrat, and his views are far-fetched on many issues.  He has said some of the stupidest things on a campaign and has been rude and arrogant and out right wrong.  But a very few voted for him just because he is a white male.  They wanted change and not the type that Obama promised and failed with nor the type she stood for.  Sorry liberal.

March 18, 2016

#14 There should never be a Clinton in office ever again.

The legacy of the Clintons in some minds will forever be filled with glee and smiles.  They will stand with them and explain to everyone that the time we had with Bill as President and Hillary as the First Lady was a time of prosperity and peace.  People had hope and opportunity.  These people are the delusional people around us.  Or at least they are uninformed of reality.  From the time they met in the 1960's to the present day the Clintons have mustered all kinds of scandals, propaganda, lies, blames, egos, and crime.  And people still love them for it?

We can even leave Bill out of it and we still have all kinds of issues with Hillary, yet so many have to do with him.
  1. Covering up Bill's sexual harassment and perhaps rape charges.  Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Monica Lewinski.  Of course, she claimed it was just part of a right-wing conspiracy to derail her husband.  No, your husband derailed himself.  But she tried to cover it up with the infamous "truth squad".
  2. She stole items from the White House at the end of her husband's reign.  Of course, she claims that she only took all the gifts that were given to her in those eight years.  They add up to $190,000.
  3. Just like Nixon had spied on his political enemies, Hillary is linked to many of these types of activities as well.  She was thought to have looked up FBI files of people, which is a clear violation of the Privacy Act.  Of course ,she says it was just a mistake.  AKA FBIgate.
  4. She fired workers in the White House just to hire her friends.  The "kitchen cabinet" effect may be her right to do but is just completely tacky and highly undiplomatic.  Some of the people she tried to hire were for self-indulging companies, such as securing an airline contract for her friend.  All of this was later to be called Travelgate.
  5. Illegal activity in campaign finance, tax benefits, and "financial favors" brought about a probe into some of her dealings with real estate while she was in Arkansas.  Her actions helped bring the collapse of a local savings and loan.  All of her business partners were found guilty and put in prison, but she and Bill got out of it.  AKA Whitewater.  And years later she had taken funds from an Iranian political criminal.  Why can she get funds like this but be illegal and immoral for everyone else?
  6. She received funds for her Senate run in 2000 by someone Bill had pardoned; a person who was on the FBI most wanted list for a while.  People in her family also received  money from those Bill pardoned.  She claims she did not know.  AKA Pardongate.
  7. Selling secrets to China.  AKA Chinagate.
  8. Lying about being shot at in Bosnia.
  9. She moves from Arkansas to New York to run for Senate.  Why?  Because she knew she would not be elected by Arkansans.  In one of her first speeches she claims to be a New Yorker, even though she had only been there less than a year.  Propaganda.
  10. She has been tied to a few murders; Vince Foster, Ron Brown
  11. Emailgate.  Not only did she send valuable information by an insecure server, she shared her email account with a person (Huma Abedin) who is tied to a terrorist group, Muslim Brotherhood.  She claims the emails were not deemed "classified at the time".  So what?  She still should have known that the information she was sending was sensitive.  She claims that even if she did send things this way that others like Colin Powell did it too.  So what?  Colin Powell should be brought to justice too.  Just because someone else did it does not mean it is ok to do.  Ask Edward Snowden.  He basically did the same thing yet:
  12. Benghazi.  There is nothing else that needs to be said.  Under her watch four Americans were killed.  Whether she knew about it or not it was her responsibility.  So to quote her own words: 3 AM Phone Call; she did not answer the phone call.  She emailed her daughter and explained it was done by terrorists.  She knew what had happened.  It was not about a video.  She was the Secretary of State.  This was her job.  She failed.  Look at how she handled it:
  • She blamed an anti-Muslim video but then stated we didn't know if it was the video or not that caused the riots in Libya.  Yet, at the time of the attacks she went on air and apologized to the Muslim world about the video to make sure that this part of the world did not blame the US government.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xj_hNRUB9Q
  • She said she did not know right away the attack was going on and that there was no real time video.  Although Charlene R. Lamb, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs at the U.S. Department of State, said there was.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/real-time-libya-who-knew-what-when/2012/10/11/2422cd92-1349-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_blog.html, and http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/benghazi-hearing/
  • She said she did not or at least could not read any cable or messages that she got from Ambassador Stevens, who was her friend and placed him there because she knew he knew the dangers of the place.  Yet, she is head the Department of State.  One of the jobs is to know what is going on all the time.   And if Ambassador Stevens was her friend and he was in a dangerous place then why didn't she keep up with all the action that was taking place?  So now we don't know which one is telling the truth:  Lamb or Clinton (although Clintons do tend to lie at first).  After all it was 9-11, a day of heightened awareness anyway, right?
  • She said it doesn't matter if it was a video or crazy terrorist assassins just wanting to kill Americans, but it does matter because knowledge will perhaps stop future events like this from happening.  Meanwhile there is a man in jail for the video, even though we have freedom of speech.
  • She said they were only working on intelligence given to them; and of course Dick Durbin a Democrat Illinois brought up how we have worked with "intelligence" before with WMD, but he was being sarcastic.  He claimed the WMDs in Iraq was a cover up which was the real scandal, but this one in Libya wasn't.  That, of course, was just a way to distract from the real issue, typical Democrat. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/dick-durbin-benghazi-iraq-wmd_n_2539710.html
  • There was a review board looking at all the evidence but it took eight weeks for them to form and Clinton is the one who put the board together.
  • Oh yeah, her response to the whole thing was "what does it matter now?".
The above didn't even include her scandals with Bill nor did it list all of the other ones she may have perpetrated on her own.  And even worse yet, her policies haven't even been discussed yet.  And people think she is a good candidate?

The following is taken from her campaign website.  Here are the issues she is wrong on:

Campaign Reform--"Our democracy should work for everyone, not just the wealthy and well-connected."  Although this is a good statement and should be agree with, who is she to say this?  She is wealthy.  She got that way due to illegal campaign funding.

Racial Injustice--"Black Lives Matter". Yes.  But she only says this to get African American votes.  See Bernie Sanders to get more of this.

Wall Street--"Wall Street must work for Main Street".  She got $4.1 Million from Wall Street in donations to her funds., Goldman-Sachs, Citigroup, DLA Piper just to name a few who gave her hundreds of thousands each.

Other things she is wrong about that are obvious or already talked about too much:  abortion, Obamacare, Social education, she claims she is for small businesses yet supports Obamacare.

She is a closet socialist.  Socialism's definition is an economic system that puts control of the means of production into the hands of the community as a whole, a transitional state between capitalism and communism.  This is a scary definition.  The first part may sound noble.  But the rest can tear a country apart.  Choice is stripped from the citizen.  Socialism and communism is more than just an economic system.  They mess around with people's personal freedoms as well.  In 2015 she said, "Look, I don't believe you change hearts," arguing that the Black Lives Matter movement can't change deep seated racism. "I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate. You're not going to change every heart. You're not. But at the end of the day, we could do a whole lot to change some hearts and change some systems and create more opportunities for people who deserve to have them, to live up to their own God-given potential."  No Mrs. Clinton, changing the hearts is the only way to get things done, morally.

This is the definition of socialism. Adding government policies and allocation of resources. However she added create opportunities and invoked the term "God-given" to see more moderate. Those of the African-American community need to see that the Democratic Party is not the saving grace.  Neither is the GOP as a whole, so don't miaunderstand, but the Democrats only want your vote. That's it. Nothing else, just your vote.

Many of her policies are not that bad.  They are even border line conservative.  But how can you trust these views.  All she does is promise things to whatever group she is with.

If she turned her back on four marines who protect our country, and if she turned her back on national security via emails, then she WILL turn her back on you after she is elected. Heck, even President Obama did in many cases as well.

March 17, 2016

#13 The Trump Card and Suit will not always be the best

Even though socialism is not the answer that does not mean any tycoon billionaire's ideas are any better.  Although all of those who are running for president are millionaires or more anyway, so they are all hypocrites for the most.  But judge a person not by their economic standard but by what they stand for.
Illegal Immigration-- Building a wall on the southern border.  This has to be the most asinine thing to say.  The idea behind the concept is understood.  We have an issue in this country due to, yes, illegal immigration.  First of all the term is correct to use.  We have standards and rules to come into this country.  Some have been trying to get here for years and are going through all the steps and are getting beat by those who lie, cheat, and steal to come here.  It is not fair for those who have waited patiently to get here only for others to get the jobs first, or the "free education".  Another problem of immigration is that we can no longer trust all of those coming in.  And as comedian Paul Rodriguez says (paraphrased), "don't get mad at the Mexicans, we are just here to take your jobs, not to kill you".  Unfortunately, we don't know who is coming over the border.  But, to build a 50-foot wall over 2000 miles in length and say they will pay for it?  Impossible in more ways than one.  And, ask Berlin how walls go.  We have laws already in place.  Use them.  Immigration is fine, but use the laws already here.  No sanctuary cities.  Recreate something like Ellis Island again.  Allow the paperwork to be more user friendly for immigrants to fill out.  Do not send back one member of the family, but if they need deported send back the whole family.  But, before they are sent back give them the paperwork to do and show then the process.

Before the inevitable happens here is a disclaimer:  Yes, the Native American has been pushed out and taken over by foreigners, and it is completely unfair that this has happened.  It seems that it is hypocritical to say one group of aliens are ok and others are not.  But we are living in different times.  If we could all go back in time, odds are we would change what happened to the Native American.  But 250 years later this is a different country filled with those who are not the ones to blame for the plight of the Native American.  Americans of all are trying to protect themselves against a new type of enemy.  In a perfect world we would all be able to get along.
Other issues he is wrong about can't really be talked about here because who knows if he is really for that issue or not.  In the past he has been for the choice of abortion.  In 2011, he "changed due to personal experiences".  He said he is for affirmative action, but that is not a conservative value since it takes equal economic opportunity away.  He has been for gun control.  But things like this he has changed his ideas or maybe he is saying them to be considered a conservative enough person to be a GOP candidate.  He said he is for family values, but wasn't he married four times?  One shouldn't judge.
The problem is not necessarily his policies, save one, but the way he gets things done.  He is rude.  Pissing off leaders will not get the job done.  He is obnoxious and hard-headed.  Compromise is part of the game and sometimes needed.  Trying to bully others into your opinion is a 3rd grade tactic.  His arrogance will not let him lose.  He claims he wins at everything.  He has insulted his way to the top.  Calling Putin bald and short will not bring and end to any terrorism.  He wants to sue everyone. He says racist things but "don't mean them".   He may perhaps have a large white supremacist group ties.  But you are allowed to have an opinion, even as stupid as that one.  It is undoubtedly accurate that Obama had black supremacist groups follow him too.  And Clinton will have women groups follow her.  He is a misogynist but claims he "even hires women for construction jobs".   His believability is way too low.  He is inciting violence with every speech.  He is playing upon the fears and anger of people.  History says that is not a good thing.  This picture should be enough to stop anyone from voting for him.
Unless this is the competition:
Then unfortunately in this competition, he is a conservative.  The good news is he will only be a one-term president if he gets elected.

March 13, 2016

#12 If Sanders is elected we will feel the Bern

Before anyone jumps on the anti-bandwagon, this will hopefully be a series of what is wrong with most, if not all the candidiates.  This is the easiest one to start with.
This is not to take away from the person of Bernie Sanders.  It is not an attack on who he is but what his ideas and policies would do to the United States and why he would be wrong for the presidency.  He is a self-proclaimed "socialist".  Now most will argue with that and say, no he is a democratic socialist.  But so what, Hitler called himself a National Socialist.  It doesn't matter what you call yourself, it is what you do that matters.
In a perfect world Sanders would be correct.  But in a perfect world Sanders would be wrong too.  Let's look at the things he stands for and what may be the issue.  All these are coming from his own website.
A Living Wage--Proposes a $15 per hour minimum wage.  In a perfect world, it would be nice if everyone could live the life of a millionaire.  No one would have to work.  No one would have to worry about bills to be paid.  Everyone would have a 4 story home with a pool and 3 classic cars in the garage.  But in a perfect world he is wrong because to get all of those things someone has to do the work.  Someone has to build the pool, car, and house.  Someone has to produce the materials, even if you built these things yourself.  It would be great if everyone could have these things.  But in reality it cannot be done.  The $15 would almost double what most minimum wage earners are getting now.  So how would that hurt?  Large corporations would not offer all the products they do now.  They would cut back and specialize only on a few products.  Sure, maybe someone would pick up the product but no one would compete against them.  If there is no competitions then that company can charge all they want and you are stuck with their price.  Then the government would have to step in even more to create price ceilings and more regulations that slow the business even more.  Adam Smith  wrote about the laws of competition and how when companies compete, the consumer wins.  Smaller businesses would not hire as many people out of plain fear that their business would not be able to afford to hire anyone.  Plus, who really makes minimum wage anyway?  Good companies but not a whole lot of experience or education is needed; McDonald's, Walmart, teenagers at their first job, pizza deliverers. etc.  Not many companies start at minimum wage anyway.  Not many adults who are worth anything take these jobs.  You stand at Walmart and all you hear is "when do I get my break", while they are bagging your groceries.  You order a cheeseburger and you get a fish sandwich.  The teenager is on their cell phone.  The pizza comes cold.  Sorry Bernie, the hike would not work and is not needed.  However, there could be a law that was passed that raises the minimum wage $1 every two or three years.  This would allow small businesses to make arrangements to meet the demands and would allow larger corporations to expand when needed without many layoffs or stoppage of products.
Free College--Make tuition free so graduates have no debt when they enter the workforce.  In a perfect world everyone would be educated first at home then with each level everyone would be educated even more.  No debt, no real estate taxes, no books to be bought, computers for everyone with access to the internet and all the technology.  No tests to pay for, no graduation fees for cap and gown.  But in a perfect world he is wrong because again, all those things that he wants free someone has to work, create, and/or be paid for.  How would professors earn a living?  How would books be paid for?  How would buildings and newer facilities with that best of technology get paid for?  In reality, not all people are college material.  Some are barely high school material.  Some would say education is a right.  Actually it is a privilege.  Why?  Because some people do not care about education.  If you do not care then you lose your right.  Now public education for children should be free.  Estate taxes should be gone somehow. but then again how are schools going to be built?  How would teachers be paid?  How would new textbooks and technology be accessed?  Yes, there needs to be a change in education but free college?  It would be paid for, but by the upper and middle class. He says Wall Street will pay for it.  How?  If more people went to college free then thousands upon thousands may enter the college.  That sounds good until you have to incur the costs.  Wall Street would not be able pay for all fluxion and growth.  That means tickets to extra curricular activities would raise.  Food on campuses would raise.  Colleges would find other fess like travel fees, security fees,  and other smaller things that are already free.  All this would stop the middle class person from succeeding in college.  And don't be fooled, the middle class is still the largest group in the USA.  Yes, interest rates are too high.  But there are already many scholarships and grants that most people can get IF they actually cared enough to try and get in high school.  Sorry, Bernie, it would back fire.
Creating decent paying jobs--Claims he would put 13 million people to work.  But doing what?  In a perfect world everyone would have a job and work according to their ability and need.  All would afford their luxury and accrue their desires.  But in a perfect world he is wrong.  Look at the jobs he said he would create:roads, transit systems, bridges, airports, seaports, etc.  We can agree that these replaced.  But his plan is to create government paying jobs to get these done.  Who would pay for it?  The middle class again.  If these need done give incentives for privately owned construction workers to be hired.  Local communities should be in charge of it.  But taxes would still have to be raised somehow to pay for this, unless the local communities could find other ways to do it.  This one is a no-win situation.  But who would your rather have in charge of the project, the government or the one who works for a living?  Sorry Bernie, the concept is great but it needs improved.
Supporting Black Colleges--Providing higher education opportunities for African-American students.  In a perfect world ALL students/people of ALL ethnicities would have this opportunity.  No discrimination.  No racism.  But in a perfect world he is wrong, these type of programs only offer more divisive opportunities.  How would offering these programs help African-American students?  They are not offering real world opportunities.  In a real world we are all on the same page and those who do the best should get the best.  Many of these colleges are watered-down and do not give a real world view.  There should be no "white" colleges, no "black" colleges, no "all-male" colleges, and no "all-female" colleges.  If we want true equality then we do not water down anything.  We do not make things easier for people to do, that just makes people lazier.  We need to add programs that offer challenge, innovation, motivation, and inspiration for ALL Americans.  In a world of division, especially created by Obama, and can see where a Trump presidency would go, we need someone who brings unity not more division.  Sorry, Bernie, this would add to racism, not equality.
Expand Social Security--In a perfect world we would all be able to retire at a young age and be able to live off what we made and have some left over to give to the next generation.  All would be able to afford their medical expenses and have a next egg for rainy days.  But in a perfect world he is wrong because first of all social security is an insurance program.  INSURANCE!  Not something that should be controlled by the government.  It's YOUR money, shouldn't YOU decide what to do with it?  The program was not supposed to be a permanent solution to a temporary problem (1930's).  If you expand SSI then again, it has to be paid for by someone.  What we need are incentives for people to save their money.  The government should not tell you what do to with your money and how much you need to save.  If people are dumb enough to waste their own money then that is their own allotted stupidity.  This is just another program that makes us lazier and tells people let someone else pay for you.  The private sector could hire thousands of people and offer a competitive retirement plans, even off of Wall Street.
The Iran Deal-- He supports the Iran nuclear deal.  In a perfect world there would be no nuclear weapons.  No war.  No terrorism.  No bad trade deals.  But unfortunately for this issue we are nit in a perfect world.  Iran had proven time and time again that they are a country that reneges on deals and has supported terrorism all over the world.  What should be done is a deal that says prove your worthiness first; the more you comply the more you will be given.  They have already broken the del twice and nothing has been done.   Sorry, Bernie, Iran needs to be dealt  with not made a deal with.
Racial justice--Black lives matter.   If you say no to this then take your seat in the back of the bus and be quiet.  But black lives matter campaign is actually the negative response to injustice.  Blaming the police for everything is not right.  If you break the law then expect consequences and if you resist arrest what is a police officer supposed to do, wait for something bad to happen and then respond?  Sorry Bernie, all lives matter and if it comes down to supporting the criminals or the police then standing behind those in blue is a better choice.  Where are all the protest against violence and crimes period?  If we had no crime then police would be less needed.  They are under fire today because they have perhaps the worst job to do.  If they can't use force then the criminal wins.  If they use force then they are villainized.  He claims that African-Americans are disenfranchised since they have a felony on their record.  Well, all felons have this done to them.  Should there be a way for felons to get back their vote?  Sure.  But those in prison do not get the right to say, remember they are there because they took someone else's right away with their criminal act.

Other issues he is wrong about but too long to go into:  abortion, higher tax brackets, and Obamacare.  See labels for these.
Now he does have some good ideas but how can we get them done?  Equal pay, fair immigration law, caring for our veterans, supporting family values (although we disagree on what that is), climate change (although don't go extreme).
These are just seven components of what makes Bernie Sanders' presidential bid bad for America.  Everything he is promising sounds good in a prefect world.  And that is what Karl Marx said; a utopia.  But we know utopia does not work when the government will have to intervene so many times.  Socialism is socialism, it doesn't matter what word you put in front of it.  Socialism on paper may open the way for equality and a friendlier atmosphere but it reality it only causes laziness and more division.  People feel entitled to everything and they are not.  Some would always have to work to get us everything we need.  There would still be the haves and the have nots only the haves would have less than they do now.  Hundreds of thousands of Americans have given their lives to fight the tyranny of socialism and communism.  They fought for freedom and so that people can have the free will that we have.  They died defending the right to choose.  And now we have candidates who support the idea of taking away individual choice but disguise it as "democratic socialism".  Change is not good just because it's change.

And perhaps the biggest point is, where in all of history has socialism been good for the whole?  Not one society has been successful without killing, propaganda, and anything of the like.  No thank you.

January 2, 2016

#11 Calculating the candidates.

With less than a month now left to the Iowa Caucuses get underway, a process given too much importance to by the way,  here is a list of what to look for in a candidate.

The GOP:
  • Those who do not matter are Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, John Kaisich, John Gilmore, and Rand Paul.  These four should just drop out and save money, time, and effort.  Their time is over and they perhaps should never run again.
  • The bottom tier:
    1. Chris Christie, New Jersey, two terms as a Republican governor is a very Democrat-hyped state, former prosecutor, former US Attorney.  Hot headed and out spoken at times (even his website says "Telling it like it is", but that may be due to his New Jersey background.  Often criticized for his weight.  His biggest obstacle though is his dealings with the shut down on the George Washington Bridge.  He was acquitted of all wrong doings but there is still doubt.  He is not part of Washington but has been part of the establishment recently.  His governorship brings his leadership ability up.  https://www.chrischristie.com/  Assessment:  Conservative values= 8, Leadership abilities= 7 Corrupted by DC= -1
    2. Carly Fiorina, California, former CEO of Hewlett Packard, and AT&T.  A formidable opponent to Clinton but only because of her female status.  She did run HP but bad times hit and under her leadership it lost a lot of its stock value (could have been anyone at the time). Her emotionless features do not make her unattractive as Trump said, but makes seem her unattached to the people.  Even when she gets angry she shows no emotion and he voice never shows any inflection. But being part of the anti-establishment allows her to not be persuaded by lobbyists however Wall St might.  https://www.carlyforpresident.com/  Assessment: Conservative values= 9 Leadership abilities= 5 Corrupted by DC= 2
    3. Jeb Bush, Florida, former two term governor of Florida, former business entrepreneur.  A family man with family values.  Almost everything he has been a part of has succeeded; his business actions, his terms as governor have mostly been viewed as positive barring any bias.  His biggest problems though are of course his name, although out of all the Bushes in politics he is probably the most stable, his business actions some think were unethical, and his personality is less than desirable.  He is even tempered but seems to smile at the wrong times. His strengths are that he knows how to be an executive and he has been out of the Washington loop for years.  https://jeb2016.com/  Assessment:  Conservative values= 9, Leadership abilities= 9, Corruption by DC= 0
    4. John Kasich, Ohio, governor, former 9-term Representative of Ohio, business entrepreneur.  They either hated him or loved him in Ohio.  He has been known to fly off the handle but then turn around and be the calm one at the table.  He fought against unions but then backed down when Ohians said no to that.  He has executive experience but has been part of Washington problems before.  He is successful in his business endeavors.  He has turned Ohio around from the disaster that Ted Strickland brought.  His problem is he is not known.  His speaking skills are irritating.  And he karate chops the world when he speaks.  https://www.johnkasich.com/  Assessment:  Conservative values= 9, Leadership abilities= 8, Corruption by DC= -2
  • The top tier:
    1. Marco Rubio, Florida, three term Senator, five term state Representative in Florida.  Only one of three Hispanics in the Senate, he came from a upper class family who lived the American dream.  Although many will say that is his problem because even though he came from a upper class family he had his own financial issues.  He stands up for family values but his work in the Senate as been scrutinized for his lack of appearances.  His views seem to be very solid but he has been too much involved with Washington in the recent pass.  He may have good values and views but can he show up and do the job? https://marcorubio.com/  Assessment:  Conservative values= 10, Leadership ability= 6, Corruption by DC= -2
    2. Ben Carson, Maryland but from Michigan, Neurosurgeon.  Former job hunter until he was accepted into medical school.  Credited with performing the first successful separation of Siamese twins joined at the head.  Part of many business board of directors.  He has published eight books.  He broke through poverty and showed what can be done when you actually rely on yourself and not the government.  He has no political experience but has been director of John Hopkins Hospital.  A great speaker, he has good ideas but perhaps too soft spoken. Could he lead with that type of demeanor?  https://www.bencarson.com/  Assessment: Conservative values= 9, Leadership abilities= 4, Corruption by DC= 1
    3. Donald Trump, New York, Entrepreneur, TV Mogul.  Loud, obnoxious, but doesn't stand down to anyone.  His "outside Washington anger" is what fuels his campaign.  His executive decision making is what makes his leadership appeal strong.  But his values seem to change with time and his family values can be highly argued.  His wit can be either sharp or offensive and sometimes both.  He has the guile to be a leader but what he says may sometimes be too confrontational and divisive.  Her may not be corrupted by Washington but he may be corrupted by Wall St and even worse, Hollywood.  https://www.donaldjtrump.com/  Assessment:  Conservative values= 6, Leadership abilities= 7, Corruption by DC= 1
    4. Ted Cruz, Texas, two term Senator, has held three government positions besides Senator and was a professor law in Texas.  He knows a lot about Constitutional law as that is what he taught in Texas. He is a family man full of family values.  His major problem is his attitude.  He comes across as confrontational and unsympathetic.  He is part of the establishment  as he has had many government jobs but none of them in the executive role but is also not really part of the mainstream corruption.  https://www.tedcruz.org/ Assessment:  Conservative values= 9, Leadership abilities= 7, Corruption by DC= 0
The DEMs:

  • There is only now on tier as the bottom two have dropped out.
    1. Bernie Sanders, Vermont, two term Senator, former EIGHT term congressman from Vermont, former Mayor in Vermont, small odd jobs including filmmaker.  Actually, an "independent" he always sides with the Democrats.  His socialist ideas are not mainstream but is the Donald Trump of the democrats as he reflects the "outside Washington anti-establishment for liberals" side.  He is very progressive and outspoken but has been in Washington for the last 18 years and has no competition in his small populated liberal state but he has no executive experience. His policies would be like Obama on steroids but with less prejudice. https://go.berniesanders.com/page/content/splash  Assessment:  Conservative values= 1, Leadership abilities= 6, Corruption by DC= -1
    2. Martin O'Malley, Maryland, three term governor, former Mayor of Baltimore and city council for 16 years, served as chair of DEM governors.  A family man but fights for non-traditional family values.  He has not been part of Washington per se, his mother is highly involved in the last 30 years.  He did accomplish a lot during his tenures in all of his positions. and many of them have been positive in return.  https://martinomalley.com/  Assessment:  Conservative values= 2, Leadership abilities= 8, Corruption by DC= 1
    3. Hillary Clinton, New York, former Sec of State, former two term Senator from New York, former First Lady of the US, former First Lady of Arkansas, former lawyer, involved with many charities.  She has been part of Washington for the last 23 years, by far longer than any other candidate.  Her problems are far more than this page can hold, scandal after scandal has followed her but perhaps the biggest is still happening, her TWO FBI investigations into her emails and Benghazi where four Americans were killed because of her indecision. She has done a lot more than Obama in her career does play the family woman very well expressing her being a grandmother all the time.  She is the queen of all promisers.  https://www.hillaryclinton.com/  Assessment:  Conservative values= 5, Leadership abilities= 1, Corruption by DC= -5
Add these all up and here are the rankings from worst to best:
  1. Clinton= 1
  2. Sanders=  6
  3. O'Malley= 11
  4. Trump = 14
  5. Carson = 14
  6. Christie= 14
  7. Rubio = 14
  8. Kasich= 15
  9. Cruz= 16
  10. Fiorina= 16
  11. Bush= 18
Yes, the best candidate is again a Bush.  Read 'em and weep.  The best ticket would be Bush/Cruz.  The worse ticket would be Clinton/Anybody.

**note:  John Kasich was added later due to his late arrival to the race**