Our Crazy Uncle Seems Totally Afraid To Win

"She really thought I didn't mind that crying baby"

What isn't hard to understand is the love and understanding that we all have for that crazy uncle in our family.  You know who I am talking about because every family seems to have THAT uncle.

Call him Uncle Donald if you will.

He's that uncle who always seems to say something to infuriate somebody, if not everybody at the same time, though some in the family know how to let him have his way and not poke the bear by trying to censor him.

Usually, our crazy Uncle Donald is aided by a fair amount of liquor to increase the audacity of his offensiveness, but he is perfectly capable of pissing off many, with or without liquor. The liquor is usually just an easy excuse for the kind of stuff they do all of the time anyway, but it also gives us something to excuse him for, until the next time.

After all, crazy Uncle Donald is family, and there really is no way to totally disassociate yourself from family....is there?

It was way back in 1989, with Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. campaigning mightily to stop the impending State legislature pursuit in Louisiana of former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke.  That was the only other time in which a party attempted to oust one of it's own nominee's. It didn't work and Duke won that seat.
(http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/white-supremacists-feel-inspired-trumps-2016-campaign)

THE LESSON?

Sometimes when you DON'T stand up against your unruly family members, they'll only get more unruly and eventually take over the whole party.

Two years later, however, republicans learned their lesson when Duke attempted to win the Governors seat in Louisiana, but was unsuccessful due to a strong stand of resistance from members of his own party.

David Duke is nothing like crazy Uncle Donald. He is our slick Uncle Duke who is rhetorically capable of convincing you of just about anything with his gift of gab and immense intellectual capacity.  As a black political editorial writer who researches constantly, I have to watch carefully to the amount of time I spend listening to David Duke because he can totally focus on elements that you'll agree with him about, and never reveal the other elements of his intolerant self that resides at the core of his being.

Those who keep up with such things know that our racist Uncle Duke rarely talks about blacks anymore, but is an intense skeptic about the pervasive influence of Jewish money in American life in addition to the 8 billion dollar welfare payment we send to Israel even while Netanyahu spits in the face of our president. Uncle Duke and I do not disagree on this bone of contention, yet he loses me on the race purity mission that elevated him to Grand Wizard. Though he has abandoned the sheet and the hood, what became of all of that hatred?

Whether he continues to espouse such hatred and extremes or not, is a risk that Louisiana voters refused to trust again, as Duke has run for many political offices in Louisiana and beyond, but never won another seat after winning the state legislature seat in 1989.

Louisiana voters, and its republican party, have rejected his form of hatred and turned him into a fringe lunatic lost in the extremes of politics and academia until revived by his recent endorsement of our crazy Uncle Donald.

Although much more lucid a thinker and talented as a orator, Uncle Duke was denounced for turning back the clock on race relations in America. In a crazy bit of political irony, Uncle Donald, far from full fledged denunciation, is FINALLY being seen as the sincere threat to the future of the GOP that he has always been from the moment he claimed the label, and a sincere threat to the reputation of those who continue to love and support him too, much like our crazy Uncle who no one knows how to functionally separate themselves from.

The fact that the GOP is talking about some form of nominee switching intervention is good but sad when you think about the damage they have accepted by waiting so long.  At this point in the conversation, it's hard to know if they will be more damaged with a Trump victory and a path or plan that could be so progressive even Obama will wish he voted for him, or if he and Republicans lose once again and fight with presidential defeat depression while searching for the motivation to  redefine their identity by capturing some of these millions of now bewildered voters.

Hillary has a delicate line to walk on as she seeks to secure enough bewildered voters herself to win the electoral map and the presidency. No race against an opponent so immensely flawed should ever be this darn close, but it is because no one really likes Hillary that much either. At this point in the process, she'll never extend her favorabilities to even that of Mitt Romney, who must be chomping at the bit to defy his families wishes and save the country from Trump by being the secondary option of this GOP intervention plan.

The voters that Clinton must pursue are those particular family members who hate Uncle Donald's crap and might choose to spend more time at the reunion with lying Aunt Hillary- who is only hard to believe, versus crazy Uncle Donald who lies and attacks everybody in sight- but only if you make them choose between the two.

In this election, making people choose between these two is exactly what WE must do.  I say WE because Hillary will insult the voter's she needs while blaming our crazy Uncle on their support of him.  She must continue to treat him in the only way that he understands- with ridicule. Rational debate has little value with crazy Donald. With that insecure Uncle of ours, there is actually nothing better than a little name calling to piss him off and take him off his game. Trump can't focus on the issues while defending himself from name calling or angry Gold Star families. Clarifying his existence in this race by calling him crazy Uncle Donald would achieve a very intentional, two-fold purpose.

While Hillary points out how insidious it is to give our crazy Uncle the most powerful job in the world, WE must keep informing our friends and family that THEY are the reason that he is still sticking around.  Donald is showing as many signs of wanting out as that tomato can boxer who needs to last four rounds to insure he gets paid.  Trump is well past that four round threshold and more likely to lose money and power if this keeps up much longer. If he had hired a trusted corner man, he would have fired him already for not throwing in the towel on this thing.

The only person more shocked that you crazy voters still love the crazy uncle is Trump, because he probably never got involved to actually become president.  The reason why he's running will be a secret to history or one hell of a book if he has the courage to reveal the art of this deal he made with the devil, Hillary, or someone really mad at the GOP.

It's not out of the realm of understanding for our crazy Uncle to be up on a soap box trying to convince us that he is the most talented and brilliant of us all. That is what he does at every party.

The reasons why he still has people supporting him is the reason why I am writing today.

Hitler's rise came absent the balanced informational obstruction of the Internet.  Trump is not so lucky.  If you need to know more about what he is all about, the evidence reads like a clear and present danger.  He is a self serving business man with no evidence of being benevolent or particularly good in business because he refuses to release the only proof of such things, his tax return, calling them all "under audit". In the absence of the only resume that a business man can offer for US to review, let US review the details that are available to us.

Every time I take the time out to complain about the pain in the arse we call Trump, I find myself unable to do so without some element of praise that he deserves too.

He deserves the credit for demonstrating political dominance without financially dominating the process too.  He deserves credit for exposing a delegate system that we had little functional knowledge about.  If the electors in half of the United States go rogue, as the Constitution allows, he might soon give an up close and personal look at the electoral college aspect of the two-party hustle, used to maintain the two-party grip on power. He deserves credit for forcing the conversation to happen on several hot button topics that political correctness had previously silenced, and he deserves a lot of real credit for exposing the cracks and flaws in our system of governance including our immense racial and cultural divides that function as wedges to help maintain and expand those exposed cracks in the foundation.

Stated more clearly, he has helped us to see how terribly racist and divided WE actually are.

If his candidacy is reflective of this nation, it is showing that WE are mean, somewhat vile, vain, full of hatred and polarized beyond our ability to even recognize friends and loved ones when examining them through a political lens. This political season has found millions of our friends and family members getting dropped off our social media friends list- assuming they haven't dropped you first.

For a while, both sides had serious reason, other than favorability ratings, to call the two of these candidates equally bad. Trump's former attack of John McCain and so many others after that, wasn't enough to exclude him from presidential consideration, but his recent attacks on babies and Muslim parents of slain war vets while lying about his relationship with Russian president Vladimir Putin, has at least clarified that he is uniquely horrible.

Trump is that crazy Uncle we all have, the one we would never imagine helping to become president. If you don't know how to bail out for pride or embarrassment, you are like those folks on the Titanic who realized the carrier didn't have enough life rafts for everybody, so you stand resolute in the no way out scenario you've found yourself in. What you are doing by standing steadfast in the corner of Trump is surely a grand display of courage and determination as you sink down to your slow, icy death.

Crazy Uncle Donald is not only sinking the boat on his own political race, he is destroying the political reputations and careers of everyone that hitches their wagons to him. Most of those people I politically oppose, so Uncle Donald has done something great for me. As for the voters, voters don't have to reveal their voting booth selections even though FaceBook seems to make us think we have to declare a pledge of allegiance to someone so that someone else isn't presumably winning by default.

In the words of Vice President Joe Biden, that is a bunch of malarkey.  We'll never rid ourselves of two-party rule if we remain convinced that any vote outside of one party is an instant vote for the other.  If there is no reason for me to know who you vote for, there is no reason for me to ask or care who you vote for either.  WE use a secret ballot for a reason.  If any of US are truly interested in Making America Great, finally, insuring over 90% voter participation gets us closer to a majority selection and not just a campaign season survivor. As long as voter participation remains stuck at numbers barely over 50% of the population, financial influence can, and does, win an election every time.

Hillary can do herself a ton  of supporters and  loads of Super PAC money a lot of good by championing the reforms (campaign finance, immigration) that Trump has brought to light. But don't get it twisted. Our distrust of Hillary is real, and nothing will instantly convince US that she will fulfill her campaign promises or fulfill that progressive platform after getting elected.  So, instead of blowing a bunch of presumed hot air full of political promises that no one really believes, Hillary must keep dishing the ice on the hot rhetoric of crazy Uncle Donald to help expose him as the crazy Uncle that we all know him as.

If you are still in his corner, you are doing a loyal and honorable thing as a member of America's family, but a horrendous thing for the future of this nation. Nobody is telling you not to love him and keep inviting him to the party.  Just don't make him our president.

Progressivism's Problematic Path To The Presidency

Am I the only person who got caught off guard with today's primaries? When did Super Tuesday turn into saucy Saturday in primary politics?  Who expected to be talking politics this weekend, and who knew that it would be so significant to the future of the race?

The world of progressive politics has become so pervasive, that the GOP candidates have to spend as much time as they can bashing Obama just to keep from sounding just like Hillary and Bernie all of the time, while Hillary has resorted to GOP tactics just to deal with the pain of the Bern.

Sure, that joke about all the free stuff the Socialist Sanders will give away when he's president sounds like a funny line for sake of a chuckle, but it doesn't really offer alternatives to the current scenario in which incomes have plummeted and only forced hands will loosen enough to change that fact.  What force ends up looking like in the end is a matter of significant debate among both sides of establishment resistance.

Has GOP voters given in to the Trump craze
even though the GOP establishment has not?

What is not debated is the necessity of more income for average Americans.  Trump might be winning over massive support being the former Democrat that is willing to talk like a tough republican for the sake of a GOP win, but if you ask him what motivates him, he says he loves his work, meaning the deal making and the showmanship, not the politics.  When pressed, he still refuses to own that politician label while continuing to beg us all for a political vote of confidence.

Polls, and tonight's primary results (SC) strongly tilt toward Trump- until you place him head to head with either of the remaining candidates from the opposing side.  In that polling, Trump gets trolloped.  Yet, the tendency for either potential trolloper to prematurely lick their chops needs to be curtailed until they finish their own infighting.

In recent days, Bernie Sanders has correctly accused Clinton and her husband of damaging the black community as it relates to excessive incarcerations and those restrictive welfare policies (welfare to work) and programs that forced single black moms out of the house leaving black children without supervision.  The impact on many poor black single parent households was young men and women captured by the influence of gangs or drugs while  hard working black mothers struggled to keep food stamp support (which now requires both a job and poverty to maintain) to feed her remaining latchkey children that gangs haven't yet taken.

Like Jeb Bush and 9-11, can Hillary
embrace Bill's good without touching the bad?

If Bill and Hillary can admit that the policies were wrong, then they must admit that it was the impact their policies had on real lives that made them wrong, regardless of their good intentions or other good things they've accomplished for poor people in general.

Conversely, Senator Sanders has been accused of offering way too much in the way of free public services without a realistic vision of how to get it passed through congress or paid through fiscal provisions.  This is also an accurate claim against Sanders and his ideas, though ObamaCare, Social Security, the military, public schools or any needed socialized program demands proper funding adjustments to realize optimal efficiency, a word that is typically not associated with our government.

Hence the problem.

That same inefficient government likely holds the last best hope for price controls within our healthcare industry, controls that exist in nearly every country expect America. Current growth trends relative to medical costs show healthcare increasing at a much lower rate than it did prior to ObamaCare's beginning, but insurance companies are fighting to keep you from finding out.  For Sanders to speak to the necessity of changes in areas like medical costs or college debt strapping our children, doesn't immediately make him responsible for the details that would go with implementation of these obvious needs.

Hillary tried her hand at healthcare before Obama got it done and knows that details always need to be ironed out. Bernie also understands that the Clinton's expected their policies to ruin black families about as much as Bush expected to ignite ISIS with his invasion of Iraq.  For now, what they both know of each other and what they are saying lately have grown worlds apart.

For now, the gloves are not totally off, but Hillary and Bernie have switched to those smaller MMA version of gloves so that the sting is felt a little more.  Clinton has recognized the threat of Sanders despite his Democratic Socialist label, and Sanders has discovered a real viability for his message in spite of his Democratic Socialist label.

What shall proceed is not helpful to either candidate or to this coronation for progressivism.   Clinton is not going to be better off for having to explain how Bill screwed up black people or for having to articulate an impossible agenda for dealing with it when black people who support Sanders inevitably pose the question to her.  Sanders, on the other hand, is also not better served for having to do the very thing that Donald Trump scoffs at- share policy details.

If Sanders has to explain the single payer system too much, it won't get him elected and we will be stuck with huge deductibles, since huge deductibles are the last best place for the medical insurance industry to stick it to us and cover their shareholder commitments. Medical industry profits aren't as huge as most people think, and are mostly derived from the assured  long term presence of sick people and the low risk, high profit investment that assured sick people create.  Until we become truly healthy in our bodies and in our funding of healthy bodies- and a viable competitive alternative comes along to disconnect true healthiness from the sick industry that bears its name- the health industry has no real incentive to change.

Again, Hillary knows this.  What she doesn't know is how to stop Bernie Sanders without establishment support, and so she is resorting to the very things that the GOP will do to Bernie if in fact he is able to actually beat her and be the party nominee.

Is Ted Cruz developing a ceiling on his support that
Trump and Marco Rubio are likely to split if he falters?

Politics 101:  Never give your opponents the knife they're seeking to slay you with.

Of course, if Trump keeps tagging republicans with primary losses and the terrorism of 9-11 (which no other GOP candidate ever admits), the GOP might  soon hand Trump over to Hillary as the knife that she'll use to slash republican throats and make them bleed out all together. Jeb Bush's departure from the race might help the GOP secure a nominee, but the reasonable one's are dropping like flies.

Whatever they try to do to actually stop Trump promises to be an even better show than what we've seen thus far. Either way you project it, the future of this year in politics will be a whole lot of blood shedding, political entertainment as the two party establishment machines fight to kill progressivism while adopting it at the same time.

This week in politics is revealing that the last man or woman standing will be battered and bruised in the eyes of the general electorate because they will have already been weakened and drained of significant life blood from taking too many stiff jabs and knife stabs during the 2016 primary season.

And then the bare knuckle and grenades begin. Today, we took one significant step towards all that.

What If Trump Poll'ers Are Actually Voter's Too? Are WE Moving Closer Or Further From Democracy?

I am philosophically torn about this collision course we are on, assuming no one can stop what Donald Trump's been doing for the past 6 months. Lately, he's gone all-in on the tactic of fear, and for now, this too is working for him.

Most believe that what is working at this stage will hurt him in the next.  Nonetheless, he is winning the game and he is changing parts of it at the same time. In the next stage, Trump could take US all on a full fledged collision course with the power of the party establishment and it's layers of protections installed by- and for- the two political parties that created the electoral game to begin with. Trump is smart enough to understand this, but he will need to be a genius to bring it down as a third party candidate, or overtake it from within to become the next GOP nominee absent establishment consent.

If WE finally took down that divisive confederate flag because of it's capacity to inspire hate and the death of the Emmanuel 9, you would think that the republican establishment could take down Trump. Except, of course, WE did nothing to remove the ideas or the people who fought to raise that toxic, anti-American flag in the first place. The people, their thoughts, and that flag still fly.

If you need your answer to Donald Trump, don't forget that WE
never actually removed the confederate flag from S. Carolina, a
state that has Donald Trump clearly winning their primary. 

Trump still owns the GOP polls too, and whether you are editorializing tacit admonishment of him, or leading off your news program to exploit him for ratings,  Trump is at the center of our media universe. The only break we take from him comes for a day or two during a natural disaster or terrorist massacre, and those days he merely falls from the lead. As he repeatedly insists that he is doing all of this to "Make America Great Again", few of US fully agree with his interpretation of what great looks like, how what he's doing could be so great if so many are so embarrassed by it; and have WE ever actually realized true greatness without realizing true equality?

All that being said, Trump is past being an anomaly and has moved into becoming a full fledged test of our fractured republic.  He is the conductor on this inevitable collision course with our system of delegates and electors; the same system that allowed George W. Bush to win a disputed election over Al Gore in which Gore actually won the popular vote, but- thanks to slow lines, hanging chad's and election laws- still lost the election.

Although most of US voted to make it happen, I am not certain that WE deserved an Al Gore presidency.  We probably only deserve the repercussions of about half of our eligible voters taking part.  Without enough people who care to say yes or no either way, it is likely that WE've earned our rigged electoral vote and voter suppression efforts across the land instead of a more democratic 'count the vote' , everybody votes, system of voting participation that could help us choose a leader and maybe even address gun violence once and for all.

For better or for worse, WE didn't prove ourselves ready or worthy of president Al Gore going full bore into his climate change agenda. Despite never before seen flooding in Missouri- in the middle of winter- we remain more afraid of Gore's global warming agenda than global warming itself.  Which, like gun violence, seems an easier problem to dispute than defeat.

Fear of fixing our fractured republic is how we ended up with two terms of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, 9-11, extreme deficits from an expensive, endless war, and a worldwide economic collapse that our home finance banking system caused. Oh yeah, let's not forget the deeper chasm of distrust between Islam and the West that is feeding the Jihad and leaving our world more unpredictably dangerous and more scary than before Cheney and Bush promised they would fix it.

That fear has returned despite the immense efforts of President Barack Obama, who has kept us fairly safe while repairing broken bridges with Islam around the world. Obama's community organizer, voter turnout skills have also clarified to many common people the power of the populace at the same time that it inspired his awestruck opponents, still unsettled by their defeat at his hands. Consequently, whether you are for him or against him, this president has shined a light on the power of establishment approval (bagging delegates) and the necessity of an overwhelming voter turnout to encourage (not insure) an equitable outcome.

The dark side to this story is that having some form of a count the vote system in place right now instantly makes Donald Trump's pursuit to be our next president much more scary and not just terribly annoying. And while all of his divisive Trumpeting feels quite scary, our greater fear should be the power of establishment politics that makes Trump's chances virtually impossible.  If he truly represents the voice of as many Americans as it appears, then democracy says that WE deserve a Trump presidency.  In a representative republic, those who finance the game control the players.

Trump knows this because he was the Big Money that paid for elections and bought influence, sending some of his own big money to players on both sides of the game.  (View this Big Money video) This is also why Trump won't take a penny from Big Money donors, and wants you to know every time they offer it to him.


What remains somewhat scary is that a whole lot of my moderate friends, family and neighbors, are totally grooving to Trump's song and dance. Many middle of the road'ers, who don't really follow politics until campaigns or scandal, understand the words and feelings that Trump's been shouting to maintain his lead in the GOP polls. The truth is that Trump listens very closely, and he actually heard you tweet these fears and frustrations first.  Trump is striking a chord with so many because he is basically retweeting what he heard you say, and what he thinks you meant.


WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON??

To be frank, we all understand where the fear is coming from. Most of US have considered the question of these new strains of Jihadi extremism seeking claim over Islam's identity?  If you also understand the Christian Crusades, the Salem witch hunts or the KKK, you likely know enough already to explain this fight over the face of Islam too.

      (Al-Shabaab's Trump recruiting video)

It's not entirely different than the fight over the face of the GOP.  Each of the recent extensions of right wing ideology (Tea Party, Libertarians, and now Trumpians) agree on the necessity of a platform of extreme ideas to save their party and the nation from inevitable ruin. Unfortunately, that's where republicans depart. Who, or how the GOP paves a way forward is torn between Love of God extremism versus Smaller Government extremism and the tug-o-war to prove each version of extremism more right.

Extreme views breed extreme behaviors, and millions of moderate, reasonable lover's of America, who also consider themselves Christian, remain tormented by their personal intolerant interpretations of scripture, and a fear that America is moving away from its intolerant Christian roots by allowing other extreme roots- with similar behaviors of intolerance- to grow right in front of our face.

As ISIS begs Obama and the West to meet them in the field of battle for ground war, they themselves hide within the community of innocent bystanders as a protective cover. These bandits are mostly a gang of punks and thugs with really cool video recruiting skills and religious zealot leaders exercising their own extreme interpretation of scripture, while recruiting the angry son's and daughter's of the world to handle the martyrdom so they can continue spreading extreme ideas. Whether WE the People of America are ever going to counter them with real war or with better videos containing better ideas, this fight, and our plan, must ultimately be debated and approved within the halls congress.

One major reason for the rise of Trump is a congress that has strategically chosen to "Do Nothing" valuable if Barack Obama might gain legacy points from it.  Even attempting to  reverse their do nothing tactic is internally viewed as an instant waste of all the damage they caused by doing nothing in the first place.

This is probably why the recent bill overturning of Bush's landmark "No Child Left Behind" law was mostly missed by the public.  For this congress to turn tail now and push forward the necessary legislation that could help move the country forward (infrastructure bill, immigration bill, ACA reforms) would invalidate the central mission of minimizing the Obama legacy at all cost.

Meanwhile, WE the People, give blind consent to this type of congressional terrorism when only 50-60% of America stands up to say that we believe in the power of our vote to begin with. Without most of US helping to exercise leadership through our vote, all of US become the sheep of blind and bull headed congressional shepherds.

Vote!  

Be Heard!

An ideal democracy demands that everyone be heard before congress can act accordingly? 

It might seem fool hearty and somewhat melancholy to dream of the day that most of US vote, and America actually lives up to the purpose of its founding.  But dreams are what inspire every idea, and democracy is an idea that deserves a proud, functioning example somewhere in this world. Why not US?

Can You Destroy Ideas Without Eliminating Thought?

How about this idea?  Only Love can conquer Hate.

To those who've been thinking about destroying an ideology (Sharia Law perhaps) regardless of how it might spark the next World War, I would have to admit that Trump is a breath of fresh air.  Mostly it is hot air, but even hot air feels fresh when you are suffocating from fear and in desperate need of both oxygen and answers to tough questions.

I am saddened that anybody close to me, next door perhaps, is pushing Trump's poll numbers to be what they are. But mostly this stuff is disrupting my sensibilities. Does Trump get to be the one to finally challenge, maybe dismantle the electoral and the two party game as we know it? Together, they conspire to be the leading obstacles against the dream of democracy for America, a nation founded on the dream of democracy.

Our electoral system allows for the type of political collusion that could actually become necessary to stamp down Trump, or any fascist, and keep them from taking over a party convention and eventually the face of America as well. Party delegates won't want Trump to continue going rogue, yelling toxic rhetoric under the republican umbrella, but they are even more afraid of him trying to Make America Great Again through a third party run. Trump himself actually wants no part of that third party thing either. As a third party candidate, he must try to accumulate unattainable delegate support for any hope of graduating from America's electoral college- which will be harder to achieve than his vaunted Wharton degree.

Rand Paul is a devout Libertarian (whatever that means). But it was due to Trump, not Paul, that the GOP created that pledge of party allegiance, and the only reason they are threatening a brokered convention as well. Trump is also the only reason that establishment GOP candidates are pressuring New Hampshire's "first of" primary status for having the audacity to allow him to lead their polls and potentially win their primary. Apparently, the GOP establishment can't afford to let NH vote rogue without a sufficient counter threat against them.

If Trump can win Iowa (not likely) or NH (fairly possible), he legitimizes his run beyond his current 39% nationwide polling that appears to be his ceiling for now.  Romney actually held strong at 45% during large portions of his run, yet still remained under constant assault from the establishment GOP that feared he couldn't win a general election polling so low among his own party.  They were right that Romney was wrong, but Trump will not win a general election either without garnering the support of a decisive majority in his own party.

We know for certain that a capitulating moderate republican like Romney couldn't win the general, and we highly suspect that an internal rogue candidate won't be allowed to overtake the GOP convention without a fight. So how exactly does any external third party candidate overtake preordained, two party delegates and electors that are enlisted to help force feed us candidates of the two-party choosing?


If you research the parameters of this electoral business, here is how the federal government describes the electoral college of collusion that we use to choose a president.

"There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties." (from archives.gov)  http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html#restrictions

26 states in America have laws or pledges forcing some form of a democratic distribution of electoral votes. What these elector laws or party pledges don't erase is the fact that all of the current electors  and delegates are selected from within the two-party design.  As for those remaining 24 states?  They have no laws at all to insure the democratic distribution of the votes from their state. In other words, each of these state's electors are free to go rogue, and must be planning to do so if talks of a brokered convention have begun, something that hasn't been done by either party in 60 years.

Keep in mind, however, that our sacred electors only become a  relevant factor once candidates have survived the primary season to become a party nominee. Before we whittle the 2016 race down to two (or three) final candidates, the party delegates could also go rogue and rage against the state primaries and caucuses, forcing the selection of a nominee to be brokered (negotiated) again and again until a nominee, approved by the delegates emerges.

This is the threat that the GOP has made towards Donald "the rogue" Trump, and the reason why Trump is threatening a third party run in response, which could split the conservative vote in two and deliver a death nail to the GOP's chances of winning the presidency. For Trump to pull off a third party run, it must involve peeling away voters from both sides of the political spectrum complete with a massive voter turnout effort detailing how our electoral game is already rigged against US, especially when we fail to vote.  Trump is already doing this against campaign finance and Political Action Committee's (PAC's) who launder Big Money towards today's campaigns and candidates.

Electors can ignore the will of voters, so electors own the vote. Ultimately, either WE own our own votes, or WE don't, and only a serious third party candidacy (which demands voter turnout) can unveil this shameful electoral truth to US all. Shameful like the millions of dollars Jeb Bush might be wasting away on a futile campaign. Unless, of course, its the Florida boys (Jeb Bush and  Marco Rubio) that Big Money supporters are using the brokering threat to save.

It may or may not happen in 2016, but eventually a significant third party candidate is going to dominate the popular vote and fully disrupt the manner in which we assign and distribute electoral votes anyway. 

I prefer that the long awaited privilege of pulling the curtain on OZ, would go to presidential candidates Lawrence Lessig,  Jill Stein, or perhaps Bernie Sanders who proudly declares himself a democratic Socialist. If each of these candidates, pursuing distinctive and unique platforms, refuse to pursue them as a Third Party candidate, what does that say about the viability of third party candidacy? Any serious presidential candidate understands that the delegates and electors game make it a strong necessity to force feed their candidacy into one of the two political machines instead of chasing after third party support without a mechanism for harnessing delegates and electors to make the run viable.

Lately, Sanders is openly courting  the moderate middle class Trump's supporters, while simultaneously forecasting his expectation of Trump's demise. Gobbling up Trump's left behind's would almost certainly demand Sanders also consider a third party run instead of hoping and wishing that those right leaning moderates will cast their votes to the democrat party. As a third party candidate, Sanders free's up a lot of moderate voters to express their anger at both failed parties of congress via voter turnout.

To the GOP, voter turnout feels like political terrorism.  That is mostly because so many segments of the general populace get force fed into progressivism due to republican talks of fence building, Muslim banning, or when they stand behind county clerks that deny gay Americans their Constitutionally earned rights. In fact, voter turnout is political terrorism, but it is terrorism against whoever designed our rigged electoral system and whoever keeps it in place. Extreme voter turnout will expose the cracks in the electoral game, in our outdated voting machines and methods, and in the snake filled, mirky waters of the campaign finance hustle.

It was roughly eight years ago when Barack Obama won his party nomination and became our president by overwhelming Hillary Clinton with strong delegate support, and  his social media, voter turnout ground machine that revolutionized the meaning of ground game forever.  Back in August, when Joe Biden was still threatening a run at the presidency, Hillary was mostly able to dissuade Joe using the same approach, divulging that she had already secured a significant number of the necessary super delegates it will take to become the party's nominee, and revealing her Obama style voter turnout machine. Sanders will remain a political pest as long as he stays in the race, but Trump is usurping the importance of the primary and forcing the nation into an early general election war of words, thoroughly diminishing the stature of every other GOP candidate in the process.

Is there a chance that Trump is actually just  trying to shake
up our entire view of the presidential process we accept?

Assuming it is now safe to say that Trump is NOT an enigmatic internal plant of the Clinton family creation, but an actual republican candidate with massive moderate voter support, the GOP establishment will have little choice but to broker their convention just to avoid the long term risk of fully signing the face of their party over to such a toxic republican, without a reasonable fight to avoid it and save their party's presidential future.

Could Bernie win a 3rd Party bid too? He already thinks he could 
take over Trump supporters and give Hillary a repeat defeat.

I've long since believed that WE needed someone to come along and disruptively test the electoral college system into it's own dismantling, though I never really saw it being someone so disruptive.






Trump could be on the verge of inspiring America's largest and laziest political group, non-voting  moderates, into showing up on his behalf, shaking our whole system of democracy into instant re-examination and potentially legislative change too. Moderate voters who typically stay home, won't take too kindly to engaging in another big waste of time like they did during Bush .v. Gore, when several voting area's and thousands of people did not make it through the lines to cast a vote, or lost their vote to a hanging chad.

When this is all over, Trump's pursuit of the popular vote, absent the use of Big Money's money, and potentially without much delegate support either, could actually instigate "count the vote" measures by federally mandating state delegates and electors to follow the popular vote of their state.

Such a Constitutional change in voting, along with simplified voting for all, could inspire 80% or better voter participation and actually move US closer to the democracy WE deserve.  It could also be the very thing that makes way for a president Trump one day. Whether you love or hate that idea, in a true democracy, you will get exactly what you deserve and not just the Big Money puppets that Big Money offers up for us to choose from.  Until some nation in this world shows the courage and integrity that a true democracy demands, the idea of democracy remains theoretical supposition.

Why Not US?

Tolerance Was Always Too Low A Standard

We the People, in the hopes of forming a More Perfect Union, have settled for a society of tolerance.

Wasn't it tolerance that created segregation?

What's the problem with tolerance?

Let me provide an example or two.

Did you know that the United Nations believes that we can eliminate AIDS by 2030
(AIDS epidemic can be eradicated by 2030)

AIDS that is, not HIV as a virus can never be truly eradicated.  If the difference between those two confuses you still, it is because we've moved from laughing at the word during my 1987 graduation benediction speech, to now probably knowing someone who lives with or died from AIDS, yet that's about the extent of our progress.

People rarely die from AIDS anymore but millions of US still have no clue about the advances in medicine, or the continuing risks that still exists relative to the disease.  If we understood AIDS and didn't try to tolerate it as only a homosexual or drug addict problem, I would not be still shaking my head 30 years later at the stupidity of such a smart nation.

Several of our presidential candidates are partially victims of this disease of tolerance that has infected us into apathy, while some are using moments of real humanitarian crisis to tap into the unfounded fears of people.  How do I know these are unfounded fears?

Because every migrant who already risked their lives in leaving home would hardly feel slighted by ANY help that America's congress could agree to. Forget Syria for a moment. Any idea of fixing our Mexican immigration issue would be 100% better than nothing at all or dying in the desert.  Yet, a basic agreement driven by human understanding is exactly what got Eric Cantor fired from politics forever.

What exactly did we hope to achieve in becoming a more tolerant nation?  A marriage that looks something like the separate bedroom marriages that used to exist prior to this push to be tolerant?

I wish I didn't have this happy sadness every time thousands of people crowd around Donald Trump to listen to him lie about thousands of New Jersey Muslims having a tailgate style party over the fall of our Twin Towers.

To Trumps credit (and his thousands of followers), a Washington Post article helped to generate the confusion that Trump is capitalizing on now.  The article was wrong, but it wasn't unseemly to capitalize on our misdirected anger back then, and it's obviously not so hard to do now either.

My sadness with all of this comes from all of the living that we've done since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with so little change to show for it.  My happiness comes from the reality that most change begins when the bottom becomes clear.  In my mind, this is exactly what you get when you allow tolerance to be the height of your social pursuit.

Plenty of US have lived with this misconceived notion that WE actually used the tears from watching Martin and Malcolm and those Kennedy brothers die for a more perfect union, to actually become a more perfect union.

Mostly WE pursued tolerance.

Tolerance like they had in seemingly Happy Days or the world of Leave It To Beaver. When folks stayed together forever, but not always in the same bedroom and not with the magnetic passion that created the union, but with the tolerance and acceptance that you  probably won't be too bothered by someone who sleeps in another room.

Tolerance has value- but it doesn't insure understanding.  Respect is cool too, but it wasn't the reason for the orgasmic bliss that built this great family of people United by a common belief and emboldened by an acceptance of the intense necessity of understanding family to perfect the Union and insure the hope for tomorrow.

If WE the People are agreeable to tolerance, WE are essentially retreating to our separate rooms.
If nothing else, Trump is helping us see how very little WE have learned about each other while retreating to our own rooms in this pursuit of tolerance.

Even back in the day, Dad always needed Mom to help adorn the space while Mom probably needed Dad to redecorate from time to time without back pain to follow.  Trump is uncovering our segregated dusty rooms and the damage to our carpets from not redecorating and moving things around a bit.  He's also showing how separate is rarely equal and how ignorance is rarely bliss.

Plenty of Americans can totally relate to every sentiment that is driving the GOP presidential election leader, while plenty of the rest of US who mistakenly believed WE were better than this are witnessing the sad truth.

The Truth Is Never Bad 

Leave It To Beaver didn't prepare us for neighbors like Archie Bunker or George Jefferson, although Archie and George tried like hell to prepare us for today by saying
"Hey!...Like it or  not, this is America too"

Meanwhile, most of us who could, ran to recreate that Leave It To Beaver dream that never was as valuable as it appeared in the first place.  It was fairly tolerant, but segregation will always be tolerant.

Today, WE the People still need integration and understanding to form a more perfect union.  Tolerance has never allowed for too much integration, or the red states and suburbs of America wouldn't be crafted as they are. The word suburb should basically mean "that community where diversity doesn't exist".

Show me a truly integrated community with lots of race mixing and racial understanding and I'll show you an expanding urban trap in which tolerance is still the agenda even if understanding is messing things up a bit and driving the red to be purple or blueish. Everywhere else, tolerance doesn't have to matter as much, and to hell with understanding.

Even WE who claim to be understanding are fooling ourselves a bit and need to recognize what Trump is revealing to us each and every day. WE are all just as confused about each other as ever, and more shocked by our lack of progress than WE should be.

Plenty of nations practice tolerance to some degree or other.  This more perfect union dream demands a new and different understanding.

Isn't All Terrorism An Attack On Western Freedom?

If what we have happening in our schools, and theaters, during a live remote on the morning news and now Paris is not terror, then I wonder what the survivors who walked away alive call it?

For some reason, we'd prefer to think of middle eastern Jihadists as the only face of terror because its not so glamorous to search for terror's face and keep finding mirrors.

We have known for some time that ISIS has a significant number of European nationals and even a few Americans as well.  The infamous Jihadi John is (or was) a British born terrorist of Kuwaiti ancestry.

France is reporting their recent killers to be of Syrian decent, but the final report is yet to be discovered.  Each of these killers could have migrated to France for the sake of terror, but some of them could have already lived there or born there similar to the Charlie Hebdo killers. Assuming Paris is now the home of home grown Jihadists, American terror too has ample examples of home grown terror that pre-dates today's crisis in Paris or the theater massacre in Aurora.

Apparently, seemingly sane foreign killers causing terror for religion or politics versus our own presumably crazy sons that we keep raising and grooming to kill us one day is some consolation to this nightmare for some.

Personally, I can't see it.

I also can't see how Jeb thinks his brother or any other president has kept us safe with the nightmare of domestic terrorism seemingly a weekly occurrence. Or how "taking it to them" (ISIS) will uncover the places they exists or the places that they can go. Genocide of terror sounds comforting, but no one has figured how to destroy an ideology with weapons of war.

Just because we don't count massacres like the 147 students killed in Kenya or Columbine as terrorism doesn't mean we're right. Al Shabaab, the group who took credit for the Kenya killing, took care to kill only non-Muslims. 

Sometimes terror will be foreign born killers who make their way onto hostile soil in order to do harm to the Western way of life wherever it rests comfortably. Mostly it will be native born citizens with free and unfettered access to kill. 

This is a war against Western comforts and sensibility, and it is being waged on many fronts.  When next it happens in America, we will hope that it is one of our own again instead of the likes of ISIS or some other political terror group.  If it happens abroad they will hope its ISIS instead of the homegrown variety that we prefer over the mere thought of foreign invader terror.

I would simply like to remind those who won't be ducking any bullets soon, that survivors of terror really don't care to qualify their fear of our diminishing freedoms, even as overly anxious news reporters stick a microphone in their face and demand that they do.

What Does No TPP For HRC Really Mean? Biden's Out, Bernie's A Problem- things we mostly knew

What does it mean that Hillary Clinton doesn't support the TPP deal.

Mostly nothing.

But actually, it is not only the clearest signal to me that Joe Biden is not running for president, it also says that Hillary knows it.

With Obama and Republicans already being odd bed fellows on the TPP, what good does  climbing in  to endorse or opening your mouth to oppose, do for Clinton's campaign?

The answer is mostly nothing.

Those who support Clinton will likely do so whether she was in or out on the TPP.  Those who oppose her but would vote for her over the GOP options are likely those thousands of folks flooding in to see Bernie Sanders speak, a flood unlike any other candidate is experiencing including Donald Trump who does  at least draw enough folks to make the room look full.

During Bernie's events, his mass appeal has forced his curious onlookers and ardent supporters into outdoor overflow areas with widescreen television views while raising millions on nickel and dime donations from the same eager masses.

Hillary got killed for having one particularly empty roomed event, and Jeb Bush has resorted to the quiet room where his big giant 'Jeb! 2016' campaign board fills half of it. Granted, neither of these known entities actually need the extra name recognition, but neither does Trump.

Trump is slowly losing his campaign crowd panache, and is quick to categorize his crowds alongside Sanders who is clearly the current crowned king of turnout.

Feel The Bern Now?

Hillary can't run from her plummeting poll numbers nor can she deny who and what is causing all of this. Bernie Sanders is doing what even I, a proud Socialist, doubted he could do; owning those fictional independent voters, that wide swath of the electorate that votes rather predictably even if they hate party affiliation.

What Sanders must also do is attract just enough right leaning independents to make his candidacy possible, pulling out the volume of commoners that it will take to give Hillary another horrific primary failure.

Conventional wisdom says that Hillary is feeling her own burning desire to overcome the mistakes that caused her to come up short the last time around.  That same conventional wisdom chimed in on the rise of Trump and has been wrong every time.  In other words, nothing feels conventional this time around, especially the Bern.

If Trump keeps it up, Bernie and Hillary might actually have hope with the massively growing Libertarian wing of the GOP, which is the new vocal minority.  Libertarians are not beholden to the religious aspects of the GOP agenda favoring a self reliance mentality that finds them typically skeptical of everything including two party politics. .

In this area of interest, Libertarian skepticism finds itself allied with the Progressive skepticism like that of Sanders or Senator Elizabeth Warren, the leaders of modern populism.  Neither Sanders or Warren are down for the TPP, but their opposition of it isn't any more significant to the losing side than is Hillary Clinton now that she has joined them there.

Not being for the TPP will eventually look a lot like not being for the Iran deal. Capitalism has expanded thoroughly enough for other nations to recognize the importance of cooperation and regulations to protect public health and insure corporate profits, and Iran has long since been a nation that opposes the old war mentalities that foster nuclear proliferation, seeing nukes as an antiquated weapon.

Hillary can't deny her plummeting poll numbers nor can she deny who and what is causing all of this. Bernie Sanders is doing what even I, a proud Socialist, doubted he could do; owning the fictional independent voters, that wide swath of the electorate that votes rather predictably even if they hate party affiliation.

"I oppose this deal"
for whatever that's worth.

In the end, the world will look at those who oppose the TPP and say, sorry that you did not appreciate capitalism's enemies finding reasons to wave the white flag of cooperation that promises profits for all.

Capitalism is nothing if not pragmatic, and our feeble attempts to insure democracy in our own homeland (without the Voters Rights Act?), while also trying to spread it abroad have fallen woefully short of reaching the mass epidemic that capitalism has.

We've developed into a generation of Americans who think that the Made In America label still matters more than Show Me The Money.  If corporations can find cheaper means of production, they find greater hope of longevity in a competitive world where cheap labor won't suddenly die and go away just because a few Americans insist on trying to outwork third world countries.

Change The Model?

We will always be in competition for the leanest means of production/profit because companies that survive also maintain consistent profit/production.  High priced workers have to double production amounts just to achieve profit/production to the capacity of those who earn less than half of what you do, thus WE (American workers) disrupt the only model for measuring the success of capitalism that we know- profit and loss. Unless we change the model, we all remain  enslaved to its design.

Our current model demands that WE expand our reach, and that we do so while protecting corporate profits a bit better than we are doing right now.  For the most part, the TPP will do just that, working to improve copyright protections and product ownership rights that are basically ignored or non-existent in competing economies. U.S. Pharmaceutical companies, for example, are the sole profiteers of a new drug  for 12 years before the market can compete by creating generics that are cheaper.

If an approved drug is seen as being beneficial to the world, not a lot of good things come from a 12 year corporate monopoly on that drug except price gouging and profit stashing.

12 years is a timeline that even the Obama administration thinks is too long, so the TPP negotiations are intended to move it closer to the 5-8 year range that is more common to international standards. Although the pharmaceutical industry wanted stronger protections than this, any negotiated compromise will help drug companies who currently see generic versions of their drugs hitting foreign markets within a year or less of their release in the U.S.

To stand in opposition of the purpose of the TPP, or the Iran Deal for that matter, is essentially immaterial because it comes down to whether or not the countries involved in the negotiations will commit to being more fair and more accessible as a result as these signed negotiations insist they all will do.

If the assumption of fairer trade practices is also connected with a promise of expanded access to corporate opportunities in each market, this is a win win that is larger and more significant than the ink that created it.  Both of these deals amount to a promise to work together for the benefit of all involved, including the ability to respond if commitments aren't met.

Whether expanded access to American capitalism eventually leads to corporate outsourcing of production is a foregone conclusion since corporations have long since acted to insure the growth of production/profit, and very little will ever change that capitalistic reality.

With or without the TPP, large corporations search for global trends and respond, or they are swallowed whole by the leaders of the trends. Don't be surprised at how quickly Iran is involved in certain aspects of TPP commerce.

Hillary knows all of this because her husband authored that last trade deal (NAFTA) which expanded the trend of global expansion and outsourcing, causing US to not want another magic trade deal, no matter what it is supposedly intended to magically achieve.

So why did Clinton bother coming out either way?

Standing against the TPP is Clinton's best hope of minimizing the impact of Bernie Sanders.

Period! (with an exclamation point)

As I mentioned before, it is also the first sure sign that Biden is likely a spectator for the 2016 race.  Hillary is in no position to want or need to show her hand on this deal and risk losing an Obama endorsement that will likely be the only reason she wins.  But she's doing it anyway.

Satisfying a voracious press core didn't force Hillary's hand before the polls aided them, and the polls say that Clinton's numbers and her pathway to the victory are being impacted by the segment of swing voters (that Bernie is owning) who she will ultimately need regardless of the eventual GOP nominee since most of the GOP front runners are in favor of the TPP, further alienating yet another segment of their potential voters.

Hillary's hope, and every presidential candidates hope for the foreseeable future, hangs on that sacred swing voter. Clinton is positioning herself for those who won't have Bernie as their final choice (unless he goes 3rd party), can't imagine standing behind Trump as the GOP nominee,  and want a candidate that hasn't agreed to any "trade deals", a populist pseudonym for shipping more American jobs overseas.

Enter Hillary Clinton who would denounce TPP, NAFTA and Bill Clinton too if it helps her win the White House. "As of today I am not in favor of what I have learned about it" said Clinton (CNN).

Translation: This Bernie Sanders thing is serious and there are already way too many strange bedfellows for the TPP as it is.

Unlike Donald Trump, who can't win and can only lead the conversation into directions most of us wish it wouldn't go,
Bernie Sanders can't win either, but has changed the conversation.  
Maybe for good.

News Flash: Huckabee Racing To Campaign On Davis

Mike Huckabee has been vocally using Kim Davis to do a reset on his candidacy, so this really wise judge, who put Davis in jail with no bail to begin with, is letting her out before Mike Huckabee can use her for further grand standing.

On a brighter note.  Kim Davis is polling at 7% support, twice that of Mike Huckabee and several other GOP presidential hopefuls.

If you can't cherry pick from Donald Trump's supporters then you settle for the Kim Davis voters.

One reporter for MSNBC, when confronted with
the details from this poll, seemed hard pressed to agree with the numbers as she stood out in front of the Kentucky County detention center with throngs of Kim Davis supporters, not realizing that the nearly all of the 7% were the throngs surrounding her.

With Uncertain American Presidential Election Looming, Why Should Iran Trust U.S. Commitment?

Required listening:The chairman of Iran's parliament, Ali Larijani, spoke with NPR's Steve Inskeep in New York last week -


In classic NPR fashion, they've landed a key interview exposing another perspective on the Iran deal.

While it is fairly easy to know exactly what many Americans, primarily those in Congress, feels about this Iran nuclear agreement, most Americans have little clue about the sentiment from the other side of the deal.

Sure, we get those death to America pieces of propaganda that are easy to find from Iran, but WE had that open letter to Iran from congress, and WE've got plenty of television commercials that are still running on American television, even though the numbers to dismantle the deal have never materialized, and the president is likely to push this deal through by virtue of a weak opposition force instead of strong support.

"Push" is the only accurate description for how this round deal will make it through the square hole of opposition, which is why some in Iran are just as skeptical of the U.S. as WE seem to be of them.

And why not?!

Lindsey Graham and other presidential candidates have taken the more sanctions rhetoric route to destroy Iran's courage in our commitment and encourage a better deal, or at least encourage voters to believe that a better deal remains to be had.

The quality of the deal is basically connected to the reality of Iran's future.  If they intend to cheat, any deal would free them up to get started, dismantled reactor or not.  If they intend to do as they've seemingly done for a century- work with the world to control middle eastern nukes- America has totally won this deal complete with the power to sanction for suspicion.

Historically, America has been seen as the more aggressive party between the two nations, and many Iranians with a view of this historical timeline are curious about our distrust of them.  After all, before we had to destroy Iran's sworn enemy, Saddam Hussein, we supported him against Iran and chiseled the tenor of our relationship into stone.

Follow this timeline (from the NY times) on the past century of  U.S. relationship with Iran.

Even stone crumbles, and old sentiments die away if you allow them.  Iranians feels totally on the bad side of this deal because they have shut down a nuclear reactor in order to achieve it, and pushed themselves to a place that they could not instantly snap back to even if the U.S. instantly snap backs sanctions for real or assumed violations.

Stated more clearly, Iran will never be exactly where they were, however, sanctions could put them back where they didn't want to be when they decided to make a deal in the first place.  In addition, it is the U.S. presidential candidates, some who are Senators, with the power and will to threaten congressional snap back of sanctions just to thwart the deal.

Not that opponents of the deal will listen to the details that matter, but for those who do, it might matter to know that Iran is mostly afraid of a weak deal that leaves them eerily close to the edge of sanctions again.

In other words, Iran is afraid of sanctions.

If history tells us anything valuable about this moment in time, it might be that REAL sanctions really work.

Lindsey Graham: BEST Republican With Worse Polls

I'm giving up on Jeb

I have accepted that Jeb Bush did not want to do this president thing and should have listened to his momma who told his butt not to get involved in this race.  According to Barbara Bush, America has more families than just the Bush family to bleed the life out of, and I just decided that momma was right.

He is still the decent man that I believed of him, but he's letting Donald Trump dictate his words nearly beyond repair and totally beyond respect.

How low exactly are these zeroes?  

If Lindsey Graham can remain funny and engaging during the next debate
maybe he has the last laugh on Donald Trump.

I was watching the interview with Lindsey Graham on Morning Joe (MSNBC) this morning and found myself really interested in what he has to say.

Aside from the fact that he outlined the same collaborative military force to address ISIS that we agree upon,  he was really really funny.  

(previous post on ISIS)

On Donald Trump:

"Donald Trump is going after that group of Republicans who still think Obama is a Muslim.  And I want the other folks"

Graham offered several really thought out suggestions of economic reform, but mostly focused on the entitlement reform of Social Security and Medicaid which he thinks must be means tested according to age in order to keep in solvent for the long term.

Graham was, however, willing to increase taxes on hedge-fund managers too, an idea that Trump has also brought to the fore, but he would only do it if it involved reducing the debt as a part of the deal.  To reduce taxes and give that extra cash back to a wasteful government was not in the agenda of Graham.

Graham had the hook in my mouth for the humor and the vision, until suddenly the interviewer asked him about his jobs plan.

He answered Dodd-Frank and then returned into the reducing the debt part of his answer in order to comfort those who don't know what he meant by Dodd-Frank as a jobs plan.

Where has Dodd-Frank succeeded and failed? -Bloomberg

Conservatives and Liberals alike have all come to accept that loose lending is not great, but stiff lending is stifling, maybe even strangling to the jobs market, especially the key area of jobs created by the small business owner.

The biggest reverberation from our economic downturn was the shake up on lending to the small business man, the undisputed lifeline of the American economy.  Small business owners are not strangled by corporate enormity which traditionally bleeds payroll for profit as its primary method of operation, especially when times are tough.  

Read about companies who don't bleed payroll during tough times -Bloomberg

Profit through sales can be a really dicey proposition when the consumer is forced into a fickle corner as gas prices pretend to get better but egg prices blow the hell up from that aviary disease ($3.00 per dozen??).

Lindsey is fully unbridled by the fact that he has just enough American support to register 0% in the polls.  One percent might be a number that you could put into a computer algorithm and calculate into an actual headcount of support.

Zero is a formula for quitting the race or giving up on the game playing.

Lindsey Graham has quit the game and was amazingly unbridled in a way that could be game changing if he has the chance to dominate the kiddie table debate like Carly Fiorina did.

My sad hunch is that Graham is speaking a little too real and raw for Republicans or America, with the message that we must destroy ISIS in Iraq and then coordinate the next phase- getting them out of Syria too.

What seems imminent is that he will get the chance to introduce himself in this way again, real soon.  Much like Ben Carson who has broken through from winning a really boring debate of little nuanced substance using one closing zinger (people only remember the opening and the close), Graham showed this ability today and could shake up the conversation by starting one that we are reluctant to have.

Or he could relegate himself to less than zero percent because only 2 people in America are interested in war with ISIS, RIGHT NOW.

Don't worry Lindsey.  SomeONE is still listening to you.

I CU Lindsey.....I CU!!!