The2 Party Delegate System: Antiquated Or Rigged?

My contempt for the electoral college system dates back to that hanging chad matter in Florida that clarified to me the futility of the popular vote, and the rigging's of the two party hustle, even to the degree of their coordinated acquiescence rituals that help keep the rigging's intact.

Without the process of raising the white flag and shifting to support the very person you denigrated days before, the people (US) start to see the unethical aspects of our democracy, the parts that typically get quarantined with acquiescence so that each party's strength is not compromised from exposing ugly truth's every two years in this desperate struggle for power. If the parties have a quarantine, there was first a disease that made it necessary. Very close elections were the first disease to our version of representative democracy.  Rogue candidates like Donald Trump are the newest.

In regards to simple politics, acquiescence is actually smart. Acquiescence wards off close vote recounts and brokered conventions, things that force more truth's to be exposed. The2  (my new name for the two-party hustlers) never wanted any of us exposed to the real truth that half of all of our votes (provisional ballots), due to things like late arriving mail or people who vote in the incorrect precint, never get counted anyway.  Without quick concessions during close presidential elections, each state with a close outcome would have to be FULLY recounted, including all excluded ballots.

In the end, Al Gore probably acquiesced to Bush with very little fight because The2 really needed him to do it or risk exposing too many of our electoral flaws to concerned voters.  For inquisitive people like me, it was already too late.

So What Are Electors and Delegates Good For?

While many aspects of the delegate and elector system were written in a day gone by and are antiquated for a modern world, delegates are actually still very important to manage votes that get cast towards candidates that don't survive until the convention. Without a delegate system, those votes are cast towards absolete candidates and essentially wasted at the convention.

Electors, on the other hand, are useful for balancing the power between California and Wyoming (for example), state's that would have a wider power disparity under a strict popular voting system. A system where EVERY state's electors are bound and proportionately distributed towards WHOEVER receives votes, regardless of party could be a useful, more democratic change. As it stands, electors can ignore the voters, and on 157 occasions, that is exactly what happened. (votesmart.org)

As WE remain hopeful for an economic evolution sparked by a political revolution, The2 should be viewed as one, and must be challenged accordingly. For lack of better example, challenged like Donald has done after laws upholding campaign finance increases (Citizens United v. FEC)  were upheld, threatening to enslave US all to rich donors. Trumps free, full throttled control over the airwaves has rendered SuperPAC's as super dubious now, maybe even something we don't really need in politics if small donors keep feeling the Bern, and media outlets keeps getting ratings revenue by sticking a microphone in the face of The Donald.

Before Donald and Bernie, political press often waited outside of exquisite homes and fund raising venues to interview Romney, Hillary or any traditional candidate as they hob nobbed with rich and powerful donors just to fund the process. As for the press following Sanders?  Not even once has this happened with Sanders, who is thriving on small donations to dominate and redefine the fund raising game, but has yet to do a closed door, big money fund raising event.

George Clooney not only agree's that the big money fund
raising events do produce obscene amounts of money that
needs to be removed from politics, he thinks Hillary can
help win congress and the White House to fix it.

Aside from the extreme infusion of money, not much about The2 party power maintenance program has actually changed in decades or longer.  The key change is mass media and social media that allow the inquisitive to instantly discover details that The2 could readily hide before.

Details such the rules are always adjusted as needed during the convention; or how unbound delegates and faithless electors can, and have disregarded the popular vote during the primary season and the general election.

Are there any laws to prevent delegate faithlessness?  Only in 24 states, but NO ONE has ever been held accountable for acting in bad faith as an elector or delegate. and there is NO WAY to change the election results from their faithless act, even with criminal prosecution. In the world's greatest democracy, only two states in the entire union- Maine and Nebraska- democratically distribute the electors proportionate to the actual voting results, and even they suffer a significant flaw.

Proportionate distribution, while very altruistic, exposes the real problem with American politics and the reason why delegates and electors have value.  Voter apathy.  Distributing the votes fairly demands a fair representation of the populace, which NOBODY has figured out how to achieve since ONLY Bernie Sanders is calling for MASS voter turnout as a national necessity- possibly the only hope to save America.  He and I agree.

Is this recent lesson about The2 enough to ignite our lazy electorate?  God willing. But for now, the democrats are willingly playing the old hush hush game better than republicans who are currently cursed by Trump's tantrum, which has made our rigged system the headline issue for the GOP.

Bernie Sanders complains about everything, but never term limits for congress or the need to win over superdelegates just to stay even in primaries and caucuses that he's destroys Hillary on popular vote.

Why no burn from Bern?

Because Sanders, a Senator of MANY years, who voted in favor of Bill Clinton's crime bill by the way. is well aware of how things work.  While he is technically not part of the democrat establishment, a democratic socialist who runs as a democrat is hardly someone the democrats have not depended on to support causes sensitive to democrats.  From all assessments, Bernie is only an independent in congress because he is so far left on most things that he is ends up on the right over one key issue. Gun control.

Other than his NRA loyalties and decades in congress, what makes Bernie completely a part of the establishment of The2- from which he is seeking a nomination from one- is his willingness to stay around when the mirky pathway says he might be running on symbolism only.  Bernie is not staying in this race because he's too stupid to see that his path is simply blocked thanks to superdelegates, he is staying in this race because he was asked to do so and understands that, for Hillary's sake, he must.

Sanders has already conceded in a recent interview that he wished he had realized sooner how truly relevant his movement was.  In other words, he realizes that it's too late already to win the nominaton, otherwise Sander's would have NEVER allowed those words to come out before quittng or writing his autobiography about the experience.

Disregard all of the contentiousness that we've seen between the two remaining candidates for the democrat nomination. Hillary not only needs Sanders to stay, she needs him to stay viable enough for news coverage because, although the delegate game is rigged already, the news coverage game has been exposed, and is under the grips of The Donald and The Bern, not Clinton, Cruz, or Kasich

8 years ago, when Hillary was overwhelmed by The2 herself, she was smart enough to keep her mouth shut and learn what they allowed Obama to do to her so that she could do it herself next time.  She could have blown the whistle on flip flopping delegates herself, who she improperly courted and eventually lost some as they switched to Obama in the closing weeks of that primary.

Trump, on the other hand, can smell the hustle happening early, and he's not having it. Nobody has been fired, but Trump is scrambling to hire the kind of people that he needs to win this delegate game, while basically exposing the world to the fact that many really smart Americans have no real understanding of the very system WE all depend upon to fill the office of the U.S. president. What isn't quite clear, is how exactly did the deal maker, Trump, not deal with the demand for delegates.

The2 have been able to write wrong rules because they know that few understand the rules in the first place. With a couple of tweaks to the rules, The2 ruse together two similar puppets and prop them up for US to choose between. May the strongest money machine win.

I call it a ruse because many of the big money donors that finance campaigns give money to both sides, during the same election often.  Trump funded this kind of ruse himself before actually running for president. But it will probably come from our Colorado republicans, who disregarded stupid voters and made the entire caucus process nothing but a ritual this time around after assigning their delegates to Mitt Romney last time, a candidate that didn't survive the 2008 presidential season.  Soon after, Colorado republicans decided to disregard dumb voters and distribute their delegates as they saw fit.

I'm prettty proud of my state, because once again, as with the direct democracy of weed laws, Colorado could play a pivotal role in shaking up the direction of national politics and policy for years to come. If something finally changes relative to The2 and their hustle, Colorado's extremely undemocratic decision from the republicans of our state could impact a constitutional amendment that mandates our national manner of distributing votes.

But WE must show up to vote and let politicians know we're aware.

Many American's have no clue that right now, it is already too late to register to vote even if they get the gumption to give in to the urge. This is another 2party trick that helps polling to remain consistent with the registered voters and turnout trends and not population or eligible voters.  If the electoral hustle proves too complex to dismantle, at the very least, every eligible American should be able to register to vote the moment they decide it is important. It is hard to imagine US reaching massive voter turnout without a massive overhaul in the ease of voting.

One way or another, our system sanctions political rape in too many deeply entrenched ways to dismantle them all. Yet, it is very hard to imagine that we allow The2 to continue to screw US in the same way again. Four years from now, something will change.

God willing.

Concussions Are Not Only Killing Football Players And Their Careers, They're Killing Our NFL Buzz

For a while I was torn over this conversation about concussions. Now I am as clear headed as I've ever been on the matter.  Maybe it took some time of rest and repair to my cognitive skills for it to become so clear how crazy all of this is.

The information we've learned over the past decade has come in like a tsunami.  Maybe there was a period of delay in which we had to wait for definitive data from the medical findings, but in retrospect, even that delay seems like the delay from legal wranglings of disclosure so that accountability could be clarified and a settlement could be negotiated. If you fully trust the details of that movie "Concussion" starring, Will Smith- who does a spectacular job as African doctor Bennet Omalu, the person credited for uncovering the impact of concussions on the human brain- the NFL has known about his findings for a very long time.

Now that we finally know more, we might be moving closer to progress on head trauma. Actually, we aren't really moving closer to anything relative to a remedy for concussions, just closer to accepting that people who get them and keep playing are somewhat crazed, before, during and after their trauma.

Let me explain that a little more clearly since we DO know for certain that the impact of so much head trauma are several potential forms of psychosis or psychotic issues including hallucinations, rage and more.  What we don't know or haven't even discussed, is how might the trauma of concussions effect people who were predisposed to mental illness already?  Is there any connection between this common childhood brain trauma (most all of us recall playing on after head hurting collisions) and the growth in recreational drug usage or mental illnesses like Alzheimer's?  Maybe we'll discover a connection one day, but most likely we'll persist to insist on implementing and improving our concussion protocols that move on a sliding scale impacted heavily by the importance of the moment, or the player.

Even this "protocol" line of thinking only addresses the impact of trauma, not the craziness that likely causes concussion worthy collisions to begin with. As we speak, the unreasonably hefty contract of the former Bronco great Ryan Clady, has been absorbed by the New York Jets who unceremoniously lost their all time great offensive lineman, D'Brickashaw Ferguson, to sudden retirement. Aside from one trick play, Ferguson is a player who never missed a play during a span of 10 years. Since Ferguson is too young to have played against Deacon Jones, did he have the blessed benefit of never getting his bell rung while playing in the NFL, or was he and his streak simply too valuable for anyone to care about his rung bells when they got rung?

Was he thriving on an immense killer instinct or forced into a crazy corner of limited options? Ferguson's decision to rest his brain forever from the NFL speaks to the latter. He might have wished for a couple of breaks while playing long before watching the movie that clarified the impact of never resting the bell. Now he knows it was crazy to ignore the ringing, no matter how cool it and the streak appeared at the time. In reality, ironman streaks and smash mouth recognition should be the most frowned upon aspect of the game of football knowing what we know about concussions. The truth is that they are the reason we like football.

If you really think about it, there are some really crazy coaches and parents that breed the crazed killer instinct that is vital for most positions on a football field. Kids do head smashing drills in practice just to get used to the feeling of seeing stars and pressing on nonetheless.  The idea that any football player would be asked to do anything less head smashing once game time begins is laughable.

What is also laughable is how blood thirsty we are for smash mouth football, even at 6 years old or younger.  Since really small kids learn how to get up from the ground no matter what put them there, is it even a reasonable expectation that the National Football League can reduce the type of collisions that takes a lifetime to teach, and is exactly what makes us watch the game in the first place?  What the NFL is actually hoping to accomplish is only a reduction of the type of smashing hits that destroy the human brain, a water encased soft muscle that NEVER was designed for the type of collisions that are normal at every level of football.

If you've seen the movie, you recall a scene where Dr. Omalu repeatedly describes animals- big horn sheep, woodpeckers, etc- that were made for head trauma with a God given, anatomical design that helps to minimize the impact of repeated collisions.

For humans, the only remedy for an existing concussion is a rest from the trauma, and everything else that might overwork the damaged brain.  Without a short term break, a traumatized brain experiences long term damage, including the potential for death. Death directly from the injury at times, but indirectly for some, as a result of going crazy from too many years of playing on with severe head trauma.

For all that is good about the discovery of Dr. Omalu, there is a significant area of bad that remains. The impact of his discovery, CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy), can only be confirmed on the brain of a dead person.  The only thing we know for the sake of the living is that rest can reduce the trauma to the brain, reducing the key symptoms  as well. No one really understands brain scarring of this sort or what amount of trauma will send you over the edge of no return. How many people today unwittingly live with a short fuse towards friends and family alike as a direct result of doing exactly what adults asked of them- display that intense, concussion causing passion we all were asked to display during every high school sports other than swimming? By the way, this is the same passion that we just so happen to be infusing into the next generation of athletes of every sport too.

Like lead in the blood stream of Flint, Michigan children, there may be no real cure or remedy from the impact of even one concussion, much less repeated ones, especially given our blood thirst for brain crushing hits. Whether it is coaches and parents that don't care more about our kids to pull them during injury to the head, or the player that doesn't care about themselves more than they crave competition or keeping their jobs, so they lie, we have proven that this problem runs much much deeper than just a league who knew more details about concussions than they revealed.

The legal accountability stuff should be the most important part of this conversation because knowledge is power, and without the knowledge of concussions, injured brains worldwide had no power to make a wise decision. However fortunate (or not), the NFL had this information before any of us, and to that they owe- something. Based upon better information, we've seen several rich football players call their careers quits because they don't wish to risk further head trauma to a game that virtually insures they'll get it.

Yet, none of this is going to be enough bad publicity to impact the future of the league.  This will only lessen the pool of gladiators to draw blood from. In the end, we won't care how big the overall pool really is that much. Youth football involvement is down sharply across the land, but even that won't change the nature of the game we love so much. If a third less kids are starting football, they'll only impact the 98% of college football players who never become pro's in the first place. Will it hurt the quality of play?  When smashing and not tackling are the reason we watch, the quality of the game concern is already lost.

As a parent, I've imagined whether or not I would be comfortable allowing my son to play football if I were not fortunate enough to only have daughters who never imagined asking me to play. I personally longed to play football myself way back when my mother realized that it was too dangerous and I was much more suited for basketball with my skinny frame. I also have the type of temperament that concussions loved dearly.  No way in heck was a severe headache going to stop me from competing in any sport, nor did it. Thanks to my mom's anti-football foresight, I probably have the ability to write about concussions today instead of losing that skill from having one too many of them and still playing on.

I know for certain that I could catch the ball better than Wes Welker, but again,  I also have his same bell ringing nature that ended his career early. The truth of the matter is that every really great player who tells you the honest truth about their decision to play with head trauma will almost universally admit that they would do it again for the chance to compete.

We are so competition crazed that I,...... I mean, some men will beat little kids in a game of memory because competition made them do it.  Even when we are lucky enough to find balance in our passion to compete versus our need to heal, coaches lose their sense of clarity when deciding whether or not to sit stars seeing stars. Some because their jobs are on the line, and others because they themselves were stars who played with stars.

What this comes down to is a need for each of us to really look inside of ourselves and say, do we really care about rich people's headaches's or any of their true problems? Don't we really consider their paycheck  and the opportunity to earn it ourselves, all the justification for the risk?  Would we keep tuning in to watch the, not as good, second and third string backups without even knowing their names at all?

When nearly every former great player guarantees us all that they would do it over and over again for the chance to compete in a game that we came to see them get hurt while doing, why do we worry or really care about this issue?  If the NFL has to hire WWE wrestler's to fake the hits and fill the stands, they will do it.

Because the owners and the players, all of these rich guys are crazy, taking over Sunday's no less so that they can exploit blood thirsty American's who've darn near traded Jesus for football.  God help us. 

(When does preseason start again?  #DB4L :  )

Golden State Leaving It's Mark.... And It's Green

When it comes to this Golden State Warriors all time regular season win streak, I'm really concerned that folks just don't get it. Winning the most regular season games has a value only useful for barber shop crap talk.

No really.  These guys are pushing for a record that will only matter if they win it all, and even then only for the sake of looking like a peacock while sitting in that hair chair getting yo' doo did.

Now, I am perfectly black enough to get why barbershop crap is actually kinda important, but I'm also old enough to recognize risk over reward.  Also, I am cheap enough and bald enough to not have used a barber in years, so the barbershop dozens are no longer a part of my world.  If I had an NBA title to defend, and a full head of hair that demanded trained barber love and not just that trim the fuzz cut I do at home in my bathroom, I would try to do something that no team has ever done before too, and simply winning back to back is passe. Lots of teams have accomplished that.

I've followed the Warriors just like the rest of the universe, and I've written in the past that the season opening streak was an out of control monster. The health issues of Warriors head coach Steve Kerr left a spineless figurehead in interim coach Luke Walton to pull the strings of the kite and keep the wind from snatching it from his grip, sending it off towards a journey that usually ends horribly.

This run away kite turned a few loopty loops, launched a couple of half court 3 pointers and soared far from the grips of the interim coach's hand, and also out of the functional grip of the real coach who soon would return to the bench.  The out of control start to the season forced Golden State's true leader to keep the ship intact whilst it meandered on a journey few teams have ever ventured to take.

The evidence is clear as it spews freely from the mouth of this team's unquestioned leader,
Draymond Green

It was Green who admitted that the streak might have gotten to be too much before declaring that the regular season win total still stood within reach. It was Green who doubted that it could be done...until around game 50 when it was clear they were still on track to do it- which signifies the moment he decided, why not?.  If you listen to their leader now, Green says that his own coach can't really stop them from trying for the record.  Short staffed or full staff, Green has the influence to dictate the intensity of team play, whether on the court or glaring like a bully from the bench.  Green is both the engine and the brains of the Warriors operation, and Kerr himself would be replaced if he alienated and risked his team the long term services of Draymond Green. For Green, unlike the coach, is the only person that can not be replaced.

His defensive back line support against LeBron is the reason Golden State won one title, and he and said defensive support are still their best hope for getting two. Green is the only reason we even use the term "small ball" because his ability to play five spots on the floor make the Warriors small ball the blueprint- everybody else a copy.  Steph has the highlights and Russell Westbrook does the triple double thing, but even Paul George or LeBron himself DON'T have the plus/minus numbers that Green put up this year.

In fact, NO ONE has ever achieved the plus/minus production that Green has done during this season (although the metric is something the NBA has only tracked in the modern era of basketball). We might actually be witnessing a best player bait and switch move.  As we wait anxiously to anoint a stupendous scorer with average defense as the best player in the entire league, Green keeps proving himself to be "that" player of the so called best team in the league. Even this year's 3 point contest winner, Klay Thompson, could tally similar points to Steph with the same amount of offensive attempts, while his defense is among the best we've ever seen in this league.

With similar shot attempts, would Klay Thompson
score just as efficiently (or better) than Curry? 

How exactly is Curry the best player in the league but close to second or third on his own team? Thompson and Green do way more heavy lifting than does Curry, and are often saving the day on defense or the boards. In reality, the Warriors are much too balanced to really have or need an MVP.  Nonetheless, they will have two.  One that wins the award and one that earned it for him by gobbling up his misses for that second chance kickout, the true key to winning basketball in the first place since statistically, players (including Steph) mostly miss that first shot attempt.

I don't often respect the selection for MVP because it is notoriously given one or two years after it was most deserved, almost as a form of lifetime achievement award, much like all-star game selections. Is LeBron still the true MVP?  Overall, he is still the most impactful, but Green is so close on his heels that he might surpass LeBron before you finish this read.

Curry will continue to dazzle, but will never have the complete ability to impact all aspects of the game.  Green can and does, on and off the court.

On the court, Green is the best player not named LeBron. Off it, he declares that Kerr can't stop the pursuit of 73 wins even while Kerr admits that the record is meaningless to him- then smiles a sly grin realizing that he can't stop Green.

This pursuit is about history, and history has to be made by teams and players that can make it. Is Golden State that kind of team?

Yes they are, but chasing history comes at a price.  To start the season with an undefeated streak forces you to achieve some kind of mark worthy of the all that energy you expended in the first place. 73 wins is that mark, but to set that mark and not win the title would be a waste of all the energy it took to set the regular season mark, which is why coach Kerr could care less about this record.


If the coach doesn't care for the pursuit, why does Green think that it shouldn't and won't be stopped?

Green already has gold, so why not?  

Given the determination of San Antonio, Cleveland, or the Clippers to unseat the Warriors and win their own gold, I don't think Green is really doing the right thing. Unless of course he is moving to make his mark as the best player in the NBA and among the best of all time. In that case, Green is looking to do the only thing all time greats think of.

Make history.

Exposed U.S.! Trump's Exhibitionism Of America

When Trump tried to tell us that he is surprisingly good at uniting people all while functionally dividing the entire GOP, we should not have been so surprised.  Actually, he chose to preface his statement with how surprised we are going to be in his ability to unite people, so never mind. Feel free to be as surprised as you'd like as Trump proceeds to expose US- to US.

Speaking of pledges, did you see the Hitler pledge to Trump?

After stealing Florida from Marco Rubio and forcing him to bow out of the race, Donald Trump has each of his remaining Republican opponent's fighting just to keep him from the delegate count (1273) that would force them to finally stop giving Hillary so much general election ammunition against the entire party. Soon, they all must choose to either endorse no one, or endorse Trump while trying not to  look like Chris Christie does while doing it. 

I would love to completely focus on those television ads to come from Hillary, with those supporters of Trump's doing that hail Hitler pledge, but why bother?

Although modern Republicans behave like Democrats by no longer promoting trickle down economics or any economic idea beyond eliminating most regulatory agencies- and by not caring much about deficits anymore- none of that matters because voting for a Democrat is unreasonable to those raised staunchly against such an thing.

There is something ingrained inside of the political DNA of many American voters raised to disregard the bleeding heart intentions of the left, and to only see the futility of the liberal nature. Moreover, many Republicans have been taught that party trumps candidate for reasons of sustained strength. The concept proves valuable for state and local elections, but the party rejected it as well as their own internal autopsy report from the first presidential election defeat by Obama when they allowed the Tea Party and the Libertarian fractures to weaken their bone structure by pushing their own ideologies to the forefront of a party with few binding ideas.

Consequently, bewildered Republicans, angry Independents who still vote Republican along with those aforementioned fractures, have given in to the eventuality of Trump as a Republican in name only over the alternative of Hillary the Democrat, a Communist in Bernie Sanders (something Republicans called Democrats long before Bernie openly embraced the Socialist label btw), or not voting at all and functionally handing the election to either one. 

I would love to hate Trump for recognizing that some people will never consider liberalism- even over a megalomaniac- and for noticing how left leaning independents don't vote enough to have ingrained beliefs one way or the other, but I can't. Trump has drafted lots of former dem's into his cause, and is exposing America to the fact that fence straddling dem's who thought electing Obama meant 40 acres and a mule for everybody, and are still angry enough with Obama's right leaning presidency to cross over too. Trump also knows that Republicans don't care THAT much about policy or positions as long as you can win for a party they've sworn an allegiance to from birth. Because of losing to Obama, Republicans would rather trust a life long liberal donor in Trump than their own party faithful anymore.

I would like to hold Trump to account for his angry entrance into this presidential race riding on our fear of immigrants and the promise of a fence for those who seem to need one, but I heard him quickly say that he would deport people and then bring them right back, because we have to be humane. 

Didn't you hear it too? That statement from Trump came eerily close to being a policy position- which means it was probably a knee jerk response- so Trump doesn't repeat it anymore, but he certainly said it.

Trump's position that Mexico would build the wall was also nothing more than a counter puncher's approach to the question of funding the thing. Even if you hate his answer, you can't say he isn't ready for a fight, or that he doesn't stay on his toes ready to knock out potential objections before they rise. Politician's have always promised the world without any concern of how to harness the moon first, because details aren't necessarily their duty.

Trump is quickly adjusting to this demand for details that is an aspect of a political campaign, and nothing like business  or war where surprising your opponent is helpful for victory.  In a presidential battle, the most important detail is that your so called opponents are every voting citizen in this nation who quickly become your only hope for victory too.

Trump and his supporters are not going to mention details like more Mexicans are currently leaving America than are migrating in making it harder and harder for Trump to hire so many of them as he claims to do, legal or otherwise.

The Trumpians might be concerned that too many American corporations are starting to do business in Mexico, but they won't even follow that thought to it's natural conclusion which is, people who can find work at home don't need to migrate elsewhere for it. If someone tells you that Mexican's still prefer to come here because of welfare and jobs, don't believe them since no illegal immigrant is eligible for any benefit except emergency medical assistance if needed. Assuming American corporations have been perfectly happy with offsetting jobs into countries like China, Mexico was a no-brainer alternative to our immigration problem and our Asian trade imbalance as well.

Trump could easily offer to exchange a fair pathway into (or back into) America for a wall of Mexico's building, which might not be a bad way to sell the deal to Democrats or to Republican supporters who got interested in Trump because of his wall promise. What Trump is exposing us to is that republicanism is bound by an every man for himself business negotiation mindset in which the goal is to get the best deal possible for yourself. There's no doubt in my mind that if Republicans are considering the necessity of higher wages for millions who rarely vote for them, there has to be something in it for them.

While Trump took victory laps after winning Florida and knocking out Rubio, he was surprisingly humble enough to admit that the rich are indeed going to have to get a lot richer for any of you regulars to have your wage hopes realized. He declared this with apologies realizing that he is already extremely rich, so promising that he'll get richer first wasn't easy to admit. 

Powerfully rich people and those who long to be them, don't seek more power and riches for some altruistic promise to share with the poor. Their commitment is to the promise that getting richer and more powerful beats the hell out of any alternative. Besides, who would reasonably set an agenda for sharing power and wealth except people who don't already have it?

Food stamps, ObamaCare, college tuition assistance? If most middle class families can't qualify for  social assistance, all social assistance becomes means tested wastes of time to people with money, power and influence. Welfare is only worthy of salvaging or expanding in the eyes of citizens who consider it reasonable that every one of us will pay for the health and well being of the other, be that directly or indirectly. 

It is fairly reasonable to believe that every one of us is already paying for the ignorance and sickness of the other, yet people in America work with contagious illnesses all the time, as if their bills give them an immunity to spreading germs. Aside from the rare few, WE all complain about people working sick, yet everyone does it, because we are rugged individuals who don't need anybody to help us get by in life (cough, cough).

Trump and his rugged individualistic supporters didn't cause sick workers who feel pressured to make bills, and not public health, their greater priority.  The Trumpians might also be among those rare Americans who never needed some really great coach, teacher, professor, parent/s, neighbor who watched your kids, or all of the above in order to be who they are today.  Sometimes, ruggedly individualistic Republicans make me wonder if only Democrats do the daycare hustle or have kids that don't leave home after college due to the economy, so they support Bernie because they need a job.

Is segregation in politics part of a Republican creed or just a reflection of our other segregation issues?  Do parents of children from both parties work to indoctrinate their offspring or is this just a Republican thing?

Trump is exposing America to the ingrained problems of both parties and of the system as a whole that allows for the party elite to continually manipulate the rest of us into a corner of their choosing.  Currently, congressional Republicans appear to be compromised from a lack of ideology, so they survive on a steady diet of American segregation and gerrymandering. Hillary, on the other hand, has to promise a continuation of the right leaning agenda's of Obama and Bill while grafting the populist mission of Bernie Sanders into her plan at the same time.  

Populism versus Capitalism

Populism is entirely contradictory to capitalism because capitalism isn't a way of life, it is the economy of life, and no civilization functions without some system of exchange and profit. Conversely, populism is not an economic system but a means of disrupting and redistributing one; sometimes for the good, but there simply aren't enough great functioning examples of populism/socialism to brag about. Sorry Bernie.

You Can't Win The Deal 
Without Making One First

Capitalistic efforts like NAFTA or the TPP are Bernie's greatest contempt and key differentiation from Obama, Trump and Hillary, though Hillary has expressed some  "reservations" with the TPP too. Trade deals, past present and future, are also the reason that Bernie likely loses my support and the support of Obama who needs a capable successor to his tenure. Trade is simply a necessity of our world, and one that my Socialist brother Bernie will never be in a position of strength to handle while standing against it philosophically.

Trump won't really talk a lot about the TPP much because he is running so that he can dive head first into this deal, that deal and every deal in between.  If Trump gets his way, he'll be going TPP all over that entire world and beyond if possible. The author of "The Art of the Deal" can't possibly be against our dealing in foreign lands. In fact, he's certain that he can be the reason WE finish out on top of these deals instead of feeling like the biggest loser with every trade pact we make.

But deal he will.

Anyone who is still unclear that Trump is all for every deal that he can engage in is unclear about Trump.  When he says we'll get sick of winning, it's because he'll never get sick of dealing, whether it's negotiating to convince Republicans to vote for him regardless of what he truly espouses (or because of it), Trump even has a fix for angry voters who quit voting,which just so happens to be the same fix for those who got tired of supporting the losing team.

Trump has all of US trapped inside of a rare, life sized art exhibit called "Exposition"- masterfully exposing the harsh truth of who we are as a nation of voters and how miserably we respond to the duty of leading and governing ourselves.  

By virtue of the overriding sickness of ignorance, we've never taught ourselves enough details about our electoral process of selecting a president to know if we approve of it or not.  Trump is exposing to both his supporters and detractors, things WE never had reason to care about much before he made us learn and care about.

For example:

Did you know that each party has the power to rewrite the rules at the convention so that it benefits the needs of the party.  In other words, if the Republicans decide to broker their convention exclusive of Mitt Romney, who currently isn't running and needs to win 8 states to qualify as a potential nominee, they can simply rewrite those rules to allow Romney to overtake the convention and be the party nominee regardless of all the voting on behalf of other people.

In addition, while they are fighting to keep him from winning enough delegates, Trump could actually reach the delegate threshold and still be forced into a brokered convention because the parties write the rules as needed.

The Democrats can do this too, but their use of uncommitted superdelegates is their personal technique for avoiding the risk of entering the convention with a candidate who doesn't have a great chance to win  In essence, they've done their brokering on the front side by soliciting superdelegates that can do the party's bidding without voters recognizing their impact.

Trump's presence in this presidential race has exposed more aspects of our fractured republic than many of us were willing to recognize. Whether we are talking race, immigration or the manner of choosing a president, WE've got real problems.

I would like to take Trump to task for his assault on these Constitutionally designed party protections called delegates, but I can't.  He has single-handily exposed the absolutely undemocratic aspects of the very Constitution that WE hold near and dear, while simultaneously exposing the differences of emotions each of us feel when we talk about the sanctity of the U.S. Constitution itself.

Is the Constitution a divinely crafted guide from our founding father's and political elders, or is it the sanctioned way in which we allowed for "White Only" drinking faucets?

It is both.

Our Constitution has fully sanctioned our organized failures as a society, while offering both the light and a pathway towards correcting them.

Through the sturdy flexibility that the Constitution insures, Colorado and a couple of other states stopped giving citizens felony convictions and immense legal and life hurdles for small amounts of weed possession, even while weed still continues to make felons out of recreational and medical marijuana users all across the nation. It took a similar state by state rejection of Constitutional standards to kill the Prohibition of alcohol and bend the Constitution back towards the will of the people, even if our will towards alcohol green lighted one of America's most deadly addiction problems.

Trump doesn't talk a lot about confronting addiction problems or dealing with inner city policing issues with Constitutional measures, but he might start IF he wins the GOP nomination and enters a general election versus Hillary who virtually locked up her party's nomination with a Super Tuesday sweep (3/15/16) including the big boys, Florida, Ohio and Illinois. As a salesman, Trump is willing to do what every good salesman does to close a deal, and right now, feigning moderation is just not part of the negotiation.

Like any expert salesman, Trump is a master at reflective listening and leaving those he encounters with this odd sense of feeling heard and understood. What Trump won't have  to do is actually make good on his promise to make US great again because the great he's promising involves things being more great for US and less great for Trump and the one percent. In reality, Obama has already done the part of making the rich richer, so more of the same won't impress anyone. If Obama the redistributor could force open America's economic flood gates but can't force the poor people faucet to trickle even as the rich are getting richer, there is simply something wrong with the pipes.

Just call him sucker punch Sam. He doesn't deserve a real name.

As president, there will always be limitations to what a can be done to actually impact greatness because every move demands a long wait while the ship makes the turn.  As president, Trump won't be free to hire a whole lot of Mexicans anymore like he always brags about doing. even as those who support him express frustration from jobs lost to Mexico and its immigrants. He can encourage diversity, but he could not insure the diversity of Trump inc. or any corporation until after he serves in office.

If elected president, Trump will be able to finally ignore the angry people that he's basically using to usher himself into the final stages of this race.  That won't fix stagnant wages, or clear him of our fear that he'll preside as a Democrat even while he competes under the banner of Republican. But once elected, he can track as far left as he wants and just call it as right as he chooses. Essentially, president Trump would be free to govern as he pleases and then spin every decision he makes as he see's fit, since spin and marketing are is his top two skill sets.

Policy agenda nuggets that mistakenly slips from Donald's wealthy lips glistens of third term Obama except with a southern fence. He'll finish off what Obama started with ISIS. He'll humanely bring the Mexican's back after finding and deporting them.(??) He'll take care of people who need better wages and fix universal health care with something better than ObamaCare. (????) And he'll be a uniting force like we Hoped Obama could be, except for banning Muslim's from entering America until he can figure out what the hell is going on with Islamic terror.

All of this on the notion that he, unlike any president before him, is uniquely tough enough to make people do as he demands.  Instead of firing them like he did for years on television, he's throwing them out of his rally's and inciting his crowd to do his violent bidding by expressing what he would do if only he could.

Trump feeds off of this narcissistic exploitation of vulnerable people, and no one is more vulnerable than the angry.  He who angers you owns you- but he who can incite your existing anger has the power to evoke immature rage on command.  Trump has placed a segment of America's angry and afraid on a chain like a ravenous dog.  Some are actually immature enough to sneak a bite at departing rally protester's while the rest are prepared to blame the victims for getting too close. As one united coalition, the Trumpian's are answering the clarion call of their leader to get tough, play dumb and make America great by any means necessary- and Trump will clean up your legal mess if necessary.

How adults can be groomed to be more loyal to party than country is answered in the children they raise.  From a very early age, right wing offspring are given an image of liberalism attached with fear and loathing, not an endearing Republican theme that becomes their unified mantra of party loyalty.   As the Republican party becomes increasingly segmented, the various options of which way to go are slowly pulling the party to its death. Add a little populism spewing from every presidential candidates voice, and the only distinct ideas become that crazy Muslim ban and the Trumpian wall.

Trump has even exposed the fact that every politician is trying to figure out our preferences just to sale us a bill of goods exactly like the other candidates, only better.

Will Republicans alter the Constitution so that it mirrors their love of Christ and hate of abortion and gays, or do they love guns and freedom more and decide to leave people alone so that people will do the same for them?  If Obama and every other modern president have had no problem creating policies to make the rich get richer, why can't either party find a way to make America's wealth trickle down- and which party actually deserves another chance to finally make it happen?

If either party had an easy answer to issue of wealth disparity, they would have used it a long time ago. Now, Trump has exposed this failure from both sides of the two-party political conspiracy forcing both sides to join together in figuring a simple method to stop Trump and start opening pathways to wealth before America fixes this electoral college hustle and gives Trump a try.

Super Tuesday Marks Beginning Of War On Trump

Even Ted Cruz is predicting a Trump Super
Tuesday victory.  Which means he didn't send
out enough of these fake voter violation forms.

After today, the wheat should be sifted from the chaff.

Actually, that shit should have been sifted some time ago.  Now, only a miracle or some serious Ted Cruz type voter tampering effort will stop Donald Trump from exiting this day with anything less than a strangle hold on the GOP delegate chase for the party nomination.

The near certainty of his success has two of his opponents pre-predicting a Trump landslide today, but a comeback that will somehow begin once they win their own state caucus. Ohio Governor and presidential candidate, John Kasich has all but assured a Trump victory in most of the 11 states at play today, and so has Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who predicts the comeback beginning when he wins his home state.

Kasich has a similar theory, but neither he or Cruz seems ready or able to explain why the Trump train suddenly falls off of the track just because their train gets a shot of home cooking in the caboose?

Will Trump start to lose because of the ponzi scheme investigation into Trump university, the now defunct school that Trump created to teach hundreds of people how to master the art of real estate?

What should we make of that
endorsement from Chris Christie?

As I reflect on the many things that Trump hasn't had to be accountable for, the idea of a real estate hustle from a real estate hustler doesn't exactly rise to the level of
the thing that finally downs Donald.



Nor will Florida Senator Marco Rubio's veiled reference to Trump's genitalia.  

Why didn't Rubio stick to Donald's Duke
and not his..Richard?

Apparently, Rubio has decided that snatching the limelight with Trump style attacks is the last remaining way to win the game that currently Trump is leading and re-writing at the same time.

What Rubio doesn't seem to understand is that his reference to his opponents small hands makes an indirect statement about Rubio's more than ample hands, which must (in his mind) give him the girth to be the kind of trustworthy president we want.

Does that make the presidency something small hands need not consider Marco Rubio? What say you of women with small 
hands or hands larger than yours? 

Does it make them more or less trustworthy Marco?

If there was no need for a prior concern that Rubio is pursuing the presidency too soon and before his time of political maturity, there should be now.  Suddenly I have fears of Rubio conducting a frat style, beer keg party in the White House to celebrate big boobs, big hands and, oh yeah, winning the presidency too. Woohoo!!

Every time I think I've shaken my head enough over the GOP presidential process, something comes along and causes a crook in my neck from another case of excessive shake syndrome.  I'm not exactly sure if that is a real ailment, but I am certain that it needs to be after the many wrong directions the right, and my head, have taken in this race.

Again, not only is it too late for two or three GOP candidates to get out of the race and force the republican electorate to choose between Trump or somebody else (something each candidate keeps trying to suggest to the other), now they ALL MUST STAY IN  regardless of today's Super Tuesday results, just to fracture the republican vote for fear of allowing Trump an easy pathway to the delegate threshold that he's pursuing.

At this sad but obvious stage in the game, all that remains for republicans is stopping Trump from making it to the convention with enough delegates to force Reince Preibus (the GOP party chair) to hold to his party pledge form that all of the GOP candidates were forced to signed when they were only afraid of Trump jumping to a third party.

Now, they are being forced into one last, desperate plan of obstructing Trump's path to the presidency.  Their skill with obstruction is notoriously sound and well rehearsed, making these next few months of presidential politics of historical significance..

Let me repeat this for those who missed the point.

The ONLY hope left for the GOP is a brokered convention.  What was recently just a threat, has become the last remaining street on a one way road to nothing.

Nothing means that nothing you proud and hard working GOP voters are doing right now will really be worth a damn bit of difference if your party is working like hell to make your vote totally insignificant.  They are telling you that your massive turnout for Trump. and extreme support for the rebel voice are misguided and not allowed in our CURRENT system of governance,

They (two-party establishment) are doing something somewhat similar in the Democrat party, but Hillary isn't the wrong candidate like Trump is, so there is no real reason to activate the defense shields for what she's doing.

In other words, nothing you Bernie loving, registered Democrat voters are trying to do will matter much either. Even if you mess around and actually show up in mass as Bernie insists you must- but currently you've yet to do- he's not the right candidate on the left side of the ledger.

I say "you" because "I" am a proud, Christ loving, conservative socialist who might have caucused for Bernie, but is not allowed to caucus in Colorado on behalf of either party without dropping my steadfast disgust with labels and banding together with one of the two-party labels just to join a caucus process tainted by a design that demands party allegiance to participate.

After today, the non-Trump GOP candidates must band together to chop down the Trump tree to somewhere well below the base of nominee mountain, keeping him from a delegate majority and from bringing the war for the GOP's nominee to an end.

After tonight,  the right is in for the fight of it's life as the war to infiltrate ends successfully for Trump, and the war to overtake begins forcing Trump's opposition to respond in the only way they have left.  

Hand shaming and things of the sort.

Jihadist' Jail @ Gitmo. America's National Disgrace

Forget, if you can, the fact that Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility (acronym GTMO or Gitmo for short) is a significant recruitment tool for the worldwide Jihad. That alone should pattern our decisions surrounding it's existence.

Instead, let's simply focus on the details.  Even if we choose to transfer the terrorists housed in Gitmo stateside, we will pay for their lives (well over half are on hunger strike and must be force fed) for the rest of their lives. The cost of doing so at the Gitmo facility in Cuba makes everything exponentially more expensive.

From strictly a perspective of ANOTHER socialized program for tax payers to endure, this one is one of the worst. I realize that modern day prisons are also a really bad socialized means of making us feel safe from criminals, because it mostly trains them to do crime and sends them back on our street to test their skills before they finally get sent to prison to stay as habitual prisoners; habitual meaning they've practiced a lot.

If the government is considering an abandoned facility to house
terrorists, what about Camp Leatherneck's wasted facility?

What exactly does locking up suicide terrorists actually protect us from? Colorado republican Senator, Cory Gardner, rejects the notion of sending Jihadists to Colorado's Supermax prison, or to an abandoned prison in Colorado, but quickly admits that terrorism will continue whether WE behave humanely or not.

I scratched my head for quite some time after Gardner made that statement (2/23 on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Report) because I suddenly realized that Gardner, and everyone who agrees with him (including Marco Rubio), has decided that our image in the world means nothing one way or the other, so why should America care one way or the other?

Why should we continue to uphold some old aged sense of decency that hasn't stopped evil doers from attacking the bastion of freedom in order to weaken freedom as a whole?

Why should integrity and values matter when dealing with the Jihad? Are we always expected to address evil with wisdom and restraint?

Essentially, these are the type of questions you have to ask yourself in order to justify the persistence of Gitmo, America's jail for the Jihad......which, by the way, doesn't house everybody who joined the Jihad, ONLY middle eastern captured enemies.  What jail is Richard Reid (the shoe bomber) being held in?

If so many Americans are truly convinced of the necessity of a Jihadi Jail @ Gitmo, they have to accept that we are abandoning former core values by doing so; core values that former president George W. Bush may have to answer to one day.

In essence, WE the People of the United States of America, have chosen to fight this particular fire by circling the fire starters within a ring of fire, pushing back every detainee who'd prefer the fiery death option by use of a really expensive pitch fork no less.

To respond to any evil with even a small dose of its own medicine doesn't change evil or its way. It changes US.  For now, fear and anger are enough to keep Gitmo operational because the GOP is full of both emotions, and in full control of both houses of congress too.

Until WE temper the emotions that caused Gitmo to be in the first place, it remains our knee jerk reaction to an immediate crisis that our past two presidents have now admitted was a grave error. Those who think it belongs around FOREVER are stuck in crisis mode and incapable of guiding this nation away from Gitmo or the fear and anger of terror.
As long as terror produces fear and anger and breaches of the Geneva convention pact, terror succeeds.

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.