Like many of you, I have had to do my own reckoning with the Cambridge Analytica reality that Facebook has so rudely slapped us with, forcing us to reexamine the things we see and read on The Book, even to the extent of wondering how Russia used our desperate love of Facebook against us in the 2016 election....
....and then I lost my damn self on this whole conversation because I always lose me and every other progressive who thinks from time to time that Russia made somebody who was previously interested in Hillary, more interested in Trump or any other candidate that they eventually voted for. I also lose myself on this Russian bot nonsense when I think they were able to make all the people who hate getting involved in politics less interested through keenly targeted Facebook memes.
Don't misunderstand my concern with what happened. I believe Putin deserves a serious geopolitical punch in the mouth with collective actions by the world as a message and a prelude to something worse if he doesn't stop the nonsense.
What I am tired of is progressive angst in the notion that human beings would get their lazy butts off of their couches to go stand in line for any candidate by inspiration from social media when we can barely decide who is going to pick up pizza when that cheesy pickup promo peaks our interest.
I am, admittedly, the same guy who was complaining about Google telling me that standing in line at O'Reilly auto parts is somehow a (insert curse word of choice here) photo opportunity, even when I'm actually across the street at Grease Monkey and the GPS is just a little off in its tracking of my every (insert another expletive) footstep.
The truth is they ALL are trying to GPS track and content analyze us to the benefit of the public square. In their defense, THEY are typically giving us something for FREE (social media page, email, web based market site) in exchange for the right to sell who we are to a third party. It is a relationship that we are made aware of going in so that we have the option and opportunity to steer clear of the free internet if we so choose. By now, there should be a solid understanding that you still get what you pay for in this world.
But the conversation of this orange man we are enduring in our White House is not something quite as trivial as the Sunday ads we've rejected that come through the so-called free internet now. Who knew enough strategic content could be used towards gaining an Electoral advantage, and that you could actually lose an election by 3 million votes yet, somehow still win the White House just as Donald Trump did?
Al Gore, that's who knew. He already gave us that civics lesson years ago. If Hillary didn't understand the electoral challenge from the Al Gore example alone, I question if she was prepared for the challenge that would have followed primarily being the first female president against a congress of GOP wolves. When you start to analyze things that happen in our world, sex, gender and sexuality are always underlying elements of consideration.
For example, I have resolved in my mind that sex is the oldest known industry to mankind because of things much more simplistic than pimps or patriarchy. In reality, there have always been women just as interested in sex as men think they are, some even more so quietly as it's kept.
The problem is, we do keep it quiet and we don't often open up about the reality that some women enjoy sex quite a bit. Prostitution is, in part, a byproduct of the truth that women love sex too.
While pimps are probably really cool guys with really gifted vocabularies, most of them are smart enough to find the women who want to hear what they are saying. I'm not talking about the sex slave crap or trying to overdo this sex analogy any more than necessary to make a point and keep the modern day attention span long enough for that point to sink in
My point? People know what they like and listen to what they want to hear.
Putin, pimps and advertisers are only able to target the vulnerable, not produce them out of thin air. In reality, people do what they want to do or something pretty damn close to what they were thinking about in the first place.
Friends and family didn't start to fall distant on Facebook before during and after the electing of Trump because the Russian bots incited their discord. Some folks really loved them some Donald Trump, and they didn't want to be as open and honest about it because of the same reason our teenage daughters won't talk about banging someone like our boys tend to do on the regular.
Even with the downtrend in teen pregnancy, some babies happen because women like sex too. Women like sex, some of your friends and family voted for and still like Trump (and might do it again) and advertisers need to send you a coupon for that stuff you like, want or simply need based upon their strategic compilation of your social media life. As much as we'd like to blame the world for things we'd like to change, there is no way to change anything when you can't accept it for what it is.
If you don't want to be sold a product or told to go out and vote for that person you already like anyway, shut yourself off of the internet and social media in particular. Also disconnect the data on your phone as well as your wifi-signal while you are driving and I am pretty sure you will only see targeted mail and campaign flyers every two years or so.
Of course, they are asking more details about us in the upcoming census, so it might be prudent for anyone too concerned with a world trying to decide what we want to just live off the grid and keep up with everyone you know and love on Facebook- with a fake profile- and no likes or comments of course.
I am trying to be sympathetic to all of you who are completely done with 2016 and all of the bad things you seem to recall, but I've got two days left in this blessed year before 2017 comes in fresh and new and pretends to be better just because it's new.
Don't get me wrong. I'm sad about Prince Roger Nelson , Muhammad Ali and so many others leaving us during the same calendar year, yet I'm hard pressed to beg for a better 2017 when death keeps reminding me to be thankful for today, because tomorrow isn't promised to any of us.
I'm not attempting to make light of a tumultuous year. I clearly realize that the spirits that seemed to make 2016 feel like 20666 came to visit me and you too, not just Hillary Clinton and celebrities. Many of us lost loved ones and/or had relationships tested to the core. Either we experienced true death and dying, or we lived the death and dying of love and friendships that we thought would last forever.
In hindsight, getting Donald Trump mostly felt like piling on. Trump's victory seems like a death of something noble; of an image that WE believed of ourselves right up to the moment of Hillary's defeat. Not only was it difficult accepting the notion of a president Trump, but Hillary's bitter inability to lose with dignity made the entire scene that much worse. In one embarrassing night, WE were announcing to the world that we are lazy voters, semi-crazy voters and also poor losers all at the same time. We did that towards Obama too, but I just assumed that was because of his skin color, not because we don't know how to politically lose anymore.
WE did experience more nasty episodes with gun violence in 2016, which is something I'm admittedly forcing myself to include because I know WE've learned- as a coping mechanism- how to fully forget about domestic terror incidents as quickly as our minds will allow. Since we forget our own terroristic ways, police across the nation are currently learning the end of year data of officers killed on duty as well as a sharp rise (6 to 21) of those directly targeted for violence. I have to assume that this information is either a message begging those who assassinate cops to stop, or it's an effort to make cops more aware of the level of angst against them.
Either way, is it totally bad that cops have been exposed to the extremity of our collective societal concern about imbalanced policing or policing for profit efforts that disproportionately impact minorities across the land? Is it even horrible that cops are being filmed and confronted for the bad behaviors of the relative few of their brethren? I don't condone the assassination of cops, but I hear the voice of anger that it saying "enough", and so do cops. Isn't it better that we begin the movement towards nationwide mandated chest camera usage and community policing as a standard, not an exception? Personally, I will mark 2016 as the turning point in that crucial conversation?
If that's too heavy a point to consider, what about Pokemon-Go (bad choice?)? Or how about those Cubs? In 2016 the Chicago Cubs broke a long-standing curse by beating the Cleveland Indians, another team that expelled a curse themselves by simply making it to the World Series. We could feel sad for the city of Cleveland and the Indians, if not for the exploits of those Cleveland Cavaliers? Was that an incredible series and an improbable outcome or what?
I'm trying to be a bit humble, but we can't forget about Peyton Manning and my Denver Broncos. While Broncos haters are quick to remind me of our present putrid performance on the field, they seem to forget that this is still 2016, and there will never be another Superbowl Champion crowned in this calendar year. Well, actually, we never allow anyone to forget about the Broncos being a huge part of the 2016 story, even if that's part of the stuff they'd like to forget.
If you aren't a Broncos fan and don't like successful swan song stories of HOF quarterbacks, what about the Rio Olympics? They turned out to be amazing despite the concerns going in and despite the Ryan Lochte nonsense on the way out.
Even if you want to use the seriously draining impact of the presidential election process as a reason for our sucky '16, I would counter you with the fact that Americans are more aware of their personal impact on an election than they ever were before. We all understand the electoral college, and some of us- including Donald Trump himself- now believe there is a redeeming value for it. Thanks to 2016, we are now capable of debating the finer points of the electoral system against the legions of Americans who are suddenly engaged in politics and believe that a popular vote is a better way to go. When Al Gore lost the electoral college thanks to a few hanging chads, nobody really understood what the hell that all meant.
We are so sophisticated now that we even understand the difference between a primary and a caucus and how each party protects their own process from the impact of outside intrusion by forcing participants to register for a caucus or primary months in advance instead of allowing an opposing party to taint a primary by participating only to sway the vote one way or another. We don't really like a lot of the realities of all that exclusionary behavior that comes along with caucuses and primaries, but we actually understand it now. ......and what is so bad about that?
If 2016 has been one thing positive for us, it has been muscle building that we sorely needed. We've never needed muscle building that involves paying too much for gas (Thanks, Obama) so hopefully Trump and Putin aren't working on a plan to raise prices for major oil producers like Russia and Exxon who have suffered under the new market reality relative to the price of oil. WE will also never need housing prices that our wages can not afford, yet, we did need some muscle building relative to our family budgets and our ability to make more out of our money by eating more rice and beans and DIY living that we often reject during times of prosperity.
Unemployment is down even if it's partly because of people quitting the workforce altogether. Our unwillingness to accept low-paying work in the months leading up to 2016 has forced the hands of every low-wage employer. Now, whether states increase the minimum wage or not, companies are currently desperate for employees, forcing many employers to offer wages above the liberal pursuit of $15.
Thanks, 2016!!
Maybe, 2016 doesn't deserve credit for people quitting the workforce, but 2016 was the year when the employers gave in and started trying to lure them back with better wages. If we are simply asking for 2016 to go away because we think that 2017 couldn't be worse, how exactly do we know that?
High expectation is the mother of disappointment, and I am not willing to waste all of the muscles that I gained in 2016 begging for easier workouts in 2017. In fact, I don't really want an easy 2017 if it means a return to the flimsy muscles that produced the fake relationships that I let go of already. Sure, fake felt easier, but easy isn't always a sign of substance. In 2016, I discovered much more clearly who is for me and who is not, just as many of you did too. I refuse to go back and nurture fake relationships anymore.
I'd prefer 2016's realness and rawness for the rest of my life. Not the pain necessarily, but certainly the pain if it comes with a deeper well of emotion and a stronger capacity for feeling. In a deeper well, there is a lot more things to hurt you, however, that is the well in which love and hope reside too.
Yeah, we lost Prince. But thanks to 2016, I'll never have to
be too macho to blast "Do Me Baby" while driving down the street again. WE grew in 2016 and have evolved into something new and different. Quite frankly, 2017 had better be ready for the change in US.
What started out as a wall building joke is no longer funny.
First of all, I would like to apologize to all women for our significant fear of you. Many of you are significantly afraid of yourselves, but that's a conversation for another post.
Hillary Clinton- for all the good she's done and all the cracks she keeps putting into that dreaded glass ceiling- earned that ass kicking Donald Trump gave her last night. You can blame misogyny or Comey or whatever Russian Wikileak you'd like. The bottom line is that Hillary Clinton hoped like hell that WE were way too afraid of that pussy grabbing outsider to ever take a chance on someone never elected to public office before.
The same populist movement that elected Donald Trump will now be anxiously waiting for certain dividends that will pit him against his own kind, the rich and powerful.
In the end, she ran a race on fear with commercials feeding into the fear we should have of Donald's decision making, or lack thereof. In the end, she was dead wrong.
Not that she was wrong about Donald.....sorry, president-elect Trump's dastardly ways. She was wrong to use them as a way of stoking the fears of human beings. Fear might be a motivator of sorts, but it is most commonly known to invoke hesitation and doubt, not clear-eyed certainty.
To Trump's.....sorry, president-elect Trump's credit, his campaign of fear was not one that he needed a television ad or any real effort to sell. After all, WE have long since doubted the intentions of the Washington elite, and he waged a campaign of retweeted anger that did nothing more than tell US what WE already felt enough to tweet.
Nothing is sweeter than the sound of your own name or being retweeted, and president-elect Trump used the oldest sales tool in the book to display the art form of negotiation and close another deal. He listened.
Hillary Clinton spent way too many days wondering how in the hell she was so close in a race that she should have been winning in a landslide while ignoring the fact that she barely beat Bernie for the nomination and never really convinced the Berners that she was really interested in what mattered to them even while desperately needing them to show up at the polls.
In reality, she was terribly interested but listened to the wrong voices (insiders) and took an early victory lap when she decided to drive the down ballot bus instead of focusing on her own. All the pollster deserve the same ridicule I'm leveling at Hillary, but none of them were running for the highest office in the land, and the successor to a president MANY did not consider their own and said so, over and over and over for 8 years straight.
Forget about President Obama's approval ratings right now. Those were one part Michelle Obama and two parts disgust with the two candidates campaigning to succeed him. Pollsters might have been dead wrong about president-elect Trump's level of voter enthusiasm, but they were totally right about the lack of it for Clinton. She tried to ride the enthusiasm of everybody in the world including Jay-Z and Beyonce in the final days, but no surrogate could transplant their charm into her.
I'm not thrilled about getting someone other than who I circled on my ballot, but I was never going to get the person I preferred anyway. He (Jeb Bush) got rubbed out early on in the same name smearing fashion that finished off Hillary too.
Will Paul Ryan live to regret opposing Trump? Will Hillary Clinton?
The more I reflect on my journey in this election, I recall the question I had a year ago. Why would someone who is able to do so much good around the entire world while making shitloads of money from speeches- in between spending lots of precious time with her grandkids in the waning years of her life- be willing to give all that up for a job she knows is not really that cool anyway?
Hillary Ran For US.
I'm not happy for you sad or afraid voters, but I'm thrilled by all of those quiet people who either didn't vote or didn't take it seriously with that silly write-in name you chose. Their lack of comical posts right now speaks volumes to the impact this election shall have on all of those who quietly hoped the rest of US could elect Hillary while they maintained the role of sideline ridiculers. Some of you really petty people are more than happy to pretend to relish in your Illuminati theory of the whole system being rigged, but even you thought the system was rigged for the insiders, not pussy grabbers.
I will be more thrilled when WE all get to see what happens when you try to push forward Wall Building Acts or Infrastructure Bills given the reluctance of congress to invest in anything worthwhile. Maybe they were just blocking Obama for 8 years and now understand that they will get Trump'd too if they aren't listening to the voice of America. And maybe president-elect Trump always realized that he was proposing non-republican populist stuff that America is looking for him to achieve, and must now truly roll up his sleeves to get it done. Either way, we are now wide awake and fighting for a front seat at the table of this divine civics lesson we are receiving.
No Trump TV?
President-elect Trump has a 100-day plan promise that involved implementing term limits on the same people he will ask to pass the bill. It involved finally fixing our failing roads and bridges (I guess you can pork-barrel a wall into that bill, but then Mexico doesn't pay for it), and dealing with the income disparity in whatever way first-time presidents who used to run businesses do it.
If he can do it, he and WE are all the big winners. Until he does, even the winners are losers with a difficult mandate ahead. Both insider parties are losers too as Trump systematically proved WE are tired of them all. Both republicans and democrats needed total reconstruction and will be putting out new autopsy reports soon enough.
How will that "don't vote for any of them" plan work out actually?
I had a rather heated response to this question that I posed when I posed it in a FB post, but I think it deserves to be asked again, and in a more thoughtful way.
In order to frame this question, it's important that I ignore the defense of Hillary because I'm doing my darndest to be more sensitive to those of you who've decided that nobody is worth your vote this time around.
I'm going to disregard that Bush (the son) had 13 embassy attacks resulting in 66 deaths including 3 American diplomats and 22 embassy workers. I'll do the same ignoring of the 10 attacks under Ronald Reagan resulting in 318 deaths including 1 US Ambassador, 18 CIA officers and 254 Marines. I can even forget the fact that Bush never had an investigation as a result of the deaths, and Reagan only had one.
None of that matters when the people telling you that Hillary is a murderer are convinced that she is the reason they are dead. The 13 investigations have taken these Hillary haters off of her email trail for the purpose of finding blame over Benghazi, but they still need a Wikileaks to prove some form of pay to play with their very charitable organization, CGI (Clinton Global Initiative).
Keep in mind that the email Hillary's opponents are seeking for pay to play proof is a connection only made possible because THE CLINTON'S HAVE RELEASED THEIR TAXES AND THE BOOKS TO THE CHARITY.
Let me say this again in another way.
In order for me to believe what you are saying about that evil Hillary and her horny husband Bill, I have to connect some yet to be found email, or yet to be authenticated Wikileaks, to the open books that they've provided for everyone to see, just like most presidential candidates do.
I am suspending belief in all that I've just mentioned about Hillary's open documents, and I will equate this yet to be found open book crime with whatever Donald has told us about his closed books. For the sake of argument, I am trusting what a Russian dictator has shared from people's private files (will it be okay if they release any nude photo's since some of you are okay with the rest of this stuff?) and I am scouring through all of it like the gospel truth, trying to connect it all back to THE OPEN DOCUMENTS THAT THE CLINTON'S PROVIDED TO EVERYONE.
For the purpose of this article, and this question, I am ignoring the obvious differences between these two candidates and taking them to be the exact same Bozo's that some dear friends and family have called them.
Now that I've separated myself from my own distorted reality in exchange for your more realistic one, I am now truly, really and sincerely ready to consider the idea of doing the exact same thing as some of you and not vote for anyone as well.
My question is- before I make protest posters or write up blogs to sell the rest of America on the value and virtue of this approach- what is the value and virtue of this approach?
What would be gained if only me and about 600 more people that I can convince join in the "No Vote" ideology? What happens if every American finally see's the light and bows out of the presidential vote too? Other than the Congress being forced to choose for US, doesn't the process of bowing out allow the remaining voters- whoever they may be- to decide which president the rest of US lives with?
That's not really a question because the answer is obvious. Of course, the people that vote are the people that choose for all of us. That is not really a debatable topic even though it sounds like extortion if you are as firm about the right to "Not Vote" as Colin Kaepernick is about taking a knee.
I am not debating the right to take a knee on an anthem or an election. I am asking the value of it so that I can decide if I will join in myself. As it stands, I am willing and ready to sell the benefits of not voting just as I've sold the value of taking a knee and every other protest that came before it.
I'm not personally interested in taking a knee against the flag as my way to improve it, but I appreciate the knee people for the conversations and the situational awareness that must happen every time someone gets into another heated debate over the virtue of saluting the flag versus protesting the ways in which the flag has failed.
Protest is important, and comes in many forms and fashions. I just don't understand this "Not Voting" protest, very much.
I can advocate for this not voting thing in the same vein of free expression if I could just put into words what this decision expresses. With barely 50% of Americans voting these days, how does reducing those numbers to less than 50% and allowing less than a majority decide for all of the rest make sense? What is the magical percent of lack of involvement that will finally make bureaucrats listen and respond to our frustration?
Like it or not, we are all stuck with the president that the majority (or plurality) selects. voters who sit out might hope for more obstructionist government, but even that doesn't change the impact and direction of the Executive Orders that will ensue or the Supreme Court selections that are still the privilege of whoever wins the presidency.
Should Bashir Al-Assad be removed and what happens with Russia if we do it. Our next president must soon decide if America will honor the Syrian no-fly zone that Russia claimed to establish against ISIS.......who has no aircraft.
No, you do not have to exercise your privilege to vote because freedom provides you that privilege. You will, however, have to accept Roe v Wade if the wrong side wins but you want abortion to become a crime. Conversely, your gay friends who recently got married may have their nuptials annulled by the results of this election, depending on who wins.
You don't have to choose from the best of the bunch or write in your own choice if that seems like too much of a long shot. You don't even need to show up if none of this seems like it's worth your time, but you will live with whoever WE choose for you, so please don't curse and whine at friends and family that choose your next president for you. WE invited you to come to the store with US and pick out the best watermelon available. Sorry if we choose the sour one over the seedy one.
We'll be heading back to the store in four years, just so you know.
Did Tim Kaine really just do his best Trump impression? Did Mike Pence ever answer the actual question asked?
For the few of us who cared to watch the VP debate, my immediate impression was the same as the rest of your impressions- tainted by the emotional desire that we all have towards seeing the other side take a beating. In that regard, I got exactly what I came for. Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton's running mate, beat Donald Trump to a pulp while constantly challenging Trump's running mate (Mike Pence) to stand up and defend the many indefensible and inflammatory statements that have come from the top of the GOP ticket.
Mike Pence never tried to answer the unanswerable. Instead, he did what politicians are supposed to do, pivot, spin and control the conversation regardless of previous errors from the campaign. Pence doesn't deserve too much credit for controlling the conversation, however, because it is way too hard to be in control when you are spinning and pivoting so much. For that reason, I not only missed that Kaine beat on Trump without laying a hand on Pence- the actual man onstage last night- I also misunderstood how pundits would view Kaine's effort, forgetting that Pence came into the debate with his own questionable record that made him worthy of deserving a few direct blows himself. He got away mostly unscathed.
I cheered and jeered at the aggressive attacks, even some of the flailing swings from Kaine, and I happily rejoiced at the reality that he was doing more of what Hillary couldn't do in her recent debate because Trump refused to let it happen. I appreciated the fact that the important remarks were being stated and placed on the record even if you had to listen over multiple voices (including the moderator) to hear what was being said sometimes.
I enjoyed the dismissive giggling and dodging that Pence was forced into doing while running from the direct opportunity he was given to actually sell us on the values of Trump or defend him from Kaine's attack that ignored Trump's pawn and went straight for the king himself. Pence never really stood up for his boss, and appeared to lose his way to me if for no reasons other than his intense condemnation of Putin (something Trump seems terribly hesitant to do), and for Pence's inability to build a case for his boss other than "we need change". Conversely, Kaine made Hillary's case from beginning to end.
Did Mike Pence just dodge enough poop to elevate himself to top of the GOP field for 2020?
And then I listened to hours upon hours of breakdown of the VP debate, in which every station and pundit conceded, in some form or other, a victory to Pence. By virtue of the standard set in the first debate, pundits handed the victory to Pence in the same manner it was given to Hillary, rewarding the person who seemed most polite and thus presidential. A victory by default if you will.
After hours of flipping channels and watching the video outtakes from the VP debate, a few very distinct revelations came to me. Hillary is so serious about not losing this race that she is treating her debate victory as if she had lost. Not by reviewing the entire debate all over, but by making sense of the televised outtakes that followed.
It's important that we recognize how Trump has not only lowered the bar on political decency, he has lowered the bar on his own expectations and that of the party he currently heads. How can they clean up so many ugly soundbites when they are already on the record, along with the ones he adds each week? Thanks to Trump, his entire camp is now only expected to avoid land mines while begging voters for change. Anything more is way beyond their current expectation, and probably doing too much by virtue.
Despite her brilliance, I wasn't always ready to give Hillary as much credit as I give her now. It is now time we watch, learn and decide. If you are watching, you will easily learn how Hillary has decided to run her campaign. She is showing herself willing and able to adjust to the demands of the undecided electorate, that segment of society that can still be convinced to vote for her. Trump has hit his ceiling some time ago and can only hope to bring dismay to the process and the people Hillary needs for a decisive victory.
Hillary is going about things with reflection and humility, allowing herself the chance to see her own campaign through the eyes of those hesitant to choose her.
It is truly the time to save our children from Trump or with him. As such, it is vital to recognize that the home stretch kick has begun now that voting has started in many states. In my opinion,those questions I once had of Hillary are laughable compared to the question of what happens under a president Trump. Right now is not the time for any of us decided ones, on either side of this battle, to be confused about who WE support, nor wavering in our efforts to help our side win.
To his credit last night, Mike Pence was neither confused or wavering, though he didn't fully show himself on team Trump. Otherwise, the 2016 VP debate
If Trump is the current face of the GOP, who takes that position if republicans lose the presidency?
performance from Pence was an excellent example of what it will take for Trump to close the widening gap Hillary has opened in the polls and give himself an electoral chance in hell to win this race.
To enhance that chance, he must do exactly as his running mate displayed by masterfully side stepping all of the piles of poop Trump leaves on the campaign trail for himself and his surrogates to deal with each day. When it comes to big piles of poop, Trump is the head elephant in the GOP arena now, and the primary reason for all of the perfect poop dodging that Pence did last night, providing a clear blueprint for Trump to follow.
Trump's big bombastic poop droppings are part of the reason why MOST Americans have stopped listening to all of this a long time ago.
Not just months ago when Trump first demanded Mexicans leave this land of immigrants, but decades ago when the voter turnout numbers proved that barely 50% of eligible voters in America care to vote in the first place.
WE seem to much prefer television stars over politicians, and our long standing apathy towards politics is doing an awesome job at making a circus out of something so many described as a circus long before now.
Most importantly, Trump is the ring master of circus outtakes. He not only knows how to talk the kind of talk that fills arenas and sells overpriced, useless swag, he knows how to insure the news programs will play his outtakes no matter how irrelevant or damaging they are to his mission, the subject at hand or the country at large.
You see, nothing that actually happens in politics will ever supersede the hot video outtake television uses to thrive. While Trump seems stupid to continue saying silly things like "maybe Hillary is cheating on Bill...but why wouldn't she?", he is brilliant enough to know what it takes to make the outtakes. In the end, there are only so many minutes available to every televised program, and every minute spent on useless but spicy outtakes, is a minute that can't be spent on something substantive. If So Few Are Voting, How Many Are Not Even Watching?
For those who didn't have the time or energy to endure Hillary v Trump (live or video recording), your only understanding of what happened must be chewed and fed to you in digestible bites for you to swallow and regurgitate to the others who also haven't the teeth for all of this, and demand pre-digested food as well.
Trump understands our fickle digestion like no other presidential candidate before him, and uses bombastic outtakes to drown out the substantive stuff that only 20-30% of us try to chew on our own. That's right. Even if a little more than 50% actually vote regularly, almost half of those people to do it out of civic obligation, and don't necessarily study like they should. As most of us have been watching this foolish circus for months, millions upon millions are slowly and reluctantly taking their seat at the table.
Clinton Changes The Game With Kaine
During her own debate, Hillary mostly kept her poise and was told she won the night, but watched while most of the outtakes were of Trump being an arse, not of her style and substance that were lauded, but was only captured by those who watched the debate themselves. As a result of the slanted soundbites, Hillary and her team have not only caught on to Trump's game, they sent Kaine out to test the game first.
Actually, Hillary's stump speech was the first sign that she has started to display a little more style and way more Johnny Cochran than ever before, and she is now using it to drive the conversation in a way she has not done in previous weeks. Although the most palatable outtakes from the presidential debate were of Hillary tripping up Trump with a few pre-planned lines of attack, Donald's bombastic blast backs and constant interruptions ended up controlling the news streams and forced the pundits to explain to the viewers what the camera wasn't showing.
Consequently, close viewers on either side of each of both of these debates could easily claim a victory. One side based on keeping their cool, and the other for so many hot outtakes, because keeping cool usually ends up on the editing floor.
Whether you watched the VP debate or not, this is what you need to know about last night, and about the Clinton campaign to follow. Hillary has decided to hit a little harder and she intentionally used Kaine's and a few canned phrases to help get it started. On behalf of the democrats, Kaine jumped in the circus ring and left behind piles and piles of seriously unanswerable questions as well as the message that WE all should continue asking Trump the same. Hillary has decided to help us stay on the question even when Trump tries like the crazy to say something new and soundbite worthy for an outtake that might switch the subject and make us forget just how crazed he's been.
Trump's assessment of US is legitimate. How do I know? Raise your hand if you live with, or know someone who often says, "I'm so tired of this campaign. I can't wait until it's over"?
Trump has preyed on our politically fatigued and made victims of the politically handicapped who stay in the back of the pack of society, hoping to be fed digestible morsels of information to aid in their voting and to relieve that empty grumbling in the belly caused by civic guilt.
All of this simply because WE can't stand to watch anymore.
I'm not sure if Trump is doing business in Russia, but based on his choice in wives, I damn sure can't simply assume he is not.
Trump knew it, but now, so does Hillary Clinton. Now, Clinton and her surrogates will proceed to take advantage of every opportunity to blast Trump and his trumpeting Trumpians with the one question that makes very little sense, but was the most resonating outtake from last night's debate.
How can Trump demand Pence release his taxes to qualify as a running mate, but he won't do the same for US?
Was the emergence and anticipation of Elizabeth Warren for president the red carpet that Bernie Sanders used to initiate the populist revolt that has turned American politics upside down? Populism is a easy description of all of this because it fits the narrative we wrote in anticipation of capitalism's demise and socialism's rise. What few have accepted is that those leading this wave of populism are also those who missed the Cold War and don't appreciate everything capitalism has accomplished.
Much like all things in hindsight, there is perfect clarity upon experiential analysis. With eyes now wide open, Sanders. who we all wished had been Warren instead, should have simply remained under the democratic socialist label that he clearly feared when he chose to dump it to run as a democrat. He was unlikely to dismantle the two party blockade to win either way, but the agenda of a democratic socialist is different than that of the party he chose to run under. By scrapping his true label, he beholds himself to the party cause of winning an election, not just fulfilling an agenda.
Yet, as he currently insists on the right to press on, listing reasons other than winning to justify the choice, the potential to help improve the democrat party is among the main reasons he says he won't discard his agenda and quit the race.
Quit the race, or quit lying to yourself, Bernie?
I'm sorry, but with all due respek (teehee), Mr. Sanders is not a democrat.
He is a somewhat proud socialist who believes in invoking the democratic process to his variety of socialism as a means of implementing socially healthy socialist and capitalist programs. Nobody fully understands his plans to break up the big banks, or how he'll democratically redistribute taxes, because the assumption he provides with the intensity of his revolutionary rhetoric is one of a socialist agenda applied with pressure, not established in a conciliatory way.
Donald Trump, the GOP populist candidate, really doesn't come off as a conciliatory negotiator either, but anyone in business and everyone close to someone who is in business understands the win win of deal making, so they assume what is vital for being successful in business is also translatable to the business of being president. Trump appeals to intentionally ignorant folks or really smart folks who play ignorant when they fill in the blanks and clean up the mess in their minds each time Trump speaks.
Speak bad about milleneals if you will, but they are clearly the only ones not fooled by this dude.
I'm currently confused as to whether or not the apparent apathy of the generation called milleneals is healthy for our democracy in ways we've not quite understood. While we pretend to desire wide reaching participation from the general electorate, the movements milleneals have made towards things that mattered to them- first Obama, now Bernie- has forced everyone to recognize the immense risk of agitating these young folks into action.
Milleneals may catch a lot of heat for a lot of apparent apathy and not holding doors open for others, but the 99% movement, Black Lives Matter, Bernie and the Hell No To Donald movements have all been ignited by milleneals. Some look at that list with contempt, but only fools look at it without the respek (sorry) they've earned. These movements are headline grabbing, and headlines create the type of attention that creates change. For better or for worse, any actual movement towards better wages for all must be creditted to milleneals.
Those who support the mainstream Stop Trump movement need to recognize how useless and dysfunctional it has been. In fact, that mainstream movement might be the fuel that feeds his growth since republican voters are insisting that they need change too. Both parties are hearing the exact same message since Clinton has yet to prove that she will inspire our youth to do for her what they did for Obama and what they are trying to do for Bernie with $27 donations.
Disregard the milleneals at your own peril. They have the collective power to show up and dictate the direction of this election, or stay home and make the whole damn thing a total crap shoot on election day. Polls show Trump and Clinton way too close for statistical comfort while Sanders destroys any candidate that the GOP can muster up. Why? Because milleneals will clearly show up for old man Sanders, not for Aunt Hillary.
Who Doesn't Love Aunt Hillary?
Aunt Hillary is the recently unleashed embracing of the age and disconnection of Hillary Clinton instead of pretending it doesn't exist. Even Barack Obama has started his surrogacy for Hillary by making humor of her age disconnect in the midst of his comedic monologue at his final White House Correspondence Dinner recently.
From the appearance of things, Aunt Hillary- wary of who caused her to get beat by Obama- is now trying to bake some cookies and put out some milk to entice milleneals to embrace her in a different way. Trump, the ever observant media watcher, is hoping to expose her for every hustle she tries, especially the woman card. As for old age pandering, Clinton, Sanders and Trump all must accept age as their shared shortcoming since each is in their late 70's. Bernie is the only old person with milleneal support, so in some ways, he might actually have a right to demand the nomination.
Our three real selections for our future president are each going to be in their 80's if they live to complete one or two highly stressful terms as president, much less survive until November given the grueling demand of campaigning to become a party nominee, and each are at the mercy of millineal consent. We've seen millineals move in many ways lately, so we know they can show up. If they choose to stay home as a political statement, it will be just as impactful as if they actually show up to make a different statement.
Love them or hate them, our lazy millineals are speaking with a resounding voice. Ignore them at your own demise.
Yes, Bernie has the right to fight all the way to the convention just like Ted Cruz, John Kasich or like Hillary, who refused to stop fighting her last time out until it was abundantly clear that nothing good would come from pressing on. What Bernie doesn't have the right to do is pretend that ALL money doesn't have needs, big or small.
Does Hillary have financial backers who hopes she wins so that they can gain certain favors? Well of course she does. Yet, the larger purpose for pressing on to the convention 8 years ago was to inspire hope for change in a nation with a glass ceiling that Hillary fractured during her last run at it.
Before it was all over, she had to press on just to show respect to her main super pack, the world's first minority- women- for taking them excruciatingly close to breaking that glass into bits. In hindsight, breaking the glass does little for cleaning the mess that comes from glass ceiling removal. In hindsight, the white woman president would have encountered a similar challenge to the one that the black man president encountered when shattering a different ceiling. For both, the challenge is in trying to make people accept and respect you in an environment that you admittedly just broke in to on purpose.
If Clinton were to survive until the end this time, she will be a pioneer just like her predecessor Obama, but so will the Jewish socialist, Bernie Sanders, or the straight off the street rebellion candidate, Donald Trump for that matter. All represent a path of inevitable change for a nation refusing to accept more of the same.
Once again, we are steering fairly clear of the only demographic that has represented the position prior to Obama's shake up of the White House family tree. White males are still thoroughly in the mix of things, but not one in a position of strength except the two guys that should have been third party entrants because few really expect either to win the general while fully dependant upon the two party system they are rejecting.
Pioneers are notorious for carving out a path laden with gold but difficult to break through. Sometimes they make it after a few tries, other times they pave the way for someone else to finally break through. Either way, they are always offering something new, something unavailable before their pioneering efforts began.
New things like immigration walls that you make Mexico pay for. Or $15 per hour wages and free college tuition, maybe even some help with current college debt. While many complain now about the Citizens United decision, somebody in congress voted to expand campaign finance limits for those who needed more access to influence, because the reality is, we all have needs. Big money and small money too.
That super pack of people showing up at rallies for certain candidates?
They believe in the men on stage for what each promised they could do for them, not because they promised that there was very little any president can do while congress remains unwilling to write and pass laws. What will make Donald's fence more likely to get approved in congress than all the other infrastructure work (including old water pipes like those in Flint) that congress refuses to deal with?
Bernie might think he is free and clear of the negative influence of a Political Action Committee, but those packs of people who support him don't want to hear that they felt the Bern way too late for it to matter now. They may not even want to know that the best he can do is alter the agenda of the party by staying around. They really don't want to hear they that he is staying because the party needs them all to stay in the game till the end instead of quitting the moment he does.
This is all pioneering stuff when you talk about the areas of our society he could impact before long. In reality, Bernie also has a duty to his people to feel their burn from this rigged system we've uncovered, and to stay around so that it might be exposed and disposed of someday, giving candidates like him, and efforts like theirs, hope.
Donald might be in this thing for the exact same reason if you're watching closely and wondering exactly who he is courting as a candidate. His constant willingness to accuse Hillary- the glass ceiling speer head- of playing the woman card; or comparing his long arduous walk around the back side of a convention center just to avoid ANOTHER group of Trump protestors, to walking across the border, means he doesn't understand the impact hispanics and women will have on EVERY election for the foreseeable future.
Or he does. (my theory)
Trump does finally gets this delegate thing, and realizes that it will be used against him no matter how many states he wins prior to the convention. He, and WE, are learning that it might have been created to stop people exactly like him. Whether Trump anticipated thousands upon thousands of people coming to campaign events (I doubt that he did), he is now the face for those people and the political pioneer for exposing our undemocratic politics. For Trump, he must press on to achieve this righteous cause and justify his followers, all while hopefully offending just enough people to not have to actually preside over this miserably disfunctional nation.
Bottom line, the support dictates the agenda or there is none. And whether you are beholden to a traditional campaign Super PAC or just a super pack of supporters, WE all need and expect our political candidates to make our selection of them worthwhile by making something better for us and ours.
Sorry Bernie, but that means even you have a super pack too.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Even with the downtrend in teen pregnancy, some babies happen because women like sex too. Women like sex, some of your friends and family voted for and still like Trump (and might do it again) and advertisers need to send you a coupon for that stuff you like, want or simply need based upon their strategic compilation of your social media life. As much as we'd like to blame the world for things we'd like to change, there is no way to change anything when you can't accept it for what it is.
