Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

70 Views

Within the past week, a new war has flared up. No, not in a foreign country against an evil dictator, but in this country against…billionaires.

Although the Left has always had misgivings about the rich (except, of course, towards those who donate heavily to Leftist causes), with the advent of Bernie Sanders and our favorite Socialist Socialite, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, they’re getting more free with their disdain for people who make lots of money. They’re even trying to spin it into a moral argument, stating it’s an immoral system that allows people to make billions of dollars without sharing because sharing is caring, y’all.

This seems like as good a time as any to delve into the Leftist Lexicon and figure out what we can about billionaires.

billionaire

What the Left thinks it means – someone who makes money and hoards it so others can’t have it, greedy people who exploit workers to make money

What it really means – someone who makes more money than the Left thinks he or she should

That’s right, kids. The Left’s entire argument against the wealthy is based on perception, and more than a little economic illiteracy, which we’ll get into later. The problem with basing an argument on perception is that it may not be reality. (I know this runs counter to customer service training, but hear me out.) Without understanding context or seeking out the facts behind a situation, our perceptions are skewed, and far too often we let out preconceived notions fill in the blanks as a short cut.

Take the Trayvon Martin shooting, for example. There are more than a few stories out there about what happened, and most if not all of them are based on perception. Only two people know for sure what happened, and one is dead and the other is a lying scumbag. Everyone else’s hot takes, including mine, are speculation at best. And when there’s speculation, there is bound to be error.

When it comes to billionaires, the Left has a glaring error in that they assume the only way the wealthy get wealthy is through dishonest means or government loopholes. In fact, an argument I’ve seen more than once lately with regards to billionaires in general is “they didn’t earn all that money.” Again, this is speculation. In some cases, the wealth comes from hard work paying off. In other cases, money getting reinvested and creating more wealth (and, surprise surprise, jobs). In still other cases, people are born into wealth and stay there unless they make incredibly bad decision.

Like, say, voting for Leftists.

In any case, at some point down the line, someone worked for that money the Left covets so much. Now, if the billionaire in question made money through fraud or questionable means (like, say, oh I don’t know…Uncle George Soros?), then the Left has a point. But to paint all billionaires as thieves and grifters isn’t right. Of course, if you Leftists have proof of such, I’m willing to hear it, but I get the feeling your charges are more wind than anything.

The reason the Left is so quick to attack billionaires relies on an economic fallacy called zero-sum. Basically, zero-sum alleges there is a finite amount of money in an economy, so whenever someone has more of it, it’s at the expense of someone else. Let’s use the ever-ubiquitous example of pie. In a zero-sum mindset, there is one pie and only one pie, so whomever has the largest piece is stealing from those who don’t have any pie yet. The problem with this is an economy is not a single pie. It is a number of pies in all different sizes and flavors. All you have to do is look for the table they’re on, say “Hey, there are some more pies over here,” and chow down to your heart’s content. And because of capitalism, as long as there is a demand for pie and the ability to make it, there will be pie.

But the prospect of a potentially infinite number of pies doesn’t stoke enough class envy to suit the Left, so they pretend zero-sum is the only way to go. Ah, I think we’ve hit upon the real reason the Left hates the wealthy: they can’t keep up with the Joneses. Leftist economic theory sounds good to the ear and looks good on paper where you can manipulate the outcomes, but in practice it creates an environment where success is frowned upon and making everyone equally miserable seems to be Utopia. Sounds like paradise, amiright? Where do I sign up?

Actually, I don’t want to sign up because Leftist economics is a bad solution in search of enough suckers to believe it’s a good solution to what amounts to a non-problem. Bill Gates makes more than I do? Good for him! I don’t agree with him politically, but I will never begrudge his success and wealth as a result of it. His operating system, on the other hand…let’s just say Sybil is more stable than the Windows OS, but that’s neither here nor there. We have three choices when it comes to wealthy people: be jealous of them, be inspired by them, or ignore them and choose our own path. The Left thinks option 1 is the only option because they need victims to sustain their ideology. If you choose door number 2 or number 3, you can’t be a victim, so you’re of no use to them.

As far as the morality of being a billionaire is concerned, the only morality in play is how that person made his or her fortune. Ill-gotten gains are certainly nothing to be celebrated, nor are gains made from dumb luck or a lack of talent. Wealth earned through sweat and innovation, on the other hand, should be celebrated, not demonized. That’s one reason I admire Elon Musk. He’s making money the old fashioned way: by looking into our future. (Wait…but that’s…nevermind.)

So, if you’re a Leftist billionaire, be careful who you root for because the next one they attack may be you.

Forget Where’s Mitch? Where Are the Senate Democrats?

67 Views

Recently a friend of mine asked me where the Democrat Senators interested in running for President in 2020 were during the current government shutdown. When you think about it, that is a really good question. There are a number of prominent Democrats in the Senate right now who are looking to get promoted from Kamala Harris to Bernie Sanders, and a whole slew of others wanting to crowd into the Democrat nominee clown car. Yet, where are they when leadership is needed?

A good question deserves a good answer, and I think I have one. The Democrat Senators interested in running for President have one thing in common: they’re used to demanding what they want done instead of persuading people to follow them. This isn’t unusual, as this is the Leftists’ MO for anything they want to accomplish. By virtue of being Leftists, they think what they say goes because they’re the smartest people in the room (just ask them). The problem is their egos write checks their intellects can’t cash because more often than not their intellects aren’t up to snuff.

Not that being smart is a requirement to be in politics. If anything, it’s a resume enhancer if you’re dumber than a bag of hammers because it means you can be lead more easily. However, there is a difference between dictating and leading, one that many figures in the public and private sector fail to recognize. Power is more than a title, the size of your office, and a name placard. It can be constructive or destructive, depending on how it’s used, and right now the Left is using it destructively to further an agenda that does more harm than good to the country.

This is where a Senate Democrat looking to beat Donald Trump in 2020 can make a difference. Instead of telling people what you want and expecting them to comply, make the argument that your way is better, especially with the shutdown. Ideologically, I know you don’t want to give Trump a W, but to be a leader you have to think beyond the current day. Being instrumental in getting the government back up and running would be a boon for any Presidential candidate at this point.

Unfortunately for Democrats, none of the Senators are stepping up and leading. They’re too busy Tweeting about what should be done to actually do something.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

56 Views

If you’ve been watching the Left lately, you’ve probably noticed they’ve been trying to make socialism sexy again. If you haven’t, consider yourselves lucky because…well, they’re trying to make socialism sexy again. What started with the Bern Outs in 2016 has been reborn in 2018 thanks to new Leftist “it girl” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez beating out a Democrat stalwart in a House race in New York. Granted, both Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are couching their pro-socialism talk by supporting what they call “democratic socialism”, but it’s still socialism.

As a result, Leftists are putting a new coat of paint on an old ideology in the hopes of attracting new people to their cause. In the meantime, let’s traipse into the world of socialism.

socialism

What the Left thinks it means – a social system where everyone pitches in to help each other

What it really means – a socioeconomic system where everyone is encouraged to be mediocre

One of the Left’s primary talking points when talking about socialism is to try to separate the social element of it from the economic element. For that, they bring up communism as the economic side of socialism, which is of course complete bunk. Socialism and communism are ideological cousins of the kissing variety, if you know what I mean. They really can’t be separated effectively because they have the same basic tenets: government control of all aspects of an economy and its societal counterpart. There are slight differences, I grant you, but those difference revolve around how much force is used to attain the equality they both claim to want to achieve. Socialists tend to rely on a call to community unity, while communists rely on a call to arms. Put another way, socialism is communism on pot, and communism is socialism on PCP.

Even so, socialism is attractive to people because it seems so friendly. Bernie Sanders wasn’t on the stump telling people to tear down the ruling class. He looked too much like your grandpa or crazy uncle you occasionally see at family reunions. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t look like a female Che Guevara; she looks like someone you might have gone to school with or saw in a coffee shop. Even some of our best-known celebrities say socialism is okay, and we can trust celebrities, right?

That’s one of the great historical ironies about socialism. It’s an idea that curries favor with the wealthy, but it’s rarely acted upon by those same people. Socialism is easy if you never intend to be held to its standards, but for those who went along with it and weren’t rich enough to live behind the gilded gates of private communities, it sucks.

And that’s a dirty little secret behind socialism: there is a class structure within it that negates what it stands for. The former Soviet Union is a prime example of this. (And before any Leftists say the Soviets weren’t real socialists, see my earlier comparison of communism and socialism.) Although the average Russian communist was living hand to mouth, government officials had far more luxuries (and, oddly enough, freedoms) than their proletariat brethren. Socialism runs on the same principles as communism and the results are the same. There will always be the haves and have-nots, thus making socialism as realistic as James Comey’s excuses for why he didn’t prosecute Hillary Clinton.

Leftists pushing socialism like to point at Europe and some of our own government programs as proof socialism isn’t scary. Why, we could just look to the Swedish model of socialism and use that (at least according to Bern Outs). The problem? Sweden isn’t really socialist. They are capitalist economically and statist socially, meaning…they’re ultimately capitalist because they have to be. Money doesn’t come out of thin air, and in Sweden it comes from…wait for it…high taxes. The minute the haves decide to move away to a country that doesn’t tax them for being rich, there is no backup plan and their socialism-lite goes the way of Crystal Pepsi and New Coke. For socialism to truly exist, there has to be an income source that can be drawn upon. In other words, socialism doesn’t work unless there is wealth to be distributed.

Then again, socialism doesn’t work, period. But we’ll get to that later.

But what about our government programs, like Medicare and Medicaid? Surely they are examples of socialism working, right? Annnnnnnd no. These programs aren’t actually socialist either because they take mainly from the working class instead of the rich and give to the non-working class and poor. In short, if you put in any significant amount of time at a job, you’re a have. Doesn’t matter if you make the poor on Skid Row look like Bill Gates. You are a source of income to socialists because you have what others don’t.

Really makes you wonder why anyone would back socialism, doesn’t it?

And here’s the kicker. There can never be true socialism because humans aren’t uniform and many have  a desire to excel. Granted, some people want to be good at Xbox, but it’s still a desire that cannot be taken away. When you have that, you will always have people who are better than average and others who are worse than average. Try building a society based around equality when you can’t even find two people who are equal across the board and share the same interests at the same level. You’ll have better luck finding a Kardashian with actual marketable skills.

The way socialism deals with the problem is to treat everyone as though they were exactly the same. It works great if you suck at your job because you get paid as much as the ones who are doing just enough to get by. On the other hand, it sucks if you’re great at your job because you have no incentive to do more than you have to since you’re getting paid the same. That tends to make everyone mediocre at best. It also tends to stop innovation because you aren’t rewarded for it. Capitalism isn’t perfect, but you’re more likely to get rewarded for hard work and being good at a job than you are under socialism.

So, why is socialism so popular today? That’s a good question. I think it’s due to a combination of factors from a lack of historical and economic knowledge to trying to protect kids from experiencing failure by celebrating even minimal effort to making the marginally passable into the excellence of today. (I’m looking at you, Starbucks. Five bucks for coffee made from beans more burnt than my skin after falling asleep on the sun?) At the core of it all, however, is the elevation of laziness as a virtue and the downgrading of excellence to a vice.

No matter whether it’s someone who looks like your grandpa or your college roommate telling you socialism is the wave of the future, remember we’ve tried socialism before in America. It’s called the Mayflower Compact, and it didn’t work out so well for the Pilgrims. And if it didn’t work when there were far fewer people in the country, there’s no way it works with today’s America.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

80 Views

Our favorite socialist, Bernie Sanders, is back in the news. Recently, he held a town hall meeting in California where he called for employees of a major global company to get paid more. That company? Disney. The location of the town hall? Disneyland.

For one day, Disneyland went from the happiest place on Earth to the most economically illiterate place on Earth.

Sanders and his followers (whom I call Bern Outs) advocate raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour and have a catchy little hashtag to go along with it, #FightFor15. And judging from the number of times it’s been trending on Twitter, it seems to be a popular idea.

Which is exactly why I relish the opportunity to mock it.

#FightFor15

What the Left thinks it means – a movement to raise workers’ wages by increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour

What it really means – more proof Leftists don’t know the first thing about economics

Throughout my working years, I have been paid less than, more than, and exactly minimum wage with each doing everything from mowing lawns to telling mortgage customers “no” when they wanted late fees waived because, and I quote, “we were only late several times.” And people wonder why I have gray hair…

My pay at each of these positions depended on a series of factors, not the least of which being work experience. I didn’t demand top dollar for my work because I didn’t have the body of work to back it up and I worked hard to build up my value to the employer. That way I knew I earned every cent.

Thanks to Sanders and the Bern Outs, people think they should be guaranteed a starting wage higher than the hourly wage many lower-level professionals make who have started building up their skills. And they don’t see a problem with this because they feel the working class doesn’t make enough to live in modern America, so they think raising the minimum wage will help.

Yeah…I’m gonna have to disagree with that because…how can I put this…it’s bullshit.

Although #FightFor15 is a nice idea on paper (or Twitter for that matter), it runs aground fairly quickly when you consider the impact it would have on labor costs. If Joe High School Dropout gets $15 an hour for running the fry machine on the night shift at the local Uncle Slappy’s It Kinda Looks Like Hamburger Emporium, that creates a business expense for Uncle Slappy, no matter how good or poor of a job he does. Throw in perks like health and dental insurance and before you know it, Joe’s doing all right for himself…until Uncle Slappy looks at his ledger sheet.

See, Uncle Slappy would not be the only employer having to pay increased labor costs due to the Fight for 15 crowd. Everything from the cost of what the Slapster swears is hamburger to buns to condiments will go up for the same reason. That creates a dilemma: raise prices or cut costs. At some point, raising prices destroys the consumer’s incentive to buy a product or service, which leaves cutting costs as the only option.

Guess what, Joe? You could find yourself on the unemployment line, and you know how much that pays? Zero.

Then, Joe will find himself in the same boat as other high-cost, low-skilled labor: competing for whatever work is available where only the most promising of employees will get a callback.

Even if Uncle Slappy is as liberal with his employee retention as he is with his “Buy One, Get a Stomach Pump Free” campaign, without cutting costs his Burger Emporium will close its doors, thus leaving Joe back in the same position he was in the other scenario. And, surprise surprise, make exactly the same pay as if he had been fired: zero!

Leftists will probably say I’m wrong about that, but there is a city that recently passed a law making a $15 per hour minimum wage a reality. And within a few months, their unemployment shot up, and companies started closing their doors because they couldn’t make ends meet. That city, by the way, is…Seattle, Washington.

Yep, a bastion of Leftist ideology got exactly what it wanted and saw it fail more spectacularly than Michelle Wolf’s jokes at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. And they still want to make $15 per hour the minimum wage.

Say what you will about the Bern Outs, but they’re committed. Or should be.

In the meantime, don’t be swayed by the arguments in favor of #FightFor15. If you want to make more than minimum wage, work harder, learn more, show up, and be responsible. It’s all about hustle. If you show it, eventually someone will take notice…and most likely give you more work. But at least you’ll be earning your paycheck, which is more rewarding in the long run than being given a wage you haven’t earned for work you can’t do because Bernie Sanders and the Bern Outs think you should.

Remember, Sanders has spent a great deal of his adult life making his money off taxpayers. Let’s just say I put more faith in my dog’s fiscal acumen than I do Bernie, and my dog licks himself on a regular basis.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

54 Views

It’s Hollywood’s favorite season of the year: award season. During this time of year, stars get dressed up in the hopes of picking up awards for the previous year’s efforts and getting a platform to speak their minds on topics unrelated to their work. And this year’s Oscars will be no different.

What was once a somewhat enjoyable waste of a couple of hours has become a painful several hours where people who pretend to be other people for millions of dollars get to tell people what and how to think. Like college, but without beer.

Let’s take a look at the Oscars, shall we?

The Academy Awards/Oscars

What the Left believes it means – an awards show where actors are rewarded for their efforts and show how much they care about different issues

What it really means – a waste of several hours that could be done in a few minutes

Really, folks. Do we need several hours of famous people wearing expensive clothes talking about subjects they don’t know a fig about but care deeply about all the same? Let’s remember the bulk of these people said a corrupt Hillary Clinton or an old Bernie Sanders were viable alternatives to Donald Trump. And we’re going to take their advice on how to battle global climate change, income inequality, and Donald Trump? I wouldn’t trust them to tell me the benefits of breathing let alone how to feel about any issue.

And really, the movies being honored are secondary to the pageantry on display. And by pageantry, I mean expressions of sheer avarice. Even the losers take home a goodie bag worth at least as much as my house. And after the awards ceremony, there are the after-parties where wealth, celebrity, and alcohol flow more freely than they did at Chelsea Clinton’s wedding. And that’s just Hillary.

I am a film buff, so I appreciate good storytelling, photography, and acting. And I know there are some very talented actors plying their trades on films that deserve recognition. What I’m saying is we could show appreciation and save time and money in the process. I’m a solutions-oriented guy, and here’s a little something I came up with to make the Oscars more enjoyable.

1) Make the Oscars, coverage and all, two hours long, tops. With all of the production numbers, speeches, and such, the show is longer than a Ken Burns documentary, only less boring. I can do the same ceremony in less time than it takes to watch most movies being nominated, and it starts with better time management. Give the Oscars two hours, and call it a night.

2) No politics, ever. Let’s face it. Actors know as much about the world as their publicists let them know. Having them lecture me about politics instead of thanking people who helped them along the way tells me two things. One, they’re not worthy of listening to because they’re usually uninformed. Two, they’re thankless bastards, and who wants to listen to people like that? Cut out the politics, and just say thank you.

3) Limit the speeches and introductions to 2 minutes. Again, time management comes in handy. When you know you have a time limit, you learn the economy of words. Plus, it cuts down on the awkward banter between presenters introducing the next category. Seriously, are we to believe the duo of Pauly Shore and Helen Murren has anything in common aside from being carbon based lifeforms? Of course, the question of how this would be enforced is brought up. Easy. Shock collars.

4) Move the location of the Oscars from Hollywood to the Midwest. It’s easy to have lavish parties and extravagant awards shows in Hollywood. But try having one in Middle America. Hollywood stars typically don’t even know places like Duluth, MN, Des Moines, IA, or Branson, MO, exist, but why not give them a chance to experience it firsthand? And considering these places are far away from where celebrities are treated like gods, the stars would either not bother showing up or spending as little time in town as possible. In other words, it’s a win-win.

5) Give awards to movies people have actually seen. I can count on one hand the number of Best Picture nominated movies I’ve seen in the theater. Why? Because the movies that typically get nominated don’t interest me usually. To some, this would make me a philistine or an uncouth barbarian. To me, it makes me a bit more discerning in my movie choices. If you make a movie about man’s inhumanity to man against the backdrop of a Kansas town dealing with transgender issues and a love triangle with a British man, a Southern girl, and a transgendered teacher who is dying of cancer, and you can make it interesting to me, I’ll go. If you expect me to go to said movie just because of the subject matter, I’ll pass and watch something more my speed. That’s the reason the new “Ghostbusters” movie sucked. Instead of giving the audience an interesting story, the movie gave us “because they’re all girls now” as a reason to watch it. Make the nominated movies interesting or better known, and we might be willing to watch the Oscars more regularly.

6) More cage fighting.

Well, looks like I’ll be avoiding the Oscars again this year. Hollywood, you know my number. Have your people call my people and we can do lunch.

And On the Other Side…

61 Views

The Democratic National Convention is over, and I can officially say they surpassed the Republican National Convention…in the amount of clusterfuckery on display. Between the Wikileaks DNC email scandal breaking just as the convention was about to start, the silencing of Bernie Sanders supporters, and the fake, forced unity shoved down our throats, the DNC made the RNC look like a house cleaned by people with OCD.

Looking at both conventions, I saw a lot of unforced errors (which doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence in either major party candidate). Having said that, the unforced errors at the DNC were more along the lines of having time to fix them, but deciding not to. It’s not like Wikileaks waited until the last day of the convention to spring the email scandal on the world. The DNC knew about it, and still managed to screw up.

Case in point, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Once the email scandal struck, she stepped down as DNC Chair…and was granted an honorary position with the Hillary Clinton campaign. The fact it’s honorary doesn’t change the fact a scandal-ridden politician gave a spot to another scandal-ridden politician who just happens to have been exposed as greasing the wheels for the first scandal-ridden politician.

That’s a lot of scandal being ridden there, kids.

Oh, but it gets better! The DNC decided to replace Wasserman Schultz in the short term with Martha Fudge…who was also exposed in the Wikileaks release. Then, Donna Brazille was called in to head up the DNC until January 2017. Having watched Ms. Brazille on television for a number of years, that’s like replacing a rusted out Yugo with a rusted out Pinto with really touchy bumpers. In either case, it’s not going to end well.

From there, the convention turned the clusterfuckery to 11 (because it’s one higher) and did as much as they could to pretend everything was fine. But once you get past the false front the Democrats tried to put up, you see a lot of problems. I’m not a Bernie Sanders fan by any stretch of the imagination, but the way the DNC treated these potential voters was nothing short of authoritarian. Not only were Sanders delegates harassed and forced to hold their tongues in opposition to Hillary Clinton, they watched their candidate being hamstrung by the DNC during the nomination process and utterly humiliated by speaker after speaker. The whole “Don’t Boo, Vote” phrase? Utter backhand to the Sanders supporters. Having vocal Sanders supporter Sarah Silverman lambasting the Sanders supporters by saying, “You’re being ridiculous”? Another backhand.

But the ultimate knife twist? Having Sanders be the one to move that Hillary be the Democrat nominee. It was a stunning visual, but given what happened prior to that, it was a punch in the gut to see him be humiliated like that. I can’t say whether he was forced, coerced, bribed, or did it of his own free will, but given what Wikileaks released, it would be hard for me to believe it was anything but a means to embarrass Sanders for daring to be a possible Presidential option.

And remember, folks, the Democrats are the ones who believe in diversity, as long as it’s the diversity they want.

And, it only gets worse from here. Attempts to humanize Hillary Clinton were unconvincing because, well, they were trying to humanize Hillary. Bill Clinton’s speech, in particular, was a long trip down memory lane, and it focused a lot on what (but not so much who) Bill did in his political career. Then, there was Barack Obama’s speech. The speech had more “I” references than a narcissistic needle maker.

Then…there was Hillary’s speech. Put simply, she let Donald Trump dominate her speech. Although she did try to put out a more optimistic view, it was obvious Trump bought up property in her head and built a luxury hotel.

But even that wasn’t the worst part.

The key to the sheer ineptitude of the DNC lies with their attempts to appear patriotic. First, there was a distinct lack of flags on the DNC stage. Although some hearty conventioneers broke out Old Glory (which, I;m sure, was completely spontaneous), the lack of flags didn’t go unnoticed. Also, thanks to some members of Twitter, it came out the DNC handed out sheets with chants to drown out Sanders supporters still in attendance.

But the cherry on top of the shitstorm sundae was the fact the DNC needed to put the Pledge of Allegiance…on a TelePrompter.

Congratulations, Democrats. You’ve managed to make the RNC look good.

A Unified Front

64 Views

This week, Democrats have a chance to show the world how well they could avoid looking like the Republicans did at their national convention last week. And going on 3 days later, they accomplished the exact opposite. As much of a clusterfuck the RNC was, the DNC managed to surpass them.

And it starts with unity.

Going into the DNC this week, it was assumed they would try to portray the Democrats as a unified party. And until the doors opened on Monday, it worked. Once the Democrats tried to do something, though, the unity went out the window, thus ruining the chances of actual unity.

Of course, the DNC being exposed as a bunch of Hillary panty-sniffers by Wikileaks didn’t help matters any. I don’t often agree with Bernie Sanders, but I agree with the fact he got a raw deal from the people who allegedly lead the Democrat Party. And they would have gotten away with it if it hadn’t been for that pesky Wikileaks!

Actually, a Scooby Doo villain of the week would have been a lot smarter than the DNC. In the current era of computer usage, nothing is ever completely private. But the Democrats apparently used the same IT people Hillary did because their emails were just as vulnerable and just as damning.

And remember, kids, the Democrats say they’re the smart ones.

But let’s go back to Bernie Sanders for a moment. Like him or not, he represented a lot of people, people who were delegates at the DNC and deserved to be heard. What happened? The DNC did everything they could to silence the Sanders supporters. To the Hillary supporters, the Sanders supporters were subhuman and should just fall in behind Hillary like good little drones in spite of being told their opinions didn’t matter.

And these folks think Donald Trump’s followers are cult-like?

The Democrats’ allies in the media are doing everything they can to try to shape the narrative that the DNC is the epicenter of unity. But it’s all a front to hide the fact the DNC isn’t unified by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. There are clear divisions that won’t be healed by forcing Sanders supporters to heel to a fundamentally flawed candidate who changes positions on topics like Cher changes costumes during concerts, or like Cher changes body parts.

And that discord is reflected outside of the DNC. The cameras may not be on the protesters, but they’re there, and they’re not happy.

The GOOPS

68 Views

The Republican National Convention in Cleveland is over, and people are still talking about it, but not in a good way. From the coverage and commentary throughout the week, the Republican Party has made an already seemingly bad situation into a metaphysical certainty of bad decisions that make Kanye West look like Ben Franklin.

Okay, I’m kidding. It really wasn’t that bad. I mean, the Democrats have their chance to match the pure suckitude of the RNC soon when they will have to push a Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine candidate down the throats of the delegates, all while pandering to Black Lives Matter and the Bernie Sanders supporters. Oh, and field questions stemming from Wikileaks finding out the DNC actively tried to undercut Sanders’ campaign. And as Bill Clinton can tell you, Democrats suck best.

That’s not to say the RNC is out of the woods. Donald Trump’s campaign or the Republican National Committee or both made a number of high-profile mistakes that could come back to bite them. Ranging from Melania Trump’s alleged plagiarism from a 2008 Michelle Obama speech to the prime time Ted Cruz speech where he failed to publicly endorse Trump (depending on who you talk to in the Trump campaign) to Donald Trump’s acceptance speech that was darker than George Hamilton at the heart of a black hole while listening to a Sylvia Plath book on CD read by Crispin Glover, it was not the best way to put the GOP’s best foot forward.

At this point, it’s too late to hit the reset button and start the 2016 RNC over because, unfortunately, it’s not like an old school Nintendo. What can be done going forward, however, may erase the memories of how bad the visuals were. Here is a short list of suggestions I have.

1) Do some serious vetting of the campaign staff from top to bottom. Believe me, the Democrats have already started, so the GOP needs to find a way to respond to the worst of what the Dems have planned. Saying “you’re a loser” isn’t going to work.

2) Start figuring out how to strike Hillary where it hurts. Although the email scandal and Benghazi are red meat to voters like me, most people don’t care. What they do care about is easy-to-understand soundbites. Oh, and celebrities.

3) Figure out a way to bring back people turned off by the candidate. Hillary Clinton is beatable, but it’s not good to take a victory in November for granted. Like it or not, Trump has been shedding conservative voters like Julius Caesar shed blood on the steps of the Roman Senate. But it’s not too late to find a way to put Band Aids on the wounds, and the first step is to call a truce and stick to it.

Oh, and to any Democrats reading this, this should also be a concern for you. My best advice for helping Hillary in 2016 is simple: stop being Hillary.

4) Play up Trump’s “fuzzy side.” It’s hard to characterize a man as the second coming of Adolf Hitler (believe me, this is actually a thing right now) if the visuals coming from the campaign counteract it. Visual stimulation in today’s society is hard to overcome, and Trump’s campaign need him to start kissing babies and shaking hands. And you don’t want to get those mixed up, kids.

5) Ignore the fringe players on the Left. Trump’s Twitter war with Elizabeth Warren is entertaining to watch, but it’s counterproductive. Warren isn’t going to stop being the turd in the punch bowl. After so many times of seeing her pop up, maybe it’s time to stop entertaining her online rants and move on to other topics.

The other option would be to hire someone to respond to her with more scathing retorts than “Pocahontas” or “Loser Warren.” As someone with a track record of making scathing retorts, I’d be willing to do it. Call me, maybe?

I’m sure there are more, but these should be good for now.

Betrayed

52 Views

Yesterday afternoon millions of voters were betrayed. Bernie Sanders, the advocate for Democratic Socialism, showed his true colors. He endorsed Hillary Clinton for President, unifying the Democratic Party.

Bernie Sanders was never for the average man. He was never for removing corporate control of political parties and candidates. If he was truly for these things he would have never endorsed Clinton. She stands at the apex of everything Bernie Sanders claimed he was against.

No Bernie Sanders is a true loyal rank and file Democrat. And when the party bosses told him to end his campaign and support Hillary Clinton. That is exactly what he did. And at that moment millions of young and old minds alike were shattered. The illusion of Social Democracy came crashing down snuffing out the Bern and leaving nothing but cold ashes.

Now there are millions of voters who liked what Bernie Sanders was saying. And there was some truth to his message. Politics as usual is not what “We the People” want any more. That is why non-traditional candidates have gained such a following in recent years. Even on the other side of the Atlantic, we saw it in the Brexit vote.

For the Sanders supporters who were betrayed yesterday. There are aspects of his message with Donald Trump. Not sugar coated in the lies of Socialism. But honest changes to bring our government back to the people where it belongs.

Hillary Clinton is not the answer. We all know where a Clinton White House leads and she is not her husband. She caters to special interests attempting to please everyone all of the time. And she thinks you are not smart enough to know that cannot be done. She is bought and payed for by Wall Street and international interests. She has violated so many laws. Voting for her would be a betrayal of the worst kind.

Come on over to Donald Trump. He’s rough on the edges like a thorny rose bush. But without the thorns we wouldn’t have the roses. You wont get everything that Bernie Sanders was preaching. Donald Trump isn’t supporting the Socialist message. But he is supporting a better future for America. And he does want politics to return to the hands of “We the people.”

We the People, in Cleveland

60 Views

Both major parties will have their conventions this month and formally name their party’s nominees. For the Democrats, this will most likely be Hillary Clinton. And for the Republicans, the presumptive nominee is Donald Trump.

On the Democratic side, Clinton’s only rival, Bernie Sanders has not yet endorsed her. And his followers are young, strong, and dislike Clinton. Bernie could drop the “D” and run as an independent candidate. Voting for or even endorsing Hillary Clinton will only prove that Bernie’s “revolution” was a lie to sway voters.

With the Republican side, there is the faction that wants to destroy itself and the party by denying Donald Trump his well earned nomination. These #neverTrump’ers as they call themselves want the GOP to fail. All so they can save face and say “I told you so.” They are really out for themselves and not the party, the people of the United States, or the voters.

Keep in mind that we have a republic. It’s not just our Congressmen and Senators that are to represent our interests as “we the people.” No, our delegates are also are duly elected representatives at the party level. They too are to represent the people who elected them. And the people of the Republican Party of the United States have clearly stated that they want Donald Trump to be the GOP nominee for President.

This notion of “freeing” the delegates is just as unethical as your congressman going to Washington and voting against everything you believe in. This would be a terrible mistake to allow the delegates to become unbound at the convention. Just ask King George III about how “we the people” felt about not being properly represented.