Sanders for President... because he's honest? ... no, because he's f'ing Liberal!

So, I heard the other day some of Sanders' supporters talking about why they're supporting him and it made me uneasy.  Why?  Because it sounded exactly like the Tea Party and the supporters of Trump.  Stuff like "he's being honest", "he's telling it how it is", "he means what he says"... and worse... "we must take back America" and "make America great again"... those last two being actual quotes I specifically remember... ugh... just ugh.

Seriously, who are we taking America back from this time?  Are we taking it back from blacks?  Wait, no, that's who the Tea Party are taking it back from.  We're taking America back from corporate America... thus proving that corporate America is black and Liberal, right?  Can we come up with our own catch phrases at least?  I mean, if for no other reason than to prevent us from using the catch phrases of the conservatives who are promoting nearly opposite ideals?  How about "we want to overthrow corporate tyranny?"

And "he's being honest" isn't a reason to vote for someone.  I get it, you're disillusioned and sick of the insincerity, but at least vote someone who claims to be on your side.  "Being honest" has nothing to do with what side you're on.  Trump might be being honest, but he's totally not on the side of the average American.  Hell, he's not on the side of 99% of Americans.  If someone came out and said, "I want to be President because it'll make me feel really amazing about myself," would you vote for them?  I mean, they're being honest, right?  ~sigh~  If you're voting for someone because they're honest, go home and go back to sleep because clearly you don't care about anything that's happening in the world.

I'm still in favor of Sanders though.  I'm just ashamed of some of his supporters.  But Sanders is speaking to my values and is in favor of many of the things I'm in favor of.  One of the most important elements of his plans is strengthening the graduation of our graduated income tax.  He wants to bring the top marginal tax bracket back up above 50%... which means that people making over $10M will get taxed more than 50% on the money they make above and beyond the first $10M... the first $10M will still get taxed lower than 50% just like the rest of us, so don't worry, they're not getting taxed back into the Stone Age or anything of that sort.

But let's talk about Clinton's concerns over whether he will be able to get any of what he wants through Congress.  She's right.  Oh, did you not expect me to agree with her?  Did you expect me to say that he'll get something passed?  Did you expect me to say Clinton's trying to mislead us with regards to the prospects of the political scene changing dramatically just because we elect an old white guy who believes more in Government than the other white guys running for that office (or indeed, more than the white women running for that office)?  No, he has no chance.  Let's be honest, his values are far too left leaning than the Republicans will ever go along with, but at least there might potentially be a debate about the role of Government and there might potentially be a discussion of why he wants things that are different from what the Conservatives want.

Clinton says that she knows how to get things done and that she'll push for smaller improvements but improvements that will actually happen.  First, let's call that for what it is: she's going to ask for middle-of-the-road and conservative bills, not the liberal ideals that Democrats are in favor of... she's just trying to suggest that she's going to go for the most Liberal options that the Conservatives will agree to... seriously?

Ok, and let's get even more honest about this: She won't be able to get anything accomplished either.  Do you remember what Republican leadership said when Obama was elected?  They said they needed to oppose everything he pushed for and ensure that he was a 1-term President. They were aggressive and were able to oppose much of what Obama pushed for and waged a pretty decent war against him that led to both the House and the Senate being in Republican control.  And all that just because Obama is black.  No, I'm not joking about this.  Obama was not spouting Liberalism all over the place, he was middle-of-the-road, just like Clinton, during the Democratic primary season.  Seriously, I remember feeling very disappointed about the outcome and thinking to myself "well, at least he won't be opposed just because he's Hillary Clinton."  And why was I thinking that?  Because Republicans have a vitriolic response to Hillary Clinton.  They hate her.  They hate everything about her.  And it's not really based on her principles either.  So they'll respond to her much the same way they responded to Obama, blocking everything they can even if they would agree with it coming from a Republican President.  And that means that she'll not only being fighting for middle-of-the-road and conservative proposals, but those proposals will be blocked because she backs them, not because of their substance.  At least with Sanders, the reason to fight against him is based in ideology and philosophy.  I can handle an argument over Government, I yearn for an argument over Government... but to bypass that argument and just have 4-8 years of "it's backed by Clinton, kill it" just as we've had 8 years of "it's backed by Obama, kill it"... ~sigh~ enough already.

So, I'm ashamed of many of his supporters, but let's still elect him, because he's the right choice.  Not because he's an old, white man (please don't be swayed by Clinton's "it's time to send a woman to the White House"... see my previous post about what's wrong with that one), but because of the ideals he represents and the fact that he will push for those ideals with all his force, and it's about time those ideals (big Government which is there to help people) are fought for with full weight and conviction by a President.  Let's send Sanders to the White House!

White guys with guns on public land versus blacks without guns on public streets

The free-Bundy protest going on in Oregon is very strange to me when I try to look at it from all sides and analyze the statements being made by various groups.

First of all, every time I hear the leader of this armed self-proclaimed "militia" say "we just want this to end peacefully" I think to myself 2 questions:

1. Then why did you bring guns?
2. Then just leave?

It just seems so inaccurate and insincere.  But I have to realize that this group of people actually thinks the big bad government is going to come and shoot them in the dark of night when nobody is looking.  As ridiculous as that sounds to me, as hard to believe, they believe it and therefore they feel they need to arm themselves, even though the simple act of arming one's self for protection raises the stakes, raises tensions, and increases the chance of an armed stand off.  

There's a reason that peaceful protests, historically, tend to be sans-weapons.  It helps bring people to your cause if you're not being aggressive and instead being passively and politely steadfast.  Bringing a weapon intrinsically adds to your aggressive-level, regardless of how many times you insist the weapons are not meant to be aggressive but instead be defensive.

And then there's the left-wing response: an attempt to compare this protest to other peaceful protests that have happened recently.  Most of the protests have been peaceful, some arrests but no major injuries.  But when it's mostly blacks protesting in their own neighborhoods, they have often been called riots by the media and major politicians.  Sure, there have also been riots, but those have been significantly fewer and smaller than the peaceful marches and gatherings in these communities.  The left then pointed out that in Texas, when several biker gangs had a shootout amongst themselves and with law enforcement, the media called it a brawl... not a riot, a brawl.  People on the left raised the point of the disparity in descriptions and pointed to it as part of the implicit bias/racism we have in the media.  And now, while there has been no violence, people on the left have raised their voices with the belief that the media would have called the "militia groups" something else if they weren't white, maybe mobs, anarchists, armed militants.  Maybe the "occupation" would be called a riot by the media.  Maybe the result of a week-long protest would have been armed confrontation by local, state, and federal law enforcement rather than state and federal law enforcement being nowhere to be seen or heard and the local government officials requesting that the groups leave.  

There has been the explanation that law enforcement considers this protest to be more a kin to scenarios like Wako where armed engagement led to outcomes that reflected negatively on law enforcement in the past, with casualties and such.  This, to me, is an explanation that rings very true.  Of course law enforcement wants to be careful due to these memories of armed conflicts.  Of course they feel the stigma.  That is a reasonable explanation for why they are giving these armed white militants a wide berth.  But that doesn't mean this response isn't intrinsically racist, just because it's rational.  Here's the problem with saying it's reasonable to react differently to the scenario given the past:

1. It indicates that the public's reaction when law enforcement locks down a city, or sections of a city, with riot-gear-armed officers and shooting rock/brick-armed civilians, that the public's reaction to this is not sufficient to be nearly the same as the public's reaction to law enforcement having a confrontation with gun-armed civilians.  Yes, the latter tends to involve deaths, but this is the natural reaction of increased weaponry being brought to the table on the civilians' side since it intensifies the conflict.  Not, I mention the increased weaponry brought by civilians, that's because the weaponry being brought by law enforcement in both scenarios is of a similar level at this point.
2. It indicates that being armed and white is appropriate when protesting while it's been proven by law enforcement's responses (and the public's as well) that being armed and black is completely inappropriate, to the point of allowing a defense of immediate and summary execution of the armed civilians.

The dichotomy is disturbing to me, to say the least.  

I feel for the ranchers who are worried that the big bad government is going to restrict their land usage even further, thus they feel their livelihoods are endangered, but the protest is about people being imprisoned for arson... I'd love to hear someone explain why setting a fire that one did not sufficiently contain to avoid a fire on public lands is reasonable and why people who commit a crime under the law should not be held accountable based on the law and existing mandatory minimums.  I haven't heard them call for an end to mandatory minimums, which are the reason that two ranchers have been sent back to prison (the original sentences were less than the mandatory minimum requirements for the crime committed).

So, when my gut tells me that these people are ridiculous and that law enforcement continues to show racial bias, I think I've provided rational explanation of how my gut, at least in this instance is correct... which is a relief to me, as I do not want to shoot from the hip on these matters (always like to throw in a gun metaphor when appropriate).