Republicans, Racism, and President Trump

If you've missed it, Republicans in the House and Senate have been outraged by President Trump's lack of racism denouncing.  Their interest in distancing themselves from leaders of racist groups is nothing new.  David Duke, former head of the KKK, has been disavowed by various Republican candidates over the years.  Conventional wisdom says that you can't get general support if you're supported by hate groups.

The Republican establishment certainly believes this.  After the defeat in 2012, they had an analysis of the election performed.  The lesson learned was that they should seek the votes of minorities because the white majority was dwindling and the party could not continue to expect to win if it maintained its thorough reliance on white men.  This, of course, comes after the highly racial backlash against Obama's victory in 2008.  The backlash saw racist dog whistle remarks from many of the leaders in Congress as well as blatant racist remarks from the citizens attending rallies against Obama.  There was a strong push to delegitimize Obama's win by suggesting he wasn't a US born citizen... one that Trump would join and come to the forefront of in the years after 2008.

2016 rolled along and the Republicans actually managed to run some candidates for President that were not white men... There were quite a few candidates (17), but among the top 10 were 1 white woman, 1 black man, 1 indian-american man, and 1 man of Cuban descent.  That's right, almost 1/4 of the Republican Presidential ticket were non-white-men.  That's impressive given the breakdown in Congress which shows that while Democrats having a little over 80% as many seats in the two chambers of the Federal legislative branch, they have 3 times the number of women (78:26) and nearly 6 times the number of minorities (94:16).  In fact, the Democrats have just about the same ratio of minorities to whites in office at the Federal level as the country has in its population.  That indicates that the Republicans have a long way to go to bring their office-holders looking like the citizens they are there to represent.

So, the Republicans ran 13 angry white men, 1 angry white woman, and 3 angry minority men in 2016.  That's a lot of anger in one room... too much, in fact, so they had debates of <= 10 candidates instead.  As you might expect, the woman in the group was the first to be taken down by the candidate that would, throughout the campaign, disparage and demean women.  Good news for Trump: white nationalists tend to also be misogamists, so the base of his support is well in hand.  Trump continued to name-call and demean his opponents and serving up red meat for his fearful followers in the form of suggesting that land-based immigration from Mexico, Chinese trade, NAFTA, Obama-care, and Islamic Extremist terrorism were the biggest threats to the US and only he knew how to resolve them.  Care to count the racist elements of that train of dangers?  Go on, take a moment to do the math and find the percentage of issues that are race-based.  Trump was calling things as he saw them, or at least how people thought he saw them, and that was a strong selling point.  Based on responses at rallies, being openly racist, misogamistic, self-aggrandizing, and anti-media were the biggest winners for Trump.

Supporters ate it all up.  Finally, a candidate willing to be openly part of that group that the popular culture has been so opposed to.  Popular culture, for decades, has been anti-racism and anti-misogamy.  Trump's supporters loved the concept that political correctness was why their leaders tempered their words and used dog whistles instead of being, what popular culture would consider, openly racist and sexist.  It's stifling our discussions, they would say, to not be able to talk in terms popularly considered to be racist and sexist without being called racists and sexists.  After all, how can you have an honest discussion about Mexicans being rapists, Muslims being terrorists, women being emotional wrecks, and Blacks being lost sheep, duped into voting for a party that doesn't represent them, all these topics, while being labeled as someone who believes negative things about particular races and women?  How can you possibly stand up for racist beliefs when you'll be called a racist?  It's hard, I'm sure.

Anyway, the point being that for decades, the Republican party leaders had welcomed the quiet racism and almost-under-the-radar sexism, using dog whistles, code words that many of us understood the true meaning of but could be denied.  Now, Trump was openly saying the racist and sexist things the dog whistles had indicated in a seemingly-defensible way.  Much in the same way that the anti-government undercurrent that has supported the Tea Party was fostered by the Republican establishment and right wing news and talk shows, the undercurrent of racism and sexism, while based in a culture from the past, has been nurtured and given aid and comfort by the same parties.  The Tea Party has become a problem for the Republican establishment because of a lack of interest in negotiating or doing anything that could be identified as promoting government... an issue that the Republicans trying to accomplish anything in Congress, even with control of both chambers, are running into now and undoubtedly questioning their push to get to this point.  Likewise, Republican leaders are looking at the support being given to the racists now and railing against it.  They were the ones that helped get us here though.  It's hard to take Fox News saying that the President is not treating the situation appropriately when they've been pushing us in this direction for quite some time.

So, here's the question I have: Are the Republican leaders in Congress right to think that they can't be openly supportive of white supremacists?  And are labels so damaging and so upsetting to people that they would prefer to empower the worst of the racists than to recognize that maybe, just maybe, they are indeed a bit racist and maybe, just maybe, they should accept being labeled as such when they say racist things.

Is Trump’s Support About to Crater?

Basket of deplorables.  That’s what the nazis and other white supremacists are to us.  And that’s what we think everybody else thinks too.  That’s why, when Charlottesville had a protest, that looked an awful lot like it was entirely nazis on one side, shouting “Heil Trump” and other slogans that are all too reminiscent of 1939 Germany, when those protesters showed up on our televisions and in our social media feeds, that’s why we all assumed the nation would agree that these were clearly the villains in the story that was unfolding.  Trump came out and denounced the hatred “on all sides”… surely *this* would do the trick, surely the nation would see Trump the way the left-of-center had seen him this entire time, as a repugnant racist, or at least someone who would be willing to play to repugnant racists and embolden them beyond what should be considered reasonable in 1950, never mind 2017.  

But here’s what the media and many of my friends are forgetting…. this already happened… not only had it happened, but it had happened in a number of different ways throughout the campaign.

Trump announced his candidacy by suggesting, essentially, that immigrants were the problem we were facing and that those crossing our southern border were nearly all (if not all) criminals of a particularly unsavory type.  “They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people.”  It doesn’t take much to unpack this and it matches his style entirely.  He isn’t saying everybody that crosses the souther border is a criminal, that’s just what he’s heard about, right?  He’s not saying something bad about a rival GOP candidate for President, he’s heard other people saying it, but he’s not saying it, he would never, but you’ve heard about it, right?  But I digress… many understood that he was calling Mexican’s criminals and lowlife scum.  Many thought he was a joke after that speech… but he wasn’t…  and his supporters backed him.

Trump later called for a ban on Muslims entering the country.  We had thought you couldn’t get more blatant with your racism but there it was.  Subtly hidden within the fear that Muslims coming to our shores might be terrorists… that they are a great threat that must be dealt with.  Nevermind that a vast majority of terrorist attacks on US soil since 2002 have been perpetrated by US born citizens, and that you’re hard pressed to find any non-US born perpetrators who came here after they were 10 years old.  Nevermind that the terrorist attacks since 9/11/2001 are dwarfed in their number of victims by mass killings determined not to be terrorism.  No, these Muslim immigrants are the problem.  Many on the Left were shocked and enraged and thought, surely, surely this would indicate to the rest of the country that he couldn’t possibly be fit for the Presidency and the candidacy would falter… but it didn’t… and his supporters backed him.

Weeks before the general election, a tape came out that many on the left believed would be his downfall.  In it, Trump can be heard discussing his behavior toward women, which the left critiqued as sexual assault and his supporters considered “locker room talk” and the thought of the actions described as, while not necessarily appropriate, also not terribly wrong either.  Yep, the media and the left thought this was the end… but it wasn’t… and his supporters backed him.

Bill O’Reilly (I’m sorry, let’s take a moment to consider this came from O’Reilly… how far do you have to be from the beaten path of conservatism to have O’Reilly try to take you down) took his stab at Trump in early February 2017, pointing out that Putin is a killer and questioning the President’s respect for Russia’s leader.  Trump’s response was “There are a lot of killers.  You think our country’s so innocent?”  At this, media and the left thought, surely, surely now people will understand the concerns we raised about his ties to Russia… But they didn’t… no, his supporters backed him.

That’s why, upon brief consideration, I was neither surprised nor particularly disheartened when I heard the comments made by our President in response to what popular culture considers the ubiquitous villain… nor was I surprised when the media attacked him and called for the denouncement of white supremacists as an obvious move that should have been taken… nor will I be surprised if his supporters continue to back him.

The Republican leadership in the House and Senate called for a stronger response, but they have called for him to behave differently in the past, they have backed away somewhat on their support for him and then come back to his side.  The attack on President Trump surprised me, but within minutes of hearing about it, it made sense and it fit the narrative we’ve had for the last year.  

The emboldening of racists, of nazis, the villain we love to see our heroes go up against, this has been coming for a long time.  Our President has helped it along substantially and given this enemy aid and comfort.  But none of this is particularly new to the equation and so I don’t believe this will have a true impact on Trump’s presidency.  It will, however, have a real impact on the citizens who have to live in the midst of this crop of racists…. but that’s a post for another time.

Politics in the Age of Trump Part 1

It's fascinating to me to see people's reactions in the last year from a variety of groups.  I'll start by summarizing what I've seen.

Liberals:  I've seen liberals fall into a couple different camps:

• Pragmatic + There but for the grace of God go I: "I don't understand those that voted for Trump and feel we should try to understand them so that we can work better at winning leadership of the country in the future."  This group is disgusted by Trump and extremely concerned with where this country is going.  Fixated on trying to resolve this by bringing at least some of those that voted for Trump into some semblance of what they find to be sane, they see the path forward is to reconnect the country, at least some.

• There not even by the grace of God go I: "I can't tolerate those that voted for Trump and am uninterested in engaging."  This group is so disgusted with what they perceive Trump to represent that they feel it is unreasonable to engage in the conversation.  Indeed, they see Trump as multiple forms of evil, some of which may be negotiated with, but some completely intolerable.  The path forward is to engage with the part of the country that they find to be sane.  Maybe in 2 and 4 years, this will be fresh in the minds of the majority of the country and Democrats will retake the House, Senate, and eventually the White House.

Conservatives: Conservatives tend to fall into a few different camps as well:

• Anti-Trump camp: O.k., let's break this down even further, shall we?
• Civilians (non-politicians/political leaders): "Holy @#$% what did my party just do?!?"  They tend to be horrified by what they've seen.  This group either sees most of the support for President Trump coming from the same "basket of deplorables" that Clinton referred to (racist, sexist, homophobic, religious intolerant groups) OR they feel that there is a way that a President should conduct him/her self and that President Trump's behavior simply isn't that.  For the latter, you can see this to be his utter lack of coordination within his administration, his disinterest in communication, and his off-the-cuff decision making.
• Politicians / party leaders: "Well, I have some concerns [but we're going to keep following his lead for the foreseeable future]."  Think people like Senator McCain.  They appear to be deeply concerned with what they've seen for either of the reasons that civilians are but are being significantly more careful about their actions so as not to anger the President.  They see that politics in this country has been turned somewhat on its head... o.k., it's not entirely turned on its head, it's just that what would have caused some panic for a normal President's supporters is not causing it for the last year for President Trump's supporters.  So, much the same as has happened in past administrations, on both sides, the politicians tend to keep with their party leadership and, while they may say they are concerned, don't ever say that they're particularly deeply concerned and certainly never act on that concern, including when questioning experts while in  hearings.
• Pro-Trump camp 1: "He's not your normal President, he's a normal-person.  You can't expect him to conform to your expectations of how a President should behave and to do so is showing partisan politics."  This group sees the Comey letter and says "he's just asking someone to drop something the way I would ask a colleague or friend... it's not obstruction, it's just one person to another person."  "There's no reason to be concerned when he invites deadly dictators to the White House because he's just trying to do what he does."  This group sees President Trump's not releasing his tax returns as something not to be concerned about because they trust him to not be swayed by his own financial and family ties.  They either don't see the comparison between President Trump's privacy regarding his taxes as being remotely hypocritical when compared to President Trump's obsession with President Obama's birth certificate or feel that everyone in Washington is hypocritical, so why judge.  They also don't necessarily believe everything President Trump says, but don't see it as a problem that the President is lying, there are bigger issues at stake after all.
• Pro-Trump camp 2: "Drain the Swamp!" O.k., liberals and the media have tended to take "drain the swamp" in the way they think of it: remove the Wall Street corruption.  From listening to people calling into various shows, I think this camp doesn't see Wall Street as the problem, but rather D.C. politicians.  Drain the swamp means that we should stop working with those that are in political leadership, from either party, and should bring in outsiders.  This is why the media was confused when they saw the cabinet being formed and why this group of supporters celebrated.  This is also why they feel that Speaker Leader Ryan was the one that made the folly with the American Health Care Act, not the President, because Ryan is not to be trusted as he is part of the establishment in D.C., part of the taint that must be drained.  They don't necessarily believe everything Trump says, but they also don't really mind that he's lying, just so long as he's breaking up the establishment and the normal way of doing things in D.C.
• Pro-Trump camp 3: "The world is lying and only President Trump is speaking it like it is"... I'm not sure if I can really go into more depth than that... This group is, simply put, blind.

More discussion of each camp to come...

That's it, I'm done, I just can't anymore.... o.k., maybe I can

I'm so tired of it all.

I'm tired of people on the Right feeling like they're the only ones that care about morals.  The Left has morals just as much as the Right does.  Our value systems and beliefs may be different, but both sides believe and rely just as heavily on their morals.

I'm tired of people on the Left saying that it all falls down to <x> whether that be racism, sexism, stupidity, backwardness, or whatever.  I'm tired of hearing that the reason that people didn't come out to vote for Clinton was because of sexism, or that both sides are the same... something that has been said in past elections by many many people without there being a woman on the ballot.  I'm tired of feeling like those who I should be allies with consider me to be part of the problem because I try to understand the other side rather than just assuming what we've come up with is the answer to why they voted the way they did, or the reason they didn't come out to vote.

I'm REALLY tired of hearing that the only reason to dislike Hilary is sexism and that the honest-to-God reasons that I dislike her (I voted for her but she was the lesser of two evils) are invalid and cannot possibly be real, never mind the reasons that the Right might have voted against her given their positions on things such as: taxes, being pro-choice, wars, trade, and while not a position, her being the face of the Big Bad Establishment.

I'm tired of feeling on the wrong side of everything.  Regardless of what side I'm talking to it seems, I'm on the wrong side of it.

I'm tired of realizing that so many people in this country are so angry and are, I hope, blinded by that anger and blinded by some of the rhetoric, that they vote, in my opinion, against they're better interests and against the interests of those they love.

I'm tired of it all.

I'm so tired that I want to just give up.  I can't do it anymore.  I'm not going to post anymore about anything political on Facebook.  I'm not going to comments on others' posts.  Given that a lot of the people I'm dealing with on Facebook are OPENAIR Circus folk and I can't handle how they must think of me based on what they've said and what I've said, I'm going to disengage from that community....

I can't leave the OPENAIR Circus though... o.k., so I'll teach and organize but I won't engage with people on a personal level.  I can do that.  I can teach and organize the other teachers without really talking to any of the adults ... or the other teachers beyond discussing the program and their classes.  I can generate the schedule, update the website, generate the registration forms, organize the performances, hold stilting workshops, I can do all of it and retreat from the friendships I've formed over the years....

All those friendships... the ones I've valued so much and have helped keep me going throughout it all... I can dismiss them... right?  I can turn away from those I like, those I love, those I respect... I can do that....

O.k., maybe not...

Trump Won the Primaries

I've heard a lot of talk about how the only reason Trump is winning is because the media and his supporters are misogynists.  There is no doubt in my mind that there is a lot of sexim in this country and it informs a lot of how people react to Hillary Clinton (and other women in politics).  That said, there are two facts that come to mind that very cleanly explains the fact that this is not the only thing at play: 1) Trump one the Republican primary; 2) The Republican primary candidates were mostly men.

Let me explain a bit.  If the only reason Trump had support was misogyny, how did he go up against 10 other men (and 1 woman) and come out on top?  Was it that the other men weren't sexist?  I don't think so.  I mean, not that I have any presumptions about Republican Presidential candidates (as I exhaust my sarcasm allocation for the rest of September), but I suspect that several of them have sexist policy ideas.  Also, the one woman, Carly Fiorina, dropped out after 2 primaries and very early on in the process.  Furthermore, the argument that Trump is being competitive only because of the country's misogynistic ways is that Trump is benefiting because he's a man going up against a woman, in which case, the other 10 men would have been on equal footing with him.  But he beat those other candidates.  He beat them pretty easily too.  He got nearly 45% of the popular vote and nearly 70% of the delegates.  So... he's popular enough to become a Presidential nominee of a major party without the benefit of being up against a woman.

I'm not trying to say there isn't an impact of the misogynistic tendencies of the nation, but I would suggest there's much more to the Trump V Clinton situation than that.  To suggest that there isn't, that most of the reason that Trump is doing well has to do with the news stations treating him different from Clinton because of their genders and the populace treating them different for the same reason, to suggest this is to ignore vital issues before us.  Trump's supporters have baffled the news and the Left's pundits.  There is no single simple explanation.

Clinton's detractors are not only against her for sexist reasons either.  The more we suggest that everything is that simple and that all those who have ill-will toward Clinton only feel that way because they are sexist, the more we risk alienating even more of the populace.  If you think Marvel movies should have villains that are more compelling and stay longer than one movie, and someone tells you that the only reason anyone could dislike Marvel movies is because the movies are sexist, you might not listen to the argument.  If, on the other hand, someone tells you that Marvel movies are sexist and explains why, there's the chance of getting into a fruitful discussion, because they haven't told you that your points of view are wrong, especially considering your point of view has merit.

Voting for the Good Rather than the Lesser of Two Evils

Ok, so, your read of the post header "voting for the food rather than the lesser of two evils"... what did you think it meant?  I could have intended one of two meanings:

1) One of the two main parties' candidates is seen as good
2) Voting for a third party candidate

Answer... BOTH.  This post is two posts in one!

Alright, so, starting with the obvious.  I'm really quite happy that there are those out there, and I know quite a few, who are exceedingly pleased with Clinton for President.  I'm not.  This does not mean I'm sexist, stupid, unreasonable, die-hard-for-Bernie, single-minded, or in any other way wrong-headed.  I have real and rational reasons for not being in favor of Clinton just as those friends of mine that are in favor of her surely have reasons they were not in favor of Sanders.  There are political views and stands that are not based in sexism.  I will be voting for Clinton, who I find to be a less than desirable candidate because she is not as liberal as I'd like in just about every aspect you can imagine, but especially so in terms of foreign affairs.  So, for me, I am going to voting for the lesser of two evils.  Please don't suggest that I'm doing otherwise because, by simple deduction, you are suggesting that either my values are invalid or worse, that I am being lumped in, in your mind, with the deplorables that Clinton speaks of when she talks of a certain subset of those in favor of Trump... and I'm pretty sure, for all the hate you may have for me, you don't actually lump me in there.

Second option, voting for a third party candidate for President.  Are you kidding me with this?  Ok, those of you who are voting in a state that is excessively in one major party's favor or the other, you're fine to vote for a third-party candidate... but don't think for a moment that they'll get elected.  For those of you who are voting in a state that may, just maybe, pick either side... GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR... <clears throat> <takes breath> you're insane if you have a preference between Clinton and Trump and are voting third party.  That's all there is to it.  If your state could go either way and you're voting third party, that doesn't mean you want a third party candidate to be elected, that means you don't want the candidate that you favor between Trump and Clinton to be President... which is how I get to the "you're insane" bit.  Let me rephrase that a bit.  If you're voting for a third party candidate and you live in a state that is up for grabs (whether it's typically a swing state or not), you're actively opposing the candidate you prefer.  Here's why.  Third party candidates are great if you have representative elections like Europe does, or if the third party has a chance as it does in local, or even sometimes in state elections, but there is no chance, none, that a third party candidate will be elected President this year.  It is, simply put, not going to happen.  So, by voting for a third party candidate, you're not voting for the choice of two evils I mentioned above, and in so doing, not tipping the scales in that lesser evil's favor.

In Massachusetts, we have the luxury of being strongly in favor of Clinton and therefore can vote for a third party candidate to show support for a third party (not for the individuals running, because again, they're not going to win).  And there is some logic to doing so.  By voting for a third party candidate, you're influencing which parties are seen as viable for the local and state elections as well as who gets invited to the national stage (read Presidential debates), and that's important.  So, yes, in a solid state, vote for a third party candidate to help the third party that you're in favor of get some further traction, by all means... but that's limited to the solid states.

When Does A Man's Perspective Matter (by way of Clinton's Health Scandle)

This post is brought to you by the "Clinton Health Scandle of Really?!?!?"

I've been slowly coming to understand over the last year that I, as a man, can not have my own opinions on whether something has a particular aspect toward women, either degrading or otherwise. 

O.k., let's back up and set the stage a bit.

For the last few months, Trump has been suggesting that Clinton's health isn't where you would want a president's health to be, in particular suggesting her stamina is lacking.  This has been suggested by many to be a sexist comment, which I accept as being the case since I, as a man, can't pass judgement on what is/isn't being sexist toward a woman.  Last Friday, Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia and told to take some medication and get some rest.  The latter not being an option because she's campaigning to be president, she proceeded to go to a 9/11 remembrance event.  She got dehydrated, as one does when sick and working, and had to leave early.  She was seen being assisted to her car.  I would describe her movement as near-collapsing, again, to be expected if you're sick and being active.  There's no shame there.  The problem comes when you piece the bits together.  Two more bits that should be included in the mix: Clinton's campaign didn't say to anyone that she was sick (normal) and one of the big concerns people have about Clinton is how private (read secretive) she is.

Alright, so, let's pull this apart a little before going into the reactions.  Clinton didn't want to announce that she was sick because this would potentially be seen as weakness and play into what Trump has been saying for months.  On the other side, Clinton then was seen as hiding a pneumonia diagnosis, at best, or hiding that she's really not well at all, at worst, the latter being the theory being floated by Trump supporters (and some fanatically anti-Clinton likely-to-believe-conspiracy folk).  It's a tough call.  It's a sticky catch 22 and one that's not easily avoided.

On the other side, people have started saying "Clinton got sick and kept working, exactly what women do all the time" without explaining anything about the second statement.  I, being a childless man, didn't understand that what they meant was that women with children work while sick all the time in order to keep their sick time available for when their children (or husband) are sick and they need to be home taking care of them.  I, being a man that has often gone to work while sick if it was anything short of debilitating, found this to be a bit insulting as it suggests that women are the only ones that commonly work while sick.  I've seen colleagues come in to work while they have pneumonia plenty of times in the earlier part of my career.  It's only very recent in my 13 years at my current company that the majority of my colleagues feel o.k. with taking time off when they're sick (mind you, having a cold doesn't count as being sick).  Furthermore, I considered whether the statement was about positions that have been historically linked to women, but this didn't seem to align either, since there are various careers, such as restaurant kitchen staff, where taking time off when sick isn't something that's allowed.

Mind you, I understand now what was being commented on: not that women without children work while sick more than men without children, but instead that women who have a family tend to be expected to take care of family members when family members are sick and therefore save their sick time for those occurrences rather than taking the time to take care of themselves.  Further, women with families are expected to take care of those families even when sick instead of the father taking care of the family needs when the mother is sick.  This, of course, assumes a household with a woman and man, but I digress.

I also understand how this expectation not being something I understood to be the meaning of the posts makes me sexist because I didn't come up with it immediately so I'm not aware of the problems women face.  So, before we move on, keep in mind that I already know that I'm a sexist man and am accepting that.

So... here's my question... I, as a man, can't determine when women should be offended by something.  I get that.  Can I, as a man, determine when I'm offended by something I see as offensive to men?  If the line was "Clinton is hard working, exactly as all women are," would it be acceptable for me to find that offensive toward me as it suggests that I'm not hard working because I'm a man?  The reason I ask is that it's not necessarily obvious that I am permitted this judgement.  The judgement is based on the question of who determines whether women are harder working than men are in general.  Is it me, based on my experience and knowledge, or is it the person making the claim, based on whatever criteria they wish to use?  The statement "Clinton got sick and kept working, exactly what women do all the time" does not provide the understanding about why the latter statement is true and, if, like me, you didn't understand that it's really talking about "mothers" rather than "women", you're going to make the obvious interpretation of "this person thinks that women work while sick more than men do, generically."  Thus, you might consider this comment to be offensive to men if that has not been your experience.  So, who determines the basis for understanding the statement?

Let's take another example, "boys and girls" when referring to adults.  Again, I understand I shouldn't provide feedback on whether calling a woman a "girl" is diminutive, but can I voice my opinion that calling a man a "boy" is diminutive?  Where along the spectrum does my opinion cease to matter, my voice cease to be helpful, and my attempting to add to the dialogue start being considered not only not valid but outright harmful to the dialogue?

I'm not asking this in contempt, I'm asking it in contemplation and the hope that others will give thought to it as well as thought to how they react to the opinions of others and the writing statements that others may not understand without at least some level of explanation. 

And at the risk of overstepping my bounds as a white, heterosexual, male from the middle-class, I would point out that blanket statements are easy and fun but they often detract from the hoped-for outcome.  I say this with full knowledge and awareness that I have made them plenty of times in the past.  I have been informed politely in several of those cases that my statements painted with too broad a brush and I have since often found myself trying to articulate my points better, such as by saying "Republican leadership" or "Congressional Republicans" rather than "Republicans".  I feel, even as I write this, that I am overstepping my bounds because I should not suggest to other groups how they should argue their point or how they should advocate for their position... but I'm typing it anyway, regardless of how evil and privileged it indicates that I am to do so.  I have, in previous posts indicated that I am indeed evil by way of the values, behavior requirements, and even more generally my born-to attributes, others have indicated they believe to be evil, so why not play into it a bit.

"Elections Have Consequences" and "If You're Against Clinton, You're A Privileged Sexist".... AKA Thanks for pushing me away when we should be coming together

I've heard a lot about how Clinton won the primary so Sanders supporters should fall in line.  I've heard a lot over the last 9 months about anybody being against Clinton being a sexist and an enemy of women.  I've heard, more than a few times, that we (Democrats/liberals) should be in favor of Clinton because she's the most qualified and/or because she's a woman.

Let's start with the last and go backwards.

I don't believe in voting for someone because of their sex.  I'm blessed to have my mother for my mom and, at different periods of my life, my school committee member, my state representative, and my state senator.  I am extremely happy to have Senator Warren representing me in D.C.  And by the way, I'm explaining these two because I feel that if I don't, I'll be attacked for being anti-women in office... and even after saying these, I feel I still will.  I would have loved for Barbara Boxer to have run for President, or Elizabeth Warren for that matter.  But they didn't.  Clinton is by far the most experienced candidate this year.  She has her years in the White House as First Lady (which counts for something when you're an activist as she was), her years as US Senator in New York, and her years as Secretary of State.  She's held a variety of positions, giving her a wide variety of experiences, all helping her become extremely qualified from a background position.  But you don't hire someone just based on their previous jobs, you look further at them to determine whether they're a good fit for the position you're offering.  You ask whether they are as liberal as you'd like.  You ask if they're as much in favor of peace and as disinterested in war as you'd like.  And Clinton isn't either of these for me.  I said in 2008 when I said that she and Obama were far to centrist for me and I've said it again for the last year.  She's a centrist and she's a war-hawk.  That isn't to say she's not better than the centrist-but-racist-lunatic that the Republicans have nominated.  I dare say she's much better, but I pray that she doesn't embroil us in further wars, either fighting Russia in Eastern Europe or fighting terrorists in the Middle East... or some other force.  There's more to my decision than my sexism, which you've determined I have just because I wanted Sanders.  There's more to my decision than my male-privilege that allows me to say that I'm just as not interested in a female centrist war-hawk as I was the male centrist war-hawk that ran as the Republican Presidential nominee in 2008.  When you tell me I'm sexist and privileged, it doesn't make me more interested in our candidate.  In fact it makes me less enthused.  And when you ignore the reasons I'm not in favor of her and tell me that I have other reasons, that doesn't make me listen to you and think about your statements any further, it makes me angry with you and makes me feel that you have no idea what you're talking about.

You know what else makes me less enthused?  When people tell me to get over it or that "Elections have consequences."  Of course "elections have consequences," but let's just take a moment to remember that we don't always know the consequences of elections immediately.  Take this Presidential election, for instance.  Yes, I believe Clinton will be the Democratic Nominee.  Yes, I will be voting for her in November.  But we don't know a few things: 

1) Who will be elected President.  

2) How the utter dismissal of Sanders supporters' feelings and arguments will affect the young left-leaning members of our society and their future voting patterns.  

Let me address the first unknown first, because it's a little quicker to get to the point.  A recent poll has Trump ahead of Clinton.  Say what you want, but that is a very scary thing to me... even more scary than Trump's speech last Thursday.  What's even more scary to me is that Clinton supporters have been ignoring that Trump has been gaining on her for the last 6 months.

And then there's the second point.  Yes, elections have consequences and Clinton won the Democratic nomination (o.k., I'm assuming a bit but it's not a hard assumption to make), but that doesn't mean you should dismiss the hearts and minds of those you need in your camp, just because you don't see another option for them to choose. We should be coming together now, not hurting each other. Choose your words carefully, especially in public, especially to reporters, for your words will be heard and not just by those that agree with you. My words, I feel extremely confident, will be heard by those that do not agree with me.... and to those who disagree with me on this, I ask you to consider whether you really want to come at me and draw me toward that dark side that anger leads to or if you would rather follow the words of Clinton and work with love and compassion and work together to defeat Trump. Yes, I am angry at the DNC, yes, I understand you don't care, and yes, you should let me have my feelings and understand that they are not your own and that I will do the right thing in the end.

Starting now, with this first day of the Democratic Convention, we're supposed to come together as a party.  But instead of the "let's get this done together" that should be filling my Facebook feed and that I should be hearing from my Clinton supporting friends, all I'm hearing are things like "suck it up", "your candidate lost so you should be excited for Clinton now," and "you're a sexist, privileged, white man."  The Republicans just displayed their discord... I guess it's our turn now.  Thanks for making it easy to feel good about getting behind our candidate.

I am the Ill Intent

I understand that, as a white man, I can't conceive of how it feels to be black in this country.  I understand and respect that.  I've learned, over the last couple years, that I shouldn't comment on the opinions of blacks nor the tactics of those fighting injustice.  I've also learned that I am the adversary of those fighting injustice, simply by not fighting that injustice every day myself... in truth, I do not fight that injustice every month or nearly at all.  I used to like to think that I was a supporter of equal rights and privileges between races, but I have been told on several occasions that those who do not fight for those things are the adversary... so I am trying to accept that I am that adversary.

I also understand that, as a white man, I can't conceive of how it feels to be a woman in this country.  I am slowly coming to terms with this.  I have been informed recently that, here too, if I am not fighting the injustices placed upon women every day, I am the adversary of women's rights.  I am slowly realizing that I cannot make judgements about how important things are, such as the first woman to be the Presidential nominee of a major political party in the US.  I apologize to any who I have offended by belittling this accomplishment of Clinton's by comparing the US to other nations around the world or by suggesting that it is equally, if not more important to agree with the politics of the candidate you're in favor of.  I am a man, and have been told that I am therefore complicit in the rape-culture we have here in the US, which is disturbing to me, but I am working on accepting this too.

I'm going to digress here a bit and do something unusual for my posts.  I would like to ask for the opinion of women who are reading this post.  Would you be equally as excited the momentous occasion of the Republicans nominating Carly Fiorina, if they had, as you are about the Democrats nominating Clinton?  My feeling is that you would be, but I'd genuinely like to know what you think.  I'm not saying you'd be as in favor of Fiorina becoming President, just excited by a major political party in the US nominating a woman.

Ok, digression ended.  I imagine that I will learn in the coming years that I am equally complicit in other social injustices... whether it be toward Hispanics, Asians, transgender, homosexuals, bisexuals, ... the list goes on.

I would extend this philosophy to include that I am the enemy of the green movement.  After all, I drive my Prius to work rather than bicycle or take public transportation.  I use more electricity than my house will hopefully soon produce using roof-mounted solar panels.  I eat meat, which is not as environmentally friendly an option as being a vegan.  The list goes on.  I am coming to terms with this as well.

O.k., so I'm essentially evil and an advocate for all that I feel is wrong... It's an interesting dichotomy that I am working my way through understanding.  I have been working on it for years now and it may well take the rest of my life to fully understand it, but I do know one thing: this further explains my self-loathing and my feelings of obligation.  I would like to take a moment to apologize to all who I have harmed in the past and all who I will inevitably harm in the future, whether physically or emotionally, whether through action or by expressing my opinion or by expressing facts which are not as pleasing to hear or as helpful to the narrative that they would like made at a particular time.

A speech from the Netflix DareDevil series comes to mind and I will leave you with it:

"I'm not a religious man, but I've read bits and pieces over the years. Curiosity more than faith. But this one story... There was a man, he was traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho when he was set upon by men of ill intent. They stripped the traveler of his clothes, they beat him, and they left him bleeding in the dirt. And a priest happened by, saw the traveler, but he moved to the other side of the road and continued on. And a Levite, a religious functionary, he came to the place, saw the dying traveler, but he, too, moved to the other side of the road, passed him by. But then came a man from Samaria, a Samaritan, a good man. He saw the traveler bleeding in the road and he stopped to aid him without thinking of the circumstance or the difficulty it might bring him. The Samaritan tended to the traveler's wounds, applying oil and wine, and he carried him to an inn, gave him all the money he had for the owner to take care of the traveler, as the Samaritan, he continued on his journey. He did this simply because the traveler was his neighbor. He loved his city and all the people in it. I always thought I was the Samaritan in that story. It's funny, isn't it? How even the best of men can be deceived by their true nature. ... It means that I am not the Samaritan. That I'm not the priest, or the Levite. That I am the ill intent who set upon the traveler on a road that he should not have been on."

Trump, Clinton, Political Parties, and Labels... Evil Confining Labels

As unpopular among my friends as it is, I'll start by acknowledging that, similar to the title of this post, Sanders isn't going to make it to the Democratic nomination.  Is Clinton cold in saying that she's got this locked up?  Not really.  Barring something extreme, like her being indicted in the next 2 weeks or something coming out in the next couple months that drives the super delegates to go against what the Democrats have already voted in favor of, Clinton is the nominee.  Sanders would need 70% of the remaining regular delegates just to tie the Clinton in regular delegates.  Now... 70% isn't impossible, but New Jersey and New Mexico have closed primaries and Sanders isn't winning closed primaries... and then there are the super delegates.  Even if Sanders can manage to get 70% of the remaining votes, he still needs to convince super delegates to switch sides, and switch sides heavily.  If Clinton gets 13% of the vote and the super delegates remain where they are, she wins the nomination... that's right, she needs 13% of remaining votes and for super delegates (read Democratic establishment... i.e. the camp that wants Clinton) to maintain their announced positions.

Alright, enough upsetting blog post, let's move on to something similarly depressing.  Trump is the Republican nominee.  Why is this depressing to me?  Is it just what it says about the right wing of our country?  Clearly that's all it could be because if you listen to the news, Trump is awful and has no chance of winning.  That would seem great except for that the news has no feel for how Trump got this far in the first place.  They've been talking about how Trump is horrible and therefore people are going to turn on him any moment now.  So, the good news, Trump has severe unfavorable ratings.  The bad news is that so does Clinton.  The good news is that just about every demographic hates Trump.  The bad news is that the Right hates Clinton just as equally as many hate Trump.  But there is hope.  The demographics... thank goodness for demographics... if they stay true to their past support patterns, the Democrats will have an easy time winning, IF they get out the vote.  And there's the wild card.  Who will get out the vote.  Both sides can play up anger and hatred of the other side.  My fear is that we'll turn toward actual political positions and Trump will reveal that he's a moderate, just like Clinton... and potentially in some ways to the left of Clinton.  This one's really confusing to me to be honest and I don't know where people will turn.  I know that I don't want Trump if only because of the statements he's made in the race and how he's come this far.  Clinton's a centrist, slightly right of center actually, but she's pretending to be to the left because of Sanders.... but now comes the pivot for both candidates.  ~sigh~

Ok., one last thing before I go... people are making a lot of hay over political parties and the nomination process.  I keep hearing pundits say that people shouldn't be so upset at the parties because they're private organizations.  One thing that has been pointed out is that people who are independents because they don't want to be labeled are upset because they haven't been able to vote.  I can see both sides of this, but here are two things to consider:

1. The news is saying that people are upset at the political parties because of the closed primaries.    That's not all we're upset about.  There's also the structuring of the debates so that most Democrats wouldn't watch them and therefore wouldn't be able to see the contrast between Clinton and Sanders as readily.  The political parties have more to do with who gets nominated than just the primaries themselves.  The Democratic Party leadership has been supporting Clinton from the start.  This is what angers Sanders supporters, not the primaries, but the way that the party leadership has been openly against Sanders.
2. The primaries on the Democratic side have fallen into the following pattern: Sanders wins states that allow independents to have a voice and have caucuses.  Clinton wins states that don't allow independents to vote and have elections.  Let's take out the last part of each sentence and focus in on the first.  Independents are leaning toward Sanders and are upset about not being able to vote in closed election states.  What's equally interesting, if not more so, is that independents tend to vote the same way from election to election.  Some vote Republican every time, others vote Democratic every time.  So, why are they independent?  They say it's because they don't like labels, they don't like being tied down to anything.  I've said this before and I'm saying it again, get over it.  You want to have a say in the politics but your state is overwhelmingly in favor of Democrats or Republicans and therefore your vote in the general isn't as powerful?  Your state has closed primaries?  Fine, pick your side and vote in the primary.  Labeling yourself as a Democrat doesn't mean you agree with the establishment, it just means that in the Primary you get to vote in the Democratic Primary.  Done.  Fin.  That's it.  You're not confining yourself.  It's not like you're saying you're a straight, male, Catholic... you're saying what party you're affiliated with, i.e. which side you're going to try to have an impact on.  Oh, and if you're going to tell me that by refusing to pick aside, the establishments will pay attention and change their ways... if that were the case, would they not have heard and changed by now based on people not voting?  Abstinence from the political process won't change those that have power over it, it never has, it never will.

Was Trump Actually Right?

Last week, Trump told Chris Matthews that, if abortion were illegal, women getting abortions should be punished.  There were two paths of thinking this led me down:

1. When should the person purchasing the illegal act/item be punished versus when should it be the provider?  In most cases, I would say it's the provider: drugs, guns, murder.  There are a few where it should be the purchaser instead, the primary one that comes to mind for a potential is prostitution.  There's also the potential for the purchaser and the provider should both be punished.  In the case of abortion, there's an interesting predicament, which leads me to thought-path #2.
2. Why do pro-life people think that abortion should be outlawed.  My understanding is that they feel it's murder.  They feel that personhood begins significantly earlier than I do.  IF you feel that abortion is murder (I do not), why would you not feel that the woman seeking the abortion should be punished?  The pro-life movement seemed to instantly distance itself from Trumps statement and even lash out at him for it, Cruz included.  So, I ask Cruz, if person A brings someone to be murdered by person B, is person A not going to be charged with accessory, at minimum?  So, how is the person within the woman different from the person outside the woman?  I feel it necessary to remind everyone reading this that I do not believe the thing that is growing within a woman is a person, I believe abortion is not murder, and therefore the doctor is not murdering someone and the woman getting the abortion is not an accessory.... but I'm curious what the distinction Cruz makes is.

False reasoning and punditry

I hate false reasoning and false logic.  Sanders won 2 of 3 primaries yesterday... does that mean he won yesterday's contest?  No.  He gained fewer delegates than Clinton did, and that's what matters.  I'm hoping he starts picking up more delegates than Clinton and starts to catch up, but this hasn't happened yet and claiming victory when there isn't one is like Bush's mission accomplished speech on the aircraft carrier.

I heard yesterday on NPR about how pundits aren't discouraged or upset about being wrong all the time because they're not looking at how things are but instead looking at how they want them to be.  I understand why they do it.  They want people to believe in the goals they have.  For example, if people think that Sanders is winning, he's more likely to win in the future, so you tell people he's winning.  This why I could never be a pundit, I want to analyze how things are and look at the potential.

There's reason to hope, but winning 2 out of 3 states while losing the delegate count fight isn't it.

I've also seen people saying that the states that Clinton has been winning, for the most part, are states that vote Republican in the general and this fact by itself means that they matter less.  This just simply isn't true because the primary is decided by delegates and the states that have voted thus far have just as many delegates as they would if they voted Democrat in the general.

There's reason to hope, but it's not because the states that have voted thus far don't matter.

There's reason to hope, though.  I have the hope that states that are more liberal, those that vote Democrat in the general elections, will have a heavier turnout for the more liberal candidate.  Sanders is more liberal than Clinton on her most liberal day, and significantly more liberal than than her record shows her to be in general.  Therefore, one can reason that, potentially, just maybe, perhaps, there will be higher turn out in places where people may be more enthusiastic about Sanders.  I'm not being sarcastic in my hedging though.  We have yet to see the true groundswell that Sanders needs in order to win the nomination.

Pundits and news reporters are touting Clinton's overwhelming number of delegates and saying it will be difficult for Sanders to catch up.  But this, too, is overstating things and blinding us from the truth. Clinton currently has 663 delegates based on primaries and 458 super delegates.  Sanders has 459 delegates and 22 super delegates.  Super delegates can change their votes before the convention begins, so really, right now, the difference between the two is 204 delegates.... and there are over 3,000 left for them to split up.  All that said, Sanders needs to pick up a lot of delegates before the super delegates will start to change sides.

I wrote this the afternoon of Sunday, March 6... the day of Maine's Democratic Party primary.  Maine is now reporting at 80% that Sanders has won 64% to 35%, making the delegate count difference about 8 delegates less.  If Sanders can pull this kind of win over Clinton is some of the other, larger, Democratic footholds, he stands a chance.

Super Tuesday 2016!

Super Tuesday is upon us and registered voters in 11 states have a couple decisions to make:  1) Am I voting and 2) if so, who am I voting for.

I'm hoping that the answers for many will be "yes, and I'm voting for Bernie Sanders"... which shouldn't be surprising to anybody, but you might not agree with me... so let's go through your options.

If you want someone who is anti-government and anti-religious freedom, you probably want to vote for the Texan from Canada: Ted Cruz.  He is hated by everybody in Congress... no kidding... and is all about bringing down the government in any way he can.  By the way, politifact reports that he tells mostly truths/truths 21% of the time and tells mostly false or even more false 67% of the time... so if you like a liar, he's a decent choice.

If you want someone who is anti-government and not white, you probably want to vote for the youngling of the crowd: Marco Rubio... and he even has more of a chance at being nominated than 2 others that are running.  Politifact reports that he tells mostly truths/truths a whopping 35% and tells mostly false or even more false only 42% of the time... so if you want someone that one third of the time tells the truth and boldly lies only half the time... he's your man.

If you want someone who is a Democrat but is a war-hawk, economically-moderate, and who Republicans hate more than the Socialist in the race, vote for Clinton (no, seriously, I know Republicans who will vote for Sanders before Trump but will vote for Trump before Clinton).  If you want the Democrat who is most electable in the general, that's not Clinton based on all the polls.  By the way, Clinton tells the truth significantly more than she lies, so that's a positive... 51% for mostly truths/truths and 28% bold lies... including 1% pants-on-fire lies.

If you want someone who truly believes in liberal ideals and thinks we should avoid going to war, or if you want someone who can beat any Republican that ends up getting nominated, or if you want someone who doesn't change their stance on a variety of issues every 4 years, vote for Sanders.  To be fair, Sanders only tells the unvarnished truth 47% of the time and lies 32% of the time... but he never lies at a pants-on-fire level.

If you want someone who lies, disparages wide swaths of the public, doesn't think that issues are what we should vote based on, has gone bankrupt (unlike any other candidate listed thus far), and the rest of the world hates even more than Republicans hate Clinton, just stay home.  Seriously though, Trump lies... he lies a lot.  He has a harder time telling the truth than Cruz does with 7% of the time telling the mostly truths and 78% telling mostly falsehoods with a full 20% of those being full-on pants-on-fire lies.  He's insulted Mexicans, Women, residents of Iowa, immigrants... and that's just the wide generalizations.  And when asked if he would disavow white supremacist supporters, his response was that he didn't know David Duke... whom he had tweeted about previously... no, his response was not to say "white supremacists are racist thugs and I don't need support from the likes of them", which I hope most Americans would have thought reasonable.

So... let's see if this follows... If you want Trump to win, congrats, your job is done, stay home, nobody cares.  If you want Trump not to win the general, your best approach is probably to vote for Sanders, since polls show that he's the best bet at beating Trump.  If you don't like Sanders because he's too far left, fair enough, vote for Clinton, but don't be surprised when we've got troops on the ground in Syria for a decade.

Super Tuesday matters, go out and vote, but vote informed and thoughtfully.

Sanders vs Clinton... a bit more

If you haven't read my other posts about Clinton and Sanders, go read them... I'm clearly in favor of Sanders... but I'd like to share a bit more of my thoughts on the matter as we come away from the Iowa caucuses and wait with anticipation for the New Hampshire primary.

First, I was provided with a set of links about some issues with Sanders: his supporters have been nasty to Clinton supporters; his campaign has suggested or stated that he had endorsements he didn't have; a Super PAC has raised nearly $1m to spend supporting him; he voted in favor of spending bills related to Iraq and Afghanistan.  The person providing me the links was, of course, a Clinton supporter, and was suggesting that this made her doubt him and what he supports.  Now, admittedly, I have not done my thorough research on each of these items, but here's some things to consider:

• His supporters have been nasty to Clinton supporters - This is unfortunate, but as I mentioned in my last post, I'm much more concerned with the politician than his/her supporters.  The article said that this wouldn't normally be of great concern because the rationale Sanders uses for his being able to push things forward if he's elected is that his supporters will be a tidal wave, a political revolution, and therefore what they're like is vitally important.  O.k., but if all his supporters were being this nasty, there would be significantly more news about it.  A quick couple searches does not pull in the number of reports that I would expect if this was a wide-scale issue.
• His campaign has been shifty by suggesting/stating that he has received endorsements he hasn't.  O.k., this is a fair problem to raise.  That said.... really?  A Clinton supporter is going to complain about someone being dishonest and shifty?  I mean, not for nothing, but ... a Clinton supporter?  I mean, o.k., but, wow.
• A Super PAC has raised $2.3m to support Sanders.  O.k., let's start with some numbers, shall we?  Clinton's outside support, as of the end of January, have raised $48m (roughly 20 times as much as those supporting Sanders), and spent $12m (roughly 10 times as much as those supporting Sanders).  Let's move on from that to discuss not just that the amounts are dwarfed, but that the money coming into these support groups is from vastly different sources.  The Super PAC supporting Sanders mostly gets small donations from middle class workers (it's National Nurses United... yep, it's a nurses union).  The Super PACs supporting Clinton get most of their money from very large donations (98% of the money raised in the second half of 2015 for Priorities USA Action was in the form of $100,000+ donations... I don't think most nurses have that kind of spare cash).  To be perfectly honest, I don't really have a problem with a politician having a Super PAC while saying they're in favor of removing Super PACs from politics... provided they have a history of being in support of political finance reform... but I also feel like the Super PACs in this race are in line with the fundraising the campaigns are doing themselves.  Sanders' campaign is getting predominantly small donations while Clinton's is getting larger donations.  So... long story short, Sanders has the support of a Super PAC which in turn is supported by working people... Clinton has the support of much larger Super PACs which are in turn supported by much richer people.  Thus, the argument point is awared to Sanders.
• Sanders voted in favor of spending bills for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I haven't looked into this very closely, but I know he voted against going to war in the first place.  My feeling is that once you're at war, voting in support of the spending bills is acceptable.  Furthermore, are we really talking about how it's a problem that Sanders supported war?  Really?  This from someone supporting Clinton?  Clinton, the war hawk?  REALLY?  O.k., well, if I'm in favor of trying to do everything we can to maintain peace, and I am, why would I vote for a war hawk over someone who supported some war spending bills but has been a vocal opponent to wars in general?!?

So, we've got 4 points provided against Sanders, 3 of which would be bigger points against Clinton and one of which is unfortunate but I believe blown a bit out of proportion.

I'd also like to point out Clinton's own 2 points against Sanders:

• Clinton says Sanders won't be able to get what he wants accomplished but she knows how to get things done.  First off, as First Lady, she couldn't get health care reform done.  Secondly, she's viciously hated by Republicans and this leads me to believe that she would have a harder time getting more conservative things done than Sanders would getting somewhat liberal things done.
• In response to Sanders saying she was the establishment candidate, Clinton said that Sanders is the only person that could label her as an establishment candidate because she's a woman running to be the first female President of the US.  Well, let's compare the two candidates on the Democratic side then, shall we?  One has a ton of support from establishment players in the party, the other doesn't.  One has been in the lead and the DNC has been scheduling debates at times that people wouldn't get to see the two face off.  One is moderate, the other is somewhat extreme left wing.  Without knowing that the "one" in each of these statements is female, it's very clear that the "one" is the establishment candidate.  I'm sorry, I don't care that she's a woman.  That is NOT sufficient reason to vote for her nor is it reason enough to believe that she's not the establishment candidate between the two of them.  Hell, the first comment, that one about most of the political players supporting her, that one element is enough to indicate she's the establishment candidate.  Give me a break.

So... New Hampshire, get to the polls on Tuesday and back Sanders as our nominee for President of the United States!

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!

Why I Don't Want Hillary Clinton for President

I know there are those that want Hillary Clinton for President because it would be great to see that glass ceiling broken.  Here's why I don't want her to win the Democratic nomination:

Let's start with the electability concerns I have.  She's hate by the Right, not just because she's a woman in power but also because she's a Clinton.  And then she's got other baggage, boy howdy does she have other baggage.  From Bengazi to her private Email servers, the Right certainly doesn't have a lack of things to throw at Clinton.  So, we wouldn't have an issue-oriented exchange.  Also, she comes off as dishonest, so I'm not convinced it would be an easy victory.... depending upon who she goes up against.

O.k., so, we're not sure she could win.... but that's not all.  I'm just not interested in having her as President.  It has nothing to do with her being a woman.  If Senator Boxer or Senator Warren were running, I'd be all for either of them.  Indeed, I'm in favor of our breaking that glass ceiling, but I don't want to throw out the rest of my politics for it.  In 2008, she and Obama were moderates.  She then started to try to position herself as the liberal candidate at the start of her race this year, but, at least to me, it's only come off as insincere.  Not to mention the fact that there's a true liberal in the race and she's definitely not coming close to his stances on anything.

Also, she's a war hawk.  She's been pushing Obama to be more aggressive around the world and is in favor of supporting Israel financially, not for peace-keeping, but to assist with military spending.

Again, if Warren or Boxer or another woman candidate that I felt was on the correct side of the issues and could win were running, I'd be supporting her.  Clinton is not on the correct side of the issues and feels to me a lot like what Romney must have felt like to the Republicans in 2012.  Unfortunately, there aren't any other women running for the Democrats, so I side with the guy that fits my ideals on the political issues: Sanders.

2016 Presidential Candidates Review - 10-Sep-2015 Edition

So, I think it's about time for me to start commenting on things within the 2016 Presidential campaign.

Let's start with the Republicans because that's rather simple: holy bijesus!  17 declared candidates!  The frontrunner is, not surprisingly, an extremely wealthy white guy.  This time, the leader of the pack doesn't have to be caught saying ridiculous things in private, he's saying them out in the open.  The interesting thing to me is that we all thought Trump's support would die out after a few weeks, but it's been going strong for a while now (though others seem to be gaining some ground).  That's all for now for them, because, well, 17...

On to the Democrats.  Really, we've only heard from 3 candidates and 1 potential candidate.  There's the up-till-now front runner, Hillary Clinton, the second-place-till-now candidate, Bernie Sanders, the almost-heard-of candidate, Martin O'Malley, and the potential candidate, Joe Biden.

Let's start with O'Malley.  I think we can essentially dismiss him because he's burdened with the racial issues in Baltimore and is well behind Sanders, who is the most similar to him of the declared candidates in terms of politics.

Next, let's discuss Clinton.  Clinton is being bogged down by her perceived (and I believe actual) shadiness, dishonesty, and being just generally disingenuous.  In addition to these items, plus the Republicans hatred for her in general, there's the fact that she's always been a centrist and much more of a war hawk than the liberal base of the Democratic party to be too happy about.  Yes, she's a woman, and I shouldn't just shrug that off as older Democrats are likely to be more enthusiastic about her candidacy and Republicans are likely to be more against her based on this fact, but I don't think that's really what's going to drive things as we go through the primaries.

Then there's Sanders.  Sanders is a liberal's liberal.  I mean, my god is he liberal.  And he doesn't shy away from it.  It's amazing to me, in this day and age, to see someone who's not a complete loon talk honestly and seriously about liberal issues and stand up for them.  There are several in office now doing this but Sanders is the one running, so go him.  His honesty, in contrast to Clinton's dis-ingenuousness, is helping him, but so are his long-standing liberal stances.  Recent polls have had him gaining ground on Clinton and the most recent one I've heard of has them at a statistical tie!

Finally, there's Biden.  Biden had a death in his family earlier this year, so he's not sure whether he wants to run for President.  That's a very honest thing for him to say, and he's always seemed very honest.  That said, he's also always seemed to not be as presidential as Clinton and Sanders.  Biden is always saying things that just aren't as polished as you would expect from a president.  My general feeling is that, with Sanders appearing more and more an option, Biden won't run because the main push was to have someone other than Clinton be a contender.  That said, he's certainly making his way around the circuit, so it's not as clear as to make it definite.

So, I guess my thinking at the moment is that Sanders has a chance at winning the Democratic nomination, and provided Trump or one of the right wing nuts are nominated, he has a pretty good chance at winning the presidency.

Freedom of Religion

In the United States, we are free to practice our beliefs as we see fit, a right that is guaranteed by the first amendment in our constitution.  This freedom is only up to a point though.  You are free to believe whatever you want as long as that belief does not interfere with my rights, for instance.

One example of this restriction is the case of gay marriage.  Kim Davis, a country clerk, decided not to provide marriage licenses to anyone rather than providing marriage licenses to gay couples.  She claimed her right of religious freedom allowed this.  Here's the thing though, part of her job, as country clerk, is to provide marriage licenses, so either she should have stepped aside or she should have allowed her deputies to provide those licenses. She was sued and when she went to court she was put in jail because she wasn't willing to provide marriage licenses nor would she promise not to interfere with her deputies providing them.  She was let go yesterday with the understanding that she would not interfere with her deputies' work.  The amusing thing is that when she came out of the jail, there was a rally where her supporters (including presidential candidates Huckabee and Cruz) claimed victory.  But victory over what is my question.  She's being let go under the provision that something would be allowed to take place that she wasn't willing to agree to previously.  Had she agreed to it previously, she wouldn't have been in jail in the first place.  It's kind of like if I refused to put on shoes when going to a restaurant and they refused to seat me.... and then I put on shoes and claimed victory because they seated me.

It's interesting to see how the Republican presidential candidates are each responding to this matter.  While Huckabee and Cruz back Davis up, moderates such as Christie have said that Davis should have been moved to a position where her religious beliefs would not interfere with her duties and that we have to obey laws.