Random Ranting On Ridiculousness Recently Received on 16-Feb-2020

This started off as a small FB post but evolved into something just slightly too long for that so...

I heard someone on the news just say that they believe it is God's will that Trump be President because if it weren't, God wouldn't have allowed it to happen... fair enough, then it was also God's will that Obama be President for 8 years, right? Also, does God's will in this way apply only to Presidents or is it all things? If it's all things, then there's no point to you discussing any of this since it's clearly God's will that the viewers of this MSNBC show and you will forever disagree, most likely on everything that comes out of your mouth. Let's say it's only Presidential elections that God intervenes in. How much do you want to bet that it won't be God's will when a Democrat comes to office and can we forego however long that takes and have you just hand over that bet money to me now?

Moments later in the discussion, this same person said that Trump was in office to allow the country a chance to "recover"... ok, recover from what? If it's God's will that whoever becomes President becomes President, was it not, therefore, God's will that Obama be President and was it not also God's will that everything that transpired did transpire in those 8 years? And in what way are we "recovering" right now? Were we not deporting enough people when Obama ramped up deportations during his Presidency? Did we not have enough support for racism and bigotry? Perhaps Obama wasn't vindictive enough and wasn't political enough when giving speeches in the well of the House or when giving press conferences?

Minutes after these points, the same person then said that there was an election and this was therefore the will of the people.  I'm SO tired of hearing that elections have consequences.  Where was this explanation coming from the Right in 2009 when the Tea Party was sprouting into existence and rallying against Obama, literally hanging effigies of him?  How does this defense work in tandem with the suggestion in 2012 and 2016 that the Right must "take back" the country?  "Take back" from who?  Also, not for nothing, but will of the people?  How is it the will of the people when "the people" vote for one person by 48.2 to 46.1 and the person with 46.1 percent becomes the President?  You can't say "the people" voted for this President when it was a minority of the "the people" who made the decision.

Ok, rant almost over, I promise.

The news piece was actually about how Trump is acting like an authoritarian leader in the way that he governs and the way that he behaves toward the news.  This is absolutely on-point.  The correspondents were pointing out that the news teams have an obligation to not just give both sides' talking points, not just sometimes say when one side is lying, but to tell the story so it is clear as day what is happening.  I'm not entirely sure how that was spun into "this President was elected by the people and it was God's will that that happen so suck it."  Really, I feel there's no answer that can be legitimately provided in response to this so the only answer to be provided is one that changes the narrative ... even if it is to something blatantly false like that the news media only lies about Trump (the first response provided in the discussion) or an explanation of "well, he's in office so it must be God's will" when asked "President Trump has said that it's God's will that he be President, do you agree".

Republicans' Defense Against Impeachment...

So... let's just summarize the Republican talking points regarding the impeachment:

 

• Republicans feel that the testimony being held behind closed doors during the initial grand jury testimony was wrong.  
• You know, the testimony that is generally performed behind closed doors prior to a trial? The trial itself comes AFTER the person has been charged with a crime.  If the House votes to impeach the President, that vote is them charging the President with a crime.  
• Republicans feel that it was important to let the President, or his lawyers, cross examine witnesses and face his accusers.  
• It is typically after you have been charged with a crime that you cross examine the witnesses and have the right to face your accuser.  I've never heard "I want to face my accuser" as the response to being questioned by police before a charge is made.  So, again, slow your roll.
• Republicans say that without the whistle blower coming forward, there is no way to judge the case.... oh, and that the whistle blower can't be believed because they don't have first-hand knowledge... I mean, if the latter is so critical, why does the former even matter?
• First off, you also keep telling us to just read the transcript.  We did and that is essentially one of the witnesses.
• Secondly, let's say there are 10 witnesses to a crime.  One of them talks to a friend and that friend goes to the cops to let them know the crime was committed.  If 7 of the 10 witnesses then get brought in by the cops and they testify to what they witnessed... what does anything about the friend matter?!?
• Speaking of witnesses, Republicans are complaining that those coming forth now are still not close enough to the President... they're just the ambassador to Ukraine, and similar level,  who were directly going between the White House and Ukrainian officials
• Ok, but you've told everybody with more direct connections to the President not to testify so how about you let them testify instead of saying "we don't think you're bringing enough of the evidence that we're withholding from you."
• The President says there was nothing wrong
• I'm amused by this but it can hardly be considered a surprise given that ...
• virtually everybody has told him that it's wrong to accept political aid from a foreign power and yet he keeps saying that it's totally reasonable and that everybody does it.
• he lies about everything.  The size of the crowd at his inauguration, how people behave around him (all those people crying during an event we have a video recording of which show NOBODY crying), whether he has reason to believe Russia tampered in the election (first he said he had no reason to believe they did and then he "clarified" that he meant to say "he had no reason to not believe they did"... yeah, that's a helpful clarification and one that's totally believable... you could have just said "I was just told x by Putin but believe my team" rather than "I was just told x by Putin and I have no reason to believe anything else")
• Republicans point out that there can't be a quid pro quo because the Ukrainian President never ended up giving Trump what he wanted but we did end up giving Ukraine the funds.  Ok, this is the hardest one.  It's the most reasonable one I've heard... thus why I saved it for last.  It also happens to be the one I've heard the least, which tells you something about the messaging of the Republican party on this matter... why try a rationale response when you can lie or use irrational responses?... but let's try to figure this out, shall we?
• Alright, so... if I go into a bank and pull out a gun and tell the bank teller to give me $1,000... and someone apprehends me... I still can be charged and convicted for attempted bank robbery.  My getting caught doing the illegal thing and prevented from getting the outcome I wanted doesn't prevent the illegal thing from happening in the first place.  Essentially, what I'm saying is that, even though Trump was essentially forced to send the money to Ukraine, the month that he had been directed by Congress to send to Ukraine... even though he sent it days before the Ukrainian President was scheduled to go on TV... the fact that he was caught doing this and forced to send the money doesn't stop us from recognizing that he was trying to do this. Interesting information on his being forced to release the money came out a few days ago: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-09/state-department-freed-ukraine-money-before-trump-says-he-did  In addition to this, the investigation into the situation started roughly at the same time as the Ukrainian President was scheduled to announce the investigation.

Trump Condemns White Nationalists...

Unlike many of my friends, I'm going to give Trump credit for saying that we need to confront white nationalism... hear me out though... Trump has made it his modus operandi of creating a problem and then solving it. So... here he is again, stoking the pre-existing racism in this country into a frenzy and then finally, years later, condemning it. Ok, so maybe he didn't create the racism that I'm essentially giving him credit for but he's also not solving the problem this time either... so... I guess I'm not giving him credit for his statements after all.

Seriously, though, I'm tired of Republican presidents blowing racist dog whistles consistently and then condemning racism when something tragic happens. In the case of Trump, he's been using racist blow horns at every rally and until now has not condemned white nationalists for any of the events that have happened. This statement he had written up for him to read is as empty and as sincere as my offer of credit for it. Now, mind you, all Presidents have statements written for them, the significance here is that Trump has a tendency to say things that are the polar opposite of the written statements when he is off script.

No, not all Republicans are racists, of course they aren't. Yes, there are plenty of racist Democrats. And yes, we've had racist Democratic presidents. But the racism that Trump has stoked since even before his run for the presidency and through to just last week (and likely in the next campaign rally or potentially the next press briefing) dwarfs what we have seen in recent history. Add to that, the frequency of bald-faced lies Trump and his team hold firmly to and you can see why I don't believe for a moment that Trump actually feels that we need to confront white nationalism. At best, he's trying to make it ok for his supporters to support him. At worst he's trying to deflect and cause more chaos, as is his underlying main modus operandi.

Is Every Trump Supporter a Racist? Does it matter?

There's been a lot of talk of whether Trump supporters are all racist.  The Right keeps saying this is nonsense, that you simply can't paint his supporters with that brush.  Perhaps we should start with some facts though.

Fact one: Trump is a racist, or at a minimum, he plays one on his reality tv show that he's going going on: "The President."  He plays one to such a degree that his rally-goers chant and proclaim racist statements all the time.  He plays one to such a degree that it's not a question of whether he knows what the dog whistles have underlying them.  And he has played one to this degree for well over a decade (go look up The Central Park Five, where, after the true murderer admitted his actions, Trump continues to say the 5 falsely accused were guilty).

Fact two: Racist acts and hate crimes have been on the rise since Trump became president.

Fact three: Trump's supporters are, for the most part, unwilling to say something about Trump's racism in public.

Fact four: When Obama was president, there were plenty of Obama supporters who called him out on a variety of issues.  The most common ones I saw were overseas military actions (bombings) and deportations (note, this is deportations, not separating children from their parents when they come asking for asylum).

Alright, so, for the non-fact-based portion of this thought experiment... let's acknowledge that you can support someone without supporting all of what they do and say.  Obama is a great example given the fourth fact, above.

There is the potential that people aren't willing to acknowledge that Trump is a racist because "racism" is such a negative by the general populace that they think they lose every argument attached to Trump if the acknowledge it.  In most cases, that identifies that the thinker of this feels that the racism being promoted IS THAT BAD.  I suppose there could be the idea that the general populace thinks racism is bad but that the thinking doesn't believe the general populace is right.  Certainly, there are many on the Left that feel that it is that bad and cannot be tolerated, though we haven't seen a scenario play out yet where we have someone on the Left being racist in this manner without being called out in any way by the Left.  We have had individuals be racist, but they tend to be called out as such.


All that said, one of the biggest tactics Trump uses is racism to divide the country.  He does this in so many different ways and so openly.  He sometimes tries to claim he's not using it, like when he initially claimed to the news that he had didn't like the "Send Her Back" chant at one of his rallies.  What's really amusing about these attempts is that he has nothing to stand on so when he makes these claims, anybody with a memory and access to the video of the earlier event or his twitter feed can easily see that he's lying.  In the case of the "Send Her Back" chant, he initially claimed that he tried to stop it by talking very quickly.  A few things about this claim:
1) It's false.  He didn't start talking quickly.  He in fact stepped back and let the chant wash over him like a victorious speaker appreciating the crowds cheers.  Only after the chant died down did he start talking again, and at that point he didn't talk quickly.
2) That's not how you stop a chant!  You only have to go back to when Senator McCain ran President Obama to understand what a dignified individual does in the face of a crowd throwing racism about.  Senator McCain, say what you will about him, and I can say a lot, on a number of occasions did not stand for the crowd bringing racism into his race for the presidency.  He would receive a question from the crowd and immediately take control and explain calmly but sternly that Obama was not whatever the crowd member was suggesting and explaining that while the two have differences of philosophies, Obama was a citizen of the US or was a dignified human being and not someone to be "scared of."  If you're going to try to say that racism is wrong, you say it.  You don't just continue with your rant trying to talk over a chant and you CERTAINLY don't just step back and listen to the chant.  You call it out.  You tell your supporters that they're wrong to use that language.  But Trump doesn't believe that they're wrong to use that language and he doesn't believe that the racism involved is reprehensible.

Sorry, went off on a bit of a tangent there.  Again, it's clear that Trump is racist or is, at a minimum, ok with playing the racist.  And his supporters are ok with his doing so as well.  So, back to the question, does being ok with your leader being a racist make you a racist?  I would suggest that it's a matter of degrees but that, if you are ok with your leader being a racist and you don't complain about it and point it out every time he does something racist, that makes you an accomplice at best.

I have yet to hear or read of a Trump supporter acknowledging the obvious racism publicly though.
 So, yeah, Trump supporters may not themselves be racist, but as long as they're not speaking up, they might as well be.

PS - Racism isn't the only dividing issue Trump plays on.  He also is very much a sexist and plays into anti-LGBTQ tropes.  The last bit is somewhat interesting to me because he pretended at the Republican National Convention in 2016 that he was proud of the party for being welcoming of his pro-LGB-rights messages.  So add these to the lists of things Trump supporters are buying into if they're not openly upset by. It's astonishing to see this culture war being pushed openly by the Right when they have been pushing most of it a little more descretely (though still obviously for those who could read between the lines and understood the tropes and dog whistles).

Senator McConnell Targets Social Safety Nets

Senator McConnell recently said that he feels we need to tackle "entitlements" and that there's a bipartisan attempt not to because they're too popular....

Ok, I promise this will be quick, there's not much to dig into but let's get started.

1) The GOP Congress last year reduced taxes, especially on corporations and, not surprisingly, the rich.  At the same time, they gave a big boost to military spending... spending the military didn't ask for.  That's why we are so deep in the red this year.  Let's not pretend this is anything but what they planned: reduce the money coming into the Federal Government (and increase non-social spending) so you can claim to e forced to reduce spending on the non-military.  It's a manufactured crisis.  Don't think of it in any other terms.

2) If a program is popular, and it works, both of which are true for these social nets, why are you so hung up on tearing into them?  And boy are they hung up on it... I can't remember a time when the leadership of the GOP wasn't trying to break the contract with the American people.  Oh, it's because you feel it has something to do with the deficit spending that Conservatives like to rail against in times of Democrat leadership of the government and love to indulge in when the Republicans are in power.

3) Ok, so, let's talk about their impact on the deficit... there is none.  Ok, it's even better than that, these programs are funded by a separate revenue stream to the general tax system and they bring in more money than they spend... so far.  That's right, the Social Security and Medicare elements you see in your paycheck more than cover these programs.  They never have caused a deficit.  They, in fact, have been used to offset the deficit spending from time to time.  "But Peter, you said 'so far'... won't they eventually go bankrupt?"  Well, sure, if we don't do anything, eventually the money the Government takes in for Social Security won't cover the costs of the program.  There are a number of different ways that we can resolve this however, and one of those is to change it from a regressive program to ... less of a regressive program.  See, your income is taxed for Social Security but only up to a certain cap... and that's currently $127.200.  We could simply remove the cap and those of us fortunate enough to make more than $127,000 would pay an equal percentage into Social Security as everyone else.  And the benefits aren't capped in the same way, so a person making $127,200 and a person making $1,270,000 pay the same into Social Security but the former gets back significantly less when they retire.  So just remove the cap on the taxable income and you're pretty much covered.

So really, what the fuck are GOP leaders talking about when they say that we don't have the resources to support these programs and need to find ways to cut costs?

The Bias Against Conservatives is Real.... even Facts are Against Them

I almost feel badly for conservatives in this country... the main stream news have a bias against them, hollywood has a bias against them, teachers and universities have a bias against them, unions have a bias against them, the courts (until now) have/had a bias against them, and now big tech has a bias against them... hell... even reportedly unbiased news/internet searching has a bias against the President they elected.... I would suggest that history, the last 1,000 years of cultural progression, and general facts have a bias against them, even sci-fi tends to have a bias against them.... must be really hard.... harder still for those that are even further on the Right that are villainized by the generally accepted culture, such as white nationalists who are the villains of many a movie, tv show, comic book, history book, and you know, common sense... just imagine if you believe in the ideals of the Nazis today and have to live your days being told you're evil by... you know.... everything around you except for the right wing media and your family / white-supremecist friends. Almost makes me feel badly for them.... almost.... ok, not really ... except for maybe those that don't realize that's who they are.

(in case you're reading this and need a quick explanation of why it's come up now... various big tech companies have recently banned various far right personalities such as Alex Jones, who is a well known and widely followed somewhat extreme right-wing talk-piece who has claimed such things as that the shooting at Sandy Hook was faked and other ridiculous conspiracy theories that present the left as fakes or villains... and the Right is proclaiming that tech is presenting a bias against them and infringing upon their free speech.... as opposed to what is happening which is that private companies are halting extremist, hateful, and dangerous speech from being spread on their platforms)

Democrats, Republicans, What's the Difference? Part 2

O.k., so Democrats and Republicans are different, but surely they can compromise and make progress.  Ok., how about we review some of the things people think compromise should be found on:

Social Security:
Democrats want Social Security to be strengthened.
Republicans want it gone.
How exactly do you compromise in this instance?  If you're Republicans, you claim that you're trying to strengthen the program by reducing the benefits (to maintain the program in the long run even though it hurts the underlying point of the program) or by privatizing the program (essentially, hand all that money over to investment bankers to play with).  If you're Democrats, you see through both options for what they really are since you've been hearing Republicans rail against the program for decades.  So... how do you compromise on something so black and white?

Environment:
Democrats want to make the air quality better by moving to electric cars or other alternatives
Republicans like oil...
So we compromise and instead of slowly improving regulations on cars so that they are more efficient and less polluting while maintaining gas cars rather than rapidly building up our electric-car infrastructure and enhancing our public transportation, we keep everything exactly the same (or let them deteriorate).... except California... cause they're concerned with such things as air quality.

Guns:
Democrats don't like guns in the hands of the public because they are concerned about public safety.
Republicans want guns in the hands of the public because it's all about freedom to them.  Freedom to have a gun is as important to them as freedom of speech and significantly more important than freedom of religion.
Ok, so in this case, let's start with the starting volleys for compromise:
Democrats compromise by saying that we only ban new sales on guns, not take any away by force
Democrats compromise further by saying, let's not even ban new sales on all guns, let's just ban sales on semi-automatic rifles... we've already banned automatics so this isn't something that's totally outrageous to consider.
Democrats propose that we ban the sale of high-capacity magazines... we did this in the 1990's, the world didn't fall apart.
Republicans counter these compromise options by saying we don't do anything about guns or any gun parts.
Remind me who's unwilling to compromise?

Democrats, Republicans, What's the Difference? Part 1

"We need more compromising", "I just wish that Democrats and Republicans could meet somewhere in the middle", "Democrats and Republicans are the same".... OY!

Alright, so, let's start with the concept that Democrats and Republicans are the same.... THEY'RE NOT...

Democrats want government to take care of people (which costs money)
Republicans want the lowest taxes there can be and the least amount of government oversight

Democrats want a smaller military presence throughout the world
Republicans want a military that is 3 times larger than the rest of the world's countries' militaries combined (or larger)

Democrats want to send aid to countries (for the most part)
Republicans want to send troops to countries (ok, Hillary too... and some other Democrats; but mostly Republicans and not Democrats)

Democrats want unions to have power because workers have better lives when there is someone advocating for them
Republicans want unions to no longer exist because unions tend to favor Democrats and mean smaller profits for corporations

White Democrats are racists that want to help minorities by trying to look at institutional issues and resolving them and/or providing social safety nets.
White Republicans are racists that want to keep minorities from voting (see the variety of voter suppression tactics that Republicans have been working at implementing, sometimes succeeding but mostly failing due to their unconstitutional nature)

Minority Democrats are similar to White Democrats except that they tend to have a better view of the institutional issues.
Minority Republicans don't exist.  Don't believe me?  Think I'm being flippant?  Take a look: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/apr/28/mark-pocan/congress-democrats-have-women-and-minorities-repub/
Of their members in Congress in 2017 (combining the two chambers):
                                                     Democrats     Republicans
Total count:                                  239                289
African American:                        48 (20%)        3 (1%)
Hispanic/Latino:                           30 (12%)      13 (4%)
Asian/Indian/Pacific Islander:      16 (6%)          0 (0%)

Say it with me, minority Republicans in Congress do not exist.  Oh, and women...
Women:                                         78 (32%)      26 (9%)

Democrats want everybody to have health care, regardless of financial background
Republicans don't... yeah, not much else to say there

Democrats want to listen to scientists
Republicans want to listen to corporations

Democrats want us to convert to renewable energy sources because they're better in terms of the environment in general but also better for the populace (fossil fuels cause health issues in surrounding communities)
Republicans want us to use coal, natural gas, and oil... because ... corporations

Democrats want to do SOMETHING about climate change
Republicans, until recently, have refused to state that climate change is real, and now, don't want to do anything about it.

Democrats don't really care all that much about illegal immigration as long as the illegal immigrants aren't causing harm to the US (generally speaking, they pay taxes, don't commit as many violent crimes as US Citizens, and use up fewer government resources than US Citizens)
Republicans want to get rid of all illegal immigrants regardless of whether they are committing further crimes beyond being here.

Democrats want to fund social programs
Republicans don't want taxes to pay for social programs so... 

Democrats want to get rid of all civilian-held guns but are willing to compromise and only ban new sales of semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines.  They'd also like the CDC to study gun deaths the way that it studied automobile deaths
Republicans want to arm everybody and are willing to compromise by ... arming everybody?  They also feel that allowing the CDC to study gun deaths would lead to gun regulations and therefore are fervently against any such research.  Yes, if they think that the CDC researching gun deaths will lead to proposals about regulations because, you know, gun deaths can bee prevented, and that this would be bad and therefore they have prevented any research from taking place. No, seriously, look this up.  This is insane.

In my next post, we'll discuss compromising... 

Alabama Special Election 2017

I'm thankful that Alabama elected Jones. That said, the exit polls point out several interesting things and I'm looking forward to looking at them more later. A few quick notes from a cursory review:

1) Had the write-ins been Moore votes, we would have seen a Moore victory, which suggests that this came down to Republicans / Right-leaning Independents not stomaching voting for Moore

2) In case you haven't seen it, take a look at the racial breakdown, it's amazing. 96% of blacks polled voted for Jones, 68% of whites polled voted for Moore, and 2% of whites polled voted write-in.

3) Younger voters continue to be more progressive than their elders. Voters under the age of 44 made up a minority of the vote (35%) but voted for Jones (60%) while a majority of voters over 45 voted for Moore, though not at the rate of 60%.

The exit polling information I've briefly looked through can be found here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/alabama-exit-polls/?utm_term=.c687cadd54ed

Roy Moore, Al Franken, and Moral Values

So, I should start by pointing out that, being a man, I recognize that I'm on the shitlist as far as this topic is concerned but I feel, as a Democrat watching Republicans ranting and tossing what-aboutisms around, I can contribute to the conversation just a tad, even if I am part of the problem.  With that said, I'll move on with the post.

Is it possible that we're at a true tipping point?  Will sexual assault finally be seen as the problem it truly is?  Will we see a cultural change where people who claim sexual assuault are taken seriously?  Here's hoping... though I won't hold my breath just yet.

Recently, we've seen several people in media lose their jobs or have to step down over allegations.  People in high positions who just a month ago I wouldn't have imagined would be impacted.  They're re-shooting parts of a movie to remove one of the prime names that were highlighted in the previews.  The same weekend as accusations have been made against a prominent anchor, that anchor has been suspended and then, within 48 hours, fired.  It's crazy to witness but the shift is long overdue.

And so we come to Roy Moore and Al Franken.  Most of the people who have lost their jobs have lost them over things as severe as rape.  Roy Moore is accused of assaulting underage women, as young as 14 year olds, when he was an adult.  Al Franken is accused of assaulting 2 women; the first he acknowledged and apologized for, the second he says he doesn't remember and feels badly for any disrespect the woman felt.  You may see where I'm going with this but let me start by saying I think Al Franken should seriously consider stepping down, for the good of his party and the good of the hope that what we're seeing is a true cultural shift.

That said, Republicans who are saying that Democrats are only playing politics and are being hypocritcal when calling for Roy Moore to step down as a candidate while not calling for Al Franken to step down from his seat in the Senate, these Republicans are forgetting a couple things:

1) The first is the obvious one which I've heard others mention: the two are not morally equivalent.  They are, indeed, both very serious and, as mentioned, I would think well of Senator Franken if he were to step down.  But to say they are the same thing is similar to saying that causing someone grave injuries is equivalent to killing multiple people in a terrorist act.  Yes, both are horrific.  But not all horrific things are equally horrific.  Moral equivalency, however, is what what-aboutism is all about.  Someone points out that White Supremists, carrying torches, chanting things that suggest they want all non-whites should be removed/reduced (read: kicked out or killed), and one uses his car to kill and injure and the Republicans then say what about the extreme left who were there to punch nazis?  Many responded with "but they're nazis... when given the choice of whether to punch a nazi or not to punch a nazi, ALWAYS punch a nazi"... however pacifists among us point out 2 things:  1) one group is suggesting we should kill another group and a different group is saying they will stand in the way of that with physical force... there is a morally superior group here similar to how our military being sent in to stop a genocide has a morally superior standing to the group performing the genocide; and 2) PUNCHING PEOPLE IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO MOWING PEOPLE DOWN WITH A CAR.  So, yes, Al Franken didn't just behave badly, he did something beyond that, but what Roy Moore stands accused of by more than a few women is not equivalent... don't suggest that it is.  Slippery slopes are still slopes and there is still a difference between 2 things that are different (word repetition is on purpose to indicate how obvious this is).

2) I acknowledge that I'm assuming something with this one, but make that assumption with me for a moment.  Assume that the multiple women coming out and accusing Roy Moore of assaulting them are not lying.  Assume, for a moment, that these women who claim Moore assaulted them are telling the truth.  If that is the case, Roy Moore is accusing these women of lying and is falsely trying to push these women into disrepute.  He is trying to avoid taking ownership of his actions and accepting consequences by doing what many who have committed sexual assault or sexual misconduct have in the past: defaming their accusers.  President Clinton started off doing the same thing during when people were investigating him.  The practice is a very problematic part of the culture that has permitted nearly every woman in the US to be sexually assaulted.  It is part of the method of hiding the true extent of the problem we have.  I know, I know, I have in the past suggested that President Clinton's lies were not as problematic as the Republicans suggested, and I apologize for having taken that stance.  In point of fact, however, Clinton's lies were not problematic for the reason the Republicans said they were.  It's not because he was lying to the people of the US... Republicans have shown they have a much higher threshold for that than we were led to believe in the 1990's.  No, the issue is the practice of slandering women who come forward when they are telling the truth... and sheer percentages suggest it happens far more often than women actually lying about what has happened when they do come forward.  Much as I take the accusers at their word, I take Al Franken at his word when he says that, with regards to the second woman to come forward with accusations against him, that he had no recollection of the event and did not mean to act in a demeaniing way.  With the first accusation, Al Franken acknowledged the actions and, even if just for show, requested an investigation into his wrong-doing.  Though obviously this doesn't absolve him of his behavior, it does provide a clear distinction between the two situations.

3) O.k., here's the thing that truly bothers me the most of all the issues with the comparison of Roy Moore to Al Franken: Republicans, the ones who are crying foul against Democrats, also claim to be THE ONES with moral values, as in they have moral values and Democrats don't.  How can you tout your moral superiority and then say "you aren't holding yourselves to the same moral standard you say I should be holding myself to"?  It's like if Republicans were to tell Democrats that they weren't standing up for the environment enough and then Democrats cried foul when a Republican supported coal.  We expect Republicans to support coal, protecting the environment is not their thing.  It's not why they say they should be in office.  What do Republicans run on?  Small government, morals, and money staying with the wealthy (yeah, yeah, I'll get to writing about that soon).  What do Democrats run on?  Big government and caring for the low/middle class and caring for the environment.  Don't tell me I'm being hypocritical by pointing out your own hypocracy and then not holding myself to the same standards you claim to use to distinguish yourself from me.  I have never understood how Republicans can claim to be the moral values party, but if they're going to do it, they need to accept that they also will be held to a higher moral standard than their rivals.  I've been trying to come up with an equivalent scenario to reverse things and the best I've been able to come up with is if a Democrat were running a company that was secretly a major poluter and it came out during a race and Democrats didn't jump up and down on that person, Republicans did jump up and down and then a Republican acknowledged they were running a company that had poluted and fellow Republicans didn't call for him/her to resign... in that circumstance I would yawn and say "yep, sounds about right".  It's not a great analogy but it's good enough.

Tax Reform

They're back at it.  Republicans have decided this year that the way to pass big legislation is to jam it through without much debate and without any attempt to reach out to the other side.  This time it's taxes.  Before we get started, in case you forgot what the Democrats did when they overhauled health care, they adopted a Republican idea and tried to work with Republicans for a year before moving forward (with that Republican originated plan).

Alright, so, taxes.  Let's start with the build up: Republicans, in particular the President, have been saying that they would overhaul the tax code and give the average worker a huge tax cut.  There are a couple things wrong here:

1) It's temporary.  Republicans love this tactic.  Make the tax cut for people temporary so that it doesn't seem as bad for the government's budgeting as if it were perminant and then, when the tax cut is about to expire, announce that anybody not wanting to extend it is looking to increase taxes.  It's sickening to me to see this tactic used over and over again.  We know you want to make it perminant, so just do it.  Don't be so underhanded about it.

2) Corporate tax cuts AREN'T temporary.  As if it weren't enough of a slap in the face to have people's tax cut be temporary, the corporate tax cut isn't.  You know why they aren't temporary?  I'm sure Republicans will say it's because the markets hate instability and so changing the tax rate repeatedly would be bad for business.... the real answer, however, is that raising the corporate tax rate is not as big a deal to the average voter as raising individuals' tax rates... so... it's my first point of being upset made even more clear.

3) It's not a huge tax cut for individuals.  The main benefits continue to go to the top.  I'm not really sure if I need to say anything more here.  It's always going to be this way when Republicans are in charge for one reason: They don't see a progressive tax structure as a good thing.  They think it's unfair for the richest among us to pay a higher rate than the average and that everyone should pay the same rate.  I'm not going to go to far into why I consider a graduated income tax, a progressive tax, to be better here, but I'll make sure to write about that soon.  Suffice it to say, I consider progressive taxes to be far superior.

4) They're not paying for it.  Remember the mantra of the Republicans for the last 8 years that everything must be paid for?  Yeah, that's apparently went out the window as soon as they're fully in power.  In other words, they don't actually care about what they claim to stand for: fiscal responsibility.

5) Actually, they are planning to pay for it, they're just not telling you.  And here's where we get to the part that really kills me.  It's not that the $1.5 trillion over 10 years isn't part of their plan... it is.  They want to decrease the federal government's incoming resources by as much as possible.  Why?  Because then they can explain that we don't have the money to pay for all that the government is doing.  We can't spend as much as we do because we just don't have the money to pay for it.  They won't say it immediately either.  They may even wait until a Democrat is in the White House.  There will be many that won't, however.  You know that the far right, the Tea Party and the like, will likely start complaining about how we're spending more than we're taking in almost immediately.  And $1.5 trillion over 10 years is not chump change, by the way.  It's roughly 1/30 of the overall budget and more than 1/10 the discretionary spending budget from 2016.  It's roughly 1/4 our military spending or about twice as much as we spend on Veteran's Affairs or about 10 times as much as we spend on food & agriculture or about 5 times as much as we spend on transportation.  I could go on and on with comparisons but I think you get the idea.  (oh, and it's about 1/4 the current deficit that Republicans had been railing about being too high for around 8 years prior to this year)  So where do we cut to make up for this deficit?  I'd be willing to bet that it won't be from the military... which brings us to my 6th point.

6) Because the tax cuts, which are making our tax plan less progressive and therefore are already providing more benefits to the wealthiest, are going to lead to spending cuts that will reduce the benefits the average and poorest among us get from government spending, the result is actually more regressive than you think they will be.  You're going to pay for reducing the share that the wealthiest among us contribute by reducing the help the government offers those that need it. 

And all this while saying that it's going to be great for the average worker.

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.

Paris Climate Accord

President Trump has determined the US should withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement.  His rationale?  America first, its unfair to the US tax payers, it's job killing, and we would end up being laughed at by the world.

Shall we take those reasons one at a time?

America first.  ~sigh~  What does it mean to be America first in this scenario?  Does it mean we should be more concerned about coal / gas power plants than we are about our citizen's health?  If so, he's right, doing away with regulations, as he already was doing, will do the job.  We'll continue to have a stable amount of health problems due to the pollution from these power plants and from car exhaust.  And those health concerns will be covered by healthca... oh, right... well... hm...

It's unfair to US tax payers... this is really the same as America first except it more obviously identifies that we should be going forward with the regulations.  The financial benefits in decreased health costs far outweigh the negatives of increased power costs and the cost of tax incentives.

Job killing.  Seriously?  Job killing?  Without the regulations, natural gas was already putting coal out of business.  What we need, if we're concerned about jobs in power production, is to get coal country to switch to solar/wind power generation.  It wouldn't be easy but with the proper efforts it could be done.  And what jobs would there be?  Well, what do we need?  We need parts construction... are you telling me we can't get companies to build construction plants in these areas?  We need to build parts for solar panels, parts for power plants... how about we take the tax incentives for oil companies and switch them over to companies that build solar/wind equipment in coal country?  And couldn't we create a power plant or two in those states?  Renewable jobs already outpace coal jobs like nobody's business.... well... I guess like renewable business.  What we need to do is get some of those renewable jobs moved to coal country and help the transition a bit more.  What we don't need is to pretend that we'll bring back coal and continue to ignore the coal workers' actual needs by giving them false promises.

He doesn't want the US to be the laughing stock of the world.  What exactly would it take for us to be more of a laughing stock of the world?  Seriously.  The world is laughing at (and crying) about us right now.  They're also recognizing that the states, companies, and people of the US are going to keep to our word and do significantly more than Trump is suggesting we should do.  He thinks that because the US was going to try to do what he considers to be more than other big countries, that the other countries were going to laugh at us.  Here's the thing: you don't laugh at people who are being better people than others.  You don't laugh at someone who has a mansion and decides that they should feed a few of the homeless nearby.  You don't laugh at someone who helps his neighbors get jobs.  You're impressed by them.  We're already the laughing stock because of President Trump's tweets, his administration's inability to tell a single truth and the particular lies it decides are super important (such as that the crowds at his inauguration were the biggest ever, remember that lie that they kept shoving at us?).

So what does the withdrawal really mean?  It means that we are further putting ourselves at odds with the world.  Other than that, it means nothing.  Really.  The Paris agreement was essentially each country saying what it thought it could do.  O.k., actually, what it wanted to do.  So to say "we don't want to do what we said we'd do"... well, you could say that without withdrawing.  You could say "actually, we changed our priorities" and nobody would have been surprised.  Withdrawing is just withdrawing from the community.  It's like if you and I went out for dinner, before hand I said I was going to be super healthy, and then we got there and I ordered a cheeseburger.  You wouldn't be surprised, I am who I am after all... but no, instead, we are withdrawing... so we were going to dinner, I said I'd eat something healthy and then I said, you know what, actually, I'm going to have a cheeseburger but because I said I'd be eating something healthy and now I want a cheeseburger, I'm going to get my cheeseburger and head home and eat it alone rather than engaging in conversation with you and enjoying a night out together.  Who's the laughing stock now, bozo... you're off eating dinner with 193 (or 146, depending if you're counting signers or just ratifiers) friends and I'm eating alone... so long suckers!  ... God I wish I had someone to talk to.... well, at least they're not laughing at me (and my stubborn resolve to be an idiot), right?

Mini Rant - I don't like that law so I won't follow it

I love people who explain that a law is unjust because they're not complying to it and that they're not complying to it because it's unjust. Was just listening to a call-in show where someone said that he had 10 cars that were in violation with the emissions standards based on his not having gotten them checked recently and that he hadn't done so because he didn't have time and the emissions standards law is not reasonable. I thought Conservatives were supposed to be the ones that believe in authority? I guess that links us back to the Bundys huh? So, let me get this straight, it's not o.k. to not follow the instructions of the police or not to follow the laws of your city, state, or country... unless you don't agree with them... well, o.k., it's still not o.k. to not follow the instructions of the police or not follow the laws of your city, state, or country... unless... um... I guess unless you're Conservative? I would say "unless you're white" but I don't want to assume this guy was white (though the racist in me is assuming that, "you betcha") and I'm pretty sure that Conservatives would still have a problem with a white Liberal not obeying the law when they feel it's unjust.

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...

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.

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.

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.