The Two Holdouts Left Need to Go

Carson and Kasich have vowed to keep going. To what end? You two are not going to win, even with your combined numbers you don't make one good contender. Kasich and Carson need to go. It's time guys. All you're doing now is keeping the water muddy for the others. Let Trump, Cruz, and Rubio have at it. You know, the big boys. Somebody in their camps should be telling these two holdouts this. They are wasting money, time, and sucking up votes that should be elsewhere. Without them we could start to see a little clearer picture of what's going on. Them leaving could actually tighten up the race between the other three if their votes went to Cruz and/or Rubio, as I suspect they would, but we wont know that until they get a dose of reality in them and get to stepping. Time to close shop and go home to lick your wounds. Then the rest of them can get down to business. Just saying.

2008 was a Bi-Partisan Debacle

This morning I was scanning through the Twitterverse in order to see what was trending. A top trend for awhile was "Marco Rubio is Unmistakable". In that subject I saw a tweet that said something to the effect that he was Unmistakable about Obama knowing what he was doing when he fixed the Republican caused recession. This is getting to be an old tired mantra that is only half true. It's only half true because the Democrats had their hand in bringing about that crisis. In 1999 Bill Clinton signed into law the repealing of the 1939 Glass/Steagal act. A law that had been enacted in an effort to avoid another depression by keeping the investment banks and the mortgage banks separate. In 1999 between House and Senate 260 Republicans and 156 Democrats voted to accept the repeal. Many economists as well as Politicians from both parties, including Bernie Sanders, feel that the repealing of Glass/Steagal was a major contributing factor to the debacle of 2008. On Sander's website he has a page on the 5 reasons Glass/Steagal Matters. So how can it be solely the fault of the Republicans if that many Democrats and a President who was a Democrat backed this action? Can anyone tell me how? President Obama claims he had to fix an economy the Republicans ruined. Oh really? Bill Clinton said when he was defending what President Obama was doing to fix the economy that it was all the Republicans fault. Oh really? Hypocrite! Does he have a bad memory because he doesn't want to accept his and his parties part of the responsibility or he just getting old? Or maybe like Hillary on the Bosnia sniper fire incident, he misspeaks.

The blame for 2008 lies squarely on both parties shoulders and until we can get both sides to admit that together, how can we fix things together? What is worrisome to me is, there hasn't been enough done to prevent another collapse, just mostly a bunch of money thrown at a crisis. Does Washington want another crisis so they can spend more fixing something that could possibly be avoided? This also sits squarely on both parties. Only now during this primary season do we see people talking about doing something like Glass/Steagal to shore things up. Eight years later, eight years. Seven years ago we should have done something to help prevent 2008 from repeating. We've been vulnerable and will continue to be so until they do something. You can thank both parties for this neglect. Both.

Trump Yapping Again

Whether it's because he wasn't trending for a couple days and wants us talking about him, or that he really believes it, Trump has inserted foot into mouth again. He re-tweeted a tweet challenging Cruz and Rubio's eligibility to run for President. When asked about it by George Stephanopoulos Trump replied “I really – I’ve never looked at it, George. I honestly have never looked at it." Political speak for "I can change my tune later saying I have now looked into it." Rubio was born in Florida to Cuban immigrants, which makes him first generation born in America, which makes him American in my book. I'm first generation on my fathers side and if you came up to me in person and challenged me being American, we'd have an issue. The constitution says only a natural born citizen can become President. When reviewing Ted Cruz' eligibility The Harvard Law Review Forum last year wrote, While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. I can only imagine this applies to Rubio as well, making him fully eligible to run.

Donald Trump is not stupid. He might have been left a bunch of money from Daddy, but if he was stupid he'd be stone broke and featured on a "Whatever happened to" show. So I think it's a ploy for attention but I think he needs to step back and swallow a dose of shut it on this subject. It's one thing to keep harping on a subject that has validity, but it's totally different if there is no merit behind the issue. You're gonna lose support Donald if you keep after the "birther" idea. It's basically down to three and Trumps lead may diminish some with Jeb gone and then when it comes down to two, if he's one of those two, anyone he alienates by spouting foolishness will end up backing the other guy. I don't know maybe Donald should give control of his twitter account temporarily to he campaign team. At least then he could blame stupid remarks on someone else.

Hillary pulls it off

In spite of the number of confidential emails raising to 1,752 that Hillary had on her private server, she took the Nevada caucus by around 7 percent and she goes into South Carolina with a lead of over 20 points. Her lead in Nevada had at one time been 25 which Bernie had cut into quite deeply indicating Bernie is making some waves. I just hope he begins making bigger ones. It's a bit disappointing to see that not more Democrats are looking to boot politics as usual in the ass. It's almost as if they are being as stubborn as they accuse the Republicans of being. Democrats were all about change last Presidential election but aren't committing to it this time as much yet, but it is still early yet. South Carolinas Dem primary date is the 27th of this month, a week away.

On the Republican side Trump won with 33 percent of the vote while Jeb dropped out of the race. Goodbye Mr. Regime builder. No dynastic administration for the GOP this time around. With only 3 days in between South Carolina and Nevada for the Republicans, Trump has a lead over Cruz of about 22 percent. That may decrease slightly with the loss of Jeb. Not that his being out is a big loss. On the Republican side it's outsiders 2 insiders 1 and on the Democrat side it's insiders 2 outsiders 1. Of course one of the insiders victory was due to a coin flip. Imagine that, in a caucus, the winner can be decided the same way the NFL decides who kicks off first. Gotta love it. I hope Dems start stepping it up and call for real change with their votes soon. Otherwise Hillary's barking speech could turn out to be prophetic as it could be a real dog fight for the nomination on the Democrat side.

Superdelegates: Corruption at its Finest

Superdelegate votes are the epitome of corruption in the election process. Superdelegates for those who aren't aware, are people who have a delegate they can cast for the candidate of their choice regardless of which way the people have voted. In the DNC there are 712 superdelegates and a candidate needs 2,382 total delegates needed to win the nomination. In essence, these super delegates can cast their vote against how the people of their state have voted. That's not to say that none of a state's delegates won't go to the winner, just not necessarily all that should go to them. What this really means is that the idea that "Everyone's vote counts the same" is pure and utter bullshit.

The votes of these chosen members of the insider of the party, and both parties have them, mean more than your's and mine, a lot more. This is a major WTF moment. It doesn't get any more crooked than this and we let it happen. We as citizens let this open corruption happen without so much as a whimper. We need to bitch and moan and groan about this. Why should their votes mean more than ours? This really means the whole process of voting for the nomination of the parties is a complete joke. The insiders can put their weight the way they want and business as usual continues.

I've read reports that Hillary already has enough promised superdelegates that Bernie Sanders would have to totally dominate all the rest of the voting delegates to win. I call foul in the loudest and angriest way I can. I'm not sure how or if this process can be changed but I know one thing right now. I'm going to contact the superdelegates in my state, N.H., and let them know they absolutely lose my vote for them in the future if they go against the grain of what the people have called for. We all need to do that or they are going to steamroll over us until we are bloody and sore. Please complain about this process, often and loudly.

Presidential Pardon Season

The time is here and once again we have a lame duck President. In the past, this time frame has been used by previous presidents to start pardoning people at a wholesale rate. Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton all gave the majority of their presidential pardons during their lame duck period, with Clinton outpacing the other three on that front in pardoning roughly 65% of his 459 pardons during that time. Eisenhower used this power on around 15% of his whopping 1,157 pardons. Ronald Reagan comes in at around 12% of his 406 in that period and Bush finishes his lame duck period with about 39% of his 200. It's noteworthy to mention, they were the only two term Presidents since the 22nd amendment imposing term limits for Presidents was made law until now President Obama. The list of crimes committed by the pardoned individual covers the whole legal spectrum. From Drug traffickers and security frauds to bank robbers and child porn, pardons were given. Relatives like Roger Clinton, business associates like those involved in Whitewater, a Pakistani drug trafficker and even George Steinbrenner were all given pardons.

A pardon is one of the last powers a President has to wield with Republican and Democrat Presidents alike wielding it. This seems to be an unchecked situation for abuse of power. I understand the sentiment behind the pardon is to right a wrong or to give a President the opportunity to say they feel the debt has been paid to society. However the sheer numbers of those that have been pardoned suggest that there is indeed abuse going on. You can't tell me that each of the Presidents has had intimate knowledge that all that they have pardoned were wronged. Did they attend the trials? Of course not. They pardon criminals people, criminals. Those who have been found guilty of breaking a law or laws and for whatever selfish reason they have, a lame duck President spits in the face of justice and pardons convicted criminals. There is way too many pardons to analyze each one in an attempt to tell what the motive behind the action was but seriously, since 1951 there have been over 5,900 pardons, commutations or rescinds by our Presidents. That's a big number of scum put back into our society. President Obama has one more opportunity to actually make a change before he leaves. On the issue of lame duck pardons, be like with drugs. Just say no.

A Look At Bernie Sanders' Civil Rights Activism: 1960s-Present

Just thought I'd post this to show how Bernie has been true to what he says today for a long time.

Poll Numbers as of 2/17/16

These are the latest poll numbers from RealClearPolitics.com
Nevada Republican Presidential Caucus CNN/ORC
Trump45 Cruz17 Rubio19 Carson7 Bush1 Kasich5
Trump +26
South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary SC House GOP
Trump34 Cruz16 Rubio15 Bush15 Kasich8 Carson7
Trump +18
Nevada Democratic Presidential Caucus CNN/ORC
Clinton48 Sanders47
Clinton +1

Hillary? Really?

Looking over the Democrat's side of the nomination process is a little more simple with only two major players in the field. It's almost eerily down to only two this soon in the process. Maybe that's because the DNC machine has all it's egg in the Hillary basket even if they aren't openly stating so. So on one side we have a self professed socialist in Bernie Sanders facing off against one of the biggest Democratic insiders there is. Hillary Clinton. Talk about a Davey and Goliath set up. Bernie Sanders is a believer, he believes in his cause and passionately champions what he believes. A mark in his favor. He's not running to be President for power, or ego, or even monetary gain. Bernie truly wants to help the people of this country live better lives, all the people. Just watch him speak and you can't help but see the earnestness in his voice and demeanor. He wants to take on big corporations and make them pay for doing business, and he wants to see executives held legally responsible for their actions. All noble causes. With belief to rival that of Don Quixote, Bernie Sanders leads the charge against Wall Street. Make no mistake, he's an intelligent, politely sly kind of guy. His recollection of regime building through the years and the way he tied Clinton to Kissinger without attacking her, is evidence of that. While Bernie's been around for a long time in the political game, he's not really one of the insiders and that is where his biggest challenge lies, taking on the apparent chosen one of the Democratic machine. Here's the thing I can't understand, he shouldn't have a hard battle against her at all. Not only is she a proven insider, a member of the club of politicians that helped to make the mess we have today, but the scandals and controversies surrounding her go back decades. Why is she still viable? Somehow there is enough support for Hillary in the rank and file of the Democrats that she is still a formidable foe. For me that's a WTF thought. Sanders mentioned in respect to regime building that judgement in a leader matters. I couldn't agree more. However I think Hillary lacks good judgement. Even if it turns out the she did nothing illegal in the email debacle, her judgement should be questioned hard by her followers. She used a private email server for State Department business. Wait What?!?!?! I know this is getting to be old news by now but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Her latest answer was that everyone does it. Remember when you told your parents that everyone was doing it? What was their response? Isn't that bad judgement? How can it not be? Let's not forget that she and others in the State department lied not only to the families involved in the Benghazi attack but also to the American people. It took her office nine full days to admit it wasn't a video, a fact she knew long before that admission according to her own emails she was questioned about in Washington. Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf told the world five days after the attack that it was terrorist related and that the Obama administration account was preposterous. Libya was more honest than Hillary was. Libya. Hillary a friend to women? Not sure about that, try looking up Juanita Broadddrick, or Kathleen Willey, or Gennifer flowers, or even googling "Hillary laughed at twelve year old rape victim" see what comes up. Why don't you look up Hillary and sniper fire in Bosnia and you'll find that she falsely claimed to have to run from gunfire. Later she decided it was a misspeak. Misspeak? Please it was the same type of misspeak Brian Williams was hammered for. It seems as if Hillary is about as crooked flip flopping a politician as you can find, yet people stand by her like she is a rock star. She's not a rock star, she's old time, clique politics. She's a tell you what you want to hear and next year if you want to hear a different tune well she'll tell you that too type politician. Don't believe when she tells you she's on the outside in Washington because she's a woman, because she's as big an insider as it gets. She takes big PAC money and she gives well paid speeches at big corporations. Where do you think her loyalties are going to be? With the people..... really? Look if you want more of the same old politics as usual bullshit then go ahead and vote for Hillary but if you want a real change vote for...... Hank or Lisa or Bernie or anybody but Hillary.

Slapped by Iran Again

So Iran is talking to Putin to try and acquire high tech tanks. This is like the fourth slap in the face by them since the Nuke deal. Way to go. Give in to a petulant child and they act up. Who could have seen that?

Trump Stirring it up Some More

Donald Trump is at it again. He is threatening to bring a lawsuit saying that Cruz is not eligible to be President because he was born in Canada if Cruz doesn't apologize for saying what Trump claims are lies against him. He is also slamming the RNC, saying that they are breaking the non binding agreement that was signed by them and he in which Trump has agreed to back whoever becomes Republican primary candidate. The GOP machine wanted this as a show of good faith that Trump would not make a run as an independent should he not get the nomination. That's interesting in that the RNC must realize that an Independent run by Donald Trump would hurt the Republicans more than the democrats, and they wanted to have a weapon if he does go Independent by saying he is untrustworthy for breaking the agreement. However what Trump is saying is that the Republicans have already not held up their end by stacking the audience with donors who favor other candidates. At first glance, Donald's huffing and puffing could be seen as a stunt to get attention and grab headlines but I think there is more to it than that. He's probably right they probably are stacking the audiences. I'm sure the insider Republicans don't want him to win the nomination being the wildcard that he is. By Trump calling attention to this, he's setting up a possible future for him to run Independent with a clean conscience and slate, in that he is pointing out that they broke the deal first which means he doesn't have to hold up his end. In other words, he's covering all bets so that no matter the outcome, Donald Trump, comes out with a deal he can work with. Do you think he knew of the donor situation before he signed the agreement? It would be just like him to have that escape route, or one just like it, ready when he signed what seemingly is a deal that ties his hands. The whole threatening to sue on behalf of Ted Cruz's eligibility I think is a just way to get Cruz to put pressure on the Republican insiders to get them to ease off Trump. I don't think Donald is ready to walk away from the battle for Republican candidate yet. A lawsuit would take time and resources away from Ted Cruz no matter what the outcome and would be a distraction he doesn't need. So it would almost be in Ted's best interest to backdoor help Donald on this front. If the republicans don't back down, it will help to show their refusal to change tactics and lets Trump off the hook, if they do, Donald has one upped them and either way, they play into his hands. Once again I'll say I think it's nice to have such an outsider as Trump running for a party nomination. He says things none of the other candidates can get away with saying and he doesn't just whisper them he loudly shouts it out for all to hear. Like him or hate him, he has been, and is continuing, to shake things up within the ranks of the Republicans and certainly made the entire primary season worth paying attention to so far.

Voter ID

I watched the segment of John Oliver's show on voter ID this morning online. Before you start I know he is a comedian, but he's a political one and a lot of people who don't want to watch more serious news seem to get their impressions from these types of shows. My own son once said to me he and his friends got their news almost exclusively from the Daily Show, much to my dismay. Not that it was the Daily show so to speak, but that it was the only place they got news from. I'm not going after Mr. Oliver, hell I think he's funny and for comedy sake alone, I thought the video of this subject was humorous. I'm simply tossing out a different opinion and at the end I will propose what I think is a simple solution to this controversy. In typical comedic fashion he skewered the idea of needing identification to vote. He showed clips of less than favorable advocates speaking in favor of requiring voter identification while tossing out statistics of a study that show African Americans and Latinos are disproportionately affected by this law. I imagine this is true because studies show that a disproportionate number of those same groups are in poverty. One of the clips shown was of a man who pointed out that some of the opponents to voter identification were in favor of an ID to buy "stuffy nose medicine". John Oliver tells us that voting is a right (Duh!) while saying that the reason we have to show ID to buy that medicine is because it's used in drug production (also a DUH!). So he justifies needing an ID for medicine, which by the way although not in the Constitution, is still a right to do as long as your not doing it for illegal purposes, but denies justification for an ID for voting. A clip he used to make the case that this type of law is racist showed an elderly African American woman stuck in the bureaucracy trying to get an ID and having a really hard time of it. How many people haven't faced this type of bureaucracy in their life from local, state or federal government? Show of hands please. I'll throw out a list of "Duh" things you need an ID for of my own here. When you get a job, you have to show ID, when you buy beer, you may have to show ID, and when you apply for social security or any other government run program like medicaid etc... you have to show an ID. Does planned parenthood not require ID? No I'm asking that question for real, I've never been there. If we follow John Oliver's logic then having to show an ID for all these things that are within the realm of our rights, is also racist as they still affect a unbalanced number of previously mentioned groups. Why not stop there either, marriage licenses, acquiring drivers licenses, getting bank accounts, and traveling on buses, trains, or planes also requires ID. Does that mean that white people, males in particular, are using this practice of showing ID to hold everyone else down? Is the requiring of ID to vote inherently racist? My opinion is no, but I'm willing to acknowledge that it does affect certain groups more adversely than others because of the poverty statistics. That's a fact I don't think can or should be ignored. So the solution I would offer to this is simple. For those people who live in a household under a certain yearly threshold limit, I'll use twenty thousand as an example but the figure can be adjusted to match actual needs, a free ID could be issued. We have other services for low income individuals and families why not make this a part of those services? This provides ID for those who could not otherwise afford it, and because poverty is unequal in this country, I believe it takes out the argument of race from the voter ID law and the argument dealing with voter fraud on account of a lack of an ID as well. It's up to the individual states to do this but if you feel this is a good idea, contact your local lawmakers and ask them to consider this option. Make it so that everyone can vote with less burden.

Rowdy Republican Debate

I got up this morning made myself a cup of coffee and went online to watch last nights Republican debate I missed because of work. Boy howdy was it rowdy with Trump tossing around the word liar like an evangelist calls out sinners. Cruz and Bush lead the charge against Trump with Rubio chiming in and reassuring us he was a conservative. Kasich implored the rowdy bunch to make peace and love with one another in order to keep Hillary from winning the White House. Meanwhile Carson hid in the corner whimpering and begging us to check out his website because no one was hearing his message. When Bush slammed Trump for going bankrupt, Trump replied he never went bankrupt. Well technically maybe he didn't, but four of his companies did and that exchange was just arguing semantics. Cruz, well he slyly slid in a couple of items that told me he was watching what people like about Trump, and he was going to coat tail him on those. He spoke about the "establishment" unfavorably for one sentence and then he when he was booed for a comment he made to Rubio, he softly mentioned angering donors. Something Trump had done in grand fashion the debate before. The thing is he's A: playing catch up on that and B: not going to out Trump Donald, as witnessed in Trumps's closing statement where he said "Politicians are all talk and no action." Proving once again he is the true outsider and not afraid to ignite a flame. Rubio in his closing statement once again spoke about marriage being between one man and one woman. Listen up Marco, whether you want to admit it or not, that's getting to be an archaic way of looking at that. I'm twelve years older than you and I understand that. I thought younger generations were supposed to be a little more enlightened. Guess not in your case. Get off that band wagon and get to the more important issues. You know like jobs, economy, the Middle East, social unrest in this country. Things like that. I guess the debate went about as expected but one thing last night scared me. Jeb Bush said we need to take out Assad. The definition of insanity rule applies here. Bush have you learned nothing about the last sixty or so years of our doing this? Taking out a dictator never works, it makes things worse and makes us more enemies. Republicans and Democrats alike are speaking out about this issue. Bernie Sanders points out about the unintended consequences of this practice. Are you that anxious to prove you are one of the Bush Boys that you are willing to announce on national television that you would take out Assad which would likely put us in the middle of another war?!! Trumps big blunder, although it probably won't hurt him much, was pointing out that 911 happened on Bush's watch. He was expectedly booed on that but he's not totally wrong in acting as if Bush could have avoided it. Both Bush and Clinton had a chance to deal with Bin Laden and those who pulled off 911 but they failed to do so. I'm sure they didn't realize what was going to happen but their inactions allowed the conditions for that attack. So once again he has us talking about something we might have ignored. An online poll by Syracuse.com showed that in a poll of eleven thousand plus people 75 percent of them thought Trump was the winner as of this morning. It looks like Trumps momentum is continuing to build as the others scramble to shut him down. If they are going to stop him, I think they are going to need to narrow the field. Dog pile on the rabbit didn't work in Bugs Bunny and it doesn't appear to be working here.

A thought about Bloomberg

Michael Bloomberg has "teased" the American public with an announcement me might run for President as an independent. I have read that he will make his decision in March. This is my feeling about that. It's as if he's hanging around at a potential car crash like a vulture hoping to see something happen so he can pick the bones. If the conditions are right, he'll stay and try a run. If not, he'll fly off to make another billion. Look Bloomberg crap or get off the political pot. Either openly declare you want to fight to be leader of our nation, or go away. Don't be lurking trying to make a decision based on how strong you think your possible opponents will be. If you really think you can help this country go out and fight for it tooth and nail like a true warrior for a cause would. Otherwise you're just another political hack looking to serve your own interests.

Insiders Beware

Our political landscape has been shook up this year, make no mistake. Driven by the publics disdain for politics as usual, two candidates are emerging that are making the insiders of the respective parties have to pay attention to them. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Whether you agree or disagree with them, they have managed to make waves and have us talking points we might not normally be discussing if the field was filled with traditional candidates. Bernie Sanders for example while having been a lifelong politician, is not a traditional insider in that his view are further left than most and he leans, very hard, towards socialism. A fact he does not hide or run away from but is proud of. He doesn't come off as polished and practiced, but rather honest and straight forward. A bit of a fresh air if you ask me in a front runner. He doesn't shy from Clinton's criticism but defends it as strongly as he can without getting dirty. I'm pretty sure the Democratic insiders are scratching their heads trying to figure out how to get their rock star Hillary past this guy. From what I'm seeing online, however, the people are liking Bernie more and more. On the Republican side it's going to be a little more boisterous I think. Multiple candidates are vying for the nomination, with the biggest political outsider in the whole shebang leading right now, Donald Trump. His brash straightforward way of speaking has people both enamored and rankled. He says what many are thinking even if the way he says it is a bit crass. But that's Donald Trump. He's slick in that respect. He might piss you off how he talks about a subject, the wall being one of those subjects, but he gets you talking, and he gets you talking about him and what's going on. He has us all talking about him in one respect or another so say what you want, he has opened dialogue. Let's face it, he has us discussing subjects that need serious addressing. I don't agree with all of his views on how to do things, but I do agree on what he has said about needing to fix these problems. The GOP will never in my opinion, stand by and let the primaries and caucuses play out without some serious maneuvering behind the scenes. They can't, Trump is not beholden to them and a candidate who needs them as little as Trump does is dangerous to them. As with Sanders, Trump doesn't need the large donors or PACs to get to the people. The Republican machine I feel is going to try and rally behind Cruz, not openly at first but as the field thins it will become more apparent. They will do anything to keep Trump off the books. The Democrats will be less forceful but still try and maneuver Hillary into position. You see the two parties are used to placing party before country, a practice I maintain is nearly treason in my book. They have a lot to lose if they have to allow someone who won't bow to them become their candidate for President. Hopefully the people will voice with their votes what I see them voicing everyday and fight the establishment by putting in outsiders. Let!s make this election one for the people. Make 2017 The Year of the Outsider.

A blurb about social media

I did a quick check of the poll numbers this morning and what I saw excited me. Not just for the results but because of my post about social media being more important these days. On the site real Real Clear Politics, they showed Bernie cutting into Hilary's lead by 6 points overall since two days ago. Ok that shows momentum for Sanders, but the real exciting part was that The Huffington Post had an article about an online poll that had 45000 plus participants and the overwhelming majority of people gave Bernie the win by an 81% to 19% victory. Yay Internet, real rime results from tens of thousands of people. Side note, the very subject the Dem analysts laughed at Bernie about was still trending on Twitter this morning. Go social media.

Wisconsin Debate

Last nights Democratic debate was interesting to see in the fact that the stark differences between the two candidates was plain to see. Bernie Sanders spoke passionately, openly, and what I thought was in the moment for the most part. Someone who truly believes in what he is saying. I thought he had some good concepts on what to change to make our country better even if I differ on the methods he would use. Hillary, on the other hand, looked like a polished establishment politician who clearly had more experience in the debate forum. Her answers seemed rehearsed, even though the questions were random. I think the reason for this is a candidate like herself has a rote answer for nearly every question out there and it's always mixed with a pitch. She managed during the night to get all of the demographic groups she is trying to appeal to mentioned in her responses. I'm sure her campaign people praised her after last night. After all, she came off as the more poised professional. But is that a good thing in today's political climate? People are voicing their displeasure at political insiders, which make no mistake, Hillary Clinton is, and she presents herself as such. The opponents sparred back and forth with most of the exchanges being clean. Hillary however took what I consider to be the only cheap shot of the night. She miss-represented Bernie in what she called a forward to the book "Buyers Remorse" written by Bill Press. The "mistake" was even pointed out by the panel during the post debate analysis with a reading of the short "blurb" that Sanders said about the book. Hillary's take on what Bernie wrote was vastly different from the truth, and she made it seem like Sanders slammed Obama, not exactly true and after hearing the blurb which reads "Bill Press makes the case why, long after taking the oath of office, the next president of the United States must keep rallying the people who elected him or her on behalf of progressive causes. That is the only way real change will happen, Read this book." I don't see how Hillary can have the impression that's an attack Obama unless you're straw reaching or perhaps outright lying. Clinton also made the claim that Americans haven't had a raise in fifteen years when actually FactCheck.org says weekly income has gone up 9.2 percent in that time frame. Also according to FactCheck Bernie did a bit of exaggerating himself on the unemployment numbers for African American youth. He put the figure at 50 percent and FactCheck puts it at half of that. Hillary did the typical pandering during the night that people are getting tired of, but in fairness, Bernie kept harping on Wall Street even making the argument that going after them would help racism. Not that Wall Street doesn't need reeling in, it does, but your argument has to be more dimensional Bernie. Tying in social media to last nights debate. "Who won the debate" and "Kissinger" were both subjects trending on Twitter this morning. There were supporters and detractors for both sides on the subject of Who won the debate, and clearly at least on twitter, the debate continues on but now it is in the hands of the public more so than the candidates. The Kissinger subject seemed to be, from the tweets I read, mostly in favor of Bernie and I find that amusing because the post debate panel seemed to laugh at Bernie for bringing up Kissinger. They even made reference that the millennials wouldn't understand about Kissinger. Here's what Bernie did in a short span of time last night. He educated people about Kissinger and his roll in trade agreements and regime building, along with the connection as one of Hillary's confidants. They can Laugh all they want, but social media took notice of this and ran with it. One other thing before I give my take on the debate. Sanders mentioned good judgement during the subject of middle east and unintended consequences and I think he is spot on. Good judgement is definitely a characteristic I want in a leader, and I'm not sure Hillary has always used that in the past. Alright so my take is that Sanders took the edge last night, and if he broadens his arguments, he should be able to keep or out pace Hillary, whom I can't even believe is still a viable option to as many people as she is, but that is a subject for another post.

Social Media and Politics

President Obama promised us transparency with his administration, and while he has yet to truly deliver on that promise, social media has kept it for him. There was a time when we got our news from T.V., radio, and newspapers with information about events coming to us days even weeks after it happened. Our knowledge came in such a way that we were hearing about things with no input of our own sometimes long after the fact and in many cases too late to affect any outcome. Social media has changed that drastically. We live in a time now when minutes after words are spoken or events have happened, social media begins buzzing. Once the buzzing begins there is no stopping it, as information travels in an exponential fashion quicker that I can write this post. "You can't stop the signal Mal." Details of events, come to us almost as instantaneously as it does in the Borg collective. Unlike the Borg however, we have our own input that can be sent back just as quickly as we wish. Using hashtags we keep up on subjects and talk about ideas from the inane to the important alike with the speed of Hermes. The instant someone with technology sees or hears things that they deem as important, they are tweeting and posting and sending photos of it for their followers to see. Everyone has their say with social media. This is what makes social media so influential in politics and so cool to boot. We now can speak our minds directly or indirectly to the politicians or candidates on subject we feel strongly about. We can connect with like minded and opposite minded people as well to have our voices heard. It is a phenomenon that is not going away and one that the smart politician or candidate takes notice of and uses to their benefit. Case in point, there were supporters of Sanders that were using social media to insult and demean women. Bernie Sanders did not ignore this issue, he recognized the influence of social media and took the opportunity to distance himself from these fools by saying he didn't want that kind of support. If they want to know what the public thinks, the answer is just a few clicks away. No longer is it necessary to rely just on polls or what advisers tell them or what they hear at a rally. They can learn for themselves online, in their pajamas if they wanted. Sure there is a lot of dip shit stuff to weed out but there is also a ton of legitimate information about how we are thinking, and what we want, out there in cyberspace. Keep it up fellow social media junkies. Keep getting your opinions out there. This is an important part of our political process now. They can't ignore it, not if they're smart.

Why I don't like trade agreements

As I'm writing this I am watching the aftermath reports of the N.H. primary. Christie has left the race and so has Fiorina, no big surprise there. Ben Carson should put on his big boy pants and drop next but he is holding on like he just found out his dad was Peter Pan. I'm watching as Kasich is trying to distance himself from the GOP establishment, a tactic I don't think will work. He is more moderate than many of the GOP but I am not sure how far he strays from the machine. I do think he would work with Democrats better than most of his party, but whether or not he has the oomph of Trump remains to be seen. Watching these events transpire, I think of a subject that has ticked me off for awhile and with the recent months my flame has been fanned about this. Trade acts. In 1993 then President Clinton signed into law N.A.F.T.A. which was a Republican backed idea that a Democrat President not only signed, but worked at selling it to the public. By 1999 millions of textile industry jobs were lost to foreign lands, many of them to Mexico. I pick that year and that industry because 1999 was the year a woolen mill I was a shift supervisor at closed it's doors putting roughly 350 local workers in a small rural area out to pasture. Trade agreements seek to even the playing field between multiple countries. The problem for America in this theory is that it comes at our blue collar workers expense. Bill Clinton said that these agreements would encourage people to get higher education and better jobs. Encourage is a fancy word for force by the way. The problem with that theory is aptitude. If a persons aptitude is not one that is geared for college, then where does that leave them? In a job market that now has less good paying positions that's where. Plenty of these folks put out of work ended up in the service industry for less pay and less benefits. Not long ago, I was shopping in WalMart and ran into a fellow that I had worked with at the mill. Seventeen years later he was just catching up to where his pay had been at the mill. Seventeen years! I myself took a two dollar an hour cut in pay so I could work somewhere with decent benefits for my family. I'm still at this job seventeen years later. It's fair to say that if the mill was still open I would be there and would have gotten similar raises through the years. So that two dollars becomes four thousand dollars a year more I would have made over the last seventeen years. That's 68,000 dollars less spending power and quality of life I have had. Now times that by however many manufacturing jobs that were turned into service industry jobs and that becomes a lot of money. We just signed a Pacific trade act that as I understand it, could hurt the airplane builders and auto builders in this country. So not only did we sign away textile and other manufacturing jobs over the past decades, but now we are going after the airplane and auto workers. Didn't we toss billions of dollars to companies to "save" the auto industry? Did we do that only to turn around and tear that down as we have other forms of manufacturing? If our politicians want to strengthen our country again, they should look to reversing the power and effects of the trade acts, before we completely paralyze our work force and turn us all into needing handouts. We need a President who will work to bring jobs back into our country. People don't want handouts, they want a job they can survive on and be productive in society with. So yeah I don't like the trade acts, I have 68,000 personal reasons not to.

Who I am

Ok so a little about myself. I'm a blue collar guy with a beautiful wife and four kids that I absolutely love to death. In fact, having the great relationships with my children and my wife, is what I count as my greatest accomplishment in life. As an undeclared voter I have voted both Republican and Democrat in the past as I tend to vote my conscience and convictions. Like most Americans I have a great love of my country. In recent years I have become disenfranchised by how our country is being torn down and weakened by the political machine. I feel there is enough blame to go around to both parties. I have no degree, I'm not a student of politics but I care deeply and have opinions of my own on where we need to improve our nation. So I started this blog. You may not agree with my views and that's okay we all have different perspectives on things. If you wish to comment and post here its allowed, I am happy to defend my point of view in a civil but possibly spirited debate. I think I bring the perspective of the working person to the table, the person who needs to work multiple jobs to make ends meet, the person who has to juggle bills to get by. I hope something I write along the way makes someone somewhere go hmmmm. If that happens, then I guess I can feel good. Have great day and enjoy the blog. John

Moving Ahead

On to South Carolina for the Republicans and Nevada for the Democrats. Both races will be decided Saturday Feb. 20th with the polls at this point showing Clinton with the lead in Nevada and Trump with the lead in South Carolina. While it is early and things could change, I think Sanders will have a harder time in Nevada than he did in New Hampshire because of regional issues. He was known in New Hampshire and the Northeast but how well known in Nevada before this week I have no idea. His win in New Hampshire and loss by just a coin toss in Iowa give him a good momentum and something to build on for his constituency. He hasn’t had to run negative ads which goes in his favor, but let’s face it, he hasn’t had to. The media coverage of the emails and the reminders from the Republicans have done a good job of casting a shadow over Clinton and her trustworthiness if not her out right bad judgement. Let’s face it a private email server was not the brightest way to go when you’re head of the state department. Trump on the other hand does not face issues of region. He is as well known, if not more so to America as any politician out there. He boldly says what he has to say and thus far, defends himself strongly. He is the anti-politician in this race. Cruz and Rubio are at this point second and third respectively in the polls there. Cruz is basically GOP establishment and therein lies what I think is his downfall if what is happening in NH is happening all over, anti-establishment sentimentality. Ted seems to me to be made of wood. He seems almost expressionless and emotionless so if he doesn’t warm up and distance himself from the political machine, he could be in trouble. Rubio is a rookie senator with a bad voting record that comes off as out of his element. Sound familiar? That’s what we have now as President and let’s face it it’s been a less than stellar seven years. I’m pretty sure that at least part of the insider disdain comes from the fact that how Washington works was not changed as promised. After Feb. 20th the parties will flip flop with Democrats heading to South Carolina for a vote on the 27th and Republicans to Nevada with a vote on the 23rd That’s where we stand now with ten days to go to the next results. I do want to mention that the NY Daily news called the New Hampshire voters "Mindless Zombies" for voting for Trump. While I am a fan of the Walking Dead I have two words for that rag mag they call a newspaper, but I will refrain from posting them here.

New Hampshire shows Moxie

Last nights New Hampshire primaries showed us something. That the Granite State has had enough of politics as usual. This small but closely watched state has chosen as their candidates, two outsiders to the Washington political machine. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are arguably two of the most unlikely choices in this political arena, yet here we have it, they are the front runners. Donald Trump has no political experience and this must be burning the asses of the GOP especially since he managed to piss of their donors at the debate in Manchester, with the audience booing the man at his disdain for them. Bernie Sanders, from the small but vocal state of Vermont, has managed to top Hillary Clinton, a true Washington insider, despite her claims that she is otherwise because of her gender. These two candidates are beholding to neither of the parties that they are trying to respectively gain the nominations for, yet those parties will have to start taking notice. I'm sure the dirty politics are going to begin in earnest now, because the insiders would rather have members of their clubs up in front. Which leads me to the reason I believe the State that I call home, has voted this way. People are tired of the open corruption that the insiders have gotten away with for decades. We are tired of seeing politicians who place self before party and party before country or community get away with it all. The message behind last night is a deeper one than just a nomination. It should be making the Washington establishment take note. People are disenfranchised and pissed off. We want our jobs back, we want our people safe, and we want place in the world arena to be that of a leader, not a lamb. That doesn't mean we have to bully, we can lead with compassion as well as strength. We want our people to have health coverage from birth, if that happened, our Vets would be automatically covered for life. We want our infrastructure safe, I read a report where something like eighty percent of our bridges are in need of repair. We spent gobs of money on "Shovel ready" projects which turned out to be a myth, while our bridges decay because they weren't "shovel ready" Really!!?? We want our economy stable, not just better. I have not seen much talk of how to avoid the 2008 debacle in the future. All we did was throw money, and a shit ton of it at that, at the issue. That might have helped us get out of the situation but what about avoiding it for next time? Oh yeah that's right, the Washington insiders don't want to avoid it because they love to take advantage of a crisis to cash in for themselves and their cronies. This shit has got to stop and that is why I think the great State of New Hampshire voted the way they did. For once Republicans and Democrats came together to say one thing. Enough.