In 2008, when the party went full birther, with their ridiculous "Obama is a secret Muslim who is going to send white people to FEMA death camps and declare Sharia Law" b.s. (bot to mention the pick of Nailin' Palin as the VP), some people said, "In 2012 the Republicans are going to get serious, and act like the party of grown-ups."
I said, "No, they are just gonna get stupider."
In 2012, when the Republican Primaries turned into a total clown show, with Michele "I swear my husband isn't gay" Bachman and Herman "Nine! Nine! Nine!" Cain leading at times, where ol' Niggerhead Ranch Perry showed up to a debate drunk and forgot what his policies were, where during one Republican debate the crowd booed a soldier who asked a question about Don't Ask, Don't Tell(and not a single candidate stuck up for the guy whose Commander-in-Chief they wanted to be), where we witnessed the absurdity of Mitt Romney apologizing for Romneycare (which left his state leading the country in healthcare) to Rick Perry (whose state is one of the worst states for healthcare), not to mention the 47% comment, talk of "self-deportation", and Romney only getting the nomination by going against everything he had ever stood for, some people said, "In 2016 the Republicans won't make the same mistakes. They will run a strong field of intelligent candidates who will show the country they aren't a bunch of know-nothing bigots."
I said, "No, they are just gonna get stupider."
Now they have nominated former host of the Apprentice (and three-decade-long pop culture punchline) Donald Trump. He beat out a guy who bragged that women "came out of their kitchens" to vote for him (Kasich), two guys who are on record saying the Bible should take precedence over Federal law (Jindal and Huckabbee), a guy who lied about being an attempted murderer and who thinks the pyramids are grain silos (Carson), a man whose name is synonymous with post-anal sex butt froth (Santorum), and the Zodiac Killer (Cruz). And already I hear people saying, "If he loses, the party will have to get serious, and they will run better candidates in 2020 who can show people that the party really is smart, and really does want to be inclusive."
I say, "No, they are just gonna get stupider."
My money for 2020 says they nominate a chimp who knows how to say ethnic slurs in sign language.
Thursday, August 4, 2016
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
Republicans: Feelings Over Facts
Ever notice that when a Republican is confronted with the reality that something they are saying doesn't line up with facts, they fall back on saying, "But people feel..."? Just look at the recent Republican National Convention. It was a parade of people talking about the way people feel. People feel the country is going in the wrong direction. People feel like they aren't safe. People feel that hordes of Mexicans are streaming over the border. People feel there is a war on cops.
Both Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's campaign chairman, and ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich, in separate interviews at the Convention were challenged on their claims that crime had skyrocketed under Obama's presidency. Both of them simply refused to listened to silly ol' facts, and insisted that people feel that crime is rising, therefore it is in fact rising. Manafort went a a step further and insinuated that the FBI was fudging crime statistics. At one point Gingrich all but admitted that he knew he wasn't telling the truth, but that the only thing that mattered was if people believed he was telling the truth. Scary stuff, folks.
Enough about what people feel; what are the facts?
1) Both violent crime and property crime have been dropping for nearly three decades, and have continue to drop throughout Obama's presidency:
2) Cop deaths under Obama are lower than they have been in decades:
3) Immigration from Mexico has declined since President Obama took office:
So enough with how people feel (which Republicans sure as hell try to influence with 24/7 propaganda though TV, radio, print and the Internet). These are the FACTS.
sources:
http://www.politifact.com/colorado/statements/2016/jul/20/darryl-glenn/darryl-glenn-says-neighborhoods-have-become-more-v/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/19/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s
Both Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's campaign chairman, and ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich, in separate interviews at the Convention were challenged on their claims that crime had skyrocketed under Obama's presidency. Both of them simply refused to listened to silly ol' facts, and insisted that people feel that crime is rising, therefore it is in fact rising. Manafort went a a step further and insinuated that the FBI was fudging crime statistics. At one point Gingrich all but admitted that he knew he wasn't telling the truth, but that the only thing that mattered was if people believed he was telling the truth. Scary stuff, folks.
Enough about what people feel; what are the facts?
1) Both violent crime and property crime have been dropping for nearly three decades, and have continue to drop throughout Obama's presidency:
2) Cop deaths under Obama are lower than they have been in decades:
3) Immigration from Mexico has declined since President Obama took office:
So enough with how people feel (which Republicans sure as hell try to influence with 24/7 propaganda though TV, radio, print and the Internet). These are the FACTS.
sources:
http://www.politifact.com/colorado/statements/2016/jul/20/darryl-glenn/darryl-glenn-says-neighborhoods-have-become-more-v/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/19/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/09/police-are-safer-under-obama-than-they-have-been-in-decades/ | |||||||
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
The Cult of Trump
I am working my way through the Third Reich Trilogy by Richard J. Evans, and I'm on the second volume, The Third Reich in Power. I was reading this bit about this middle-class family, and the way that their correspondence showed how many in the middle-class became masters of self-deception and delusion under the propaganda assault of the Reich. Within a matter of weeks the tone of the letters changed from feeling sorry for the victims of the violence of the Nazis, particularly the Jews, to fully accepting the actions of the regime as necessary. Now, they believed, Jews were a negative influence on the nation, and they praised Hitler's swift actions to put an end to their corrupting influence. Particularly revolting acts of violence committed by Hitler's stormtroopers were waved away as the acts of provocateurs who had infiltrated the brownshirts with the intention of committing such acts so as to make them look bad. News of civil rights abuses on a mass scale were accepted as baseless rumors being spread by Marxists to discredit the regime. These were the lies they were told; they happily accepted them as fact, and repeated them as such.
I couldn't help while reading this bit to think of the Cult of Trump, and the way that his most ardent supporters are willing to believe anything he says no matter how ridiculous, and to completely disregard all evidence to the contrary.
He says he saw news footage of thousands of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11? Then it happened, and the fact that no one else saw this footage, no news service has acknowledged that they aired such footage, and despite the fact that in the months since he initially made the statement no one has been able to find the footage, they accept it as truth. Why would the Great Man have said it if it weren't true?
He says that the Obama administration is lying about the unemployment rate, and that the real rate is 40%? It doesn't trouble their intellect that this dubious figure is 15 points higher than the deepest part of the Great Depression, or that we have had over 70 consecutive months of private-sector job growth. The unemployment rate is 40%. Because the Great Man said so. Says he read it on the Internet.
Where this unthinking, sheep-like obedience and willful bypassing of the intellect is most glaring are in the instances (and there are many) where Trump changes his position from one moment to the next. Trump says he will order soldiers to kill the families of terrorists, and his supporters defend it. Then he says that he never said he would order soldiers to kill the families of terrorists, and the same supporters who a matter of days ago were defending the statement now claim that he never made any such statement, and that it's just more lies for the "liberal media". He says that a judge of Mexican heritage is inherently biased against him due to his ancestry, and his supporters defend him vehemently. It's obvious, they say, that the judge is loyal to "the Mexicans" and can't possibly give Trump a fair trial. Then Trump says that that's not what he meant, and that the "liberal media" took what he said out of context. Despite the fact that he repeated this point very clearly, and that there is video and audio footage of it, and despite the fact that they themselves were agreeing with the point and defending it a day ago, suddenly his supporters deny that he ever said it. Just more lies from the media, who took what he said out of context.
In order to reinforce the bubble of willful ignorance in which it is necessary for one to live in in order to support Trump in spite of the lies, flip-flops, and exaggerations that escape his mouth on a regular basis, Trump, like all the best demagogues and cult leaders before him, has set himself up as the only source of truth.
The media? They're liars!
The leaders of his own party? They're liars, too!
If a Trump supporter wants to know the truth, they must go to only one source. Trump, and Trump alone, is the source of all knowledge. News from any other source is inherently untrustworthy, no matter how well-sourced. Only he has the power to decide what is true, and if what he judges to be true today is different from what he judged to be true yesterday, so be it.
We have always been at war with Eastasia, have we not?
I couldn't help while reading this bit to think of the Cult of Trump, and the way that his most ardent supporters are willing to believe anything he says no matter how ridiculous, and to completely disregard all evidence to the contrary.
He says he saw news footage of thousands of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11? Then it happened, and the fact that no one else saw this footage, no news service has acknowledged that they aired such footage, and despite the fact that in the months since he initially made the statement no one has been able to find the footage, they accept it as truth. Why would the Great Man have said it if it weren't true?
He says that the Obama administration is lying about the unemployment rate, and that the real rate is 40%? It doesn't trouble their intellect that this dubious figure is 15 points higher than the deepest part of the Great Depression, or that we have had over 70 consecutive months of private-sector job growth. The unemployment rate is 40%. Because the Great Man said so. Says he read it on the Internet.
Where this unthinking, sheep-like obedience and willful bypassing of the intellect is most glaring are in the instances (and there are many) where Trump changes his position from one moment to the next. Trump says he will order soldiers to kill the families of terrorists, and his supporters defend it. Then he says that he never said he would order soldiers to kill the families of terrorists, and the same supporters who a matter of days ago were defending the statement now claim that he never made any such statement, and that it's just more lies for the "liberal media". He says that a judge of Mexican heritage is inherently biased against him due to his ancestry, and his supporters defend him vehemently. It's obvious, they say, that the judge is loyal to "the Mexicans" and can't possibly give Trump a fair trial. Then Trump says that that's not what he meant, and that the "liberal media" took what he said out of context. Despite the fact that he repeated this point very clearly, and that there is video and audio footage of it, and despite the fact that they themselves were agreeing with the point and defending it a day ago, suddenly his supporters deny that he ever said it. Just more lies from the media, who took what he said out of context.
In order to reinforce the bubble of willful ignorance in which it is necessary for one to live in in order to support Trump in spite of the lies, flip-flops, and exaggerations that escape his mouth on a regular basis, Trump, like all the best demagogues and cult leaders before him, has set himself up as the only source of truth.
The media? They're liars!
The leaders of his own party? They're liars, too!
If a Trump supporter wants to know the truth, they must go to only one source. Trump, and Trump alone, is the source of all knowledge. News from any other source is inherently untrustworthy, no matter how well-sourced. Only he has the power to decide what is true, and if what he judges to be true today is different from what he judged to be true yesterday, so be it.
We have always been at war with Eastasia, have we not?
Sunday, May 22, 2016
Sanders supporters: Isn't that ridiculous?
Hearing some of the things Sanders supporters say, I often think, "Don't they realize how ridiculous what they seem to be suggesting is?" That's where I got the idea for this. Let's begin.
1) What I keep hearing from Sanders supporters is that superdelegates should give him the nomination simply because he does better in head-to-head polls with Trump, even though he is losing in both pledged delegates and the popular vote. Let's forget for a moment the simple fact that Bernie's "electability numbers" are inflated due to the fact that he has been spared the level of negative publicity that Clinton has been subjected to (Republicans have no reason to attack Bernie, and Hillary has mostly held back because she is afraid of pissing off his supporters), and also that this argument is VERY different than the one Sanders and his supporters were making a few months ago, when they were warning that superdelegates had better back the person who had more pledged delegates. But what you are essentially saying is that primary voters don't matter, and that the winner should be selected solely based on how well they do on General Election polls.
Isn't that ridiculous?
2) Another thing I keep hearing is that the fact that Clinton is "under investigation" by the FBI means that superdelegates must back Sanders. First, let's remember that the reason the FBI is looking through Hillary's emails is not because they had any suspicion that she had done anything wrong, but because Congressional Republicans, having failed with their witch hunt Benghazi Committee (which several Republicans admitted was an explicit anti-Hillary PR campaign), formally requested that the FBI look over Hillary's emails to be sure that she didn't break any laws. Unless and until the FBI says differently it remains nothing more than the FBI complying with a Congressional request. Basically, what you're saying here is that anytime Republicans want to take out an opponent, they can just hold some sham hearing, or request that a government agency look into whether or not that person did anything wrong, and then that person immediately becomes disqualified from running for President.
Isn't that ridiculous?
3) This one specifically applies to the "I'm gonna vote for Trump" contingent among Sanders supporters. While trying to assuage their conscience with such unfactual statements such as, "At least he's against war" (in reality he supported the Iraq War, and won't rule out the use of nukes in the Middle East), and, "At least he wants to raise the minimum wage" (in reality he wants to abolish the federal minimum wage), one thing they keep coming back to is, "At least he's self-funding his campaign, so he can't be bought". First, he's not self-funding in the General Election (and you should have known better that to believe he would), and every dollar he has given his campaign has been in the form of a loan for which he can pay himself back out of third-party contributions, and second he has only been able to (mostly) self-fund his primary campaign because he is a billionaire. So what you are implying with this point is that only billionaires should be able to run for President, as they are the only people who would be able to self-fund their campaigns.
Isn't that ridiculous?
4) Implying that the South somehow doesn't count. For weeks Sanders supporters kept repeating the cliché that Hillary can only win primary contests in the South. Then she started winning a lot of contests elsewhere, and the new argument was that she could only win closed contests. Whenever it's pointed out to them that she has actually won a majority of open contests (11 of 19 so far, according to ballotpedia), they invariably reply with, "Yeah, but those were all in the South!" One could easily deduce from this argument that Sanders supporters think the entire South should be excluded from the Democratic primaries.
Say it with me: isn't that ridiculous?
1) What I keep hearing from Sanders supporters is that superdelegates should give him the nomination simply because he does better in head-to-head polls with Trump, even though he is losing in both pledged delegates and the popular vote. Let's forget for a moment the simple fact that Bernie's "electability numbers" are inflated due to the fact that he has been spared the level of negative publicity that Clinton has been subjected to (Republicans have no reason to attack Bernie, and Hillary has mostly held back because she is afraid of pissing off his supporters), and also that this argument is VERY different than the one Sanders and his supporters were making a few months ago, when they were warning that superdelegates had better back the person who had more pledged delegates. But what you are essentially saying is that primary voters don't matter, and that the winner should be selected solely based on how well they do on General Election polls.
Isn't that ridiculous?
2) Another thing I keep hearing is that the fact that Clinton is "under investigation" by the FBI means that superdelegates must back Sanders. First, let's remember that the reason the FBI is looking through Hillary's emails is not because they had any suspicion that she had done anything wrong, but because Congressional Republicans, having failed with their witch hunt Benghazi Committee (which several Republicans admitted was an explicit anti-Hillary PR campaign), formally requested that the FBI look over Hillary's emails to be sure that she didn't break any laws. Unless and until the FBI says differently it remains nothing more than the FBI complying with a Congressional request. Basically, what you're saying here is that anytime Republicans want to take out an opponent, they can just hold some sham hearing, or request that a government agency look into whether or not that person did anything wrong, and then that person immediately becomes disqualified from running for President.
Isn't that ridiculous?
3) This one specifically applies to the "I'm gonna vote for Trump" contingent among Sanders supporters. While trying to assuage their conscience with such unfactual statements such as, "At least he's against war" (in reality he supported the Iraq War, and won't rule out the use of nukes in the Middle East), and, "At least he wants to raise the minimum wage" (in reality he wants to abolish the federal minimum wage), one thing they keep coming back to is, "At least he's self-funding his campaign, so he can't be bought". First, he's not self-funding in the General Election (and you should have known better that to believe he would), and every dollar he has given his campaign has been in the form of a loan for which he can pay himself back out of third-party contributions, and second he has only been able to (mostly) self-fund his primary campaign because he is a billionaire. So what you are implying with this point is that only billionaires should be able to run for President, as they are the only people who would be able to self-fund their campaigns.
Isn't that ridiculous?
4) Implying that the South somehow doesn't count. For weeks Sanders supporters kept repeating the cliché that Hillary can only win primary contests in the South. Then she started winning a lot of contests elsewhere, and the new argument was that she could only win closed contests. Whenever it's pointed out to them that she has actually won a majority of open contests (11 of 19 so far, according to ballotpedia), they invariably reply with, "Yeah, but those were all in the South!" One could easily deduce from this argument that Sanders supporters think the entire South should be excluded from the Democratic primaries.
Say it with me: isn't that ridiculous?
Friday, May 20, 2016
Trump: A Clear and Present Threat to Roe v. Wade
Donald Trump has said that he will defund Planned Parenthood, and in an interview with Fox News declared that the best way to overturn Roe v. Wade "is by electing me president."
Some disaffected liberals who may be considering voting for Trump as a form of protest due to their unhappiness with the way the Democratic primaries have worked out (and we all know who I'm talking about) might comfort themselves by saying, "Yeah, but what are the chances he could actually get Roe v. Wade overturned?"
Those chances are actually pretty good, as it turns out.
Consider the case of Oklahoma. That state just passed a bill that calls for three years imprisonment for ANY doctor who performs ANY abortion. This new law is clearly unconstitutional, and runs in direct contradiction to Roe v. Wade. But here's the thing--the Republican lawmakers who passed the bill KNOW it is unconstitutional. They KNOW that every lower court will strike it down, and that they will be forced to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. And this is precisely what they want.
With the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate refusing to even consider President Obama's moderate pick to replace deceased Justice Antonin Scalia--which itself is unprecedented and arguably unconstitutional (and not at all comparable to filibusters of the past, often cited by Republicans to obfuscate the unprecedented nature of their actions)--the anti-choice forces are hoping that Scalia's seat will have been filled with a hardline, anti-choice conservative by the time the case makes its way to the SCOTUS. Both Democratic nominees still in the race have strong pro-choice backgrounds, so the only chance the anti-choice forces have of fulfilling their wish is the victory of the man who has said outright, for the whole nation to hear, that he is the best chance the anti-choice Right has of getting Roe. v. Wade overturned.
So for that segment of the liberal-minded electorate who may be thinking of showing their dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party by casting a protest vote for the Orange Chameleon, and who haven't yet been dissuaded by his ecstatic use of racist, sexist and Islamophobic rhetoric, or his dangerous appeals to jingoistic nationalism (surely you haven't been fooled into thinking that the man who refuses to rule out the use of nuclear weapons, has called for nuclear proliferation, has promised to revive the use of torture and suggested the murder of the families of terrorists is really a dove?), or even his frightening encouragement of political violence that is reminiscent of the rise to power of so many dangerous demagogues of the past, then surely if you have a mother, sister, daughter, or any woman in your life who you care about, and who you trust to make decisions about her own body and health, you will not vote for a man who has promised to take the right to make those decision away and instead to place them in the hands of a bunch of old men who think it's their right alone to make life-changing decisions for the women of this country.
*UPDATE*
Oklahoma's Republican governor, perhaps in a fit of reason, vetoed the bill in question. Make no mistake, however; this is not the end of this issue. The anti-choice forces will merely move the battle to another state, and then another, until they find a governor who is willing to go along with them.
Some disaffected liberals who may be considering voting for Trump as a form of protest due to their unhappiness with the way the Democratic primaries have worked out (and we all know who I'm talking about) might comfort themselves by saying, "Yeah, but what are the chances he could actually get Roe v. Wade overturned?"
Those chances are actually pretty good, as it turns out.
Consider the case of Oklahoma. That state just passed a bill that calls for three years imprisonment for ANY doctor who performs ANY abortion. This new law is clearly unconstitutional, and runs in direct contradiction to Roe v. Wade. But here's the thing--the Republican lawmakers who passed the bill KNOW it is unconstitutional. They KNOW that every lower court will strike it down, and that they will be forced to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. And this is precisely what they want.
With the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate refusing to even consider President Obama's moderate pick to replace deceased Justice Antonin Scalia--which itself is unprecedented and arguably unconstitutional (and not at all comparable to filibusters of the past, often cited by Republicans to obfuscate the unprecedented nature of their actions)--the anti-choice forces are hoping that Scalia's seat will have been filled with a hardline, anti-choice conservative by the time the case makes its way to the SCOTUS. Both Democratic nominees still in the race have strong pro-choice backgrounds, so the only chance the anti-choice forces have of fulfilling their wish is the victory of the man who has said outright, for the whole nation to hear, that he is the best chance the anti-choice Right has of getting Roe. v. Wade overturned.
So for that segment of the liberal-minded electorate who may be thinking of showing their dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party by casting a protest vote for the Orange Chameleon, and who haven't yet been dissuaded by his ecstatic use of racist, sexist and Islamophobic rhetoric, or his dangerous appeals to jingoistic nationalism (surely you haven't been fooled into thinking that the man who refuses to rule out the use of nuclear weapons, has called for nuclear proliferation, has promised to revive the use of torture and suggested the murder of the families of terrorists is really a dove?), or even his frightening encouragement of political violence that is reminiscent of the rise to power of so many dangerous demagogues of the past, then surely if you have a mother, sister, daughter, or any woman in your life who you care about, and who you trust to make decisions about her own body and health, you will not vote for a man who has promised to take the right to make those decision away and instead to place them in the hands of a bunch of old men who think it's their right alone to make life-changing decisions for the women of this country.
*UPDATE*
Oklahoma's Republican governor, perhaps in a fit of reason, vetoed the bill in question. Make no mistake, however; this is not the end of this issue. The anti-choice forces will merely move the battle to another state, and then another, until they find a governor who is willing to go along with them.
Wednesday, May 4, 2016
An Open Letter from Donald Trump to "Bernie or Bust"
[The following is satire. Making that clear for legal reasons.]
Hi. I'm Donald Trump. During my campaign for the Republican nomination I've promised to take citizenship away from millions of children by changing the Fourteenth Amendment, deport million of immigrant workers, confiscate money from legal immigrants trying to send money back to their countries of origin, kill the wives and children of terrorists, lock up women who get abortions, steal private property to build a $20 billion border wall that won't work, ban an entire religion, aid nuclear proliferation, oppose any raise in the minimum wage, destroy healthcare reform and the Medicaid system, start trade wars with half the world, and change the law so that the media can't say negative things about me.
I oppose free trade even though my own clothing line was made in China, I retroactively opposed the Iraq War, even though I once wrote an op-ed piece in support of it, and I am funding my own campaign to prove that I, a lowly billionaire, cannot be bought--a subject I know a lot about because I've spent decades buying politicians, getting them to use Eminent Domain to give me other people's property. Of course, the money I am giving to my campaign is given in the form of loans, so I will be able to pay myself back from funds raised by third parties in the General Election phase of the campaign.
I have publicly said that you should treat women like shit, that "the blacks" have it easy these days, and that my daughter is totally doable. I have attacked every woman who has ever opposed me by calling them ugly, fat pigs who are on the rag, and possibly whores. I have also implied that all Mexican immigrants--with the exception of a few who I assume are good people--are rapists and drug dealers. I have encouraged violence on the part of my supporters, including offering to pay their legal bills if they are arrested for assaulting protestors.
I have lied repeatedly and unashamedly, saying that I saw news footage of thousands and thousands of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11. No such news footage exists, but whatever. I have bragged that my supporters are so stupid that I could shoot someone in the middle of the street and they would still vote for me. I have accused entire states of being full of idiots because I did not win them. I have also threatened so many lawsuits during the course of my campaign that I have lost count. I once evicted an old lady so I could expand a parking lot, so you know I'm a great guy. Oh, and I'm about to go on trial for defrauding people with my phony university.
I have used racism, Islamophobia, sexism, and general bigotry throughout my campaign to attract legions of "angry white men"--some of them admitted white supremacists--to give me a leg up on my competition. I am such a political opportunist that I have changed party affiliation no less than six times over the past thirty years.
I took the time to write this letter to thank all of you Bernie Sanders supporters who are promising to vote for me in November. I never expected such support from self-professed liberals after all of the awful things I've said and done, but I am honored to accept your support. Don't worry, if you don't tell anybody that you voted for me, there is no way for them to ever know. This way you can shout about equal gender rights, and minority rights, and about how black lives matter, and speak out against intolerance and bigotry of all stripes, and fight for a higher minimum wage, all while voting for a man who has openly promised to take the opposite position of all of those things.
When I am President I promise to indict Hillary Clinton by presidential decree. My Supreme Court pick will surely help me in this matter. I also believe that with the power of my office I will finally be able uncover Barack Obama's real birth certificate. Oh yeah, in case you forgot--I am also a birther.
Yours truly,
Television personality Donald J. Trump
Hi. I'm Donald Trump. During my campaign for the Republican nomination I've promised to take citizenship away from millions of children by changing the Fourteenth Amendment, deport million of immigrant workers, confiscate money from legal immigrants trying to send money back to their countries of origin, kill the wives and children of terrorists, lock up women who get abortions, steal private property to build a $20 billion border wall that won't work, ban an entire religion, aid nuclear proliferation, oppose any raise in the minimum wage, destroy healthcare reform and the Medicaid system, start trade wars with half the world, and change the law so that the media can't say negative things about me.
I oppose free trade even though my own clothing line was made in China, I retroactively opposed the Iraq War, even though I once wrote an op-ed piece in support of it, and I am funding my own campaign to prove that I, a lowly billionaire, cannot be bought--a subject I know a lot about because I've spent decades buying politicians, getting them to use Eminent Domain to give me other people's property. Of course, the money I am giving to my campaign is given in the form of loans, so I will be able to pay myself back from funds raised by third parties in the General Election phase of the campaign.
I have publicly said that you should treat women like shit, that "the blacks" have it easy these days, and that my daughter is totally doable. I have attacked every woman who has ever opposed me by calling them ugly, fat pigs who are on the rag, and possibly whores. I have also implied that all Mexican immigrants--with the exception of a few who I assume are good people--are rapists and drug dealers. I have encouraged violence on the part of my supporters, including offering to pay their legal bills if they are arrested for assaulting protestors.
I have lied repeatedly and unashamedly, saying that I saw news footage of thousands and thousands of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11. No such news footage exists, but whatever. I have bragged that my supporters are so stupid that I could shoot someone in the middle of the street and they would still vote for me. I have accused entire states of being full of idiots because I did not win them. I have also threatened so many lawsuits during the course of my campaign that I have lost count. I once evicted an old lady so I could expand a parking lot, so you know I'm a great guy. Oh, and I'm about to go on trial for defrauding people with my phony university.
I have used racism, Islamophobia, sexism, and general bigotry throughout my campaign to attract legions of "angry white men"--some of them admitted white supremacists--to give me a leg up on my competition. I am such a political opportunist that I have changed party affiliation no less than six times over the past thirty years.
I took the time to write this letter to thank all of you Bernie Sanders supporters who are promising to vote for me in November. I never expected such support from self-professed liberals after all of the awful things I've said and done, but I am honored to accept your support. Don't worry, if you don't tell anybody that you voted for me, there is no way for them to ever know. This way you can shout about equal gender rights, and minority rights, and about how black lives matter, and speak out against intolerance and bigotry of all stripes, and fight for a higher minimum wage, all while voting for a man who has openly promised to take the opposite position of all of those things.
When I am President I promise to indict Hillary Clinton by presidential decree. My Supreme Court pick will surely help me in this matter. I also believe that with the power of my office I will finally be able uncover Barack Obama's real birth certificate. Oh yeah, in case you forgot--I am also a birther.
Yours truly,
Television personality Donald J. Trump
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Open Contests and Poor People: Two More Sanders Myths Dispelled
Two myths that I have heard repeated many times by not only Sanders and his campaign, but by many of his supporters, are that he would be winning the Democratic Primaries if there were more open contests, thereby allowing independents to have a bigger voice, and if more poor people voted. But let's take a look at the reality:
Open Contests
Contrary to a belief apparently held by many Sanders supporters that the primaries are just a bunch of elitist, closed-door contests (because apparently registered Democratic voters are all elitists), the fact is that many of the contests held so far have been open contests, and of the 18 open contests held to date Hillary has won 11 of them:
Poor People
It's true that poor people traditionally have lower turnout rates than other economic classes. However, the claim that Sanders would benefit from higher turnout among this group is dubious. Of voters with an annual income of less than $50,000 Hillary has beaten Sanders by 11 points. He has lost voters making over $100,000 by 21 points, and middle income voters by 9 points. In short, Sanders has suffered a rout at Clinton's hands among all economic classes.
sources:
https://ballotpedia.org/Open_primary
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/23/sanders-says-he-has-lost-primaries-to-clinton-because-poor-people-dont-vote/
Open Contests
Contrary to a belief apparently held by many Sanders supporters that the primaries are just a bunch of elitist, closed-door contests (because apparently registered Democratic voters are all elitists), the fact is that many of the contests held so far have been open contests, and of the 18 open contests held to date Hillary has won 11 of them:
 |
| Source: Ballotpedia |
Poor People
It's true that poor people traditionally have lower turnout rates than other economic classes. However, the claim that Sanders would benefit from higher turnout among this group is dubious. Of voters with an annual income of less than $50,000 Hillary has beaten Sanders by 11 points. He has lost voters making over $100,000 by 21 points, and middle income voters by 9 points. In short, Sanders has suffered a rout at Clinton's hands among all economic classes.
sources:
https://ballotpedia.org/Open_primary
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/23/sanders-says-he-has-lost-primaries-to-clinton-because-poor-people-dont-vote/
Sunday, April 17, 2016
Dispelling the Myth of the "Pro-Clinton Media"
In recent months, as the ability to tell the difference between a Bernie Sanders supporter and a Tea Partier has gotten tougher--on various forums angry Sanders supporters have suggested that Clinton supporters are only voting for her because she has a uterus (and that's probably the least sexist thing said in relation to Hillary Clinton by these people), have pondered whether "ignorant minorities" should be allowed to vote in the primaries, since they can't possibly understand politics or decide what is in their best interest, and therefore may need some good white folks to protect them from themselves, have made "liberal elites" the boogeyman (and a target of various grievances), and have taken up Hillary's e-mails and Benghazi with even more gusto, perhaps, than your average right-winger--it seems that Sanders supporters have found yet another villain to cast blame upon or their candidate's every failure: the "lamestream" media.
Yes, that's right. I'm sure you've heard it too many times to count at this point. The media is "in the tank" for Clinton. The media is helping the DNC "fix" the election for Clinton. Of course there's no other way she could be beating Sanders by nearly 2.5 million votes, is there?
Simply put, as with many of the things that Sanders' supporters believe to be true, the evidence simply isn't there. Let's take a look at a few examples of the media's treatment of Secretary Clinton in relation to Senator Sanders, and then you can decide if they are in the tank for her.
1. Iowa
Hillary Clinton won Iowa. I know that must come as a surprise to you, however, after being told by the media time and again that Clinton and Sanders tied in Iowa.
2. Momentum
On March 15th, Hillary Clinton won five states in one day, two of which the Sanders campaign predicted that Sanders would win. Do you recall the media talking about "momentum"? Do you recall them talking about how Clinton's supporters must be "fired up", or "energized", as evidenced by here commanding victory on that day? I don't either. I do recall the media telling us again and again that the momentum is with Sanders because he went on a pretty good run after that day, winning seven of eight contests. I don't think I've heard any reporting on Sanders in the last couple of weeks that didn't include some mention of momentum. What they fail to mention, as if it has completely slipped their minds, is that everyone knew that Sanders was going to have a few good weeks between March 15th and April 19th (the day of the New York Primary). The map favored him--six of eight contests were held by caucus, a process widely acknowledged to be favorable to Sanders. Most of the states being contested happened to favor Sanders demographically, i.e. they were very white (Hawaii being an exception). So Sanders won a bunch of states where both the demographics and the voting process favored him, and what the media makes of this is that he has momentum on his side.
3. "The Michigan Upset" (or, "What About Mississippi?")
On the same day that Bernie Sanders pulled a come-from-behind upset in Michigan another contest was being held, this one in Mississippi. I doubt you heard much about Mississippi in the days that followed, however. While the media was busy chattering about the "stunning results" of the Michigan Primary, and how once again the theory (or, as it would be more accurately called, the MYTH) that Hillary Clinton under-performs had been proven, the ignored the fact that while Bernie won Michigan by 1.5 points that day, Clinton won Mississippi by 66 points, a feat that is even more impressive when you consider the fact that "under-performing" Hillary was leading in Mississippi polls by significantly less (RCP avg. +44) than she ultimately won by. Clinton finished the night with a net gain of 24 pledged delegates. But once again the media told us that the "momentum" was with Bernie.
4. Clinton only wins in the South
Not only is this oft-repeated claim made by Sanders and his supporters, as well as by their friends in the media, offensive to Democratic voters in the South (and, as journalist Robert Schlesinger puts it, suggests a world view redolent of former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's toxic pandering to "real America"), but it a lie so obvious that one can only assume that the people telling it have absolutely no shame. Ohio, Iowa, Massachusetts, Arizona and Illinois are southern states? The media rarely questions this claim, but as Nate Silver writes, Clinton is winning the states that look like the Democratic Party.
5. Clinton is only winning states that the Republican nominee will win in November
Again with the shameless lies. Clinton has won several major swing states: Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, Virginia and North Carolina. She has also won states like South Carolina, Georgia and Arizona, states that, while longshots, some Dems think can be turned blue this November, such as South Carolina, Georgia and Arizona. Meanwhile, Sanders has won the key battleground states of...Wyoming and Idaho?
6. The "Sanders surge" in New York
A lot has been made in the media over the surge in Senator Sanders' poll numbers in New York in recent weeks. Where polls once showed Clinton leading by 30+ points, the numbers started to tighten, with polls showing Sanders narrowing Clinton's lead to as little as ten points (if you consider ten points "little"). The media hasn't given much thought to the fact that the "Sanders surge" has (at best) plateaued, and (at worst) receded, with one recent poll showing Clinton's number climbing to +17. Curious that the evil elitist media isn't playing this "Clinton surge" up, seeing as how they are trying to "steal" the election for her and all.
7. Sanders rallies are big (and it doesn't mean much)
Both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump (as well as their die-hard supporters) will tell you time and again that the large turnout they get at rallies proves that "the people" are overwhelmingly behind them. Yet to date Trump has only captured about 37% of the Republican vote, and on the Democratic side Bernie Sanders is trailing Hillary Clinton by about 2.5 million votes. Huge rallies on Ohio and Florida didn't do much good, apparently, as Sanders lost the first state by 14 points, and the second state by 31. Big turnout at Sanders and Trump rallies proves nothing more than that their supporters are more likely to attend a rally. But still, the media can't wait to tell you about the great turnout Bernie has had at several recent New York rallies, and what this means re: momentum.
8. Protestors, immaturity looks awful on you
It's not just Donald Trump who has felt the sting of overzealous Sanders supporters showing up to wreck the party. (And let's be clear, neither Trump nor his sucker-punching followers are without blame.) But let me ask you this: Have you seen Clinton supporters show up to a Sanders rally or speech, and proceed to shout him down? Have you seen Clinton supporters throw objects at a Sander's motorcade, the way Sanders supporters threw a thousand dollars in singles at a Clinton motorcade recently? (And what a fine use of a thousand dollars. Go to hell, homeless people, this money is for throwing at cars as a means of protest!) Yet the media doesn't call these people immature brats (which is what they are); instead they are called "passionate supporters".
As Eric Sasson wrote in the New Republic:
sources:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
https://newrepublic.com/article/131762/hillary-voter
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/articles/2016-04-15/bernie-sanders-bad-delegate-math-and-fantasy-revolution
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-is-winning-the-states-that-look-like-the-democratic-party/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/16/politics/sanders-clinton-fundraiser-dollar-bills/index.html
Yes, that's right. I'm sure you've heard it too many times to count at this point. The media is "in the tank" for Clinton. The media is helping the DNC "fix" the election for Clinton. Of course there's no other way she could be beating Sanders by nearly 2.5 million votes, is there?
Simply put, as with many of the things that Sanders' supporters believe to be true, the evidence simply isn't there. Let's take a look at a few examples of the media's treatment of Secretary Clinton in relation to Senator Sanders, and then you can decide if they are in the tank for her.
1. Iowa
Hillary Clinton won Iowa. I know that must come as a surprise to you, however, after being told by the media time and again that Clinton and Sanders tied in Iowa.
2. Momentum
On March 15th, Hillary Clinton won five states in one day, two of which the Sanders campaign predicted that Sanders would win. Do you recall the media talking about "momentum"? Do you recall them talking about how Clinton's supporters must be "fired up", or "energized", as evidenced by here commanding victory on that day? I don't either. I do recall the media telling us again and again that the momentum is with Sanders because he went on a pretty good run after that day, winning seven of eight contests. I don't think I've heard any reporting on Sanders in the last couple of weeks that didn't include some mention of momentum. What they fail to mention, as if it has completely slipped their minds, is that everyone knew that Sanders was going to have a few good weeks between March 15th and April 19th (the day of the New York Primary). The map favored him--six of eight contests were held by caucus, a process widely acknowledged to be favorable to Sanders. Most of the states being contested happened to favor Sanders demographically, i.e. they were very white (Hawaii being an exception). So Sanders won a bunch of states where both the demographics and the voting process favored him, and what the media makes of this is that he has momentum on his side.
3. "The Michigan Upset" (or, "What About Mississippi?")
On the same day that Bernie Sanders pulled a come-from-behind upset in Michigan another contest was being held, this one in Mississippi. I doubt you heard much about Mississippi in the days that followed, however. While the media was busy chattering about the "stunning results" of the Michigan Primary, and how once again the theory (or, as it would be more accurately called, the MYTH) that Hillary Clinton under-performs had been proven, the ignored the fact that while Bernie won Michigan by 1.5 points that day, Clinton won Mississippi by 66 points, a feat that is even more impressive when you consider the fact that "under-performing" Hillary was leading in Mississippi polls by significantly less (RCP avg. +44) than she ultimately won by. Clinton finished the night with a net gain of 24 pledged delegates. But once again the media told us that the "momentum" was with Bernie.
4. Clinton only wins in the South
Not only is this oft-repeated claim made by Sanders and his supporters, as well as by their friends in the media, offensive to Democratic voters in the South (and, as journalist Robert Schlesinger puts it, suggests a world view redolent of former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's toxic pandering to "real America"), but it a lie so obvious that one can only assume that the people telling it have absolutely no shame. Ohio, Iowa, Massachusetts, Arizona and Illinois are southern states? The media rarely questions this claim, but as Nate Silver writes, Clinton is winning the states that look like the Democratic Party.
5. Clinton is only winning states that the Republican nominee will win in November
Again with the shameless lies. Clinton has won several major swing states: Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, Virginia and North Carolina. She has also won states like South Carolina, Georgia and Arizona, states that, while longshots, some Dems think can be turned blue this November, such as South Carolina, Georgia and Arizona. Meanwhile, Sanders has won the key battleground states of...Wyoming and Idaho?
6. The "Sanders surge" in New York
A lot has been made in the media over the surge in Senator Sanders' poll numbers in New York in recent weeks. Where polls once showed Clinton leading by 30+ points, the numbers started to tighten, with polls showing Sanders narrowing Clinton's lead to as little as ten points (if you consider ten points "little"). The media hasn't given much thought to the fact that the "Sanders surge" has (at best) plateaued, and (at worst) receded, with one recent poll showing Clinton's number climbing to +17. Curious that the evil elitist media isn't playing this "Clinton surge" up, seeing as how they are trying to "steal" the election for her and all.
7. Sanders rallies are big (and it doesn't mean much)
Both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump (as well as their die-hard supporters) will tell you time and again that the large turnout they get at rallies proves that "the people" are overwhelmingly behind them. Yet to date Trump has only captured about 37% of the Republican vote, and on the Democratic side Bernie Sanders is trailing Hillary Clinton by about 2.5 million votes. Huge rallies on Ohio and Florida didn't do much good, apparently, as Sanders lost the first state by 14 points, and the second state by 31. Big turnout at Sanders and Trump rallies proves nothing more than that their supporters are more likely to attend a rally. But still, the media can't wait to tell you about the great turnout Bernie has had at several recent New York rallies, and what this means re: momentum.
8. Protestors, immaturity looks awful on you
It's not just Donald Trump who has felt the sting of overzealous Sanders supporters showing up to wreck the party. (And let's be clear, neither Trump nor his sucker-punching followers are without blame.) But let me ask you this: Have you seen Clinton supporters show up to a Sanders rally or speech, and proceed to shout him down? Have you seen Clinton supporters throw objects at a Sander's motorcade, the way Sanders supporters threw a thousand dollars in singles at a Clinton motorcade recently? (And what a fine use of a thousand dollars. Go to hell, homeless people, this money is for throwing at cars as a means of protest!) Yet the media doesn't call these people immature brats (which is what they are); instead they are called "passionate supporters".
As Eric Sasson wrote in the New Republic:
We never hear that Hillary Clinton has “momentum”—what she has is a “sizable delegate lead.” No one this cycle has described Clinton supporters as “fired up”—it’s simply not possible that people are fired up for Hillary. No, what we gather about Clinton from the press is that she can’t connect. She has very high unfavorable ratings. People think she is dishonest and untrustworthy. She is not a gifted politician. She is a phony. Hated by so many. The list goes on.Yet almost 9.5 million Americans have gone out to the polls and voted for Hillary Clinton, a figure not matched by any other candidate. Yet, according the the media, Sanders the momentum, Clinton consistently under-performs, and a "revolution" is taking over the country. Boy, if the media is trying to steal the election for Clinton, they sure have a funny way of going about it.
sources:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
https://newrepublic.com/article/131762/hillary-voter
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/articles/2016-04-15/bernie-sanders-bad-delegate-math-and-fantasy-revolution
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-is-winning-the-states-that-look-like-the-democratic-party/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/16/politics/sanders-clinton-fundraiser-dollar-bills/index.html
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Dispelling two myths re: Clinton and the Primaries
Myth #1: Clinton always underperforms
That is, that even when she wins, she ins by narrower margins than the polls showed. While she has underperformed in some contests, she has overperformed in others. A few examples:
State / RCP avg. (or last poll before contest if there was no RCP avg.) / Final results--
GA / Clinton +37 / Clinton +42.9
TN / Clinton +26 / Clinton +33.7
SC / Clinton 27.5 / Clinton + 47.5
VA / Clinton +21.5 / Clinton +29.1
MS / Clinton +44 / Clinton +66.1
And there are still more--Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, etc.
Myth #2: Clinton only wins states that will be won by a Republican in November
Both Clinton and Sanders have won many states that will either be blue or red in November no matter who the Democratic nominee is. (Or do you really think Sanders could win Utah and Wyoming in the General Election?) As far as true swing states go, it's no contest. Sanders took New Hampshire and Colorado, but even if you consider Wisconsin and Michigan to be swing states (and I am dubious about that), Clinton still outpaces him with wins in Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Nevada and Virginia, not to mention states that are long shots but which some Dems think can be turned, such as South Carolina and Arizona. Meanwhile she is currently ahead of Sanders in the polls by double digits in Pennsylvania, another key swing state.
Poll numbers courtesy of RealClearPolitics.
That is, that even when she wins, she ins by narrower margins than the polls showed. While she has underperformed in some contests, she has overperformed in others. A few examples:
State / RCP avg. (or last poll before contest if there was no RCP avg.) / Final results--
GA / Clinton +37 / Clinton +42.9
TN / Clinton +26 / Clinton +33.7
SC / Clinton 27.5 / Clinton + 47.5
VA / Clinton +21.5 / Clinton +29.1
MS / Clinton +44 / Clinton +66.1
And there are still more--Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, etc.
Myth #2: Clinton only wins states that will be won by a Republican in November
Both Clinton and Sanders have won many states that will either be blue or red in November no matter who the Democratic nominee is. (Or do you really think Sanders could win Utah and Wyoming in the General Election?) As far as true swing states go, it's no contest. Sanders took New Hampshire and Colorado, but even if you consider Wisconsin and Michigan to be swing states (and I am dubious about that), Clinton still outpaces him with wins in Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Nevada and Virginia, not to mention states that are long shots but which some Dems think can be turned, such as South Carolina and Arizona. Meanwhile she is currently ahead of Sanders in the polls by double digits in Pennsylvania, another key swing state.
Poll numbers courtesy of RealClearPolitics.
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
Trump: A Comparison of Autocrats (or, Does This Sound Familiar?)
Tell me, does any of this remind you of Donald Trump?
Symbols and pageantry: Witness any given Trump rally.
Acts of violence: I repeat, witness any given Trump rally.
Other comparisons: The use of a minority group (or groups) as a scapegoat for all, or most, of society's ills (ban the Muslims, and deport all the Mexicans, and our problems will be solved!), and his use of the "Great Man Theory" ("Only I can solves your problems...Only I can make you great...Only I can protect you...Only I will tell you the truth...Listen only to ME...Trust only ME...Not a party, not an ideology, just Me! Me! Me!").
I have started rereading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and I couldn't help making these connections between one autocrat and another. I'm not suggesting that Trump would murder six million people (well, he may do so if he makes good on his threats to nuke the Middle East, but let's assume that he would never actually follow through with that), but I think there is no doubt (based on his public statements) that he would be perhaps the most authoritarian president we have ever had. This is a guy who brags that the military will follow his orders even if the orders are illegal. He promises to crush the free press by changing the law so that people can't report negatively about him. He threatens to strip the "racial enemy" of their very citizenship (i.e. the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants). He says all of this...and his supporters cheer!
It's at times like this that I think of a line of dialogue from film Revenge of the Sith:
sources:
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William L. Shirer, ppg. 43, 46, 69 and 70.
Click here to see the scene that I referenced from Revenge of the Sith.
"I understood the infamous spiritual terror which this movement exerts...at a given sign it unleashes a veritable barrage of lies and slanders against whatever adversary seems most dangerous, until the nerves of the attacked person breaks down..."Throughout the Primaries Trump has moved from one target to the next, whoever he sees as his greatest threat being hammered down before moving on to the next greatest threat. Thus we have attacks on "Low Energy Jeb". When he's gone, Trump turns his malignant gaze to "Little Marco" who is "trying to be Don Rickles". Then, when Rubio is out of the picture, we get "Lyin' Ted" and his "crazy wife". If a particularly damaging new story comes out, he averts his attention to the threat of the moment, going on another anti-press (and anti-intellectual) tirade. If he gives a bad interview, well then it's time to turn his scorn on the interviewer for the next few days. Always aware of the enemy of the moment, and always ready to unleash a "barrage of lies and slander" until their nerves break.
"The power which has always started the greatest...political avalanches in history rolling has from time immemorial been the magic power of the spoken word...All great movements are popular movements, volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotional sentiments, stirred either by the cruel Goddess of Distress or the firebrand of the word hurled among the masses..."Trump plays on emotions, particularly fear and anger. No critical thinking necessary, and reason is a vice; whatever you feel in your gut should guide you.
What the masses needed, he thought, were not only ideas--a few simple ideas, that is, that he could easily hammer though their skulls--but symbols that would win their faith, pageantry and color that would arouse them, and acts of violence...which, if successful, would attract adherents and give them a sense of power over the weak.Simple ideas to be hammered through skulls: Mexico and China are bad!! We need to ban Muslims!!! I will kick ISIS' ass!!! I will make everything great!!!
Symbols and pageantry: Witness any given Trump rally.
Acts of violence: I repeat, witness any given Trump rally.
...he was intrigued by what he called the "infamous spiritual and physical terror" which he thought was employed by the Social Democrats against their political opponents. Now he turned it to good purpose in his own anti-Socialist party. [People] were assigned to his meetings to silence hecklers and, if necessary, toss them out.Protestors at Trump rallies being immediately set upon by violent supporters, while Trump smirks from the stage and offers to pay the legal costs if any of his supporters are arrested, and saying things like "maybe they SHOULD get attacked" when asked about the events later.
Other comparisons: The use of a minority group (or groups) as a scapegoat for all, or most, of society's ills (ban the Muslims, and deport all the Mexicans, and our problems will be solved!), and his use of the "Great Man Theory" ("Only I can solves your problems...Only I can make you great...Only I can protect you...Only I will tell you the truth...Listen only to ME...Trust only ME...Not a party, not an ideology, just Me! Me! Me!").
I have started rereading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and I couldn't help making these connections between one autocrat and another. I'm not suggesting that Trump would murder six million people (well, he may do so if he makes good on his threats to nuke the Middle East, but let's assume that he would never actually follow through with that), but I think there is no doubt (based on his public statements) that he would be perhaps the most authoritarian president we have ever had. This is a guy who brags that the military will follow his orders even if the orders are illegal. He promises to crush the free press by changing the law so that people can't report negatively about him. He threatens to strip the "racial enemy" of their very citizenship (i.e. the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants). He says all of this...and his supporters cheer!
It's at times like this that I think of a line of dialogue from film Revenge of the Sith:
So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause.Hopefully we will never have to witness what a Trump presidency would have looked like, but the fact that millions of people have come out specifically to vote for this man is a sad statement, and a testament to this fact: history is a wheel, and it always comes 'round to the same place again.
sources:
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William L. Shirer, ppg. 43, 46, 69 and 70.
Click here to see the scene that I referenced from Revenge of the Sith.
Monday, April 4, 2016
The state of the Democratic Primaries: From April, 19th onward the map favors Hillary Clinton
Sanders looks strong in Wisconsin tomorrow (April 5th), and will most likely win Wyoming on the 9th, but after that the map favors Clinton. I've put together some of the contests where she is favored (all numbers are RCP averages at the current time):
April 19
New York: Clinton +11 (even after the "Sanders surge" she's still up by double digits)
April 26
Connecticut: Clinton +15.5
Delaware--no polls, but it's a closed primary (which are seen as favorable to Clinton)
Maryland: Clinton +31.4
Pennsylvania: Clinton +27.5
Rhode Island--no polls, but it's a semi-closed primary (see Delaware)
May will be a good month for Sanders--West Virginia will go to him, and Oregon will probably go to him as well. Kentucky and Indiana are toss-ups that he could (and may be demographically favored to) take. But in June there are a few more contests where Clinton is favored:
June 5
Puerto Rico--no polls, though many people believe this to be a lock for Clinton based on her strong support among Hispanics
June 7
California: Clinton +9
New Jersey: Clinton +31
June 14
Washington, D.C--no polls, but widely considered to be a lock for Clinton
Sanders' supporters may lean on the common perception that Clinton "consistently underperforms", but this is a myth easily dispelled when one looks as past contests. While people can point to states like Iowa and Illinois, where Clinton's wins were by slimmer margins than the polls showed, this ignores the many contest in which she has overperformed, such as Louisiana, Texas and Nevada. In Mississippi and South Carolina her victory margins were more than 20 points higher than the polls predicted.
To paraphrase Mark Twain, the rumors of Hillary Clinton's political death have been greatly exaggerated.
April 19
New York: Clinton +11 (even after the "Sanders surge" she's still up by double digits)
April 26
Connecticut: Clinton +15.5
Delaware--no polls, but it's a closed primary (which are seen as favorable to Clinton)
Maryland: Clinton +31.4
Pennsylvania: Clinton +27.5
Rhode Island--no polls, but it's a semi-closed primary (see Delaware)
May will be a good month for Sanders--West Virginia will go to him, and Oregon will probably go to him as well. Kentucky and Indiana are toss-ups that he could (and may be demographically favored to) take. But in June there are a few more contests where Clinton is favored:
June 5
Puerto Rico--no polls, though many people believe this to be a lock for Clinton based on her strong support among Hispanics
June 7
California: Clinton +9
New Jersey: Clinton +31
June 14
Washington, D.C--no polls, but widely considered to be a lock for Clinton
Sanders' supporters may lean on the common perception that Clinton "consistently underperforms", but this is a myth easily dispelled when one looks as past contests. While people can point to states like Iowa and Illinois, where Clinton's wins were by slimmer margins than the polls showed, this ignores the many contest in which she has overperformed, such as Louisiana, Texas and Nevada. In Mississippi and South Carolina her victory margins were more than 20 points higher than the polls predicted.
To paraphrase Mark Twain, the rumors of Hillary Clinton's political death have been greatly exaggerated.
Monday, March 21, 2016
Bernie Sanders supporters are becoming insufferable
Remember when it was Ron Paul supporters who were seen as insufferable little twats? Many Bernie supporters could give them a run for their money.
There's the sexism (calling Hillary a bitch and a cunt, and taking cheap shots at her looks as if her appearance has anything to do with anything) and the racism (when they realized that minorities weren't defecting to Bernie en masse as they had hoped, many Bernie supporters became indistinguishable from Trump supporters, with talk of "stupid" and "ignorant" blacks who can't possible wrap their simple minds around politics and are just voting blindly for Clinton). Bill Maher recently pointed out the irony of Bernie supporters suddenly turning on Elizabeth Warren (who at one time was the very person the liberal wing of the Democratic Party wanted to be their candidate, and who some Bernie supporters would still like to see on a ticket with him) for committing the unforgivable sin of refusing to pick a side during the Primaries.
Just today I was reading an article about Lena Dunham speaking at a Clinton campaign event, and her description of the backlash she has received from Bern-ites over her support for Hillary:
Then there's the "If I don't get my way, I'm taking my ball and going home!" attitude of many of them, with threats to vote for Trump--a candidate who has used appeals to bigotry to fuel his campaign more openly than any candidate in my lifetime--to "get back" at Hillary, or to not vote at all (which, let's face it, is just as good as a vote for Trump).
There's the insane double standard imposed upon Hillary in which Bernie is allowed to get up on stage day after day and not-so-subtly imply that she is an evil corporate whore who will sell out your children's futures, and no one has a problem with this. But let Hillary say the most innocuous thing and people go, "Can you believe what a bitch she was when she was talking about Bernie?!?!?!" It's a well-document phenomenon--when men are forceful they are seen as strong and confident; when women are forceful they are seen as hectoring shrews.
Bernie's supporters trend younger than Hillary's, so it could just be their immaturity showing through rather than genuine sexism or racism on their part, but either way it is very ugly. It also reflects poorly on the person they support, whether said reflection is justified or not.
When it comes to politics passions run deep. Heck, this may be many Bernie supporters' first time at the rodeo, and thus they are getting a hint at their first real tasted of electoral defeat. Whatever the case may be, it's time to face the facts (and the delegate math): Barring some strange turn in events Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for the White House, and the real enemy--the Orange One--awaits. It's time to get over this intra-party fighting over who is more pure and gear up for November.
There's the sexism (calling Hillary a bitch and a cunt, and taking cheap shots at her looks as if her appearance has anything to do with anything) and the racism (when they realized that minorities weren't defecting to Bernie en masse as they had hoped, many Bernie supporters became indistinguishable from Trump supporters, with talk of "stupid" and "ignorant" blacks who can't possible wrap their simple minds around politics and are just voting blindly for Clinton). Bill Maher recently pointed out the irony of Bernie supporters suddenly turning on Elizabeth Warren (who at one time was the very person the liberal wing of the Democratic Party wanted to be their candidate, and who some Bernie supporters would still like to see on a ticket with him) for committing the unforgivable sin of refusing to pick a side during the Primaries.
Just today I was reading an article about Lena Dunham speaking at a Clinton campaign event, and her description of the backlash she has received from Bern-ites over her support for Hillary:
"I have received more hostility for voting for a qualified female candidate than I have ever received anywhere from the American right wing. The fact that other members of the Democratic Party have spoken to me like I was an ill-informed child for voting for someone who represents everything I think this country should be is outrageous."
source: refinery29.com
Then there's the "If I don't get my way, I'm taking my ball and going home!" attitude of many of them, with threats to vote for Trump--a candidate who has used appeals to bigotry to fuel his campaign more openly than any candidate in my lifetime--to "get back" at Hillary, or to not vote at all (which, let's face it, is just as good as a vote for Trump).
There's the insane double standard imposed upon Hillary in which Bernie is allowed to get up on stage day after day and not-so-subtly imply that she is an evil corporate whore who will sell out your children's futures, and no one has a problem with this. But let Hillary say the most innocuous thing and people go, "Can you believe what a bitch she was when she was talking about Bernie?!?!?!" It's a well-document phenomenon--when men are forceful they are seen as strong and confident; when women are forceful they are seen as hectoring shrews.
Bernie's supporters trend younger than Hillary's, so it could just be their immaturity showing through rather than genuine sexism or racism on their part, but either way it is very ugly. It also reflects poorly on the person they support, whether said reflection is justified or not.
When it comes to politics passions run deep. Heck, this may be many Bernie supporters' first time at the rodeo, and thus they are getting a hint at their first real tasted of electoral defeat. Whatever the case may be, it's time to face the facts (and the delegate math): Barring some strange turn in events Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for the White House, and the real enemy--the Orange One--awaits. It's time to get over this intra-party fighting over who is more pure and gear up for November.
Thursday, March 10, 2016
How We Can Improve Our Election System
A One-Year Election Cycle
Would-be candidates would be
forbidden from forming PAC’s, taking campaign contributions or actively
campaigning in any way until the November of the year prior to the election.
Election Day doesn’t fall on the same day of the month each election year, so the
one year mark could be set at November 2nd, which is the earliest possible
day that an election could be held (i.e. the Tuesday after the first Monday of
November). Assuming that primary season would still begin in February--and that
the parties still held their conventions in June--that would give candidates
about three months to prepare for primary season, which itself would be approximately
four months long.
Campaign Finance Reform
No more dark money, and no more corporate
donations. Campaign donations can only be made by individuals, whether directly
to a candidate, a PAC, the DNC and/or RNC, etc. PACs must be transparent about
who is giving them money, and how they are using it. Unions can vocalize
support for candidates, however donations must be made individually by any
members who wish to do so. There should be a reasonable cap on how much money
any one individual can donate to a candidate; this will help even the playing
field and prevent millionaires and billionaires from singlehandedly funding a
candidate’s entire campaign.
Automatic Voter Registration
Upon registering for a state I.D. or
driver’s license all eligible citizens would automatically be registered to vote.
Some states, such as California and Oregon, already have similar practices.
Prior to an automatic registration bill being signed into law in 2015 California
has an estimated 6.6 million eligible voters who were not registered. Automatic
voter registration would prevent problems when unregistered voters--some of
whom may not even realize there is a problem with their registration record--leave
their registration status unresolved until just before an election.
Make Election Day an Election
Weekend
Holding elections on a Tuesday, when
most working Americans are…well, working,
has the potential to disenfranchise many voters who cannot get to the polls
during normal polling hours. Some states have laws on the books allowing
workers to take time off to vote if certain conditions are met, but most states
do not. A solution would be to have a three-day Election Weekend,
Friday-Sunday. People who may not be able to get time off during the week would
now have the opportunity to vote on the weekend. Voters who follow the Sabbath
(understood to begin at sundown on Friday and end at sundown on Saturday) could
vote early on Friday, late on Saturday, and all day Sunday. Those who attend church
on Sunday would potentially have all of Friday and Saturday to vote, as well as
Sunday after church service.
Compulsory Voting
This one I’m not strong on. There
are obvious downsides to making voting compulsory, but an argument could be
made that the pros outweigh the cons. Voting for president would be compulsory
for all voters unless they have a valid reason why they cannot vote, i.e. religious
objections to voting, mental, physical or intellectually disabilities that make
it unreasonably difficult for them to vote, etc. Eligible voters who fulfill
their obligation, or who can give a valid reason why they could not do so (as discussed
above) would be eligible for a tax credit. Eligible voters who do not vote, and
do not have a valid reason, would be ineligible for this credit.
Leave Redistricting to
Independent Commissions
While I have focused primarily on presidential
elections until now, congressional and legislative elections are also important,
and in many states are tainted by partisan politics and Gerrymandering. We
should leave the job of drawing up congressional and legislative districts to independent,
non-partisan (or bipartisan) commissions. No party should be able to draw up districts
to rig the game in their favor simply because they control a state legislature.
Eliminate the Electoral College
System
The candidate who gets more votes should
win. That’s about all I have to say about that. For more detailed criticism of
the Electoral College system you can click here.
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Morality Without Religion
In my last post I touched on the per
capita rape and murder rates in nations that are highly religious versus
nations that have lower rates of religiosity. In this post I will discuss the
false equation of religion with morality by taking a look at children brought up with religion and without it, the morals exhibited by these children and the long-term effects these
methods may have on the adults these children will become.
What we would expect to see in religious
children, particularly those raised within Abrahamic (i.e. Judeo-Christian-Islamic)
religions--which the studies references further on seem to focus on--are high rates of qualities held as virtues within these religions, e.g. empathy,
altruism, forgiveness, generosity, etc. If one believes that religion is key to
the development of a moral code then we should certainly see these qualities
manifest themselves much more clearly in religious children when compared to irreligious
children, who the “religion equals morality” crowd would argue have a weak or
malformed moral code, or have no moral code at all. Let’s see if this is what
we find.
One study, often referred to in
the media as “the sticker study”, looked at more than a thousand children, aged
5-12, representing diverse ethno-racial backgrounds. The children studied came from
six different countries (the United States, Canada, China, Jordan, Turkey and
South Africa), and their religious breakdown was 24% Christian, 43% Muslim and
28% not religious. Smaller numbers of children belonging to other religions were not
compared.
Originally published in Current Biology, the study was led by
Professor Jean Decety, a neuroscientist at the University of Chicago. The study
gauged altruism using “the dictator game”, in which each child was given thirty
stickers and told to choose how many to share with another child. The results
were used to calculate a generosity score. The results revealed that
irreligious children shared more stickers, while the religious children were less
generous. All of the groups compared saw a drop in generosity with age, though
religious children consistently scored lower, suggesting that the longer a
child was exposed to religion, the less generous and altruistic they became.
Meanwhile the parents of the religious children were more likely to consider their
children to be “more empathetic and more sensitive to the plight of others”,
even as the results seemed to prove differently.
On the issue of sensitivity to perceived
injustice, and the harshness of responses to that injustice, the children were
shown videos depicting incidents of mild interpersonal harm (e.g. pushing or
bumping), and then were asked to judge the “meanness” of the act, and to rate an
appropriate level of punishment for the perpetrator. Overall the religious
children rated the acts they witnessed as meaner than did the irreligious children,
and favored harsher penalties. So much for “turn the other cheek”.
How does one explain these results?
One factor Decety points to is a psychological phenomenon known as “moral
licensing”, in which a person will justify committing an immoral act because they’ve
already done something they consider to be a “good” act.
“It’s an unconscious bias,” Decety
explains. “They don’t even see that’s not compatible with what they’ve been
learning in church.”
For nearly forty years Vern
Bengston, professor of gerontology and sociology at USC, has overseen the
Longitudinal Study of Generations, the "largest study of religion and family
life conducted across several generational cohorts in the United States”. In
2013 Bengston added secular families to his study in response to a rise of irreligion
in society. What he found were “high levels of family solidarity and emotional
closeness” between parents and youth in irreligious households, as well as
strong ethical standards and moral values.
“Many nonreligious parents were more
coherent and passionate about their ethical principles than some of the
‘religious' parents in our study,” Bengston said. “The vast majority appeared
to live goal-filled lives characterized by moral direction and sense of life
having a purpose.”
Some of the personal qualities taught
within (and held in high regard by) secular families were rational problem
solving, personal autonomy, independence of thought and empathy, as well as a willingness
to question beliefs.
Irreligious families seem to be keen
believers in the Golden Rule, which can be stated as: One should treat others
as one would like others to treat oneself. This is quite different from the
moral lesson taught, whether explicitly or implicitly, within many religious families:
that one should behave well out of the promise of divine reward and/or fear of
divine punishment.
Studies have shown that, while
growing up, irreligious teens are less susceptible to peer pressure, less likely to try to fit in with the “cool” crowd, and as adults (on average) tend to be "less
vengeful, less nationalistic, less militaristic, less authoritarian and more
tolerant”, than their religious counterparts. A 2010 Duke University study also
showed that secular adults were less likely to exhibit racism than religious adults.
None of this is meant to give the impression
that all people raised with religion
are selfish, vengeful, or racist people, or that all people raised with secular ideals are
selfless do-gooders who live in complete harmony with the rest of society. When
one looks at the big picture, however, it would seem that a moral code based in
reason--in which a strong sense of empathy is impressed upon children, and
which allows for them to question everything, even the very moral lessons they are
being taught--is more likely to have a better outcome, and result in children
with a stronger sense of empathy and generosity toward their fellow man,
than one based on instructing children that they should behave a certain way because
a book says so, and that if they don’t they will be punished by an omnipotent being.
sources:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2015/11/05/religion-morality/#566ee069670e
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-oe-0115-zuckerman-secular-parenting-20150115-story.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/06/religious-children-less-altruistic-secular-kids-study
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/nonreligious-children-are-more-generous
http://psr.sagepub.com/content/14/1/126.abstract
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-oe-0115-zuckerman-secular-parenting-20150115-story.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/06/religious-children-less-altruistic-secular-kids-study
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/nonreligious-children-are-more-generous
http://psr.sagepub.com/content/14/1/126.abstract
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)