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/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)