Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Mob-rule democracy versus a republic

i continue to see (supposedly) educated people seriously discuss revising the US republic into a one-person-one-vote semi-direct "democracy"... and they don't see the problem with this... it makes me want to choke some sense into people... but i'm afraid their brains aren't getting enough oxygen to begin with!

we have 50 states... that's why we're called the "United States" of America... our founders recognized that individual states will have differing needs and desires, so they are independent of each other, except where common needs overlap (such as interstate commerce).

so, let's examine the idea of what i call mob-rule democracy and compare it to what happens in our republic... first, we must understand population/demographics and the electoral college.

the population of each state determines the amount of "electors" in the electoral college... there are 538 electors... each state gets one for each Representative and one for each Senator, per Article II of the US Constitution... there are 435 Representatives, divided among the states based on population, but no less than one per state... there are 100 Senators, divided among the states equally (2 each)... there are an additional 3 electors representing the District of Columbia, as required by the 23rd Amendment.

as of 2013, the estimated population of the US is 316,128,839 people.

now, to get elected, you need 50%+1 of the electors, 270, to vote your way... due to current population trends, it takes only 11 states to get 270 electors... CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, MI, NC, & NJ.

that doesn't sound very "democratic", does it?... where 11 of 50 states, 22%, dictate to the other 39 states who will be the President of the United States... shouldn't it take 26 states (50%+1)?... wouldn't that be more "democratic"?

but there are people who want "one-person-one-vote" democracy, where it takes 50%+1 of the popular vote for presidential elections... that's their version of "fair"... but is it?... it would only take NINE states to elect the President... CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, & MI... 9 of 50 states, 18%, would then dictate to the other 41 states.

how is that "democratic"?

furthermore, some states have population centers which can easily override the rest of the state... in California, the Los Angeles - Long Beach - Anaheim area has around 12 million residents, fully one-third of the population of the state... New York City metro area has around 8 million, where the entire state has 19 million; nearly one half of the state in one area... Clark County in Nevada (home of Las Vegas) has a population of nearly 2 million, while the entire state has only 2.8 million!

by now, it should be obvious that "one-person-one-vote" is as un-democratic as possible... mob-rule is possibly the worst form of governance.

Population of US States (plus Washington D.C.)
Distribution of Electoral Votes
Article II of the US Constitution
Map: California Home to Most Densely Populated Areas

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

try strengthening the electoral college

with all of the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over the electoral college following the 2016 Presidential Election, it is highlighting the disparity of power between populous states and more rural states... it highlights the disparity of power between the House (the people's house) and the Senate (the state's house)... there are 435 representatives (divided according to the latest census) in the House, and there are 435 electoral college votes associated with their states... there are 100 senators (two per state) in the Senate, and there are 100 electoral college votes associated with their states... add three for the District of Columbia, and you have 538 electoral votes at stake during any Presidential Election.

so, the population of a state has a 2-to-1 advantage... having a state with a higher population density (or one large city like Las Vegas which overwhelms the rest of the state) causes this 2-to-1 advantage skew to a 25-to-1 advantage, such as in California... New York City controls the electoral votes of the entire state, and it's not even the state's capital city!

but, what if we were to make a small change, such as adding Senators to each state, thereby adding electoral votes, also?... how would that affect an election?

below, I have taken the electoral college votes of each state as they were cast in the 2016 Presidential Election and tallied them... then I added one vote per state and tallied them... then added two.

D. C.03286,275
New Hampshire04731,931
New Jersey0143,774,743
New Mexico05792,328
New York0297,113,118
North Carolina1504,688,82116
North Dakota30344,1564
Rhode Island04460,165
South Carolina902,103,02510
South Dakota30370,0474
West Virginia50712,4196
*Michigan has not been finally called, but only marginally affects the outcome.

the outcome of this thought experiment is to widen the gap between the parties... with the electoral college votes as they currently are, the gap between the parties is 74 votes, or 13.8% of the votes.

with only one additional electoral vote per state, the gap widens from 74 votes difference to 83 votes, but only changes it to 14.0% difference in the votes.

by adding two electoral votes per state, the gap goes from 74 votes difference 91 votes, which is only a 14.2% difference.

what this appears to show is that smaller states begin to have greater impact on the overall race... while each iteration only changes the electoral college results by 0.2%, it becomes evident that the candidates will need to appeal to a much more diverse group, and not solely rely on population dense areas of the country... instead of knowing the result of every election after the east coast polls close, we would need to see how many more states vote.

and, in a republic, isn't that what we want?

"Take a seat" on democracy

Goodness gracious sakes alive, does this country need a history lesson! Never in the past four years have I wanted so badly to have a class of people to teach. Teenagers or adults or senior citizens — it wouldn’t have mattered. I have seen so much appalling ignorance about our country, its history and its constitution that I have just wanted to grab the populace and shake them until they understood.

For starters, I am tired of hearing about our democracy and the popular vote. We are not a democracy, and a whole lot of people should be really glad about that, too, because in a democracy, mob rule applies. The majority is the boss of everybody, and if we had been a democracy in 1865 slavery would have never been abolished. If we had been a democracy in 1920, the women would have never gotten the vote. If we had been a democracy in 1964 and 1965, those historic pieces of civil rights legislation would never have been approved. In fact, if we had been a democracy in 1776, the Declaration of Independence would never have been adopted because the majority of the colonists were afraid to pursue independence, just like a majority of Americans opposed women’s suffrage and abolition and sweeping civil rights reform.

For the record, Abraham Lincoln did not get a majority of the popular vote in 1860, and Bill Clinton did not get a majority of the popular vote in 1992 or 1996.

“Oh, yes he did!” screamed one of my Facebook friends this week. “I know Lincoln got the most votes and so did Clinton.”

Most means plurality, y’all. A majority is 50 percent plus one. And while we are on the subject, we are not a democratic republic, either, no matter what the revisionist history books might claim. That’s just a term Andrew Jackson coined for political purposes in the 1820s and it stuck with some people. We are a republic. We have a federalist form of government where the power is supposed to be divided between the states and the central government and neither is subservient to the other. Both are supposed to get their powers directly from the people.

And by the way, the U.S. Constitution does not give any of us the right to have a say so in who becomes president of the United States. Oh, no, it doesn’t. That power is vested entirely in the Electoral College, and under the Constitution states still have the authority to decided how those electors are chosen. It wasn’t until 1842 that the last state started allowing the people to vote for those electors.

If we eliminated the Electoral College people in two-thirds of the states would be virtually disenfranchised when it came to presidential elections. All the time, money and effort would be spent wooing voters in California, New York and Florida.

Now about the transition of power. Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution and were thought to be a dangerous thing by our founders. But parties arose almost immediately because people have always had differences of opinions about political issues. The first 12 years under the Constitution found the government in the hands of the Federalist Party. But in the election of 1800 — also called the Revolution of 1800 — Thomas Jefferson, leader of the Republican Party, was chosen to be president. When John Adams, his Federalist opponent, stepped down on inauguration day in 1801, it marked the first time in the history of the world that a group in power had relinquished power without violence or threat of violence, simply because the people said that’s what they wanted. It has worked that way ever since.

And now the people have spoken and the message is loud and clear, under the Constitution, that the people want this country to go in a new direction. And no matter how much they hated to do so, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, and President Obama did and said all the right things this week to propel us toward that smooth transition.

And yet in many of our nation’s cities, ignorant young people who have no knowledge of how this Republic is supposed to work are dying to get attention by marching in the streets and generally acting the fool — and, no, these are not the peaceful protests guaranteed by the First Amendment. You must have a grievance to protest. These are spoiled brats and attention-seekers and they should be ashamed.

And if you are interested, I have about 38 years worth of lessons stored up. Class can start as soon as everyone gets here.

DARRELL HUCKABY: Take a seat — history class is in session | Opinion |

Thursday, November 10, 2016

everyone I don't like is fascist

Is Donald Trump a fascist? Everyone says so. Except no one knows what a "fascist" really is. So, let's compare and contrast Trump and his policies to fascism.

  1. "Trump uses ethnic stereotypes."
    1. Trump calls for an end to illegal immigration on our southern border with Mexico. Many illegal immigrants are criminals. That doesn't mean all Mexicans in the US are illegal immigrants or criminals.
      1. Association Fallacy: Illegal immigrants can be Mexicans. Illegal immigrants can also be criminals. All Mexicans must therefore be criminals.
    2. Trump calls for a cessation in accepting refugees from the Middle East without strict vetting for terrorists. That doesn't mean all middle-easterners are terrorists.
      1. Fallacy of Composition: Terrorists are muslim. Therefore all muslims are terrorists.
    3. Likewise, Trump calls for better policing of Muslims in the US. That doesn't mean all Muslims are terrorists. However, currently, almost all terrorists in the US have been Muslim.
  2. "Make America Great Again" is the same nationalist rallying cry fascists use.
    1. Nationalism does not equal racism. If some nationalist are racist, all nationalist are not therefore racist.
      1. Fallacy of Composition: Fascists are nationalists. Therefore all nationalists are fascists.
    2. Nationalism does not exclude other cultures and peoples. It is a statement of pride and unity, not division.
    3. Nationalism can be used to divide "us versus them", but just because something can be done doesn't mean it will be done.
      1. Appeal to Probability: Nationalists can possibly be Racists. All Nationalists must be Racists.
  3. "He plays on the fears of economic decline."
    1. The economy has declined. Employment is down. Real wages are down. The value of the dollar is down. Federal debt has skyrocketed. These are rational fears.
    2. The economy may not be as bad as Trump makes it sound. But should that be reason to ignore it?
  4. "He has an aggressive foreign policy."
    1. What is the alternative? Not to provide a false-dichotomy, but is the alternative a passive foreign policy?
    2. Has the less aggressive foreign policy of Trump's predecessor been successful? Policies can be judged fairly by their results.
  1. Fascists are anti-individualism.
    1. A fascist's brand of nationalism was to subject the individual to the needs of the state.
    2. Trump is fiercely individualistic. You are only to be nationalist to a government which does not restrict your freedoms.
  2. Fascists restrict businesses for the good of the country.
    1. Trump wants to lift restrictions on businesses for the good of the businesses.
  3. Ownership of land remained with the people, but fascists want to control the use of the land.
    1. Trump wants private ownership of anything.

#specificallyTHIS: Is Donald Trump a fascist?

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

President-Elect Donald Trump acceptance speech

"Now it is time for America to bind the wounds of division, have to get together. To all Republicans and Democrats and independents across this nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people."

"Working together, we will begin the urgent task of rebuilding our nation and renewing the American dream. I've spent my entire life in business, looking at the untapped potential in projects and in people all over the world."

"Every single American will have the opportunity to realize his or her fullest potential. The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer. We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals."

"No dream is too big, no challenge is too great. Nothing we want for our future is beyond our reach. America will no longer settle for anything less than the best. We must reclaim our country's destiny and dream big and bold and daring."

"So it's been what they call a historic event, but to be really historic, we have to do a great job, and I promise you that I will not let you down. We will do a great job."

"And I can only say that while the campaign is over, our work on this movement is now really just beginning. We're going to get to work immediately for the American people, and we're going to be doing a job that hopefully you will be so proud of your President."

- President Donald Trump

Tuesday, November 8, 2016

49 abominable facts about Hillary the media won't tell you - Re-Blog

If you listen to the news, the only real reporting being done about Hillary Clinton has to do with her email scandal. Even though she violated the Espionage Act, the FBI refused to prosecute. Her family’s foundation is under heavy scrutiny. But did you know these other important points about Hillary’s life-long run to the White House?

Saul Alinsky
  1. During her college years at Wellesley, Hillary Clinton formed her political ideology as a close friend and confidant of Saul Alinsky, the Marxist firebrand who resurrected the “Communist Manifesto” and urged young liberals to agitate and create unrest to establish communist ends.
  2. Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis at Wellesley College was locked at her husband’s request during his time as president. The 92-page thesis was about Alinsky, with whom Clinton shared a mentor/apprentice relationship.
  3. According to NBCNews, David Brock called Hillary “Alinsky’s daughter” in his 1996 biography, “The Seduction of Hillary Rodham.”
  4. Hillary Clinton wrote in her thesis, “Much of what Alinsky professes does not sound ‘radical.’” This, coming from the man who dedicated his book, “Rules for Radicals” to Lucifer, “the first radical.”
  5. To read a more in depth article about Hillary and Saul Alinsky, read, “Alinsky’s Daughter: Here’s the truth about Hillary the media won’t tell you.”
Leftist Law Firm
  1. After college, Hillary searched for a leftist “movement” law firm and secured a spot at Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein.
  2. Treuhaft was a former Communist Party member who defended the Black Panthers and other radical leftist groups.
  3. Walker was an avowed Communist until the day she died, and was notorious for successfully defending Angie Davis, a California Communist, on conspiracy murder charges. Davis purchased two firearms two days prior to an armed takeover of a county courthouse. While governor, Ronald Reagan barred Davis from teaching at any California University because of her militant communist beliefs. Walker made a living defending Communists against the Smith Act.
  4. Burnstein was a defender of leftist radical protesters, taking the side of the Communists in Vietnam.
  5. Hillary claimed to work on a child custody case only at the radical firm, but others recall differently. “We did a lot of conscientious-objector work,” during the Vietnam War.
  6. Why did Hillary go to Treuhaft, Walker, and Burnstein? Carl Bernstein quoted Treuhaft as saying, "The reason she came to us, the only reason I could think of because none of us knew her, was because we were a so-called Movement law firm at the time.
  1. As a college student, Hillary embraced the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and admired its leader Yassar Arafat, once defending him as a “‘freedom fighter’ trying to free his people from their Israeli ‘oppressors.’”
  2. In her run for senator from New York, Hillary claimed she had Jewish roots by bringing up her grandmother’s remarriage to a Jewish man.
  3. In reaction to seeing a menorah in a friend’s home, Hillary wouldn’t get out of her car, and friends heard Bill explain, "I'm sorry, but Hillary's really tight with the people in the PLO in New York. They're friends of hers, and she just doesn't feel right about the menorah."
Whitewater Scandal
  1. As partners in the Rose Law Firm, Hillary, Bill, and Jim and Susan McDougal participated in a pyramid scheme that used fraudulent real estate loans involving inflated appraisals to circumvent federal law. By the time the FBI investigated, every single person involved was indicted or destroyed except Bill and Hillary. Power Line reported in March 2015:
  1. Clinton, working with Webster Hubbell and Vince Foster, stole hard copies of the billing records of the Rose law firm where they were partners. They erased the electronic version of these records. One set of these documents was later found in the White House, just outside Hillary’s private office, by an employee. Another set was found in Foster’s attic by his widow, some years after he committed suicide. Clinton’s time sheets (handwritten, as was the practice back in the day) were never found.
Fighting for Women
  1. While an attorney in Arkansas, Hillary defended a child rapist, knew he was guilty, but impugned the character of the 12 year old victim anyway, which would send the now-52 year old woman on a path to a life of drugs and crime. Hillary claimed the girl actively sought out “older men,” and had a reputation as a liar. In an interview, Hillary talked about having the rapist take a lie detector test, which he passed, and laughing, Hillary said, “Which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.”
  2. Hillary successfully defended a 300 lb man who obviously beat his girlfriend, and got the case thrown out on a technicality.
  3. Juanita Broaddrick claimed she was raped by Bill Clinton, Paula Jones won a $850,000 settlement when she accused Bill of sexual harassment, and Kathleen Willey accused Bill of sexual assault. In each of these cases, and many more, Hillary hired private detectives to dig up dirt on Bill’s accusers in order to destroy their stories, and keep Bill on his path to the White House, as told by biographer Carl Bernstein, former aide George Stephanopoulous, and former Clinton aide Dick Morris.
Black Lives Matter
  1. Hillary has said that white people have to, “recognize our privilege and practice humility.”
  2. To BLM rioters she said, “We need you. We need the promise of a rising generation of activists and organizers who are fearless in your advocacy and determination.”
  3. The Black Lives Matter founder from Worchester, Massachusetts, once complained to Hillary, “Until someone speaks the truth to white people in this country so that we can actually take on anti-blackness as a founding problem in this country, I don’t believe that there is going to be a solution. What in your heart has changed that’s going to change the direction of this country?” Hillary responded, “I don’t believe you change hearts, I believe you change laws. You change allocation of resources. You change the way systems operate,” indicating that she would change government to implement BLM’s demands.
Muslim Brotherhood
  1. Hillary backed the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Mursi. Incidentally, on the way to meet with Mursi, Hillary, was pelted with tomatoes while the Egyptians chanted, “Monica, Monica!”
  2. Hillary’s top aide, Huma Abedin, has well-established ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
  3. Hillary sided with the second official-of-record of the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya and discussed what could be done to hamper Qaddafi. “Hillary’s war,” as identified by U.S Navy Rear Admiral Charles Kubic, ended in destabilizing Libya and enhancing the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS.
Gun Control
  1. Hillary believes that Second Amendment proponents are a “minority” of people, and that their viewpoint is “terrorizing” the American people.
  2. Hillary not only wants to make gun ownership illegal for many, but would allow gun manufacturers to be sued by those who have been shot by a legally owned gun. This would include those committing crimes on private property.
  3. Hillary said that the Supreme Court is wrong about the Second Amendment, referring to District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down the D.C. gun ban and ruled that individuals have a fundamental right to gun ownership under the Second Amendment.
The First Amendment
  1. Hillary has condemned the Citizens United court ruling and wants a constitutional amendment to overturn it. The Citizens United case hinged on the right to free speech and censorship of opposing views. Justices looked at the FEC ban as akin to book burning, and the court ruled that the FEC could not limit political speech.
  2. After four American lives were lost in Benghazi, Hillary Clinton blamed Nakoula Basseley Nakoula for a film he made about Islam. Hillary further falsely claimed the attack was in response to said film. To Charles Woods, the father of one of the deceased at Benghazi, Hillary said, “We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.” Nakoula was immediately jailed for over a year.
  3. She has every intention of using the full power of the federal government to snuff out religious liberty.
  4. Hillary has a long history of faulting or trying to ban movies, music, and video games for the actions of criminals.
  1. Hillary’s view is that people’s religious beliefs have to be changed when it comes to abortion. “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will,” she explained. “And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”
  2. Hillary believes that an unborn child — just hours before delivery — has no constitutional rights, i.e., no right to life.
  3. Hillary praised her husband Bill for vetoing a partial birth abortion ban. Partial-birth abortion is exactly what it implies, a child is pulled feet-first out of the mother's womb past the navel and the abortionist punctures the skull of the baby, inserts a powerful vacuum, and suctions the baby's brains which collapses the skull and the child is pulled the rest of the way and discarded. At the time of the veto, the Clintons claimed it was a procedure to protect the health and life of the mother, but a prominent abortion advocate said at the time that the information given to the public was intentionally misleading.
  4. Hillary wants more funding to go to the abortion giant and butcher shop, Planned Parenthood.
  5. Hillary wants to overturn the Hyde Amendment, which is intended to ban government funding for abortion.
  1. Hillary’s voter registration leader for her campaign is an illegal immigrant.
  2. Clinton wants to increase Syrian refugees coming into America from 1,500 to 65,000.
  3. At the Univision Democratic debate in March, Hillary said, “I am committed to introducing comprehensive immigration reform and a path to legitimate citizenship within the first 100 days of my presidency.”
  4. Hillary would allow illegal immigrants to obtain health insurance under Obamacare.
Much More
  1. Hillary’s first solo legal case was in defense of a canning corporation when a man found the back end of a rat in his pork and beans. Affectionately known as the “Rat’s ass case,” Hillary claimed it would be considered food in some countries.
  2. Grateful for Hillary’s help in his presidential run, President Jimmy Carter put her in charge of Legal Services Corporation, a federally funded nonprofit, whose budget under Hillary would swell from $90 million to $321 million. Investigators from the General Accounting Office found that during her leadership, those involved with the LSC were, “uniquely reprehensible.”
  3. In 1978 and 1979, Hillary turned a $1,000 investment into $98,540 in less than one year trading cattle futures under the guidance of a Tyson Foods outside attorney. Tyson Foods, under state law, was supposed to dispose of its chicken manure properly, but the state’s governor, Bill Clinton, never enforced the law. Five years later, seepage from the waste contaminated a community’s drinking water and made people sick. It took Bill Clinton 15 months to declare the town a disaster area.
  4. In two years, 2013-2015, Hillary made $2.9 million in speaking fees from large corporations including $675,000 from Goldman Sachs.
  5. In her commencement speech at Wellesley, Hillary quoted her mother as saying, “You know I’ll always love you but there are times when I certainly won’t like you.” In 1993, in an interview with the New York Times, Hillary attributed that exact quote to her father instead.
  6. Hillary was “the first presidential spouse to be subpoenaed. Bill and Hillary Clinton are the first and only first couple to be fingerprinted by the FBI.”
  7. Hillary was at the center of “Travelgate” during her time as first lady. The controversy surrounded seven people who were fired in the office and replaced with her cronies.
  8. Hillary claimed she came under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia. That claim was easily debunked by Sharyl Attkisson who was accompanied Hillary’s trip as a member of the press. Hillary twice tried to make the silly suggestion stick before the media caught up with her.
  9. Hillary hailed the television channel Al Jazeera and said its viewership was going up in the U.S. “’because it’s real news. You may not agree with it, but you feel like you’re getting real news around the clock.’ She said it was ‘changing peoples’ minds and attitudes. And like it or hate it, it is really effective.’ U.S. news, she added, was not keeping up.”
Hillary is a radical's radical, a compulsive liar, and is intoxicated by the accumulation of wealth and power. Her Marxist ideology and belief that destroying this nation from within is what has motivated and propelled her to become president of this nation. Anyone considering voting for this destroyer should have their heads examined.

49 abominable facts about Hillary the media won't tell you - By Jen Kuznicki - September 03, 2016

Monday, November 7, 2016

liberal media collusion

"Perhaps most startling of all, Mr. Brock dismisses or rationalizes the sometimes powerful evidence that Hillary Rodham Clinton has lied -- about everything from her successful commodities trading to her role in the travel office firings -- by invoking a relativism rooted in Republican precedents." - NYT review of David Brock's "The Seduction of Hillary Rodham" 1996

"Mr. Brock has also said that he knowingly lied in an article he wrote for The American Spectator in 1992 that raised doubts about the credibility of Ms. Hill. The article formed the basis for a later book about Ms. Hill, whose charges of harassment almost derailed Clarence Thomas's appointment to the Supreme Court." - New Internet Site Turns Critical Eyes and Ears to the Right

"Brock countered them with a permanent organization, which eventually turned into Media Matters. Hillary, meanwhile, 'sprang into action,' inviting Brock to pitch her Senate fund-raising council and speak at a dinner for donors in her Chappaqua home." - NYT review of David Brock’s ‘Killing the Messenger’

David Brock founds "Media Matters for America" to act as a "counterweight to the conservative Media Research Center. It is known for its aggressive criticism of conservative journalists and media outlets, including its 'War on Fox News.'"

"He’s even constructed for Hillary her own personal media watchdog, Correct the Record, which tracks and instantly zaps any negative stories about her." - NYT review of David Brock’s ‘Killing the Messenger’

"I spoke w Arianna [Huffington] abt PMUSA [Progressive Media USA] Board and will send her more info. She is enthusiastic abt the project but asks if she's more useful to us not being on the Board and, instead, using Huffpo to echo our message without any perceived conflicts. She has a point." - Susan of to David Brock and John Podesta of the 2008 Democrat presidential election

"Progressive Media USA, the group organized to be the main soft-money advertising vehicle for Democrats in the fall, will dramatically scale back its efforts in deference to the wishes of the party’s presumptive nominee [Barack Obama]." - Huffington Post 5/23/2008

"Progressive Media will serve as a communications and messaging nerve center for the progressive movement. We will create a robust echo chamber with messaging that spans from independent groups, to progressive partisans, to grassroots organizers, to the netroots. We will align messaging across broadcast and cable TV, radio, print, Internet, single-issue and advocacy organizations, progressive media, surrogates and new media." - Wikileak Draft launch statement 'PROGRESSIVE MEDIA'

"He [Brock] launched another nonprofit that exists to churn out a steady stream of lawsuits accusing Republicans of ethics and campaign finance violations. Then Brock announced that he was starting yet another liberal super PAC that pushes the boundaries of election law by coordinating directly with the Clinton campaign to respond to attacks against the candidate." - LA Times article 'David Brock, a Clinton enemy from the '90s, is now integral to Hillary's run'

"In his current role, Brock now works on what he calls the 'coordinated' side of the Clinton campaign. His group, Correct the Record, raises unlimited funds outside the regulated campaign finance system. But since it does not pay for advertising advocating her election, he says he can continue under current rules to talk to her, and her campaign staff about strategy, while deploying the unregulated money he raises to advocating her election online, through the press, or through other means of non-paid communications." - TIME article 'Hillary Clinton’s Bulldog Blazes New Campaign Finance Trails'

a tree is to be judged by its fruits

I was once naive enough to believe the Clintons were able to do the right thing. I have grown up and put away childish things. The scales have been removed.

I know, point by point, why the Clintons and the current incarnation of the Democrat party is corrupt to the core. I know how, with each election, they have learned how to manipulate people to their will. Platitudes such as "Free [anything]" drive the young, the poor, and the disenfranchised to vote for "Hope and Change".

They say the road to Hell is paved with gold. Well, the road to economic ruin is paved with free college, free healthcare, subprime home loans, and government subsidized loans.

Democrats create class warfare saying the "rich need to pay their 'fair share'", meanwhile knowing the top 20% pay 80% of all income taxes. That's not 'fair' enough? They push for 'middle class' tax cuts, meanwhile the lowest 45% pay no income taxes.

Democrats create racial division. But their economic policies are preventing the advancement of the people they claim need the most help. They provide incentive to get welfare, convincing people it is 'deserved'. Then they create a disincentive to advance oneself in education and employment by threatening to take away the 'free' benefits. This creates a cycle that is hard to break. Now, more african-americans go onto welfare than are born each year. And latinos are quickly catching up to them.

Democrats push these divisions because they know the demographics will win elections. Look at election maps, county-by-county. Over the years, the Democrats have taken over all of the inner-city area, areas of the poor and the uneducated, areas caught in the cycle of welfare. And the greater the need and desperation, the more they vote Democrat.

Yet, in all of these heavily voting Democrat areas, controlled by Democrats for thirty or forty years, you find no advancement. They say we need better schools, but they don't provide them. They say we need better jobs, but they push businesses to close. They say we need higher wages, but higher wages are being forced to leave these cities. They say people need a livable wage, but the cost of living is highest in Democrat strongholds.

Tomorrow, vote. Vote for whomever you believe can meet the promises they've made. But a tree is to be judged by its fruits. And a rotten tree produces rotten fruit.

Friday, November 4, 2016

Put up a fight dammit

I get flustered and come off brash. In crude terms, I can be an asshole. But it comes from a good place, out of compassion, I believe.

I so often talk to people who have set their minds to an idea, and they spend all their energies trying to reinforce those ideas, even when logic and all sense defies it. I try, even if I fail, to present them with reasons why they may be wrong. And I eagerly await their counterpoint because I don't believe that I'm right just because I believe something. I humor myself with a paraphrase Socrates (a la Plato) that I know more than most because I know that I know nothing. That's why I spend so much of my personal time looking into facts and figures; so when I see misinformation or plain ignorance, I have the opportunity to bring these people toward their own knowledge.

And I possibly get more flustered with someone of higher intelligence and education, as I hold them to a higher standard than I do most. I know they have the ability and capability to reach their own conclusions based on logic, reasoning, research, and facts. I recognize that may be unfair, but as someone once said, it may be "unfair, but not unjust." (Sidney Morgenbesser said this about the police hitting him while protesting the Vietnam war. It was unfair that he was hit, but not unjust as they hit everyone.)

More to the point, when I see someone of their obvious ability make such statements (as "Trump is clearly racist") but this conclusion appears based on bad data (in my opinion, of course), I feel obligated to challenge that belief. And too often, the response is self-reinforcing or attempts to twist logic to reinforce the original idea. You see, if I believed they lacked the ability to provide point-counterpoint, I wouldn't confront their ideas with as much vehemence.

For instance, when I pointed out the logical fallacy of "Trump's a racist", they do not immediately provide any evidence of their own. They often attack the logical fallacy. While I give them points for style, they get no credit for addressing the issue. When they do provide evidence, they come from a place of "My assumption is Trump's a racist. From that we can prove..." That is bad form and horrible logic.

So, if they say, "supporting Trump is to support racism," they have already implied that Trump himself is racist and will promulgate racist ideology. I then am forced to go through the assumed litany of charges against Trump which I assume are their arguments (since they did not provide their own). The charge of Trump's racism often stems from his position on illegal immigration. So, I address that his position is little different than those of Bill Clinton 20 years ago. Also, Trump's position on Middle Eastern refugees is often a source of accusation; so I addressed that. And so on. If I can show that Trumps political positions are not racist nor motivated by racism, then the support of those who are racist will have no sway over his policies.

If they do not present their own argument, I have to assume their arguments for them. That's not the way I like to have discussions. But if they only argue semantics and not facts, I have little other choice.

And I will not apologize for my brash tone or my offensive manner. I want them to get upset. I want them to convince me. I want them to bring their best reason and logic. But most of all, I want facts. And if they cannot provide those, I will continue to challenge their assertions.