There's Equality & Then There's...

I've got my ear plugs ready and waiting. I suspect that in a couple of weeks or less, the screeches from a large part of the female population, mostly leftists, are going to become painfully loud.

Already, a number of go-along-to-get-along voices on the right are warning Trump to 'tone it down' or 'dial it back'. Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for those of us who don't get upset when he says 'boo', it ain't gonna happen. Trump is going to be Trump and that's why I'll vote for him. Twice if I could.

The deal is, I don't want what the women who constantly rant about 'equality' want in our next president. I want a man with a set leading this country, not a spineless wuss who is likeable.

I have no doubt that these same women do not expect or want Hilliary to be polite and sincere and nice to Trump. You can wager that Hilliary is going to come out and play that woman card for all it's worth, until it's all worn out, and Trump is going to meet her right there, in the middle. She is going to be nasty and unpleasant, she is going to pull out all the stops and do what she's always done when confronted by an adversary. As my hubby would say, and as I agree with him having paid attention to her and her antics for the past twenty-five years or so, she is going to 'bitch out' and it is not going to be pleasant to see.

Based on her approach, Trump is not going to sit back, hold the door and be a 'gentleman'. Trump is going to treat Hilliary exactly as he would treat a male opponent in this upcoming race. It doesn't get more equal than that so all I can and will say to the women who take umbrage at his manner of expression, brace yourselves. It's going to get a whole lot worse than it's been. If you want equality, you are going to get it. In spades and, when it comes, don't you dare complain about it. It's what you've said you want so suck it up and get over it.

You see, my attitude toward him and his rhetoric is simple: I am not dating him. My daughter is not dating him. Neither of us are living with him. He is not someone I cook for, clean for, do laundry for. I don't go home to him at the end of the day, and it's a good thing I don't because I don't like a lot of what he says or the manner in which he says it. Therefore, because I have that arm's length relationship, I do not have to like him.

In my view, that's the difference between 'women' and 'girls'.

Women recognize that we don't have to love or admire the male, that we can take his verbal bullying and coarse actions. We can let it pass over us because we're bigger than the words.

Girls don't get that. They get knickerknotted at the first 'mean' or unpleasant thing someone says - as if it's a personal assault. As if they're that important.

Now, with that said, the flip side is what I do like about him. He has the courage of his convictions. When he thinks he's right, he's ready, willing and able to drive a stake into the ground and say, "here". If he thinks he's right, he's not going to back down and bow to the popular sway of the masses - he will do what he thinks is right. He will also, however (and this is BIG), listen to his advisers. He's done it in his business, which is why his primary business is as successful as it is, and I have every confidence he will when it comes to the presidency. It's already showing in how he's pivoting in this election.

He's no longer using the same inflammatory rhetoric he was a couple of months ago. He's begun making reasoned speeches, using the ever-popular teleprompters so he's sure to stay on message. He's already stated that he wants someone with political cred to be his VP - and that is a very smart move.

When people say that Trump "isn't nice" it annoys me to no end because we are not voting for Prom King in this election. This is not supposed to be a popularity contest. We are not voting for Nicest Dude or Cleanest Mouth or Most Polite in Company. We are voting for a leader - someone who is going to take his place on the world stage, nominally at the head of the table. We do not need a "nice guy" who's going to wring his hands and waffle at every bad turn. We need someone decisive, someone who is going to put our interests first, for a change. We need someone with the stones to go toe-to-toe with the bad actors on this planet and out-bully them - not back down and cower in a corner someplace. Although I'm not entirely sure the Oval Office has corners...

All I hope is that the first wave of cacophony from the scorched females in this country won't deafen me at the outset, that I'll have time to get the earplugs in place before the second caterwaul.

Now - have a lovely and quiet day.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter:

Bailing Like Mad

Oh! How I wish I had a single shred of artistic talent for drawing. If I did, I have the vision of a perfect political jab.

After hearing the news this morning, I can clearly visualize the Cruz ship with Ted directing John to move the deck chairs over there while flailing madly with the bailing bucket and staring down the looming Trump iceberg.

There is nothing more pathetic than desperation, and that's what the latest bid by Cruz and Kasich clearly shows.

When Cruz took Carson aside into the closet before one of the debates a while back, he was probably trying to build the same kind of coalition.

Carson, man that he is, had none of it. He was dignified and gentlemanly and, so far as I've heard, has kept that conversation entirely to himself. That was a couple of months ago and word hasn't leaked, so he's a good and honorable man. Unlike the individual who attempted to importune him in that closet.

Now Cruz is probably dangling the Vice Presidency in front of Kasich's nose. That, of course, demands that Kasich is as completely delusional and naive as he appears.

Come on, man! You have won one state out of thirty-eight that have voted so far, and that by a narrow margin, and you really think you're going to pull this off and become Pres? Yeah, there's a sign of intelligence and savvy.

Even at the convention he's not going to stand a chance. According to current rules he cannot even have his name entered for consideration on the first ballot because he hasn't won the requisite number of state contests. To think this guy, as clueless as this seems, might be president is even scarier than the prospect of Hilliary or Bernie.

On the other hand, maybe his colluding with the Slime Master shows he has woken up to reality, sees he has no possible path to the nomination and is hitching his wagon to the one guy who will have him.

Of course, I wouldn't put it past Cruz to make all sorts of early morning promises ("of course I respect you") and then kick Kasich to the curb once the nomination is his.

However, when I went to school, 0 + 0 = 0 and that's what I'm seeing. Although, in this case, I think the equation could be re-written as Loser + Loser = Loser.

I am delighted that Trump is again leading in all of the polls leading into tomorrow's primaries. Even Indiana which just last week most of the pundits were saying would be a Cruz state. Now Trump is up by about six points, so I have hope. According to the specific state polls, Trump is trouncing the competition - and I don't think the desperate grasping at straws by Cruz is going to help him. It makes him look weak and sleazy.

Well, whatever else happens in the next forty-eight hours, I hope it's good news.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

Reince - Be Honest for a Change, Wouldja?

Okay - I'm confounded, I'll admit it. After all, I'm 'just' a voter. Sitting here, in my kitchen as I write this, it looks like Reince Priebus and his puppet masters are just making things up as they go. This day it's this, the next day it's that - all in an effort to suppress the will of the American voter.

I'm registered with the party of my choice, have been for years. Now I'm holding my nose until June 8th, fighting the waves of nausea brought on by that party's dishonesty and malfeasance. I'm hoping that the nausea won't rise to levels that will overwhelm me - June seems a long way off.

When June 7th comes I'll go out and vote. Which means standing in line and taking time out of my day and life just as tens of millions of others have done this year. Even though I have other things to do, things I need to do and want to do, I'll take however long it takes to go vote, because I think it's important.

On June 8th I will go down to my local post office, and I will pick up a new voter registration card, and I will leave the party of which I have been a (formerly) proud member for nearly forty years. I will re-register as an Independent. I will not sully my soul by staying in the pig sty of Republican politics for one instant longer than it takes for me to vote for Donald Trump in this primary.

But given recent events - what happened in Colorado, the buying and selling of delegate votes in Louisiana and Arkansas and other states - I'm not sure it is important any more.

Across America, millions of people have put their lives on hold for hours at a time - some for five or six hours or longer - to go caucus or stand in line to vote. They voted. The majority to date have said they want Donald Trump to be the next president. In the Republican race, he has won more contests than any other candidate. He's got about two million more votes than Ted Cruz, but all of that might not count.

Ted Cruz is out buying - yes, folks, buying - delegates. And I do not give one little tiny rip that he says he's not, that it's all by the rules.

Call it whatever you want to call it, but buying is when you give someone something in exchange for something else. You give the supermarket your money in exchange for your groceries. That is buying.

In this case, Cruz is buying delegates by promising them things or giving them things. He is shopping through the election aisles for delegates - all sitting on their shelves and waiting for him to make an offer - $1.39 for this, $5.59 for that - and when he gets to the checkout (Convention), he will pay for them.

Delegates should not be commodities easily bought and sold by the highest, sleaziest bidder - they should be required to represent the voices of the people who sent them to Cleveland - and not on just the first ballot. Bound delegates should remain bound for at least two ballots to give the process a chance to work as the candidates buy, sell and trade the souls of those people who are there, allegedly, to represent the voters who got them there.

And I do not give the least little rip if it's a swag bag loaded with expensive gifts (legal) or political favor (not legal). It is precisely the same thing because in the final analysis, it is an exchange: For this I will give you that.

I just wish to Heaven that Reince Priebus would find his spine long enough to shush his puppet masters and then be honest.

Go ahead, Reince, tell all of those tens of millions of people who voted for Trump in Iowa and New Hampshire and all the other states that it was just a show, that their time, their energy, their passion doesn't count for anything.

Instead of wasting our time, our passion, our energy and attention listening to the people who are in front of us as candidates, just tell us flat out so there is no misunderstanding, that there is no point in us even paying attention to this circus. Then we can turn off our television sets, ignore the political ads, and just stop paying even lip service to this. We can go back to living our lives, walking the treadmill of futility all so we can get nowhere.

We can go back to being the hopeless lab rats the RNC and GOP see us as. Sitting in our cages of economic despair, just waiting for the next tax to fall on our shoulders, the next corporation to close its doors, our hope for ourselves and our children and grandchildren to turn to desert dust as we are put out of work while employers move overseas.

Who gives a good goddamn if American citizens live or thrive?

The GOP doesn't. Their actions make it clear they don't.

The RNC doesn't - they are conniving and colluding with other people not even in this race, hiding behind closed doors, working hard to thwart the will of the Americans who have gone out to vote, who have made it clear that we, the People called out in the Bill of Rights and Constitution, want Donald Trump as president.

The Washington Elites don't. Of course they don't because a non-politician, someone who cannot be bought and sold, manipulated and controlled is going to upset their apple cart.

You know what, though? I. Don't. Care. I don't care what they don't want.

From the preamble to the Bill of Rights all through the Constitution, We the People have the power to rule our lives.

This is, as it has been from the outset, a government of, by and for The People - and if the RNC, the GOP Establishment and the Elites don't get it, they shouldn't be surprised if this bloodless revolution they are seeing in the voting booth becomes something else. They will have brought it on themselves.

So, c'mon, Reince - just take that deep breath. Tell us none of this matters, that it doesn't count for anything.

Or get the Hell out of our way. Stop trying to manipulate us and our government - follow the will of the People and tell the delegates that they are not for sale. That they have been entrusted by the voters and are obligated to us.

Now - put up or shut up, 'k?

Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

Fascism is Alive & Well in the GOP

Robert Zubrin is the individual who wrote a resolution that "prevented" any of the Colorado delegates from voting for Donald Trump in the recent cluster event in Colorado Springs. Spewage like his makes me want to throw-up.

This is not American because it is the encouragement of the suppression of free speech, free thought and free association. American Thinker allowing his steaming waste to sit on its site is a matter of free speech, but it disgusts me. However, it is free speech so I will not rail against them, but it is disappointing and I don't know that I'll be going back there. If you want to find what this pile of manure contains you can - I've given you the pointers, but I will not provide the link - it's too foul to waste space on it here.

When one individual stands in front of another individual or a group, and dictates how that individual or group shall conduct themselves, that is fascism. They are taking away the free choice - the liberty - of the individual or group being confronted.

If I could think of a more condemning word, anything stronger that's fit for print, I'd use it. This man exemplifies the worst of human character by setting himself above the liberty he claims to embrace in his post.

Actions speak much louder than words and the fact that he can say what he did, write what he did, shouts what he thinks, that squelching freedom of thought or action in others is perfectly all right.

Now shame on those others, the people who went along with this individual's "resolution". Obviously they are incapable of thinking for themselves, for standing up and saying, no matter how they as an individual feel, that deciding what is right for everyone irrespective of personal view or opinion is wrong.

They are less than sheep - they are brainless, spineless and unthinking parasites, not caring that by signing onto such a resolution - particularly given the broader circumstances surrounding it - that this is not a democratic effort. This is, pure and simple, dictatorship.

These people were under zero obligation to follow this man's "resolution". Rather, the Colorado GOP had an obligation to tell him where to get off because as soon as they didn't, they joined him in creating an un-democratic construct.

If the people of Colorado think they are well-served by their Republican party and this kind of control, God help them. It is crystal clear to me that in Colorado Democracy has died and fascism has taken its place.

The fact that the Republican National Committee hasn't stood up to demand that this person stand down is telling of the rank corruption permeating the entire organization. Just more proof that the Establishment's greatest fear is that if no one showed up to vote on election day their corrupt power structure would be fully revealed in all its rotten glory.

What they don't get is that Donald Trump is not only successful, he is decent. Or perhaps that's their problem with him.

I watched the CNN Town Hall with Trump and his family last night. I was already in his corner but that man and his family impressed me.

Children are a reflection of their parents, perhaps even the best, most accurate reflection when you get down to it. They absorb what they see and experience from the time of their birth through all their formative years.

If a child is made to believe that everything is theirs, they'll be selfish.

If they think that no one else matters, they'll be uncaring.

If they think they will always win, they will never learn how to lose.

If they are never taught courtesy and respect, why should they show those attributes?

If they are taught that, because they are rich they are better than others, we end up with kids like that idiot in Texas who was let off of serious jail time because he was never taught the value of human life. He claimed 'affluenza' and got away with it.

Watching and listening to Trump's children last night I was humbled to see what a great family he has raised. Poised, respectful, thoughtful, articulate - everything any parent could wish their children to be, as a reflection of their upbringing. Those individuals told me more about Donald Trump and his character than any interview with the man, could.

If he, a decent, hard-working, intelligent man with a clear focus on what this country needs to improve not only the quality of life for its citizens, but its standing in the world isn't qualified, I don't know who is. Certainly none of the other candidates are, because none have the world vision Trump has shown.

He said we're on precarious footing - another financial bubble that will be catastrophic when it bursts. First, he was ridiculed - that was last week. This week, a number of those laughing stopped long enough to examine what he said, and they've admitted he's right.

Art Laffer is not a Trump fan, but he was on Fox Business last night and he agreed - we are in a situation where, when (not if, but when) this bubble bursts, the financial collapse of 2007 / 2008 will look like a child's tea party. A number of other prominent economists have been muttering into their armpits, 'dammit - he's right'.

They don't like it - they don't like telling average Americans things like that because it makes them nervous.

When average people get nervous they shy away from risky investments and look for more stable places to park their money. Unfortunately, that financial movement would bring out the burst faster than it would happen otherwise, so they encourage Joe and Jo Sixpack to keep their money where it is - even though those people will, when the bubble does burst, as it will, lose far more than they would if they moved it now.

But, it seems that the Establishment - because of Trump's vision and understanding of the real world and what it all means - want anyone but Trump. So they'll settle for someone they can manipulate - a Cruz or a Clinton.

It's disgusting and the fact that we have individuals shutting down free speech, free through and free association - and the Establishment in the form of the Republican National Committee and GOP are allowing this to happen - stinks to high Heaven. 

Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

The GOP Sleaze Factor

For the past couple of days there has been a lot of discussion crossing the airwaves about the Colorado Republican non-primary, and it is not complimentary. Both the state and the national GOP have infuriated millions of the people who make up their base. And many of those infuriated voters don't even live in the State of Colorado. I live in California and I am furious over this disgusting play.

As soon as the primary season is past, just as soon as I have the chance to vote Trump in the primary here in California, I will reject the GOP and re-register as an Independent. I suspect millions of other people will do the same, and it is all because of the GOP's own malfeasance and pure-d sliminess.

I'm sure this was not something the RNC / GOP Establishment wanted to happen but they have brought it on themselves by their own tone-deaf arrogance. They have insulted every single Republican voter this election season and I will not willingly affiliate myself with a political party so disconnected from its base.
 
Worse, instead of listening and trying to figure out that they're pissing me and others like me off, they keep shoving their collective head farther up their alimentary canal. All in an effort to not hear what the people of this country are screaming:

We do not want Paul Ryan.

We do not want some other party hack flown in at the last minute and shoved down our throats against our will.

The majority who have spoken so far in their state primaries do not want Ted Cruz. If they did, he would be ahead in the delegate count instead of trailing by more than 200 and a lot farther back if he wasn't such a wheeler-dealer. Which is fine to a point, but buying people who's own characters are highly questionable if a swag bag is all it takes, is disgusting.

What the GOP / RNC wanted was for things behind the scenes to hum along quietly, without anyone paying attention. Kind of like:

So what is all this excitement about Colorado? In case you haven't been listening to the bombast and whining, it's because about a million people in the state of Colorado were cut out of this election. They had their voices silenced by a decision made by their party "representatives".

According to the Colorado Secretary of State records available online, as of April 1st this year, there are more than 957,000 active registered Republicans and more than 1,016,000 Independent voters registered. These are the two voting blocs most likely to vote for Donald Trump. But Colorado canceled it's Republican primary election for this presidential cycle last August.

This isn't just any election cycle. This is the election cycle during which America is choosing its next president for the next four or eight years. And what does the Colorado GOP do? Why, it completely cut its electorate out of the process by not holding a primary.

Instead, the party apparatchiks held district conventions to select representatives to attend a state delegation selection party. In the end, just 6,000 Coloradans attended that. Of those, each who wants to go to the next level had just a matter of seconds to sell themselves to the other attendees for one of thirty-seven delegate slots.

So from a potential field of nearly two million voters, six thousand people got to pick thirty-seven to represent them at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland this July. Now I'm sorry, but to me, a mere tenth of one percentile for whom I didn't even get to vote is not representational.

Worse still is that the Colorado GOP is clearly biased. They set this up specifically so a non-traditional candidate couldn't possibly win their delegates. Now Cruz, being the Washington insider that he is, and probably with a wink and a nod from Colorado party officials, learned of this set-up beforehand, and was able to make hay with it.

This is not America. This is not how our democratic republic is supposed to work. It is one person, one vote and when a political party cuts its base out of an election, that is wrong.

Last night I was watching a program on Fox Business Network and there was a segment in which someone said something profound:

'Take away my vote, the last thing that makes us equal.'

Think about that for a second. That says it all. The one place in life where Americans are perfectly equal is in the voting booth. In the voting booth there is no race, no color, no religion, no economics, no nothing. It is the most level of playing fields - and what the Colorado GOP did was to take that away.

When the dust settled, the Colorado GOP Tweeted:

This Tweet, "We did it. #NeverTrump" was quickly taken down - but they did Tweet it, and it is disgusting as a representation of democracy.

What about all of the people who didn't realize that the primary had been canceled?

Granted, this was decided last August and there were newspaper articles leading up to it, but what recourse did Joe or Josephine Sixpack-Republican voter have if they disagreed with this change?

It was a backroom deal done by the party officials and, from what I've been able to find, they didn't include the electorate in the decision. They just did it. Silencing Joe and Jo Sixpack, cutting them off and shutting them out in the cold.

What about all of the people in Colorado who wanted to speak for themselves, to choose and cast a vote for a particular candidate? Nope. Sorry - you're not allowed.

What about all of the people who wanted to participate in the process, but couldn't because of health or economic reasons? The party's party was held in Colorado Springs - what if you couldn't get from home to there because you didn't have a car, or couldn't afford the bus ticket? Sorry. Too bad, so sad.

What the Republican party did in Colorado was completely shut out the electorate. They decided who was not going to be their candidate long before their turn came up to vote. The people of Colorado who might support Donald Trump or John Kasich got royally screwed by their own political party.

Now isn't that nice?

And what's going to happen with me is I'll keep doing what I do now. When the Slime Master appears on my television screen, I change channels. #NeverCruz.

Come June 8th, I will change my party affiliation - for good.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

Oh, Good Grief! C'mon Nancy, that's just plain Sexist!

Late yesterday, after spending my morning trying to wrap my brain around a new database design, I popped over to Real Clear Politics for a rest. I hadn't had my daily fix of prose and polls and, when the page opened, I just about fell off my chair.

On their home page was a link to a Los Angeles Times piece by Nancy Cohen: 'Why Women Should Vote For Women'.

On the face of it, that title is pure sexist - just as sexist as if someone named 'Norman' Cohen had written 'Why Men Should Vote for Men'.

C'mon, now, be honest. Do you think there wouldn't be screams from the scalded female contingent if that was a headline in a prominent newspaper? I can hear 'em now.

Attempting to do my due diligence, I followed the link to the L.A. Times's website where it's posted. Uh oh. My 'free trial' has expired. Oh well. I don't care enough about this article or the L.A. Times to pay for their site, so I left. I spent a few minutes trying to track it down somewhere else, but no luck.

No matter because I think this is another case where I can guess what the underlying message in that 'article' is, no matter that it's all wrapped up in fluff.

I don't care about the inner message, though. The title is irritating enough. If you have ovaries and a uterus, then you should vote for someone else with a uterus and ovaries. That is the only criteria. Don't spend time or effort to consider their other qualifications. Don't worry about their character, integrity or honesty. And whatever you do, if you're a woman don't look at a man because he doesn't have those physical features. Never mind that he might actually be better qualified for the job.

There is just one woman running in this presidential race - and she is not qualified - she is resoundingly unqualified. She openly disparaged women abused by her husband - referring to them as 'bimbo eruptions' whenever new allegations surfaced. According to Kathleen Willey, one of the women Billy-Jeff groped, Hilliary was integral to the cover-ups and intimidation of the women assaulted by her husband. The Daily Caller has a short, eye-opening article on this enabling behavior:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/04/clinton-sexual-assault-accuser-admires-trump/

Along the same timeline, there was Filegate from Wikipedia (italics added for emphasis):

The White House FBI files controversy of the Clinton Administration, often referred to as Filegate,^[1] arose in June 1996 around improper access in 1993 and 1994 to Federal Bureau of Investigation security-clearance documents. Craig Livingstone, director of the White House's Office of Personnel Security, improperly requested, and received from the FBI, background reports concerning several hundred individuals without asking permission. The revelations provoked a strong political and press reaction because many of the files covered White House employees from previous Republican administrations, including top presidential advisors. Under criticism, Livingstone resigned from his position. Allegations were made that senior White House figures, including First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, may have requested and read the files for political purposes, and that the First Lady had authorized the hiring of the underqualified Livingstone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_FBI_files_controversy

So she hires someone who is underqualified for a position inside the White House. Then this underqualified individual obtains records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation - records that should never have been handed over - and she reads them. Allegedly to obtain potentially problematic information so it can be used against those individuals. This smacks to me of a police state. By what right did she - the First Lady, not a security official - look at those records? Whatever happened to privacy rights?

And she was up to her neck in that scandal according to Freedom Watch USA (italics added for emphasis):

The case, first filed in 1996 when it was discovered that the Clinton White House illegally obtained FBI files on adversaries, and used them to smear them, continues to this day. Strangely, although Mrs. Clinton is the principal defendant, and although there is sworn testimony, obtained during earlier discovery that Mrs. Clinton was the mastermind of this illegal scheme, the Court has never granted Plaintiffs requests to depose her — perhaps fearing a political backlash in the scandal ridden and "politically correct" cesspool known as Washington, D.C. But now that Mrs. Clinton has moved to try to get out of the case — undoubtedly so it does not hang over her head during her years as Secretary of State — it is mandatory that she be deposed before the Court can even consider her motion to be let out of the case. Indeed, even her husband, Bill Clinton, who was president at the time, had to be deposed in the Paula Jones case. Mrs. Clinton, as Secretary of State, ranks lower than a U.S. president and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Jones case that even a president is subject to deposition for his illegal acts.

http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/hillary-clinton-tries-to-escape-from-on-going-filegate-case

Breitbart has an even better article that talks about Filegate, Email-Gate1 and Email-Gate2 (Benghazi):

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/04/hillary-clintons-long-history-of-hiding-documents/

Nancy Cohen's mindset is more than annoying. It's dangerous. Worse still, undermining this woman's credibility entirely, is that the premise of that article is just plain stupid.

Put on your hiring hat. If you are looking for a candidate for a job, would you hire someone just because she's a woman? Well, I can think of a few cases - swimsuit model, bra model, haute couture evening gown model - but Hilliary Clinton or any of the women candidates running for office aren't applying for any of those. They are applying for jobs that will give them some control over our lives.

She's already proved, through the aiding, abetting and enabling of her husband's proclivity to disrespect women by sexually assaulting them that she doesn't give a rip about women or their issues. Through Filegate, she has shown that she is perfectly happy to sit down with records the federal government keeps on citizens. Those were FBI records, but what if it happened to be your IRS filing records? Or what about your Obamacare records? They're all right there, at the government's fingertips.

That is why I want someone I can trust to do the right thing in that office.

Now I don't know about Nancy Cohen, but I don't store my brain inside my nether regions. I also have the capacity to analyze and think independently. If I thought Hilliary Clinton had one speck of anything worthwhile I'd consider her for this job. But she doesn't and I don't, so I won't.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

Ladies, May I Have Your Attention For Minute?

I am going to speak plainly about Donald Trump and his alleged problem with women. Dead honest in my opinion: it is not his problem. It's ours, the women, who are the problem.

America has bigger problems than ugly words. These problems are real and have nothing whatsoever to do with 'feeling' or 'emotion'. They are existential and they are going to make or break this country in the next few years. Either America gets itself back on its feet or we go under. It is that serious in my view.

Are you better off today than you were ten or twelve years ago? I genuinely hope you can answer yes to that, but I sincerely doubt you can, honestly.

Do you feel more secure, as settled and as comfortable as you did ten or twelve years ago? Or are you like me and like millions of others like me? Do you, as I do, worry about tomorrow and next week, never mind next year or retirement?

Do you worry about your kids' future? Do you wonder if they're going to be able to live and work and enjoy their lives as you used to do?

What about your grandchildren? Are they going to live the kind of life you want for them?

Given these problems, don't we have bigger fish to fry than to worry about someone saying stupid or ugly things about people?

I don't like everything Trump says but I recognize an ass is an ass is an ass and he tends to hit that mark too often for my comfort, but then I look past it - to those big existential threats to our security and well-being.

You know the problems in your own life. Your home - probably still under-water compared to your mortgage and its value. Your job - are you secure, confident you'll still have a job a year from now? How's that retirement looking?

What about your kids? How are they doing? Did they go to college and pile up a mountain of debt and find a job in their field that pays enough for them to pay that debt down - or are they working somewhere in the service industry?

This country is faced with big existential problems, yet I listen to the chattering class on television and all they're talking about (so it seems) is Donald Trump's "trouble with women".

And what is that "trouble" do we suppose? Well I know exactly what it is. Women get upset when someone says something stupid or ugly. Or they get upset by it because they take it personally and then can't get over themselves far enough to recognize that an ass is an ass is an ass and what he says does not have to be taken seriously.

Given the real and existential problems in this country, does it really matter that Trump made ugly remarks about Rosie O'Donnell (who deserved them) or Carly Fiorina or anyone else? Aren't we bigger than that?

After all, if talking nice would solve all the problems in the world - hunger and unemployment and the housing situation and international warfare and trade and the like, hell, I'd be all over him too. But it doesn't and it won't.

The sad reality is that while words have meaning and they can hurt our feelings, those words cannot solve the bigger issues in front of us.

Yes, negotiation is a matter of words but I suspect, given the number of sensitive negotiations Trump has been involved with, he knows what words work and what don't.

Yes, diplomacy is a matter of words - but I am not looking for the next Diplomat. I am looking for the next President. I am quite confident that in the setting of delicate negotiation, Trump is perfectly capable of being delicate, of saying the right thing at the right time in the right way.

Personally, I do not give the first little rip about what Donald Trump says - he can spew ugliness all day long for all I care because when he stops talking, I do care about what he can do for this country if we give him a chance. And, based on the choices from this smorgasbord, he is the only person who can get things back on track and rolling again.

Given the big problems facing this country I ask you: do you really want more of the same or do you want something better?

Ladies, if you want more of the same, knock yourself out but do not whine around about how bad things still are four years from now. You will have asked for it.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

Let's Take a Break & Play A Game

Let's all take a big deep breath, okay? It's only April - just a couple of months into the 'political season' - and I'm already tired. This has been a hellacious week for my candidate and it's not letting up.

Everything from 'humunah, humunah, humunah' from Trump and a refusal to deny from Cruz.

For Trump it was abortion and nukes. Trump tried to talk it back.

For Cruz it's the National Enquirer and allegations that he's been getting some on the side. Cruz refused to deny.

Nonetheless, as usual, Trump is leading the pack in media mentions - but that's as it always is because the man simply doesn't know when to zip his lip. He's a good guy - I'd bet my life on it - but he talks too damned much and this week has been worse than usual.

Past stuff is well-known. Offering to pay legal fees for brawl participants. That has been a never-ending story. More recently though are his tongue-stomps on abortion. He didn't just trip over his tongue - he stomped on it and it was not pretty.

However, the media double-standard is staggering.

While the MSM has been blasting Trump non-stop for speaking badly, they just ignored that Ted Cruz framed a joke that really isn't that funny. On Jimmy Kimmel's show, he suggested that he would like to back a car over Donald Trump. Now if he had said that about Hilliary or Berns or Obie-One, the MSM would have been all over it - and not in a good way. But no, because it was Trump, that's okay. No one mentioned it - it got a complete pass.

I hate double-standards. In my world, fair is fair. That means you cannot say one thing and do another. If you're going to hold Person A to a standard, Person B has to be held to that same standard. It annoys the hell out of me that the media just doesn't get that. Instead, they're out there doing what they always do - making something out of nothing to Donald Trump's detriment.

So... ahhhh. After that deep cleansing breath, let's play a game. It's the Hiring Game. I'll lay out the rules as we go. Put on your thinking cap and think about your answers - don't just answer off the cuff. Okay, ready? Here we go.

You are screening people for an important job. You started with twenty applicants and are now down to just four. All four are viable prospects. There's another, over there, behind the screen - but he's not really viable. He just refuses to leave. The others are real possibilities but each has their problems and there are no other options. You've been watching them for weeks, filtering through what they've said and done, and here's what you've learned:

Applicant One is a compulsive liar and he's mean - a bully. During the first interview phase, he sent out a mailer that shamed people, made them feel bullied if they didn't do what he wanted them to do. He lied about another potential candidate, and got away with it. He has, arguably, made a death threat about another person under consideration - and got away with that, too. Recently, you've heard rumors that he's been unfaithful to his wife - and he has not come out and denied it, even when he's been asked directly. The most he's done is call the story 'garbage'.

Applicant Two is running from a felony conviction. She mishandled confidential information, data that was so sensitive that its getting out there into the world could cost people their lives. Now she's praying that her former boss will protect her from criminal indictment, but it looks like it might be a losing battle.

Applicant Three is a self-admitted spendthrift. He just loves spending other people's money without restraint. He will take your money, even though you've hired him, and he will give it away to anyone and everyone who holds out their hand. He has no idea, after you run out of money, how he's going to keep that gravy train going - tax the rich only goes so far, after all. But that's okay. Now, this moment, is all that counts.

Applicant Four is fundamentally honest, often too honest. Instead of filtering his words, he almost always says exactly what he thinks, regardless of whether or not those words are in his best interest. Some people take offense to what he says, and then spend days whinging about it.

The media has been sniffing around his ankles, searching for any major or minor chink in his armor, but haven't found anything except the words he chooses to use. If they could find something, anything, other than what's publicly known, they would use it with glee, but so far, their searching and probing hasn't revealed anything

Good, bad or indifferent, these are the final four candidates for this important job. 1) A liar, bully and cheat; 2) a criminal; 3) a spendthrift; and 4) an unbridled tongue. Which one will you hire?

I know which one I prefer, but that's me. So let's look a little more closely at our options, shall we?

Candidate Number 1: A first term Senator. As far as we know he's no better than the last first term Senator who held this post.

That guy was purely incompetent - in over his head at every turn, doing the wrong thing every time he made a move - a visit to Cuba and attending a ballgame instead of coming back to work when one of our allies was under attack. Doing the wave with the Cuban dictator and the tango with Argentina's first lady. Making a deal with an untrustworthy opponent, and not enforcing the conditions when that opponent repeatedly violates that deal that is now being closely scrutinized by Congress.

This candidate is hoping to replace that first term Senator, but he's a first term Senator, too. He has no more real world experience than the last guy. Will he be any better?

On top of that, he's proven himself to be a liar. Lying about that other candidate's dropping from the job interview process. Lying about the other interviewees.

Last, but nowhere close to least, is that he's being accused of messing around with women not his wife. How can someone trust a guy who will toss his own wife and children to the side in his rush to boff another Babe or two? How loyal will he be to you and me? A stellar character, to be sure.

Candidate Number Two: Hilliary Clinton's woes are well-known. 'nuff said.

Candidate Number Three: Freebies for everyone for everything and no idea how to pay for them.

Taxing the rich won't do it - they don't have enough money for pay for all the free stuff Bernie is promising. Even if Washington took everything everyone with anything owns, it wouldn't be enough.  Free medical care, free education and, I'm sure when the demand gets loud enough, free housing. No one will have to work or pay taxes because everything will be free, right?

Candidate Number Four: He's a shoot-from-the-lip specialist. He says what's on his mind, no filter and that causes problems. He's also loyal - a good quality for which he doesn't get credit.

When one of his employees did what the Secret Service should have done, he stood by his man. After all, the guy hadn't been convicted in a court of law - just in the court of public opinion. He also didn't rat out the Secret Service - which wasn't doing his job when this employee did what they should have done. That's honorable. It shows loyalty - a character trait I respect and value.

On the other hand, he does speak too openly, too often without thinking things through or considering what he should say instead of what he really believes. That's causing him problems - and it's all that gets talked about - until I have to shut off my television because I'm so sick of the distortion that I want to puke.

So of these, given that these are your only choices, which would you hire?

Okay, ready? Now answer the fundamental question: Why would you pick that individual over the others? What makes your pick more palatable or viable than any of the others?

Fair questions, right?

Even if Trump were to get into office and put forward a SCOTUS nominee, do you not suppose the Senate Judiciary Committee who has 'yea' or 'nay' power over that nomination wouldn't question the candidate long and hard on this issue? That committee is not a purely right-wing body - it is run by the party that controls the Senate but includes people of all mindsets. It is not a rubber-stamp for any presidential nominee. The likelihood that abortion will be overturned, become a criminal act, is just about 0.0000%. The American people who support or at least acknowledge the need for it won't stand for its repeal.

Personally, I am aligned with Trump on the evil nature of the act - I do not agree with punishing the women or their doctors. It's an evil necessity and while I was once a pro-abortion thinker, my attitude has changed. It has evolved. From being pro-abortion I went to the opposite end of the spectrum - no abortion for any reason. Then, I've softened and now, while I still don't like it, I understand the necessity for it.

I suggest that before you walk into the voting booth this season that you sit down and stop and think about why you're picking one candidate over another. Get past the emotional 'feel-good-ism' - I like this guy. Answer the questions: what makes him like-worthy and will he be better than the other guy?

So that's the hiring game. Not fun but important and I hope you played along thoughtfully.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

Ya Know What, Jim? Yesterday Pissed Me Off

Jim Geraghty's dismissive post about Trump supporters being idiots and fools was snot. Pure and simple mucus that belongs wadded up in a piece of tissue at the bottom of a garbage can. And he's just the latest in a long procession of people who think and have written and said the same kinds of things.

What's infuriating is that none of these people have got the first foggiest clue about why so many people are backing Donald Trump.

Thinking about it here, on the receiving end, I got mad yesterday. Really mad because until he and his pinhead friends know what I and what people like me have lived for these past twelve years, he has no right in the world to dismiss us. Until he and the others understand how disenfranchised and disrespected millions of us feel, he would do really well to just shut the fuck up.

Sorry - I'm trying not to do that anymore because I have a bigger vocabulary than that, but that says precisely what I want to say.

Just. Shut. Up. And here's why:

I do not, I never have and I never will draw six or seven figures a year in salary. I make an honest wage, but it is a just-barely-scraping-the-sides-of-the-barrel and enough-to-barely-make-ends-meet wage. And it's not because I'm not good or smart or talented or skilled. It's because it's the best I can find in this economy.

I will never sit down in some fancy Washington or New York restaurant and scarf a portion of a $100, $200 or $1,000 dinner. Not because I don't want to, but because I can't afford it. I can't even save up for it because I don't have two pennies to scrape together at the end of a month - it all goes to pay my expenses.

I drive a twelve year old Ford station wagon with almost 150,000 on the odometer. I will make that car last just as long as I possibly can, not because I like it but because I cannot afford $200 or $300 or $500 a month in lease expenses. I can't afford to spend $8,000 or $10,000 or more on a 'new' used car, either.

I never have and I never will drive a Mercedes Benz or a BMW or anything other than a basic form of transportation. Not because I don't want to, but because I can't. I can't afford it.

I am not quite sixty years old. I have worked since I graduated from high school in 1975. Aside being mainly unemployed for sixteen months, the longest time I haven't worked was the two years I took off to stay home with my daughter, before I had to go back to work to support the family.

If I did manual labor, I'm the kind of person who would have honorable calluses on my hands. I don't have calluses, but I do get up at 4:45 every morning and leave my house by 7:00 every morning and don't get home until 6:30 every night. I have taken one day off in the past year - for the birth of my grandson.

I am, and others like me are, the backbone of this country and its economy. Unlike the pointy airhead pundits who make a living writing drivel about what goes on inside Washington.

I, and others like me, work to help produce goods and services that have meaning.

At the end of the day - who cares about opinion? What does that do for anyone? I can't eat it or drive it or wear it - so why should people who produce nothing but hot air on a computer screen think they can disrespect me and others like me who actually produce things that have real meaning?

And we are the majority who are supporting Trump.

So now, Jim, given those things, given our honest labor that pays an honest day's wages, who the hell are you to call me and others like me idiots and fools?

And I'll take it further - you don't get it, okay. Here is why I'm supporting Trump:

In the late 1990's and through 2001, our family was solid middle class. We had a mortgage on a nice house in a nice neighborhood and were doing okay financially. I had a job that paid enough that my husband could stay home and day-trade, taking care of our daughter.

We decided to sell the house we were living in - it was really too big for a family of three, so we bought another house. We used the equity we had built up over the years and bought a slightly more expensive home - not bigger, not better, just more money because prices had gone up. The mortgage on our new house was manageable.

We were just like millions of other middle class Americans. Things were fine through 2005. By then, I had been at my job for ten years. I was earning enough that I could support my husband and our daughter. We could even save a little every month.

Then, in 2006, we started seeing signs the economy was changing. The day-trading had already gone by the wayside - I was the sole support of our family and I was getting nervous.

The company I had been with had its first layoffs in its fifty year history. In the course of twenty minutes, six people were gone. The survivors, me included, took pay cuts or cuts in our hours to keep things going. Gradually it got better and then 2007 hit.

The housing bubble burst and the economy collapsed in on itself.

The millions of bad loans that Congress, George Bush and Hank Paulson, driven by the Federal Reserve and the banking industry had palmed off on people who never should have qualified for loans came home to roost. No one was repaying the balloons on the loans they had taken out in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 after the banking laws were repealed by Congress. Together these characters, along with Newt Gingrich and Billy-Jeff and others in Washington had destroyed the fiduciary responsibility of the banks to protect their depositors' money.

The Washington insiders, the Federal Reserve and Wall Street had colluded together to create a devastating housing bubble. Those people who should never, ever, ever have received loans had received loans - often for the full value of the property they were buying. No job? No problem! Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were there to provide the money needed - just ignore the fact that those institutions were, at the bottom line, publicly funded by other homeowners and workers like me.

In 2007 we elected a first term Senator from Illinois. This man had never run a company. He had never managed a company. He had never, to the best of anyone's knowledge, ever balanced a checkbook - but he was elected to the office of the President.

Immediately, he started blaming Bush for everything that was wrong - and that has not changed eight years later. He did nothing, materially, to change things, to make them better. He didn't consult with business people to figure out what they needed to make their companies stronger and more vibrant. He didn't do his job and work with Congress to re-institute Glass-Steagall and put in place laws that would hold the banks and investment companies accountable.

No! He bailed them out. He took whatever was left of our hard-earned money and handed it over to the too-big-to-fails that had created this mess - paying no attention whatsoever to the devastation that was taking place in the real world outside of Washington and New York. Oh, sure, he gave it lip service - but lip service doesn't keep a roof over a families head. It doesn't put clothes on their back, shoes on their feet and food on their table.

The economy continued to fall apart through 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 - more layoffs, unemployment soared, companies by the hundreds of thousands down-sized or just closed their doors. There were no new jobs for the people unemployed by the malfeasance of George Bush, Hank Paulson, Congress and the continuation of bad policy by the new administration.

But who cares! Let's get Obamacare going - never mind that it will destroy whatever small companies might be left in America. Who cares about the employers of millions of people or the millions of people who will lose their jobs because of the onerous requirements? I don't because it's my legacy!

Never mind that start to finish the vast majority of the American people screamed that we didn't want it - but it was shoved down our throats anyway - to the detriment of families and businesses and the medical care providers.

The company I worked for had more wage freezes and layoffs - 2008, 2010 and 2012. In the last, I was caught up. Eight people - almost the last of the non-partners / owners - were included in that layoff. I had been there for seventeen years. Some had been there more than twenty and twenty-five years. They had been looking forward to retiring in a few years and... wham! Unemployment, the potential of losing their homes, evisceration of their 401ks.

In eight years since that first term Senator took office, this economy hasn't even begun to recover. Regardless of what anyone inside Washington and the nattering class says - this economy has not recovered.

Unemployment, if you dig through the piles of manure the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the government cover it with every month, is horrible.

Do you realize that under current employment counting rules if a professional who is on unemployment works just one hour - just sixty minutes - in a week and is paid just $20 - the BLS counts him or her as employed for that week?

If someone works as a temporary employee - at one-half or one-quarter of their former wage - for just an hour in a week, they are counted as 'employed'.

How does that work? Come on! That's not a sustainable wage. That won't buy lunch in a lot of places in this country, so how can those people be called 'employed'? Yet they are.

For me, after losing my job in 2012, it took me more than two months to find even a $14 hour temporary job - less than half of what I had been earning, with no benefits - for two days.

And that wasn't because I wasn't trying. The day after I was told I no longer had a job, I put together my resume. I called the employment agencies - seven of them - and made appointments. That week after losing my job, I was in front of agency people, selling them on my skills, yet it took two months for me to find even a $14 per hour job.

I did well there. I did well enough there that that company specifically asked for me when they needed coverage the next several times. I had the same thing happen with other employers so by November, I was working fairly regularly.

Then I got lucky - so I thought. I got an offer - but they were going through an internal restructuring so it would 'be a few weeks' but I shouldn't accept any temp work because 'they might need' me right away. Eight weeks went by with me supporting my family on $11.50 per hour unemployment while waiting for this job that paid almost what I had been making at my last job. To me, given the economy, it was a good wait.

Finally, in January 2013 I started work and I worked until... sequestration. March 2013 began the government intervention that cost millions of government and government contractors their jobs - me included.

May 1st saw me back on unemployment, back to knocking on doors, calling the temporary agencies two and three times a week, spending hours every week cruising Monster and Craig's List and Indeed and company websites searching for anything that would pay even a little more than the unemployment benefits I was receiving.

In the meantime, the siding on our house began to rot - we couldn't afford to paint or fix it. Our bedroom window broke - we can't afford to replace it. The roof is on its last legs - not quite leaking but it will be in a year or two or three.

In October 2014 I became a criminal thanks to my federal government. Obamacare kicked in but I make too much to qualify for subsidies and too little to afford almost $900 per month in premiums plus the $6,000 deductible for my husband and me. This year, in my taxes, I "get" to pay a penalty for being uninsured. 

For nearly three years I lay awake at night, worrying - how am I going to pay the bills? Will I be able to keep this job or will I be let go? Will I ever find another job? How are we going to make it?

Now I have a job - it's a regular job but I am making thirty percent less than I made just four years ago. I still cannot afford those insurance premiums. I am still a criminal. I cannot afford to save. I cannot afford even basic repairs to my house. The value on the biggest asset that I own that is finally starting to look like it might go back to where we bought it twelve years ago but at this point, the only way I might realize that potential is if I throw about $60,000 that I no longer can afford into it for the repairs that have gone wanting for so long - $30,000 for new siding, $20,000 for a new roof, new paint and new carpet.

In the years since I lost my job in 2012 we have gone, as so many others have gone in this past decade, from comfortable middle class to barely making it. Even now, because I don't earn enough to be comfortable, we unplug appliances when we're not using them. We have taken light bulbs out of fixtures to save money. We don't run the heat until the house gets below sixty degrees. We don't run the air conditioner unless it's over 100 degrees outside. We don't drive unless we absolutely have to, because we can't afford it, even though gas is now at a reasonable price.

Before this mess began in 2006 / 2007, we could go out to dinner occasionally. Nothing big, nothing expensive, but we could. Now we can't. I honestly cannot remember the last time we ate out - and that last time was Jack In The Box. Not because we wanted to, but because it was all we could afford.

So before these erudite airheads tell me that I'm an "idiot" for voting for someone outside the norm, they should sit down and talk to people like me. They should walk the walk of a life like mine before opining on how "wrong" I am.

I am voting for Donald Trump because the same-old, same-old of Washington politicians and a one term Senator have not been good for me, for people like me, or for this country. I am desperate to try something - anything new and another one term Senator is not an option.

So take my advice, Jim - and pass the word to your buds: just shut up until you know what you're talking about.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter:  https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

Jim Geraghty - Don't Be Obnoxious, 'k?

Jim Geraghty is a perfect example of why I don't merely dislike the National Review and its collection of vapid pundits. I loathe them. Yesterday he posted an article with a title dripping foul contempt across my computer screen: 'Trump Supporters Are Foolish Idiots on the Titanic'.

That's the problem with giving the punchline away at the outset, Jim. No one reads past the title.

As a Trump supporter, I'm not going to waste time reading that article, or any other by him. I don't need some asphyxiated pinhead telling me that I'm wrong. Why I'm wrong doesn't even enter into it - he hasn't a clue why I think as I do.

For Trump haters, it's validation. Still, it's probably a pointless read since he's preaching to the choir. He probably hasn't even made the tiniest effort to discover why so many people across the board want to have Trump as president. Without that, he can't add anything new or interesting to the theme. It's just that he's got his idea and he's convinced it's right so he's going to bloviate on it. Probably to meet a deadline.

It's why I call them asphyxiated pinheads. They have no capacity for at least trying to see the other perspective. They are too unimaginative for that. Without trying to learn what it is that makes people who support Trump tick, they sit in front of their keyboard, breathe deeply in their rarefied atmosphere, exchange more CO2 for O to get that rush of superiority and then start writing.

It's plain as day that in their opinion if we do not fall in precise lock-step with their view of the world and how things should be, we're a moron or a passenger on a political Titanic or both.

Now he's just as entitled to have his opinion as you or I, but to sit in judgement of a broad base of the American public - no.

I ask you, who died and gave him that right? I'll say it flat out right here so there is no mistake: I do not give him that right. And I do not like being mocked or insulted - and he and his cohorts at the National Review and Weekly Standard keep doing it.

Let's see if this works: Hey! Geraghty! Spend a dime and pick up a copy of:

It's available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble and I think you should probably spend some quality time studying it. Somehow I doubt that Dale recommended insulting your way into popularity.

Whatever.

I saw on Twitter yesterday that the GOP and Trump are trying to mend fences. Again. At this point that fence is probably more wire than wood and I don't know if it's going to hold. Probably a week or so, at best, until something else blows up - real or manufactured.

As for Trump, what needs to happen is he has got to get his points in order. He has got to stop shooting from the lip.

Just a few hours a day with his team of political advisors would be time well spent. Practice how to present ideas in as few words as possible. Learn to side-step the questions you don't want to answer in a way that doesn't make you look foolish. Grasp the fact and hold it tight that you do not have to answer every question put to you. Think before speaking. BE HONEST - which is something I know Trump well knows how to do.

Not answering a question is easy. Just say, "You know, I'd rather not answer that in detail right now. I have a plan but it's still early stages because so much can change between here and there, but here's the broad outline..." Then outline it - in broad enough strokes that there's some form but no detail. Like the nukes for Japan - that should have been easy.

"Well, Anderson / Chris, I think that having a line of defense between us and North Korea seems like a good thing. Japan is an ally - we've been friends for decades. We do business with them. We trust them, right? So why not? Same with South Korea."

On nuclear proliferation and the difference between 'need' and 'want' - sometimes we need things that we don't want. Make it a joke - "you know, Anderson / Chris, I don't like going to the doctor for my annual exams. I don't want to do it but it's something I know I need to do, so I do it."

Just slowing down and deliberating on what to say would go a long way toward making what he says more palatable, less off the wall.

It won't shut the pinheads up, but that's okay. The nattering-class can go on nattering and the rest of us will go on ignoring.

So, that's my take and I wish the pinheads well. I won't be reading a word that they write and they won't read what I write, but I do wish them well.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

Every Candidate Has Flaws

Can we agree that all political candidates are flawed? Can we admit that there is no such thing as the perfect candidate except, maybe, the Manchurian Candidate? But we don’t really have a Manchurian Candidate in this election cycle. Instead we have a field of highly flawed individuals.

On the left, Hilliary is an out-and-out un-convicted criminal. That, I hope, is just a matter of time before it’s resolved. Bernie is plain clueless about how to pay for all the freebies.

Despite a decent background and good experience, I just cannot get behind a floppy waffle like John Kasich. He comes across as micron thin in character, and I don’t trust him.

‘TrusTed’ Cruz lies. Pure and simple, he plays fast and loose with the truth while declaring that he’s honest as the day. Besides that, he always comes across the screen as slimy – just the unctuous tone of voice puts my nerves on edge. When I saw him at the Town Hall in Wisconsin yesterday, he started talking about women’s issues and the tone of his voice changed. He lowered the volume, slowed it down – he was talking down to those women and they fell for it. It was a disgusting moment that turned my stomach.

Unfortunately, Trump has a bad tendency to speak too quickly – without preparation or a hint of forethought - and then he has to walk backward while covering the blush of humiliation. That hard and fast ‘do not shoot from the lip’ lesson is something that politicians learn pretty quickly and the fact that Trump is not a politician is, at times, painfully obvious. Take the comments on abortion yesterday during the MSNBC Town Hall.

There is no doubt, regardless of which side of the issue you're on, that was a gigantic flub by The Donald. Was it devastating? That remains to be seen, but it does show that he has got to spend more time thinking about possible responses to the hot button issues, developing clear and rational answers, and less time Tweeting. He has also got to get back ahead of things, get back on his message and keep it there.

If he had developed a solid position on the issue before yesterday, he wouldn't have been caught as he was. The worst thing he did was open his mouth and try to answer Chris Matthews's question. I really hate to say it, but the old saw ‘better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt’ was proved true by my candidate yesterday.

This is not going to change my mind or my vote. In the final analysis, given that the law is what it is, I think this is a non-issue.

Still, instead of trying to answer, he could have said, 'you know, Chris. I really hadn't thought through that in great detail because right now, today, Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. It doesn’t matter how I feel about it. It’s the law and it’s not a law that’s going to be changed. The people wouldn’t stand for it.'

That would have been honest, it would have given him room, and he wouldn't now be watching his poll numbers plummet in Wisconsin and other places. It's going to be an uphill battle to regain that ground because anything he does and says is 100% wrong per the media. Even if he helped a little old lady across eight lanes of traffic and rescued a sick puppy along the way, they'd find something to criticize.

There is one opportunity, just one, to salvage something of what happened during that Town Hall yesterday.

He has got to come out now, today, and say, ‘I’m sorry. I didn’t give the voters my best effort yesterday. When Chris asked me the question about abortion I was still thinking about the nuclear question. That was such strange exchange it threw me, but that doesn’t excuse what I said about abortion.

‘Obviously, Roe v. Wade is and will be the law of the land whether we agree with it or not. I should never have said a word in answer to that question. This is part of my learning about being a politician. Sometimes on the campaign trail, when I’m trying to make a good impression, I speak when I would do better to stay quiet.

‘I’m not a politician and that’s why I sometimes make mistakes. I’m a manager, an administrator. I run things, big things and I build great things. That’s why I’m in the race. I want to try to get the government under control, to make it more efficient and reorganize it so it works better for everyone. The policy matters are critical and that is why I’m surrounding myself with brilliant and experienced advisors who know these things.’

This kind of a statement answers the question from the other night on CNN when Anderson Cooper asked if Trump ever apologizes, and it shows both humility and humanity. For a moment it would take him off the pedestal and show the base his feet of clay.

A release like this wouldn’t salvage Wisconsin, but it might help going forward. People understand that he’s a human being. Knowing that even a presidential candidate can drop the façade long enough to admit that he’s wrong would be, in my view, endearing. It might even make the women a little less hostile.

Another thing that might help woo women is if he could convince Melania to help him by speaking to women’s groups. Maybe she is already, but I’m following the news closely because I am so anxious about this election, and I haven’t heard a breath about her being involved. Just meeting with small groups like Soroptimists and Rotary and Kiwanis would be fine – they don’t have to be talks in front of roaring crowds, but introduce Donald to the women. Help them to see him as she sees him – what she likes, his strong points and the little kindnesses. She could talk about what qualities he has that would make him a great president.

As for the nuclear issue, the idea of Japan and South Korea having nuclear weapons is actually a good idea. Why not?

After all, let’s say North Korea gets a working nuclear missile system. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a forward warning / forward intervention system in the form of nukes in Japan and South Korea? That might well prevent a nuclear warhead from reaching the United States – which is Kim’s stated goal.

So, no. That doesn’t bother me. It bothers me more to think that whack job in Pyong Yang is going to get a nuke or two and we don’t have our systems up-to-date and ready to go.

I don’t know that these things would resolve yesterday’s foot-in-mouth situation, but it might help. There’s no way to undo it but if he does nothing, hoping it just goes away, it won’t. It’s all over the networks already and we can count on it being an issue going forward by both his GOP opponents and by Hilliary. If he has answers in his pocket, honest and human, it could take the water off the boil.

Once he gets past the nomination, he can tackle the nonsense Hilliary throws at him one-on-one instead of five against one with the media taking sides.

I know he’s already tried to walk it back, but one thing I’ve noticed about Trump is that his brain works faster than his tongue. He often (almost always) speaks before he thinks and that leads to messes like this one.

And, as much as I admire the man, he often speaks in ‘clouds’ of words. There is a lot of fluff surrounding the central point, and that’s frustrating to me. I wish he would be more incisive and clear because the dust makes his points hard to find.

So there’s room for improvement in his presentation skills. That does not mean that I want any change in his plans or policy ideas. It’s just that I’d like him to be better prepared for those ‘gotcha’ moments the press is so darned good at.

In any case, this too shall pass. Next week it’ll be something else and then this will resurface in attack ads but, if he’s prepared with great, clear statements, I think he can weather them, particularly if he gets back to driving the conversation.

Have a wonderful day.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

Loyalty and Interchangeable Parts

When the chips are down and someone has my back, there is no better feeling in the world. It is HUGE to know that you don't have to look for the axe while dodging the bullet and when someone I work for treats me as he expects to be treated, that is a blessing that cannot be described. It shows character of the best sort.

When Corey Lewandowski was charged with simple battery stemming from that March 8th mess with the Breitbart female, Trump didn't throw him in front of the train. No. He did and he has stuck by him - even though it might end up costing him in the press and at the ballot box in some small way. No - he showed the kind of loyalty that's impossible to find in most boss-employee relationships these days.

He also didn't call out the Secret Service - which should have been called out. After all, if the Secret Service had been doing their job, she would never have gotten through that line. If the Secret Service had been doing what they were supposed to be doing, one of them would have pulled her away.

She should never have been able to get as close to Trump as she did. She was holding a pen in her hand - what if that hadn't been a pen? What if it had been a knife or something else? Where was the Secret Service at that moment? They weren't there so Corey Lewandowski did what the Secret Service should have done.

I have seen the tape of that so called 'battery' and there's nothing there. Yes, Corey Lewandowski reached out and pulled that Breitbart female back (sorry, I don't care enough about her to find or pay attention to her name, she isn't worth it). However, what that tape clearly shows is that she put her hand on Donald Trump before anyone laid a finger on her.

In that case, because he didn't want to be touched - you can see it in the video when he pulls away from her - he could have filed battery charges against her. But he's rational. He's sane. He is not some vapid little girl who is willing to play the VICTIM card because she was touched in a scrum of other people and pulled away from that man's boss.

Let's say that kind of thing happened during Mardi Gras in New Orleans, or at a sporting event or any other crowded place. Do you suppose she would be screaming 'foul' and levying charges? Hell no!

No. I'm afraid her biggest issues are that she's an insecure little twit with the brains of roadkill and she hates Donald Trump.

Out of all of this, the take-away is top-down loyalty. The hallmark of a great character. I value loyalty and I do not like people who are not loyal. They can't be trusted.

On the other side, in interviews yesterday both John Kasich and Ted Cruz said they would fire Lewandowski if he worked for them. Okay, Kasich first said he would suspend him, but then he did say he would fire him. In other words, they will sacrifice anyone and anything if they think it might impact the public's impression of them. Now there's a hallmark of character.


As for the rest of it that's swirling around, it seems the Washington Insiders and their minions in the guise of Fox News (aka Pravda-USA) and CNN really do want just another interchangeable part in the Washington machine sitting in the White House.

After all - who is it that the Elites and their slavering minions are pushing (foisting) on us? Why it's Ted Cruz! He of the scandal-ridden campaign.

Heck - it's only March - this election cycle only got started at the end of January with the Iowa caucuses - and he's racked up claims of three different scandals: Fraud, Corruption and Sex. By God he's hitting on all cylinders!

On the fraud front, this is true and legitimate: Paul Pate, the Iowa Secretary of State was something less than happy with the Cruz campaign for that little matter of the "voter violation" forms. Those were those official looking mailers sent out by the Cruz campaign prior to the caucuses. Pate went so far as to call it 'a false representation of an official act' which is, according to Iowa law, a criminal act.

By all rights, since that was a criminal act under Iowa law, the Cruz campaign should have received a bit more than a finger-wag and a 'tut-tut'. They didn't, though, because I'm sure the RNC / GOP weighed in and said 'shut up' or words to that effect.

Potential voters weren't all that happy, either. The following is excerpted from a January 31, 2016 article in the New Yorker:

The Cruz mailers have been widely condemned by Iowans. “I just wonder how many of these went out to people who might seriously believe they committed a violation or were embarrassed that their neighbors might know about their alleged voting record,” Braddock Massey, a Rubio supporter who lives in West Des Moines and received one of the mailers, said.

Donna Holstein, who was listed on one of them, was upset to learn that she had been given a failing grade and that her neighbors might be told whether she participates in the caucus. She told me that she has voted consistently but that she can’t this time because of a disability.

“I’m crippled, so I can’t go to the caucus,” Holstein said. She was not happy about being shamed in front of her neighbors. “That’s what you call a bully,” she said about Cruz’s tactics. “I wish he would quit.”

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ted-cruzs-iowa-mailers-are-more-fraudulent-than-everyone-thinks

Isn't that nice. Ted Cruz is 'bullying' cripples and 'shaming' the elderly into going to the polls.

The corruption is something I haven't been able to verify, but it's being claimed across the blog-o-sphere. According to more than one internet 'source', the Cruz campaign gave a cool half-a-million dollars to Carly Fiorina's campaign. Let's hit that again: Per rumor one presidential campaign gave $500,000 to a competing campaign. These other bloggers are claiming that it was 'hush' money relating to Accusation Number 3.

Now I don't like smearing people - it's not comfortable for me, so I did try to track down the source of this information.

I spent the better part of an hour on the FEC website where I did find one contribution of a bit more than $499,300 given to the Carly for America super PAC in February, but I haven't been able to nail it to the Cruz PAC. I'll keep trying, or you can if you'd like. It would make an interesting coda to this disgusting campaign.

Then we have the sex scandal. This is a 'burn my eyeballs out' kind of thing. I really don't want to even imagine that. Still, if this man is proclaiming his high and mighty morality on the one hand and doin' the deed with women not his wife on the other, that's a problem. A big one because if you are going to talk the talk then you had damned well better be walkin' the walk.

This is being looked into by any number of moles, so I won't except to say it's out there. If it does have legs, I'm sure the National Enquirer will produce the next installment in their next issue.

What is annoying is that he's lying again.

He's doubled-down on the accusation that Trump floated it when, in fact, it's well documented that it was the Rubio campaign that came up with this. It's obvious why he's doing this, but it's more than a tad disingenuous to keep pounding it when even the cable news services have been told it was Rubio.

Whatever. In the end, once the millipede stops walking and the shoes stop dropping we'll figure it out. Those people who dislike Ted Cruz aren't going to be swayed by the 'poor me' dishrag with which he's wiping his tears. I'm just disgusted by the man's conscious duplicity.

It is interesting that the National Enquirer has put itself on the line in a big way. I don't know what the statute of limitations is for defamation but if Cruz were to lose the election he could easily sue - claiming damages including his failed bid for the White House.

Roger Stone has also thrown the gauntlet, declaring on television, "If it's not true, sue me!"

Real or not, Ted Cruz is at least keeping pace with the Hilliary scandal wagon - one a month. Can he keep it up? With April just around the corner, we'll find out.

What is more interesting than the sleaze factor are two points.

First, Cruz is being swamped with scandal allegations but none of them are sticking and no one in the news is paying attention. Why aren't these allegations being spoken of? You know that if it was Trump they would be talking about nothing else in the most salacious terms possible.

Second, if these allegations are false, why isn't he actively denying them?

I dunno. Maybe because he'll look too Bill Clinton-ish, 'I did not have sex with that woman... Ms. Candy Wrapper.'

In the meantime, the Cruz campaign is still doing what it does. They're playing both sides against the middle, trying not to offend anyone. Just last night, for instance, when asked on CNN if he would back the GOP nominee regardless of who it is, he fudged. He spent a good thirty seconds hemming and hawing and then took a strong dodge to the side.

Trump, on the other hand, was clear. No, he will not honor that pledge because he made it in good faith and that good faith has been violated again and again by the other parties.

With all that's happened, with all that is happening it's hardly surprising. After all, Trump isn't behind closed doors with the Elites and GOP trying to figure out how to steal this election without pissing off and losing the front-runner's constituency. That pledge is worthless.

Now, if the GOP and the money-men were honest dealers, if they weren't conspiring against the leader of the pack, it would be dishonorable for that leader to blow off a promise. But when that promise was made by him in good faith and the other parties leave the deal... well, all bets are off.

As for why the Elites are backing a flawed, scandal-ridden candidate, it's easy.

Those scandals, and any others they uncover, put Cruz in a really bad place. They can bribe him - threaten him with disclosure and humiliation, and thereby keep him in line.

If they could find anything on Trump, anything at all, don't you think they would? Don't you think, given the hatred for Trump, that they would blow it up and make hay with it all day long? Instead, the best they're able to do is to accuse Trump of being loyal to his campaign manager.

Now that is a crazy messed up world.

Anyway. Just another day in paradise, right?

Hope it's lovely!

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories