Amazon is supposed to be a public use site for purchasing and reviewing products. However, only if you are of a particular political bent. Straight Left. Like a one-way sign.
So, since I don't qualify as a bent left liberal, and since I do have opinions, here is my review of Mrs. Clinton's tome (aka door stop / table support) "What Happened".
Aside from the obvious answer - You Lost - the only thing this particular Whine needs is a lot more cheese. It's like a fortified Port. An overwhelming tsunami of self-pity and blame for everyone but herself.
One thing my parents taught me, a very good lesson that's served me well in my sixty years upon planet Earth is: don't blame others for your own screw-ups.
If you fail, if you screw up, it's on YOU. It's no one else's fault. It's yours, so own it. Then you'll (hopefully) learn from it.
Yet, in all those pages of black overlaid on white, that is what Hillary does not do.
She does not step up, lift her chin in defiant acknowledgement that would result in at least some modicum of respect from others and say, "yes, I messed up. I'm sorry, but I did, and here's what I would do differently."
Oh, no! No, no no no no!!! Instead, she blames EVERYONE, and I do mean EVERYONE, but herself.
She blames me - a white suburban housewife.
She blames my husband.
She blames millions like me, and like my husband.
She blames the press, the churches, the... well, everyone, everything, and anything she can think of. Everything and everyone but herself.
The one person she doesn't blame in this entire thing is herself. Even the Macedonians - and who in modern history (sorry, guys, but you're not exactly frontline news in every day America) even THINKS about Macedonians these days? I don't. Except for the Bible and Biblical reference, I don't think about Macedonians - and yet Hillary blames them for a part of her losing an election. Really?
She doesn't even blink at the idea that maybe her messaging was non-existent. What was her message, anyway? It's less than a year out from the election that she claims should have been hers, and can anyone say what that message was? Come on - I dare you! Tell me what her message was - aside from "It's my turn."
Where was she in all those states that she lost? Wisconsin, Minnesota, Florida and the rest - where was she?
California was a foregone conclusion. She spent weeks in Hollywood, sucking up to the most liberal of liberals, but only because they could give her money. That's the only reason she showed up here.
Hell! California lets illegal immigrants vote through motor-voter registrations, and no doubt they did in droves because they were certain-damned-guaranteed that if Hillary won they'd get amnesty. Take that vote away and Trump would've won the popular vote along with the electoral college.
The painful truth for Hillary is: She is an ugly, small, unimaginative and crass human being married to a serial rapist named Bill.
Her biggest problem, aside from being an ugly human being who blames everyone but herself for her failings, a small human being who blames everyone but herself for everything bad in her life, and her crassness in expecting hard-working people to pay for everything for everyone who doesn't want to lift a finger to contribute are things that normal, hard-working, get up at five to get to work by eight to work until five, decent Americans don't like that.
So, what happened in November? America woke up. America heard a new message. America heard something different, a hope that maybe things didn't have to be as they were. Miracles don't happen every day. Sometimes people intervene - like Hillary being small and ugly and crass and lazy.
As an American. As a voter. As someone who loves the prospect of what this country can be, all I can say is Thank God For That. Thank God for sense and wisdom and exhaustion of the people for same old, same old. Thank God for Donald J. Trump and for his vision for what American can be. I just hope he succeeds.
Best ~
Philippa
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 13, 2017
Friday, October 21, 2016
Time and Place... Why Not?
All of the media is gawping in shock this morning over the remarks Donald Trump made at last night's Alfred E. Smith dinner. Even my hubby was shocked, but I get it. I know exactly why The Donald did what he did, said what he said.
My mother taught me well that there are right times and right places. Swearing in church is a wrong time / wrong place. Kneeling for prayer in a pig sty, same. Last night might not have been the right time or place, but it was an opportunity too good to pass by.
Before going farther, my position on the people who call themselves journalists is that they are, almost all of them, blatant bald-faced liars. Any credibility they might have had is gone - 100% - because of their collusion with the most corrupt, evil political campaign I have ever seen. Granted, that's only about 50 years' worth, but I remember reading about the Kennedy / Nixon mix-up in my teens, and the questions that still swirl around Johnson's implication in the Kennedy assassination. Carter / Reagan, Reagan / Mondale, Bush / Dukakis, etc. NOTHING stinks compared to this one.
For the past year, and we have proof positive through Wikileaks, Hilliary's slavering, slobbering lackeys at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, Washington Times, etc., have engaged in unrelenting character assassination.
They won't touch Hilliary. Oh, no. She owns them, they know it, and they fear her.
In fact, just the other day, CNN asked a pol a question about Donald Trump. When the man just mentioned Wikileaks, the satellite feed "mysteriously" cut out. If it wasn't so flagrant, so obvious, it might have been funny. But it's not.
For eighteen months these television outlets (they do not have any right to call themselves "news media" and they certainly have NO RIGHT to call themselves "journalists" since they are far less than intellectually honest) have gone after Trump in concerted, deliberate way.
They have not pointed out in good natured humor the little things, the human failings and foibles we all have, as they have with Clinton (few and far between though they be). No, they have made things up entirely.
The "bimbo eruptions" (if I may borrow a derogatory phrase from the women's advocate Mrs. Clinton) for instance. Why, if those charges against Mr. Trump are legitimate, didn't those women come forward long ago, at the time it happened? Not even one or two surfaced over the years - why suddenly, a few weeks before the election?
After all, Trump didn't have the power, as Bill Clinton did, to affect the futures of those women in meaningful way. I can say with certainty, after watching him and listening to him for the past year, that Trump would not stoop to the kind of intimidation and the threats of physical harm many of Bill's accusers say came their way from Hilliary. He's just not like that. He'd talk about it. He'd call them names, say mean or nasty things, or sued the paper or outlet that released the stories, but that would be it.
No, without those false accusations, the heads of the television stations didn't have anything to make people hate Trump. They have performed character assassination against Trump and against Melania. Written lies and spoken have flooded the airwaves - proof nowhere to be found - and he's had no venue in which to strike back.
Until last night when he was handed a golden opportunity, and he took it.
Hilliary and her ankle licking, butt sniffing lapdogs of the press were all in the same room. None were in position to do anything about it, so what better time or place to lay it all out? To tell them that he knows, as does the rest of America, how corrupt, morally and ethically bankrupt these people have become. In a matter of a few words, he unburdened himself. He called out those hate-filled people and lanced the boil of resentment that has simmered in many Americans who have watched this circus, disgusted and offended.
And I, despite the inappropriateness of the time and place, applaud him - standing O, Mr. (future) President.
As for the "news" outlets? They have done their profession irreparable harm. Never again will I believe a single word they say - even if they say it's raining while outside my windows water is falling from the sky. Once a liar, always a liar and you can never be sure that a liar isn't lying when their lips are moving.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
My mother taught me well that there are right times and right places. Swearing in church is a wrong time / wrong place. Kneeling for prayer in a pig sty, same. Last night might not have been the right time or place, but it was an opportunity too good to pass by.
Before going farther, my position on the people who call themselves journalists is that they are, almost all of them, blatant bald-faced liars. Any credibility they might have had is gone - 100% - because of their collusion with the most corrupt, evil political campaign I have ever seen. Granted, that's only about 50 years' worth, but I remember reading about the Kennedy / Nixon mix-up in my teens, and the questions that still swirl around Johnson's implication in the Kennedy assassination. Carter / Reagan, Reagan / Mondale, Bush / Dukakis, etc. NOTHING stinks compared to this one.
For the past year, and we have proof positive through Wikileaks, Hilliary's slavering, slobbering lackeys at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, Washington Times, etc., have engaged in unrelenting character assassination.
They won't touch Hilliary. Oh, no. She owns them, they know it, and they fear her.
In fact, just the other day, CNN asked a pol a question about Donald Trump. When the man just mentioned Wikileaks, the satellite feed "mysteriously" cut out. If it wasn't so flagrant, so obvious, it might have been funny. But it's not.
For eighteen months these television outlets (they do not have any right to call themselves "news media" and they certainly have NO RIGHT to call themselves "journalists" since they are far less than intellectually honest) have gone after Trump in concerted, deliberate way.
They have not pointed out in good natured humor the little things, the human failings and foibles we all have, as they have with Clinton (few and far between though they be). No, they have made things up entirely.
The "bimbo eruptions" (if I may borrow a derogatory phrase from the women's advocate Mrs. Clinton) for instance. Why, if those charges against Mr. Trump are legitimate, didn't those women come forward long ago, at the time it happened? Not even one or two surfaced over the years - why suddenly, a few weeks before the election?
After all, Trump didn't have the power, as Bill Clinton did, to affect the futures of those women in meaningful way. I can say with certainty, after watching him and listening to him for the past year, that Trump would not stoop to the kind of intimidation and the threats of physical harm many of Bill's accusers say came their way from Hilliary. He's just not like that. He'd talk about it. He'd call them names, say mean or nasty things, or sued the paper or outlet that released the stories, but that would be it.
No, without those false accusations, the heads of the television stations didn't have anything to make people hate Trump. They have performed character assassination against Trump and against Melania. Written lies and spoken have flooded the airwaves - proof nowhere to be found - and he's had no venue in which to strike back.
Until last night when he was handed a golden opportunity, and he took it.
Hilliary and her ankle licking, butt sniffing lapdogs of the press were all in the same room. None were in position to do anything about it, so what better time or place to lay it all out? To tell them that he knows, as does the rest of America, how corrupt, morally and ethically bankrupt these people have become. In a matter of a few words, he unburdened himself. He called out those hate-filled people and lanced the boil of resentment that has simmered in many Americans who have watched this circus, disgusted and offended.
And I, despite the inappropriateness of the time and place, applaud him - standing O, Mr. (future) President.
As for the "news" outlets? They have done their profession irreparable harm. Never again will I believe a single word they say - even if they say it's raining while outside my windows water is falling from the sky. Once a liar, always a liar and you can never be sure that a liar isn't lying when their lips are moving.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Saturday, April 9, 2016
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
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
Thursday, March 17, 2016
The Fray is Getting a Bit Crowded
After Trump's victories on Tuesday the liberal media and their major stockholders seem to be having major heart palpitations. This morning there was a meeting of The Donors who are most affected. Allegedly, this isn't just a friendly get-together. According to a number of people in the know it's to discuss ways they might be able to 'steal' this election from the GOP front runners.
For Cruz, I don't care. For Trump, I do.
Because the right-leaning insiders who control the GOP don't believe Trump's heart and political views are in the 'right place' according to their standards, they are on the verge of creating a wave of blow-back the likes of which haven't been seen in this country since at least the 1960's. And, what they don't understand, is that it is NOT Donald Trump's fault or doing.
It is solely and strictly because of the nonsense and machinations emanating from the Washington Beltway - which is at the exact epicenter for this whole election year of dissent.
What they have either forgotten or are choosing to ignore because they don't like it, any American citizen has the right and privilege to run for President. The Constitution does not stipulate that you must wheel and deal your way into office, or sell your soul to the highest bidders. Under the Founding documents, The Donald has just as much right to run for office and be elected as anyone else - be it Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or one of the Bush family.
Curly Haugland, the RNC's National Committee's Rules Chairman announced on CNBC yesterday that 'the party will decide who the GOP nominee will be'. He said, flat-out, the RNC Donor Class is going decide who's going to run under the Republican banner after the convention - and the voters can all just go to hell.
That's a jaw-dropper to me and to a lot of other people who have a bigger platform for spreading the news. Already the question has been asked, 'if the party chooses, why bother with primaries?' I think we can agree that's a pretty damned good question. His response? 'That's a very good question.'
Bottom line, based on what my pea-brain is deciphering from all the chatter about this and the brokered convention is that:
In the primaries, candidates win delegates. Some states apportion them to each delegate based on what percent of the vote that delegate won in that state's caucus or election. Other states are 'winner-take-all'. These delegates are 'bound' to that candidate through to the party convention.
If the candidate quits the race, the delegates are released and can either be 'given' to another candidate through endorsement or other wheeling-and-dealing (what we all love about Washington politics, right?).
If a candidate suspends his campaign - as Rubio has done - he still holds onto those delegates and can use them for leverage come a brokered convention.
At the convention they count up the delegates. If one of the candidates has a clear victory with 1,237 delegates won through the primary process, it's over and done. Yippee, we have a candidate and everyone rallies around, pulling out the hatchets buried and knives thrown in the lead-up.
If no candidate has that magic number, then there's horsetrading that takes place. And this is where it could blow up in the face of the GOP / RNC owners. Those owners being the donors and not you and me.
Let's say Donald gets there with 1,157 delegates. He's close - really close - and millions more people have voted for him than have voted against him but what happens?
Well, he's not the clear winner despite millions of voters marking his name however it's done in their polling place. So, they have a ballot - an election within an election. The bound delegates vote for their guy - like him or not - and no one gets the clear majority again - unless someone steps forward with enough delegates and pledges those delegates to the person they want to see win and become the candidate.
It's convoluted as hell and, as with all things associated with the Constitution, is pretty damned brilliant. It's called the Electoral College and it's a tried and true tradition, even though I think it's really going to pinch hard come this summer. The Founders put it in place to keep a simple majority from taking over this country and running it as they see fit, no matter what the other 49% of the population want.
That's how Bush II "won" the still-disputed-in-some-circles 2000 election. The Electoral College looked at him and at Al Gore, decided Bush II was the lesser of two evils and gave him the nod. Which led to Gore famously throwing a tantrum through the courts and his acolytes swearing to this day that the election was 'stolen'.
Well, this year it might just be the Republicans turn to see it happen to them. The difference is, and it is a HUGE difference, is that it is not a party-to-party theft. It would be a theft within the party which will drive me and I suspect millions of other people away from the party for good and all.
Me? If they pull a stunt like that, I will go out the day after the results of the convention are known and I will re-register as an Independent. I will no longer proudly call myself a Republican because the load of straws is really heavy this year. One more and...
I suspect it is and will be the same for a lot of other people, too.
No matter. The GOP will no longer exist as it's been.
The controllers will be outed. The futility of participation will be shown, loud and clear, and the last vestige of decency, fairness and honesty will implode with a resounding kaboom.
Through their obstinacy and demand that the American voters who support Trump fall in line, they will sure as hell guarantee a win for Hilliary Clinton - along with Obie-One's successful nomination of a wild-liberal Supreme Court Justice.
I am sure that is a deal that is already under discussion along the lines of 'if you keep Loretta Lynch from indicting me, I'll let you call the SCOTUS nomination before you leave office'. Why not? Whoever he chooses will probably be palatable to her. It's a win-win for them and, as I said the other day in relation to this, will guarantee that the face of America will change forever - and not for the better.
Our borders will be gone. Our sovereignty will be gone. All of those illegals here already will gain citizenship and the American economy will devolve to a third-world state within a matter of years.
That is what is at stake in this election and I, for one, do not want to see the Donors do this to our country but I will not participate in another exercise in futility if they put up someone like Ted Cruz or Marco or Bush or anyone else who I know cannot stand, fight and win against Hilliary and the rest of the world. Instead, I will carefully and legibly write Donald Trump's name on my ballot and pray that the vast majority of other Americans will do the same.
Now - I wish you a lovely day.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
For Cruz, I don't care. For Trump, I do.
Because the right-leaning insiders who control the GOP don't believe Trump's heart and political views are in the 'right place' according to their standards, they are on the verge of creating a wave of blow-back the likes of which haven't been seen in this country since at least the 1960's. And, what they don't understand, is that it is NOT Donald Trump's fault or doing.
It is solely and strictly because of the nonsense and machinations emanating from the Washington Beltway - which is at the exact epicenter for this whole election year of dissent.
What they have either forgotten or are choosing to ignore because they don't like it, any American citizen has the right and privilege to run for President. The Constitution does not stipulate that you must wheel and deal your way into office, or sell your soul to the highest bidders. Under the Founding documents, The Donald has just as much right to run for office and be elected as anyone else - be it Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or one of the Bush family.
Curly Haugland, the RNC's National Committee's Rules Chairman announced on CNBC yesterday that 'the party will decide who the GOP nominee will be'. He said, flat-out, the RNC Donor Class is going decide who's going to run under the Republican banner after the convention - and the voters can all just go to hell.
That's a jaw-dropper to me and to a lot of other people who have a bigger platform for spreading the news. Already the question has been asked, 'if the party chooses, why bother with primaries?' I think we can agree that's a pretty damned good question. His response? 'That's a very good question.'
Bottom line, based on what my pea-brain is deciphering from all the chatter about this and the brokered convention is that:
In the primaries, candidates win delegates. Some states apportion them to each delegate based on what percent of the vote that delegate won in that state's caucus or election. Other states are 'winner-take-all'. These delegates are 'bound' to that candidate through to the party convention.
If the candidate quits the race, the delegates are released and can either be 'given' to another candidate through endorsement or other wheeling-and-dealing (what we all love about Washington politics, right?).
If a candidate suspends his campaign - as Rubio has done - he still holds onto those delegates and can use them for leverage come a brokered convention.
At the convention they count up the delegates. If one of the candidates has a clear victory with 1,237 delegates won through the primary process, it's over and done. Yippee, we have a candidate and everyone rallies around, pulling out the hatchets buried and knives thrown in the lead-up.
If no candidate has that magic number, then there's horsetrading that takes place. And this is where it could blow up in the face of the GOP / RNC owners. Those owners being the donors and not you and me.
Let's say Donald gets there with 1,157 delegates. He's close - really close - and millions more people have voted for him than have voted against him but what happens?
Well, he's not the clear winner despite millions of voters marking his name however it's done in their polling place. So, they have a ballot - an election within an election. The bound delegates vote for their guy - like him or not - and no one gets the clear majority again - unless someone steps forward with enough delegates and pledges those delegates to the person they want to see win and become the candidate.
It's convoluted as hell and, as with all things associated with the Constitution, is pretty damned brilliant. It's called the Electoral College and it's a tried and true tradition, even though I think it's really going to pinch hard come this summer. The Founders put it in place to keep a simple majority from taking over this country and running it as they see fit, no matter what the other 49% of the population want.
That's how Bush II "won" the still-disputed-in-some-circles 2000 election. The Electoral College looked at him and at Al Gore, decided Bush II was the lesser of two evils and gave him the nod. Which led to Gore famously throwing a tantrum through the courts and his acolytes swearing to this day that the election was 'stolen'.
Well, this year it might just be the Republicans turn to see it happen to them. The difference is, and it is a HUGE difference, is that it is not a party-to-party theft. It would be a theft within the party which will drive me and I suspect millions of other people away from the party for good and all.
Me? If they pull a stunt like that, I will go out the day after the results of the convention are known and I will re-register as an Independent. I will no longer proudly call myself a Republican because the load of straws is really heavy this year. One more and...
I suspect it is and will be the same for a lot of other people, too.
No matter. The GOP will no longer exist as it's been.
The controllers will be outed. The futility of participation will be shown, loud and clear, and the last vestige of decency, fairness and honesty will implode with a resounding kaboom.
Through their obstinacy and demand that the American voters who support Trump fall in line, they will sure as hell guarantee a win for Hilliary Clinton - along with Obie-One's successful nomination of a wild-liberal Supreme Court Justice.
I am sure that is a deal that is already under discussion along the lines of 'if you keep Loretta Lynch from indicting me, I'll let you call the SCOTUS nomination before you leave office'. Why not? Whoever he chooses will probably be palatable to her. It's a win-win for them and, as I said the other day in relation to this, will guarantee that the face of America will change forever - and not for the better.
Our borders will be gone. Our sovereignty will be gone. All of those illegals here already will gain citizenship and the American economy will devolve to a third-world state within a matter of years.
That is what is at stake in this election and I, for one, do not want to see the Donors do this to our country but I will not participate in another exercise in futility if they put up someone like Ted Cruz or Marco or Bush or anyone else who I know cannot stand, fight and win against Hilliary and the rest of the world. Instead, I will carefully and legibly write Donald Trump's name on my ballot and pray that the vast majority of other Americans will do the same.
Now - I wish you a lovely day.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Hilliary Clinton - The Gift That Just Keeps On Giving
This is going to be such fun come summer.
Hilliary (and no, the extra 'i' in there is not a mistake - it's an accurate depiction of the individual and her character [or absence thereof]) is one of those people who has so little connection (none) with the truth that she opens her mouth and gives another gift.
For example, during the MSNBC town hall night before last she said that we 'didn't lose a single person in Libya'. I guess that's why she was so defensive over those damned Senate hearings. It explains so well her demand to know 'what difference does it make?' After all, if Chris Stevens, Ty Woods, Sean Smith and Glen Doherty didn't die, those Senate hearings were indeed a waste of time, energy and money.
Let's be crystal clear about that: I do not care about the context of that phrase within her broader statement. I do care, deeply, about the fact that any human being could be so utterly callous about the deaths of their employees - and make no mistake, Chris Stevens and the others were working for Hilliary Clinton - turns my stomach. Particularly since that declaration was made on national television while the families of some of the people who died that night sat in the rows behind her.
Can we say 'heartless' in regard to that? Because that's what that was - heartless to be so casual, so flip and unfeeling about the fact that she and her boss left those men to die - not caring that others that were there, in-country, who volunteered to go to try and rescue them. Or that there were and are specially trained 'go teams' stationed around the Med in case of situations just like that one. No. Don't bother me with the facts.
Then, on top of that little white misspeak (we won't call it a lie - that's too harsh a word, right?), she also appears to know that we don't know what we want to watch, even though we're watching it, and even though many of us actively seek out what we watch.
She said so to Chris Matthews Monday night during a commercial break. Here's the excerpt and link:
Matthews followed up by acknowledging that his network has "progressive leanings, obviously."
"But nobody can tell what people want to watch," he said.
"People must think they want to watch him," Clinton replied.
.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-clinton-matthews-hot-mic-christie-trump-20160314-story.html
Hmmm. Let's think that one over. "People must think they want watch him." It sounds doubtful, doesn't it?
I must think I want to watch him. Gee. I think before I check my television listings tonight, I'll check with her so I don't end up watching something I don't want to watch. What a gal! Saving me from myself.
Can't wait until she's President. Although the White House switchboard will no doubt be overrun with calls from people checking in, 'what is it that I don't want to watch tonight, Mrs. President?'
The list of "misspeaks" is impressively long. Too long for me to try to post here, but PolitiFact has collected quite a few of them. Two pages worth although there are a whole lot more that I know about. Like her coming under sniper fire and having to duck and run for cover when in Bosnia. That's well documented as a 'fabrication'.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/
Still, it flabbergasts (or gobsmacks, if you prefer) me how many people shove their morals, ethics and values into some shoe box inside their closet when they go to her rallies and actually vote for her. It seems that there a percentage of the American population - quite large by all appearances - who like or at least don't mind being lied to.
Me? No. I do not accept being lied to. Not on the big important things that I care about.
Trump misspeaks and, at times, he does lie - but he has yet to lie about things that matter to me, or to the country as a whole.
He has not lied to me about a national security matter. He has not lied to me about where he keeps his e-mails - whether they're secure or whether they're not.
See - I understand that people lie. Politicians lie about all sorts of things. I don't like it, but I accept it as an inevitable norm. Most people lie, including me at times.
What I don't get is that people are voting for Hilliary despite being at the center of yet another scandal. It's almost an annual event with her and Billy-Jeff.
I can't help but wonder if the American people who are lining up to vote for her now will turn a blind eye and whistle a happy tune if Hilliary's e-mail scandal blows up?
That's going to get very interesting before it goes away. Of course, that's assuming she gets as far as being elected instead of indicted.
There is doubt about that. No matter that if anyone else - like you or me or General Petraeus - had mishandled state secrets like she did, we would be charged with several felonies for each event and would land in prison so fast our heads would spin.
No. That pantsuit she's wearing is 100% Teflon. She'll be given a pass on all of this if the talking pinheads inside the Beltway know anything about it. And, if she isn't indicted, the talking pinheads say that Comey and his team will probably resign in protest - after leaking as much as they can get away with without being criminally charged themselves.
If she is indicted, I think she'll look lovely in orange. Oh! Look! There she is now!
Whatever.
If I hold my nose tightly enough over the stench of her continued ejaculations of innocence and lack of knowledge it is funny. It'll be funnier if (when) she is indicted. Of course, the gift she gives will go into a box someplace and she won't be as generous.
In the meantime, I'm basking in the knowledge that Trump is that much closer to the nomination after last night - up by more than 200 delegates over Ted Cruz. That, however, is fodder for another post.
Have a great day!
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Hilliary (and no, the extra 'i' in there is not a mistake - it's an accurate depiction of the individual and her character [or absence thereof]) is one of those people who has so little connection (none) with the truth that she opens her mouth and gives another gift.
For example, during the MSNBC town hall night before last she said that we 'didn't lose a single person in Libya'. I guess that's why she was so defensive over those damned Senate hearings. It explains so well her demand to know 'what difference does it make?' After all, if Chris Stevens, Ty Woods, Sean Smith and Glen Doherty didn't die, those Senate hearings were indeed a waste of time, energy and money.
Let's be crystal clear about that: I do not care about the context of that phrase within her broader statement. I do care, deeply, about the fact that any human being could be so utterly callous about the deaths of their employees - and make no mistake, Chris Stevens and the others were working for Hilliary Clinton - turns my stomach. Particularly since that declaration was made on national television while the families of some of the people who died that night sat in the rows behind her.
Can we say 'heartless' in regard to that? Because that's what that was - heartless to be so casual, so flip and unfeeling about the fact that she and her boss left those men to die - not caring that others that were there, in-country, who volunteered to go to try and rescue them. Or that there were and are specially trained 'go teams' stationed around the Med in case of situations just like that one. No. Don't bother me with the facts.
Then, on top of that little white misspeak (we won't call it a lie - that's too harsh a word, right?), she also appears to know that we don't know what we want to watch, even though we're watching it, and even though many of us actively seek out what we watch.
She said so to Chris Matthews Monday night during a commercial break. Here's the excerpt and link:
Matthews followed up by acknowledging that his network has "progressive leanings, obviously."
"But nobody can tell what people want to watch," he said.
"People must think they want to watch him," Clinton replied.
.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-clinton-matthews-hot-mic-christie-trump-20160314-story.html
Hmmm. Let's think that one over. "People must think they want watch him." It sounds doubtful, doesn't it?
I must think I want to watch him. Gee. I think before I check my television listings tonight, I'll check with her so I don't end up watching something I don't want to watch. What a gal! Saving me from myself.
Can't wait until she's President. Although the White House switchboard will no doubt be overrun with calls from people checking in, 'what is it that I don't want to watch tonight, Mrs. President?'
The list of "misspeaks" is impressively long. Too long for me to try to post here, but PolitiFact has collected quite a few of them. Two pages worth although there are a whole lot more that I know about. Like her coming under sniper fire and having to duck and run for cover when in Bosnia. That's well documented as a 'fabrication'.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/
Still, it flabbergasts (or gobsmacks, if you prefer) me how many people shove their morals, ethics and values into some shoe box inside their closet when they go to her rallies and actually vote for her. It seems that there a percentage of the American population - quite large by all appearances - who like or at least don't mind being lied to.
Me? No. I do not accept being lied to. Not on the big important things that I care about.
Trump misspeaks and, at times, he does lie - but he has yet to lie about things that matter to me, or to the country as a whole.
He has not lied to me about a national security matter. He has not lied to me about where he keeps his e-mails - whether they're secure or whether they're not.
See - I understand that people lie. Politicians lie about all sorts of things. I don't like it, but I accept it as an inevitable norm. Most people lie, including me at times.
What I don't get is that people are voting for Hilliary despite being at the center of yet another scandal. It's almost an annual event with her and Billy-Jeff.
I can't help but wonder if the American people who are lining up to vote for her now will turn a blind eye and whistle a happy tune if Hilliary's e-mail scandal blows up?
That's going to get very interesting before it goes away. Of course, that's assuming she gets as far as being elected instead of indicted.
There is doubt about that. No matter that if anyone else - like you or me or General Petraeus - had mishandled state secrets like she did, we would be charged with several felonies for each event and would land in prison so fast our heads would spin.
No. That pantsuit she's wearing is 100% Teflon. She'll be given a pass on all of this if the talking pinheads inside the Beltway know anything about it. And, if she isn't indicted, the talking pinheads say that Comey and his team will probably resign in protest - after leaking as much as they can get away with without being criminally charged themselves.
If she is indicted, I think she'll look lovely in orange. Oh! Look! There she is now!
If I hold my nose tightly enough over the stench of her continued ejaculations of innocence and lack of knowledge it is funny. It'll be funnier if (when) she is indicted. Of course, the gift she gives will go into a box someplace and she won't be as generous.
In the meantime, I'm basking in the knowledge that Trump is that much closer to the nomination after last night - up by more than 200 delegates over Ted Cruz. That, however, is fodder for another post.
Have a great day!
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Karl Marx, Bill Kristol and the National Review
Yep - that's right. Not a connection I ever expected to make, truth to tell, but thanks to Bill Kristol, Editor of the National Review, I now can.
It seems that Donald has hit another big nerve.
First it was Mexico with the wall. Last week Vicente Fox, in a highly presidential moment, dropped the F-bomb on national television, startling the crap out of Maria Bartaromo on Fox Business when he did it live.
Now it's Bill Kristol and the Elites who just held their annual American Enterprise Institute meeting. This is yet another private affair, more secretive than the annual Bilderberg meetings, held on a private island off the coast of Georgia (USA, although it might as well be the Soviet Union).
What's semi-amusing, more disturbing is that the editor of a right-wing political news magazine is quoting Karl Marx in relation to Donald Trump. Read the sixth paragraph from the Huffington Post's article.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/aei-world-forum-donald-trump_us_56ddbd38e4b0ffe6f8ea125d
Either Bill Kristol doesn't see the disturbing parallel between this battle for a nation and the October Revolution in which the people were so disaffected that they rose up and fought down the tyrants that ruled them, or he's just tying the opposite ends together on the far side of the sphere.
Fortunately, this is a bloodless revolution. America hasn't yet been pushed to the brink as was done in Russia before 1917. But we are fed up, disillusioned and far more than done with politics as usual.
If he is just tying the ends together - taking the right all the way around to the point where it meets with the farthest left - that's one thing. If he is actually adopting Marxist theory relative to politics, that's something else again. Either way, it's not good for the Elites. They have been outed and some are throwing up their hands, swearing they aren't stained with... whatever that is.
Elon Musk of SpaceX - the commercial rocket scientists - was reported to be there according to HuffPost and several other outlets, but now he's running around in circles screaming that he wasn't.
Why not? If this group is so honorable, up-front and above-board, why not claim it? Or, if he wasn't there, why doesn't he just shut up and ignore the report that he was? Me thinks he doth protest too much.
Could it be that it is a tyrannical society that met on that island the other day? The leaders of the Pinky & The Brain Society for World Domination I wrote about a while back?
http://philippastories.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-pinky-brain-society-are-winding-up.html
Seems like it.
After all, these guys and the Bilderbergers (overlapping group-to-group in all meaningful ways) do run the world. That's become abundantly clear this year with the election and their knicker-knots bulging out their britches.
So The Donald is not who they want in the White House. They don't want him running the country because he isn't their ideal.
America is at a major crossroads. But it's not this one any more:
It's more like this one:
We have a lot of unknowns ahead of us, but it's no longer just a choice between This and This where Left and Right are indistinguishable from one another. Not unless they force Hilliary or some other political shill on us, which they might do.
One thing that might happen is that they'll wake up and realize that Hilliary is un-electable in the current climate. Even though she's being funded and shoved on us by the Donor Class because she represents the palatable status quo, Bernie is still making a big statement. If it tips too far, they might panic and throw her to the legal wolves as a sop to the American people. If they let her be indicted and thrust Biden into the fray the news would be all about her, about the indictment and the scandal and the American people (Democrats) might be distracted enough for the Elites to get their way.
As for Biden, he's popped up in the news again this week after a remarkably long absence. The media have actually tried to make him look intelligent and relevant (which won't last if he opens his mouth).
That still won't shift the conservative / moderate / independent American people who are lifting Trump over their shoulders. We'll look over at the circus but I don't think it will matter. I don't think it would be a distraction for us, regardless of what these asphyxiated idiots might think.
After all, we've made it clear as day that we don't want Hilliary. Nor do we want Biden or we would be clamoring for him. We don't want Marco or a used car salesman. We don't want anyone who has been even remotely tainted by Washington air (what little is left given the state of CO2 poisoning apparent in the insiders) and water.
We want an outsider. Someone unadultered by the filth of Washington politics.
Still, they don't get it. They are so hyped up on their own brilliance, they just don't get it. And that's fine. They'll do the Olympus thing up there while the mere mortals do their thing down here, where the real folks live. In the end, when the votes are counted, they'll have a couple of choices.
They can capitulate and accept what the people want for this election cycle. After all, there are several tens of million of each of us to each one of them - the odds look pretty good for our side (and it is down to sides at this point).
If there were an uprising, and let us be perfectly clear - I do not advocate anything like that - guess who would lose the most in the long run?
We would suffer, no doubt, but they would suffer worse. They would lose their power over us in a meaningful way. We would see who they are more clearly than we do now, and we would know what they're doing. It's harder to maintain control over a mass if the mass knows you're trying to control them. Masses tend not to like being suppressed.
They can keep their eyes shut, their fingers in their ears and shriek lalalalalalala at the top of their lungs, keep pretending what's happening really isn't.
Or, because these people are powerful and they are ruthless, they could have Trump assassinated.
The Kennedy assassination has never been rationally explained to my satisfaction or to the satisfaction of many others. I have watched documentaries and read articles on it, and I still feel dissatisfied with the 'explanation'. The Warren Commission stinks of cover-up and there is just too much coincidence - like Ruby showing up, wandering into the mob through which Oswald was being escorted, and shooting Oswald right in front of the cops and cameras. It just stinks like a barnyard on a 100 degree day at the height of summer.
Given that assassination has been used for political purpose down the centuries, and given the gut wrenching fear these people seem to be feeling, made apparent by their coming out of the woodwork as far as they have, I won't take that possibility off the table because it could be one option these people might consider.
I do take some solace, though, in the fact that Trump doesn't just have the Secret Service detail assigned. He also has his own private security - who are more loyal to him than the Secret Service ever will be. I just hope they're better than the Secret Service, or that they're having the same feelings and suspicions I am about it. I pray that they're not only watching their boss and the crowd, but that they're also paying close attention to the government employees in their midst.
So, in the here and now, Karl Marx meets Pinky & The Brain and here we are. Secret societies, world domination and a people fed up with being held down and controlled. The next months will be interesting, no doubt.
Keep watching - this is an historic time.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
It seems that Donald has hit another big nerve.
First it was Mexico with the wall. Last week Vicente Fox, in a highly presidential moment, dropped the F-bomb on national television, startling the crap out of Maria Bartaromo on Fox Business when he did it live.
Now it's Bill Kristol and the Elites who just held their annual American Enterprise Institute meeting. This is yet another private affair, more secretive than the annual Bilderberg meetings, held on a private island off the coast of Georgia (USA, although it might as well be the Soviet Union).
What's semi-amusing, more disturbing is that the editor of a right-wing political news magazine is quoting Karl Marx in relation to Donald Trump. Read the sixth paragraph from the Huffington Post's article.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/aei-world-forum-donald-trump_us_56ddbd38e4b0ffe6f8ea125d
Either Bill Kristol doesn't see the disturbing parallel between this battle for a nation and the October Revolution in which the people were so disaffected that they rose up and fought down the tyrants that ruled them, or he's just tying the opposite ends together on the far side of the sphere.
Fortunately, this is a bloodless revolution. America hasn't yet been pushed to the brink as was done in Russia before 1917. But we are fed up, disillusioned and far more than done with politics as usual.
If he is just tying the ends together - taking the right all the way around to the point where it meets with the farthest left - that's one thing. If he is actually adopting Marxist theory relative to politics, that's something else again. Either way, it's not good for the Elites. They have been outed and some are throwing up their hands, swearing they aren't stained with... whatever that is.
Elon Musk of SpaceX - the commercial rocket scientists - was reported to be there according to HuffPost and several other outlets, but now he's running around in circles screaming that he wasn't.
Why not? If this group is so honorable, up-front and above-board, why not claim it? Or, if he wasn't there, why doesn't he just shut up and ignore the report that he was? Me thinks he doth protest too much.
Could it be that it is a tyrannical society that met on that island the other day? The leaders of the Pinky & The Brain Society for World Domination I wrote about a while back?
http://philippastories.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-pinky-brain-society-are-winding-up.html
Seems like it.
After all, these guys and the Bilderbergers (overlapping group-to-group in all meaningful ways) do run the world. That's become abundantly clear this year with the election and their knicker-knots bulging out their britches.
So The Donald is not who they want in the White House. They don't want him running the country because he isn't their ideal.
America is at a major crossroads. But it's not this one any more:
It's more like this one:
 | |
| amritaspearlsofwisdom.com |
One thing that might happen is that they'll wake up and realize that Hilliary is un-electable in the current climate. Even though she's being funded and shoved on us by the Donor Class because she represents the palatable status quo, Bernie is still making a big statement. If it tips too far, they might panic and throw her to the legal wolves as a sop to the American people. If they let her be indicted and thrust Biden into the fray the news would be all about her, about the indictment and the scandal and the American people (Democrats) might be distracted enough for the Elites to get their way.
As for Biden, he's popped up in the news again this week after a remarkably long absence. The media have actually tried to make him look intelligent and relevant (which won't last if he opens his mouth).
That still won't shift the conservative / moderate / independent American people who are lifting Trump over their shoulders. We'll look over at the circus but I don't think it will matter. I don't think it would be a distraction for us, regardless of what these asphyxiated idiots might think.
After all, we've made it clear as day that we don't want Hilliary. Nor do we want Biden or we would be clamoring for him. We don't want Marco or a used car salesman. We don't want anyone who has been even remotely tainted by Washington air (what little is left given the state of CO2 poisoning apparent in the insiders) and water.
We want an outsider. Someone unadultered by the filth of Washington politics.
Still, they don't get it. They are so hyped up on their own brilliance, they just don't get it. And that's fine. They'll do the Olympus thing up there while the mere mortals do their thing down here, where the real folks live. In the end, when the votes are counted, they'll have a couple of choices.
They can capitulate and accept what the people want for this election cycle. After all, there are several tens of million of each of us to each one of them - the odds look pretty good for our side (and it is down to sides at this point).
If there were an uprising, and let us be perfectly clear - I do not advocate anything like that - guess who would lose the most in the long run?
We would suffer, no doubt, but they would suffer worse. They would lose their power over us in a meaningful way. We would see who they are more clearly than we do now, and we would know what they're doing. It's harder to maintain control over a mass if the mass knows you're trying to control them. Masses tend not to like being suppressed.
They can keep their eyes shut, their fingers in their ears and shriek lalalalalalala at the top of their lungs, keep pretending what's happening really isn't.
Or, because these people are powerful and they are ruthless, they could have Trump assassinated.
The Kennedy assassination has never been rationally explained to my satisfaction or to the satisfaction of many others. I have watched documentaries and read articles on it, and I still feel dissatisfied with the 'explanation'. The Warren Commission stinks of cover-up and there is just too much coincidence - like Ruby showing up, wandering into the mob through which Oswald was being escorted, and shooting Oswald right in front of the cops and cameras. It just stinks like a barnyard on a 100 degree day at the height of summer.
Given that assassination has been used for political purpose down the centuries, and given the gut wrenching fear these people seem to be feeling, made apparent by their coming out of the woodwork as far as they have, I won't take that possibility off the table because it could be one option these people might consider.
I do take some solace, though, in the fact that Trump doesn't just have the Secret Service detail assigned. He also has his own private security - who are more loyal to him than the Secret Service ever will be. I just hope they're better than the Secret Service, or that they're having the same feelings and suspicions I am about it. I pray that they're not only watching their boss and the crowd, but that they're also paying close attention to the government employees in their midst.
So, in the here and now, Karl Marx meets Pinky & The Brain and here we are. Secret societies, world domination and a people fed up with being held down and controlled. The next months will be interesting, no doubt.
Keep watching - this is an historic time.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Rich Lowry & Co. - A Study in Bloated Arrogance
Will Rich Lowry (editor of the National Review) and his cronies blow up what remains of the Political Right in this country? They're working hard on doing just that. Based on all that I've seen and heard in the past months, particularly in recent weeks, it looks like it. Particularly now that Mitt Romney - a sock puppet of the Republican Establishment - is going to come out and make some sort of speech no one cares about and no one but the media will listen to.
They have their noses so firmly planted against the tree trunk of their ideology, they don't see the rest of the forest is on fire.
First, they banded together and wrote a bunch of hit pieces in their political magazine - dedicated an entire edition to them. Twenty or so pointy headed arrogant wannabe despots wrote scathing articles about someone just because he threatens their position in the World of Washington. They're afraid, and rightly so, that their moneyed influence will go straight through the U-bend of life because they won't have a grip on this person. He will not be malleable to their way of thinking.
After that, and after having their front men and women talking about it around the networks (which they drive, too), they fussed and fussed about the fact that we American people are still too stupid to recognize that they know what's good for us better than we do. We're not falling in line. The sheep aren't paying attention to the shepherd or his sheepdogs. We're going our own direction and it's infuriating the shepherds.
Jeb Bush, the marionette they picked to be our president flamed out in spectacular fashion after just a few weeks.
They looked around, discarded the other governor in the race - Kasich - and decided to rally behind a new guy - Marco. He looks like a nice guy. I used to think he's a nice guy, but he's a guy who looks like the perfect candidate for a Good Humor ice cream ad. In the days since the last debate, he's been routinely embarrassing himself, showing that he has the temperament of a petulant four-year old. His donors, no doubt the same people who are staring at the ideological tree trunk, pushed him to attack the front runner. Well, guess what? Those attacks make him look and sound like a spoiled brat.
He's ridiculing the Alpha candidate. He's not attacking the Alpha candidate's platform or policies. He's talking about physical aspects and the spray-on tan. It's embarrassing to have this man running around saying he wants to be president.
As rough-around-the-edges as the Alpha male in this fight might be, at least he has the capacity to act like a reasonable adult. He showed that in South Carolina and on Super Tuesday when he held press conferences. Not only did he act like a reasonable adult, even detractors in the media said he looked and sounded presidential.
Still, these arrogant ideologues are foisting their choice on America through well-funded Super PACs.
Rubio's super PAC is Conservative Solutions led by J. Warren Tompkins. He and his buddy Chris Mottola brought us two versions of the Bush family, ending with Hank Paulson and the economic debacle of the mid-2000s. Thanks a lot, guys.
Then they offered up the milquetoast of John McCain for president in 2008, against Barack Obama. That was an embarrassment. Whatever fire McCain once had has been sublimated by immersion in the Washington cesspit.
And now they're working hard to undermine Trump's candidacy so they can bring us more of the same.
The super PACs are out there spreading outright lies and half-truths - like the one about Trump banning disabled vets from Trump Tower. Not true, folks.
Trump asked the city to move street vendors, some of whom had disabled vet permits, from the sidewalk in front of his property. Instead, the ad makes it sound as if Trump barred the doors and prevented disabled vets from the building itself.
There are other lies, but the volume of the hate-filled ads shows the desperation of the Right-wing establishment. Now they're trotting Mitt Romney out of the closet to blast Trump in another hate-filled dissertation. To me, it looks like desperation.
What's astonishing to me, and to others who are paying attention to this, is that these self-righteous arrogant bloated egos don't see what they're doing.
The American people are the ones who are called out in the Founding documents. We The People, as I've said before, isn't just an idea or words on a piece of parchment. It's bigger than an idea - it's an ideal, and it's what the Founders promised: a government of, for and by the people.
Rich Lowry, George Will, Erick Erickson and all the other arrogant pinheads give lip service to the Founders but their actions shout that it isn't about the Founders or the dream the Founders had for a United States of America. Instead, it's all and only about them, about power.
As I see it, one of three things can come of this:
1) The Republican party will shatter like a mirror dropped from the top floor of Trump Tower. It will break along factional lines - The People who support Trump and those who don't.
Rich Lowry & Co., and by that it's all inclusive of everyone who is bucking what the people want for themselves, will hold their control of our government. They will put a person into the White House who is a puppet - an empty suit, just as George Bush I and George Bush II were empty suits and just as Barack Obama is an empty suit, owned by George Soros, Warren Buffet and the left.
2) The American people will rise up and push Trump into the White House. The Republican Establishment will have apoplexy and implode (God! Do I hope that happens!!!). We'll have four years of a real representative democracy - as the Founders intended.
If that first four years is successful - if Trump does at least some of what he's said he'll do - we could get eight years and a lot of forward movement toward what this country should be but isn't because of policies pushed and enacted through puppetry.
3) Rich Lowry & Co. will, by virtue of their resistance, turn off the people they need to get a right-wing candidate into the White House and we'll end up with at least four-years of George Soros and Warren Buffet fronted by Hilliary Clinton.
I'll say it right here and right now: If Trump is not the nominee of the Republican party come summer, I will not vote in November. There won't be any point in voting in November and I am genuinely willing to wager my life that a lot of other people will feel the same and will stay home, giving the left a de facto win because I will NOT vote for someone I don't believe in.
If Rich Lowry & Co. want to destroy the United States of America, they are on the right path. They are doing a fine job of it with Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush and the other sock puppets.
I believe in Donald Trump. I do not think he's perfect. I do not think he's as self-serving as he's being made out. I do think that he's honest and that he does want to make America Great again.
For what it's worth, that's my take on it this morning.
Have a wonderful day.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
They have their noses so firmly planted against the tree trunk of their ideology, they don't see the rest of the forest is on fire.
First, they banded together and wrote a bunch of hit pieces in their political magazine - dedicated an entire edition to them. Twenty or so pointy headed arrogant wannabe despots wrote scathing articles about someone just because he threatens their position in the World of Washington. They're afraid, and rightly so, that their moneyed influence will go straight through the U-bend of life because they won't have a grip on this person. He will not be malleable to their way of thinking.
After that, and after having their front men and women talking about it around the networks (which they drive, too), they fussed and fussed about the fact that we American people are still too stupid to recognize that they know what's good for us better than we do. We're not falling in line. The sheep aren't paying attention to the shepherd or his sheepdogs. We're going our own direction and it's infuriating the shepherds.
Jeb Bush, the marionette they picked to be our president flamed out in spectacular fashion after just a few weeks.
They looked around, discarded the other governor in the race - Kasich - and decided to rally behind a new guy - Marco. He looks like a nice guy. I used to think he's a nice guy, but he's a guy who looks like the perfect candidate for a Good Humor ice cream ad. In the days since the last debate, he's been routinely embarrassing himself, showing that he has the temperament of a petulant four-year old. His donors, no doubt the same people who are staring at the ideological tree trunk, pushed him to attack the front runner. Well, guess what? Those attacks make him look and sound like a spoiled brat.
He's ridiculing the Alpha candidate. He's not attacking the Alpha candidate's platform or policies. He's talking about physical aspects and the spray-on tan. It's embarrassing to have this man running around saying he wants to be president.
As rough-around-the-edges as the Alpha male in this fight might be, at least he has the capacity to act like a reasonable adult. He showed that in South Carolina and on Super Tuesday when he held press conferences. Not only did he act like a reasonable adult, even detractors in the media said he looked and sounded presidential.
Still, these arrogant ideologues are foisting their choice on America through well-funded Super PACs.
Rubio's super PAC is Conservative Solutions led by J. Warren Tompkins. He and his buddy Chris Mottola brought us two versions of the Bush family, ending with Hank Paulson and the economic debacle of the mid-2000s. Thanks a lot, guys.
Then they offered up the milquetoast of John McCain for president in 2008, against Barack Obama. That was an embarrassment. Whatever fire McCain once had has been sublimated by immersion in the Washington cesspit.
And now they're working hard to undermine Trump's candidacy so they can bring us more of the same.
The super PACs are out there spreading outright lies and half-truths - like the one about Trump banning disabled vets from Trump Tower. Not true, folks.
Trump asked the city to move street vendors, some of whom had disabled vet permits, from the sidewalk in front of his property. Instead, the ad makes it sound as if Trump barred the doors and prevented disabled vets from the building itself.
There are other lies, but the volume of the hate-filled ads shows the desperation of the Right-wing establishment. Now they're trotting Mitt Romney out of the closet to blast Trump in another hate-filled dissertation. To me, it looks like desperation.
What's astonishing to me, and to others who are paying attention to this, is that these self-righteous arrogant bloated egos don't see what they're doing.
The American people are the ones who are called out in the Founding documents. We The People, as I've said before, isn't just an idea or words on a piece of parchment. It's bigger than an idea - it's an ideal, and it's what the Founders promised: a government of, for and by the people.
Rich Lowry, George Will, Erick Erickson and all the other arrogant pinheads give lip service to the Founders but their actions shout that it isn't about the Founders or the dream the Founders had for a United States of America. Instead, it's all and only about them, about power.
As I see it, one of three things can come of this:
1) The Republican party will shatter like a mirror dropped from the top floor of Trump Tower. It will break along factional lines - The People who support Trump and those who don't.
Rich Lowry & Co., and by that it's all inclusive of everyone who is bucking what the people want for themselves, will hold their control of our government. They will put a person into the White House who is a puppet - an empty suit, just as George Bush I and George Bush II were empty suits and just as Barack Obama is an empty suit, owned by George Soros, Warren Buffet and the left.
2) The American people will rise up and push Trump into the White House. The Republican Establishment will have apoplexy and implode (God! Do I hope that happens!!!). We'll have four years of a real representative democracy - as the Founders intended.
If that first four years is successful - if Trump does at least some of what he's said he'll do - we could get eight years and a lot of forward movement toward what this country should be but isn't because of policies pushed and enacted through puppetry.
3) Rich Lowry & Co. will, by virtue of their resistance, turn off the people they need to get a right-wing candidate into the White House and we'll end up with at least four-years of George Soros and Warren Buffet fronted by Hilliary Clinton.
I'll say it right here and right now: If Trump is not the nominee of the Republican party come summer, I will not vote in November. There won't be any point in voting in November and I am genuinely willing to wager my life that a lot of other people will feel the same and will stay home, giving the left a de facto win because I will NOT vote for someone I don't believe in.
If Rich Lowry & Co. want to destroy the United States of America, they are on the right path. They are doing a fine job of it with Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush and the other sock puppets.
I believe in Donald Trump. I do not think he's perfect. I do not think he's as self-serving as he's being made out. I do think that he's honest and that he does want to make America Great again.
For what it's worth, that's my take on it this morning.
Have a wonderful day.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Brainiacs in a Vacuum
That's what they sound like if you read the bitching, moaning and whining about Donald Trump from the so-called 'pundits' in Washington about the current election cycle.
Bill Kristol hates him. George Will hates him. Erick Erickson hates him. And the list goes on - boring in its sameness.
These people say to the rest of us 'we are the Conservatives and you should listen to us.'
I want to know, 'who died and appointed you God?'
These people say 'Donald Trump is not a Conservative because...' Pick your reason (it's all crap by the way).
I demand to know, 'who died and appointed you sole arbiter of what makes a Conservative'?
Is it any wonder the American people are disgusted with Washington?
These 'insiders', and others like them who have written for the National Review, the Weekly Standard and all of the other inside the Washington Beltway political rags, are so brain dead that they don't see the writing on the wall. They have sucked all of the oxygen out of their rarefied little enclave. They are in the last stages of intellectual asphyxiation and don't even recognize the symptoms.
Symptom 1: Iowa. Even Ted Cruz talking about eliminating corn subsidies and the ethanol mandate won the state. Republicans had higher voter turn-out there than the Democrats (180,000 to 171,109, respectively). Cruz was first and Trump was a solid second.
Symptom 2: New Hampshire. Donald Trump blew out the "palatable" candidates - Kasich, Rubio and Bush.
Symptom 3: South Carolina. Donald Trump won forty-four of forty-six counties. The "homeboy" Jeb! got next to zero support despite being the "Establishment" darling and the one candidate these inside the beltway Zombies thought was going to win everything.
Symptom 4: Entrance polling from Nevada. The electoral - the sheeple - are pissed off, fed up, disgusted, angry, you name it. They cast their ballots yesterday and Trump walked away with a twenty point lead over the second place finisher, Marco Rubio.
We, the American people, are shouting at the Washington Zombies: we do not want you to tell us who we should vote for. We are not children. We can and do think for ourselves and we do not want politics as usual.
So now, what do you suppose these brainiacs are saying? They want a third party. They won't support the Republican nominee chosen by the People.
What does this say about them, about their character, their belief in the Founding Principles and Documents - the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights they have purported to support and hold dear all these years? How about:
That, right there is what it says. They are empty suits. They have no honesty. They have no integrity. They have no values. They have no character. They have and they are nothing.
If they don't get their way, if they don't agree with what the citizens of this country want in place of what we're told to want, they act like spoiled babies. They'll pick up their marbles and go elsewhere.
Well, I've got news for them. They don't drive this country as much as they like to think they do. Neither does the donor class of which they are fringe members.
We the People is far more than just words on a piece of parchment. It is an idea and an ideal, and it is coming home to roost.
We the People are fed up - utterly and completely - with the crap and nonsense flowing out of Washington. We have put up with it for thirty years, since Ronald Reagan, and we are done.
We the People did not want Obamacare - but it was shoved down our unwilling throats by the Washington Elites and by Congress. This is payback.
We the People do not like the lies and cover-ups and constant scandals that flow through Washington DC like a river of sewage. This is payback.
Although we're supposed to be 'tired' of hearing about Benghazi, I can tell you I'm not. I don't think many others in this country are, either. I think we know precisely what was done.
Hilliary Clinton and her boss got in over their heads with Libya. When the shit hit the fan they didn't have the first clue what to do and didn't have the brains God gave a chicken to figure it out. They left people to die even though there were others there in country, on the ground and willing to risk it all to save those in the embassy.
When it was all over, with four men dead and others badly wounded, they circulated through the morning shows and pumped up a lie about a stupid video. For days they passed that around, hoping we the people would be just as stupid as they are. But we weren't. We demanded answers so Congress held hearings. In those, the left stonewalled and whitewashed and covered up, just as they always do and the right caved, just as it always does.
Nothing happened, and that pisses me and a lot of other people off. This is payback.
Now we've got the e-mail server mess. Most of the country is paying attention, praying for an indictment or at least a series of subpoenas to move the investigation forward, but it's being stonewalled again.
Trump has said that he will go after Hilliary big time if he's elected. This is payback.
What is going to be sweet music to me and to others who think like me is Trump going after Hilliary. He will be unrelenting, and she will go down in flames because it will all come out.
Comey will wait. Honestly, I think that is why the FBI seems to be dragging its feet. They have enough to pin her to the wall for the rest of her life. I know they do - just based on what's been talked about in the media. But he won't request an indictment. Not yet, because if no crime has been named, if Hilliary doesn't stand formally accused of anything, Obie-One has no grounds for a pardon. She'll be vulnerable - a sitting duck and it is going to be a beautiful day in America when that lights up.
So Bill and Erick and George and all the rest, get over yourselves. You are not at all important or even that interesting out here.
Have a lovely day out in the hinterlands - it's where the real people live.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Bill Kristol hates him. George Will hates him. Erick Erickson hates him. And the list goes on - boring in its sameness.
These people say to the rest of us 'we are the Conservatives and you should listen to us.'
I want to know, 'who died and appointed you God?'
These people say 'Donald Trump is not a Conservative because...' Pick your reason (it's all crap by the way).
I demand to know, 'who died and appointed you sole arbiter of what makes a Conservative'?
Is it any wonder the American people are disgusted with Washington?
These 'insiders', and others like them who have written for the National Review, the Weekly Standard and all of the other inside the Washington Beltway political rags, are so brain dead that they don't see the writing on the wall. They have sucked all of the oxygen out of their rarefied little enclave. They are in the last stages of intellectual asphyxiation and don't even recognize the symptoms.
Symptom 1: Iowa. Even Ted Cruz talking about eliminating corn subsidies and the ethanol mandate won the state. Republicans had higher voter turn-out there than the Democrats (180,000 to 171,109, respectively). Cruz was first and Trump was a solid second.
Symptom 2: New Hampshire. Donald Trump blew out the "palatable" candidates - Kasich, Rubio and Bush.
Symptom 3: South Carolina. Donald Trump won forty-four of forty-six counties. The "homeboy" Jeb! got next to zero support despite being the "Establishment" darling and the one candidate these inside the beltway Zombies thought was going to win everything.
Symptom 4: Entrance polling from Nevada. The electoral - the sheeple - are pissed off, fed up, disgusted, angry, you name it. They cast their ballots yesterday and Trump walked away with a twenty point lead over the second place finisher, Marco Rubio.
We, the American people, are shouting at the Washington Zombies: we do not want you to tell us who we should vote for. We are not children. We can and do think for ourselves and we do not want politics as usual.
So now, what do you suppose these brainiacs are saying? They want a third party. They won't support the Republican nominee chosen by the People.
What does this say about them, about their character, their belief in the Founding Principles and Documents - the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights they have purported to support and hold dear all these years? How about:
That, right there is what it says. They are empty suits. They have no honesty. They have no integrity. They have no values. They have no character. They have and they are nothing.
If they don't get their way, if they don't agree with what the citizens of this country want in place of what we're told to want, they act like spoiled babies. They'll pick up their marbles and go elsewhere.
Well, I've got news for them. They don't drive this country as much as they like to think they do. Neither does the donor class of which they are fringe members.
We the People is far more than just words on a piece of parchment. It is an idea and an ideal, and it is coming home to roost.
We the People are fed up - utterly and completely - with the crap and nonsense flowing out of Washington. We have put up with it for thirty years, since Ronald Reagan, and we are done.
We the People did not want Obamacare - but it was shoved down our unwilling throats by the Washington Elites and by Congress. This is payback.
We the People do not like the lies and cover-ups and constant scandals that flow through Washington DC like a river of sewage. This is payback.
Although we're supposed to be 'tired' of hearing about Benghazi, I can tell you I'm not. I don't think many others in this country are, either. I think we know precisely what was done.
Hilliary Clinton and her boss got in over their heads with Libya. When the shit hit the fan they didn't have the first clue what to do and didn't have the brains God gave a chicken to figure it out. They left people to die even though there were others there in country, on the ground and willing to risk it all to save those in the embassy.
When it was all over, with four men dead and others badly wounded, they circulated through the morning shows and pumped up a lie about a stupid video. For days they passed that around, hoping we the people would be just as stupid as they are. But we weren't. We demanded answers so Congress held hearings. In those, the left stonewalled and whitewashed and covered up, just as they always do and the right caved, just as it always does.
Nothing happened, and that pisses me and a lot of other people off. This is payback.
Now we've got the e-mail server mess. Most of the country is paying attention, praying for an indictment or at least a series of subpoenas to move the investigation forward, but it's being stonewalled again.
Trump has said that he will go after Hilliary big time if he's elected. This is payback.
What is going to be sweet music to me and to others who think like me is Trump going after Hilliary. He will be unrelenting, and she will go down in flames because it will all come out.
Comey will wait. Honestly, I think that is why the FBI seems to be dragging its feet. They have enough to pin her to the wall for the rest of her life. I know they do - just based on what's been talked about in the media. But he won't request an indictment. Not yet, because if no crime has been named, if Hilliary doesn't stand formally accused of anything, Obie-One has no grounds for a pardon. She'll be vulnerable - a sitting duck and it is going to be a beautiful day in America when that lights up.
So Bill and Erick and George and all the rest, get over yourselves. You are not at all important or even that interesting out here.
Have a lovely day out in the hinterlands - it's where the real people live.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Sunday, February 21, 2016
A 'New Day in America'?
Who woulda thunk? For nearly two weeks the talking heads across the networks have been predicting a Cruz victory in South Carolina because of his standing in the Tea Party and his strong Christian background. They swore the Evangelicals would all go for him. His daddy is a pastor who has been standing in front of congregation after congregation, preaching the Word and pumping for his son.
When Trump called Bush II a liar during the GOP debate and got into an exchange of words with the Pope, all the talking heads predicted a Trump implosion.
In the end, none of that mattered. In fact, it didn’t matter
in a big way.
Yesterday, Trump swept all but two of the forty-six counties in
the entire state, garnering all of the delegates.
Cruz got zero delegates, lost all counties across the board,
and came in third behind Rubio who lost to Trump by ten full percentage
points.
The most shocking event of the moment was that Jeb! announced the suspension of his campaign. Three
states in and he’s quit. Yet he was the one who, just a few months ago, all of
the pundits said would be the front runner and ultimate nominee. He was made out to be the Republican's darling boy and now he's out.
So what is going on in American politics? Why is this
bombastic loud mouthed boor walking away with everything? Well, because…
I’ll stop there. I can’t and I won’t attempt to speak for
anyone else. I can only speak for myself but I do have specific reasons for
hoping Trump wins.
First, I am sick of and disgusted by the buying and selling
of favor in Washington. While candidates run for office they swear up and down
that they’re going to do this, that and the other – all the things they know
the folks back home want to hear. They repeat the lies so often I think they
start to believe them. Then they get elected. They get to Washington and start
learning the ropes. Sooner or later, the phone rings. It’s Warren (Buffet) or
George (Soros) or David (Koch) or Bill (Gates) or Larry (Ellison) or one of the
many lawyer lobbyists. “Hey, you know that bill you’re working on? We’d really
appreciate it if you’d…” And there goes
that campaign promise. It doesn’t matter one jot what’s best for the country or
the folks back home. Money talks and at that level it screams and the
politicians listen. They have to if they hope to get re-elected when their term
ends.
Second, I live in California and I am sick and tired of
feeling, as an American, that I live in Norte Mexico. Mexico ceded California to the United States in 1848 - 160 years ago. Since 1850 it has been one of America’s fifty states yet it feels like we live in Mexico. We have ads on television in Spanish. We have
billboards selling beer and McDonald's hamburgers in Spanish. There are announcements in stores in Spanish. Walking
down the street there are signs for 'carcinerias' and 'tiendas'. I hear conversations in Spanish – and I wonder 'where the hell am I'?
I wonder if all of
these Spanish speaking people are:
a) here legally;
b) if they are here legally, why aren’t they making more of
an effort to assimilate; and,
c) if they’re not here legally, why are we accommodating
them by offering ads and announcements and all the rest of it in Spanish?
If I were to emigrate to a non-English speaking country, I
would not expect that country to make accommodation for me. I would understand
and accept that if I want to be a part of that society, it’s on me to learn the
language and customs. It is not on the new country to make me feel “welcome”.
That is bullshit and it annoys the hell out of me.
Third, I lost my healthcare when I was laid off in 2012.
Before that, I had a great employer-paid plan but, because of the fucking
around with the economy by Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich when they repealed
Glass-Steagall which then allowed the banks to become real estate brokers, and by
George Bush and Hank Paulson when the housing bubble burst and the economy imploded, I lost my job. I could
no longer afford insurance.
Then Obamacare came in. I researched my options but
I couldn’t afford the premiums under that, either. It would take too big a
chunk out of my earnings - twenty percent of my after-tax income. That would mean that I would have to stop eating or move out of my
house into my car or a box under a freeway overpass. So, I’m a criminal. I
don’t have insurance even though, legally, I’m supposed to have insurance.
So on just these three points I am a HUGE Trump supporter.
First, I believe that Trump means what he says. He rarely thinks
before he speaks and he often suffers from foot in mouth syndrome, but I do
think his heart is in the right place. I believe that he genuinely does want to
make America great again and will by rebuilding the economy and by
creating an environment where businesses can thrive. If he can get Congress into a room and negotiate the repatriation of those trillions of dollars off-shore, that will be a good indicator that we're heading in the right direction.
Because he has not taken anything in campaign donations, he is not going to be the recipient of a loaded phone call. Yes, he will get the calls, but he will be under zero obligation to do what the caller wants him to do. They will have no hold over him, and I like that idea. A lot.
Second, I also believe that he will build the wall, and that he will
get Mexico to pay for it. Not directly, obviously, but certainly through
various round-about means. Nothing illegal or underhand, but if he implements
trade tariffs on goods imported from Mexico, that’s one way. If he prevents at
least some of the money earned by illegals here from being sent to Mexico,
that’s another way. There are other means, too.
This means there is zero competition. It means that these
insurance companies can collude and set whatever rates they see fit. They can offer only those
services they feel like offering. And, they can keep the rates too high for many of the
working not-quite-poor who don’t qualify for government subsidies. People like me who don't make enough to comfortably afford the premiums and deductibles but make too much to qualify for subsidies - which I wouldn't want, anyway.
Along with that, we have got to have meaningful tort reform. Doctors should not be seeing each patient as a potential lawsuit. That’s why doctors order slews of
tests that end up pushing the cost of a visit to the doctor’s office into the exosphere. Around here going to the doctor costs a minimum of $180 for a ten
minute or less office visit. That’s the equivalent of a billing rate of more than $1,000 per
hour. Who can afford that? And the reason it’s so expensive is because the
malpractice insurance premiums are wildly expensive.
If doctors didn’t fear being sued because some
patient develops a hangnail two days after an office visit, the costs would
start to come down. If doctors didn’t have to pay their insurers through the
nose to protect them against frivolous lawsuits because an outcome wasn’t what
a patient liked or expected, they could lower their charges to something
affordable. They could go back to being doctors again.
We need to replace Obamacare with something new and much
better. We need real portability – which Obie-One promised but which doesn’t
exist. Right now if you live in Michigan and have an insurance plan you really
like, but your company transfers you to South Carolina or Florida or Texas or
anywhere else, you cannot take your insurance with you. You have to sign-up for
whatever insurance providers are licensed in that state and pay those premiums.
Beyond these things, we have got to get the tax code fixed
and made more equitable. Right now about forty percent of working age people
pay zero tax. They live here. They use the roads, the schools, all of the public
services, but pay nothing for them. How is that right or fair? I don’t think it is and that is why I would like to see a
point-of-sale flat tax.
Everyone buys stuff so why not have everyone pay their
income tax at the point of sale? If everyone paid a fifteen percent flat tax on
every single thing they buy, two percent could go to the local jurisdiction, five
percent could go to the state, six percent would go do the feds for government
spending, and two percent would go directly to Social Security and Medicaid.
The best part of this system is that all of the illegals that are here would also contribute to paying for the roads and schools and hospitals and all the rest of it. That would be another huge boost.
The best part of this system is that all of the illegals that are here would also contribute to paying for the roads and schools and hospitals and all the rest of it. That would be another huge boost.
This would just about eliminate the IRS because there would
be no tax returns, no tax filings except for death taxes and some of the other
off the beaten path stuff. Hundreds of millions of dollars would be saved just
in that.
It would improve cash flow because it would be steady stream
– every day there would be tax collected and disbursed to the various
jurisdictions. With three-hundred million people chipping in fifteen cents of
every single dollar they spend on food, on gas, on clothes and goods and
services, that would be one heck of a lot of money and would go a long way
toward solving the insolvency problem with the huge entitlement programs we all
know are about to fail. Everyone chips in; everyone carries their share of the
load.
Poor people who use state issued EBT cards for either food
stamp programs or unemployment benefits would not be charged. Naturally,
rigorous screening and steps would have to be defined and instituted to prevent
fraud, but that would shelter those people from taxation. The rest of us would
pay tax on everything we buy. Since I pay for basic stuff – nothing like the
things wealthier people buy, I would be taxed on what I buy. People who buy
luxury items would be taxed at the same rate on the high ticket stuff they buy.
It would be fair because everyone would pay based on their buying habits.
As for how do we prevent fraud? It’s as simple as day.
Each state takes responsibility for issuing Social
Security cards. These cards are linked to a national database for Social
Security payout purposes, but are issued, managed and tracked at the state
level. California is the most populous state with approximately thirty-nine million people. Tracking and managing thirty-nine of anything is far easier than tracking and managing three-hundred fifty of the same thing.
The
state boards of equalization already get all employment data – payroll information and
can identify who is working and who is receiving benefits of some sort. When
someone files an application for unemployment benefits, it goes into the state
database, just as it does now. It shows the individual isn’t working and
qualifies for benefits. They are issued a benefit card – and it’s set so that
no tax is taken from their benefits.
Each state is responsible for managing its system, each is
accountable to the federal government, and each is responsible for investigating
cases of fraud and abuse – instead of sending that responsibility and power to
Washington. Because the states are each responsible, they have a vested
interest in making sure that fraud is found and quashed post haste.
Aside from these things, I hope Trump already has staff
working on assessing governmental departments and agencies – how many times do
we have to pay tax to support multiple departments offering the same services?
Why not eliminate duplicative functions, jobs, and services – streamline
government and make it more efficient and cost effective?
If we did that – if we reduced the size of government from
what it is now to one-half or one-third of its current size and cost by
eliminating duplicative services – we would save enormous amounts of money.
Salaries, benefits, office space, consumables like copy paper, toner, pens,
everything anyone uses in the course of business would be eliminated, saving
millions upon millions of dollars every year.
There is so much room for improvement and all it takes is
one man with vision and determination and the ability to negotiate and work
with people from all parts of the spectrum. I think Donald Trump might just be
that man. He is certainly more qualified to do these things than party hacks
and socialists who want to perpetuate the current system.
I'm looking forward to the coming weeks - to Super Tuesday on March 1st and the subsequent primaries.
I am looking forward to a Trump run against the perpetual liar.
I do not see a path to the White House for Sanders, but Trump would have no trouble with him either.
Still, though, all of the pundits are out there again, lining up and saying that Trump won't carry the country, but we'll see. They've been wrong before and I think they will be wrong again. As Trump's underlying messages get out, I think they will resonate and I think he will gain more support and reach 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in January.
Sit up and pay attention - and have a wonderful week.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Sunday, February 14, 2016
Geez, Talk About Coincidence
Yesterday's post was all about 'what's coming next', relating in broad terms my views RE: the world, politics and economics. Then, mere hours later, the news broke that Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court had died. This is a watershed moment in American politics.
Obie-One is in the last year of his presidency, a lamer duck than ever. Nothing he wants to institute as policy or anything else is going to go much of anywhere for the next eleven months. Particularly given the fact that the right controls both Houses of Congress.
All Representatives in the House and thirty-four seats in the Senate will be up for re-election come November, so there is the potential for a major power shift inside the Beltway. When you couple those things with the revolution taking place among the American electorate, this is turning into a perfect storm of an election year.
Mitch McConnell, the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will be responsible for examining and confirming the next Justice, has already said, 'No'. Which is as it should be because whoever is appointed is going to have long-term impacts on the Court and on life here in the United States.
Obie-One will, as he has in the past, put ideology far ahead of Constitutional purism. He will look for a jurist who will be comfortable with, or even be champing at the bit to, legislate from the bench. The problem with that is that once the Supreme Court speaks, there is no court of last resort. The idea of passing a Constitutional Amendment to undo what the Court hands down is just about unheard of. Thirty-eight states have to pass the Amendment and that virtually never happens. Therefore, the Justices who sit on the Court could, if they put ideology ahead of Constitutionalism, be the nation's dictators, consigning the American people to whatever whim they choose to pass into law.
Given that, and with Scalia's passing, the next ten months take on even greater import. Who will be the next President? Who will be responsible for nominating and confirming the next Supreme Court Justice? Will the president be the outsider - Trump? (I leave Carson out because he just ain't going to go the distance - two states under their belts, numbers three and four looming, and he's already flagging.) Will it be the Tea Party candidate, Ted Cruz (who didn't even gain the support of the Tea Party's darling, Sarah Palin)? Or will it be a Washington insider - Clinton, Sanders, Rubio, Bush or Kasich?
On the right, the 'Establishment' candidates cannot gain traction. Look at Jeb! and Kasich. Their poll numbers suck wind and they're showing little signs of improving. After last night's debate, even with all the vituperation and shouting, Trump is still leading in South Carolina with 42% of the Republicans saying they'll be voting for him. Bush, the Establishment Right's darling, is at just six percent, along with Carson. Kasich has nine percent and Cruz and Rubio are in the teens. This, after Trump ignored all warnings and went right after the supposed sacred cow of the Bush family.
On the left, Hilliary's nomination to the head of the Democrat ticket is a certainty unless the FBI steps forward with a better than rock solid case against her. Still, the DOJ will decline to indict and that will set off a massive firestorm if the brainiacs who watch this stuff more closely than I are right.
Of course, as Real Clear Politics posits in the following article, her current deep and persistent brown-nosing of Obie-One is nothing more than a desperate ploy:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/13/hillary_clintons_frantic_embrace_of_obama.html
Reading this article stuck a deep chord - created an Ah Ha! moment. It was like a puzzle with a number of unset pieces - something smelled but I couldn't fit the pieces together. Now that I've seen this, it makes perfect sense.
Six months ago, even four months ago, Hilliary was desperate to distance herself from Obie-One. She was defining herself and her candidacy as being different from his. Then came the flare-up with the e-mails and the Foundation, and she's suddenly in Obie-One's hip pocket, breathing deeply. Since December she has begun running as Obie-One's 'third term' apparently hoping that this will offer some protection from Obie's DOJ.
No matter since it looks like the FBI has put the e-mail issue on the back burner and are now going after her through the questionable antics of the Clinton Foundation. Did she trade political favors for donations to the Foundation? Hmmm. Looks like it because the FBI has issued a subpoena to the Foundation. I just hope they find something they can make stick, despite the politics of it, and do it around the end of April when it's too late for anyone but Bernie to make a real run for it.
If it gets down to Trump or Cruz on the right and Berns on the left, it should be a good year for the right. Unless, of course, the American voter gets stupid again and elects a bunch of Democrats into Congress 'to balance the White House'. All that will do is ensure two more years of gridlock which everyone says they don't want.
Still, unless there is an indictment of Hilliary, Hilliary will be the left's only choice for president. Why? Because of the unconstitutional 'Super Delegates'. These are the party hacks, the Democrat sycophants with more money than brains who have sucked at the Kool-Aid teat for so long whatever brains they had have melted. They are puppets of the Democrat party and will do as the party dictates. In this case, the party dictates that they must be for Hilliary. Therefore, these people are already solidly in Hilliary's corner, bought and paid for, committed. That's another CF that's going to get more interesting when and if a recommendation for indictment is sent to the DOJ. Don't believe me? Well... Here's a headline from Salon:
Saturday, Feb 13, 2016 12:30 PM PST
Aside from all of that, what must be sending shivers up the spines of everyone currently serving in Congress is that the American people are sending a strong message that same-old, same-old doesn't play any more. If the majority of people are supporting Sanders and Trump, shunning Hilliary and the Establishment candidates on the right, what does that mean for the upcoming election?
Add into the mix the fact that the Senate - thirty-four of whom are up for re-election come November - will have to confirm, or not confirm, the next Supreme Court Justice. Obie-One has already said, despite McConnell's drawn line, that he is going to nominate someone. In that case, what's a Senator to do? It's like juggling nitroglycerin.
There is not enough time - just two weeks - for Obie-One to nominate a new candidate and get them in front of the Senate for confirmation hearings before the Super Tuesday caucuses and elections. Even if he tries to fast-track it, the Senate has the power and capability to drag its heels.
Iowa and New Hampshire might well have been the canaries in the coal mine for politics as usual inside the Washington Beltway. The American electorate has begun to speak in loud tones, as shown by giving a Tea Party candidate, a businessman / celebrity and a 74-year old Independent Senator from Vermont those two states in resounding fashion. Then there was last night's debate where the fireworks got really nasty between Trump and Bush and Cruz and Rubio.
March 1st, Super Tuesday, is going to be even more telling. If things go as they have gone in the past two states, and South Carolina, Nevada and the fifteen states on March 1st break the same way - for Trump/Cruz and Berns - that will present the Senate with a huge dilemma.
Yes, Hilliary "won" Iowa - but, literally, only by the flip of a coin. She got well and truly trounced in New Hampshire. If Trump and Berns come out of South Carolina and Nevada with a lead, and if they each do well on Super Tuesday, that will pretty much cast the political future in concrete. 'Establishment' will not fly in the coming Congressional election and those people who like their comfy seats and cushy jobs in the Senate are going to have to think long and hard about who they confirm to the Court.
It's not looking good for Hilliary in South Carolina - a must win state for her. Berns is making good inroads into her presumed security there. For weeks the press has been talking about South Carolina being a 'firewall' for her candidacy - but if you read some recent articles about what's going on there, it doesn't look quite so certain. He's closing the gap in published polls, and he's gotten some key endorsements (although the talking heads are declaring endorsements don't matter any more). He's got a strong ground game and it looks like he might just give her a run for her money.
All I can say, again, is that this seems to be a perfect storm in the political realm. A pending nomination to the Supreme Court, an extraordinary field of presidential candidates from which the American people will pick and choose over the coming months, and a Congressional election that will determine the course of this country for the next two years, at least. Watch closely - it's gonna be a rocky ride!
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Obie-One is in the last year of his presidency, a lamer duck than ever. Nothing he wants to institute as policy or anything else is going to go much of anywhere for the next eleven months. Particularly given the fact that the right controls both Houses of Congress.
All Representatives in the House and thirty-four seats in the Senate will be up for re-election come November, so there is the potential for a major power shift inside the Beltway. When you couple those things with the revolution taking place among the American electorate, this is turning into a perfect storm of an election year.
Mitch McConnell, the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will be responsible for examining and confirming the next Justice, has already said, 'No'. Which is as it should be because whoever is appointed is going to have long-term impacts on the Court and on life here in the United States.
Obie-One will, as he has in the past, put ideology far ahead of Constitutional purism. He will look for a jurist who will be comfortable with, or even be champing at the bit to, legislate from the bench. The problem with that is that once the Supreme Court speaks, there is no court of last resort. The idea of passing a Constitutional Amendment to undo what the Court hands down is just about unheard of. Thirty-eight states have to pass the Amendment and that virtually never happens. Therefore, the Justices who sit on the Court could, if they put ideology ahead of Constitutionalism, be the nation's dictators, consigning the American people to whatever whim they choose to pass into law.
Given that, and with Scalia's passing, the next ten months take on even greater import. Who will be the next President? Who will be responsible for nominating and confirming the next Supreme Court Justice? Will the president be the outsider - Trump? (I leave Carson out because he just ain't going to go the distance - two states under their belts, numbers three and four looming, and he's already flagging.) Will it be the Tea Party candidate, Ted Cruz (who didn't even gain the support of the Tea Party's darling, Sarah Palin)? Or will it be a Washington insider - Clinton, Sanders, Rubio, Bush or Kasich?
On the right, the 'Establishment' candidates cannot gain traction. Look at Jeb! and Kasich. Their poll numbers suck wind and they're showing little signs of improving. After last night's debate, even with all the vituperation and shouting, Trump is still leading in South Carolina with 42% of the Republicans saying they'll be voting for him. Bush, the Establishment Right's darling, is at just six percent, along with Carson. Kasich has nine percent and Cruz and Rubio are in the teens. This, after Trump ignored all warnings and went right after the supposed sacred cow of the Bush family.
On the left, Hilliary's nomination to the head of the Democrat ticket is a certainty unless the FBI steps forward with a better than rock solid case against her. Still, the DOJ will decline to indict and that will set off a massive firestorm if the brainiacs who watch this stuff more closely than I are right.
Of course, as Real Clear Politics posits in the following article, her current deep and persistent brown-nosing of Obie-One is nothing more than a desperate ploy:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/13/hillary_clintons_frantic_embrace_of_obama.html
Reading this article stuck a deep chord - created an Ah Ha! moment. It was like a puzzle with a number of unset pieces - something smelled but I couldn't fit the pieces together. Now that I've seen this, it makes perfect sense.
Six months ago, even four months ago, Hilliary was desperate to distance herself from Obie-One. She was defining herself and her candidacy as being different from his. Then came the flare-up with the e-mails and the Foundation, and she's suddenly in Obie-One's hip pocket, breathing deeply. Since December she has begun running as Obie-One's 'third term' apparently hoping that this will offer some protection from Obie's DOJ.
No matter since it looks like the FBI has put the e-mail issue on the back burner and are now going after her through the questionable antics of the Clinton Foundation. Did she trade political favors for donations to the Foundation? Hmmm. Looks like it because the FBI has issued a subpoena to the Foundation. I just hope they find something they can make stick, despite the politics of it, and do it around the end of April when it's too late for anyone but Bernie to make a real run for it.
If it gets down to Trump or Cruz on the right and Berns on the left, it should be a good year for the right. Unless, of course, the American voter gets stupid again and elects a bunch of Democrats into Congress 'to balance the White House'. All that will do is ensure two more years of gridlock which everyone says they don't want.
Still, unless there is an indictment of Hilliary, Hilliary will be the left's only choice for president. Why? Because of the unconstitutional 'Super Delegates'. These are the party hacks, the Democrat sycophants with more money than brains who have sucked at the Kool-Aid teat for so long whatever brains they had have melted. They are puppets of the Democrat party and will do as the party dictates. In this case, the party dictates that they must be for Hilliary. Therefore, these people are already solidly in Hilliary's corner, bought and paid for, committed. That's another CF that's going to get more interesting when and if a recommendation for indictment is sent to the DOJ. Don't believe me? Well... Here's a headline from Salon:
Saturday, Feb 13, 2016 12:30 PM PST
Un-Democratic Party: DNC chair says superdelegates ensure elites don’t have to run “against grassroots activists”
Critics say the unelected superdelegate system is rigged. Debbie Wasserman Schultz basically admitted this is true
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/13/un_democratic_party_dnc_chair_says_superdelegates_ensure_elites_dont_have_to_run_against_grassroots_activists/Aside from all of that, what must be sending shivers up the spines of everyone currently serving in Congress is that the American people are sending a strong message that same-old, same-old doesn't play any more. If the majority of people are supporting Sanders and Trump, shunning Hilliary and the Establishment candidates on the right, what does that mean for the upcoming election?
Add into the mix the fact that the Senate - thirty-four of whom are up for re-election come November - will have to confirm, or not confirm, the next Supreme Court Justice. Obie-One has already said, despite McConnell's drawn line, that he is going to nominate someone. In that case, what's a Senator to do? It's like juggling nitroglycerin.
There is not enough time - just two weeks - for Obie-One to nominate a new candidate and get them in front of the Senate for confirmation hearings before the Super Tuesday caucuses and elections. Even if he tries to fast-track it, the Senate has the power and capability to drag its heels.
Iowa and New Hampshire might well have been the canaries in the coal mine for politics as usual inside the Washington Beltway. The American electorate has begun to speak in loud tones, as shown by giving a Tea Party candidate, a businessman / celebrity and a 74-year old Independent Senator from Vermont those two states in resounding fashion. Then there was last night's debate where the fireworks got really nasty between Trump and Bush and Cruz and Rubio.
March 1st, Super Tuesday, is going to be even more telling. If things go as they have gone in the past two states, and South Carolina, Nevada and the fifteen states on March 1st break the same way - for Trump/Cruz and Berns - that will present the Senate with a huge dilemma.
Yes, Hilliary "won" Iowa - but, literally, only by the flip of a coin. She got well and truly trounced in New Hampshire. If Trump and Berns come out of South Carolina and Nevada with a lead, and if they each do well on Super Tuesday, that will pretty much cast the political future in concrete. 'Establishment' will not fly in the coming Congressional election and those people who like their comfy seats and cushy jobs in the Senate are going to have to think long and hard about who they confirm to the Court.
It's not looking good for Hilliary in South Carolina - a must win state for her. Berns is making good inroads into her presumed security there. For weeks the press has been talking about South Carolina being a 'firewall' for her candidacy - but if you read some recent articles about what's going on there, it doesn't look quite so certain. He's closing the gap in published polls, and he's gotten some key endorsements (although the talking heads are declaring endorsements don't matter any more). He's got a strong ground game and it looks like he might just give her a run for her money.
All I can say, again, is that this seems to be a perfect storm in the political realm. A pending nomination to the Supreme Court, an extraordinary field of presidential candidates from which the American people will pick and choose over the coming months, and a Congressional election that will determine the course of this country for the next two years, at least. Watch closely - it's gonna be a rocky ride!
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
One down...
Iowa is sleeping better this morning. The Circus has left town and people are waking up to emptier streets and coffee shops, less sound and fury. The only milling herds they'll be dealing with are cows and sheep.
Today, it's New Hampshire being invaded and another round of who will and who won't and why.
Cruz won Iowa last night. According to some, that isn't surprising. According to others (the BBC, for one), it was a 'blow' to Trump. What the 'blowers' don't get is that Iowa is vastly different from the coastal states - New York and New England, the Eastern Seaboard and the Left Coast.
I think Cruz appealed to the locals with his attire (farm modern v. Armani), his demeanor - calm and sincere - and with his pastor father who spoke in a number of churches. With blue jeans, a 'cowboy' shirt and a pair of Tony Lama kicks, Cruz fit in more more easily than Trump. When Cruz visited farms, he probably wasn't mincing through the dirt, afraid of getting his city shoes muddy or dusty.
Even at the Iowa State Fair last summer, the difference is obvious. Ted fits right in, one of the regular guys. Donald appears as a celebrity, body guard, hordes of fans and all. As much as anything else, I think it's this optic that played out over the weeks and paid off for Cruz last night.
Aside from the optical differences, one of the points hammered on for the past several days is the 'ground game' each of the candidates had in play. These are the staffers and volunteers who spend countless hours on the phone, behind the wheel and knocking on doors. The media kept talking about how well organized Cruz was in that respect, and laughed at the secrecy cloaking Trump's.
In all, I think Iowans, on a personal level, felt more comfortable with Cruz and that is why Cruz won.
To say that a 'blow' was dealt to Trump is a stretch. Even Trump was saying (although only he, Melania and his inner circle know what he was saying privately) that he didn't believe he would win. And, when he didn't, he gave in graciously. Surprisingly graciously (I was sitting on the sofa, palms together and praying he would be gracious, delighted when he was), and I think that won him at least some points across the board.
He didn't come out snarky and insulting. He congratulated Cruz and Rubio, wished the others well, and said he was heading to New Hampshire. Along with everyone else.
It was a good evening all around and I think, that in the sense that Trump had a surprise at the end in the tone and tenor of his capitulation speech, he probably actually did better than Cruz in a way. That pleasant speech might well make people sit up and pay a bit closer attention because 'maybe he isn't the jerk we thought, Mildred.' He revealed another facet to his character, and it's a good one. So, we'll see because there's a long way to go
On the Democrat side, that was a squeaker and I can't help but wonder what the real vote was. Unlike the Repbulicans, the Dems count delegates, not votes, and they don't release the 'real' numbers, the raw count, to the public. Which means box stuffing is entirely possible, do-able, and probable in some precincts.
It'll be interesting to see what comes out of there in a few weeks. Even though it won't really matter by then. At some point, Iowa will take the Democrat results, tally them and announce the 'real' winner. By then, though, it's too late. New Hampshire will be in the bag, South Carolina and Nevada will be underway, and no one will be paying attention to Iowa anymore (sorry, Iowa, but it's the fact).
In the meantime, both candidates are going to claim they won, even though they split the vote almost straight down the middle - separating the two of them at the end of the evening was just two-tenths of one percent which is about as tight as it gets.
Now, if Sanders goes to the Iowa Secretary of State and asks that the raw data be released, that'll be interesting. The Iowa Sec State is a Republican. If, looking at the data, there appears to be anything untoward, she might go up the food chain to ask about it. If it's glaring that the box was stuffed in Hilliary's favor (the DNC might not have believed how tight a race Berns would make it), they might just release that data. Give it three weeks or so. If they do, it'll make for interesting reading. If they don't, well... it'll go down in the books as a really close race.
What's going to get interesting now is this whole e-mail mess with Hilliary.
If Berns did better in Iowa than the DNC and Washington might have projected or expected, if he took the party by surprise, they might be getting nervous. Berns's numbers up in New Hampshire are strong. He's known to the folks there, and he's liked by the folks there. It's almost certain that he's going to win New Hampshire, and probably by a lot.
If he blows Hilliary out of the water up there, and if he can get his ground game going in South Carolina, where it's currently lagging, badly, and Nevada, and make it look like he's going to give Hilliary a run for her and the DNC's money, the Dems might decide to cut their losses. There is, after all, that little matter of the e-mails and the server, etc.
One thing that Bernie hasn't done to date is tackle Hilliary head-on over that. If he had challenged her on it leading up to last night, he very well could have had a clear win in Iowa. If he decides not to make that same mistake going forward, if he raises the question in people's minds that she can't be trusted with even middling decisions, he could start to walk away with this
Cue the legal paper chase through the halls of Justice, an indictment, a stepping down and a tossing in of Biden.
Even if Obie-One and the Democrat machine deny the indictment and negotiate the charges down to a misdemeanor, I think it's a sixty-forty proposition or better that Comey and the FBI will be furious with the manipulation. If they're mad enough, if they have a strong enough case to get a conviction and the Democrats wave their hands to make it go away, there might be some embarrassing leaks from Foggy Bottom as we get closer to the election.
No matter, the DNC is getting backed into a corner with Hilliary and the mess she's created, and Berns's surprising strength in this process. They can't wait too long because if they get much past Super Tuesday - March 1st, which is the day on which fifteen states either vote or caucus - they're going to have a real uphill battle to sell Biden as a replacement for Hilliary.
Keep watching - we're just getting started!
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Today, it's New Hampshire being invaded and another round of who will and who won't and why.
Cruz won Iowa last night. According to some, that isn't surprising. According to others (the BBC, for one), it was a 'blow' to Trump. What the 'blowers' don't get is that Iowa is vastly different from the coastal states - New York and New England, the Eastern Seaboard and the Left Coast.
I think Cruz appealed to the locals with his attire (farm modern v. Armani), his demeanor - calm and sincere - and with his pastor father who spoke in a number of churches. With blue jeans, a 'cowboy' shirt and a pair of Tony Lama kicks, Cruz fit in more more easily than Trump. When Cruz visited farms, he probably wasn't mincing through the dirt, afraid of getting his city shoes muddy or dusty.
Even at the Iowa State Fair last summer, the difference is obvious. Ted fits right in, one of the regular guys. Donald appears as a celebrity, body guard, hordes of fans and all. As much as anything else, I think it's this optic that played out over the weeks and paid off for Cruz last night.
 |
| (c) Getty Images |
In all, I think Iowans, on a personal level, felt more comfortable with Cruz and that is why Cruz won.
To say that a 'blow' was dealt to Trump is a stretch. Even Trump was saying (although only he, Melania and his inner circle know what he was saying privately) that he didn't believe he would win. And, when he didn't, he gave in graciously. Surprisingly graciously (I was sitting on the sofa, palms together and praying he would be gracious, delighted when he was), and I think that won him at least some points across the board.
He didn't come out snarky and insulting. He congratulated Cruz and Rubio, wished the others well, and said he was heading to New Hampshire. Along with everyone else.
It was a good evening all around and I think, that in the sense that Trump had a surprise at the end in the tone and tenor of his capitulation speech, he probably actually did better than Cruz in a way. That pleasant speech might well make people sit up and pay a bit closer attention because 'maybe he isn't the jerk we thought, Mildred.' He revealed another facet to his character, and it's a good one. So, we'll see because there's a long way to go
On the Democrat side, that was a squeaker and I can't help but wonder what the real vote was. Unlike the Repbulicans, the Dems count delegates, not votes, and they don't release the 'real' numbers, the raw count, to the public. Which means box stuffing is entirely possible, do-able, and probable in some precincts.
It'll be interesting to see what comes out of there in a few weeks. Even though it won't really matter by then. At some point, Iowa will take the Democrat results, tally them and announce the 'real' winner. By then, though, it's too late. New Hampshire will be in the bag, South Carolina and Nevada will be underway, and no one will be paying attention to Iowa anymore (sorry, Iowa, but it's the fact).
In the meantime, both candidates are going to claim they won, even though they split the vote almost straight down the middle - separating the two of them at the end of the evening was just two-tenths of one percent which is about as tight as it gets.
Now, if Sanders goes to the Iowa Secretary of State and asks that the raw data be released, that'll be interesting. The Iowa Sec State is a Republican. If, looking at the data, there appears to be anything untoward, she might go up the food chain to ask about it. If it's glaring that the box was stuffed in Hilliary's favor (the DNC might not have believed how tight a race Berns would make it), they might just release that data. Give it three weeks or so. If they do, it'll make for interesting reading. If they don't, well... it'll go down in the books as a really close race.
What's going to get interesting now is this whole e-mail mess with Hilliary.
If Berns did better in Iowa than the DNC and Washington might have projected or expected, if he took the party by surprise, they might be getting nervous. Berns's numbers up in New Hampshire are strong. He's known to the folks there, and he's liked by the folks there. It's almost certain that he's going to win New Hampshire, and probably by a lot.
If he blows Hilliary out of the water up there, and if he can get his ground game going in South Carolina, where it's currently lagging, badly, and Nevada, and make it look like he's going to give Hilliary a run for her and the DNC's money, the Dems might decide to cut their losses. There is, after all, that little matter of the e-mails and the server, etc.
One thing that Bernie hasn't done to date is tackle Hilliary head-on over that. If he had challenged her on it leading up to last night, he very well could have had a clear win in Iowa. If he decides not to make that same mistake going forward, if he raises the question in people's minds that she can't be trusted with even middling decisions, he could start to walk away with this
Cue the legal paper chase through the halls of Justice, an indictment, a stepping down and a tossing in of Biden.
Even if Obie-One and the Democrat machine deny the indictment and negotiate the charges down to a misdemeanor, I think it's a sixty-forty proposition or better that Comey and the FBI will be furious with the manipulation. If they're mad enough, if they have a strong enough case to get a conviction and the Democrats wave their hands to make it go away, there might be some embarrassing leaks from Foggy Bottom as we get closer to the election.
No matter, the DNC is getting backed into a corner with Hilliary and the mess she's created, and Berns's surprising strength in this process. They can't wait too long because if they get much past Super Tuesday - March 1st, which is the day on which fifteen states either vote or caucus - they're going to have a real uphill battle to sell Biden as a replacement for Hilliary.
Keep watching - we're just getting started!
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Monday, February 1, 2016
Now, It's Getting Interesting
Caucus day in Iowa and the first of many elections in this cycle is gearing up for tonight's get togethers across the state. Who's it going to be?
Will the left-leaning people of Iowa throw their lot in with a dedicated liar, or will they go with a Socialist who wants to raise taxes across the board to pay for freebies?
Will the right-leaning go with Trump or Cruz or Rubio or someone else entirely? Who is going to get the support of the Bible belt folks, those Evangelical Christians who make up a goodly proportion of Iowa's citizens?
Poor Iowa. It's a little state pretty much in the middle of the middle. It's a quiet place most of the time. Except for now. Now every single news organization that can find an airport has people on the ground. It's great for the local economy. All the hotels are packed, the restaurants are full. People who don't live there are talking about hash browns and 'hot pot' and admiring the stoicism of the locals while the outsiders shiver in their expensive coats and the regular folks stand around in shirt sleeves or a light sweater. And tomorrow, after the hoorah and excitement, the place will empty and the regular folks can go back to being regular folks. Most of whom (the majority, most likely) will heave a sigh of relief to have the party over and their place back to themselves.
The process in Iowa is interesting, too. Two different processes across the two different parties.
The Dems get together in meeting halls and school gymnasiums and other places and they talk the subject to death. Neighbor-a-neighbor, mano-a-mano, and try to convince others to 'vote' for their candidate of choice. At the end of the day that process can be manipulated because if someone in the Hilliary camp decides to defect but doesn't want to go with Berns, they can walk across the room and stand around with the three percent supporting O'Malley.
Now that's not right, because it skews the O'Malley three percent. Perhaps it bumps his numbers up to five or six percent. Of course, that extra couple of percentage points doesn't matter in the end because a candidate has to have fifteen percent of the 'vote' in order to be considered 'viable'. Then, once the votes are tallied, those low percentage folks have a choice: leave or go with one of the other candidates.
On the other side, the Republicans show up and gather 'round, probably with cake and cookies and coffee and tea and whatever. Representatives for each of the candidates will stand up and speechify - why everyone should vote for their candidate. Then they talk about it for a while and then they write their preferred candidate's name on a slip of paper and, I guess, drop it into a box. Toward the end of the evening, or after the caucus closes, the votes are counted and the winner is announced.
It sounds like an interesting place to be on caucus day, just as an observer to see how the sausage is made.
Then, eight days from now, New Hampshire voters will have their say. That is the more traditional method of going into a voting booth, all by yourself, and marking a ballot or pushing a button or pulling a lever. Of course the press will be there, too, following the candidates all over the place and disrupting the normal lives of the folks. Once that to do is over and the candidates get a sense of whether they're 'viable' after all, the field of candidates will start to thin but the press hounds will just converge more tightly around their assigned candidate.
Candidates will drop out, backing another candidate or not, depending on a variety of factors. Some will just walk away and go back home to start paying back the debt they've incurred. One or two, if they truly believe in the positions of their candidate of choice, might be encouraged to actively stump for their chosen one, or they'll at least make one or two appearances, probably for appearance sake. 'Yes, I really believe in so-and-so, they'll make a fine president.' Leaving on the table the future quid pro quo, of course.
It's going to be really interesting to see who stays and who goes because, by all sensible standards, O'Malley on the left should be gone by now. He's pulling just three percent of the vote. On the right, there are five candidates I can name who should, by all rights, be gone: Gilmore, Kasich, Fiorina, Bush and Santorum.
I name Bush instead of Rand Paul because Bush has the baggage of his family behind him. His father lied to us, 'Read my lips...' and his brother dragged us into a war that many said we should never have gotten into. Regardless of the legitimacy of the war, we did manage to further destabilize an already unstable region of the world. Not a good track record for that family name, and I doubt that Bush III would be much different in his policies than his brother or his father. I also look at Bush III and compare him to Bush II and Bush I and see a much weaker individual. Not what we need at this time.
I happen to like a lot of what Rand Paul stands for. Not all of it, but enough of it that I'd like to see him keep going for a while, and keep talking about things like auditing the Federal Reserve and fiscal conservatism.
As for Fiorina, I like her. I think she's smart bordering on brilliant in some respects. She's clear in her messaging, but it's just not going to fly for her given her baggage with her time at Hewlett-Packard, and I think she has a name recognition problem. Do I see her in Washington? Sure, as the head of the Department of Commerce or another cabinet position, but I'm sure Donald has other ideas (and probably better).
So, who's it going to be after the Iowa dust settles?
On the Right, I hope it's Trump because I like the idea of someone not tied to and bound by the Washington cartels. I also really like the fact that Trump has a broad background of managing and running things.
In the last days running up to the caucuses, Cruz really blew it. He stooped to one of the sleaziest and most misleading methods to get people out to the polls by stuffing Iowan's mailboxes with this:
Intimidating? Yeah, I would say so. And, at first glance, for an older voter who is easily confused or someone unsophisticated or less educated, it could really be fear inducing. Which is where the sleaze factor comes in. Engendering fear in order to garner votes is nothing less than disgusting.
Before this cheap stunt, I would have said that Cruz would be an acceptable alternative to Trump because of his hard-core conservatism. Now, with this, huh uh. No thanks. It's low, cheap, seedy, despicable... Pick your pejorative because this kind of ploy is not how politics should work. This is not a shining example for How To Win an Election. All it is is a low-down intimidating trick of the worst sort and it paints the entire right-of-center field in a bad way.
Now, going into New Hampshire, he will be dragging the baggage of in Iowa Secretary of State investigation. I'll say it again: despicable, and it smacks of desperation. It sure as heck isn't going to play well in other places as the election cycle draws on. I don't like it, and I imagine a lot of other people don't like it.
However, in listening to the talking heads across the networks last night, it seems as if this isn't the first time something like this has been done.
Apparently, Obama did it in 2008, and Rubio did it this time around. Maybe the locals are used to it. Nonetheless, it's still sleazy and underhand.
On the Left, I hope to heaven it's Bernie in Iowa. I do, really, because of that little indictment issue dangling over Hilliary's head. This would get a whole lot more interesting if Berns wins and she comes second, because it already looks like Berns is a shoo-in up in New Hampshire. That would leave the DNC with a problem. Keep pushing Hilliary with two early losses, despite that increasingly likely indictment (if she loses Iowa and New Hampshire, I do think the DNC is going to sacrifice her), or cut their losses and move in with someone else - Biden / Warren or Warren / Biden?
Now they might wait until after Nevada and South Carolina on February 20th, but if it looks like Comey is going to move, they might not.
Nonetheless, it's going to be an interesting day followed by an interesting month. Settle into your seats and hang onto your popcorn, folks. It's going to be an exciting ride!
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Will the left-leaning people of Iowa throw their lot in with a dedicated liar, or will they go with a Socialist who wants to raise taxes across the board to pay for freebies?
Will the right-leaning go with Trump or Cruz or Rubio or someone else entirely? Who is going to get the support of the Bible belt folks, those Evangelical Christians who make up a goodly proportion of Iowa's citizens?
Poor Iowa. It's a little state pretty much in the middle of the middle. It's a quiet place most of the time. Except for now. Now every single news organization that can find an airport has people on the ground. It's great for the local economy. All the hotels are packed, the restaurants are full. People who don't live there are talking about hash browns and 'hot pot' and admiring the stoicism of the locals while the outsiders shiver in their expensive coats and the regular folks stand around in shirt sleeves or a light sweater. And tomorrow, after the hoorah and excitement, the place will empty and the regular folks can go back to being regular folks. Most of whom (the majority, most likely) will heave a sigh of relief to have the party over and their place back to themselves.
The process in Iowa is interesting, too. Two different processes across the two different parties.
The Dems get together in meeting halls and school gymnasiums and other places and they talk the subject to death. Neighbor-a-neighbor, mano-a-mano, and try to convince others to 'vote' for their candidate of choice. At the end of the day that process can be manipulated because if someone in the Hilliary camp decides to defect but doesn't want to go with Berns, they can walk across the room and stand around with the three percent supporting O'Malley.
Now that's not right, because it skews the O'Malley three percent. Perhaps it bumps his numbers up to five or six percent. Of course, that extra couple of percentage points doesn't matter in the end because a candidate has to have fifteen percent of the 'vote' in order to be considered 'viable'. Then, once the votes are tallied, those low percentage folks have a choice: leave or go with one of the other candidates.
On the other side, the Republicans show up and gather 'round, probably with cake and cookies and coffee and tea and whatever. Representatives for each of the candidates will stand up and speechify - why everyone should vote for their candidate. Then they talk about it for a while and then they write their preferred candidate's name on a slip of paper and, I guess, drop it into a box. Toward the end of the evening, or after the caucus closes, the votes are counted and the winner is announced.
It sounds like an interesting place to be on caucus day, just as an observer to see how the sausage is made.
Then, eight days from now, New Hampshire voters will have their say. That is the more traditional method of going into a voting booth, all by yourself, and marking a ballot or pushing a button or pulling a lever. Of course the press will be there, too, following the candidates all over the place and disrupting the normal lives of the folks. Once that to do is over and the candidates get a sense of whether they're 'viable' after all, the field of candidates will start to thin but the press hounds will just converge more tightly around their assigned candidate.
Candidates will drop out, backing another candidate or not, depending on a variety of factors. Some will just walk away and go back home to start paying back the debt they've incurred. One or two, if they truly believe in the positions of their candidate of choice, might be encouraged to actively stump for their chosen one, or they'll at least make one or two appearances, probably for appearance sake. 'Yes, I really believe in so-and-so, they'll make a fine president.' Leaving on the table the future quid pro quo, of course.
It's going to be really interesting to see who stays and who goes because, by all sensible standards, O'Malley on the left should be gone by now. He's pulling just three percent of the vote. On the right, there are five candidates I can name who should, by all rights, be gone: Gilmore, Kasich, Fiorina, Bush and Santorum.
I name Bush instead of Rand Paul because Bush has the baggage of his family behind him. His father lied to us, 'Read my lips...' and his brother dragged us into a war that many said we should never have gotten into. Regardless of the legitimacy of the war, we did manage to further destabilize an already unstable region of the world. Not a good track record for that family name, and I doubt that Bush III would be much different in his policies than his brother or his father. I also look at Bush III and compare him to Bush II and Bush I and see a much weaker individual. Not what we need at this time.
I happen to like a lot of what Rand Paul stands for. Not all of it, but enough of it that I'd like to see him keep going for a while, and keep talking about things like auditing the Federal Reserve and fiscal conservatism.
As for Fiorina, I like her. I think she's smart bordering on brilliant in some respects. She's clear in her messaging, but it's just not going to fly for her given her baggage with her time at Hewlett-Packard, and I think she has a name recognition problem. Do I see her in Washington? Sure, as the head of the Department of Commerce or another cabinet position, but I'm sure Donald has other ideas (and probably better).
So, who's it going to be after the Iowa dust settles?
On the Right, I hope it's Trump because I like the idea of someone not tied to and bound by the Washington cartels. I also really like the fact that Trump has a broad background of managing and running things.
In the last days running up to the caucuses, Cruz really blew it. He stooped to one of the sleaziest and most misleading methods to get people out to the polls by stuffing Iowan's mailboxes with this:
Intimidating? Yeah, I would say so. And, at first glance, for an older voter who is easily confused or someone unsophisticated or less educated, it could really be fear inducing. Which is where the sleaze factor comes in. Engendering fear in order to garner votes is nothing less than disgusting.
Before this cheap stunt, I would have said that Cruz would be an acceptable alternative to Trump because of his hard-core conservatism. Now, with this, huh uh. No thanks. It's low, cheap, seedy, despicable... Pick your pejorative because this kind of ploy is not how politics should work. This is not a shining example for How To Win an Election. All it is is a low-down intimidating trick of the worst sort and it paints the entire right-of-center field in a bad way.
Now, going into New Hampshire, he will be dragging the baggage of in Iowa Secretary of State investigation. I'll say it again: despicable, and it smacks of desperation. It sure as heck isn't going to play well in other places as the election cycle draws on. I don't like it, and I imagine a lot of other people don't like it.
However, in listening to the talking heads across the networks last night, it seems as if this isn't the first time something like this has been done.
Apparently, Obama did it in 2008, and Rubio did it this time around. Maybe the locals are used to it. Nonetheless, it's still sleazy and underhand.
On the Left, I hope to heaven it's Bernie in Iowa. I do, really, because of that little indictment issue dangling over Hilliary's head. This would get a whole lot more interesting if Berns wins and she comes second, because it already looks like Berns is a shoo-in up in New Hampshire. That would leave the DNC with a problem. Keep pushing Hilliary with two early losses, despite that increasingly likely indictment (if she loses Iowa and New Hampshire, I do think the DNC is going to sacrifice her), or cut their losses and move in with someone else - Biden / Warren or Warren / Biden?
Now they might wait until after Nevada and South Carolina on February 20th, but if it looks like Comey is going to move, they might not.
Nonetheless, it's going to be an interesting day followed by an interesting month. Settle into your seats and hang onto your popcorn, folks. It's going to be an exciting ride!
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)