BREAKING: Slavery to be reinstated in US....and thats NOT the worst part.

Or at least it will be if the Republicans win. And no I'm not actually being hyperbolic.

So in a previous blog I kinda mentioned how the 14th amendment was really fucking over the GOP due to its contradictory stances on Abortion and Immigration. Well turns out its mostly the 14th amendment tripping them up with its pesky birthright citizenship. But it turns out republicans have a plan to fix that....and other immigration issues. and they run the gamete of bad to much much worse.

First we start with the Stupid....and as usual that would be Donald Trump

Check out this exchange with Bill O'Reilly a few weeks ago on FOX

Now I dont usually say this about Bill O'Reilly but he is right. The 14th amendment is pretty unambiguously clear on this issue.

First sentence of the 14th amendment (in case youve forgotten it from my other mentions of it in previous blogs) "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."  

There's no exceptions in there, no qualifiers, if you are born in the US you are a citizen of the US.

Which is why I highly doubt those lawyers trump is talking about actually...whats the word....exist. I expect them to be just as successful as the group he sent to Hawaii 4 years ago to find the proof Obama wasnt born there (a group that by all accounts never actually got to Hawaii because they didnt exist)

Now I'm not saying this idea is gaining traction in the Republican Party...but look who else is endorsing it. Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who went on a radio show and said

'You know, it is an open legal question whether changing birthright citizenship could be done through statute or could be done through a constitutional amendment,There are serious constitutional scholars on both sides of that argument. As a policy matter, I think it is basic common sense that we shouldn’t be incentivizing illegal immigration, that it doesn’t make sense to provide rewards for people to break the law and come here.”

Now its worth pointing out that while this may appear to just be Trump level stupid, this is actually kinda worse.

See Trump was born in New York. Ted Cruz was born in CANADA. Which is NOT part of the United States. Ted Cruz's ONLY justification to being a US citizen is inherited birthright citizenship though his mother.

In other words if we strip birthright citizenship Ted Cruz will find himself on the first INS flight back to his home country of Canada. Maybe.

Now I say maybe because the radio show Cruz was on was the Iowa based Jan Mickelson show, and Mickelson it turns out has his own plan for what should happen to all the soon to be non citizens like Senator Ted Cruz.

"as of this date, 30 to 60 days from now, anyone who is in the state of Iowa who is not here legally and who cannot demonstrate their legal status to the satisfaction of the local and state authorities here in the State of Iowa, become[s] property of the State of Iowa. And we have a job for you. And we start using compelled labor, the people who are here illegally would therefore be owned by the state and become an asset of the state rather than a liability and we start inventing jobs for them to do.”

According to Mickelson, all non citizens would become PROPERTY and forced into labor. Now as one of Mickelson's callers was quick to point out, there's another word for that: SLAVERY.

To which Mickelson said “What’s wrong with slavery?”

Well nothing except it violates the 13th amendment. But then again we now have at least two presidential candidates who believe the Consistution (specifically the 14th amendment) may not be constitutional and doesnt have to be followed, so logically why WOULD we have to follow any of the other amendments.

Like say the 1st Amendment and the freedom of the Press, which brings up back to Donald Trump.

Now you probably heard about this, but if you didnt, at a press conference this week Donald Trump had a report removed by security for daring to ask him a question about how he would implement his immigration policy.By the way, did we mention this reporter was Latino? Here watch this:

   

Now you heard the line "go back to Univision" Which is actually accurate, as that IS Univision anchor Jorge Ramos (who also happens to be the most watched Spanish speaking anchor in the country), and its likely worth noting Trump is currently suing Univision for refusing to air the Miss Universe pageant after he called all mexicans rapists a few months ago.

Donald Trumps defense as given to Matt Lauer the next day:"He stood up and started ranting and raving like a madman, and frankly, he was out of line."

I gave you the entire clip. Ramos is talking so quietly you cant actually hear what he's saying. Not exactly "ranting and screaming"...but I guess thats what happens when your brown and get "uppity" to Trump by not just nodding and agreeing with him.

By the way, it should be noted Trump's actions were actually defended by several republican members of the media,

Like say FOX New's Jesse Watters who had this to say: “I think Ramos acted like an illegal alien and got treated like one, He cut the line, was disruptive, and then was deported and then Trump let him back in. Isn’t that his policy?”

To which Co-Host Greg Gutfield responded by saying the questions Ramos should be asking is "why people are fleeing his country. Why isn’t he passionate about the corruption in the infrastructure? How come you can’t drink the water?”

Which is kinda awkward since Ramos is actually an AMERICAN. Except he's brown so he doesnt really count.

By the way, its possible (but unlikely) at this point you are asking yourself, "But hey, I'm NOT brown so what the hell do I care?

Enter Jeb Bush, who it should be noted is married to a Mexican immigrant, who became a citizen in 1979. and is smarter than Ted Cruz, in that he realizes what that means if the GOP goes after brown people.

Or at least I thought so, until he said this:

“If there’s abuse, people are bringing – pregnant women are coming in to have babies simply because they can do it, then there ought to be greater enforcement, That’s [the] legitimate side of this. Better enforcement so that you don’t have these, you know, ‘anchor babies,’ as they’re described, coming into the country.”

You know, Anchor Babies, like this one:

Jeb's Son. George P Bush, an "Anchor Baby" born 1976...3 years before his mother became a Citizen. 

Oh god, thats got to be awkward as fuck. (also by the way Jeb's daughter who is not a public official, hence I wont use her picture, was born in 1977 so also an "Anchor baby" under traditional republican definition)

Um No actually apparently its not. Because later, after realizing what he said, Jeb Bush decided to clarify his comments to remove the awkwardness:

"What I was talking about was the specific case of fraud being committed where there's organized efforts, and frankly, it's more related to Asian people coming into our country and having children in that organized effort."

Ah, that makes sense now, the rest of the GOP has it wrong, its not BROWN people that are the problem, its Asians.

Well at least thats LESS racist right? No? Maybe? Please, pretty please, for Bushes sake?

So now we have identified the problem at least, as Brown and Asian People, and come up with a solution by making them all slaves....but what about the ones who ARE here legally? what do we do about them? Enter Governor Chris Christie who said this at a campaign stop yesterday:

“At any moment, FedEx can tell you where that package is. It’s on the truck. It’s at the station. It’s on the airplane. Yet we let people come to this country with visas, and the minute they come in, we lose track of them. We need to have a system that tracks you from the moment you come in. However long your visa is, then we go get you, We tap you on the shoulder and say, ‘Excuse me. Thanks for coming. Time to go.’"

Now lest you think Christie mispoke he went on FOX News Sunday and was asked if the comments were equating people with packages, to which he said

"They're not, But what my point was, was this is once again a situation where the private sector laps us in the government with the use of technology.  Let's use the same type of technology to make sure that 40 percent of the 11 million people who are here illegally don't overstay their visas. If FedEx can do it, why can't we use the same type of technology?"

Now Fed Ex, as I sure most people know, tracks it packages by assigning each one a number and placing a barcode with that number of the package and scanning the barcode at each step to monitor its progress.

Now I got to say, something about forcing people to have a number attached to them by the government so they can be tracked sounds familiar, but I just cant place it.......

Oh wait, thats right, the HOLOCAUST

By the way, I'm not the only one who picked up on that. The interviewer, Chris Wallace got it IMMEDIATELY saying in reply to Christie.

"They don't have number, a label on their wrist"

Christie either not getting or not caring about the allusion responded with:

"No, we can do it, And we should bring in the folks from FedEx to use the technology to make sure we would be able to do it. There's nothing wrong with that, And I don't mean people are packages. So, let's not be ridiculous."

So yea the fact people dont come pre numbered wont slow us down at all. Fed Ex will show us how to number them all.  (disclaimer by the way, Fed Ex has in no way supported Christie comments or idea here....so i am in no way attempting to mock or protest them)

But give the governor SOME credit, at least he doesnt think people are packages. So I guess it could be slightly worse than just wanting to use to Nazi method of organizing undesirable people......

I would say that there is an upside here, that there is no way the GOP can say anything worse on this issue, but I've thought that before and they always manage to surprise me. And seriously if your a registered republican, I think its long past time to reconsider some of your life choices...cause I cant believe you all want to be associated with this kindof insanity.

The Brownshirts...err...Birthers ARE BACK!

So for those who are unaware, Birtherism is by far and away my favorite conspiracy theory. Which means I am THRILLED they are trying to get involved in this presidential race too.

Anyways, why are they my favorite.

Mostly because its the only conspiracy theory I've ever heard in which, using only the "logic" of the theory itself you can disprove it.

Quick summary:

According to Birthers you can ONLY be a natural born citizen if your parent was. And according to Birther's Barack Obama's mother was a natural born american from Kansas. Therefore following their own logic, Barack Obama is in fact a citizen no matter where he was born or who his father was.

Now its worth pointing out, that in attempting to get around this, the birthers believe Obama was born in Kenya and "For a person born outside the United States to be a citizen at birth, at least one parent must have lived in the United States for at least 10 years, five of those years after the age of 14" which Obama's 18 year old mother wouldnt qualify for.

Which would be a problem, if birthers didnt also contestant Obama's sire claiming it may not have been Barack Obama Sr, but was instead Frank Marshall Davis....who by the way would be a natural born american from Kansas, never left the country and would have been in his 60's when Obama was born.

Meaning that everything in that second paragraph, and all of the first paragraph except the first sentence is irrelevant, and, per their own beliefs, the Birthers are lying to you (presumably intentionally given that it is solely their own beliefs that got us the proof Obama is qualified) to manipulate you.

Now how does this play into this election?

Well it turns out the Birthers have found new targets for "ineligible" people running for President

In this case Senators Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Former Senator Rick Santorum and Governor Bobby Jindal. (who by the way are all 100% eligible to run for any office they wish according to me)

And of course as usual the logic is impeccable. Per the birthplace of birtherism, the internet Website WND:

"The question has been raised for Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal and even Rick Santorum – as it was for Barack Obama and John McCain before them – as to whether they are “natural born citizens” and thus eligible to be president of the United States."

I like how of ALL of these guys, the candidate who was crowned the hope of the GOP in 2016 literally within seconds of the polls closing in 2012 (rubio), the guy who was talked about since his election in 2012 as the new hope of the GOP (cruz), the guy who was supposed to run and win (but declined) in 2012 (Jindal) it is Rick Santorum, the guy no one ever expected to do well who merits the "even" wording...like he's the most shocking.

And you know what, maybe he is.

Here look at the four candidates:

Rick Santorum is the white one. Thats right it might not JUST be brown and black people who cant be president...we actually found a white guy this time.

"This term, which comes directly from the United States Constitution, takes some explaining. It is often misunderstood or deliberately twisted. Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution reads as follows:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The Constitution does not define the term “natural born.” But there is a pretty substantial historical record of what the Founding Fathers meant by the term. Basically, they wanted to assure that no future commander in chief would have divided loyalties.

The problem is that this definition has never fully been tested. There is no official body that determines whether a presidential candidate meets the definition. So the court challenges to Obama’s eligibility made sense."

Now actually as it turns out, there IS in fact an official body that determines eligibility, its called the Congressional Research Service, and they've been doing this for a long time (at least since the days of Barry Goldwater and George Romney), which is why all the court challenges to Obama got laughed out of court, with at least 1 birther lawyer facing criminal charges for filing. 

"Many of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention served in the first Congress, which passed the Naturalization Act of 1790.

In this act, they defined “natural born citizen” to include “children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States.”

These founders were less concerned that a child be born in the United States than that he born to two parents of undivided loyalty"

This is in fact actually true (at least the first two paragraphs). Problem is, it was replaced in 1795 (and again in 1798 and again in 1802....and all 3 of those replacement laws stripped out the part about Natural Born Citizens or any definition thereof. But yes, for a 5 year period over 200 years ago, the Birthers are correct. 

"What is clear is that a person born overseas of foreign parents, like the Austria-born Arnold Schwarzenegger, is not eligible to be president.

John McCain was born in Panama. There is no doubt that his parents were loyal citizens. His father, who would later become an admiral in the U.S. Navy, was stationed there.

Still, in 2008 McCain had to jump through all kind of hoops, including a hearing in the U.S. Senate, to confirm his eligibility."

Except, you know, McCain didnt have to do shit. thats kinda why he didnt do anything in 2000 when he ran the first time. And why he made sure it was a non-binding (IE no real force of law) resolution...so basically it wouldnt actually change anything, when he did do it in 2008. 

What McCain realized is that, there was a decent chance his opponent in 2008 (unlike 2000) would be a black man, and that there were a lot of racists (we will call them birthers) who would never accept a black or brown president but that he could totally get the ball rolling on that by pretending to get his [already confirmed by the CRS] pretend confirmed by the US senate.

Now the next 6 or so paragraphs of the article I've been quoting are re-litigating the legitimacy of Obama.....legitimacy that, as I showed above, the birther movement actually already gives him by virtue of their own beliefs, so we are going to go ahead and skip that part and get back to the new challenges to the 4 republicans. 

"The first sentence of the 14th Amendment reads as follows: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Obama supporters insist that the 14th amendment makes anyone born in the United States a natural born citizen. But the two senators who wrote this amendment felt otherwise.

They included the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” to exclude the children of foreigners who claimed allegiance to another country. Supreme Court rulings have upheld this interpretation."

Now I'm not actually sure who this article is referring to, as most people credit the writing of the 14th amendment to ONE guy, named John A. Bingham who was actually a member of the House of Representatives...which probably also explains why I cant find any Supreme Court rulings upholding the interpretation of the two fake authors....anyways

"What this means is that even if Barack Obama had been born in Hawaii his status as a “natural born citizen” is not a given.

The same question hangs over the head of the Republican governor from Louisiana, Bobby Jindal. His parents were citizens of India in the United States on visas when he was born in Baton Rouge in 1971.

No one doubts that Jindal was born in the United States, but what is not clear is where the loyalty of his parents lay and whether Jindal is a natural born citizen under the law."

I actually agree with this. My grandmother never lost her English accent until the day she died. So clearly her loyalty was to her homeland of England and not the US....so she was clearly a traitor. Granted shes dead, so theres not much we can do about it

In that same vein, I'm pretty sure her daughter (my mother) has eaten quite a few English muffins, which means she clearly inherited her mothers loyalty and not any real loyalty to the country of her birth. So she can and should totally be deported.

I'm just saying I cant honestly tell you where my own families loyalties lie. I mean we are white so I assume most birthers would say we loyal to this country but who knows.

The fact that he [Jindal] changed his name from “Piyush” to “Bobby” after a character in “The Brady Bunch” would make for interesting testimony in a potential court case.

No it really wouldnt as the presidency's of Leslie King and William Blythe have already proven. By the way, if you cant remember those presidents, see if this sounds more familiar Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton. Of if you prefer, Hiram U. Grant....who changed his name after a clerk at West Point fucked it up and gave him the wrong name and he decided he preferred the clerks mistake of Ulysses S. instead....same idea with Presidents Thomas [Woodrow] Wilson, Stephen [Grover] Cleveland, John [Calvin] Coolidge, and David [Dwight] Eisenhower.

But yes, there you have it the case against Jindal: His parents emigrated and he uses a nickname. And he's BROWN. Mostly that last one.

"Marco Rubio was born in Florida. His parents fled Cuba before Castro took power, made a few trips back during the first days of the revolution, the latest being in 1961.

Rubio was born in 1971. His parents were naturalized in 1975. Clearly, when Rubio was born, they had no other allegiance."

And theres the arguement against Rubio... his parents, who legally came here in 1956, waited a little bit before deciding to become citizens...but otherwise were here legally and never did anything suspicion. Therefore totally loyal to Castro. Also BROWN. again, mostly that last one.

"Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, in 1970. Unlike Rubio and Jindal, he was the child of a citizen, his mother, Elizabeth Wilson Cruz.

His father, Rafael, left Cuba in 1957 and has a clear track record throughout his adult life as an enemy of the Castro regime. He was naturalized in 2005.

For a person born outside the United States to be a citizen at birth, at least one parent must have lived in the United States for at least 10 years, five of those years after the age of 14.

Obama’s mother was 18 when he was born. She did not fit that definition. Ted Cruz’s mother did meet that definition."
Except not so much. According to Ted Cruz himself, on his father: “My dad asked if he could join Castro in the mountains and keep fighting,” 

Real anti Castro there.....

By the way that is the entirety of the argument against Cruz....which seems to translate roughly to:

  

Except that you know, he's BROWN...or at least partly BROWN, as his mother was white so its totally worth insinuating, but we need to stop short of actually claiming he's ineligible cause unlike the other 2 so far, he's got some white in him so we actually need to prove he can run.  

"As to Cruz, Rubio and Jindal, the courts would likely rule in favor of all three of them, Jindal’s case being the weakest and Cruz’s, despite his Canadian birth, quite possibly the strongest.

To insist at this stage that none of them is eligible is pure supposition, but one that has the full blessing of the Democratic National Committee."

So to sum up, despite publishing an article challenging their legitimacy it turns out all 3 are legitimate. And any challenge to that, like we one we just did, is really the fault of the democrats....because you know, unlike us they are the racists.

By the way, thats the end of the article and as such I'm left with one question

What the fuck happened to Rick Santorum? Remember him, the one white dude whos name you floated at the top...with the modifier "even"  because of how shocking his ineligibility was? did you just FORGET about him? or is it just because he's not BROWN that you just assumed your readers wouldnt actually need to know his eligibility and assume he is eligible?

Luckily I'm not the only one who noticed that, and the WND.com author was actually interviewed (by TPM.com) and asked that very question:

So what’s the deal with Santorum? Why would his eligibility potentially be in question?

and the answer is:

That is the weakest of the cases. Because his father was born in Italy and there’s some question as to whether his father was a citizen at the time Santorum was born. That’s a strange case. Only the purest of the constitutionalists would take up that challenge.

Wait a minute....only 1 american parent, but that makes the weakest case? as opposed to Cruz who is in exactly the same boat. Well except one of his parents was BROWN, and sanatorium's were both white.

Also I'm pretty sure, being born here to possibly not american parents is exactly the same argument that is your ENTIRE case against, Jindal and Rubio.....well again except that they are BROWN.

So to sum up:
White Guy (Santorum): weakest case to make he's not eligible
Half White guy(Cruz): Second weakest case
BROWN guy from country who's immigrants vote Republican (Rubio): third weakest case
BROWN guy from country who's immigrants dont vote Republican (Jindal): BROWN! I mean strongest case he's not really an American.

And there you have it a birther guide to determining who is or isnt eligible to be president....its all done by shades of BROWN and likelyhood of those people voting for GOP.

The 14th Amendment is destroying the GOP.

You know its taking a lot of time and thought, but I think I finally figured out what EXACTLY is wrong with the Republican Party....it's called the 14th amendment and as to its effect on the GOP....

Thats right, its tearing the GOP apart.....which is ironic given that the 14th Amendment is basically as republican as any amendment ever, having been passed by the GOP back during the civil war, in what was basically a time of single party rule (both chambers of congress being 80% republican, with a republican president (sorta, A. Johnson) and all but 2 SCOTUS members being republican appointments)

And actually its more specific than that, its the first section thats doing all the damage:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

See how damning that is?  No, alright let me explain.

So on social issues the GOP has two major fights they want to pick, immigration and abortion.

Ok so Scott Walker, Republican Presidential candidate, just weighted in on the idea of granting Birthright Citizenship, which is basically the idea that, if your born here, your automatically an american citizen.,..also known as the first sentence of the 14th amendment.

Walker was specfically asked if we should end the idea. And his answer was:
" [I]ts not right for this country, I think that’s something– yeah, absolutely, going forward,”

Now the reason for this is that removing birthright citizenship ALSO removes the idea of anchor babies/the children of illegal immigrants who are born here being american.

Now to be fair to Walker, the reason he was asked about this is because he stands FAR from alone,

In fact, just out of the GOP presidential field, Donald Trump, John Kasich, Rand Paul, Chris Christie and Lindsey Graham agree with him on this one.

 So yea, a lot of Republicans see this as a quick fix to immigration biggest problem...separating families cause the underage kids are americans and the parents arnt.

Nice easy way to solve the problem right?

Stay turned.

Then on the otherside we have those like Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rick Santorum, who believe the 14th amendment solves abortion.

So the argument here is pretty simple, the 14th amendment says you can not be denied the right to life without due process. And as life begins at conception, that applies to fetuses.

Now yes I did mock Huckabee for being a dumbass recently for claiming that protection already exists, but its worth noting some slightly more sane republicans are calling for extending the 14th amendment to include fetus, but admitting its currently not doing so,

Anyways, if the fetus is a life, and citizenship begins at life beginning/conception, abortion legally becomes murder and cant be allowed because it violates the fetuses right to life.

Seems simple enough right?

 Well now we get to the fun part


Lets consider what would happen to one issue, if the other issue won on the 14th amendment.

For example, if the 14th amendment was repealed, it would become easier to deport people.

BUT it would also make abortion basically impossible to stop on any kind of moral grounds.

After-all, we would have just removed the ONLY thing in US law that suggests EVERYONE born in the country has rights. Basically if we decide a child (who under any definition is a "living human") doesnt necessarily have the rights of citizens, explicitly including a right not to be killed, how in the hell could you argue a microscopic mass of cells has any access to those same rights? In fact you would have just made it legal to totally dismiss any evidence that that mass of cells is a "living human" as irrelevant anyways.

So yea, this would "solve" immigration for Republicans.....and cost them abortion.

But maybe it works better the other way around right? not so much.

Ok so we extend the 14th amendment to Fetuses.

The good news for Republicans, abortion is pretty much illegal.

The bad news: anchor sex.

Ok so one of the main gripes against illegals by the by the GOP is the idea of "anchor babies". These being children born to illegals but in the united states, thereby making the children Americans (who can not be deported as they are in their country of origin) who shouldn't be separated from their parents.....thereby making the whole family less likely to be deported.

Now imagine that same situation....but instead of needing to sneak into the country and stay long enough for the child to be born (likely 6-9 months as it gets harder to illegally cross later in pregnancy due to health concerns) it takes 1 night.

Because as long the conception took place in the good ol' USA....that kids an American if we decry citizenship beings at conception.

Oh and here's the other thing, nothing illegal has to happen either for a foreign national to have an american baby.

Now say a Turkish couple (just picked country at random), are on vacation to say Disney World (one of the most visited places in the world and about 25% of their visitors are international so a very likely possibility). And of course these Turks likely have perfectly valid american tourist visas.

And then they fuck....and nine months later have a baby back in turkey. Well that baby is all american...cause he was conceived here. And nothing illegal happened. But we now have an underage american citizen entitled to visit his homeland....and of course he's gonna need adult supervision.

So welcome Momma and Poppa Turk....I guess your going to be here soon too.

So yea, expanding the 14th amendment will kill abortion.....and any chance in hell of "protecting" our borders, since there are going to be a fuck ton more foreign born Americans running around....all of whom by the way, will be capable of popping out little Americans of their own when they come of age.

But hey, on the bright side, it wont take all that long for the entire world to see this as their national anthem:

So yea, there you have it. The most republican amendment in america...which needs to be expanded/eliminated to save America from its two major social issues....at least according to the party that came up with the amendment in the first place.....

No wonder these guys have such a hard time sounding reasonable.....their solutions are all contradictory.

 

These are the voyages of the Starship Asinine....... (This month in stupid)

So while I've been busy rating flags, and evaluating the president debate, the great flood of stupid has continued unabated. What I'm getting at is that its time for another installment of "this week in stupid  (give or take 7 weeks)"

Anyways leading off the pack this time is Former Alaska Gove Sarah Palin (yes I know Gove isnt the shortened form of Governor but it is exactly half the word....hopefully now you get it) who had a suggestion for California Gov. Jerry Brown on how to deal with the drought affecting his state:

"You might ask, though, why don’t they just fix the infrastructure problem, why don’t they just build more reservoirs and plants? After all, California is a coastal state. It’s got a whole ocean right there, water all around ya"

Now Alaska's most avid reader is correct, you MIGHT ask that question.....if you know you hadnt passed the 2nd grade. Cause the rest of us know that reservoirs dont come pre filled. If you dont have any water, digging a hole to put it in doesnt really help you.

Or perhaps the Russia-watcher thinks you can drink ocean water. Which actually would explain a lot.

Again for those of you who havnt passed second grade, Ocean water is Salt water, humans need to drink freshwater. In fact Salt water is so bad for humans that too much of it will kill you. Before it kills you however it can also cause massive brain trauma by decreasing blood flow to the brain.

Now I dont want to speculate here, but Alaska has the longest coastline in the US, and its all saltwater....and Mrs. Palin has spent considerable time standing on the states island outskirts looking for a rouge soviet. Presumably she got thirsty at some point and tried to drink alot of the closest water source......

Moving on,

Si Robertson, one of the stars of Duck Dynasty, who was asked about his opinions on religion and offered up this Gem:

"I don’t believe — there's no such thing as an atheist Because there's too much documentation. Our calendars are based on Jesus Christ."

"Whether you believe in Him or not, every time you sign your calendar, you write down the day's date, you're saying He's here,"

First off, who the fuck signs a calendar? Like seriously, I dont need to self autograph something that hangs in my kitchen.

Secondly there's the idea the calendar is based on Jesus Christ.....which is kinda weird since the modern Gregorian Calendar was first introduced in 1582.....which for those keeping track at home is about 90 years after Columbus sailed the ocean blue....forget about Jesus. And that calendar didnt gain universal western usage until 1914 (when it was adopted by the Russians) Heck it wasnt even used in the British Empire until 1752. Which it late enough that if you asked guys like Washington, John Adams, John Jay, Jefferson, Sam Adams, Franklin or John Hancock when their birthday's were they would give you more than one answer.

And as to today's date, it would be August 16th. August (like all the months) dates back to the Julian Calendar, which was first created in 45BC.....so yea, we missed Jesus again. and the Month itself was named after Augustus Caesar.

Now I know what your thinking, shouldnt this guy get some credit for the year at least 2015 AD should be 2015 years after Jesus. Except not so much as research (by the churches) suggest that Jesus was likely born around 7BC. Oops....

Next up Maine Gov. Paul LePage.

Ok so back in early July a story broke that LePage was trying to pocket veto a law his disagreed with.

For those who dont know the term, a pocket veto is when the executive branch Veto's a bill by refusing to take action (sign or veto) on it for X number of days (in Maine's case 10) BUT this can only happen if the legislative branch is out of session. Otherwise a refusal to take action on a bill means it is considered passed and law.

Problem for LePage was that his legislature wasnt out of session. Oops.

But actually thats not the end of the story. See turned out that bill wound up being 1 of 19 bills LePage was trying to (and failed too ) pocket Veto because he didnt understand the law of his own government.

BUT WAIT, there's more. When it was first pointed out to LePage he might be wrong about this, he decided to double down on his position by opting to attempt to Pocket veto more laws....to a grand total of 65.

So LePage decided to take his case to the supreme court of Maine.....who ruled unanimously against him.

Meaning that 65 bills this guy opposed became law because he was too stupid to understand how a pocket veto works.......

Speaking of Governors who dont understand their own states laws, we turn to Governor and pretend presidential candidate (by which I mean I have a better chance of being president than he does, and I'm not actually eligible this election) Bobby Jindal.

So following the fall of the confederate battle flag, pressure has ramped up to take down other confederate symbols as well. Namely for this case 4 monuments in Jindals state of Louisiana.

So Jindal invoked his states Heritage Act to protect the monuments.

Now normally this is the part where I would show you the relevant passages of the Act, how it defines Heritage and how the monuments are or are not covered......but this time I cant.

Not because I'm trying to be misleading, or partisan or what have you....I cant do it because there is no such thing as the Heritage Act in Louisiana.

Now to be fair, there is one in South Carolina, that requires a 2/3rds vote of the state legislature to remove or alter any confederate memorials...but nothing in Louisiana.

yea, it seems Gov Jindal kinda forgot what state he lived in, and/or what laws actually apply to his state. Which means I personally cant wait to see him campaign in his home state of New Maryland err I mean South Georgia....no wait West Iowa.....


Speaking of Republicans running for President as a joke...our winner this time out, winning both for quantity of stupid comments AND the quality of stupid comments: Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Alright so first Huckabee said this:"This president's foreign policy is the most feckless in American history. It is so naive that he would trust the Iranians, By doing so, he will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven."

Oh look a Holocaust Reference....these NEVER go over well. Goes over a little worse when your comparison is that "stopping Iran from getting a nuke they could use to mass murder jews is the same as mass murdering jews"

But like most of our stories IT DIDNT STOP THERE

We called on his odd analogy Huckabee had this to say:

“When I talked about the oven door, I have stood at that oven door. I know exactly what it looks like.”

Um......oh boy.

So for those who dont know, Huckabee is Southern Baptist, who was born in 1955. I mention this because the last Nazi death camp was shut down January 27, 1945, having killed a total of ZERO Southern Baptists.

Meaning its highly unlikely that Huckabee was any near those oven doors when that might actually have been....you know....a threat........

Look I'm just saying, I've seen pictures of whipped slaves, but that doesnt mean I can say I saw the savages of slavery X number of times and know exactly what they look like......

To be fair to Huckabee though, this isnt even remotely close to the first time he's compared something to the holocaust. Take for example this comment from November of last year about Abortion:

“If you felt something incredibly powerful at Auschwitz and Birkenau over the 11 million killed worldwide and the 1.5 million killed on those grounds, cannot we feel something extraordinary about 55 million murdered in our own country in the wombs of their mothers?”


I mention this because the day making his Oven Comment Huckabee was asked about abortion, specifically if he would use federal forces, like say the FBI and the National Guard to prevent people from getting legal abortions. His response.:

“We’ll see, if I get to be president”

Which he followed up by pointing to a previous decision in which he claimed a president had decided to overrule a supreme court decision via use of federal forces....Abraham Lincoln and the Dred Scott Decision, and the use of federal forces being what most of us call the Civil War......

But wait, as per usual today THERE'S MORE.

So earlier today, Huckabee was asked about a 10 year old rape victim who was forced by her government (Paraguay) to birth her rapists child.....despite the much higher health risks to both mother and daughter (including potential death for either or both). And well it turns out, thats how he would have handled it too.

So to sum up, According to Gov Huckabee:

Making a deal to prevent a ton of people (most of them likely jewish) from being killed (by a nuke)= Holocaust

Using state power to prohibit a sub section of citizens (women in this case) from exercising their legal rights (abortion), to the point of using potential military force (national guard/the lincoln civil war comparison) even in situation is which stopping them might lead to lasting psychological damage and possible death = Nothing like the Holocaust.


So yea, congratulations Gov Huckabee for being the stupidest person of the month (only because this blog doesn't count all time)

Also congratulations to Donald Trump, as it turns out you are in fact only the SECOND most dangerously stupid person running for President.......

How the GOP field looks after Debate 1.

So I did the highlights yesterday, but the question I didnt really answer is whose outlook coming out of the debate looks brightest.  The way this works, I'm going to start with the Candidate I think has the bleakest future and move up. However after each number showing the candidates present prospects, I will also list a second number in () after the name, which is the "number" based on the polls going into the debate. So for example #1 Clinton, (10) would mean the candidate (Clinton in this fictional case) who currently looks the best, came in to the debate with the worst support in the polls. Anyways, with the explanations out of the way, here we go.

#10, Chris Christie (#9).

Yea so Christie entered the debate barely treading water as it was, and well turned in a natural disaster of a debate performance. His only memorable performance came when Rand Paul verbally bitch smacked the hell out of him over warrantless surveillance, which Christie claimed he understood the vital need for better Paul, having been appointed US attorney for the District of NJ the day before 9/11....which sounds good maybe, but isnt in fact true.

Also when taunted by Paul for hugging President Obama, Christie once again tried to pull from the 9/11 well with the extremely odd line of

"Senator Paul, you know, the hugs that I remember are the hugs that I gave to the families who lost their people on September 11th. Those are the hugs I remember, and those had nothing to do — and those had nothing to do with politics"

With that, I think we can all safely hug Christie good bye, I dont expect to see him at the next debate, he will instead likely be replaced by someone from the "undercard debate"


#9 Dr. Ben Carson (#5).

So originally Carson was supposed to be this elections Herman Cain, the poltical outsider who is supposed smart but comes off as a political moron......and he was getting some support with that too (as Cain did in 2008), at least until Donald Trump came in and out "Cain'ed" Carson. And sadly for the good doctor nothing in his debate performance looks like thats going to chance. In his first chance to speak, the good Doctor decided to duck a question about "is he stupid"? Now I'm not political expert, but seems to me if you cant come up with an answer to "are you dumb?" you are way way way way way over your head.  And I half expect Carson agrees with me, given that his closing argument half focused on how cool it was to be a brain surgeon.

Still, Doc Carson is another candidate that I expect we have heard the last of....and unlike Christie and Huckabee, who i expect to fight on long after hope has passed, I expect the Doc will be the first of the 17 to drop out.


#8 Marco Rubio (#7).

So how did Marco Rubio do in this debate? well first he gave Hilary Clinton the soundbite that will run in every single one of her general elections ads, claiming that he believed her to be the most experienced and on paper qualified candidate, then he ducked a question on if he supports abortion exceptions for rape and incest.

A duck made much worse by two facts. Namely that, Rubio DOES in fact support those exceptions (and has sponsored legislation that says as much), and that (according to polls as recent as last week) 76% of republicans AGREE with him on that.

Which means Rubio lacked the balls to support a position that he, and the vast majority of his party support. Which probably also means you just saw him duck out of the race (its a good thing the GOP has a deep bench of undercard candidates :P )

#7 Mike Huckabee (#4)

So Mike Huckabee has a master plan for overturning the Roe v Wade, and it hinges on people being unable to read 3 words into the 14th amendment (in which rights attach at birth). He also admits that Social Security is failing because we dont tax capitol gains to pay for it.......which could be solved by taxing some of the people who make the most capitol gains.....whores. Finally he also added that Obama was stealing 700 million dollars from Social Security to pay for Obamacare, which was untrue to the point of being named the "lie of year" by multiple fact checking organizations when Mitt Romney made that up in the last election.

His only saving grace is that the average republican primary voter is too uninformed and/or stupid to know any of that, so he will likely be back for the next couple debates, but I cant see anyone getting behind him with serious money after the debate, so while he may stagger on, I think what little chance he had is already over.

#6 Ted Cruz. (#6)

So there was a debate, and Ted Cruz was there. And thats really all I got. Dude basically didnt get any chance to talk, and I honestly forgot he was there a few times. But as he didnt do anything to hurt himself (or get the chance to), or help himself I guess I have to give him this spot since it doesnt fit anyone else.

#5 Scott Walker (#3)

So the upside for Gov Walker is that he avoided saying anything too stupid. The downside for him was that he ducked every single question on his record, and his only defense is that he was elected 3 times in 4 years...which is going to look bad if he ever gains enough traction for people to care about the fact over a half dozen of his top aides have been convicted of breaking the law to help him steal those elections.

Still since that downside hasnt happened yet, I have to stick him here, mostly, like Cruz, for seceding at not self destructing, but failing to do anything to make himself known.

#4 Rand Paul (#8)

Rand Paul was also at this debate. I know this because pretty early on, he attacked Donald Trump as being in the Clinton's pocket, then as previously mentioned, he bitch smacked Chris Christe. However the fact that he didnt do or say much of anything of any importance after hurts him a bit. Still effectively ending another candidates chance has to get you some kind of gain, and he did better because of that then the 2 below him

#3 Jeb Bush (#2)

Well one things for sure, he earned the name Jeb....whatever the fuck that means. but honestly excusing that one odd statement Jeb didnt say anything instantly noticeable as bad. However should commoncore get more attention, and people realize what the program is, his trying to have it both ways answer here will hurt him.

In short, Jeb tried to make it look like he opposed Common Core (opposing federal involvement in education) in favor of a state based approach....without ever mentioning that Common Core IS a state based approach. It was by far the best "polticked" answer of the debate, but trying to walk that tightrope for much longer may have people think the name he earned wasnt Jeb...but Mitt

#2 John Kasich (#10)

So yea, basically the more I think about it, the more I think this guy won the debate. Now why isnt he number 1? i'll get into that with my number 1 pick, but for now I have to applaud this guy.

So right out the box the moderators tried to trip him up over his decision to expand medicaid (which the GOP opposes) he not only had to balls to defend, he envoked Reagan's expansions of it while doing so. Point Kasich.   Then the moderators pretty outright asked him to pick a fight with Trump, he declined, dismissed Trump in the most respectful and complimentary way, and made his pitch on having balanced the budget while running the House Budget committee in the Clinton years.   he repeated the act when the Moderators tried to get him to attack Clinton.

Finally he navigated the "minefield"  of gay marriage, stating his personal opposition, but support of the law allowing for it, support of any gay family he might have and his willingness to go to and prior attendance at gay marriages....which was capped off by cheers from the crowd, basically making him unassailable on this position by anyone again (an attack from the right, demanding he come out against the laws would make the attacker look like a bigot, an attack from the left demanding he change his personal opinion looks like the thought police).

So yea, in terms of proving he can handle thr big questions, hang with the big boys, appear conservative and court moderates...John Kasich was your big winner

#1 Donald Trump (#1)

So why isnt Kasich set up the best coming out of the first deabate? Because Republicans LOVE their crazy, and this early on they LOVE their anti establishment candidate. So this debate was AMAZING for trump.

Think about it, he got attacked by the moderators, and the moderators tried to get other candidates to attack him. He didnt say anything any more stupid than he normally does, and he was seen as smacking down the moderators at the same time. His post debate twitter rant against the "menstruating and hormonal" megyn kelly only helped him even more as the establishment has scrambled to get as far away from him as possible.

And he even said he was open to the idea of running 3rd party, if you know, he didnt win, which is the pipe dream for the far right wackjob faction who supports him.

Now of course, the common wisdom is correct here, Trump has no future and at some point will flame out fast and hard. Thing is, its a 17 person race, so his wingnut faction holds a plurality at this point, assuring he will stay at the top for a long while.

Once other candidates drop out though, and their supporters coagulate around a smaller batch of other options, the non nutjobs will make a plurality for someone else, Trump will hit the wall and vanish. But thats not going to happen for a long time.

And that will be the MAJOR problem for the republicans going forward. As long as Trump is around he himself is a momentum killing wall for any of his 16 rivals. None of them can get any steam or airtime as trump goes around finding new groups to insult. He's already gone after Blacks, Hispanics, and now Women.....3 groups without, at least some of, the Republicans CAN NOT WIN.

And those attacks get the attention, and even once the attacks fade, the story becomes the perception of a weak feckless ineffective RNC that can not rid themselves of a nut job, and the perception that the entire party must be racist sexists bigots like Trump, the frontrunner.

So yea, the longer Trump is around the more momentum he will take from whoever will eventually be the nominee, the weaker and more bigoted the party looks.

But hey, at least he came out on top in the debate right?    

The not first, "First" GOP debate highlight reel

So a couple of days ago we had the First Republican National Primary Debate at 9pm.

Except of course it WASNT actually the first debate at all, it was the second.

The first debate was actually held a few hours before at 5pm, but because we are using Republican math (in which pretty infamously if youve ever read one of their budgets, numbers dont actually have meaning and are usually made up) we collectively decided the first debate doesnt actually count.

Now originally the idea behind splitting the debates was that only the serious candidates who had a chance to win would be in the 9pm debate, and all the crazy people would be in the 5pm one.

However whoever set this up decided to use polling to determine who was considered crazy and who has a chance to win.....which is a problem as the Republican base LOVES crazy.

This is how the first debate (the one that didnt "count") ended up featuring the three republicans who are likely the most aligned with mainstream america (Gov Pataki, Gov Gilmore and Senator Graham), 2 people previously anointed savoir of the republican party (Gov Perry, Gov Jundal) and the runner up last time (Senator Santorum) and only one really "crazy unproven candidate" (Carly Fiorina)  

Compared to the second debate of allegedly electable republicans.....in which 20% of the debaters had no political experience at all (Carson, Trump), another 20% face a year of stories in which their top aides are going to prison for corruption and fraud (Walker, Christie), another 20% are dogged by allegations of racism (Paul, Huckabee) and the remaining four consist of a guy no one has heard of (Kasich), a senator likely more hated by his own party then by Democrats (Cruz), the brother of a previous and unliked president who also may have been a war criminal (Bush) and this guy:

So yea, way to go with the whole "keeping national attention focused only on the electable candidates" there Republicans......

So yea as you might expect the First [Second] Republican Debate featuring the serious candidates* [*serious candidates not included] had a ton of great moments.....assuming your a democrat.

You could actually tell the debate was going to be off to a good start when the first question started this way:

"Gentlemen, we know how much you love hand-raising questions. So we promise, this is the only one tonight: the only one[...]"

Because the first thing you want to do right out of the box is remind people about this PR disaster from 4 years ago, that dogged the republicans ALL the way to election day:

So yes, having successfully reminded people, less than a minute into the debate, that the Republican Party is insane and shouldnt be taken seriously, before even finishing the question, lets move on to the next highlight:

Moderator: Gentlemen, our first round of questions is on the subject of electability in the general election, and we start tonight with you, Dr. Carson.

You are a successful neurosurgeon, but you admit that you have had to study up on foreign policy, saying there’s a lot to learn.

Your critics say that your inexperience shows. You’ve suggested that the Baltic States are not a part of NATO, just months ago you were unfamiliar with the major political parties and government in Israel, and domestically, you thought Alan Greenspan had been treasury secretary instead of federal reserve chair.

Aren’t these basic mistakes, and don’t they raise legitimate questions about whether you are ready to be president?"

This is in fact the SECOND round of questions (the first being the hand raising question)....but again its republican numbering so hey..... Anyways how did the good doctor respond?

"CARSON: Well, I could take issue with — with all of those things, but we don’t have time.

But I will say, we have a debate here tonight, and we will have an opportunity to explore those areas, and I’m looking very much forward to demonstrating that, in fact, the thing that is probably most important is having a brain, and to be able to figure things out and learn things very rapidly." 

Translation: "I could take issue with the idea I'm a moron, and prove I'm not, but we dont have time to do that in only two hours

That said I look forward to proving the most important thing in running for president is proving you have a brain.....which I already said would take too long for me to do."

By the way Dr. Carson was not the only one who had difficulty proving he had a functioning brain that night as Marco Rubio quickly one uped him in the "criminally stupid comment" department just moments later when he included this in an answer:

"Rubio: I would add to that that this election cannot be a resume competition. It’s important to be qualified, but if this election is a resume competition, then Hillary Clinton’s gonna be the next president, because she’s been in office and in government longer than anybody else running here tonight."

Translation: "Dear America, if you want the most qualified and experienced candidate vote for the democrat, if you want an unqualified moron, vote for us"

By the way expect to see that statement by Rubio in pretty much every single one of Hilary campaign ads from not to election day

Theres an additional level of stupid here too, in that Rubio is actually WRONG.

Ok so, Hilary was a US senator for 8 years, and then Secretary of State for 4. So thats a grand total of 12 years of being in some kind of political office.

Now I could point to Scott Walker, who was first elected in 1993 (to the state assembly), and has served in political office ever since, so he ties Mrs. Clintons record.

Or I could point to John Kasich, who was first elected in 1979 (state senate) and with the exception of a single year, served in office until 2001, then again since 2011, for a Clinton crushing total of 24 years.

But I think I would rather just point to Marco Rubio himself. Like Walker and Clinton, Rubio has been in elected office for 12 years......

Meaning Marco Rubio by his own standards should be just as qualified as Clinton based on length of service.....Except apprently even Marco Rubio understands no one wants to elect Marco Rubio, so fuck it he might as well endorse the Democrats since they will win anyways.

Moving on to the next awkward high light we come to Bush, Jeb Bush, who at one point said this:

"I’ve got a record in Florida. I’m proud of my dad, and I’m certainly proud of my brother. In Florida, they called me Jeb, because I earned it."

The fuck does that even mean? that you earned being called Jeb? thats your name you fucking moron.

Unless what you mean is they called you Jeb to avoid calling you Bush....you know to distance your self from the massive failures and baggage of your family (your brother mostly), which is kinda interesting because that seems to suggest that even you think the only chance you have to win is for Americans to forget who you are.....

Finally, after about an hour we reached the Social issues portion of the debate....which only lasted about 15 minutes...which is kinda telling, but hey at least the GOP clearly knows their weaknesses.....well except Mike Huckabee it seems. he gave this answer to a question about planned parenthood, which he turned into a question about abortion:

"A lot of people are talking about defunding planned parenthood, as if that’s a huge game changer. I think it’s time to do something even more bold. I think the next president ought to invoke the Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the constitution now that we clearly know that that baby inside the mother’s womb is a person at the moment of conception.The reason we know that it is is because of the DNA schedule that we now have clear scientific evidence on. And, this notion that we just continue to ignore the personhood of the individual is a violation of that unborn child’s Fifth and 14th Amendment rights for due process and equal protection under the law. "

So the reason no other president has invoked the 14th and 5th amendment is because they have an ability Huckabee apparently lacks, they learned to read.

Specifically the 14th amendment in which reads as follows:

' All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Presumably the part they can read is the FIRST 3 WORDS, which specify Birth as one of the ways for these rights to attach.

Huckabee I guess gave up after the 2nd word......its was just too taxing for his tiny brain to keep going.

Next up, we get to foreign policy and Senator Ted Cruz:

Moderator:"[...]How would you destroy ISIS in 90 days?

CRUZ: Megyn, we need a commander in chief that speaks the truth. We will not defeat radical Islamic terrorism so long as we have a president unwilling to utter the words, “radical Islamic terrorism”.

When I asked General Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs, what would be required militarily to destroy ISIS, he said there is no military solution. We need to change the conditions on the ground so that young men are not in poverty and susceptible to radicalization. That, with all due respect, is nonsense.

It’s the same answer the State Department gave that we need to give them jobs. What we need is a commander in chief that makes — clear, if you join ISIS, if you wage jihad on America, then you are signing your death warrant. "

Changing things so people dont want to kill us? fuck that shit. What we really need is a magic phrase to call on, just saying that will give us massive powers just like this:

See what happens when your willing to yell out the right magic words....Unlike Obama.

Speaking of Obama, on to the achievement the GOP stupidly managed to get named after him in common parlance, assuring forever Obama will have a spot in the top 5 american presidents (as long as it works) Obamacare.

Moderator: Gentlemen, the next series of questions deals with ObamaCare and the role of the federal government.

Mr. Trump, ObamaCare is one of the things you call a disaster. [...]Saying it needs to be repealed and replaced. [...] Now, 15 years ago, uncalled yourself a liberal on health care. You were for a single-payer system, a Canadian-style system.

Why were you for that then and why aren’t you for it now?

TRUMP: First of all, I’d like to just go back to one. In July of 2004, I came out strongly against the war with Iraq, because it was going to destabilize the Middle East. And I’m the only one on this stage that knew that and had the vision to say it. And that’s exactly what happened.

Translation: "Um damn it. Can we just not talk about my flip flops that would be cool right? lets instead talk about how ahead of the curve I was in opposing starting a war in Iraq.  I was SO in the loop on that one, I came out against starting the war 15 months after it had already started. See how smart I am, I totally called that one after the fact....."

Speaking Obamacare and other similar programs, we turn now to the entitlements part of the debate, and the single shocking moment of sanity thus far, coming from of all people Mike Huckabee

"Well, you ask about how we fund it. One of the reasons that Social Security is in so much trouble is that the only funding stream comes from people who get a wage. The people who get wages is declining dramatically. Most of the income in this country is made by people at the top who get dividends and — and capital gains."

I actually DONT have a joke here. I'm thrilled at least one republican is willing to admit the problem here....that we dont tax the ways the richest people in this country make money, which forces the bottom to pay for many of the benefits the top gets.

perhaps Mr. Huckabee has a solution for how he's going to fix this?

"The Fair Tax transforms the process by which we fund Social Security and Medicare because the money paid in consumption is paid by everybody, including illegals, prostitutes, pimps, drug dealers, all the people that are freeloading off the system now,"

Aw fuck, god damn it, you were THIS CLOSE, THIS FUCKING CLOSE TO ACTUALLY HAVING A GOOD IDEA AND A GOOD PLAN. Then you have to go and mention taxing Pimps and Prostitutes, as a solution for not taxing the rich enough, instead of you know taxing the rich.

Either that or you think Prostitutes make most of their money through investments and capital gains, which suggests a shocking lack of understanding of what exactly prostitutes do for a living.....

Anyways following Huckabee's shocking admission he doesnt know what the worlds oldest profession is actually all about, the debate pivoted to its second and final 10 minutes on social issues, just enough time to prove the Huck doesnt stand alone on abortion stupid, he has company, starting with Donald Trump who was asked:

"Mr. Trump, in 1999, you said you were, quote, “very pro- choice.” Even supporting partial-birth abortion. You favored an assault weapons ban as well. In 2004, you said in most cases you identified as a Democrat. Even in this campaign, your critics say you often sound more like a Democrat than a Republican, calling several of your opponents on the stage things like clowns and puppets. When did you actually become a Republican?

TRUMP: I don’t think they like me very much. I’ll tell you what. I’ve evolved on many issues over the years. And you know who else has? Is Ronald Reagan evolved on many issues.

And I am pro-life. And if you look at the question, I was in business. They asked me a question as to pro-life or choice. And I said if you let it run, that I hate the concept of abortion. I hate the concept of abortion. And then since then, I’ve very much evolved.

And what happened is friends of mine years ago were going to have a child, and it was going to be aborted. And it wasn’t aborted. And that child today is a total superstar, a great, great child. And I saw that. And I saw other instances.

And I am very, very proud to say that I am pro-life." 

So, according to Donald Trump his view on abortion changed when he discovered Fetuses could become people. Apprently he was unaware of the connection between fetuses and people until some point after 2004. Which means that Trump, who would have been 58 in 2004, apparently was into his SIXTIES before he learned that storks dont pluck babies out of cabbage patches and leave them on your door step.

By the way, I teach 3 year olds for a living, and even they realize that they were in mommy's "belly" at some point.....which puts their understanding at least 6 decades ahead of a man running for president of the United States.

By the way, at this point in the debate we are minutes away from the end, and you may have noticed a lot of names havnt come up that often so far.....and your not alone, as this amusing exchange occurred following a question on national security

"Moderator: Governor [Christie], thank you.

Ted Cruz: Brett, can I — Brett, can I jump in on this one?

Moderator: Senator, we’re going to finish up with some more questions, thank you."
Now Ted Cruz actually had a point here to his interruption, in the debate, which had gone almost 2 hours at this point, he had been called on exactly 3 times. So he was you know, actually trying to participate.....only to be told by the moderator to sit down and shut the fuck up, dont you know this debate is suppose to focus on those who might actually be able to win....and Donald Trump.

Seriously, I dont actually recall another debate in which a candidate had to make justified call for attention....and then get shot down by the moderator. But I guess thats one way to try to stop the shit show from going off the rails anymore than it already had.....

Anyways we return to the Debate, and the last question, which went a little something like this:

"In our final moments here together, we’re going to allow the candidates to offer their final thoughts. But first, we want to ask them an interesting closing question from Chase Norton on Facebook, who wants to know this of the candidates: “I want to know if any of them have received a word from God on what they should do and take care of first.”"

Translation: "Dear Republican Candidates, are you actually fucking crazy enough to think God talks to you directly?"

Or to put it another way, does this song apply to any of you guys?

Now to be fair (and as a good sign to be honest) all the candidates said no to the whole "direct pipeline to God thing" but that didnt stop at least one of them from tripping up, Senator Rubio the floor is yours:

"Well, first, let me say I think God has blessed us. He has blessed the Republican Party with some very good candidates. The Democrats can’t even find one."

Which is a little weird coming from the same guy who like an hour ago suggested that if you wanted to vote for the most qualified candidate in the race you should vote for Hilary Clinton.

So he either forgot while standing on the stage who's running for president, or he doesnt know Hilary's a Democrat....I just hope his aid's are standing by with a mp3 he can listen too on a loop reminding him to breath...you know just in case he forgets that too.

And then, finally at long last, we moved on to the closing statements....which to be honest were pretty unremarkable....except for the moderator's of all people who's "closing statement" might be worth mentioning:

"Are you relieved? You were nervous before, they — they don’t look relieved. They look “get me outta here. Thank you all very much, and that will do it for the first Republican primary debate night of the 2016 presidential race. Our thanks to the candidates, who will now be joined by their families on stage.”

Translation: Ladies and genlemen your so called "serious republican candidates" all of whom look like the want to run away and hide, having realized they all collectively made asses of themselves. But hey we will see you next time, when they can do it all over again and dig those holes even deeper.

 By the way, for my more curious readers, you may have noticed the lack of commentary on Walker, Paul, Christie and Kasich in these highlights. Thats because none of these guys really said anything that matters.....except for Christie who lied about being appointed attorney general the day before 9/11, but thats getting enough attention on its own that I didnt want to go off on a tangent about it here.

Of course in a contest like this, in which the idea is to avoid being the lowest common denominator, having not made the high light reel is likely a good sign. Which means I suppose I have to declare the winners of First/Not first Republican debate to be Rand Paul, Scott Walker and John Kasich.....but thats only because I dont want to confuse Marco Rubio anymore than he is by naming the real winner, Hilary Clinton, who now has conclusive proof she only really has to win the Democratic Primary this time to be a sure thing as president. (granted I dont expect her to win that primary, but President Sanders does have a nice ring to it)