Sieg Heil: Americans new major political party.

So basically ever since the emergence of the Tea Party, I've been expecting the fall of the Republican Party, as they are basically tearing themselves to sheds. And I figured some other party would rise up to replace them...possibly while still using the same name.

I just never expected that party to be the American Nazi Party.......

Yet, if the Republicans are to be believed, they actually think the Nazi's had the right idea.....and they have for some time now. And no its not just a group of fringe wackjobs, its a good chuck of their president field.

Ok so I mentioned a while back about how radio talk show host Jan Mickelson wants to enslave brown people. And Ted Cruz wants to retroactively strip them of their citizenship. Trump Wants to censor the media, and Chris Christie wants to force all immigrants to this country (including legal ones) to wear some kind of tracking device....a move straight out of the playbook of the third reich.

What I didnt know at the time, is we barely scratched the surface. Turns out the Nazi's are back and even stronger than I realized.

We start small, with State Representative Tony Dale (R) who sent a letter to his govenor asking his govenor to keep Syrian refugees out of Texas, because Texas' laws would allow these refugees to do things like buy a gun or even "they could board a plane legally in the United States".

Now Rep Dale is not shockingly a huge proponent of gun rights.....except apparently to members of a specific religious or enthic group. If this sounds familiar, its because it is. The Nazi's loosened gun restrictions for all German's....with the exception of the Jews.

And of course, the Nazi's also feared Jews moving around...hence the ghettos and camps.

By the way it should be noted, Dale's Governor, Gregg Abbott did say his state wont accept any Syrian Refugees based on these grounds:

"[The federal government] do not have the capability to distinguish between those refugees who can pose as terrorist, and those who may be innocent, and until the United States develops that capability it is essential that we do first things first, and that is and that is to keep the people of the state of Texas safe,"

Abbotts not alone in this, 30 other governors (all but 1 republican) have said similar things for similar reasons. Now while its true none of them have any legal power to do anything about it, this is still suggesting that members of a specific ethnicity be considered inherently dangerous and contained until "proven" otherwise.  Again this should sound familiar.....Sieg Heil.

Oh and its not just Texas either. Rhode Island state Sen. Elaine Morgan (R) has said:

"[t]he Muslim religion and philosophy is to murder, rape, and decapitate anyone is a non Muslim.
If the U.S. does "take these people in, "we should set up refugee camp to keep them segregated from our populous [sic]. We have veterans in the streets starving, alcoholics, drug addicts. I can see taking [Syrian refugees] in, but keeping them all centralized – it sounds a little barbaric, but we need to centralize them and keep them in one central area.”

Yes, it is barbaric...points for honesty. In fact its so barbaric that this is exactly the same idea and justification used to set up the first concentration camps (not yet death camaps) in Nazi Germany.......Sieg Heil.

Now again, this probably all seems bush league at this point...so lets kick it into high gear.

Republican presidential candidate John Kasich recently floated an idea that we needed a "new agency that has a clear mandate to promote the core Judeo-Christian values that we and our friends and allies share"

Sounds an awful lot like a Ministry of Propaganda....propaganda that apparently is based on religion...except 1, which is "threatening". Why does this sound familiar? 

Joseph Goebbels. Minister of Propaganda.

Oh yea.....thats it. Sieg Heil.

Actually to be fair to Kasich, he did walk this idea back the next day...so maybe I misjudged him?

Probably not actually, since hes one of those 31 governors who wants to block Syrians from entering his state. Or as he put it:

“Look, I can’t let people into the state when it could jeopardize people’s security. I don’t feel that there’s any conflict at all between having a big heart and a good brain and having to be a leader of a state where I don’t want people to be in danger"

Oh by the way, speaking of members of those 31 governors running for president: we are back to the originator of using the Nazi's as a policy blueprint, Gov Chris Christie:

Chrisite was on right wing talk show host Hugh Hewitt's radio show Monday and was asked about taking in a specific group of Syrian Refugees....orphans under 5. His anwser?:

You know, Hugh, we can come up with 18 different scenarios. The fact is that we need appropriate vetting, and I don’t think orphans under five are being, you know, should be admitted into the United States at this point. But you know, they have no family here. How are we going to care for these folks? The fact is you can come up with a number of different scenarios, Hugh. But in the end, I don’t trust this administration to effectively vet the people that they’re asking us to take in. We need to put the safety and security of the American people first."

So Syrian's are born inherently evil and dangerous, hence why we cant even take in the children? Goebbels would be proud.

Christie and Kasich arnt along in this by the way. Carly Fiorina agrees as well :

"Secondly: of course we are a compassionate people, but the vast majority of refugees leaving Syria are able bodied young men. And our own government has told us that we cannot properly vet these people, so of course we can not be letting them in.”
Truth of course is that most of the refugees (98% )arnt able bodies young men...but if it will keep the undesirable religon out by claiming they are not the victims but in fact the perpetrators....well of course it has to be said...thats Nazi 101

Now enter Ted Cruz....the son of a Refugee from an anti american country:

"It is nothing less than lunacy, It makes no sense whatsoever for us to be bringing in refugees who our intelligence cannot determine if they are terrorists here to kill us or not. Those who are fleeing persecution should be resettled in the Middle East in majority Muslim countries."

Cruz has also pledged to introduce a bill in the senate banning Syrians from entering the United States.

See Syrians are ALL muslims, Muslims are inherently dangerous, we should keep them all away.

Too bad Rand Paul beat him too it.  See Paul introduced a bill making Syrians who do somehow make it into this country ineligible for any kind of help, be it housing, medical, ect. Keep in mind, Refugees are literally the people least likely to come here with any money or property of any kind. But you see according to Paul

"The biggest issue of the day is how we protect ourselves from terrorism. My amendment goes to the heart of the matter. Are we sufficiently vetting those who might come here and attack us from the Middle East? [...] my request is simple — an up or down vote on his Amendment to cut off welfare to new refugees. We should be pause the refugee program while we fix it and ensure national security is addressed. This vote is to send a message to President Obama to halt this program now.""

You see the thing is: "The two Boston bombers were here as refugees. They didn't take very kindly to what we gave them—education, food, clothing, and they chose to attack our country.”
Of course, this isnt true....the Boston Bombers were the sons of a man granted Asylum (a different legal definition and process) and not actually from the middle east, they were russians.

But a good nazi never lets facts stand in the way of blaming the people he wants to go after anyways.

Oh also as a even more evil twist, Paul's bill would also include people from 34 other countries seeking refugee status....including France. Because I assume since France was weak and attacked by Muslim's we dont want them here either.....they cant be trusted.

Now over to Jeb Bush...who at least wants some Syrians in.....

"But I do think there is a special important need to make sure that Christians from Syria are being protected because they are being slaughtered in the country and but for us who? Who would take care of the number of Christians that right now are completely displaced?"

You know, the ones who arnt Muslims.....because again Muslims are inherently undesirable.

As to those undesirable's "we should focus on creating safe havens for refugees in Syria rather than bringing them all the way across to the United States,"

We can help them....provided they stay in their special Muslim areas.....

Next up Doctor Ben Carson. He was asked about admitting Syrian's and gave the following analogy:

"“For instance, you know, if there is a rabid dog running around your neighborhood, you’re probably not going to assume something good about that dog, and you’re probably gonna put your children out of the way,"
Because it turns out, Muslims, because of their religion are subhuman and more akin to animals. This was the main tenant of the 3rd Reich's propaganda against the jews. Sieg Heil.

Now enter son of 2 refugees...Senator Marco Rubio who was recently interviewed about what he thinks we should do about attacks like what happened in Paris:

"The first thing we would want to know is, what are the cell phones records of these people? Let's say that, God forbid, what happened in Paris happened in Washington. We would want to know -- we would want access to these people's phone records, because it would give us clues as to who they were working with, who probably may be involved in plots themselves later on down the road.[...]

Listen, the background checks are required now. The problem is not the background checks. The problem is we can't background check them. You can't pick up the phone and call Syria.

And that's one of the reasons why I said we won't be able to take more refugees. It's not that we don't want to; it's that we can't because there's no way to background check someone that's coming from Syria.

Who do you call and do a background check on them?

The bottom line is that this is not just a threat coming from abroad. What we need to open up to and realize is that we have a threat here at home, homegrown violent extremists, individuals who perhaps have not even traveled abroad, who have been radicalized online. This has become a multi-faceted threat.

In the case of what's happening in Europe, this is a swarm of refugees. And as I've said repeatedly over the last few months, you can have 1,000 people come in and 999 of them are just poor people fleeing oppression and violence but one of them is an ISIS fighter.

If that's the case, you have a problem and there is no way to vet that out. There is no background check system in the world that allows us to find that out because who do you call in Syria to background check them?
So by Marco Rubio's standards, it appears all new syrians should be banned from the country, even if only 1 in a thousand is a potential threat, and we need to start monitoring existing american Muslim's cell phones....you know just in case. Cause we cant trust Muslims here or anything.

Thats starting to sound an awfull lot like the Nuremberg Laws. Sieg Heil.

And Rubio didnt just stop there...heres a later comment from him on instituting an American Nuremberg Law:

"It’s not about closing down mosques. It’s about closing down any place — whether it’s a cafe, a diner, an internet site — any place where radicals are being inspired [...]So whatever facility is being used — it’s not just a mosque — any facility that’s being used to radicalize and inspire attacks against the United States, should be a place that we look at,”

So any place in the US that MIGHT be used by people who want to attack the US (as determined by Marco Ruibo if he's in charge) should be shut down by the government.....even its a private business (like say a cafe) and just happens to be serving customers who Rubio deems a threat....even if the cafe it self has nothing to do with them.

Yea....that was pretty much the impact of the original Nuremberg laws....although the German Nazi's were a bit more subtle about it.

Also comments like this, might explain why a bookstore in Colorado named ISIS (after the Egyptian goddess) had its windows smashed the other day....despite having nothing to do with any political faction at all. it seems maybe Kristallnacht is coming. Seig Heil.

By the way, I in no way want to imply Rubio is alone in this.....back to Doctor Carson:

"What I have said is that I would be in favor of monitoring a mosque or any church or any organization or any school or any press corps where there was a lot of radicalization and things that were anti-American,"

So Carson actually wants control over the schools and the press.....you know just in case Muslims are there. Cause you know, freedom of the press shouldnt really apply when Muslims might exist....Constitution be damned.  Again if this sounds familiar is it. The Enabling acts passed in Germany allowed the Nazi to circumvent and remove constitutional protections....to you know, keep people safe from jews. 

Actually to be fair to Carson, its not JUST Muslim's he wants the database on.

"Well, I think we should have a database on everybody who comes into this country,"

Which makes sense, I mean after all, we dont want any non aryans Americans polluting our Lebensraum.

Oh by the way, you remember Rand Paul's bill I mentioned earlier? turns out this is actually one of the things is asks for. DHS has to monitor all immigrants...and institute the Chris Christie endorsed tracking system.

Although actually, I need to be fair to Carson...he later added this

"Hopefully, we already have a database on every citizen who is already here. If not, we are doing a very poor job."

So yea we ALL need to be monitored and registered....for our protection of course. Sieg Heil.

Now so far I've hit 8 of the GOP presidential candidates..including 7 of the 8 candidates who made the last debate. But you may have noticed 1 big name is missing. Donald Trump the GOP FRONTRUNNER.

Unfortunately, he's not missing because he sees reason in this instance....he's missing because he's so much more extreme than the other candidates I havnt gotten to him yet. While the other candidate may be endorsing some Nazi policies, Trump is apparently not running for president....he's running for Fuhrer.

So not only does Trump agree on keeping out Syrians, monitoring all immigrants, a national database to track Muslims (he actually doesnt go as far as Carson on this one in that he doesnt want to apply it to natural born americans) but well he goes farther than any other candidate too.

See he doesnt just want Mosques "mointored" he wants them shut down:

"Nobody wants to say this and nobody wants to shut down religious institutions or anything, but you know, you understand it. A lot of people understand it. We’re going to have no choice,"

Remember the 1st amendment freedom of religion? yea looks like we are just going to have to "Enable" that right out of the Constitution too....cause Muslims.

And thats not the only protection Der Fuhrer would like to remove. When asked directly if he favored Warrant-less searches for Muslims and other groups (which would be a direct violation of the 4th amendment) Trump said

'“We’re going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule, And certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.”

Ah so we will have no right....except those  Der Fuhrer gives us...but we will be safe right? so its totally worth it. Sieg Heil.

Oh and back to the Muslim database....when asked if registration would be mandatory trump said "[it would] have to be." but not to worry Muslims would be signed up at "different places' and its actually easy to do since ""It's all about management."

Muslim registration Manager.

And actually as it turns out, registering in the database might not be enough. See there was also this quote:

"Yahoo News asked Trump whether this level of tracking might require registering Muslims in a database or giving them a form of special identification that noted their religion. He wouldn’t rule it out."
Presumably, this Identification would be a Green Triangle in keeping with tradition:

Nazi Identification Badges.

Now to be fair to Trump he didnt out right say Muslims should wear ID badges....he apparently just didnt rule it out, and it is the logical conclusion of his other policies.

By the way, when asked directly "Why would Muslim databases not be the same thing as requiring Jews to register in Nazi Germany? What would be the difference? Is there a difference between the two?” Trumps reply was:

"You tell me”

Thats right, Trump's response to how his policy is different than that of the Nazis was basically "dont know, dont care".

Which isnt surprising all things considered. In the past couple of weeks their have been separate reports of a latino woman and a black man being attacked and assaulted durring trump rallies. Trump for his part, didnt even stop speaking during the first attack on the woman Its worth noting that when the woman was assaulted it was met with chants of USA from the crowd. I supposed though in fairness its possible Der Fuhrer actually didnt know. (this all coming after Trump had a latino reporter escorted out of an earlier press conference by police for daring to ask a question)

But the assault on the black man? thats where it gets a bit tricky. See Trump did actually stop speaking for that one....apprentice to figure out what the disruption was. At which point he said "'Get him the hell out of here.'"...probably because the black man was wearing a t-shirt protesting trump and yelled once or twice.

Trump by the way, was asked about this on FOX News. His response:
“Maybe he should have been roughed up, It was disgusting what he was doing."

That being, disagreeing with Der Fuhrer.  SIEG HEIL!

He also compared his reaction to that of Bernie Sanders, who was once interrupted by Protesters....so had them come on stage and gave his microphone so they could speak to the crowd.

You see, [Sanders] was politically correct, Two young women came up to the podium. They took over his microphone. I promise you, that's not going to happen with me. I promise you. Never going to happen. Not going to happen. Can't let that stuff happen."

 HEIL TRUMP!

Trump DOES have a solution though...his campaign has started setting up media containment zones...which they call "the pen" to keep the media out of the crowd. See that way, the media cant see or report on these assaults (as they got video of the two I already mentioned). Because apparently, in the mind of the Frontrunner of the American Nazi Party, the problem is not that these assaults are happening....the problem is that people who may not agree with him are hearing about it....thats the problem that needed to be fixed.  Not the beatings.....and certainly not the campaign platform directly copied from the Nazi playbook.

SIEG HEIL!  HEIL TRUMP!

This is a real tweet put out by Trump a few months ago. The soldiers are wearing Nazi Uniforms.At the time Trump claimed it was a mistake. Doesnt look that way anymore.

2nd Democratic Debate things you need to know.

So I've felt for a while I really should do something for the Democratic debates. Especially after I had nothing for the first one.

Problem is I cant rank candidate performance like I do the republicans though, cause thats basically only 3 paragraphs due to the smaller number of candidates. But it occurred to me, I can at least comment on the major takeaways from the debate/the moments you need to know about...in short instead of filtering the memorable moments by candidate as I do with the GOP, fliter the candidates though the memorable moments. So with that in mind, here we go


Sanders is "bad" on Paris.

So Sanders took alot of heat in the opening of the debate for his quick pivot away from Paris....which is weird because he didnt really.  Heres the prompt from the moderator "You will each have one minute for an opening statement to share your thoughts about the attacks in your Paris and lay out your visions for America. First, Senator Sanders"
Notice that? they have 60 seconds to talk about two disconnected topics in the same sentence.

Here by the way are the candidate replies:

#1: "Well, our prayers are with the people of France tonight. But that is not enough. We need to have a resolve that will bring the world together to root out the kind of radical jihadist ideology that motivates organizations like ISIS, the barbaric, ruthless, violence jihadist, terrorist group.

This election is not only about electing a president. It's also about choosing our next commander in chief. And I will be laying out in detail what I think we need to do with our friends and allies in Europe and elsewhere to do a better job of coordinating efforts against the scourge of terrorism. Our country deserves no rest because all of the other issues we wanna deal with depends on us being secure and strong."

#2: "My heart, like all of us in this room, John, and all the people across our country-- my hearts go out to the people of France in this moment of loss, parents and-- and-- and sons and daughters and family members. And-- as our hearts go out and as our prayers go out to them we must remember this, that this isn't a new face of conflict and warfare, not in the 20th century but the new face of conflict of warfare in the 21st century.

And there is no nation on the planet better able to adapt to this change than our nation. We must be able to work collaboratively with others. We must anticipate these threats before they happen. This is the new sort of challenge, the new sort of threat that does, in fact, require new thinking, fresh approaches and new leadership. As a former mayor and a former governor, there was never a single day, John, when I went to bed or woke up without realizing that this could happen in our own country. We have a lot of work to do to better prepare our nation and to better lead this world into this new century."

#3:  "Well, John, let me concur with you and with all Americans who are shocked and disgusted by what we saw in Paris yesterday. Together, leading the world this country will rid our planet of this marvelous organization called ISIS. I'm running for president because as I go around this nation I talk to a lotta people. And what I hear is people concerned that the economy we have is a rigged economy.

People are working longer hours for lower wages. And (UNINTEL) income and wealth goes to the top 1%. And then on top of that we got a corrupt campaign finance system in which millionaires and billionaires are (UNINTEL) use some of the money into super packs heavily influencing the political process. What my campaign is about is a political revolution. Millions of people standing up and saying, "Enough is enough. Our government belongs to all of us and not just a handful of billionaires."

Notice by the way, I'm not telling you which candidate said what (and they are out of order from the order the candidates spoke in the debate).....thats the point. They all followed basically the same format on Paris, give a platitude quickly and pivot to the other part of the question.

Sanders didnt do any better or worse on that issue than the other candidates.....he just went first, which means I guess he gets left holding the bag when some people decided to make a fake issue out of this

Clinton whiffs on the Minimum Wage. 

Alright so their is a movement in this country for a $15 minimum wage. Now do the democratic nominee's support it?

Sanders: "So I believe that over the next few years, not tomorrow, that over the next few years we have got to move the minimum wage to a living wage $15.00 bucks an hour. And I apologize to nobody."

O'Malley I cant quote because it was a little more drawn out with some moderator back and forth and some prodding, but summery is, he supports $15 an hour raised marylands minimum wage to 10.10 because the legislature wouldnt go higher, but thinks even that minimum wage should go up to 15.

And now Clinton: "I support a $12 national federal minimum wage. That is what the Democrats in the senate have put forward as a proposal. But I do believe that is a minimum. If you go to 12 it would be the highest historical average we have ever had now.”

So why is Clinton stopping at 12 and not 15? its not really clear...it seems to be an attempt to triangulate with those who are opposed to a minimum wage increase of any kind....but they would also appose 12. And its only going to annoy those who say 15 is the "living wage" requirement.

Which might actually include Clinton, given her later comments about wages falling behind

“Well, first of all, it isn’t the middle class; I have made it very clear that hard-working middle-class families need a raise not a tax increase. In fact, wages adjusting for inflation haven’t risen since the turn of the last century after my husband’s administration, so we have a lot of work to do.”

So we need to adjust for inflation? just not all the way or something?

But I've long thought this was one of the problems with Clinton....she cant give a noncalculated answer, but her calculations usually land her in a place where no one is actually happy with it.

At the moment her position on minimum wage seems to be it should go up....just not enough to be a living wage, a clunky position that seems assured to get her attacked from both sides on the issue.

Clinton chokes on Radical Islam

Speaking of Clinton's habit of assuming everything it politicized and needs a middle ground anwser that pisses everyone off, we get to her statement about Radical Islam...or something.

Heres the entire exchange:

"JOHN DICKERSON[moderator]: Secretary Clinton, you mentioned radical jihadists.

HILLARY CLINTON: Yes.

JOHN DICKERSON: Marco Rubio, also running for president, said that this attack showed-- in-- the attack in Paris showed that we are at war with radical Islam. Do you agree with that characterization, radical Islam?

HILLARY CLINTON: I don't think we're at war with Islam. I don't think we at war with all Muslims. I think we're at war with jihadists who have--

JOHN DICKERSON: Just to interrupt, he-- he didn't say all Muslims. He just said radical Islam. Is that a phrase you don't--

HILLARY CLINTON: I-- I think that you can-- you can talk about Islamists who-- clearly are also jihadists. But I think it's-- it-- it's not particularly helpful to make the case that-- Senator Sanders was just making that I agree with that we've gotta reach out to Muslim countries. We've gotta have them be part of our coalition.

If they hear people running for-- president who basically shortcut it to say we are somehow against Islam-- that was one of the real contributions-- despite all the other problems that George W. Bush made after 9/11 when he basically said after going to a mosque in Washington, "We are not at war with Islam or Muslims. We are at war with violent extremism. We are at war with people who use their religion for purposes of power and oppression." And yes, we are at war with those people that I don't want us to be painting with too brand a brush.

(OVERTALK)"

So that was basically a several minute detour on what the meaning of the word "is" is....and for no good damn reason. This by the way is another reoccurring Clintonism, she did the same thing a few months ago when asked about gay marriage....she agreed with the statement the reporter asked her....but only after spending several minutes attacking the reporters wording (that she later accepted) for no clear reason

As near as I can tell, Clinton actually agrees with Rubio...except that, for whatever reason she cant just come out and say it....at least not until the question is reworded to her particular liking (using jihadist in place of Islam). And clearly its not the fact hes a Republican that is causing the issue here, as she openly admits to agreeing with Bush (who also agrees with Rubio)

And all of this seems to be because she thinks its a trap, presumably to make her agree with Rubio.....which she does. So how exactly would that be a trap in the first place?

And her objection such as it is doesnt make sense. Shes apparently worried that calling it Radical Islam doesnt draw enough distinction between those who follow Islam, and those who follow a Radical interpretation of Islam, despite the phrasing being used being pretty much the exact definition of the distinction she wants to make.

All in all just a very awkward, confusing moment that makes Clinton look more paranoid than presidential.

Clinton goes 9/11.

Speaking of awkward Clinton moments she was pressed on her wallstreet financing by Bernie Sanders...and well things just got weird. Again the exchange in full:

BERNIE SANDERS: I have never heard a candidate, never, who's received huge amounts of money from oil, from coal, from Wall Street, from the military industrial complex, not one candidate, go, "OH, these-- these campaign contributions will not influence me. I'm gonna be independent." Now, why do they make millions of dollars of campaign contributions? They expect to get something. Everybody knows that. Once again, I am running a campaign differently than any other candidate. We are relying on small campaign donors, $750,000 and $30 apiece. That's who I'm indebted to.

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, Scott, Scott, wait a minute, wait a minute.

(OVERTALK)

JOHN DICKERSON: Secretary Clinton gets to respond.

HILLARY CLINTON:--answer to impugn my integrity, let's be frank here.

BERNIE SANDERS: No, I don't.

HILLARY CLINTON: Oh, wait a minute, senator. (LAUGH) You know, not only do I have hundreds of thousands of donors, most of them small, I am very proud that for the first time a majority of my donors are women, 60 percent. (APPLAUSE) So I-- I represented New York. And I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked.

Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy. And it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country. (APPLAUSE)

So Sanders brings up a concern that people who are supported by Wallstreet wont go against Wallstreet....this is a popular concern on both the right and the left actually. And Clinton's reply is what basically? 9/11 gives her a free pass because 9/11?

No seriously, I cant see any logic at all in clintons reply....well except that she seems to think a non sequitur play on emotions for no reason will distract people from logic.

And actually the oddest part of her whole response is that, if we attempt to apply logic to  ITS A FUCKING HORRIBLE ANSWER.

Ok so, Sanders claim is, Clinton cant be trusted to regulate Wallstreet because they donated to her.

And the little bit of logic we can squeeze out of clintons asinine statement is that they give her money because she helped to rebuild after 9/11.....you know with the form and power they had to wreck the world economy 7 years later......because of how she rebuilt them.

Basically, it seems like Clinton just accidentally [I assume] took credit for all the things that lead to the financial collapse in the first place......definitely proving sanders prove valid.  

Bernie Sanders with the line of the night:

First the set up, from one of the other moderators:

"Well, let's get specific, how high would you [raise taxes]? You said before you'd go above 50%. How high?"

Normally admitting to wanting to raise taxes is the kiss of death in american politics. But it seems American Politics has yet to feel the Bern, as sanders scored a total knockout with his answer:

"BERNIE SANDERS: We haven't come up with an exact number yet. But it will not be as high as the number under Dwight D. Eisenhower which was 90%. But it will be-- (LAUGHTER AND CROSSTALK) I'm not a socialist compared to Eisenhower.

Ok, thats going to leave a mark. Especially given how Republicans keep wanting to go back to the good old days....when Ike was in office.  Plus it directly hits the GOP on their "we always cut taxes" bullshit and shows how far the GOP was moved to the right....and also steals the "fisical responsibility" out from under the GOP.....given that, Ike was the last republican to balance the budget.....want to guess how he did it? :D

Now at first I was concerned that Sanders had just signed his own death warrant by opening himself up to claims of jacking up taxes as high as 90%.....but based on conservative reaction I was wrong.

See sanders said this earlyish in the debate, and yet by the end of the debate all the conservative twitter feeds I was watching were still desperately trying to prove this assertion untrue and/or just furious he'd brought it up.

Now in some respects Sanders may have landed this punch a little too well.....as no one seemed ot notice when he did the same thing, with a different republican, later in the night

"Here is the major issue when we talk about Wall Street, it ain't complicated. You got six financial institutions today that have assets of 56 per-- equivalent to 50-- six percent of the GDP in America. They issue two thirds of the credit cards and one third of the mortgages. If Teddy Roosevelt, the good republican, were alive today you know what he'd say? "Break them up. Reestablish (APPLAUSE) (UNINTEL) like Teddy Roosevelt (UNINTEL) that is leadership. So I am the only candidate up here that doesn't have a super PAC. I'm not asking Wall Street or the billionaires for money. I will break up these banks, support community banks and credit unions-- credit unions. That's the future of banking in America."
So yea....vote for the Socialist....he's only as radical as the GOP was in the first 2/3rd of the 20th century.

And Sanders is now making it very difficult for the modern GOP to reach back in time and claim to be influenced by the policies of a previous Republican President should he reach the general....hes already campaigning on their economic polices.

But hey at least as far as two term presidents go, the GOP still has the guy who resigned, the unpopular possible war criminal who lied us into war and crashed the economy and St. Reagan right?

Actually not so much, as O'Mallay picked up the assist on Reagan after Sanders' comments on Eisenhower.

"I mean, (UNINTEL) under Ronald Reagan's first term the highest marginal rate was 70%. And in talking to a lot of our neighbors who are in that super wealthy millionaire and billionaire category great numbers of them love their country enough to do more again in order to create more opportunity for America's middle class."

You know, I know the GOP is shitting their collective pants over the possibility of facing Hillary in the General.....but maybe shes not the one they should be worried about, as it seems its the other 2 candidates who came ready to fight "dirty". Just saying.


Anywho, thats it, thats all 5 of the major debate moments at the Democratic Debate yesterday. But I'm not quite done yet, I have a "bonus" pointless but funny moment at the debate.

So, at the Republican Debate last week, any members of the media who wanted to use Wifi (which was all of them) were required to use the WiFi provided by the RNC....and the RNC's password.

it's funny get it? the "liberal media" had to type Stop Hillary before they could log on to the internet...LOL.

Well it turns out the DNC figured they could one up the RNC as far as trying to make political messages out of WiFi log in's 

Damn. lets see in just one piece of paper the Dem's did manage to one up the GOP, as it seems in comparison the GOP's only goal is to stop Hillary, where as the Dems would like to create jobs.

But its more the Dem's password....or lack of one that really gets the prize here. Talk about an easy way to make the other party look elitist and exclusionary, and rub their faces in in.

Personally, I hope to see this Wifi war continue, as while its totally pointless irrelevant and stupid, its also pretty funny.

So yea, balls in your court RNC....time to top that...if you can.  

That time Bristol Palin was right...Starbucks and seeing red

So look I pride my self on giving people credit when they are right, even if, generally speaking those same people are idiots. So in that spirit, let me just say that I actually agree with Bristol Palin's most recent public comments over the Starbucks Red Cup "controversy".

Ok so for those of you not familiar with it, every year in December Starbucks releases a special holiday red cup. This year however, the Relgious Right has their collective panties in a bunch over the cup

This is the 2015 version thats got everyone so pissed off:

Now at this point, if your, you know NORMAL, your probably asking yourself, what the fuck is the big deal? there is literally nothing, offensive on the cup.

Well see that's offensive....they took off all the christian iconography that is all over the cups usually and thats insulting to Christians.

Seriously, do a comparison yourself. Here's a picture of the unchristian 2015 cup and prochristian cups from the previous 3 years:

Can't you just see the Jesus exuding from those other 3 cups?

No? Ok well you can see the manger scene right? the virigin Mary? a cross? an Angel? no?

Well congratulations your fucking normal. Starbucks has NEVER put any religions iconography on their holidays cups, instead preferring secular symbols like snow flakes, santa, snowmen, and ornaments

Now, as to the headline of this piece: Enter Bristol Palin who decided to weigh in on this controversy in a blog post:

"Over the past few years, Starbucks has rolled out their “red cups” right after Halloween to signal the start of the holiday season. Usually adorned with snowflakes and reindeers, this year the cups were given a makeover in a more sleek all red ombre look.

And somewhere, somehow someone took offense to the change, claiming it was part of the war on Christmas.

And the media RAN with it. They used one small group’s opinion about the cups and began attributing it to the greater Christian community. The mainstream media and the Left love their outrage machine where they claim the world is ending because any number of tiny people have expressed hurt feelings on social media. So now, they’re taking a tiny fraction of people’s response and attributing it to all conservative Christians.

Do not buy in to the media hype surrounding this story!! It is just another attempt by the LEFT to make Christians look stupid."

Now believe it or not, Bristols one word away from being 100% correct... And her implied point, that the majority of christians dont give a shit, and dont find Starbuck's cups any less (or more) religious then they ever are, it totally accurate and spot on.

Now the one word Bristols off on, highlights actually the major problem a particular group of people in this country. That one word being LEFT.

This is not a controversy fueled by the Left wing....its actually being run by the right.

Or more specifically its being run by those on the right who prey on the ignorance of others on the right, in this specific instance Breitbart.com (although a facebook post made by a guy who read their article seems to get most of the credit from some outlets)

They ran an article about how suddenly and without warning starbucks apparently took the christ out of coffee. Thing is, they didnt even try to hide how weak their story was....mostly because they know they dont have to, given the number of morons who generally read them.

For example some excerpts:

"To the right is the 2009 offering. You can see distinct elements of Christmas, even if that means Christmas in a modern sense.

They lean heavily on stars (you know, like in the Nativity Story) and the background resembles the branches of a Christmas tree. All in all, a pretty good and acceptable design for something that self-defines as a Christmas-orientated product.

But 2009 was a long time ago, and since then the company has slowly, but definitely, moved away from Christmas, and Christian iconography." 

Now to be fair I guess I see how, if we assign pretend meanings to things like stars, and pretend christmas trees have fuckall to do with Jesus, you might have gotten you head lodged far enough up your ass you think you have a point.

But look how fast it goes down hill even if Im enough of a contortionist to wedge my head up my ass the way it needs to be to accept his premise.


"To the left here, you’ll see the 2010 offering. Snowy, seasonal, at least it resembles something mildly festive and Western.

The same applies to the 2011 red cups, which have a dog sledging down a hill on the back of a snowman, snowflakes falling around them. It’s cute, really.

They stuck with snowmen for 2012 [lower right, second picture in this blog], with a big one winking at you with a star in the background that year, and a sort of upmarket stars and baubles motif on their 2013 cups.[lower left, second picture]"

 
Actually, I wouldnt say the 2010 cups looks all that festive.....just looks like people going for a walk in the snow....and they dont even see a indentation that looks like Jesus in it.

"And then it all went south. Or east, maybe.

"2014’s cups [upper right, in that second picture] looked like a child scrawled on them with a marker pen. And not in a cute way. It was a distinct shift away from looking “Christmassy”  before the monstrosity they’ve released this year."

See now I understand his problem. When you have a two tone red cup that makes a patter than looks kinda like a pine tree you walk with god. When its snowflakes and other geometric shapes its almost like hugging Jesus. But when those two tones look kinda like wrapping paper.....thats dangerous close to selling your soul to the devil.

But still this is the major plague attacking Christian values in *this* country as the article gets to

"Frankly, the only thing that can redeem them from this whitewashing of Christmas is to print Bible verses on their cups next year.

Not that I’d buy their burnt coffee anyway. And certainly not while they keep spelling my name “Ragih” (right) on their cups.

“But Ragih,” I hear you say. “Why do you care about what Starbucks is doing anyway? It’s crap coffee and none of us buy it.”

Sure, but plenty of people do. And subliminally, they’re being told/reminded that this time of the year is no longer about Christmas. It’s about the colour red, or something. It’s a “holiday season”. Don’t say Merry Christmas. It’s offensive.

And no, I’m not “reading too much into it”. This is happening. And it’s as disgusting as an Eggnog Latte."

Now a couple of points that arnt as obvious from the reading the article. First it's written by a guy named Raheem Kassam. Now if you look into Mr. Kassam's background, you will notice a few things very quickly.

1st) he's British and still lives there.  Kinda important when this story is being used as proof of Unamerican values and seen as a story about the attack on the American way of life.
2nd) Mr. Kassam is an Atheist.
 3rd) He was raised Muslim.

Now I have no problem with that (hell *I* am an atheist) but they suggest a strong likelyhood that Mr. Kassam is not too likely to be genuinely concerned about the alleged waning influence of a religion in which he's never been a member in favor of the "religion" (or belief system) that he IS a member of (if we accept his premise that the red cups are inherently anti christian and prosecular)

And actually to be honest, I only like the 3rd one because it lets me show just how stupid some people are. See the people who prey on the moronic part of the right wing usually like leaving pretty obvious clues they shouldnt be taken that seriously....its probably makes it much funnier when the dumb shits actually freak out.

So the article he wrote includes this line in its introduction. " And today I returned to my old, caffeinated Mecca (and the crowds made it feel like I was on the Hajj, too)." 
Now this is a perfectly fine analogy, and if you love coffee. likely appropriate normally. But its a bit out of place for a guy whose claiming to be a christian standing up for an assault on christian values. I highly doubt most of his target audience has any idea what the Hajj is.

But thats also the point of the analogy. Its a signal to those of us with working brains that this should never be taken seriously. And its a safe signal to drop, because Mr. Kassam knows none of his readers will actually click on the link to see what a Hajj is, and therefore notice the implication that Mr. Kassam may not be christian (and he isnt) and therefore likely doesnt actually believe in the problem he's inventing.

And look in fairness to Mr. Kassam, this isnt something unique to him. One of the things I love about the excentric and insane stories on the right, is that most right wing websites include links to the very things that prove their entire story is a lie.....because they know their target audience will never click them...and if your smart enough to do it, they dont really want you anyways (you might eventually ask a hard question of them like "yea but the math on your tax plan doesnt work")

But that brings up to the broader problem....it turns out that in america we have an entire political party whose base is made up of people of the non link clicking variety.

Dont believe me? Here's that parties front runner:

Guess whos too stupid to know they are being played? ^^^THAT GUY^^^

But their is good news, Many many many many more on the right are pushing back against this story as the stupid fake bullshit that it is.  Like FOX News, in multiple articles. (although as the video in the last link proves, some of FOX is still infested with critical stupid)

Or, my personal favorite ray of hope that maybe, finally, we found the stupid that broke the camels back is this:

"Funny, though, how some grinches on the Left take things too far in attempts to make all us jolly revelers look ridiculous, lumping us in the same box concerning misplaced outrage over a coffee cup's non-controversy.

My daughters spent many summers employed as hardworking baristas; I love their take on faux concern over Starbucks red Christmas cup and why you should enjoy your festive cuppa'joe anyway!"

The author of that quote, in case you couldnt tell from the grammer, is Sarah Palin, once the benchmark for stupid republicans.....even she doesnt buy into the story and knows its bullshit.

So, and I've never said this about anything Sarah Palin has said before.....thats a good sign for our countries future.

 

GOP Debate 4 in review: The unelite 8.

So we just wrapped up the 4th Republican debate of this primary season. The theme this time was "less candidates....more bullshit".

Actually to be honest, I'm a little split on the handling of the debate itself. For the most part the moderators threw soft balls and never bothered with follow ups to the most insane of lies.  But then on the issues of the candidates tax plans, they seemed to unleash hell on the candidates.

So I mean I guess I cant totally accuse them of laying down on the job.

Now just like the last 3 times, the format is the same. For those just tuning in:
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, (8) 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.

Now please note in this debate several of the candidates had a statistical tie for 1st, hence why there will be no Number 2.

Also like last time there will be a 3rd number following the second, this is where I placed the candidates standing in my evaluation of the first debate. So using Clinton again #1 Clinton (8/6) would mean I think Clinton did the best, came into the debate in 10th, but I had thought should have been entering at 8th in my previous analysis.

#8 Ben Carson (1/10)

So yea, Ben Carson is at the bottom again.

Not shocking, given that this has been a no good horrible very bad week.

First there was the question on minimum wage, in which Carson tripped over himself. By which I mean he stated he wouldnt raise it. Except that, per his campaign press release today, he actually totally would.

Or at least the "real?" minimum wage, his "starter minimum wage", which he introduced all the way back in Debate 1, and never mentioned again, wouldnt be raised.  So for all the people who were shocked when Carson seemingly reversed course on the minimum wage last night...well as of this morning he would like you to know he didnt.....it just sounded like he did cause he wasnt talking about YOUR minimum wage...he was talking about the other guys.

This by the way was Carson's FIRST question of the night.... and it didnt get any better for him.

For example there was this question on Taxes

"First off, Dr. Carson, to you. You say you are in favor of a tax system, I guess akin to tithing, sir, with a flat tax rate of up to 15 percent because you said, if everybody pays this, I think God is a pretty fair guy, so tithing is a pretty fair process. But Donald Trump says that is not fair. That wealthier taxpayers should pay a higher rate because it’s a fair thing to do. So whose plan would God endorse then, Doctor?[...]"

Which got this answer:

"Everybody should pay the same proportion of what they make. You make $10 billion, you pay a billion. You make $10, you pay one. You get same rights and privileges."

Anyone notice the problem there? According to the premise of the question Carson would be taxing at 15%....as he admitted he would have to do in the last debate.

The examples he gives however all seem to assume a 10% tax (his original amount before CNBC called him on his bullshit)

Basically he just flunked the math on his own damn tax plan.

Oh, and then he added this:

"And, the other thing is, I do care about the poor people. And in the system that we’re putting together, there will be a rebate for people at the poverty level. "

Which means, that Ben Carson's flat tax would not in fact be a flat tax. It would tax the rich at a higher rate. And if that sounds familiar it should....it is, as the question pointed out, Donald Trump's tax plan.

Thats right, Ben Carson accidentally ( i assume) endorsed his opponents tax plan while attempting to bash that same plan in favor of his own (which he himself couldnt do the math for).

And we anit even close to done.

Next up Carson was asked about his opposition to the iraq war, and putting troops in Syria.

To which he said this: "We also must recognize that it’s a very complex place. You know, the Chinese are there, as well as the Russians, and you have all kinds of factions there."

This was news to many people....including the Chinese.

Which he followed with this:
"But we have to look at this on a much more global scale. We’re talking about global jihadists. And their desire is to destroy us and to destroy our way of life. So we have to be saying, how do we make them look like losers? Because that’s the way that they’re able to gather a lot of influence.

Presumably this plan is going to involve special forces sneaking into ISIS bases after dark and drawing dicks on peoples faces.....cause that will make them look like losers right?

Actually to be fair to Carson, he did elaborate.

"And I think in order to make them look like losers, we have to destroy their caliphate. And you look for the easiest place to do that? It would be in Iraq. And if — outside of Anbar in Iraq, there’s a big energy field. Take that from them. Take all of that land from them. We could do that, I believe, fairly easily, I’ve learned from talking to several generals, and then you move on from there."

Ah, so what we really need to do is invade Iraq to get oil. BECAUSE THAT WORKED SO WELL LAST TIME, that the then presidents brother is now too scared to mention the former presidents name in the same sentence as Iraq. And even republicans now seem to think the entire war was a massive mistake. Just saying.

But wait theres more.

When asked about "too big to fail" banks and preventing economic collapse Carson tossed out this gem

'And I think this all really gets back to this whole regulation issue which is creating a very abnormal situation. This country was — declared its independence in 1776. In less than 100 years, it was the number-one economic power in the world."

Now theres two problems here....first its not true....but the second problem is the bigger one.

I wonder what we had in the first say 90 or so years of this countries history that would have impacted the economy that we no longer have? Its on the tip of my tongue but I cant quite put my finger on it....

Oh yea......now I remember.......AWKWARD!

#7 Donald Trump (1/5)

So Trumps been hanging around in or near the top, mostly because nobody wanted to pick a fight with him. NOT ANYMORE. After delivering a rather lengthy tirade against the TPP and how it benefits China, Donald Trump got straight up shut up by Rand Paul..an event I will cover more in detail in Paul's entry.

He also didnt really react well to John Kasich getting in his face either as durring their arguement Trump popped off this line when pleading for moderator interventon:

"[I] built an unbelievable company worth billions and billions of dollars. I don’t have to hear from this man, believe me. I don’t have to hear from him."
In other words, Trump wants to know why security hasn't escorted this peasant away (like they did Jorge Ramos) for daring to debate His Highness Sir Donald of Trump....

But that really just the shit flavored icing on the cake for Trump last night, as he also took the position WAGES are too high....people need to be paid LESS to make more money. (again math and republicans dont get along much). Also that we should leave Putin and ISIS alone...because they will attack each other, then we swoop in and attack the winner (which sounds good, until you realize ISIS and Putin actually dont seem to have an issue with each other, so have no reason to attack each other)

By the way speaking of Terrorist, Trump agian pledged to finish the wall, And "the wall will be successful. And if you think walls don’t work, all you have to do is ask Israel."
You know, Israel, the same Israel that has seemingly daily rocket and/or terrorist attacks from the Palestinians....who are on the other side of the wall.......yea......

And lastly he wants to know "Why does she keep interrupting everybody?" a statement that got him loudly booed...although I cant tell if that was cause of the sexist connotation (given that everyone was interrupting everyone and only "she" bothered trump) or if people are just tired of him being a whiny little bitch every time some tries to disagree with him.

Now if it looks like I'm not doing much on trump....your right, I'm not. Because much of this debate was focused on Policy and well Trump usually stays quite during those parts and this was no exception.....and this time based on some of the coverage on FOX after the fact, people noticed, so that's actually one of the reasons he winds up down here.

#6 Ted Cruz (4/9)

Well for the second straight debate in a row, Ted Cruz contributed the soundbite most likely to be replayed on a loop indefinitely.....but this time it really, and undisputedly makes him sound like an idiot.

Cruz was asked how he would pay for his massive tax cuts....his answer 

"[T]oday, we rolled out a spending plan. $500 billion in specific cuts — five major agencies that I would eliminate. The IRS, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and HUD"

In the words of Rick Perry, when he got tripped up over the exact same kind of statement 4 years ago. "Oops"

As a side note, he followed that up without the slighest hint of irony when he said

"You want to look at specificity? It’s easy for everyone to say, “cut spending”. It’s much harder and riskier to put out, chapter and verse, specifically the programs you would cut to stop bankrupting our kids and grandkids."

Yea it is difficult....as he just clearly demonstrated.

Nor was that the only really really stupid thing he said. He was asked about how to grow the economy and he identified 3 "levers" needed to do it...and ended with this:
Every time we’ve pursued all three of those — whether in the 1920s with Calvin Coolidge or the 1960s with JFK or the 1980s with Ronald Reagan — the result has been incredible economic growth."

Yea, see its that first one thats kinda a problem here.....I think even middle history students remember how the 20's ended.....with the GREAT FUCKING DEPRESSION.  Not really an awesome go to example for economic growth...just saying.

He also had this bit on Washington Corruption....which I admit wont get him in trouble in the primary, but if by some nightmare he ever makes it to the general, he will get hounded mercilessly for (I know cause its already happened to him in the past)

"And, I’ll give you an example of that, which is the Congressional exemption from Obamacare, which is fundamentally wrong, and I’ll tell you this, if I’m elected president, I will veto any statute that exempts members of congress."
Now I admit on its face, it doesn't seem bad. But as it turns out, its a lie....and if you dont believe me, ask Ted Cruz 9 months ago:

#5 Jeb Bush (5/7)

Ok so Jeb! spend long portions of the debate not even trying to talk....which is odd cause when he did talk he was bitching about not having more time to talk.

Granted, when he finished bitching, he said some pretty odd things. For example:

 "It is tragic that you see Iraq, and other countries now talking to Russia. It wasn’t that long ago that Russia had no influence in the region at all."

Yea, like in 2003....before your brother invaded. Incidently by the way, Jeb! never mentioned his brothers name....in fact he never mentioned even having a brother.  And he went to great pains to do so, and not only in the first quote. For example:

"On the regulatory side I think we need to repeal every rule that Barack Obama has in terms of work in progress, every one of them."
that, presumably would lead to the same regulation standards that were around when your brother was in office....odd that you dont want to mention that part if you actually think this is a good idea. Or maybe he's just aware that most people still associate "Bush Economy" with the Great Recession....so he's trying to work around that by convincing people hes an only child.

When he wasnt trying to commit retroactive fratricide, he managed to come on in favor of a sane approach to immigration, including allowing people to stay in the US, and doing investment and research into alternative energies. Now I might agree with him on these issues....but the GOP base is going to fucking hate him for this. So you cant really call it a great debate performance. 

#4 Carly Fiorina (6/1)

Ms. Fiorina was on fire last time....but this time, not so much. Mostly because she promised to repeal Obamacare.....and replace it with nothing. Ensuring we go back to the old system.....you know the one everyone hated so much it lead to outcry used to create Obamacare? Points for honesty at least, Shes about the only republican willing to admit that, in 7 years, they aint come up with shit.

She also mentioned Reagan for walking away/backing down from the Russians at Reykjavik., and trying to ignore them, instead of treating them as a threat, and "being strong".and the context it came up in (in which Rand Paul was trying to praise Reagan's strength, and she refuted it) could easily make it look like an attack on Reagan (even though in context it wasnt, crosstalk makes the context very hard to follow, in fact watching the debate live, even I thought it was an attack on him)...which will likely kill her support with the Republican base. 

#3 Marco Rubio (3/3)

Theres always that one guy who shows up to every debate, and thats really all I can say about him.

Well this time around that was Marco Rubio. And its not a bad thing. He talked alot, and laid out some policies. Maybe you like them, maybe you dont. But he avoiding saying anything stupid.

Of course, on the flip side, he also basically said nothing memorable either. So even though he laid out policy, I cant really remember any of it with reading the debate transcript.

Still he gave the impression of being involved and having answers and not being an idiot. So overall we can call that a win.    

#2 John Kasich (8/2)

Much like Rubio, Kasich spent most of the debate laying out unmemorable policy...just as he as in every other debate.

However, while doing so, he managed to pick a fight with basically every other candidate on the stage.

My overall impression of Kasich this time around is that he was basically a pitbull and attacked everyone who got too close to him. So he gets the higher spot that Rubio because everyone is more likely to remember he was at the debate simply because he made sure to be involved in almost every question...even when he wasnt supposed to be.

    

#1 Rand Paul (7/4)

I got to say, I'm a bit shocked by it myself, but its hard to argue anyone other than Rand Paul won this debate. Admittedly that is mostly for the second half of the debate but still.

Paul spent the first quarter of the debate basically asleep, by which I mean he was giving pretty much the exact same answers hes given to every question for the last 6 years, and I'm actually pretty sure he could give those anwsers in his sleep if he needed to.

His second quarter saw him attempt to pick a fight with Marco Rubio, but it kind of fell flat, and he got burried under every other candidate on the stage interrupting.

But then the second half started. Specifically the Second half started with a question to Donald Trump on the newly signed TPP. And trump engaged in a several minute long back and forth with the moderator over how the TPP was designed to advance China over the US.

And then, when he was done, Rand Paul struck.

"Hey, Gerard [one of the moderators], you know, we might want to point out China is not part of this deal."

The moderator by the way, backed him up on that.

Donald Trumps reply meanwhile........nothing. He didnt even attempt one. In fact he said nothing about anything until directly asked a question several minutes later.

Thats right Donald Trump had absolutely nothing to say following the Rand Paul initiated knockout punch disguised as a live fact check on air.

Its worth noting that, and Rand Paul continued to explain China's non involvement in the TPP, the buffer music played to go to commercial....and Paul kept talking....and he won, the commercial break was pushed back.

Of course, coming back from commercial, the debate turned to national security, and literally every answer Rand Paul gave got massive applause from the audience as he explained how to be "Stong" without fighting unnecessary wars.

its actually worth noting one of the applause lines he got was for "I think the first war in Iraq was a mistake…"

Yea thats right, Rand Paul just got cheered at the GOP primary for condemning Iraq.  That one is going to make some headlines (or it would if his rhetorical chin check of trump wasnt getting all the coverage)

But yea, by any metric Rand Paul got the most applause of any candidate in the second half of the debate....and outside of his usual and old worn out libertarian bullshit on the Fed and money, managed to avoid saying anything new that was also really fucking stupid.

So yea....there you have it....the winner of the 4th debate....Rand Paul. 

Not so Gifted Hands. Ben Carson's history of lying.

So if you read my last few blogs you might have noticed, its getting hard out there for a Doctor with no political experience running for president.

Mostly because he keeps getting caught in lies. Previously I covered Ben Carson's lying about his getting robbed at gun point, or his 10% tax plan, there was also his lie about Mannatech, where his claim he didnt work for them was debunked by the infomericals he made for them. Oh and lets not forget his lie about needing to space out your vaccines.

Well it turns out, we are just getting started (or ending depending on your point of view) on Carson's lie's and at this point the wheels are totally off the bus on the Carson Campaign as he has just had another no good, very bad week.

Ok so, like most people of my Generation I had to read Ben Carson's book "Gifted Hands" when I was in school. Well now that he's running for President, that book, and many of his previous statements are receiving new scrutiny....and well it turns out, that book may actually be partly fiction.

Now the statement that is getting all the attention is this one:

“I felt so proud, my chest bursting with ribbons and braids of every kind. To make it more wonderful, we had important visitors that day. Two soldiers who had won the Congressional Medal of Honor in Viet Nam were present. More exciting to me, General William Westmoreland (very prominent in the Viet Nam war) attended with an impressive entourage. Afterward, Sgt. Hunt introduced me to General Westmoreland, and I had dinner with him and the Congressional Medal winners. Later I was offered a full scholarship to West Point.”

A story he repeated in a later book (released last year)"You have a Brain"

That position allowed me the chance to meet four-star general William Westmoreland, who had commanded all American forces in Vietnam before being promoted to Army Chief of Staff at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. I also represented the Junior ROTC at a dinner for Congressional Medal of Honor winners, marched at the front of Detroit’s Memorial Day parade as head of an ROTC contingent, and was offered a full scholarship to West Point.”

Well as it turns out, that story has a few major problems. The first, obvious is that West Point has free tuition.....meaning that a "scholarship" is pointless. Which is why they dont actually exist.

So yea, given that, its basically impossible Carson was offered one.

And thats not even the only lie in that statement. See the Army is a little OCD about record keeping for their higher ranking officers, including General Westmoreland, and according to his records, General Westmoreland was no where near Detroit at the time this encounter with Carson supposedly happened.

So yea, not only was Carson offered a non existent scholarship, he was offered it by a guy who could appear in two places at once.

Granted, as we learned under W. lying about military service, isnt a disqualifier to be president....if your a republican, so I lying about potential military service likely isnt either.

[EDIT] After publishing this originally I came across this from WTOP based on a press conference
Carson made this weekend over his supposed scholarship offer At his news conference Friday night, Carson said, “It was an offer to me. It was specifically made.” He said he could not recall specifically who made the offer. “It’s almost 50 years ago. I bet you don’t remember all the people you talked to 50 years ago,” he said.

Actually you probably do if it really was someone that famous as Gen Westmoreland....oh wait I forgot this explanation comes with a tacit admission you lied about that part....twice, in writing when you claimed you did remember. [END EDIT]

Problem is, those arnt the only lies or just flat out weird statements Carson's been caught making recently.

See Gifted Hands also makes the claim that unlike the calm, relaxed to the point of sounding like hes almost asleep person he is now, Young Ben Carson had some serious anger issues.

Specially the time he tried to stab a classmate of his named "Bob". The stabbing only failed because the knife broke on "Bob's" belt buckle. The attempted stabbing is laid out in his book as the event that caused him to find Jesus, and it was the faith in Jesus that relaxed him and helped him become the mellow guy he is today.

Now Ben Carson admits Bob isnot the guys real name, and changing names to protect the people involved in pretty common in Autobiographies, so he gets a full pass on this, this cant be held against him as a lie but it is why "Bob" is in quotes.

But the problem is, no one who knew Carson at the time ever heard about this story until it was published in Gifted Hands, none of them have any idea who "Bob" could be either.

 Which of course led to reporters asking questions....which in turn led to this tweet by FOX's Megyn Kelly after she taped an interview with Carson:

"BREAKING NEWS on #KellyFile: @RealBenCarson identifies person he tried to stab as a young man as a "close relative."

See thats why none of his friends remembered him stabbing them....turns out the guy was actually a relative, despite the story Carson's been telling for 13 years.

Incidentally, none of his close relatives remember Carson trying to stab them either.

Also, it does have to be asked.....who tries to stab someone in the belt buckle? Like most stabbings are in the chest or stomach.....those arnt covered by a belt buckle. Just saying. What person would aim for an area covered by a belt buckle. Also how shitty was your knife if it broke on the buckle? I own a knife I got for like $10, its cheap as hell, and it wouldnt break on a belt buckle.

If your going to lie, and it appears Carson clearly has here (just like he did about being robbed) you'd think youd make the lie sound remotely believable.

Speaking of events no one else can remember, Carson has recently started claiming that during race riots that occurred in Detroit following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr, he helped shelter white students by hiding them in the school's biology lab.

Now the riot DID happen. So points there I guess. But as to Carson's role no one else at the school at the time remembers this/saw it/ or ever heard about it until he stared mentioning it on the campaign trail last month and no one has been able to identify or come forward as one of the white students he saved.....Carson for his part, also cant actually remember the names of the white students. But at least we know they werent named "Bob"

But look, like I said in most of these cases, its only the lack of other peoples memories of ANY of it that suggest Carson is a liar. And well the thing is, Carson's character is impeccable. No really, if you dont believe me, there is this story from "Gifted Hands"

"The day before I'd been informed that the final examination papers in a psychology class, Perceptions 301, 'were inadvertently burned'....So I, with about 150 other students, went to the designated auditorium for the repeat exam....[The questions] were incredibly difficult....Soon half the class was gone, and the exodus continued. Not one person turned in the examination before leaving.

"....Suddenly the door of the classroom opened....The professor came toward me. With her was a photographer for the Yale Daily News who paused and snapped my picture. 'What's going on?' I asked. 'A hoax,' the teacher said. 'We wanted to see who was the most honest student in the class.' She smiled again. 'And that's you.' "

See Carson was once "outed" as the most honest kid in his class. So clearly he would never lie, right?

Although really I'm not sure how sticking around to take a test makes you honest. Hard working, dedicated, sure....but honest?  I dont get that.  Especially since you'd think making a test much harder would be an act of dishonestly by the teacher, and the kids who left (and presumably went to complain) and wouldnt let the professor get away with in would be the more honest ones, and the ones less prone to accepting bullshit.

But then again, it doesnt have to make logical sense.....because like everything else that comes out of Carson's mouth....its not true,

Per a Wall Street Journal check of the Yale Daily News' records, they never once published a picture of Carson that they supposedly took for this story. Probably because, as the same investigation found out, the class doesnt exist. As in not only was there NEVER a class called "Perceptions" offered during Carson's years at Yale....at the time, Yale didnt even offer a Psychology 301 course.

Carson by the way, is standing by every single one of the lies I have mentioned as "fact" just as he's doing with the lies I mentioned at the start of the blog post. And honestly if you listen to him talk about them, he does in fact seem to believe them. He also likes to claim these events are eall "well documented"....although as I've pointed out, no one has been able to turn up documentation for any of them.

Which isnt surprising really, as I'm starting to suspect Ben Carson is delusional.

Ok, so one story that came up this week that wasnt directly about him lying was about the commencement address he gave in 1998 at Andrews University in which he said:

“My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain, Now all the archaeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs’ graves. But, you know, it would have to be something awfully big — when you stop and think about it, and I don’t think it’d just disappear over the course of time — to store that much grain.[...]"When you look at the way that the pyramids are made, with many chambers that are hermetically sealed, they'd have to be that way for various reasons. And various of scientists have said, 'Well, you know there were alien beings that came down and they have special knowledge and that's how--' you know, it doesn't require an alien being when God is with you."

Now when Ben Carson says this is his own personal theory, he aint kidding. With the possible exception of Sid Meier's Civilization video game series, no one else on the planet actually thinks this is remotely true

Furthermore, according to Carson, all scientists believe in Alien life, as that is apparently the only other possible explanation for building the pyramids. There is no possible way man could have done this....even though books written for 2nd and 3rd graders detail exactly how the pyramids were built

Now maybe you think he mispoke or was taking out of context, or even became more educated in the last 17 years....yea not so much. He was actually asked about it directly by CBS on Wednesday and he said "It's still my belief, yes."

Now to be fair, there is still one further possibility other than serve delusions that could explain this. Which is that I, along with all of you, are idiots and just cant understand this complex things.

See Carson was also asked on CNN about remarks he made last year, implying many Americans are stupid:

"They can twist and turn things as much as they want. But what they don't understand—and they miscalculated. They were doing a great job in terms of fundamentally changing this nation. In terms of infiltrating the school systems. In terms of infiltrating the media. All of this—they've done a great job. Everything was perfect. Except they underestimated the intelligence of the American people. The people are not as stupid as they think they are. Many of them are stupid. Okay. But I'm talking about overall.[...]Even if all the media tries to shut you down—which they have tried very much to do with me. But they can't because the good Lord has provided me with mechanisms like my syndicated column and like Fox News. We'd be Cuba if there were no Fox News."

And heres the exchange about that on CNN a couple of days ago

Camerota (the interviewer):It sounds like what you’re saying are liberals, You mean that if Fox News didn’t exist, we would be a communist country?”

Carson:“No. Again, there you go with sensationalism, That’s what you try to do. You hope somehow that will resonate with people who don’t think for themselves. I’ve got news for you, people are a lot smarter than you think they are, and they know exactly what I’m talking about.”

Camerota: “Dr. Carson, you said it! Dr. Carson, I’m quoting — I’m not even quoting you, I’m playing your words. You are the person who said there are a lot of people who are stupid and without Fox News, we would be Cuba.”

Carson: “I can’t believe that you used to work on Fox News!”

By the way, I love this line. Im not sure if Carson is suggesting he expected a softball interview because she worked at FOX and implicitly FOX goes easy on republicans, or if Carson is saying he expected her to agree with him because she worked at FOX before and they are all ideologically brainwashed. (note by the way for fairness, 3 of the lies I listed above were exposed by FOX or other News Corp owned companies so yea in either case it seems carson would still be wrong),

And now we get to the "money shot" of the exchange:

Carson: “Are you honestly telling me that you didn’t know what I was talking about when I said that? Are you honestly telling me? If you are, you might fit in that category,”

There you have it folks straight from the Horses ass. If you dont understand the crazy shit coming out of Ben Carson's mouth the problem is not that the good doctor may be out of his mind, the problem is you, and the other 99.02% of Americans who dont support Carson (per his most recent poll numbers, at 23% of the Republican vote, with Republicans being 39% of the electorate) YOU are an Idiot.

Or Ben Carson is a delusional liar......your choice.

Where the GOP field stands after debate #3

Ok so having finally seen the 3rd debate (thanks CNBC for basically making it unavailable to anyone) its time for a debate review.

Now for those who didnt read my first two debate analysis or just flat out cant remember the "rules" here they are again:

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.

Now please note in this debate several of the candidates were tied in the polls in both 4th place and last place (a 3 way) hence why you may see the number 4 and 8 more than once and no 5, 9 or 10.

Also like last time there will be a 3rd number following the second, this is where I placed the candidates standing in my evaluation of the first debate. So using Clinton again #1 Clinton (10/8) would mean I think Clinton did the best, came into the debate in 10th, but I had thought should have been entering at 8th in my previous analysis.

10. Carson (2/9)
I cant sugar coat this one.....this debate was an almost unprecedented disaster as far as Dr. Carson goes.

See it turns out everything we knew about Dr. Carson was a lie.....and if you dont believe me, just ask him yourself. 10% flat tax? well actually not so much. supports oil subsidies? again not really. Worked with Mannatech? Nope. Is anti gay? Not really.....

And that was only the beginning. See he finally had to admit his 10% thing wouldnt work (or at least admit to it in a debate, having previously admitted as much in an interview weeks ago) but then claimed that 15% would work....only to get fact checked by the moderator who actually did the math live.....and had no answer for her at all.

Later Carson was asked how he can be anti gay and serve on the board of Costco (a company with very pro gay policies)

His answer to that one was that just because your against gay marriage/treating gay people equally doesnt make you homophobic

I wonder if he thinks it makes you a racist if you just happen to believe some darker skinned individuals should be considered property and not people?

Seriously, Dr. Carson, you *were* a well respected brain surgeon.....I think its well past time you take what little public respect you still have left from that and get out of politics while you still can.

9. Cruz (6/4)
So yea....now we get to the star debate....and not in a good way.

So I admit upfront, Cruz is suffering a little here from the fact the debate took place a few days ago. Normally I do these things the next day so as just judge the results on the debate itself, but I have to make an exception here.

The CNBC debate got a lot of criticism....mostly directed at unfair questions.....to the point the RNC has pulled out of all future NBC debates. Now the problem is most of those unfair questions were not in fact unfair at all. They were asking the candidates about their positions and policies. The go to soundbite though for how "unfair" everything is came from Ted Cruz:

“Donald Trump, are you a comic-book villain?” “Ben Carson, can you do math?” “John Kasich, will you insult two people over here?” “Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign?” “Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?
How about talking about the substantive issues the people care about?”

Problem is, these ARE the issues people care about. Making sure a candidate running for president has policy (Trump), that their policy works (Carson), if they disagree with other candidates on policy and why (Kasich), and why people dont support them (Bush)

Now yes, I skipped over Rubio.....that single question was slightly unfair....but it comes up to pretty much any senate candidate running for president.  (and for the record, there actually were some very bad or unfair questions....but the ones Cruz and the RNC singled out arnt them)

Now on its own....that wouldnt be that bad. But then the RNC when and made Ted Cruz's rant here their poster child for their decision to ban NBC from hosting any more debates.

And its worth noting, outside of the far right, pretty much everyone else, left, moderate and "near right" thinks that decision was a horrible mistake that could undermine the whole parties message on being tough on ISIS, Putin, or well *anything*

And now that whole idea has Ted Cruz's face plastered all over it.

Though to be fair, even without the RNC magnifying the pain...Cruz didnt have a great night. That still would have been his only memorable moment...but its possible he'd have placed as high as 7th and not 9th in this list.

8. Huckabee (7/10)
So there was a debate, and Huckabee was there....but thats basically it. Dude didnt have a single original thought to say. In fact most of what he said was to follow up with his agreement with other candidates polices.

Well except when he said we should “cure the four big cost-driving diseases…diabetes, heart disease, cancer and Alzheimer’s” Now I'm all for researching the fuck out of these horrible and deadly diseases but I dont actually think they are at all linked to the economy....especially more so than tax rates, spending levels, ect like the Huckster was implying.

Its I suppose an admirable goal....but being used here for the absolutely silliest of reasons....and to cover up the fact Huckabee doesnt have an economic policy.

7. Bush (4/7)
Jeb Bush had two big moments here....both bad.

The first came when he tried to piggyback off a flordia paper suggesting Marco Rubio should resign for missing votes in the senate......and Rubio basically totally kicked his ass in reply, by calling him out for his previous support of other senators with worse records, then saying Bush only went after him cause they want the same job.....to which Bush had NOTHING as a reply.

Then he was asked if he still supported a position he took 4 years ago....about not taking a 10 to 1 cuts to tax increases deal. He then spend the next 3 minutes trying to explain why he both did and didnt still hold his previous position....if he'd taken one.....and then ending with a metaphor about making out with a Democrat who agreed with the position he did and didnt take.

It was just awkward weird and bad....

6. Chris Christie (8/3)
Christie really only had one major contribution to the debate, his screed against Social Security and his totally accurate portrayal of it having been totally emptied out and spend by politicians in what was basically theft.

The problem for Christie.....the politician who actually did it was a guy named Ronald Reagan.

It wasnt a crippling blow for him, per say in this debate but as he did leave a massive trap for himself should a moderator ever question him on it (which of course depends on media reaction the NBC debate ban) he could be in big trouble with the primary electorate.

But that being his own notable moment, and it not having been a major issue yet, keeps him right in the middle of the "nothing special" debate  performance crowd.

5. Trump (1/2)
So Trump DOMINATED the entire first debate....and most of the second. But was basically not heard from much in this debate.

Possibly because a much higher percentage of the questions here focused on policy ideas....which you might remember was the section of the debate where Trump went quite last time.

Yea, he got some points for his attack on Super Pacs....and likely a lot of people (me included) agree with him. But when your the Frontrunner, and no one can really remember your debate performance and you fade into the background.....well you got to call that one a fail.

4. Rand Paul (8/6)
Just like in the last two of these I did, Rand Paul serves his function of being the line between those who had a good debate and those who had a bad one. Just like his previous debates, he said nothing new, its the same speech he's given for years...but hey at least it works for him as he consistently gives average debate performances, enough to keep him in the debates...not good enough for him to win the nomination, which as I stated before, I dont think he actually wants to do.

So yea, the fact that Rand Paul is in 4th, is basically indicative of the fact most everyone else had a bad night.

3. Marco Rubio (3/1)
Rubio was on track to win the night in my opinion, having very deftly exposed an attempted attack on his record (or lack of) by Jeb Bush earlier and having stayed out of the fray about the allegedly unfair questions, and did a good job deflecting his own personal financial difficulties.....and then the second hour hit.

Rubio kicked off the second hour by praising the Benghazi committee for all the new and damning information it revealed in the Hillary testimony......a point of view so out of touch with reality, that not only would ALL liberals and moderates disagree, but so did most conservatives, including the committee chairmen himself who said the hearings revealed nothing new.

Then, in full delusion mode, Rubio attempted to point out that Hillary/the Democrats hadnt called the attacks terrorism when they happened. Apparently, Rubio wasnt watching the Presidential debates in 2012 when another Republican with the initials M.R. tried to make the same attack against another democratic presidential candidate....an attack that failed so badly it put the final nail in the coffin of the other M.R.'s presidential campaign.

 Now this one delusion was the only dark spot on an otherwise good campaign performance, so it was only fair to kick him down to "just above the dividing line (Paul)" as overall he did well...just not as good as those above him.

2. Kasich (8/5)
Everything Kasich said was solid. Nothing he said was stupid...except his balanced budget amendment idea....but that likely would be agreed to by all republicans on the stage so doesnt hurt him much.

And got to give him credit....he managed to answer every question....while also making sure every question (even about weed) turned into a question about the economy in a way that seemed to make sense (unlike Huckabee and his diseases)...so that Kasich could brag about his role in balancing the budget in the Clinton years and promise to do it again.

So yea, definitely won the "politician of the night" award.

1. Fiorina (4/8)

Much like Kasich, she was on a roll. Basically hit every question and avoided saying much of anything stupid.

Like Kasich one exception....where she talked about reducing the tax code down to 3 pages....because according to her, most Americans can only understand 3 pages of information at a time. Which did come across to me at least as slightly insulting, no matter your stand on the length of the tax code

Now I almost gave the top spot to Kasich (who as you may recall got top billing on my first debate analysis) since Fiorina rambled..(a reoccurring problem for her) and her responses all sound like memorized mini speeches she delivers and not thought out answers...so her "style" on that for lack of a better term comes across as robotic and perhaps not educated on the issues....just able to regurgitate a speech....albeit a regurgitation that sounded a lot less stupid than her last debate performance (even if disagree with her on the issues...she at least seemed to have an answer for them)

But what got her the top spot in my opinion was that she was the recipient of one of the most unfair questions of the night (that Ted Cruz skipped over in his rant)...and she managed to hit a homerun with her answer anyways: Heres the question.

"Mrs. Fiorina, it’s interesting that you bring up Mr. Perkins, because he said a lot of very questionable things. Last year, in an interview, he said that he thinks wealthy people should get more votes than poor people.

I think his quote was that, “if you pay zero dollars in taxes, you should get zero votes. If you pay a million dollars, you should get a million votes.” Is this the type of person you want defending you?"

Perkins by the way was the guy who fired her from HP calling her massively incompetent and other things in the same vein....Fiorina had mentioned in her response a question about being fired that Perkins later changed his mind and thought she had done better than he originally said and the question above was the follow up.

And lets be honest, asking someone about the political positions of a supporter who doesn't work for the campaign is about as unfair a question as you can get....so how did Fiorina reply:

"Well, this is one of the reasons why Tom Perkins and I had disagreements in the boardroom, Becky.

Nevertheless, one of the things that I think people don’t always understand is how accountable a CEO actually is.

So you know, I had to report results every 90 days in excruciating detail. I had to answer every single question about every single result and every single projection in public until there were no more questions.

And if I misrepresented those results or those projections in any way, I was held criminally liable. Imagine — imagine — if a politician were held to that standard of account.

I will run on my record all day long.

Basically she called the guy crazy...said that was part of the reason they didnt work well together, insulating herself from the incompetent charge (and therefore negating the previous question shes been asked about it)...then said that she was fired because she gets held to a much higer standard...which she wants to see applied to politicians tapping in on american disillusionment with Washington.

Seriously, while I think the lady would be a horrible horrible president...that really was the reply on the night and a clinic on how to defend against a tough question without looking like a crybaby like ALMOST EVERYONE ELSE on the stage (notably Cruz and Rubio) did.

So yea....shockingly to me, the winner of Debate #3 the woman whos delusional rants in Debate #2 basically made her look like she was headed back to the kiddie table: Carly Fiorina.

 So yea, to end; for those keeping track at home, Trump won debate 1, Rubio debate 2, and Fiorina now debate 3.

Granted, due to the RNC boycott that resulted from this debate...and the problems thats going to bring the GOP as a whole....maybe no one wins in this debate.