Texas Governor Greg Abbot just made a national embarrassment of himself

So apparently Governor Greg Abbott of Texas just released a list of nine proposed US constitutional amendments that he believes will help fix the county.....there's just ONE small problem. He apparently forgot the read the Constitution first. (which to be fair, hes a republican, they are like Catholics and the bible, they believe in it but almost never read it)

For example here is his first proposed Amendment:

"Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State."

Ok done. And I dont mean like "OK" lets pass that one, I mean that one is actually IN the Constitution as written.

And I dont mean the bill of rights, I mean the actual fucking Constitution. If youve ever heard of the Interstate Commerce Cause, this is EXACTLY what its for. Congress is limited to regulating interactions between states.

Then we have

"Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law."

And

"Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law."

Done and done, this would be the Necessary and Proper clause.

"[Congess has the power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Incidentally both clauses Ive mentioned so far are from Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. To be fair to Governor Abbott, I believe that would be the second page of a written Constitution and we all know republicans are generally too stupid to read...its a struggle to get past page 1 hence why they keep bringing up a length limit on bills at the debates.

And its not like he just skipped over that section or something he fucked up alot more as well

"Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution."

Done. Literally the point of the 10th amdendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

To be fair, its not just the legislative system he didnt study up on, he fucks up the judical system pretty badly too.

"Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds."

Already done. That part would be Article 3, section 2, where they lay out WHEN the supreme court can get involved.

Also, in theory Greg Abbott should know about this. After all there is a case working its way though the courts RIGHT now called "Texas v. United States" in which the state of Texas (of which Greg Abbott is governor) is suing the United States in the form of the President for an executive order that Texas believes oversteps federal law.

In fairness to Greg Abbott though, this case was first filled in 2014....before Abbott was governor. So maybe he knows nothing about it.

I wonder what Greg Abbott was doing in 2014? oh yea....he was the Attorney General of Texas, meaning hes the one who filed that case in the first place.

The only possible conclusions I can draw from this is that Greg is either too fucking stupid to understand what he did (and presumably does) in his job or is severly suffering from some kind of alzheimer's like condition.

"Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law."

Ok, I do have to give the Gov a little credit on this one....that NOT actually in the Constitution and would be a change....sorta maybe.

See heres the problem, seven supreme court justices ISNT a super-majority.

Now I know what your thinking "yes it is 7 is a super majority cause their are 9 justices" Fair point.

Heres the thing, you know else isnt in the Constitution?  the size of the supreme court. Hence why the first Supreme Court had 6 justices, and weve even had as many as 10.

Now how does this happen? Glad you  asked....this part IS in the Constitution. Article III section 1 gives congress the right to change the size of the court by statue.

So we impose a 7 vote rule and the first thing congress does is increase the size of the Court to 15.

Making this amendment pointless...but still at least its an actual change. I mean maybe if Abbott had bothered to READ the Constitution he could have had this actually worded so it could work....but reading is hard.

But I saved my two favorite for last.

"Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision."
"Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation."

So I need to detour for a second to explain why these are my favorite.

Gov Abbott believes congress wont pass his amendments. So he is calling for a convention of the states to pass these amendments into law.

Now what are the requirements for the states to call this convention? Well per the Constitution (specifically article V) "[T]he application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution[...]" 

Yea thats right, the states already have these powers via the very process Gov Abbott is calling for to grant them these powers. And apparently he doesnt actually understand that.

This guy is fucking retarded.

Now to be fair to Abbott, you may have noticed I said he had 9 amendments, and so far Ive only shown 8.

So heres number 9....and again with all fairness to Abbott its actually no where in the Constitution at all nor is it pointless as with the 7 votes things.

"Require Congress to balance its budget."

Yep, its not in the Constitution.....its also literally an idea of every single Republican and not one Abbott came up with on his own.....which is probably why its the only amendment he has that doesnt yet actually exist and therefore isnt an outright embarrassment to him.....it wasnt his idea.

Its funny actually most of the press about this seems to be suggesting Abbott's proposals are one step short of secession or an overwhelming shift in power. I guess its a slow news week so the news needs to make up a story (kinda like they are with Ted Cruz's citizenship) and saying hes a step away from revolution is kinder than saying hes a step away from mental incapacitation.

The latest victims of Guns: The GOP.

So in case you didnt know, this morning President Obama announced new actions on closing the gun show loophole and making mental issues disqualifying for buying guns, and making it easier for police to recover guns.

Now theres a VERY good chance that no matter who you are, your in favor of these changes. according to recent polls. Specifically, 79% favor laws preventing mentally ill people from owning guns, and 70% favor the idea of helping the police recover guns.

Where as 92% agree on closing the gun show loophole.

Thats right 92%.......there is literally NOTHING else 92% of Americans can agree on.

So what do you do if your a republican presidential candidate, and 92% of the country, and 87% of members of your own party wants something?

Apparently you come out against it.....I assume because all the republicans are TRYING to lose at this point?

Not only that, apparently you all compete against each other to see who can oppose in the dumbest way possible

Take for example Governor Chris Christie who objected by saying “I’m sure that ultimately the next president will make sure that he abdicates those extra constitutional actions.”

Which is weird, given that Christie implemented the same programs (and 8 others for gun control) in New Jersey. So I have a hunch he wouldnt abdicate shit.

Then again, I'm also positive Chris Christie wont be our next president.....so maybe he's just openly admitted to that now?

So we can move on to other candidates like Jeb Bush who has this to say:

“I will fight as hard as I can against any effort by this president, or by any liberal that wants to take away people’s rights that are embedded in the Bill of Rights, embedded in our Constitution." 
Now Bush goes on the clarify later what hes actually referring to is not the actions themselves (which is a good thing seeing as how hes in that 92%) instead hes refering to HOW the actions were done.
Because its a well known fact presidents cant do gun regulation via executive order and no other one has attempted to do so.

Except of course, that becomes a bit of a problem.....cause it turns out presidents HAVE done that before. Specifically Presidents named Bush. George HW Bush specifically, who signed an executive order banning the importation and sale of various kinds of guns to anyone. (and for the record, HW Bush isnt unusual in this respect either, lots of presidents have passed gun related executive orders)

So yea, flunking family history to attack the president for doing something you agree with...thats kinda bad.

But credit were its due, by attacking only the process at least Bush avoids looking like a hypocrite.

And in fairness to both of those 2 guys, those were BY FAR the most intelligent responses.

Although that's kinda unfair, because you see the majority of the GOP field are absolute morons. By which I mean they cant read.

Now this may seem a bit harsh, but consider that for the last 2 presidential elections weve had Republicans promising us bills short enough they can actually be read....you know 1 page long or 3 pages long, depending on how fucking stupid the given republican in fact is.

So please, in fairness to the remainder of the Republican field, remember theres a decent chance they dont know how to read when you consider their replies.

Take Carly Fiorina for example

“It is delusional, dangerous, not to mention unconstitutional for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to continue to talk about climate change and gun control in the wake of a Paris terrorist attack, a San Bernardino terrorist attack, instead of talking about a plan to defeat [the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria]"

Thats right, its unconstitutional for people to talk about what ever they want to talk about.

To be fair, you have to read the bill of rights, which starts on the 5th or 6th page of the Constitution to learn about freedom of speech. And asking her to read that much is really taxing such a weak mind.

Then we reach Ted Cruz....now I assume Mr. Cruz must be slightly smarter than Mrs. Fiorina cause he at least seems to have made it through the first amendment.....he just crapped out somewhere around the second

"President Obama is talking about this week issuing yet another executive order trying to go after our right to keep and bear arms"

for Senator Cruz's benefit (or more to the point which ever one of Senator Cruz's staffers is reading this aloud to him)  

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The word Regulation IS actually in the amendment. Plus consider what Obama wants to do, all of his executive orders are to help keep guns out of the hands of crazy people, sane people have nothing to worry about

Actually, you know, I just figured out why Senator Cruz is worried.....

Next up Mike Huckabee, who tries to avoid commenting on if he actually agrees with Obama's methods (as 77% of the public overall seem to according to early polls) by instead trying to talk about Abortion (because in Huckabee world EVERYTHING is abortion).....while also proving that despite the fact hes now been making the same mistake for nearly six months, cant be bothered to read the 14th amendment.  

See heres the Huckster on Twitter (a GOP favorite since it maxes out at 140 characters...most of them can maybe read that much)

@BarackObamaYou say if we can save one life we should. Well, apply 5th & 14th amendments to the unborn & save 4,000 lives a day. #ProLife
Heres the problem, and I only need 3 words of the 14th amendment to get there as it starts“All persons born"

it other words it actually comes with a qualifier, per the Constitution you have to be born for it to apply.

Now shockingly this is actually where I have to stop making fun of Republicans for failing to be able to read.......but thats only because the remaining candidates were at least smart enough to not pretend they had once tried to read the Constitution.

Take for example

Donald Trump who said if elected "I will veto. I will unsign that so fast."

How sad is that? man wants to be president (allegedly) and doesnt even know what the job is. The worst part is, youd think a "sucessfull" businessman would know you cant unsign something.....not to mention you cant veto something already signed....

Which brings me to my personal favorite. Marco Ruibo, the allegedly reasonable one"

“Law-abiding gun owners are not the problem in this country, The problem are criminals, and criminals don’t care what laws you pass. You can pass all the gun laws in the world that you want. It will not stop the criminals.”

To which all I have to say is, I really really really hope this guy wins. I want him to be president.

See that way I can start breaking into peoples houses, stealing all the stuff I want, go on a raping spree and kill anyone I feel like, and I wont be convicted. Instead President Rubio will just repeal the laws against theft rape and murder....cause cleary those laws didnt stop me from being a criminal so should be repealed.

Then I can celebrate my acquittal with some good old fashioned drunk driving while high on LSD.

ITS GOING TO BE FUCKING AWESOME!

How to solve the standoff in Oregon.

Ok I have a confession to make, I dont understand all the hubbub coming out of Oregon.

Ok so I get the part where a bunch of people seized federal property at gun point. But that was days ago. Why is this still news? This shouldnt be a story. We know exactly what to do in this situation and its a really simple solution.

Kill Them.

Its not any harder or more complicated than that.  I've decided the Republicans are right for once. This is what they believe, and I back them 100%

Now I know what your saying, we cant just outright kill a bunch of American Citizens can we?

You god damn right we can.

“Americans who choose to go [...] to fight with [...] terrorists are party to a terrorist organization committing horrific acts of violence [...] There can be no clearer renunciation of their citizenship in the United States, and we need to do everything we can to preempt any attempt on their part to [...]carry out further attacks on American civilians.”

That would be Senator Ted Cruz, currently the #2 in the polls in the Republican party. It was a part of a speech he gave trying to get his Expatriate Terrorists Act passed into law. The bill was also sponsored by Representative Steve King.

And he's not alone. Back in 2012, Senators Joe Liberman (I) and Scott Brown (R) and Repersentives Charlie Dent and Jason Altmire (both Republicans) introduced the
Enemy Expatriation Act to do the same as Cruz's bill.

Lets kill these bastards.

Now to be fair as I'm sure youve noticed, there IS a catch here, both the examples require the people in question to be affiliated with terrorists.

Again, not really a big problem. Per the FBI heres the definition of  terrorism
"an act calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct and Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon)"

Hmm maybe its just me, but seems to me a group that claims to be 150 armed people taking over a federal building through threat of force would probably qualify....in fact even the 12 or so that actually appear to be there would qualify.

Though I guess it really depends on what the armed lunatics want......and to be fair it seems thats a bit up in the air.

First they said they did it because the government screwed a couple of farmers by extending their jail sentences......but then those farmers told them to go fuck off.

So then they said they were doing it because the federal government took the land illegally...presumably back in 1909 when the park was first created. Not sure why they decided only after 107 years that this was a problem.....especially since its pretty clearly not their land as the group mostly comes from Nevada, which Im pretty sure doesnt even share a border with Oregon.

However both reasons are about attempting to change federal policy through violence, so lets kill them already.

And actually turns out none of this really matters anyways.I turn, as all good republicans do, to the Founders to see what they would have done

 Lucky for me that the first time a group of people took up arms against government policy in the Whisky Rebellion, no less a founding father than then-President George Washington personally led an army to try to kill them.  And he didnt even claim he was revoking any rights, or that they were terrorists,....he just did it.  SO I think Im on pretty solid ground here so

Ok, look I know what your saying, "dont they need to do something violent" before we can kill them?

Not partially. After all we did just decide as a country that we can shoot a 12 year old black kid with a toy gun......because we thought he was an adult carrying a real gun.....in a state in which is perfectly legal to be an adult waving a gun around.

But, even if you decide you want to stand firm on the violence thing, this guys are happen to oblige you. Theyve made it known that if the police/FBI or anyone else attempt to remove them, they will kill them.

Now as we saw with Quintonio LeGrier. Eric Garner and Trayvon Martian if you do anything (like say walk towards them) to make law enforcement (or anyone else) think you might even possibly sorta kinda be a threat, they are entitled to kill you.

Or as Jeb Bush put it

"In every community where you have these cases, the elected officials and the police chief need to engage with the community to rebuild trust, but the process worked. If there's a grand jury that looks at all the facts and doesn't indict maybe there’s reasons for that"

And he's 100% right.....the reason is we have decided we can kill people if they act violent. Well these guys are making direct threats to kill people.

So lets kill the motherfuckers already and move on with our lives? Whats the god damn hold up?

Now I would like to point out, I am saying KILL not shoot.

Because I actually DONT think we should shoot these people, and I'll explain why.

As Donald Trump and Marco Rubio have pointed out, we the government need to keep an eye or dangerous people, including their family members, the houses of whorship and any and all websites they visit.

This should all be done in the name of ensuring we stop spreading their ideology.

Well in this case, these people seem to strongly believe their guns will protect them from harm....that they can "use their guns to protect themselves from the government" if you will.

Now honestly, we the american people are responsible for pushing this dangerous ideology because you see, every time something like this happens, we always approach it from the direction of diplomacy. We try to talk these guys down....and by doing so we empower them. We teach them we are weak and we can be cowed by just a couple of guns. We teach them that guns make them the boss.

Hell this very same group of terrorist pulled this same stunt before in Nevada, they showed up with guns to try to stop federal authorities from enforcing US law there too....and were able to get the government to negotiate with them for months.

And we can all see where this weak willed leading from behind got us.

Plus even when the negotiations go south, as they did at Ruby Ridge and Waco, we attack with equal and reasonable force. Yet these kinds of things keep happening. So the way I see it we have only one option left, as we need to show these people how strong and how tough we are and that option is:

Overwhelming Force. Which I think in this case means Drone Strikes. Lets flex our muscle and show these terrorists who they are dealing with.

And its got the nice advantage of teaching these terrorists the truth....your puny ass guns aint going to protect you from shit and its time for you to stop preying on the politeness of the american people.

And it shouldnt stop there either. As Donald Trump has correctly pointed out

“You look at the attack [...] the other day — numerous people, [...] knew what was going on, [...]They saw ammunition all over the place. They knew exactly what was going on.”

“I would be very, very firm with families, Frankly, that will make people think, because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families’ lives.”

So lets drop a drone on the Cliven Bundy ranch too, and the houses of anyone else who happens to be part of this group.

Its in the best interest of national security after all. And like I said, we totally do this shit all the time.

Like for example in 1985 the police in Philadelphia tried to evict one of these groups called MOVE, who were a militant black rights group, from their own building, and when the group resisted, a gunfight started....so the cops ended it by bombing the joint. And actually not only the one place....they actually managed to take out 65 homes.

Thats all I'm saying we do here. Overwhelming fire power.

Now I have a confession to make, as you may have noticed most of the quotes I've used so far are edited. I specifically removed the parts that referenced Muslims, ISIS and radical Islam. But the people in question overall opinion of what should be done with terrorists remained as I showed it.

So clearly they are all calling for the same thing with this group?
No actually not so much:

Per Ted Cruz:
"There is no reason for the federal government to own huge portions of any state, Mike pointed out to me that the value of all that federal land was roughly $14 trillion. At the time, the national debt also happened to be $14 trillion. That suggested to us an obvious and elegant solution for eliminating the debt and moving as much land as possible -- other than national parks -- into private hands."  

Or Rand Paul:
"There is a legitimate constitutional question here about whether the state should be in charge of endangered species or whether the federal government should be.”

Actually in fairness to both of those guys neither of those quotes is actually from this standoff......they are from the LAST one this same group pulled in Nevada in 2014. But at least, this time they arnt claiming the terrorists might have a valid point worth listening too.

This time around, if you want that kind of support you have to go to Marco Rubio:

"There are states… that are dominated by the federal government in terms of land holding and we should fix it, but no one should be doing it in a way that’s outside the law,”

You know what, nevermind. I give up, I cant do it anymore. I tried real hard to be a good Republican on this issue, but I just cant do it. I cant figure out which terrorists we bomb the shit out of and kill their families and shoot on sight and which terrorists we admit have a valid point. Its too confusing......

Oh wait, never mind I figured it out. We kill the black and brown ones (or anyone who might kinda sorta maybe not really be one) and agree with the white ones.

DNC: Definitely Not Cool, Democrats in National Clusterf*ck

Alright, so I admit the GOP tends to get most of the attention in this blog....but thats mostly because thats where most of the chaos is playing out in this election cycle....or at least it was.

It seems the Democrats, or at least the Democratic National Committee (the DNC) may be poised to steal the crown from their republican counter parts.

Ok so a lot of the Chaos on the republican side comes from the fact they had 16 guys running for president, half of them are crazy and the RNC wont really step in to stop the crazy people saying they want the primary to play out without interference and to reflect the choices of the people. (the problem being the people in their party are crazy)

The Democrats meanwhile had 5 candidates, all of whom were comparatively sane. Despite that, it seems the DNC, or at least its chairwoman Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, long ago decided who's going to win this primary, no matter what the people want, and keeps interfering to ensure the outcome she wants.

Ok so our story starts much earlier this year in august. At the time the RNC announced a total of 12 debates for their candidates.....the DNC only 6.

This of course led to outcries from the Democrats for more debates. After all debates build recognition and cededing that many extra debates to the GOP meant voters would likely have a much better idea of what the eventual Republican nominee stood for as opposed to the democrats.

And that wasnt the only problem with the debates. See its not unusual for the DNC/RNC to annouce the number of debates early on in the election cycle. But the DNC took the unsual step of also announcing dates for most of theirs, specifically October 13, November 14th, December 19th, and January 17th.

Or to put that another way, Thursday, Saturday, Saturday and Sunday. Thing is, its well known that on Saturday NO ONE is watching TV at all. its the lowest viewership day of the week. (and Sunday is the second lowest night of the week) And one of those saturdays also happens to be the saturday before christmas, A day in which there has NEVER been a debate before, because viewership also drops across the board near Christmas.

And as FOX news was fast to gloat about (correctly in this case), that appears to have been the case, as only a bit under 7 million people watched the Christmas debate. (this in comparison to the 13.5 million that watched the least watched GOP debate)

Oh, the other Saturday debate? 8.5 millon viewers is all. (compared to say the one democratic debate on Thursday, which got 15 million...and is the 4 most watched debate of the 8 so far)

Oh and that upcoming Sunday debate? that would be the sunday of the MLK 3 day weekend...and scheduled to run against an AFC playoff game. So what do you think the chances are anyone is going to be watching that night?

So why would you schedule 3 of your 6 debates on days no one is watching?

Well there are two possible theories.
1) you are absolutely horrible at your job
2) you know the debates usually harm the candidate with the most name recognition, as people change their minds and support lesser known candidates once they realize they agree with them, and you really really really want the candidate with the most name recognition to win.

Or, to put that second one another way, your in the tank for Hilary Clinton.

Now to be fair to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, she claims that, despite being the national campaign co-chair for Hilary Clinton in 2008, she is totally NOT in the tank for her.

In fact, per Mrs Schultz, she consulted with the 4 previous DNC chairs before announcing the debate line up and they all agreed to these dates.

Except that it seems 3 of those 4 DNC chairs cant remember that conversation....and the 4th isnt commenting.

Oh and leaked memos from inside the DNC also seem to show that 80% (or 4 of 5) of the candidates wanted more than 6 debates. The lone holdout who wanted less debates? Hilary Clinton.

And seeing as how 2 of the 6 debates basically wont be seen well

Oh by the way, it might also be worth pointing out that when DNC Vice Chairwoman Tulsi Gabbard backed the movement for more than 6 debates, she found herself dis-invited from the first debate by Congresswoman Shultz's office.

Its also worth noting that Mrs. Gabbard was also complaining that she and the rest of the DNC officers hadnt been consulted on the debate either, a charge again refuted by Mrs. Shultz who claimed that she had in fact consulted them, just as she had consulted the former DNC heads.

And thats not actually sarcasm....it turns out it WAS the same kind of consultation...non-existent. At least according to another DNC Vice Chairman R.T. Rybak who said he hadnt been consulted either....a claim backed up both for him and Mrs. Gabbard by the DNC's chief of staff.

And by the way, the story doesnt stop there....we are just getting started.

Ok so early last week a story broke that a Bernie Sanders campaign staffer had illegally accessed proprietary information of the Hilary Clinton campaign that was stored on the DNC servers.

Now to be fair, this part is indisputably true. Which is why the Sanders campaign when notified of this fired the staffer in question.

But then things got complicated.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz reacted to the "hack" by suspending the Sanders campaign's access to ITS OWN DATA stored on DNC servers.  This data by the way would be Sanders list of voters, volunteers for the campaign, support and doner lists, basically everything a campaign needs to function

Which honestly makes no sense. Schultz tried to defend it, but none of her varied defenses have logic.  For example:

"They are prohibited from accessing another campaign's proprietary information, and we have the ability to suspend that campaign's access to the voter file in order to make sure that we can preserve the integrity of the voter file and ensure that there is confidence in it"

Ok so. if your worried your voter file isnt secure, that would imply ALL of the campaigns can access ALL of the other campaigns information. So shouldnt EVERYONE be suspended from the database until its secure? Not just 1 of 3 campaigns?

Or this one:

"Over the course of approximately 45 minutes, staffers of the Bernie Sanders campaign inappropriately accessed voter targeting data belonging to the Hillary Clinton campaign. Once the DNC became aware that the Sanders campaign had inappropriately and systematically accessed Clinton campaign data, and in doing so violated the agreement that all the presidential campaigns have signed with the DNC, as the agreement provides, we directed NGP VAN [the vendor that supplies access to the database] to suspend the Sanders campaign's access to the system until the DNC is provided with a full accounting of whether or not this information was used and the way in which it was disposed."

Ok, so on its face this one doesnt look as bad, until you know FACTS try to get involved.

Ok so to be fair to the DNC there some evidence that implied multiple staffers took advantage of the breech, although so far no one seems to be able to link anything back to anyone other than the dude who was fired. And the guy who was fired claims all he did with the information was forward it to the vendor to alert them to the size of the potential breech......a claim that as of yet can not disproved or supported.

Although its worth mentioning the DNC also claims it was the Vendor that was made aware of the breech first. Admittedly this could be due to an internal check, so it doesnt inherently support sanders.

However its worth noting the Sanders campaign didnt actually hack anything despite the implications. The vendor (by their own admission) dropped the firewall while attempting to update the system. Which at least suggests a lower likelyhood of an internal check catching the breech since that would have triggered when they first dropped the firewall.

Also this means that the DNC gets some of the blame here for failing to keep the information secure. Which goes back to that first quote, if they believe they cant keep the information secure (and evidence shows they cant) shouldnt they be suspending EVERYONE until they can?

But real the problem comes at the end, where Wasserman Schultz references the agreement where they can terminate campaign access. It reads like this

"Either party may terminate this Agreement in the event that the other party breaches this Agreement; the non-breaching party sends written notice to the breaching party describing the breach; and the breaching party does not cure the breach to the satisfaction of the non-breaching party within ten (10) calendar days following its receipt of such notice."
Problem is, the Sanders campaign was suspended the same day the DNC was notified of the breech....not at the end of the 10 days they are given to resolve the problem to the DNC's satisfaction.

Which it should be pointed out, Sanders fired the one name the DNC gave them as responsible for the breeches...so clearly they were attempting satisfactory resolutions.

Oh and remember the part where I said the Vendor dropped the firewalls and therefore its arguably the DNC's fault for not keeping the data secure? yea well the agreement backs me up

"This Agreement requires the DNC to "use security measures, with respect to the Campaign Data, that are consistent with good practices in the data processing industry."

Which is why a couple days later the DNC reversed itself and restored Sanders access to his own data....just not fast enough prevent Bernie Sanders from suing the DNC in court for banning them illegally.

And even thats not the end of the story, See Sanders campaign manager claimed the day they were banned that this wasnt the first time this happened

“On more than one occasion they [the DNC] have dropped the firewall between the data of the competing Democratic campaigns. This is dangerous incompetence. It was our campaign months ago that alerted the DNC to the fact that the campaign data was being made available to other campaigns,”
Now I know what your thinking, "funny I havnt heard of anyone else getting suspended", and youd be right.

Now according to the DNC this is because no previous breeches ever happened.

According to the vendor on december 19th however

"Late last night we were directed by our client the DNC to restore the Sanders campaign's full access to VoteBuilder. NGP VAN staff worked through the night to ensure Sanders campaign staff were up and running by early this morning.

For clarification, NGP VAN played no part in the October data issue that has been mentioned.

We look forward to working closely with the DNC and our partners on the important next steps that will ensure Democratic success around the country in November.
Everyone see that? that would be the vendor claiming that yes the firewalls HAVE come down before...but that time wasnt their fault.

Which means the Sanders campaign is telling the truth that this isnt the first time.

So why wasnt the other campaign, whoever it was (strongly implied by the Sanders campaign to be Clinton), punished? In fact, by all accounts the DNC did NOTHING at the time.

Furthermore the DNC and the Clinton Campaign have been claiming that the Sanders Campaign downloaded and saved all of her records, hence the justification for banning them in the first place As Debbie Wasserman Schultz put it:


"Staff on the sanders campaign not only viewed the Clinton campaign's proprietary data, but from what we're being told, downloaded it, exported it and downloaded it,"
problem is, that doesnt appear to have been possible at least according to the vendor:

"On Wednesday morning, there was a release of VAN code. Unfortunately, it contained a bug. For a brief window, the voter data that is always searchable across campaigns in VoteBuilder included client scores it should not have, on a specific part of the VAN system. So for voters that a user already had access to, that user was able to search by and view (but not export or save or act on) some attributes that came from another campaign"

In otherwords the Sanders campaign couldnt have saved anything....and only could see Clintons information on voters they themselves also had information on.  Which is not even remotely what the DNC is accusing them of.

But then again, when youve already decided who you want to win your parties nomination, and burying the debates isnt stopping other candidates from gaining momentum, I suppose selectively and illegal enforcing agreements, possbily ignoring wrongdoing of your preferred candidate and accusing that other candidate repeatedly of things he didnt actually do to make him look worse, is totally justified. Amirite? Debbie Wasserman Schultz seems to think so.

The final GOP debate of 2015. Or how to end the year on a bad note.

Alright so dont have a good intro this time around.....this debate was basically just across the board bad. I actually dont think ANYONE came out looking better than they did going in. So this is more a ranking of worst to least bad.

Now the rules for those just joining us:

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.

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 last 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.


9) Donald Trump (1/7)

Holy fuck, what a disaster for Trump. This is one of the few times that if you listened to the debate on the radio, you probibly think Trump did much better than he did.......because you couldnt see the 5000 expressions of irritation and annoyance (or outright stupidity) on his face. If it wasnt already a known fact, this debate established Trump is a glass cannon.....he can dish it out, but man can he NOT take it. (all pictures are from the debate, although admittedly Im focusing on the stupid ones not the angry one)

Grumpy Trumpy

And it turns out, he has no freaking clue what the internet actually is or how it works.

For example when asked about his comments about wanting to close down the internet he started with:

"Well, look, this is so easy to answer. ISIS is recruiting through the Internet. ISIS is using the Internet better than we are using the Internet, andit was our idea. What I wanted to do is I wanted to get our brilliant people from Silicon Valley and other places and figure out a way that ISIS cannot do what they're doing"

Of course unless you close down the internet for everyone (which he says he didnt mean to suggest) those people in Silicon Valley are going to tell him the internet doesnt work that way......you cant just close off certain people.

He continued

"But we should be using our brilliant people, our most brilliant minds to figure a way that ISIS cannot use the Internet. And then on second, we should be able to penetrate the Internet and find out exactly where ISIS is and everything about ISIS. And we can do that if we use our good people."

I wonder where Trump thinks our intelligence about ISIS is coming from right now?

"WOLF BLITZER: Let me follow up, Mr. Trump.

So, are you open to closing parts of the Internet?

TRUMP: I would certainly be open to closing areas where we are at war with somebody. I sure as hell don't want to let people that want to kill us and kill our nation use our Internet. Yes, sir, I am.

So maybe by parts trump means Websites, which would at least suggest he realize the internet doesnt have a physical location.....but then this happens a bit later

" So, they can kill us, but we can't kill them? That's what you're saying. And as far as the Internet is concerned, we're not talking about closing the Internet. I'm talking about parts of Syria, parts of Iraq, where ISIS is, spotting it.

Now, you could close it. What I like even better than that is getting our smartest and getting our best to infiltrate their Internet, so that we know exactly where they're going, exactly where they're going to be. I like that better."

So Trump clearly thinks we have "our" internet and they have "their internet" and that "their internet" is located in Iran and Syria. Right......except thats not even remotely close to how the internet works.

By the way, it appears the audience realized this cause Trump actually got booed for this....which led to him yelling at the audience for booing him

"But we have to -- who would be -- I just can't imagine somebody booing. These are people that want to kill us, folks, and you're -- you're objecting to us infiltrating their conversations? I don't think so. I don't think so."

Though to be fair, Trump has a point here....the GOP audience has supported very other non nonsensical thing he's ever said, so I dont know why they would draw the line at incorrect comments about what the internet is and how it works.

Internet? dur

Then we leave the stupid moments behind and reach the awkward moments....like this
"I do want a wall. Walls do work, you just have to speak to the folks in Israel. Walls work if they're properly constructed." Which is a little awkward given that Trump just cancelled his trip to Israel after Prime Minister Netanyahu called Trumps ideas stupid (paraphrasing).

Israel? Psss

Or this

"DANA BASH: Mr. Trump, just this weekend you said Senator Cruz is not qualified to be president because he doesn't have the right temperament and acted like a maniac when he arrived in the Senate. But last month you said you were open to naming Senator Cruz as your running mate.

TRUMP: I did.
BASH: So why would you be willing to put somebody who's a maniac one heartbeat away from the presidency?

TRUMP: Let me just say that I have gotten to know him over the last three or four days. He has a wonderful temperament."
Which is awkward cause if you follow the timeline this means Trump both declared Cruz qualified to be vice president and a maniac before he ever knew the guy....meaning both comments were made in equal ignorance. Not sure that really helps....

Change a position? Who me?

Also Trump pledged not to run as a 3rd party candidate.....again. Cause he made the same pledge right after the first debate (in which he had refused to make the pledge)....before reversing himself after the 4th debate. But this time, I'm sure he means it......maybe....sorta.

Dude who knows the future? Amirite?

8) John Kasich (8/2)

John Kasich was basically the forgotten man in this debate. He was never attacked by any candidate, and never attacked another candidate. Which might be classy, but also likely resulted in his having the least amount of time to speak of any candidate.....at 9 minutes. And nothing he said in those 9 minutes was remotely memorable.

7) Ben Carson (2/8)

On the one hand, this was Carson's strongest debate performance....it actually sounded like he had some idea of what he was talking about. On the other hand it was pretty clear he was sticking to the few pieces of information and trivia he had actually memorized, and otherwise still doesnt really know anything. Which is probibly why, like Kasich, he never attacked or was attacked by anyone

And when the moderator tried to get him involved in a disagreement between Rubio and Paul over NSA data collection he refused to take a side......presumably because he didnt actually know anything about the issue. or as he put it "I think you have to ask them about that. I don't want to get in between them. Let them fight."

Also when doing a break down on topics during the debate, its worth noting Carson said not a word on privacy and security or immigration, and spent less than a minute on foreign policy.  Because I guess those issues arnt that important?


And then there was the really awkward and rushed second of silence.....just saying in the future, thats one of those things that shouldnt be done under a timer

6) Carly Fiorina (6/4)

Another candidate who neglected to attack anyone...and also got no damn speaking time. (9 minutes 30 seconds). Of course there is some question as to what she used that speaking time for, as per CNN's breakdown she only spoke on 3 of the 6 debate topics....and only one of those 3 for longer than one minute.(privacy and security 3 minutes 3 seconds). Which kinda makes her a literal single issue candidate in this debate. I only rank her higher than Kasich (who actually covered more issues) because I remember her actually being at the debate, whereas I easily forgot Kasich was there. Ditto that justification for putting her above Carson, I at least remember her taking, more than I can say for him.

5) Ted Cruz (3/6)

So honestly Ted Cruz is only this high because he controlled the debate.  He got far and away the most speaking time, and contributed the most or second most to 4 of the 6 debate topics.

Problem is, much of what he said was a disaster. For example he disagrees with Donald Trump on banning muslims but fell into the im a nazi but not as much of one thing saying  "Well, listen, Hugh, everyone understands why Donald has suggested what he has." and "I understand why Donald made that proposal. I introduced legislation in the Senate that I believe is more narrowly focused at the actual threat[...]" deflected multiple attempts to get him to give specific differences between his plan and trumps by blaming Obama....and also FDR's Grandfather.

Then there was his attempts to dodge questions about his claim he wants to carpet bomb ISIS, which lead to exchanges like this:

"WOLF BLITZER: To be clear, Senator Cruz, would you carpet bomb Raqqa, the ISIS capital, where there are a lot of civilians, yes or no?"

CRUZ: "You would carpet bomb where ISIS is, not a city, but the location of the troops. You use air power directed -- and you have embedded special forces to direction the air power. But the object isn't to level a city. The object is to kill the ISIS terrorists."

Right....except the Troops are located IN a city....which apprently Ted Cruz wants to not bomb except when bombing, but he doesnt want to bomb unless bombing.....

And that wasnt the only time something like that happened. Marco Rubio accused Cruz of voting against the National Defense Authorization Act....to which Cruz said this;
Well, you know, Marco has continued these attacks, and he knows they're not true. Yes, it is true that I voted against the National Defense Authorization Act, because when I campaigned in Texas I told voters in Texas that I would oppose the federal government having the authority to detain U.S. citizens permanently with no due process.

So Rubio is lying because you actually did what he said you did? Huh?

Then there was Cruz's attempt to do the obligatory Reagan reference, except he even managed to bollox that.

"You know, there was a time for choosing as Reagan put it. Where there was a battle over amnesty and some chose, like Senator Rubio to stand with Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer and support a massive amnesty plan."

See the thing is, Reagan ALSO supported that massive amnesty plan....so yea not really the best example.

Although it was the best example for Cruz's debate performance....he talked ALOT, and no matter your position on an issue, he likely agreed with you....and then disagreed with you, then agreed with you, then tried to make it look like you agreed with him.

And I gotta be honest, if this is the best Cruz can do....well I hope he doesnt get comfortable near the top of the polls cause after this performance I doubt he has the skills to stay there.

3) Marco Rubio (4/3)

Rubio gets a boost here from the fact that he was clearly the one Ted Cruz (who again dominated the talking time) was trying to take down....and yet Rubio "won" most of the exchanges.

Heck even the one time Rand Paul tried to take him on, Rubio won with a compartively great line of
"I want to thank Rand for another 30 seconds" after Paul mentioned him....and Rubio then used those 30 seconds to ignore Paul.

And he gave a really good anwser on if we should keep bombing ISIS and how to fight them.

Well, let me begin by saying that we have to understand who ISIS is. ISIS is a radical Sunni group. They cannot just be defeated through air strikes. Air strikes are a key component of defeating them, but they must be defeated on the ground by a ground force. And that ground force must be primarily made up of Sunni Arabs themselves, Sunni Arabs that reject them ideologically and confront them militarily.

Which was not to say his debate preformance was steller, it really wasnt. He managed to articulate plenty of really stupid things....although as sound bites they likely sound good in the primary...but I suspect should he make it to the general election he's going to have to walk alot of it back.

For example when describing ISIS he said:

"But this is what's important to do is we must deal frontally with this threat of radical Islamists, especially from ISIS. This is the most sophisticated terror group that has ever threatened the world or the United States of America."

Yea, ISIS is the most sophisticated threat we've faced Not Nazi Germany (then again given current republican policies, this makes sense). Not Al Qadea (who actually DID 9/11). Not China (all the hacking). Hell not even the USSR, who you know had NUKES. No its ISIS, who compared to any of the groups I named (and a lot more) hasnt really done shit to us....

Then he got around to American's who join ISIS

Yes, let me -- three points of distinction. The first is, if you're an American citizen and you decide to join up with ISIS, we're not going to read you your Miranda rights. You're going to be treated as an enemy combatant, a member of an army attacking this country.

Because you know, FUCK the Constitution. President Rubio is only going to apply that when convenient. Otherwise they can just claim your ISIS...and without your rights, they probably dont have to prove it.

Or when addressing his flip flop on Immigration between 2013 and now:

"Yeah, a couple points. In 2013 we had never faced a crisis like the Syrian refugee crisis now. Up until that point, a refugee meant someone fleeing oppression, fleeing Communism like it is in my community."

2 problems here. First WE HAD faced those kinds of problems before. Off the top of my head, the Irish during the famine and the Jews during WWII (but then again ISIS is worse than Nazi's per ruibo)

Second problem is the bigger one. As it sounds like Rubio is fine with different rules for people allegedly like him...but fuck everyone else. Not a great position. And I say allegedly like him, because Rubio's family ARNT  Cuban refugees. His parents voluntarily immigrated here during the reign of Batista....before Castro came to power.  And Rubio KNOWS this....but I'm sure misrepresenting himself wont fuck him with the Cuban vote in Florida...

Oh, speaking of refugees, how many of them is Rubio willing to kill/damn if needed? Well let him tell you.

"If we allow 9,999 Syrian refugees into the United States, and all of them are good people, but we allow one person in who's an ISIS killer -- we just get one person wrong, we've got a serious problem.

And there is not a single person in the national defense apparatus of this country that can guarantee you are going to be 100 percent right. And that's why as president, I'll take this very seriously."

Cause hey if 1 out of 1000 people is bad....fuck em all.

Finally there was this, in Rubio's closing statement

"For over 200 years this has been a special country. A unique place where anyone from anywhere can achieve anything. "

Heres the problem....assuming we accept his premise HE'S THE ONE WHO WANTS TO CHANGE THAT BY KEEPING PEOPLE OUT, that was literally his main debate topic for the debate.

3) Rand Paul (9/1)
The problem for Rand Paul is that he was basically irrelevant. He tried to attack other candidates.....and they brushed him off and ignored him.

That said He did a good job of explaining why US intervention in the middle east was a mistake, and he did a good job of explaining why a no fly zone in Syria would likely start world war III...its just that no body gave a shit. And some of the blame here goes to the moderators, who after Paul spoke would ask follow up questions to other candidates....but without mentioning anything Paul had said that might change the framing of the question. I think everyone knew that with Rand's poll numbers being what they were, they would never actually see him again anyways....and treated him like that.

Thought I dont want to say it was all good for Paul.  He also had his awkward I'm a Nazi but not as much as other people moment on his bill to ban immigration.....which was "more focused" (read less extreme) than the Rubio Cruz and Trump plans he attacked, and well his explanation on that really did seem to be "this is an unamerican idea....except when I do it cause logic"

2) Chris Christie (7/did not participate in the last debate)
I dont actually have much to say here for Christie, except that he made an impression, he DID come across as very strong and very forceful....and also puffed the fuck out of his executive expericence.

Granted he also repeated his lie about being named chief federal prosecutor in New Jersey the day before 9/11.

And wants to launch the world headline into World War III by shooting down russian planes.

But he was at least honest and clear about what he wanted. So he gets high marks for that. Unlike the other candidates you know what a bad deal your getting with Christie upfront and he's not shy about it. So he gets this spot due only to clarity and presence...not content. But he WILL be talked about after the debate....and he wasnt even in the last one, so thats got to be a "win"

1) Jeb Bush (5/5)
Winner by Default is really the only thing I can say about Bush. Like Christie, he mostly got this spot by standing firm....and finally punching back on Donald Trump. In fact he was responsible for most of the Trump angry faces though out the night.

Though to be fair, like a couple of other candidates he did have a reasonable explanation for what he wanted to do with ISIS (fight them in syria not here) and why banning Muslims here actually strengthens ISIS.

Well except for one possible issue:
"We need to get the lawyers off the back of the warfighters. Right now under President Obama, we've created this -- this standard that is so high that it's impossible to be successful in fighting ISIS."

Not really sure what he means here.....except maybe as a reference to Obama's justice department banning the use of torture. Which presumably means he wants to bring it back.....cause that worked so well under his brother.

And then there was one really awkward moment when Bush was asked what made him qualified to be commander in chief and he said
"Because I -- first of all, I know what I don't know. I know what I don't know."

Which made me think of this

Again, referencing some of the most infamous parts of his brothers presidency doesnt seem like a great idea.

And then the potentially stupidest thing Bush said: 

"I completely agree with Chris. And this administration has been so lax. Think about it. Hillary Clinton is using a private server for -- where classified information go by. This is a -- this is a serious administration?"

I get it. You want to take the easy pot shot at Hilary Clinton. Heres the problem....Bush got caught doing the same damn thing. Well not exactly, Bush did something WORSE. See Hillary turned her emails over to a government investigator who redacted anything secret.

Bush turned the government emails HE did from his personal account over to the public by posting them on his website. And forgot to redact them. Including up-words of 13,000 social security numbers of Floridians, with all other identification included.  Or as identity thieves called it "Christmas come early".

Just saying the response add from Hilary if these two do make the general writes itself....and not favorably for Bush,

But again at the end of the day most of Bushes fuck ups wont hurt him too badly in the primary and require analysis or a second look to realize how dumb/bad they are. Which means he did better than anyone else, making him again the winner by default, even if his performance really wasnt that good.

So yea, there you have it, my review of the 5th and final debate of the year. The GOP must be SO proud of their candidates........

Decoding the Repbulican's Trump memo

Alright so earlier this week a 7 page memo was accidentally leaked from the NRSC, the National Republican Senatorial Committee. (think of it as a Senate only version of the RNC, their main job is to get republicans elected to the senate. Now of course, no one wants to read a boring memo....so I've taken it upon myself to translate it for you in to snarky English.

So the memo started like this:

The place is Cleveland, Ohio. The date is July 21, 2016 and Donald Trump has just accepted the nomination of the Republican Party to be its nominee for President of the United States.

Yep thats right, the entire point of this memo was what the GOP should do should Donald Trump actually win the nomination.

They continue:

Not since liberal Republican businessman Wendell Willkie won the GOP nomination in 1940, had another dark horse candidate stood as its nominee for President. And, Willkie and Trump have a lot in common. Both were seen as fresh-faced outsiders. Each had the backing or received the promotion of major news media outlets, and both we’re outside of the established political order. Willkie would go on to lose to wartime President Franklin Roosevelt, but this time it’s harder to predict an outcome because of the volatility of the electorate.

Actually I have to disagree. I'm pretty sure no one actually thinks Trump has a chance......and that conclusion is drawn entirely from whats in your own memo.

Trump has risen because voters see him as authentic, independent, direct, firm, --- and believe he can’t be bought. These are the same character traits our candidates should be advancing in 2016. That’s Trump lesson #1. We should prepare for 2016, by understanding the environment and recognizing the Trump phenomenon.

So being like Trump is a good thing it seems. thats what all republican candidates need to be like. 

The following are a series of recommendations to consider if Donald Trump is the GOP nominee in 2016:
Trump is a Misguided Missile.
Let’s face facts. Trump says what’s on his mind and that’s a problem. Our candidates will have to spend full time defending him or condemning him if that continues. And, that’s a place we never, ever want to be. It is certain that all GOP candidates will be tied in some way to our nominee, but we need not be tied to him so closely that we have to engage in permanent cleanup or distancing maneuvers.

Wait what? you literally just said your candidates need to be embracing Trumps characteristics......and in the very next paragraph you said hes a major problem.......because he's authentic....which your candidates should be according to the previous paragraph.

And I would also like to comment on the end of that paragraph too. It seems the advice thats giving other republicans is basically "lets stick our fingers in our ears and pretend Trump's not the candidate, so we dont have to seen with him, be associated with him, have to clarify for him, touch him, or even get a faint wiff of his shampoo. 

Run Your Own Race. 

You’re running for the U.S. Senate so focus on that. Don’t get drawn into every Trump statement and every Trump dust-up. Keep the focus on your own campaign and the voters back home.

Again, STAY AWAY FROM TRUMP HE'S FUCKING CRAZY....but you know embrace his personality too.....

Show your Independence.

As we know, Trump is subject to farcical fits. You can still obey the “run your own campaign” edict, while still taking Trump to task on outrageous statements where the media won’t let you off the hook. Choose opportunities to take the moral high ground while exerting your independence.

Just in case you didnt understand us the first two times....this man is a ranging lunatic, and for the love of God please call him on his bullshit if the media asks you about him....PLEASE....but again, be more like him as we mentioned at the beginning.

Remember the Basics. 

Every campaign is about telling voters who you are, what you want to do, and why you’re the best choice for the job. Turn your biography into a compelling narrative that shows you’re one of them. Promote a new vision (what you want to do) and own the future. Stake out new issue turf or reframe issues so it has a new look to it. This allows you to separate from the national debate, promote issues you care about in a new manner, and it’s harder for opponents to knock since you’re offering a future vision.

Pay close attention to the end there. SEPARATE YOURSELF FROM THE NATIONAL DEBATE. Because that's going to be controlled by Trump....and hes Batshit psycho. And if your not careful your opponents will smear you with his crazy juice.

Change the Look. 

It’s time to change the way you and your campaign are presented. Lose the suit and visit people in their homes and places of work. Hold sessions where you listen to people and capture audio and video of them discussing their real world problems. People talk about problems, not issues. So, focus on the problems and offer your solutions. Avoid Washingtonspeak (legislation, bills, insider talk) in favor of Main Street common sense. And, tell your communications and media teams to up the vibe and change the look. Voters are on to you when you do the standard walk and talk through a business, school, or factory. Try a new look and have business owners, constituents, family members, and workers talk about  you.

Ok, in fairness, this one has nothing to do with Trump. But I'm glad the GOP has finally addressed the core problem they have...their candidate just look too damn stuffy.

Look at this guy. No suit, Clearly listening and not talking. Nontraditional venue. Dude has winning presidential candidate written all over him

Have them talk about a problem you solved, a solution you came up with, or the life-changing moment you delivered on. Feature them in your issue phase while you assume the role of a citizen-servant. This also protects you from opposition attacks since real world people are talking about real world things you did for them. How can someone challenge that? To accomplish the above, each campaign must line up the citizen narrators or storytellers now. Review your constituent files and find the old letters thanking you for solving a problem. Next, get permission to use their story in your campaign. Vet each person so they can handle the scrutiny. Populate your web content with stories instead of typical issue jargon. instead of a webpage heading that says “JOBS” feature a working person talking about the importance of having a job, getting a better job, or working one job instead of two to make ends meet. Then, have them talk about your first job, the lessons you learned, and why better jobs at higher wages can make all the difference for our working families. When you change
the look of your campaign, you distance yourself from the national narrative and the Trump entertainment.

Note again, LET THE OTHER PEOPLE TALK AND NOT US. Cause we are all idiots and will all say something stupid. So really the less we are involved in our own campaigns, the better really, Ideally we wouldnt even run you guys for office at all, just pick you after an election but it turns out you cant leave the candidate names blank on the ballot....so work with us people NO OPINIONS of your own for the love of God. Trumps already fucking us with that one. And speaking of Trump, once again for the love of everything, STAY AWAY FROM TRUMP HES NUTS.

"Special Note: Consider doing some of the jobs the workers do in the machine shops, small businesses, and factories you visit. Have the employee show you what they do and then try to do it. This changes the visual narrative so it’s more personal and engaging."


Because there is no way this could possibly go wrong.....just ask Bush 41 about his trip to the supermarket. 

Understand the Changing Environment and Recalibrate Now. 

The Trump phenomenon exists because Washington politicians promise change, but don’t deliver. Your job is to deliver. In the past two cycles it was easy to say, “Washington’s broken” but in 2016, you need to demonstrate that you’ll rip up the rotten roots and begin anew. To get on the reformist wave, advance clear-cut reforms that change the way Washington works. The best way to do this is to highlight reforms that you have previously advanced, or discuss reforms that are working in your state. You can also feature stories of reformers who have changed things for the better. This gives people hope, and it shows you offering a positive future vision.

I dont think I have a joke for this one. Cause basically they are telling the Republicans to stop doing nothing as they have done for the last 6 years.....and I actually with this one. Its time for Republicans to do something, stand for something, and have positions. (oh wait I forgot having positions on issues was a no-no earlier...my bad)

Special Note: Consider visuals that communicate change and reform. Feature candidates working on an old engine and note how sometimes you have to do a complete overhaul to get things working. Consider featuring a candidate in a field ripping up a rotten tree stump so the field can be cleared and planting can be done. Have a constituent or citizen talking about the candidate cleaning up the mess in Washington as the candidate participates in a street cleaning & beautification campaign. 

Post a reform tab on your website and feature stories of real world reforms that can change Washington. Be sure to feature reformers in your videos, on your YouTube channel, and in social media. Promote tweets that push reforms or condemn Washington’s dysfunction. The time to build the case against Washington (even if you are part of it) is now, not in the final three months of the election.

Again, please try to at least ACT like your normal people. And again let actually normal people do the thinking and talking....we suck at it.

Finally, call on citizens to post their own reform recommendations and then select the best of the lot. This “bottom up” method allows you to say that the reforms are from regular citizens. Post the best ideas, promote discussions on your social platforms, and discuss them on your YouTube channel, talk radio, podcasts, and TV appearances.

Again, let other people come up with opinions and positions for you. See this way we will have ideas and they wont be batshit stupid cause we had nothing to do with it. 

(Actually, that IS kinda brilliant...)

Special Note: Always bring the campaign back home to real people and their daily struggle. The Trump show may be going on, but back home our families are in a fight for their livelihoods. Keep your narrative on them, not the national scene. Tell stories of citizens overcoming obstacles and succeeding. Sell optimism. Promote hope. Story-based messaging allows you to plough new ground and own the field.

Again, because this point clearly can not be restated enough. STAY. AWAY. FROM. THE. CRAZY. MAN!

Trump Can Hit the Right Chord. 

We may not like it, but Trump has connected with voters on issues like trade with China and America’s broken borders. When Trump was criticized on building a wall to stop immigration, he noted how Israel successfully built walls that were cost effective and did the job. Trump will continue to advance those messages, but you don’t have to go along with hismore extreme positioning.

You remember all those times we said Trump was crazy? we uh may have been exaggerating.

Instead, you should stake out turf in the same issue zone and offer your own ideas. Target China on industrial espionage.  Hit China on its cyber war against the U.S. government. Focus on China breaking existing trade rules and using Chinese government intervention to create an unfair advantage. On immigration, select areas where reform can be done and should be done. One example is better tracking of those who violate their tourist visa. Governor Christie recently noted that 40% of those in our country illegally overstayed their visas. This is a highly correctable matter and a reform that should be promoted. Select some commonsense and doable reforms.

Oh i get it now. So you should talk about the same things Trump's taking about....but you know, dont lie about them.......seems fair.

Although this might be a bad time to point out that Governor Christies solution to people overstaying their visas was to assign them all a number that they would be forced to wear for tracking purposes.....

I assume they will look something like this?

Trump and Women.
Houston, we have a problem:
Donald Trump has said some wacky things about women. Candidates shouldn’t go near this ground other than to say that your wife or daughter is offended by what Trump said. We do not want to reengage the “war on women” fight so isolate Trump on this issue by offering a quick condemnation of it.

We of course cant say that WE are offended....that might offend the sexist white male bigots who plan on voting for us. We cant loose that vote. So we wont object just note that our female family members do (for what little their opinion is)

Also I wonder what a female candidate is supposed to say?

Oh wait, I forgot, this is the REPUBLICAN party.......they dont really want to have any of those kinds of candidates. They would prefer those people stayed in the kitchen when not popping out babies,

Trump Rises Because People Understand Him. 

Trump is saying that the Emperor has no clothes and he challenges our politically correct times. Our candidates shouldn’t miss this point. Don’t insult key voter cohorts by ignoring that America has significant problems and that Trump is offering some basic solutions. Understand the populist points Trump makes and ride that wave.

Again, remember Trump is crazy, we want nothing to do with him, he's bad, he makes shit up.....but his solutions....that you should avoid at all costs.....make sense.

We Can’t Afford to Depress the GOP Vote. 

Spending full time attacking our own nominee will ensure that the GOP vote is depressed. That will only serve to topple GOP candidates at every level. Maintain the right amount of independence, but avoid piling on the nominee.
Remember, call Trump out on his crazy.....but not too much....after all we need the wackjobs who believe him and agree with him to actually win.......

Covering the Trump Bet. 

Conventional wisdom has counted Trump out on several occasions. But, Trump continues to rise and the criticisms seem to make him stronger. Trump has been gaining Democrat adherents and he’s solidifying GOP cohorts who feel they’ve been totally ignored by the Washington Ruling Class.

See the real secret to Trumps support is that hes winning over DEMOCRATS. They are the ones who are going to make him win the REPUBLICAN nomination, not us republicans. We are totally blameless for bringing the Trump down upon us. we need fix nothing and really....can we just move on now?

It’s not a bet most would place now, but it could happen. That’s why it’s important for our candidates to run their own races, limit the Trump criticisms (other than obvious free kicks), and grab onto the best elements of the antiWashington populist agenda. This memo is written under the assumption that Donald Trump wins the nomination. We don’t have a crystal ball, but in 1940, few were predicting that an Indiana businessman with New York connections would win the Republican nomination for President of the United States.

See run your own race....that way no matter if Trump wins or loses we can disown him....or felate him....depending. Point is this could happen so you need to be prepared to disown/embrace/disown Trump....and you cant show any confusion on this point, so I hope everyone understands now....


So yea, that wraps up the memo.....and I have to say, as much as I disagree with the Republicans I feel sorry for their Senate candidates, who are probably setting consumption records for Aspirin to deal with the headaches they have making sense of when to disown or not disown the crazy and sane Donald Trump... 

When Silence isnt Golden, the GOP and the Planned Parenthood shooting

So its been about 48 hours since the shooting in Colorado and weve still heard nothing from 13 of the Republican candidates about it.

Now I get it, they dont want to speak before all the facts are in....after all it would be a shame to call it domestic terrorism before they knew for sure. And you know there was that story that maybe it was a bank robbery. So you know, maybe a slow deliberate approach, waiting until all the facts come in is warranted. Incidentally, why does that sound so familiar?

Oh yea.....thats it. That was the Obama approach to Benghazi, where, because he didnt address the possibility it was terrorism with in 7 seconds, he and Hillary are personally responsible for the death's that occurred.

Actually thats not fair....he DID say it could be terrorism in the first speech he gave on the subject....but since he didnt say it loud enough....its still his fault.

I wonder if the republicans are starting to regret that yet? After all, near as I can tell I am now well within my rights to say things like:

Jeb Bush wants to murder cops

Marco Rubio supports terrorists

Carly Fiorina is alright with murdering civilians

Rand Paul thinks its ok to kill people if you disagree.

After all, if only the Republicans had said the words DOMESTIC TERRORISM louder, maybe none of this would have happened.

I do look forward to seeing all of them have to give 11+ hour congressional testimony over the course of several years, in which they will have to explain why they didnt drop everything only focus on dead americans to the exclusion of everything else, like eating and pooping, only to eventually learn nothing.

Actually thats a bit unfair. We would totally learn some stuff. Stuff like Marco Rubio and Rand Paul taking to twitter not long after the attack and tweeting a link to buy new campaign merchandise. At least we know they werent too busy to tweet, they just didnt care amirite?   Cause by republican standards there is no other explanation. (like say a timed automated tweet that just had bad timing)

Actually, now that I think about it, maybe there IS another explanation other than 13 GOP presidential candidates are implicitly ok with domestic terrorism......they are too confused and/or scared to say anything about it.

Consider, the target of this mass shooting was Planned Parenthood. And Republicans HATE planned parenthood. So much so that the Republican controlled house voted to defund the group based on a videotape that was already known to be doctored with footage that didnt actually happen at planned parenthood at the time they voted. Then, they followed up with a congressional inquiry into Planned Parenthood to see if it was possible that maybe the tape HAD in fact been made at planned parenthood even if the people who made it said otherwise.

Point is, republicans might be a little torn on this one. 

For them, this would be like ISIS attacking a NeoNazi rally.......actually wait, given the current predilections of the GOP thats a bad analogy, they would KNOW who to support in that one (hint: the Nazis) so I'll try again.

That would be like ISIS bombing a Ku Klux Klan rally. No wait, that one doesnt work either. Ok one more....I got it

From the republican point of view, the Planned Parenthood shooting is like ISIS bombing a black lives matter protest......they dont particularly like either one, and think both are dangerous and evil.

So who do you sympathize with? After all, if you show sympathy to the victims, you piss off the radical anti abortion side of your base......but if show sympathy to the shooter you piss off everyone else.

So whats a Republican to do?

Actually it turns out, they have an answer to that too: Pretend it didnt happen, because its politcally inconvenient that it did.

See not too long after the shooting began, FOXNews (and a few other places) reporting the shooting WASNT taking place at a Planned Parenthood......it was taking place at a Bank.

As they reported:

"Denise Speller, manager at a nearby haircut salon, said she heard roughly 10-20 gunshots in the span of less than five minutes. She said she saw a police cruiser and two officers outside near Chase Bank, not far from the Planned Parenthood facility. One of the officers appeared to fall to the ground and the other office knelt down to render aid, then tried to get the officer to safety behind the car, she said. Another officer told Speller to seek shelter inside the building."

See it HAD to be a bank near the planned parenthood, cause as we all know, Bullets are stationary. Its not possible to shoot any one at range. Also, even if you throw a bullet, they are bound by the borders of the property they are thrown on....its like an invisible fence.

Also, of course, as we all know, in the event of a shooting, Police Officers are trained to tell bystanders to seek shelter in the building with the active shooter......

Point is, this "logic" led to tweets such as this all over the right wing:

by the editor of Breitbart.com

or an editor of the right wing National Review

Point is, its possible the 13 Republican candidates who remained silent, actually dont know or wont believe the truth.

Which sounds unlikely....but this is also the same party that believes Bush kept us safe on 9/11....Obama has clearly done something impeachable, despite no evidence and a record number of investigations, Obama was born in Kenya, the 2012 polls had Romney up by a huge landside margin, and all brown folks are dangerous.

So point is, delusion isnt that unlikley for these guys.

So there you have it, you have 13 republican candidate who are either Pro terrorist, delusional or pussies....your choice.

Now to be fair, there was ONE republican candidate who managed to put something out on twitter that expressed sympathies to the victims without actually having to pick a side or decide what the shooting really was about:

Senator Ted Cruz....who tweeted this:

Praying for the loved ones of those killed, those injured & first responders who bravely got the situation under control in Colorado Springs"
Holy crap, look at that, he managed to show sympathy for the cops and the killed, and not endorse planned parenthood or even admit the shooting took place there.

But apparently even that is seemingly beyond the abilities of the other 13 republicans...cause you know ITS SO HARD....but dont worry they are totally up for the challenges of being president.

Although to be fair, Ted Cruz has his own possible problems. In that a few days ago he announced he was endorsed by Operation Rescue, specifically its president Troy Newman.

“I am grateful to receive the endorsement of Troy Newman, He has served as a voice for the unborn for over 25 years, and works tirelessly every day for the pro-life cause. We need leaders like Troy Newman in this country who will stand up for those who do not have a voice.”
Which is now really awkward, since one of the things Operation Rescue does is pay the legal fees for those who commit acts of violence, including murder, against abortion providers.

But hey, at least Cruz feels sorry for those who are killed by those who agree with him and he supports......So thats better than Donald Trump right?

----------------UPDATED------------------------

So it turns out that since I first published, 4 more republicans have issued statements, Trump Fiorina, Huckabee and Carson.

Sadly, 3 of those Trump, Fiorina and Huckabee missed their marks and basically blamed planned parenthood for causing the attack.

All 3 cited the video tapes that surfaced months ago alleging to show planned parenthood selling baby parts as being so outrageous and unethical that of course people, including crazy people would feel compelled to stop it. (as the shooter apparently referenced that tape)

Of course the problem with that is those tapes are doctored....as admitted to by the people that put them out and most of the scenes about selling babies wernt filmed at Planned Parenthood (hence why the congressional inquiry got nowhere).

But I mean its still totally Planned Parenthoods fault....after all they SHOULD have been selling baby parts, that way the right wing wouldnt have had to lie about it. Its Planned Parenthoods fault for being too ethical and forcing the right to lie to people to anger crazy people enough to shoot the place up.....or something.

Ben Carson, actually probably should get some credit for his statement though:

"Unfortunately, there’s a lot of extremism coming from all areas. It’s one of the biggest problems that I think is threatening to — to tear our country apart. We — we get into our separate corners and we hate each other, we want to destroy those with whom we disagree.

It comes from both sides. So, you know, there is — there is no saint here in this — in this equation.

But what we really have to start asking ourselves is what can we do as a nation to rectify this situation?

How can we begin to engage in rational discussion?
You know, all you have to do is go to the — an article on the Internet and go to the comments section, you don’t get five comments down before people start calling each other names and acting like idiots, you know."

Now I say some, because, as of this moment, I am unaware of any pro choice activist going into a pro life gathering and shooting people....or even suggesting it, so I dont think you can say both sides are equally as culpable in the violence and shooting and death threats, or producing and having the government act on doctored video.......

But at least he sees this as a bad thing that needs to stop.....just a shame he didnt wake up from his nap 2 days ago to say it.

----------------UPDATED------------------------

Mike Huckabee is now responding as well, and if it wasnt for the fact it took him more than 48 hours to do it, I'd actually say (surprisingly) he nailed his response perfectly:

“Well, we don't know fully what the facts are, They're still being determined. We don't even know some of the victims' names yet. But regardless of why he did it, what he did is domestic terrorism, and what he is did is absolutely abominable, especially to those of us in the pro-life movement, because there's nothing about any of us that would condone or in any way look the other way at something like this."