Election Abomination

I walk down Manor Drive nearly every Pacifica day. №304 have two lawn signs, one for Clinton with that stupid arrow, another for Clinton with that idiot Kaine. These are what the sort of cretins who support Ms Clinton call a “micro aggression,” or would be if they were for Trump; then again, no one would be so brazen about supporting that dreadful presidential choice.
[see: Foundation for Individual Rights in Education]

I voted

The 2020 election cycle will begin in a couple of weeks. I voted in 2016 already. Let’s rehash the morass, shall we.

Every four years, the media maintain the fiction that the Presidential Election is a horserace between two persons, except when Kerry was the nominee. Nothing can alter that narrative, as the laws, rules and practises serve the “two-party” duopoly, the reporting focuses on absurdities over substance. The American public never hears a discussion of systemic problems, or any real issues.

Instead, we get spats over who said what to whom and, in the current “race,” who is less dishonest and the less unlikeable of the two unacceptable candidates.

Do US voters care who may have been more insulting to women in the past? Some may. But what about those who care about the floundering economy, the imperial presidency, endless wars of choice, not to mention the debt (officially approaching 20 trillion dollars) and runaway off-book entitlements. Health-care delivery is more of an overpriced mess, thanks to the Unaffordable Care Act (UCA), higher education a world-class ripoff also thanks to federal meddling, while from kindergarten to high school, all bets are off. Instead of promising new entitlements, candidates should address those that already exist, preferably before they go bankrupt. Left to their own vices, the candidates do a great job of avoiding real issues, squabbling over semantics, not substance.

In past cycles, independent [what the media call “third party,” if they are mentioned] candidates were ignored by mutual consent. Rare coverage pushed the theme that since they cannot win, they are irrelevant, or spoilers. In 2016, the major-party candidates are so deplorable, there has been widespread support for alternative choices, particularly among younger voters, who may believe some remnant of democracy remains in this country.

The result is increased coverage, designed to ridicule the challengers, as if being a less polished candidate somehow disqualifies a person more than being a horrific purveyor of the status-quo, a liar and a cheat.

Recently, Chris Matthews (at MSNBC, a network so bad, even Microsoft abandoned it) asked Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson a gotcha question, “Who is your favourite foreign leader?” That was his question. Johnson took the question seriously, a tactical error, bigger than appearing on MSNBC in the first place. The interview was no big deal because the dozens of viewers probably don’t vote Libertarian anyway. But it was picked up by the other outlets, most of whom reported it as Gary Johnson not knowing the name of any world leader, which was not the question. Seems you can’t damage him without resorting to journalistic malpractice. Think about it. Do you have a favourite foreign leader? I might say Benjamin Netanyahu, so long as I wasn’t required to spell it, but I’m not running for president. Were I, it would seem impolitic to choose anyone because you can’t choose favourites. If I didn’t know better, I would say the media are being deliberately obtuse.

Why would Gary Johnson admire a foreign leader, when they are all anti-libertarian statists? Even Western leaders scoff at little things like freedom of speech. Had I been running and asked that, I’d have said, “Why don’t you ask me a serious question about something that matters to your dozens of MSNBC viewers?” Or maybe, “What the fuck kind of question is that? Wanna know my favourite singer, too, twerp?”

Have Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton answered this question? No, and they never will be because it is inane, the kind of thing a fourth grader might ask one of his classmates, kind of like “who’s your favourite Kardashian?” Nor should this “disqualify” Gary Johnson from being president. Did Barack Obama believing that there are 58 states disqualify him? Of course not, although maybe it should have.

Fool yourself

Chris Matthews supports horrible Hillary Clinton, even if he doesn’t get a thrill up his leg for her, so his goal is to demean and ridicule anyone taking votes from her. I have seen Gary Johnson on Fox — a lot — and he might seem too laid back, but he is always knowledgable, intelligent and truthful. He doesn’t just try to tell the truth, he does it. And he doesn’t parse his words, like Barack Obama and every Clinton.

The media used this to construct a scenario, again thanks to Johnson’s honest approach of referring to his inability to answer as “an Aleppo moment.” Aleppo is a town or city located in the Middle East, which most Americans could not have named at the time Gary Johnson did not recognise it. Now, a few more do, after its repetition in interminable news stories about the Libertarian candidate. It was another silly question. “If elected, what would you do about Aleppo?” What can anyone do? What has the Obama administration done? Created a disaster it doesn’t want to hear about. Shouldn’t a new President concentrate on Chicago’s murder rampage before “solving” problems in Syria (or wherever Aleppo is), a Middle Eastern nation among the many where the US have exacerbated chaos?

The ridiculous reason given against voting for an independent candidate is that he (or she) cannot win. Once, I voted for a main-party candidate, George McGovern. He did not win. In fact, he lost badly. I never regretted my vote because I believed he would get the US out of the misguided mess in Vietnam, and that he was an honest, decent man. I did not agree with all his policy positions, but his opponent was dishonest and not even conservative. Shortly after that debacle, I proudly wore a button saying: “Don’t blame me. I voted for McGovern.” Being right is better than selling your soul.

I have never voted for a presidential candidate who won. Those who did made poor choices every time, usually settling on the “lesser of two evils” or, as I like to put it, picking “tweedle-dumb or tweedle-dumber.” It is not entirely the voters’s mistake. The two parties collude to prevent free and open elections. It is no mystery why; they do not want to lose. The media are complicit. There are frequent lawsuits over ballot- and debate-access restrictions, which rarely win, not on the merits, but because the judges are either Democrats or Republicans. Rarely are these travesties reported in the press. [see: Ballot Access News or, better yet, subscribe.]

Don’t get me started on the courts. They are as political as the other government branches.

Celebrities claim they will move to another country if Donald Trump is elected. If they were smart, which they are not, they would plan that move now. Hillary Clinton will be worse and the United States will continue its relentless decline into censorship and financial disaster. Don’t buy gold, invest in foreign real estate.

Hillary tacks Left - for now

Without open discussion, candidates happily ignore:

  • The UCA. On 3 October 2016, Bill Clinton (Hillary’s hapless hubby) called out the crazy system, where someone working 60 hours a week winds up “with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half.” He actually told the truth that “it’s the craziest thing in the world.”

    Next day, he walked it back. “Look, the Affordable Character” [sic, Freudian slip?] “Act did a world of good. We, for the first time in our history, at least are providing insurance to more than a hundred percent of our people.” True, it is not about character, much as it is impossible to cover over 100 percent. Mr Clinton is old and confused. Twenty years ago, he wouldn’t have told the truth in the first place.

  • The national debt. Nothing on this, unless you count platitudes about how they will do everything to protect Social Security except, apparently, anything. Same with Medicare and other unfunded liabilities that are not included in the $20 trillion debt. You try maintaining two sets of books, like the government, see what happens.

  • Spiraling Entitlements. Even though they won’t discuss collapsing finances, both are promoting new entitlements, such as free college. One way to make college less expensive would be forcing them to account for their skyrocketing prices as, say, drug companies must do, despite the lack of preparation universities provide graduates to get actual jobs. Instead, both candidates are promoting the idea that a college degree is requisite to success, contrary to growing evidence that all students succeed at is accumulating massive debt, kind of like the federal government. Of course, education is a concern reserved to the states by the Constitution, which everyone would know if schools taught about it. The candidates want those who avoid college to pay for those who attend.

  • Regulations. Trump claims he will reduce regulations that are stifling the economy, Clinton says the opposite. No doubt, industries will be able to opt out of harsh regulations by donating money through the proper channels, perhaps to Chelsea Clinton directly. Donors must already have dibs on the Lincoln bedroom by now.

  • Security? There is some differentiation here, with Clinton pushing “gun safety laws,” the new euphemism for gun control, much as “investments” means more wasteful government spending. No one is sure how much Trump believes in the Second Amendment, but at least he recognizes its existence. This issue was described perfectly by Bill McGurn the other day: “Liberals want to take guns from the good guys.” Much as I dislike the phrase “law and order,” Trump seems to believe guns should be taken from the bad guys, which makes sense, but offends the ignorant.

  • Foreign policy. There’s a conundrum. United States foreign policy for the past six or seven decades seems designed to prove the song lyrics: “War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.” Sure, the announced motives sound okay occasionally, but are rarely honest and always unsuccessful. War is supposed to be reserved for when we are being attacked, not for when some politicians see bad intentions or a way to divert attention from failing domestic policies. If bad intentions was a justification for war, the rest of the country should declare war on DC. And every successful attack within our borders proves that the government is not providing any Defence, just offence.

As Doomsday, I mean Election Day, is almost here, support is dwindling for Gary Johnson, at least in the polls. Not sure why. One reason is that many voters hate one or the other mainstream candidate so much, they will vote against her, or him. As explained below, that won’t matter. Still, never expect reason from voters. Many are as foolish as public officials, like Libertarians who think Johnson isn’t libertarian enough. Compared to what?

But we still may be surprised because of what pollsters and punsters call the “gag reflex.” In the final moment, some will be unable to force themselves to vote for someone who is morally reprehensible, and incompetent. It’s the classic quandary:
spit or swallow?

  — GT, 26 October 2016

minor debates

written before the third, which I also skipped

Did you watch the second so-called Presidential Debate? Me either. Nor did I watch the first, or the Vices. I love the discussions over who won. How would you win a phony debate?

The two main reasons I tune out are, One, the non-ruling party candidates were arbitrarily excluded by the incumbent party and, Two, it’s not a debate at all. I have seen debates, and these are not debates.

Promoters in the media claim these are the most popular candidates. Honestly? They are the two least liked, least trusted and least honest candidates pretty much ever. Neither possess the ability to be president, in my humble opinion. I used to say I would be better than the main candidates, for whom I never voted. That was when I was younger. Approaching the age of these two old cronies, I no longer believe I would be up to the job because I am too old. Even so, I’d do way fucking better than these tools.

What is popularity, anyway? Microsoft used to claim their Internet Explorer was the "most popular" browser. It is likely more people used it, until they figured out how to download a better browser. IE came with Windows, a cheaper, worse alternative to the Mac OS. IE was free because no one would buy it. So popularity is nebulous. By the way, MS are discontinuing their browser because even forcing it on people failed to maintain sufficient users to support it.

So, when I am told that the Libertarian candidate cannot win, I recall Internet Explorer. Microsoft forced it on users, just as the Democrats and Republicans force themselves on voters. They are doing the same thing to voters that Trump is accused of doing to women. Since Democrats and Republicans write the laws and their judges interpret them, there are many restrictions on ballot access and getting into debates. Press coverage is limited by the media, who think they know better than the public about the two-party system of misrule.

Consider that many polls do not list Johnson and Stein as presidential choices. Media outlets thrive on polls, which are easier to cover than complex issues. We have seen Gary Johnson occasionally on a major news outlet, but nothing he says gets picked up unless the media can frame it as a mistake. He did not know the name Aleppo, like most Americans. His response is omitted because it doesn’t serve the media agenda. He’s not running for president of Syria.

They may keep the Libertarian and Green candidates out of the debates, but not off the ballot yet. You can vote for either of them, rather than wasting your vote on someone you really, really don’t want in the White House.

Election Illogic

I have voted in all but one election since 1972, when I was abroad.

Over the years, I’ve encountered various idiotic reasons given for voting choices. I used to say the dumbest was a person who said, "I live on Bush Street, so I guess I’ll vote for Bush." That was the elder Bush, if you are keeping score.

However, the twisted thought that goes into voting is often more ridiculous even than the Bush voter’s. Since McGovern, I have never voted for a Republican or Democrat for president because I did not want them holding that office, none of them. I voted for independent candidates or left it blank, but I never regretted my decisions because I was right. [Did not vote for Poirot or Nader, if you were wondering.] We have had terrible presidents for decades, resulting in a greatly devalued dollar (a hidden tax), a disastrous foreign policy and growing problems in just about every area of American life where federal government is involved. The United States is on a downward trajectory in more ways than could be encapsulated in a blog entry. We have less freedom and more government in our lives, driving up costs while driving down quality. You need look no further than the UCA, as it self-immoluates.

I have heard of people who follow the political polls, then vote for the candidate who seems likely to win, as if the new president is going to write them a thank-you note or something. She or he will ignore you and be just as shitty a president as you expected, probably shittier.

When you go to the polls, or mail in your ballot, the first thing to remember is that your vote does not count. One vote will not change the outcome, even if you live in a swing state. In a trance-like state (California), it makes no difference. Here, you may change the quantity of the vote for the Democrat who, if she wins, will continue to ignore us, except for fundraising purposes since, despite a flailing economy, there are some wealthy persons in California. Other states will vote Republican, even if that party offers the worst candidate imaginable. Oh, wait. Considering that the two parties are the same, such party loyalty is exasperating.

If you leave the box blank, your vote truly does not count. No one tallies the votes of those too disgusted to pick a candidate. Often, they consider you too lazy or self-involved to vote, which may be true. If you vote for the Libertarian or the Green Party candidate, at least your vote will be tallied and sparsely reported; the major parties will know and possibly worry that their con game is beginning to fail, just as their governing has. Maybe they will raise the “qualification”' to be in the 2020 debates to 20%. It seems logical to include anyone appearing on enough state ballots to win. As noted, the Debates Commission is bipartisan, not logical or fair.

Respect yourself

Say you loathe Clinton and all she represents, aren’t crazy about Trump, but figure he has to be marginally better, or that he would appoint better judges. If you are in California, your vote won’t matter. He still will lose the 55 electoral votes. Johnson probably won’t win, either, but you won’t have to cover every mirror in your house to avoid looking at yourself. [see drawing and Maher below]

Remember that Clinton and Trump will maintain the status quo. I know, Trump claims he will change things, but it is difficult fightng the relentless forces of bureaucracy and inertia without a firm philosophy. Clinton would be a disaster. Read her proposal for "Clintoncare" if you can find a copy. She thinks that she knows better than you how everything should run. She doesn’t, much like Bullwinkle playing “Mr Know-It-All.”

Recently, the topic of fixed elections have come up. There is no doubt, if you follow the facts, that there are voting irregularities. The race where idiot Al Franken became senator by a minute number of votes, after demanding a recount, is but one example.

Bill Maher: Real Schlemiel (HBO)

Bill Maher shows off

Every so often, a free preview of HBO reminds me why I don’t subscribe. The same movies, over and over, with the emphasis on sequels of films I’d never see. Spotty original programming. Since Dennis Miller and George Carlin departed, the best I’ve seen is John Oliver’s show. While his gratuitous “fucks” get boring, I understand there have to be a certain number to keep subscribers.

Then there is “Real Time with Bill Maher.” I never missed his shows, like “Politically Incorrect,” comedy, sprinkled with politics. Since becoming a relentless shill for the Democratic Party, most of his “humour” is aimed at Republicans, often merely calling them stupid. I don’t have a problem with that. It’s true, except now he seems to believe Democrats are not stupid, which is false. Like music, comedy usually fails when it’s patently partisan.

On 7 October, Bill hosted what appeared to be a Hillary Clinton promotion, featuring Hillary syncophants. After watching “Real Time,” I nearly decided to vote for Trump, especially considering his chosen advocates.

The opening monologue had a few decent laughs, mostly at Donald Trump’s expense. No question the Republican candidate is amusing, but it struck me as hypocritical of Bill to rag on Trump’s disparaging comments on women. Maher claims he has always a gentleman and respectful to women. That’s true, if you believe Republican women don’t count, because he has been brutal to many of them, like a former Alaska governor. No mention of Clinton at all, except to ask the same thing she asked, “How is this election close?” There are several reasons, one of which is not, as Bill said, because the electorate are “fucking idiots.” Disagreeing with me doesn’t make you an idiot. Disagreeing with Bill Maher does, apparently. The frontrunners are universally loathed, so voters are having a tough time identifying the lesser of the two evils.

Maher seems to think hesitation is bad. “Don’t fuck around with this election,” he says. “I know Hillary isn’t your favourite, a lot of you. Please don’t vote for Gary Johnson or do some stupid shit like that.” Whatever. [From a guy who said, “Republicans only cheat to win elections,” unlike Democrats. Sure. One bluish state, with a governor who is a Clinton ally, is changing their motto to “Virginia is for lovers of election fraud,” which will be hard to fit on license plates. And then there’s Chicago.]

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has tried to humanise her. When she remembers, she mentions that she is a grandmother. People can relate to that, especially those whose grandchildren live in a $10 million home in Manhattan.

As I’ve been saying for what seems like most of my life, there is no reason to vote FOR Clinton, numerous reasons not to. [See: Hill No!] Since reaching that conclusion, we’ve learned more about her. Turns out she is more loathsome and corrupt than anyone imagined. More important, we cannot believe anything she says, which means we have no idea what she would do in the unfortunate event that she becomes president. My prediction is that it will include nothing good.
End of monologue.

Featured Guest (Sort of)
Should have guessed the first guest was Al Franken, mediocre comedian, pathetic writer, failed radio jock and movie star, now bumbling US Senator, the most recent bit being his funniest.

Franken kicked off his foolishness saying, “Gary Johnson did not know the name of the president of Mexico when he was the governor of New Mexico.” Cute, except that Al and Bill have done tons of live television, so both know bloody well that sometimes you can blank out on a name or a line. It happens. While Johnson forgets a name, Clinton forgets numerous inconvenient truths about her four years as Secretary of State. She can’t even remember why she bought a personal server for $140,000. Then Maher kissed the senator’s butt, saying, “You not being funny is like Trump not being an asshole.” Trump is an asshole, but he sacrificed what could have been a stronger joke had he put aside his animus towards Trump which, remember, is aimed at anyone with an R next to his name, although Trump is barely a Republican. Not sure what he is.

Al Franken doubled down on hypocrisy, calling Trump a liar. “Trump lies about lying.” And whom does Al support? Someone who has turned deception into an art form. Another Franken lie, Congress not voting on a Supreme Court justice being “unprecedented.” It’s not. He went on spewing the usual Democratic-Party venom on many issues, including the Citizens United case, saying it is “so pernicious” that the Koch brothers can swing elections. Not only is that absurd, pro-Democrat billionaires like George “Cold” Soros give more money to advance their agenda. The only thing that makes that acceptable is that it’s Franken’s agenda. Bill agreed that there should be public financing of campaigns. Never mind that taxpayers are ignoring the contribution box when filing taxes. They don’t seem to trust the government to be involved, which probably makes them fucking idiots in Bill Maher’s book.

[For the record, the “evil” Koch brothers are the 59th biggest contributors in the last election cycle. First are unions, lots of them. Unions give almost every dime to Democrats. Soros clocks in at $7 million, Cheryl and Haim Saban, $5 million. In 2016, the leader is Tom Steyer, environmental fanatic, with $38 million. The Koch brothers were set up by Harry Reid, speaking of evil.]

3 stooges
The “Real Time” panelists followed, with some British guy I never heard of, Johann Hari. According to Wikipedia, he writes for The Huffington Post, and wrote for The Independent before being suspended after charges of plagiarism.

An Impressive chap, who proves that an English accent is no indication of intelligence. He stated that, “Britain will be permanently poorer, weaker and shittier” because of the Brexit vote. That anti-establishment referendum restores home rule to England, rather than a nebulous European government that micro-manages every member nation. This dude’s prediction is unfounded. Had he lived a few centuries earlier, he’d have denounced the American colony rejecting England’s rule.

He stated as fact that Ivana Trump said her husband raped her, ignoring that she later recanted, and that accusations are thrown around in divorce proceedings. Hari could be an American Democrat, repeating the same chat points, regardless of veracity.

Later, he said that, “This is the hottest year ever recorded since humans were on Earth.” Idiot.

Mark Cuban is a billionaire or, as Maher put it, a real billionaire. He made his money in entertainment and sports, and he’s a reality TV star. A few months ago, he was willing to run as VP candidate for either Hillary or Donald. Now he says Trump hasn’t done anything useful, just put up some buildings and run some businesses. That’s an odd claim for a billionaire to make.

Clinton has been featuring him as a supporter now, ignoring her other billionaire supporters, like every Wall Street Bank, Microsoft and the University of California. Nothing says “friend of regular folks” more than all your friends being super-wealthy.

Cuban worked out a whole scenario based on Trump’s huge tax loss taken in 1995. Trump did not lose $900 million a year, he took an accumulated loss in one year, which is legal. In fact, taxes are considered by businesses and investors. Everyone takes losses, if they can, even billionaires. Stock investors like Warren Buffet sell at the end of the year to take a loss on stocks that have disappointed, despite Bill Maher saying of that billionaire, “I never heard him lose money.” I guess Bill wasn’t listening.

They went into the Democratic talking point about paying your “fair share,” never defined, and that federal taxes pay for garbage collection, roads, public schools, the armed forces, veterans. Those last two are correct. Then there are hefty government salaries and expenses, so our public servants can live like royalty. But no one, not even Warren Buffet, overpays his or her taxes intentionally.

Trump says he knows the loopholes, so he can fix them. Hari said that’s like putting Bill Cosby in charge of the rape squad, which does seem like a bad idea. Then again, reformed computer hackers are used to find active hackers because they know how.

The other guest, James Carville, the pro-Clinton jackass, actually is funny sometimes. He said of the Republican nominee, “I think he’s gonna quit.” That will be easily disproved shortly.

Carville’s big declaration on Gary Johnson. “It is a fact that he smokes a lot of dope, and it is a fact that he don’t know jack shit.” I do not believe Carville is privy to Johnson’s marijuana consumption, so that’s a lie. The former governor has scaled the highest peak in each continent, including Everest. You can’t climb that high while being high. The other part is just revolting. Johnson is an accomplished man. And remember, Carville is a Clinton pal. He could have as easily said, “It is a fact that Ms Clinton wouldn’t know the truth if it bit her in the ass, and she has fucked up nearly everything she touched in government, then lied about it.” That’s the sort of messed-up shit he would say were she not his buddy.

He capped it off with “Gary Johnson is a joke.” Why, because he doesn’t know better than everyone else how things should run, and he doesn’t have snappy lies for every question he gets? The media try to make Johnson look like a fool because they see him hurting Hillary Clinton among those who despise her.

In the “I Know It’s True” section, Maher raised some cute points, before inserting another Gary Johnson dig. Before the two campaign “fails,” the only time Maher mentioned Johnson was in relation to marijuana. Now, Bill is scared.

Finally, a guest called Pitbull, who has many albums, apparently making him a musician, albeit a pitiful one. He seemed like a polite young man who has never said anything disparaging about women. Maher said they had in common having been drug dealers. Bill did not say so, but Pitbull was much funnier than Al Franken, and he’s not a comedian, either.

The “bull” part of his name was explained by his having an album called “Global Warming” and another called “Climate Change.” The anti-science panel then discussed climate by citing weather patterns. For the uninformed, weather changes, climate changes. Whether or not humans affect these changes, it is nearly impossible to alter the outcomes. Humans still can’t make it rain to end a drought.

Recall the latest hurricane, Matt or whatever. It was a catastrophic category 5 or some such thing for Haiti and the models showed it would wreak havoc on the eastern United States. But the models were wrong. It dropped to a category 1 as it hit the US. There was rain and wind, which caused damage, but not a hurricane.

Why were the predictions off? Because weather models (on computers, not runways) are often wrong. And these are predicting a few days ahead. Climate models are the same deal, only they are forecasting as much as one hundred years in the future, when we’ll be dead and unable to laugh at them for being wrong. These climate models are based on information fed into the computer, which can be changed to get the “right” outcome which, if you want to get most funding, is disaster. Climate-change science is not science, it’s politics.

Cuban made his grasp of science clear: “You don’t have to be a genius. Just open the door. 'Oh, it’s hot as fuck, let’s go back in.’” So when it’s raining, that means a flood is imminent? And when it’s dark out, the sun burned out. Mark Cuban is an idiot.

The sad thing about climate change is that there are so many factors, and scientific advances over the decades, that literally there is no way to predict the future. Climate-change science is fortunetelling. The main difference is that fortunetellers use crystal balls and scientist have them.

Then Maher made a heartfelt plea for us to vote Hillary. See, “people who don’t know about Hillary 'cause her e-mails might kill us…” Of course, that’s a false argument. Most of us don’t think her e-mails will kill us. They might, but we are angry that they confirm everything we believed about her duplicity and incompetence are true.

So why vote for her. Hillary has said, “Climate change is the most consequential, urgent sweeping collection of challengers we face as a nation and a world.” Not only is that horseshit, but e-mails reveal that she may just be saying that because Chicken Little wants to be pandered to and lied at. Trump has a different opinion, one that a majority of Americans and, apparently, most of the world, shares.

Hoax or blunder, there is no way the nations of the world can get together to do anything. They cannot stop war. They cannot stop genocide and starvation. They cannot stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons or Russia from seizing other countries. That said, does anyone believe Clinton can single-handedly alter the climate? That’s hubris. A path to power through regulation.

A few years ago, we were warned about imminent global cooling. Now it’s warming. Nothing is happening but, short of a sex scandal, global catastrophe is a riveting distraction from real problems at home that could be fixed if they weren’t being ignored.

Persons like Bill Maher want us to further damage the economy on a silly quest. What sacrifices are they making to stop this imaginary crisis? None. The sacrifices trickle down to the peons.

Bill's Rules for fools New Rules
The New Rules are sometimes funny, sometimes not.

According to Bill Maher, Trump claims the country is deteriorating and our freedoms are in danger. Maher disagrees.

He lobs more Democratic talking points at his adoring audience. Violent crime is down. The military is better funded than ever. More Americans have health insurance, fewer are smoking, teen pregnancy is down, the stock market is up. All true, even if by dumb luck.

Unemployment is down, every economist knows it’s five percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. No. That’s one of the rates, but the U-6 rate is higher because it includes people who have “given up” looking for work. And U-1 includes part-time jobs, even if a person had a full-time job before and wants one now. Those with more than one job has increased to about 8 million. Millions are making far less working jobs below their skill level, which impacts the less skilled unemployed. In other words, for every success like Bill Maher, there are 99 struggling to get by. If you know workers who are out of work, or are one, government numbers don’t fool you. [See: Unemployment Rated and Madison Gesiotto below.]

Madison Gesiotto
"We’re not hearing about the fact that we have less men between the prime working ages of 25-54 working than we did at the end of the Great Depression."

At least Bill Maher has a job, besides being Hillary Clinton’s bitch. He cannot like her that much because he did not donate a million dollars to her campaign, as he did with Obama.

Somehow, using the Democratic race-baiter smear, he says that people are unhappy because “President Tupak” has ruined the country and if you’re unhappy with the direction of the country, “you’re a whiny little bitch.” At last count, about 70% of the population hate being screwed by the government. President Obama may liked personally, but he is the worst chief executive in my lifetime. Sorry, Bill.

The litany of Obama achievements graciously ignores the foreign-policy failures (for which Clinton shares blame), the increase in terrorism, the abuse of separation-of-powers and the divisiveness. While more Americans may have health insurance, it’s it is not affordable or useful, due to high deductibles and premiums.

Sad to say, Bill Maher has morphed from being a critic of flawed government to a cheerleader for it. If he’s doing well, screw everybody else. Even Trump wouldn’t say that. Clinton may have, in her destroyed e-mails. We'll never know

Peeking Cat Posted 24 October 2016


It’s a Byrd, it’s a Plame, it’s

Halloween every day Every day is scary, with the Clintons.


Search by



The Official GT Slade Blog

top   Previous