— Politi.us

Political Analysis of Today's Events

Archive
Opinion

Why is giving money to a candidate considered free speech? Free speech means you can say or write whatever you want without fear of imprisonment or worse. That’s free SPEECH. It doesn’t mean you can DO whatever you want. You can’t rob a bank, for instance. Why does donating to a politician somehow qualify as ‘speech’? This isn’t speech. This is clearly a financial transaction. Giving money to politicians isn’t necessarily saying anything at all. It might be a kickback, bribe, or just a donation with no particular issue in mind. Making donations a first amendment issue is like making sales a first amendment issue. Both are financial transactions. One says you support a candidate, the other says you support a product. Why is one speech and the other not? You could then argue, for instance, that the government must allow me to purchase C4 explosives or that fully automatic rifle with extended clip and silencer – you know, because of free speech.

This is absurd for a number of reasons. First of all, if donations are a form of free speech, then wouldn’t rich people have more of a ‘voice’ than the poor? Would that not give the rich more opportunities to ‘speak’ than the poor? I’m not sure that’s what the framers of the constitution had in mind. But in practice, this is what happens. The rich spends millions while the average person can’t afford to donate anything substantial to politicians in the first place. I think everyone can understand speech isn’t something that you should need to be able to afford. The rich shouldn’t have a larger voice with which to speak.

Financial transactions are not ‘speech’ and should not protected by the constitution like actual speech is. What we’re really protecting here is the ‘right’ of the rich to have more influence on our politicians and our lives than the majority of citizens. We’ve handed them the keys to the kingdom and called it a ‘right’. Good work, all you idiots who made this happen. When the ‘wrong’ people have all the money to spend, then what will you think of your success?

Today news broke that the Democrats have a nuclear option when it comes to the supreme court nomination of Mr. Garland. 
Evidently the Democrats only need to offer up a rare procedural trick which would essentially cause a simple majority vote to take place leading to the eventually up or down vote on the judge. Senator Grassley, the Republican in charge of the process reportedly said, “There’s nothing we can do about it” when asked about whether he could prevent the eventual vote.
So, while Republicans in congress constantly accuse the president being an amateur, of not leading, or of leading from behind,  these same people continuously lead their flock into fights they can’t possibly win. Each time they end up being out-maneuvered by the president whether it’s the budget, debt ceiling, foreign policy, or, well, you name it.
 
  • Ted Cruz led a useless attempt to defund the ACA and ended up shutting down the government for nothing. Beyond that, the Republicans have voted dozens of times to defund or repeal the law.
  • The Republicans led an effort to reign in Obama’s climate policy.
  • The Republicans and Tom Cotton led an effort to reign in Obama’s Iran initiative.
  • Now the Republicans have picked a fight they seem to be unable to win with the Supreme Court pick. They lose no matter what happens.
Meanwhile, President Obama must be scratching his head. Why would the Republicans continue to take public positions when they can’t possible previal?
He must wonder if losing over and over (and over) is considered great leadership by the Republican base. In the end, our President Obama usually gets whatever he wants. Perhaps this so-called ‘amateur’ isn’t so dumb after all, eh my Republican friends?

3 pane strip 032716

Our intrepid geniuses are hard at work devising a plan to keep us safe in this dangerous world. If it weren’t for these deep thinkers, we wouldn’t stand a chance. Let’s all celebrate the fact that we’re lucky enough to have such amazing people calling the shots.

3 pane strip 032616

Today’s red meat loving right-wing base doesn’t mind hearing terrible things about Muslims, immigrants and anyone else they decided they don’t like. But when outrageous talk provokes outrageous action, , they won’t bother looking in the mirror or at their leaders for answers. Instead violence only provokes more violence and their leaders will be the ones clamoring to bring it to them.

Engagement has always been the way to quiet the angry rumblings of international animosity. Winning hearts and minds was never accomplished through violence. But most in the grassroots right-wing conservative movement don’t even know the difference between Sikhs and Muslims and often mistake them for one another. How can they be expected to vote for leaders who claim to understand the nuanced way to deal with a culturally different and population? They just want to vote for people who preach violence and intolerance.

The reason we have freedom of religious is not only to protect the religious group, but to prevent discord within the population in general. Antagonizing an entire group of people, especially religious fanatics, is a great way to provoke a response and we need to collectively come to that realization.

In the last decade, it seems that terror attacks just prior to elections have become all the rage. It’s almost becoming a regular expectation even when it doesn’t happen. As a population of intelligent and calm-minded people, we need to learn to expect such atrocities in today’s environment and not over-react to even the most terrible of provocations. If we can’t do that, then the bad guys win – the war mongers among us who would rather steal power through antagonistic methodologies and violence, and those who perpetrate the violence by provoking the reactions they set out to provoke.

For months now people on both sides of the political spectrum have been handwringing about how to beat Donald, or whether he might beat himself. The Republicans will be the first to fall by virtue of the fact that they meet Donald head-on in primary season but make no mistake – the Democrats will have to face him soon enough.

To just about everyone in the media, the circus turned serious contender has been nothing short of a jaw gaping mystery. You mean a total outsider with a loud mouth and ridiculous policy positions hasn’t been laughed out of the race? What about Michelle Bachmann, Todd Akin and Sarah Palin? That’s what’s supposed to happen to these kinds of people!

But lo, Trump has managed to elude the grip of death that has doomed so many before him leaving the media in their collective confusion to wonder about their own relevancy in this new, bizarre world. How does this end? And if I can’t predict the future with any reasonable degree of accuracy on this roller coaster, what good am I to anyone as a pundit?

But there is a simple answer, and that answer is to ignore the 3 Bs (bullying, bloviating and bombast) and forcefully return the conversation to one focused exclusively on policy. Donald can be beaten on policy, but if he’s allowed to run his entire campaign using the 3 Bs, he’ll control the news and the election.

Imagine for a moment a match-up in a general election between President Obama and Donald Trump. How would President Obama handle Trump and his 3 Bs? Obama wouldn’t get caught up in Donald’s web of nonsense. He would stick to the policy discussion, ignore personal attacks, and beat Trump by discussing his positions. The problem we’ve had this election cycle is that Trump has figured out that if he talks about waterboarding, carpet bombing, Losers and Megyn Kelly, he doesn’t have to talk about healthcare, minimum wage, gay marriage, or how he’s really going to handle Putin in the Ukraine, or North Korea, or Iran. Pulling back the curtain is the way to expose Trump to the middle of the road voters who decide every election.

At the end of the day, Trump is a showman who has relied on smoke and mirrors to drown out his competition. But his co-campaigners have also allowed Trump to control the dialog, flailing away with various tactics in their attempts to dodge the steam roller. Cruz tried by killing Trump with kindness – at least at first. But you can’t win playing a willing second fiddle. Bush tried feebly to stand up to the campus bully with predicable results. He was verbally wedgied out of the race. Rubio is finally putting up a stronger fight, but even if it wasn’t too little too late, it wouldn’t work anyway. You can’t out-3B Donald Trump. You simply need to change the rules back to the default. Get campaigns talking about campaign issues, and not Donald’s latest foray into his beloved mine field of taboos.

But Trump has used the Bs to great advantage and obscured from the public his lack of policy sophistication as his Achilles heel.

Recently Donald mentioned that he’s a fan of Planned Parenthood. This is policy kryptonite that not even Donald can overcome with some of his prospective supporters. If Hillary can find enough policy positions that are untenable to his RINO hating base, he’ll prove himself the closet liberal they are all afraid of, and he’ll lose vital support. Policy, and nothing else will sleigh this dragon, but we need to steer the conversation back from the brink of darkness. If Donald continues to be allowed to control the news cycle with the 3 Bs, he’ll control the election.

 

 

I finally had a chance to see the video where Christy was told over a hot mic to go home by Donald Trump. The link is below.

This clip is great for 500 reasons but most importantly, it shows Donald Trump for who he really is. A guy who doesn’t want to share the spotlight, even for a moment. A rude man who treats his people like errand boys. And a man used to having people say yes, no matter what.

Donald Trump is a showman, and he’s putting on a show for people. Christy was nothing more than a prop who made a terrible, horrible, life changing mistake by selling his soul to the Donvil.

Goodbye sweet Christy. You’ve been sent home.

Today Trump said, “One of the things I’m going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we’re certainly leading. I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866#ixzz41JhOsyat

So Trump is already moving to subvert the constitution – and in plain sight. Freedom of press is one of the MOST IMPORTANT FREEDOMS we have. Allowing a free press prevents ABUSE OF POWER by wannabe dictators like Trump. Low educated Trump supporters won’t care, but should. Subverting the press means silencing opposition. First step towards a police state. BEWARE!

Ironically, these same Trumpsters spent the last 7 years calling President Obama a dictator for, ironically, helping them get affordable health care. Now these same intellectually challenged low information voters are ready to elect an ACTUAL dictator whose first order of business, evidently, is to erode the first amendment protections of a free press.

Trump is clearly thin-skinned. He likes to portray himself as a seasoned, thick skinned professional, but his late night Twitter rants and 4th grade debate style paint a strikingly different picture.

When Donald Trump signed his pledge not to run as an independent, it was worthless. Worth less than the paper it was written on, to be specific. Let’s be honest. Does anyone believe that Donald Trump wouldn’t invent a reason to walk away from his pledge as easily as he might stiff a waiter on a tip?

The reality is that Donald is used to doing EXACTLY what Donald wants to do. As a billionaire, he knows no rules, no boss, and there are no exclusion zones. He has a wife, which generally governs the activities of a man, but he’s traded in his wife twice already, so it’s clear that even interpersonally, Donald Trump is willing to do whatever he wants without limitation.

So can we trust Trump to do what he says?

This week while simultaneously calling out Ted Cruz as the single biggest liar in the Republican race (a tacit admission that they are all liars?) Trump also managed to accuse the RNC of breaking its pledge to treat him fairly by not condemning the negative ads run by Cruz’s campaign. So in Donald’s view, negative ads and personal attacks are his providence only, and if he’s not defended by the (supposedly) impartial RNC, they are in violation of their impartiality. I wonder if this is Trumps negotiating style we keep hearing so much about? Demonize the other party while simultaneously accusing the other party of unfairly demonizing you. Then threaten then judge or moderator if they don’t support you.

I’m not sure I’d call that great negotiating, but Donald probably would. Still, let’s think this through. First, he’s backing himself into a corner. Obviously the RNC would never condemn an attack ad unless it crossed a line of decency so egregious that they had no choice. Otherwise they’d be condemning virtually every ad from every candidate. Let’s face it, attack ads are the meat and potatoes of our current political environment.

So by insisting the RNC condemn said advertisements and by further insisting the RNC is packing debate halls with detractors, the Donald is essentially guaranteeing himself a loophole by which he can run an independent campaign without losing face. Logically, he would have to leave the Republican party if this were true, but don’t believe it. Nothing Donald Trump says really matters. He’ll make up whatever excuse he wants and do as he pleases.

Those leading the Republican party today are total jokes. Punchlines for late night comedians. Fodder for the water cooler. The only qualified republican candidates are being overlooked and ignored by the media and will be forced to withdraw after a while due to lack of funds.

You could read 10 stories about Trump and never see a headline about about Christy, Bush or ummm, who are the other people running?

Perhaps this is a media coup after all? I mean, look what they are talking about in the press. Carson? The guy has a picture of himself with Klingon Jesus and doesn’t know apples from oranges about foreign policy.

And Trump? He’s a showman and a salesman, but NOT a politician who knows anything about policy. He thinks ratings translates into votes. We found out that isn’t true last night when we destroyed by Cruz in Iowa.

And Cruz? How could the most hated man in Washington run Washington effectively? Here’s a hint: he can’t. Can you imagine a president like Cruz? I true ideologue? He’d use executive orders to undo all the positive social changes President Obama worked so hard for. He’d work to ban every single type of abortion. He’d kick millions of people out of health care plans with his promise to repeal Obamacare. He’s a sick man who’s ready to wield power for the betterment of himself and his own personal views, but he definitely won’t be the president for all Americans. Only the staunch right wing bible thumping crew who think the apocalypse is nigh.

These guys are all fatally flawed candidates. They can’t win an election against a normal, center Democrat like Clinton. So my feeling is that the media is pumping them up which makes an easy glide path for a Democrat to take office in 2017. But I’m fine with all of it. And thank goodness. Let’s keep talking about Trump, Cruz and Carson. The more the better! I’ll laugh all the way to November.

TRUMP/PALIN for the republican ticket! smh

Today Donald Trump “boycotted” the Fox debate.

My view? You’re an idiot, and so am I.

Fox and Trump had to have coordinated this whole wrestle-mania-like, nonsense feud. It’s terrible politics, really, but it’s GREAT television. Reality TV at it’s best for a land full of nitwits who tune in every day for another helping.

Let’s consider the facts.

Can anyone remember the last time Fox released such an unprofessional statement? So, we’re supposed to believe that suddenly Fox is a ‘fair and balanced’ news outfit where sarcastic commentary is acceptable? Did they hire Ann Coulter and Rush whatever-his-name-is to manage the newsroom?

And can anyone imagine that Donald Trump would NOT react predictably to said sarcastic statement?

So, Fox’s obvious taunt of a presidential front runner is curious at best.

It’s unprofessional, but not so much so that they’ve crossed any real lines of decency. But starting a childish war of words with someone like Trump who could credibly be considered a contender for President is not in the interest of anyone – unless it is.

This reminds me of the standard formula for many reality TV shows where they stuff a bunch of misfits into a big house and sit back while they film the drama. Except it’s not stupid reality TV. It’s prime time American Republican politics and it’s become a bonafide circus act.

Considering Fox isn’t actually run by idiots, they HAD TO KNOW Trump would respond aggressively, so this was all planned theatre. And now they get 2 huge ratings events instead and one. Laughing all the way to the bank.

This is a show, people, nothing more, by the greatest snake oil salesman of all time and the shucksters at Fox news who willing peddle his crap. And we’re the puppets watching it and paying for it. Let that sink in. How’s that feel? I skipped both events although I admit reading this article just to find out if the Republicans were actually able to discuss any policy… And not a hint of policy in this entire article.

Why? Because it’s boring for the Guns and Religion crowd. They’d rather see Sarah Palin balancing a hunting rifle on the bearded Duck Dynasty guy’s head while she shoots at endangered ferrets just to prove she’s more American than you.

Good god, we’ve become a nation of idiots.