Category: Politics

These people think George Orwell’s 1984 is an instruction manual

If you have not read 1984, you should, but here is a synopsis about what at that time was seen as a work of fiction that reflected a world gone mad. Basically Orwell created a dystopian world run by “Big Brother”, an entity that pretends to run this upside down world for the betterment of all people, but really is only out for the elite few (basically every collectivist system in history), where amongst other things the “Ministry of Truth” twists language to suit whatever the agenda du jour of the masters is. Stories change, often and blatantly, without regard for the obvious contradictions and abuse, so the masters can get what they want from the sheep.

Queue in the latest instance of our own Obama Administration’s “Ministry of Truth”, and man have we had a few doozies from these people, where they now are relabeling criminals and criminal activity. I admit that when I saw this piece for the first time I double checked to make sure it was not a belated April first joke or some publication from whatever site finally replaced the now DNC controlled Onion as the latest site for sarcastic, ironic, and moronic news. It tuns out that it is for real. Sure, the claim is that this relabeling is to give people a second chance, but me, I see it as another chess move in the much greater game where the left wants to specifically use the power of government restore voting right to criminals, whom would predominantly vote for them.

Whatever your feelings about criminality in this country, you have to admit that we have a problem with our leadership at this time. On the one hand they are criminalizing all sorts of albeit stupid but not criminal behaviors the left dislikes, and yet here we have the administration going out of its way to destigmatize real criminals and crime. Personally I, if I for a second believed that we could get a system where if drugs were decriminalized the government wouldn’t make people like me pay for the cost of the nanny state safety net that they would create, would decriminalize drug use. But rape and robbery, armed or otherwise, are serious crimes I feel far stronger about. I don’t mind people making personal choices about associating or interacting with people convicted of these sorts of crimes, but I have serious reservations about government pushing people into that, and doing so at such an Orwellian level, just so they can eventually tell us they will give these people the ability to vote (for them) again.

NYT caught shilling for Shillary

In case you didn’t get to see it, the NYT ran a hit-piece on Trump titled “Crossing the Line: How Donald Trump Behaved With Women in Private“, where they used quotes from women to basically paint the picture that Trump was a cad. Unfortunately for the scumbags at the NYT that feel obligated to shill for democrats, and for Hillary Clinton in particular, one of the people they “misquoted” (that is me being sarcastic, because I have no doubt they lied on purpose) decided to fight back.

I guess the idiots at the NYT felt that they could lie with impunity and that since nobody in the DNC controlled media would give these people they were lying about a forum to call them out. By the time the truth comes out, it is too late because people made the wrong choices already. Let me point out that this is a tactic used to not just elect, but reelect Obama by the DNC controlled media, and thus considered very effective by these propagandists. I guess they got unlucky that one of the people they chose to lie about not only had the avenue to get the truth out, but chose to do so. Maybe people in the LSM that want to make a name for themselves should find some of these other women quoted, and see if their story checks out. My guess is that the lot of it was fabricated by the scumbags at the NYT.

Let me be clear that I wouldn’t mind real investigation into people running for high office’s personal behavior, if I for a second believed that the media actually meant to just inform the public. But the problem is that whenever you get one of the SJW hit pieces it tends to be replete with falsehoods and always targets non-democrats to push an ideology that basically is evil. If the shitheads in the LSM had vetted Obama with the same expediency and faked rigor they felt was necessary to undermine candidates like Palin, Romney, and now Trump (see a pattern there yet?), and applied the same rigor to any democrat, I think we would never see another democrat winning any election. You might think Trump is a blowhard and likely to make a mediocre president like I do, but then again, I am willing to bet money that he can’t sink to the level of Obama, and for that matter the stupidity of Sanders or the criminal behavior of any of the Clintons.

BTW, I have some advice for the NYT and rest of the DNC controlled media about finding men that treat women like sex objects and shit: if you want to do a serious hit piece, one based on truth and that targets a real scumbag that abuses women, write about Bill Clinton. No need to make up any facts there to show how much of a lowlife that dude is. But nobody at the NYT, or in the LSM for that matter, seems interested in actually writing objective pieces about members of the DNC, where we have real despicable and law breaking activity going on constantly, precisely because they feel they are protected by the media.

Another example of why people are bucking the establishment

For the last 7 plus years, a substantial swat of republicans both in the House and Senate ran and won their respective elections on a platform of blocking the Obama agenda, and especially the big spending and big government growing machine, only to disappoint. Case in point, this shit:

The U.S. Senate’s first spending bill of 2016 allocates $261 million more than President Barack Obama requested and lacks significant conservative amendments, but it still sailed to passage Thursday in the Republican-led chamber.

An overwhelming number of senators on both sides of the aisle approved the energy and water development appropriations bill, by a vote of 90-8. Conservatives had objected to the higher spending levels and lack of policy riders in the weeks leading up to the vote.

In the end, it didn’t seem to matter.

It’s a victory for Republican leadership and an initial step toward achieving their goal of funding the federal government by passing 12 appropriations bills.

Why the fuck pretend you are going to buck the left’s big government, ever growing nanny-state, when at every fucking opportunity the entrenched and entitled party leadership seems to do exactly the opposite? It would be one thing to find yourself in the minority and being outvoted by the collectivists, but when you up the ante and choose to fund government by some $261 million more dollars than was even requested by the hopenchange candidate, something is fucking wrong. Really fucking wrong. Why in creation’s name would the leadership do something as idiotic as this when so many of their supporters label the over spending by government and the need to get both that spending and the deficit/debt under control as a top priority? well, here you go:

Moving legislation and avoiding fights has been a top election year priority for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The Kentucky Republican wants the Senate to prove that Republicans can govern by avoiding a one-and-done omnibus spending package at the end of the year.

The fucking bootlickers want to impress the DNC controlled media, because I am certain that their constituency, including everyone else that understands one of our biggest problem has been the ridiculous amount of growth in government and the over spending, are not going to be impressed by their oneupmanship of the nanny state party leadership. At least some people were against this crap:

Sen. Mike Lee described the legislation as “simply unacceptable in a time of rising debt and slower economic growth.”

The Utah Republican told The Daily Signal that “we’re never going to get our nation’s rising deficits under control until we can stick to our previous agreements on spending levels,” referring to the limits set in the 2011 Budget Control Act.

Voting no along with Lee were seven other Republicans: Ted Cruz of Texas, Deb Fischer of Nebraska, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Arthur Heller of Nevada, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, and Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., did not vote.

And they wonder why more and more people are bucking the establishment and looking for outsiders instead of members the consummate political aristocracy which all seem to be corrupt to one degree or another, regardless of party affiliation. Selling yourself as the less corrupt party isn’t going to work much anymore..

Pro-collectivist media can’t avoid making exuses

It came as no surprise to me that after a decade plus of favorable pro-collectivist media coverage of shit-holes that took hard left turns we found out Venezuela was following in the footsteps of illustrious collectivist success stories like Cuba, North Korea, or Zimbabwe. What is less known is that the other South American country that had also taken a hard left turn and was touted as a great success story, Brazil, is also heading in the same direction now that blatant corruption and mismanagement practices have come to the world’s attention.

As is always the case with progressive governments, the pretense that the shit they do is to help the less fortunate is just that: pretense. What they are really doing is creating a system that will allow the political aristocracy and those few lucky enough to be connected to them, to rob the people blind. The new masters tend to be worse than the old ones, and while they can temporarily hide the rot, eventually economic and human nature reality asserts itself. Big and powerful government, especially one that has successfully disarmed the masses and then pretends their wealth transfer schemes are to help the less fortunate, sooner than later results in abused people. Yeah, I know that this piece specifically was written about the Arab world, but the article does speak of other corruption failures in general. The problem with people that advocate for collectivism is the fact that they seem to miss that corruption is the norm, and having little or none of it, is actually an outlier. And the bigger an autocratic government that abrogates the duty of creating economic justice becomes, both in terms of actual size and the amount of money it now forces through its hands, the more corruption you will get.

For example, take China, which is still run by an authoritarian government that decided not to stick to the letter of marxist dogma. While the Wiki article tries its best to show how fucked up China is because of this corruption, it, because of the bias of the Wiki organization in general, does a lot to apologize and conceal that the problem there is the authoritarian and collectivist system that creates the framework that allows this corruption. When your government is all powerful and has its hands in everything, you can bet it will result in abuse and corruption by the very elite put in charge. Pick your country, check out how authoritative and big their government is, then look at how much wealth redistribution power said government has, and you will find corruption.

But back to what I wanted to point out: AP writing an article that tries hard to not tie the corruption now evident to the ideology or failures in Brazil. From the article:

Brazil’s Senate voted on Thursday to put leftist President Dilma Rousseff on trial in a historic decision brought on by a deep recession and a corruption scandal that will now confront her successor, Vice President Michel Temer.

With Rousseff to be suspended during the Senate trial for allegedly breaking budget rules, the centrist Temer will take the helm of a country that again finds itself mired in political and economic volatility after a recent decade of prosperity.

The 55-22 vote ends more than 13 years of rule by the left-wing Workers Party, which rose from Brazil’s labor movement and helped pull millions of people out of poverty before seeing many of its leaders tainted by corruption investigations.

My interpretation of this nonsense is that it almost sounds like AP is trying hard to tell readers we should give the corrupt officials a pass because they meant well. After all, they helped the poor people! I constantly see MSM stories saying how well off people in Brazil have it because of the wealth redistribution schemes of the leftists, but when I look the stuff that sticks with me is the rampant crime, the fact that economic promises are not materializing, and how despite the claims that the poor are better off, I see very few things that really show that to be the case. Especially when you look at the future. That’s not just me however, as this verya rticle points out:

In addition to the gaping deficit, equal to more than 10 percent of its annual economic output, Brazil is suffering from rising unemployment, plummeting investment and a projected economic contraction of more than 3 percent this year.

Basically the Brazilian success story was to borrow and print money, over spend, and put polities in practice that drastically hamper economic growth and result in rampant unemployment. Shit they are even looking at an economic contraction. Does this not sound kind of like the Obama economic plan to spend us out of a recession and even into prosperity? Don’t worry though, because the PA tells us people are on top of the crisis;

“Only major reforms can keep Brazil from moving from crisis to crisis,” says Eduardo Giannetti da Fonseca, an economist and author in São Paulo who has written extensively about the country’s socioeconomic problems.

While I am not very familiar with this individual, the fact that he is the one AP chose to quote tells me this guy is very likely to be the Brazilian Paul Krugman, whose usual retort when confronted with the failures of Keynesian wealth transfer schemes, advises that the the problem was not the fact that borrowing/printing more money/spending money you don’t have can’t buy your prosperity, but that government didn’t borrow/print/spend enough money. This shit doesn’t work. It never has, and never will, but the collectivist driven media still wants you to have faith in this crap. This AP article sure goes a long way to try and avoid making the point that these leftist SJW wealth redistribution policies failed Brazil despite the temporary bump they produced obvious.

Another tidbit from the article that I found interesting was the following:

Brazilian markets have for weeks rallied as investors welcomed the likely dismissal of a president they believe crippled the economy, but were largely unchanged on Wednesday.

Note that the AP avoids saying why investors felt Rousseff crippled the economy. One could come away thinking the only problem was the endemic corruption, but the fact is that this was just one of the symptoms of the real problem: the Keynesian economic practices leftists resort to in times of trouble to hide the problems caused by their wealth transfer schemes. Brazil is on the same path as Venezuela right now, only it might be slower to reach the end state because they didn’t choose to have a dictator hold all the power like the Venezuelan’s did. This shit don’t work people.

Orwell Goes To College

Good God:

What happens when members of a university community allege that they were victims of a “bias” incident? A team of administrators intervene—no matter how petty the complaint.

An annual report on the activities of University of Oregon’s Bias Response Team provides a frightening yet fascinating glimpse into the practices of these organizations, which are common on college campuses. Students, faculty, and staff who feel threatened, harassed, intimidated, triggered, microaggressed, offended, ignored, under-valued, or objectified because of their race, gender, gender identity, sexuality, disability status, mental health, religion, political affiliation, or size are encouraged to contact the BRT.

The team is composed of seven administrators, which include Oregon’s “multicultural inclusion support specialist,” LGBT director, and “Native American Retention Specialist.” The BRT’s goal is to eradicate bias on campus, making Oregon a safer place. Bias is defined as “any physical, spoken, or written act” that targets another person, even unintentionally. The team’s posters propose examples of bias incidents: statements like “Thanks, sweetie,” and “I don’t see color,” apparently qualify. (The former is patronizing, the latter is simply wrongthink, I guess.)

The Reason piece includes several examples of reports filed by Oregeon’s secret police.

A student reported a culturally appropriative themed party.

Bias Type: Ethnicity, Race

Location: Student Programs

Response: A BRT Advocate reached out to the reporter. A BRT Case Manager met with the president of the student program to discuss the incident.

An anonymous student reported that a newspaper gave less press coverage to trans students and students of color.

Bias Type: Ethnicity, Race, Political Affi liation

Location: Online

Response: A BRT Case Manager held an educational conversation with the newspaper reporter and editor.

There’s a lot more at the link. I defy anyone to read it and not be reminded of the East German Stasi. Change but a bit of verbiage and this could be reports on “counter-revolutionary thinking” or “bourgeois sympathies”. No incident is considered too minor. Anonymous reporting is encouraged. Third party reporting — that is where the “victim” doesn’t think anything bad happened but somebody else does — is encouraged. And students or faculty who are guilty of wrongthink don’t get a hearing or anything. An administrator has a “conversation” with them where they are told how wrong they are. Anyone who has been on a college campus can tell you just how intimidating such interventions can be.

How bad is this getting? We’re getting students kicked off campus for raping students who say they weren’t raped. It’s gotten so bad that President Obama, speaking at Howard, gave what I must admit was a very good defense of free speech.

So don’t try to shut folks out, don’t try to shut them down, no matter how much you might disagree with them. There’s been a trend around the country of trying to get colleges to disinvite speakers with a different point of view, or disrupt a politician’s rally. Don’t do that — no matter how ridiculous or offensive you might find the things that come out of their mouths. Because as my grandmother used to tell me, every time a fool speaks, they are just advertising their own ignorance. Let them talk. Let them talk. If you don’t, you just make them a victim, and then they can avoid accountability.

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t challenge them. Have the confidence to challenge them, the confidence in the rightness of your position. There will be times when you shouldn’t compromise your core values, your integrity, and you will have the responsibility to speak up in the face of injustice. But listen. Engage. If the other side has a point, learn from them. If they’re wrong, rebut them. Teach them. Beat them on the battlefield of ideas. And you might as well start practicing now, because one thing I can guarantee you — you will have to deal with ignorance, hatred, racism, foolishness, trifling folks. (Laughter.) I promise you, you will have to deal with all that at every stage of your life. That may not seem fair, but life has never been completely fair. Nobody promised you a crystal stair. And if you want to make life fair, then you’ve got to start with the world as it is.

Yeah, that’s how bad things have gotten. The President who at least partially responsible for this mess (having coerced colleges into things like “preponderance of evidence” standards for sexual assault investigations) is now saying we’ve gone too far.

Look, I’m not saying we should let people run around college campuses spewing racist … no, wait, that’s exactly what I’m saying. I would rather have Nazis marching outside my office every day than have our campuses become fascist police states complete with secret reports, re-education and suppression of incorrect views. We’re inuring a generation of students to the idea that they are always being watched, always subject to discipline for ideas and speech, never to step outside the lines or challenge orthodoxy. What kind of adults are these students going to grow up into?

Why is everyone acting as if this was not expected?

Blazing headline: “WEST VIRGINIA PRIMARY RESULTS

As I expected, Shillary lost. What I didn’t expect was all the hand wrining.

This was West Virginia. A state that has an economy with a heavy reliance on the coal industry. The other Clinton, stealing a page from Obama’s playbook, talked about how she would destroy the coal industry to appease the usual collectivist Gaia worshipers. Why would anyone think that the majority of democrats in that state would vote against their own interests, and cast a vote for Shillary? I certainly don’t know if she is unraveling or not, but I am loving the freak show.

This win was all but a given for the Bern-minator, and while it is a boon for those of us that enjoy the left eating itself up, there is a far juicier story, one of real criminal activity, to investigate.

Yeah, I know, wishful thinking. The DNC mouth pieces will never actually investigate anything unless they can use it to help democrats and hurt everyone else, so we are not going to see any justice here it looks like. Ain’t the fundamentally transformed America Obama promised us great?

That idiotic pay gap thingy..

Want to see an article that should have stopped after the third paragraph? Well, here is a “Science Daily” article titled Young women in STEM fields earn up to one-third less than men which says exactly the opposite of the title’s claim. From the article:

One year after they graduate, women with Ph.D.s in science and engineering fields earn 31 percent less than do men, according to a new study using previously unavailable data.

The pay gap dropped to 11 percent when researchers took into account that women tended to graduate with degrees in fields that generally pay less than fields in which men got their degrees.

The rest of the pay gap disappeared when the researchers controlled for whether women were married and had children.

Seriously, you should have ended the article right here and the title correct title would have been that gender pay gap, at least according to this study, is a myth. But of course, since there is no money to be gotten by finding that this myth the SJW types in government fork over oodles of money for is bunk, they decide to contradict their own findings with politically motivated clap-trap.

“There’s a dramatic difference in how much early career men and women in the sciences are paid,” said Bruce Weinberg, co-author of the study and professor of economics at The Ohio State University.

“We can get a sense of some of the reasons behind the pay gap, but our study can’t speak to whether any of the gap is due to discrimination. Our results do suggest some lack of family-friendliness for women in these careers.”

WTF? Your first three paragraphs make it plenty clear that when you try to do an apple to apple comparison and control for type of degree and for choices related to family life, that there is no gap. It is fairly obvious to anyone that applies statistical methodology to any analysis of these claims that when you account for the types of careers women favor or life choices they make, that the entire gap argument vanishes. So then, why are we still getting a long winded article if it is obvious there really isn’t any nefarious reasons for this difference? Well here it is:

The importance of helpful family policies is supported by the fact that single and childless women tended to have less of a pay gap than those who were married and those who had children. About equal percentages of men and women were married or partnered. And more men than women in the study (24 versus 19 percent) had children. But it was the married women with children who saw the lower pay.

“Our results show a larger child-gap in salary among women Ph.D.s than among men,” Weinberg said.

Reading between the lines it is obvious that the study’s authors seem to feel that making the choice to focus on family and children shouldn’t impact women’s earning potential. Sure you can think this is quite noble since family units, and especially the children, are so important, but to me it is ludicrous. Lets start out by noting that these crusaders are currently only asking that employers pay women for less productivity than men. I wonder if they would demand the same for men that decide to stay at home and be the one dealing with the children. Somehow I don’t believe that is the priority of these SJW types, but it could well be that the end goal isn’t to make employers just pay more for less productive women, but to pay more for less productive people in general. The laws of economics and human nature be damned.

Look, like I told the crazy SJW type from the HR department of my company a few weeks ago during her rant about how unfair it was that the guys in the IT department made so much more money than she did, the reason is in the details. While she felt here women’s studies major and political history (WTF is this even) minor at an expensive school should earn her the same as the guys that got real engineering or computer science degrees at whatever institutions, employers who pay for the work obviously felt it was not worth the same. Similarly, if she took time of to spend it with her cats while these guys were totally career oriented, it wouldn’t be fair for either the employer or the guys that she ended up being paid more simply because of her plumbing.

Of course, she really didn’t like that reality and got all huffy at me and even insinuated I needed some PC reeducation, at which point I simply told her that I had no problem saying what I just said to her, even though she was in HR, because the value of the work I did was so important to my employer that I doubted they would make a fuss about it. After all, if they did, I could pack up and head somewhere else, because my particular skills, especially when combined with my work ethics and track record of producing results, were in very high demand.

My advice to people that feel they are not getting compensated enough was always to see how valuable the employer really felt about what they did and how quickly they could find somewhere else to work. In most cases, when you add value, they will pay you for that value. if not, someone else will. The gap comes when your productivity factors in, both because of your learned skills (degree and work experience) and the effort they get from you (are you there and working hard, or are you in need of taking time off too often).

This shit ain’t that complicated man. Of course, you factor in the government meddling, and everything goes out the window…

Austin Votes for Worse Cab Service

Uber and Lyft have been challenging what amount to taxi service monopolies in most cities. Naturally, the monopolies are pushing back. And naturally, liberal Democrats, who always stand up for the little guy, are falling over themselves to service the cab companies.

Austin is now the latest city where the shoe has dropped:

After voters in Austin, Texas, rejected a proposal for loosened regulations on ride-hailing apps, both Uber and Lyft have announced they will be “pausing” operations in the city.

In late 2015, Austin’s City Council approved an ordinance requiring companies like Uber and Lyft to be regulated like taxis. That meant, among other things, drivers would have to be fingerprinted as part of a background check.

Uber and Lyft, in response, pushed a ballot proposal asking voters to choose between that city ordinance and a looser statewide law.

NPR’s John Burnett reports that the two companies dropped $8 million to promote their stance on Proposal 1 — a record for Austin ballot proposals. “Despite spending what amounted to $200 on each vote in their favor, Uber and Lyft lost by 44 to 56,” John says.

Before the vote on Saturday, Uber and Lyft had threatened to pull out of Austin, a market John describes as “lucrative.”

Since the decision, both companies have said they intend to follow through on their threats, Austin-based member station KUT reports.

The result of this is not hard to predict: worse cab service, more expensive cab service, more drunk drivers, more people being left in the cold because a cab decided to ignore them.

I suspect the ride-sharing companies will work out a deal like they did with San Antonio.

Supporters of the fingerprint requirement are saying it is a public safety issue, despite no evidence that Uber and Lyft are particularly dangerous or that fingerprinting makes traditional cabs safer. But don’t be fooled. This isn’t about public safety. This is yet another example of supposed liberals, who supposedly stand with the little guy, standing on top of the little guy to make it impossible for him to get up. Glenn Reynolds:

The single best anti-poverty program is a job. So why does government at all levels make it so hard to get one?

In my home state of Tennessee, for example, it takes 300 hours of training to be licensed to shampoo hair. That’s right: 300 hours. That training covers things like applying shampoo, rinsing and conditioning and answering the phone and taking appointments. Shampoo hair without a license, and you can get six months in jail.

I think I could teach everything you need to know about shampooing in under an hour: Don’t get it in people’s eyes, keep a sharp lookout for lice and rinse thoroughly when you’re done. Answering the phone is something you can learn on your own.

This is just a small example of the larger problem of restrictive occupational licensing, a problem so bad that even the usually regulation-friendly Obama White House has complained.

One quarter of the jobs in America require a license. And this isn’t like licensing things like medicine or law. This is licensing things like hair braiding and interior decorating. Radley Balko, during an investigation of police abuses in South Carolina, discovered that while the state considers 12 weeks of training sufficient for police, it will only grant a barber’s license after a year of training. The license requirements are specifically designed to create closed cartels that can keep outsiders out and maintain an inflated restricted market.

Taxis have long been a huge racket in major cities. Taxi licenses or medallions cost enormous amounts of money. Monopoly taxi companies can swing that but individuals or startups can’t. This was the entire reason Uber and Lyft got started: to break up the monopolies created by “regulations” passed for “our safety”.

I get what people in Austin are saying: it’s not fair that the cab companies have onerous regulations while Uber and Lyft don’t. Fine. Lift those regulations. There is no evidence that they actually make people safer. But there is plenty of evidence that they close out the market from competition.

One might almost say … that was the point.

Update: Iowahawk above pointed out: just before mandating criminal background checks for Uber and Lyft, Austin had outlawed them for everyone else, claiming that criminal background checks were discrimination.

The Price of Socialism

Holy cow:

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ tax and spending proposals would provide new levels of health and education benefits for American families, but they’d also blow an $18-trillion hole in federal deficits, piling on so much debt they would damage the economy.

That sobering assessment comes from a joint analysis released Monday by the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and the Urban Institute Health Policy Center, well-known Washington think tanks.

The bottom line: Democratic presidential candidate Sanders would raise taxes by more than $15 trillion over 10 years, with most of that paid by upper-income earners. But that wouldn’t be enough to cover the cost of his proposed government-run health care system, along with free undergraduate college, enhanced Social Security, family and medical leave, among other new programs.

As a result, Sanders would add $18 trillion to federal debt over a decade.

The Sanders campaign is trying to wriggle out of this, claiming that their healthcare plan will save lots of money because … because … well, because they want it to. But I am totally unsurprised by this. I have said it in this space a million times: you can’t pay for a social welfare state just by taxing “the rich”. There’s not enough money. Every European welfare state pays for itself with heavy taxes on the middle class — VATs, sales taxes, excise taxes, income taxes. Their tax systems are way less progressive than our because they have to be. In the end, you have to go where the money is.

This is the big problem with Sanders’ promises. You have to raise taxes on everyone to pay for them. And people don’t want higher taxes even if they supposedly come with Awesome Government Benefits. Sanders’ own state rejected socialized medicine because it was too expensive.

I’d say this would be the nail in the coffin of the Sanders campaign except that (1) many of his supporters don’t care about math; (2) I’m sure Clinton will find a way to bungle this incredibly easy and salient talking point.

Angry loser being a douche

Whether you like the republican nominee Trump or the more than likely democrat that has rigged they system in her favor Clinton, I bet if you are like me you are happy that this asshole got crushed. Sure he is right on about Clinton being a crime boss, and if you are part of the establishment that liked the status quo and didn’t want Trump, you are going to say what he said about Trump, but we are lucky he isn’t the nominee either. And I am sure this bitter douche doesn’t even get it. The fact is that things have gotten so bad that we need to tear the establishment down if we want to give this country a chance.