2016 is a big year for both sides of the political aisle. The Republicans hope to gain control of the executive branch to mend the wounds of the Obama Administration, while the Democrats want to maintain their control, appoint a few Supreme Court justices, and revolutionize the Republican government as we know it today.
I watched the 2 debates of the New Year, the Republican one on the 14th of January and the Democratic one on the 17th of January. In order…
The Republican debate saw more of the same; Cruz and Rubio battled over resumes, Kasich wanted to remain relevant but telling us what his blue-collar upbringing taught him, Jeb tried to be more fierce and presidential, Christie didn’t do too bad, Trump attacked Cruz on his citizenship because he’s doing better in the polls, Carson made a joke after being asked his first question, just a lot of the same. Trump has not presented more policy to defend his position on anything, he repeated everything he’s said about jobs, the wall, China, ISIS, and will probably remain stagnant in the polls. Cruz remained presidential and confident as he held his own against attacks, and fairing well against the Donald. Rubio maintained his talking points, hell-bent to destroy Cruz for not being the Constitutional conservative he claims to be, while speaking at a very fast pace as if he needs to fit 500 words into 90 seconds. Carson has some good points on ISIS, fixing Washington, nothing has really changed. Christie is starting to reach out more by joking about how the debate sounds like a session of the Senate and how he is the only one who’s actually firsthand dealt with terror in Jersey. Jeb and Kasich…anyone below Christie at this point should drop out. Let’s face it: if Trump falls – which if he does will be on his own accord, so don’t attack him unless you want more supporters for him – and Cruz falls, Rubio is the last hope for the establishment GOP, with Carson right behind him to get the backing of those fed up with Washington and the Tea Party and other conservative groups. Anyone below them who is barely scratching the surface of polling wouldn’t really make a difference if they endorsed a different candidate, as the poll in the .1-3% range (though every vote counts). It just seemed mundane to watch the seven of them give their same speech and grandstand in their own right. The only people in my eyes that remain resolute, unwavering, and are sticking to their guns (NRA pun) on their issues and talking points while remaining conservative are Cruz and Carson. Cruz is more assertive than Carson, but both are very passionate, confident, and emanate the notion that they will put their actions where their words are if elected. Both deal with attacks from other candidates well, both have a good sense of humor, and both draw from the same base. If they were on a ticket together, they would easily take out Trump. My problem with the Donald is that he’s too brash. He doesn’t give much insight to his policy. When he makes attacks, they’re okay, sure, but when you admit that it’s because of the rising poll numbers, it means you’re scared. When you are attacked and retort with petty insults of their appearance or personality, it shows that you can’t take a punch, Donald. When you can come back with facts and not petty responses, I can guarantee that you will gain followers. When you reveal your policies, more than the little you’ve provided, you will gain followers. With Rubio, I get the sense that he’s a GOP robot meant to take down Cruz for his ultra-conservatism and regain the more right leaning moderate Republican base. He repeats himself, which all candidates do to an extent, but it’s the same attacks. His perfectly prepared statements…it’s as if when he’s waiting to speak, in his mind, he’s rehearsing it over an over to get it out as fast as possible without much emotion. The prepared speeches, the too-perfect posture all the time, looking tense and emotionless until he cracks a joke, it’s not cutting it for me. Cruz is my top dog, with Carson my number two. no matter how it ends up, I’m voting republican, because I don’t want to continue the Barack Hussein O administration with a female face leading it, and I certainly don’t want to implement socialist policies into the government more so than we already have.
With the Democratic debate, as expected, it was the show to praise Obama for what he’s done, but also to say that he hasn’t done enough. He hasn’t been progressive enough in his two terms in office. Hillary and Bernie, while they had their differences, agree on most things as far as policy goes for foreign and domestic problems (note their hypocrisy of blaming cops for being the problem but needing them to control the drug problems among other things). O’Malley was trying to separate himself from the others saying how he’s done so much to change Maryland for the better, trying to get distance from the two holding 80%+ of the votes. Smart move, Marty. Things were getting “heated” between the two old career politicians as they were seeing who could out socialist the other. It was the same stuff of the necessity for federalized healthcare, change the nation to combat something we can’t see or really define or control, making any and every attempt to show how they can grow the middle class and diminish the upper and lower…wait a minute. Grow the middle class? Have the government elites in control of the nation? Eliminate the poor and rich to have a collective body of people to control? If it looks like and smells like the socialist beginnings of a communist regime, then it probably is the beginnings of the communist regime. The Democrats want to provide public schooling at all levels free for anyone who wants to do it. They want to grant illegal aliens – sorry, dreamers – full amnesty, knowing full well that they’ll have the right to vote and vote Democrat. When want to have a tax system that is supposed to “balance the scales” and make it “fair” because those nasty rich people who knew what they were doing (by the way, look up Bill and Hillary’s combined net worth. I’ll give you a hint, if she were subjected to the taxing she wants, then she’d be opposed to it faster than Billy can catch some tail) acquired a great amount of wealth. Note: rich conservatives aren’t generous, like the Koch brothers, even though they contribute billions of dollars annually as campaign contributions and other things, but rich Hollywood and government liberals are nice and loving because they donate their money to the same thing. The only way to make it fair is distribution of wealth, not opportunity. Because when you give them opportunity, they’re free, and you can’t have that in a socialist turned communist government. But as Margaret Thatcher says: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” This is true. If only Sanders knew that.
The thing about old Bernie is that he embodies socialism. He is socialism in a human form. An ideology so outdated, so yearning for a voice, so old that it struggles to attach itself to a great society with the guise of of promising assistance for all and for everything, all before it ultimately dies because it’s so old and can’t handle the stress of reforming a system that’s not broken but corrupted. If Sanders had his way, he and the left would tax the top 1% of society with a 90-100% tax so they can pay their fair share. This would go to pay for all the social programs for the nation, brought up by the government, paid for by Joe Taxpayer and Richie Rich. Eventually, though, that 1% is going to expand to the top 10%, then 50%, then next thing to know the government has to tax the middle class, which is now everybody, upwards of a 60% income tax just to keep the programs from dying a painful death and subsequently keeping the people dependent on the government because they don’t have enough to pay for housing and utilities and food and living. Plus, taxing the extreme rich will make them outsource their money to foreign banks (as some probably do to protect their assets) because of the lower rates and ensured protection of their invested and saved money. To eliminate collateral damage, the government can either give power to the states to rebuild their local economies by using federal money to create more trade and commerce which would then stimulate the national economy, OR continue to let the country fall deeper into debt and tax the middle class to death to make everyone poor and super dependent (a communistic regime would do the latter of the options). All of this because he and the democrats want to end income inequality.
First Hillary cannot be in defense of women at all in any way, shape, or form. Sure, she was a leading woman who ran for a Senate seat in a state that wasn’t her home state, pushed her way into the spotlight, took the reins of the country while Bill was having fun with Secretaries, ran a corrupt and unjust State Department, and wants to share her experience with the American populace, but she’d have to realize that women made less working for her than men did. She’d have to realize that if she’s going to say that no one, no matter how big and powerful they are, is exempt from going to prison, she better keep that orange pantsuit on for good for committing treason. She’d have to realize that if ALL women who are victims of sexual assault or harassment deserve to be heard, that includes ALL of the women who her husband seduced and fooled around with. She’d have to realize all of this, but she won’t. She can’t speak out about income inequality. Neither can Sanders, just because he’s made a living off of trying to tell people how to live their lives while selling a century old ideology that dreams of the destruction of a capitalist and free society. Want to know how to get income inequality? Don’t lie to the American people saying that unemployment is down just because more people are working temp jobs on minimum wage and crying to have the minimum wage raised because it isn’t livable. You have people entering the workforce who don’t know basic math, who can’t keep inventory, who don’t have basic skills to even be a parent, let alone manage to keep a temp job. People don’t know what a credit card really is (not free money) or how to balance a checkbook or make a budget. I’m forcing myself to do it, even though I’m in college and have a temp job to have money in my pocket, but it’s an important life skill to have when I enter the workforce for a CAREER, that thing that has a salary and pays above minimum wage because it’s real work. Obama and the left should be encouraging career growth, not part-time temp work. Dispersal of opportunity is far more valuable on the human mind and soul than dispersal of wealth. Not only that, but college majors and studies that are actually relevant in society to have a job must be emphasized, not philosophy, history, gender studies, literature, art history, or communications. Engineering and the sciences (even though I’m a musician) need to be pressed. Don’t let people strive for less but want more, unless you truly believe socialism is so cool. It’s only cool because it’s unrealistic, then we have it. It then becomes a terminal cancer that we can’t kill until the host dies.
Another thing the left wants, and somewhat already has, is universal healthcare. What this means is that we the people will eventually have one option for health-care, because all the other private companies are unfair and extorting their people. Everyone will be on the federally appropriated health-care, eliminating all other option. It’s the beginning of the end for the Constitution, for liberty, and for America as we know it. The capitalist system is based in options and competition. The more options you have, the more those companies are going to want you, and will do what they can to get you, meaning lower prices (ideally). But only one provider means that it clears up the confusions in hospitals trying to figure out what insurance you have; you’ll have the Federal Medicare package. It’s the degradation of capitalism. Because of this, the prices for procedures and medication, which may or may not be covered by your insurance – *wink, wink* – can be anything the government wants them to be! The government provides health-care, forces everyone to pay for it, and by making the prices of coverage high, it’s another excuse to tax the people. See, this is where competition is good, because if one place is cheaper and better than another, then consumers will go to the former. The latter business will try to outdo them and throw in extra perks for the same price or a lower one, drawing in those consumers to get more for less. You don’t need universal health-care.
All in all. The only way the democrats can get what they want in free living is by taxing everyone to death. Blowing up the budget to unreachable heights to pay for something a majority of us don’t want. Sanders couldn’t even pass his health-care bill in Vermont. He said “you’ll have to ask the gov’na [why it wouldn’t work]. I’m not the gov’na.” His plan, if I remember correctly, required a budget that was 4.3 billion dollars, just shy of the 4.6 billion dollar budget that the state needs to pay for everything. Health-care is important, but so is living without paying a 90% tax to pay for healthcare. But that’s just Vermont. Trying to implicate something of that massive scale to, say, just California and New York combined, are you nuts, Bernie? We’re 19 trillion in the hole, and you’d easily double that in the signing of a document. Not even taxing the rich at 200% would cover that bill. If he’s so concerned about people not paying taxes, why don’t you get corrupt Americans like Al Sharpton and every other person who fails to pay off credit card debt and just go get a new one with a different name? Sure, it wouldn’t come close to covering the bill, but that’s justice, and that’s more money in the government’s hands. When you have people who are irresponsible and use credit cards like toilet paper, there’s hell to pay. Literally.
Another thing that concerned me is Bernie’s comparing our prison system to China’s. Now, he’s praised China before, despite the fact that they have the worst pollution problem probably on this planet and selectively kill babies born female to thin the population. But he said that we have more incarcerated people than China. China also kills people, that thing called the death penalty. You want to thin the herd of inmates? Start with maybe putting inmates there because of drug-addiction in a rehabilitation facility, or maybe implementing the death penalty to those serving life sentences without parole. What use are they taking up space? If they did something that heinous to spend the rest of their life locked up with no hope of getting out, what’s the point?? You kill them, right there, you cut the number down by anywhere from a fourth to a third. And to kill them, employ your local gun owner to put a bullet in the heads of those disgusting criminals. Whether they’re a child molester or a serial killer, if they’re serving life without parole, they’re taking up space. But the left and even some on the right don’t want to use it. I’m sure if you ask the citizens that own guns to volunteer to shoot some aweful person to pay less for prisons, they’ll grab their gun and be there faster than the Roadrunner running from Wile e Coyote.
All of this, because the left doesn’t know what a Democrat and a Socialist is, so they move farther left to help as distinguish. There is no difference. As the left shows its true colors, the right remains divided because of Trump and Cruz, for different reasons respectively. If the Republicans cannot win this election, not only is the party doomed, but the America we know will change dramatically.