Monday, January 16, 2017

Trump Not Legitimate Prez Says Civil Rights Icon John Lewis (Speaking The Truth)

NBC News Video Description: In an exclusive interview for Meet the Press, Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) said he believes Donald Trump's election is illegitimate because of Russian interference in last year's election.

I agree 100% that Trump is illegitimate (SWTD #358). However, according to Lewis, it's because of Russian interference. Sure, the Putin-ordered "influence campaign" did have an effect. But I have to ask, what about the Kasich-ordered election fraud campaign known as Interstate Crosscheck? (DSD #54).

I mean, there are numerous reasons why Trump will be an illegitimate president, and the Russian interference is definitely up there, that an African American member of congress says it's the Russian interference but not the election fraud? Maybe it's just me, but is it perplexing that Democrats are essentially (continuing to) ignore massive election fraud on the Right?

Don't get me wrong, I still commend John Lewis for speaking the truth, I just think he should have spoke the FULL truth. Because, while the Russian interference was (hopefully) a one time thing, the Republican election fraud will continue. Whenever Democrats win they have to do so by turning out enough extra people to make up for all the cheating the other side is allowed to get away with?

And, YES, the Democrats walked right into Trump's trap on that one. I refer to his proclamation beforehand that there would be rigging. People assumed that he meant rigging that would help Hillary Clinton, when he was actually referring to rigging that was going to benefit him!

I mean, Kris Kobach did act as Trump's "immigration advisor". "Election rigging advisor" is more like it.

Image: An orange reality-TV buffoon running for president points at the guy who headed up (successful) efforts to rig the election in favor of said orange reality-TV buffoon. "In the photograph, taken on 11/20/2016 at Trump's golf course in New Jersey by Associated Press photographer Carolyn Kaster, Kobach is seen clutching a stack of papers and a leather folder" (Snopes: Trump's potential cabinet picks unwittingly revealed his harsh immigration proposals).

1600×669

SWTD #369

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Ann Coulter Sez Trump Wasn't Making Fun Of Disabled Reporter, He Was Just Imitating A "Standard Retard"... & That's OK

It is invoked as a justification for some of the coarsest expressions of hatred and intolerance ~ Daniel Letwin, an associate professor of history at Pennsylvania State University re "political correctness".

According to Ann Coulter it is a "despicable media lie" that Trump mocked a disabled reporter. He wasn't mocking his specific disability, he was just imitating a "standard retard". Something he has done before. When mocking Ted Cruz, for example (and Ted Cruz isn't disabled or a "retard").

The video (above) was put up by the proprietor of the blog Who's Your Daddy in response to Meryl Streep calling out Trump at the Golden Globes. In this video Coulter supposedly (according to Lisa) "debunks the phony allegations".

So there you have it. The media lies, Trump wasn't mocking the reporter for his disability. He was only implying the reporter is a "standard retard". And, so what if that offends "retards"? What are you, PC?

Trump did nothing wrong/the media lies. There is nothing wrong with insulting mentally challenged persons by doing a "retard" imitation. And totally NOT something undignified for the leader of the free world to have as a part of his repertoire and bust out as an "argument" in response to someone saying something he disagrees with.

Maybe Trump should have said, "sorry, I forgot about Serge F. Kovaleski's disability. I wasn't mocking his disability specifically, I was only imitating a mentally challenged person. Which was wrong of me to do. I apologize both to Mr. Kovaleski and mentally challenged people. It won't happen again".

But, of course that is something the narcissistic buffoon could not do. Instead he doubles down and lies and said he doesn't remember Kovaleski or what he looks like, even though (according to Kovaleski) "while reporting on Trump for the New York Daily News, the two had been on a first-name basis and had met face-to-face on a dozen occasions, including interviews and press conferences".

Remember that Barack Obama apologized when he said his bowling was "like Special Olympics, or something". As opposed to denying he was making fun of "retards", because hey, it was HIMSELF who he was criticizing. Stop being so PC and just shut up, lying media.

Instead he apologized. Because what he said was insensitive, even if it was intended to be self-deprecating and was unintentional. Trump calls everyone who is offended a liar and says it didn't happen. Despite the video evidence. And this putz is going to be president?

BTW, Meryl Streep is one of the few actors who absolutely can NOT be referred to as "overrated". What a bunch of bullplop. Oh, and fuck Ann Coulter. What a horrible person she is. Just like Trump.

Footnote
Quote from Civilities: The current rage about "political correctness" is both wrong and rude by Steven Petrow. The Washington Post, 9/14/2015.

SWTD #368

Thursday, January 12, 2017

The 3rd Way Is The Wrong Way! A Big Reason Why A Reality TV Buffoon Will Be The Next potus

The rise of Trumpism makes perfect sense. Both parties have sacrificed the working class at the altar of globalism ~ Thom Hartmann (dob 5/7/1951) tagline from his 3/23/2016 article They abandoned the 90 percent: How the Reagan Revolution and Third Way politics led America to ruin.

The following excerpt is from the 1998 book Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America by American philosopher Richard Rorty.

Members of labor unions and unorganized skilled workers will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time those workers will realize that suburban white collar workers themselves, desperately afraid of being downsized, are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else.

At that point something will crack. The non-suburban electorate will decide that they system has failed, and start looking around for a strongman to vote for. Someone willing to assure them that, once he's elected, the smug bureaucrats, the tricky lawyers, the overpaid bond salesmen and the postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots.

One thing that is very likely to happen is the gains made in the past 40 years by Black and Brown Americans and by homosexuals will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet. (As read by progressive Talker Thom Hartmann on the 1/10/2016 airing of his program).

As per Wikipedia "several writers have cited a passage of the book, in which Rorty predicts the rise of an authoritarian strongman who gains popularity among blue-collar workers, as prophetic of Donald Trump's rise to political power".

Yeah, I think so. Even though I still believe (KNOW, I'd say) that Trump was aided greatly by the Republican election fraud scheme known as Interstate Crosscheck (see DSD #54 & SWTD #358).

I do acknowledge, however, that Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate. Also (and I think this is an important point) Barack Obama (IMO) shares a lot of the blame. Because of his support for the TPP. The blue collar workers who voted for Trump did so because "their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported".

If Bernie Sanders had been the candidate? I think the Democrats could have won. Because he has always been against these kinds of job-killing free trade deals. Unlike Bill Clinton and Barack Obama (WJC signing NAFTA and BHO's support for the TPP). And don't forget that HRC initially (at least) supported the TPP (calling it the "Gold Standard") and ran as a 3rd term for Obama.

So, while she said she wouldn't sign it as president, people didn't believe her. Ironically, they believed she was just saying what she needed to in order to get elected. I say ironically because (as most/all voters who opposed Trump know), the thin-skinned reality TV buffoon lied his ass off during the campaign.

For the record, I view presidential campaigns as aspirational. In that the candidate states what he'd LIKE to do, not what he (or she) thinks they can do. Realistically they know they will only be able to accomplish a portion of what they're running on. Bernie Sanders what criticized for his proposals supposedly being unrealistic. He'd never be able to get his proposals through Congress, his detractors said. Perhaps, but I believe he would have tried. Trump, on the other hand? I believe was outright lying.

His VP choice (Pence, who is pro-TPP) and the Republican Congress (also in favor of the TPP) told me that Trump was not serious about bringing jobs back. He simply told Blue collar workers what they wanted to hear. Just like he told his dupes that he wouldn't cut Social Security or Medicare, yet cutting these programs are on Speaker Ryan's agenda to be brought up quickly. Bernie Sanders challenged Trump to issue a veto-threat so Congress doesn't waste a lot of time on debating and passing legislation that might not go anywhere (if Trump vetoes). So far no response from Trump.

Anyway, what's clear to me is that the Democrats need to return to their FDR roots. The Democratic Party went astray with the election of 3rd way Democrat Bill Clinton. That is when, according to William Greider of The Nation, the Democratic Party lost it's soul and "abandoned its working-class base".

The shift away from the people was embraced most dramatically when Bill Clinton's New Democrats came to power in the 1990s. Clinton double-crossed labor with NAFTA and subsequent trade agreements, which encouraged the great migration of manufacturing jobs to low-wage economies. Clinton's bank deregulation shifted the economic rewards to finance and set the stage for the calamity that struck in 2008. Wall Street won; working people lost. Clinton presided over the financialization of the Democratic Party. Obama merely inherited his playbook and has governed accordingly, often with the same policy-makers. (How the Democratic Party Lost Its Soul. Dec 1-8, 2014).

The Democratic Party needs to get a hell of a lot more Progressive. It's looking like they realize this (fortunately), but it took a horrific defeat (by a thin-skinned liar who has no idea what he's doing as far as the potus job goes) and a (very likely) disastrous Trump administration for them to get the message.

I am dreading the next four years, during which I anticipate rights to be rolled back for African Americans and gay people, our social safety net to be greatly weakened, the wealthy to get even wealthier, the middle class to shrink, the ranks of the working poor to swell, and a recession (possible depression). As well as more war (Trump knows how to defeat ISIS... yeah, right). Possibly a world war.

Video: SNL video making light of the fact that HRC began adopting more and more of the positions of Bernie Sanders as the campaign progressed. Because the voters wanted a more progressive candidate (1:55).

SWTD #367

Sunday, January 08, 2017

Paul Ryan Worships Satan! (As Do Many In The Incoming Trump Administration, Including Trump Himself)

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness ~ The Christian Bible, 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 (excerpted).

Paul Ryan is a fan of Ayn Rand. You might not know it, but the founder of the Church of Satan (COS), Anton LaVey, cited Rand's ideology as an inspiration. According to the official Church website "Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is an acknowledged source for some of the Satanic philosophy as outlined in The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey".

Now, supposedly the COS does not believe that Satan actually exists. I say this is bullpucky. Or, it surely does not matter when it comes to Paul Ryan, in any case. Paul Ryan SAYS he is a Christian. Wikipedia notes that Ryan "is a member of St. John Vianney Catholic Church in Janesville". As a (Christian) Church-goer Ryan surely believes in God and he who was cast out of Heaven, Lucifer, the fallen angel.

Remember that Paul Ryan was quite vocal about how much he LOVES Ayn Rand. That is until someone pointed out to him that Ayn Rand was an atheist. Before knowing this he said "I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are". After discovering (to his great shock) that Ayn Rand did not believe in the Heavenly Father, Ryan changed his tune.

"I, like millions of young people in America, read Rand's novels when I was young. I enjoyed them [but] I reject her philosophy". Sure. That explains why Rand was/is required reading for anyone working for him. And that's why he is still trying to write Rand's philosophies into law. Rand hated all social welfare programs and thought they should be abolished. Ryan hates all social welfare programs and has worked his entire career trying to diminish them. As a first step to abolishing them.

Or, rather he has worked toward profitizing them. Ryan's On The issues page says the government should "allow charities, community groups and even for-profit firms to compete with government for federal money to fight poverty". Take taxpayer money and hand it off to his cronies, in other words.

The Republican desire to block grant money to the states and have a (large) portion of the money go to for-profit entities would result in less help getting to those who need it. According to a 1/6/2017 Huffington Post article, "Paul Ryan's Plan to Merge Safety Net Programs Could Increase Poverty, Not Reduce It".

Which, IMO, is the whole point - screw over poor people while further enriching your cronies and/or the already wealthy. It is the Republican way. Under the Republican icon, St. Ronald Reagan, homelessness increased dramatically (How Reaganonomics drastically increased homelessness).

Although Ayn Rand just wanted poor people to die. Because she hated them so much. Republicans don't care if poor people die. As long as the already wealthy can benefit from their deaths.

This is why I've long suspected/hypothesized that Satan is exerting his influence over our nation via the Republican Party. It "is nearly perfect in its immorality... to justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil" Gore Vidal says in regards to Rand's Objectivism.

BTW, the year the GOP nominated George W. bush as its nominee, the stars on the GOP logo were flipped upside down (Bush Era Began Satanic Stars on GOP emblem?). The 5-pointed star, or pentagram, "with a single point upwards depicts spirit presiding over the four elements of matter represents GOOD, while the inverted pentagram is considered EVIL" (paraphrased fromThe History of the Pentagram from Detoxorcist).

The inverted (point-down) pentagram is also the symbol of Satanism... as per the article "The Pentagram and Ram's Head" from the website "Jesus is Savior.com".

The GOP presents itself as the "pro-life" and "pro-family" party... which is really code for controlling women and homophobia. But the Bible supposedly teaches homosexuality and abortion are wrong... at least that is what Christians who vote Republican believe. But would that not be JUST LIKE SATAN to use Bible misinterpretations to fool people into voting for his agenda?

That agenda being Objectivism, or the vilification of the poor and the cutting of programs that help them... and the cutting of taxes of wealthy people. Don't forget what Jesus said regarding a rich man's chance of getting into heaven. Despite the GOP presenting itself as the Christian/family/pro-life party... their primary purpose is representing the interests of the wealthy.

As for Paul Ryan, I (given my suspicions) did a Google search on "Paul Ryan worships Satan" and one of the results was a 2012 AlterNet article (written after Obama defeated the Mittens/Ryan ticket to win re-election) that confirmed that the Speaker of the House genuflects to the father of lies.

Back in 2011 a series of attacks from leading conservative evangelicals darkly warned that Ayn Rand devotees, Paul Ryan included, might be worshiping at the altar of crypto-satanism ... a flurry of mainstream media articles cover a controversy erupting after evangelism superstar Billy Graham prayed with (and in effect endorsed) candidate Mitt Romney and observers noticed that an article on the website of Graham's flagship Billy Graham Evangelistic Association identified Mormonism as a "cult". (Paul Ryan Is an Ayn-Rand Loving "Satanist" and Romney Is in a "Cult?" The GOP's Religion Woes by Bruce Wilson. 10/18/2012).

The COS website says crypto-Satanists are "people who are not Church members, but like what we're doing". First Things, a hard-right Catholic journal (as per the AlterNet article quoted above), describes Objectivism as "The Fountainhead of Satanism".

Over the past few years, Anton LaVey and his book The Satanic Bible has grown increasingly popular, selling thousands of new copies. His impact has been especially pronounced in our nation's capital. One U.S. senator has publicly confessed to being a fan of the The Satanic Bible while another calls it his "foundation book". On the other side of Congress, a representative speaks highly of LaVey and recommends that his staffers read the book. ...

Surprisingly little concern, much less outrage, has erupted over this phenomenon. Shouldn't we be appalled by the ascendancy of this evangelist of anti-Christian philosophy? Shouldn't we all - especially we Christians - be mobilizing to counter the malevolent force of this man on our culture and politics?

As you've probably guessed by this point, I'm not really talking about LaVey but about his mentor, Ayn Rand. (The Fountainhead of Satanism by Joe Carter. First Things 6/8/2011).

Regarding Objectivism and Satanism, Joe Carter says "at their core, they are the same philosophy". Joe Carter (editor of First Things, a Catholic journal whose "purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society") furthermore writes that "you can replace the pentagrams of LeVayian Satanism with the dollar sign of the Objectivists without changing much of the substance separating the two".

So, there you have it. Paul Ryan is a Satan worshipper. Or a "crypto-Satanist". Do I believe Ryan actually takes knee and supplicates to Beelzebub? How should I know? As per Joe Carter's article, my inference is that he believes Paul Ryan has fallen "completely under Rand's diabolic sway". "Diabolic", as in "pertaining to or actuated by a devil".

The "devil" (A devil, not THE devil), in Joe Carter's view being Ayn Rand, who he describes as a "self-professed anti-Christ who hated Christianity". "To be a follower of both Rand and Christ is not possible", but Ryan IS a follower of Rand. Despite his lies about rejecting her philosophy. So, if he isn't a follower of Christ, he must be a follower of Satan.

The evidence supports that conclusion, for certain. You don't have to take my word for it. The editor of "America's most influential journal of religion and public life" says Paul Ryan worships The Wicked One for crying out loud! (my inference).

Although, given this fact, you'd think that Ryan would be excommunicated. In regards to the Pope (the infallible leader of Ryan's supposed religion) the Speaker said Francis doesn't understand capitalism. "The guy is from Argentina, they haven't had real capitalism in Argentina". "They have crony capitalism in Argentina. They don't have a true free enterprise system" (Paul Ryan lectures the Pope, 12/27/2013).

Clearly Ryan is a fcking liar, as crony capitalism is (as I already pointed out) what he wants for the United States. But dissembling is EXACTLY what you'd expect from someone who venerates the father of lies!

It does perplex me, however, that some evangelicals (such as this Joe Carter fellow) took exception to Paul Ryan being a fan of Ayn Rand, but (apparently) have nothing to say about the pussy-grabber-elect Donald Trump (I haven't heard any RW religious leaders say anything against Trump, at least). Fact is Franklin Graham suggested evangelicals should vote Trump, a man who told an obvious and laughable whopper when he claimed that the Bible is his favorite book (Trump offers revealingly bad answers about the Good Book, 10/26/2016).

"Few conservatives will fall completely under Rand's diabolic sway" (the actual quote from Joe Carter's article, from which I inferred that one of those few is Paul Ryan). But it isn't a few of them, it is most of them. Does that mean many or most Congressional Republicans are Satan worshippers like Ryan?

I can't say. But I do believe that Satan is exerting his influence over our nation via the Republican Party, and that the election of Donald Trump is part of the Dark Lord's plan to drag as many souls into the pit of hell with him as possible. "Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power" the anti-semitic Trump advisor Steve Bannon said (Trump's top adviser is now literally praising Satan, 11/18/2016).

Donald Trump is also a fan of Rand. A 4/12/2016 NY Intelligencer article reveals that the orange buffoon identifies "with Howard Roark, the novel's idealistic protagonist who designs skyscrapers and rages against the establishment" (Donald Trump's Role Model is an Ayn Rand Character).

So it's not just Paul Ryan, but Trump and many within his administration who subscribe to the evil Randian ideology. The Washington Post notes (in a 12/13/2016 article) "Ayn Rand-acolyte Donald Trump stacks his cabinet with fellow objectivists".

Objectivism and Satanism are "at their core... the same philosophy". And (I repeat) that's not me saying that, but the editor of a leading Catholic journal! Yeah, I think DARK days are ahead of us, given the fact that the incoming administration (as well Congress) is apparently lousy with Satan worshippers. Or Ayn Rand worshippers (big diff). But remember that Trump himself referred to 2 Corinthians as "the whole ballgame" (Citing "Two Corinthians", Trump Struggles To Make The Sale To Evangelicals).

THE WHOLE BALLGAME! Trump and his incoming administration (as well as Paul Ryan) are masquerading as servants of righteousness but (in actuality) are servants of Satan! The proof is pretty conclusive, IMO.

SWTD #366

Sunday, January 01, 2017

The Poorly Educated

Found at the top of the Right-wing, Trump-supporting blog Who's Your Daddy.

OK, so I'd say president Obama made America better. Especially given the fact that the last guy crashed the economy and Obama reversed course, put us back on the right track and started growing the economy again (President Obama Is Handing a Strong Economy to His Successor. NYT 12/2/2016). #thankyouobama.

But if I did think that Obama made things WORSE, that's what I'd say. Also, according to one of the TOMs (1 of 4) "inauguration" is spelled "inorgaration". This idiot complains that "Andre Borchli" won't sing for Trump at his sham swearing-in (a sham because Trump cheated and will be an illegitimate president).

Although it was only "under pressure from a backlash by his fans on social media" that Bocelli backed out. Instead "Jackie Evancho, a runner-up on America's Got Talent five years ago" will perform (Andrea Bocelli Backs Out of Trump Inauguration Performance After Backlash).

BTW, that Obama caused hatred, social unrest and racism by being Black, is, I think something the dumb-dumbs that voted for the KKK-endorsed Trump are responsible for. As for not helping minorities, not reducing crime and not reducing poverty, they're thinking of the Republican obstructionist Congress. Also, the foreign policy that lead to chaos, instability and terrorism? That would be the last president, gwb. You know, the guy who let OBL go (SWTD #33) and then invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 after lying about WMD (SWTD #312). Idiots.

The great deceiver? That's hilarious given how suckered by the Orange buffoon the #poorlyeducated #TrumpDupes are going to eventually realize they've been. Or not. They'll probably find someone else to blame, even though the Republicans have complete control.

SWTD #365

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

On My Birthday Being The Day On Which Death Is One Full Year Closer

Everybody is going to be dead one day, just give them time ~ Neil Gaiman (dob 11/10/1960) an English author of short fiction, novels, comic books, graphic novels, audio theatre, and films.

So this past Sunday (Christmas) was the day on which I was born. On Facebook a sister-in-law wished me a "happy birthday". In response I wrote "I now refer to it as the day I am one full closer to death". This is a view I adopted a few years ago. The SIL replied that she thought this is a "dismal outlook".

Yes, anyone who knows me knows that is my general disposition. I am not an optimistic person. On the other hand, declaring that my outlook is dismal; that struck me as judgmental, and that the judgment was not good. That I SHOULDN'T have that outlook. But, while my reason is that I am a pessimist, there are people who have this view regarding death who aren't.

This I know because just that day I had listened to someone express such a thought. "I think it gives me this more palpable sensation with being alive" Julia Sweeney said, explaining why she LIKES to contemplate death.

Julia Sweeney is an atheist. Atheism makes no sense to me, and (as an atheist) Julia Sweeney's view on death makes no sense to me. If she had expressed similar thoughts AS A CATHOLIC, then I'd say that makes some sense to me. And I'd say I agree with some of what she said. Some of what she said in a conversation with Marc Maron on 11/24/2016.

I just fininshed listening to the audiobook version of Julia Sweeney's It it's not one thing, it's your mother and I decided to seek out other audios of hers. She has a few books, but most of her output takes the form of what's called "autobiographical monologues". I'd heard God Said Ha! years ago. There is another titled Letting Go of God and I thought, well, I don't want to PAY to hear someone tell religion is ridiculous and there is no God, but I'll listen. Maybe if I can buy the 2-CD set cheap. Really cheap. I obtained "God said Ha!" cheap by buying it along with some other items on eBay (and therefore the shipping cost per item was lesser, whereas if you buy a CD on Amazon, the shipping itself is 3.99 per item. More than I was willing to pay in total).

So, after looking around, I found it was not available cheaply enough. But I did find it on YouTube. So I listened. And yes, she points out the ridiculousness of Christianity (much of which I was already aware of). But do I want to be an atheist? No, I do not. I couldn't live as an atheist. The ridiculousness in the Bible exists because it was written by men. I do not believe in Biblical inerrancy.

In fact, listening to "Letting go of God", while it did not convince me to become an atheist, it did convince me (even moreso) that my view that the Bible is NOT inerrant is correct. But that isn't a reason for me to leave the Christian faith. Julia Sweeney would have good reason to leave the Catholic faith, one of the more silly versions of Christianity, IMO. Because Catholics believe there exists an infallible representative of God here on earth.

And that leaders of the Catholic church can rewrite laws governing how Catholics live their lives. And frequently these laws don't have anything to do with what is in the Bible. For example, some years ago I heard that they got together and decided that Limbo no longer exists. Previously Catholics were taught that if a baby dies before being baptized that the baby's soul goes to Limbo. Now? I guess it just never existed. Although it is a totally made up concept to begin with.

My point is that Catholic nonsense gave Sweeney good reason to leave the Catholic faith. That would have been a very sensible thing to do, IMO. But that didn't mean she needed to abandon her faith all together. IMO. Although she does discuss this possibility in her "Letting go of God" monologue (switching religions). But ultimately decides there is no God.

Although some of her views on the matter of the afterlife remain Catholic in nature it seems. Or conforming to a religious view of the afterlife, which is why I found her thoughts on the matter a little perplexing. Thoughts expressed to Marc Maron on 11/24/2014 in a discussion for his WTF podcast.

This was following the release of her book, "If It's Not One Thing..." in 2013, and it's Julia Sweeney's life (in general) that they talk about. Death is a topic that comes up right away, and it's the first 4 minutes (roughly) that I decided to transcribe as follows...

Julia: I just bought a cemetary plot for myself in Spokane.

Marc: That's an uplifting way to start the show. Is it a nice plot?

Julia: It is. It's with our family. It's other people in the family. Actually, just this morning I paid the final check on it.

Marc: So, it's all ready to go.

Julia: Now I feel like, I don't have to visit Spokane that much anymore. I'm going to spend a long time there.

Marc: That's my post retirement plan.

Julia: Exactly.

Marc: Oh, my God. Do I need to get one of those? When do you get one of those?

Julia: I don't know because my husband and I kept going back and forth about it. Because he doesn't care at all about that. And wouldn't even discuss it. And the only reason I did is because I had a couple siblings die and other family members - and they're in this area we have visited in Spokane. You know, the cemetery. We were like a Mexican family. We'd go have a picnic at the cemetery with our [dead] relatives.

Marc: You did?

Julia: Oh, yeah.

Marc: But you're a Catholic Family?

Julia: Irish Catholic. We just had to stop by all the time. If we're on the North side, it like... We'll pop in and say hello to Henrietta...

Marc: Your grandparents?

Julia: Yeah. And so, it suddenly occurred to me that's meaningful. Not everyone has that. That's meaningful. And, I had happened to talk to this woman who sells cemetery plots there, and she goes... you know, the spot right next to your two brothers is available. And I was like... I'm in! I am so in. And then, I have two other siblings and I was trying to get them to buy the spots next to me, and they were like... I don't want to be next to Aunt Barbara.

Marc: Oh, really?

Julia: It was like... will my husband and I be together [said Julia's sister]? And then my other sibling [Julia's brother] was like... I don't want to be next to her husband.

Marc: Do you have to buy more than one [plot]?

Julia: You can have up to four... actually, we could all go in one plot. They just upped it from two people to four people. Can be in one plot.

Marc: Have they changed the distances, or is it...?

Julia: No, it's because people are cremated now. it used to be that you couldn't be cremated if you were Catholic.

Marc: Oh...

Julia: But they changed the rules. So now it's just a heyday at the cemetery. Because you can pack a bunch of people in a plot.

Marc: It's cheaper to cremate, I guess.

Julia: Oh, yeah. Especially if you're not in town when you die.

Marc: (laughs) Transportation is easier.

Julia: Right. You can go on the plane... you're carry-on.

Marc: It's funny. It's not morbid. I think Catholics are pretty good at that. The idea of having lunch at a cemetery, I think there's a comfort with death.

Julia: I find that so true. Actually my daughter just said - because my husband's [family], they're Jewish atheist basically... And proud 3rd generation Jewish atheist... and my daughter said to me recently... you know, Dad's side of the family, they don't talk about - they don't even believe in an afterlife. But they don't talk about people dying that much. But your side of the family, they all believe in this afterlife (even though she knows I don't). And yet, you're totally comfortable talking about being dead... this person is doing to be dead, and soon we'll all be dead. And soon we'll all be in the ground.

And I think that's healthy. I like it.

Marc: However you can accept death, I think it's a good way to go. That's the one thing we don't want to confront. Or we want to deny. But I think you get to a certain age. I always knew that I would die. But when you get older you're like... it might be soon.

Julia: OK, here's my new thing... I'm actually trying to think about death a lot. Like, just think about it.

Marc: Why?

Julia: I think it gives me this more palpable sensation with being alive.

Marc: Accept it and realize it.

Julia: Kind of contemplate death. Just to have it. But, anyway, my new thing is that when I see babies anywhere, I think that when that baby is my age, I won't be alive. It gives you a little tingle. It's coming up. Soon I will not be around.

Marc: I don't like that.

Julia: I don't know why that makes me... it's that time of life.

[End excerpt from the 11/24/2014 Marc Maron WTF Podcast]

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that when you die, you're dead. Although when God returns there will be a resurrection of the dead and God will establish his kingdom here on earth. Meaning, I don't believe in heaven being a place in the sky where people go when they die (a place where they sit around on clouds playing harps, etc).

But I do believe there is an afterlife, which Julia Sweeney, as an atheist, does not. And I don't understand why contemplating death would produce a "palpable sensation with being alive". If I believed that this life was all there was, the sensation it would produce in me is hopelessness. Because life is ALL SO POINTLESS. I mean, any one individual person's life is (in the big picture sense) incredibly short. And then you die. And if you're GONE FOREVER, what is the point? Your loved ones will remember you, and you will "live on" in that sense (in their memories), but they too will die one day. And then you will be wiped from existence.

Historically significant (and famous people) will "live" on. In the history books and in pictures and on film. But, for the rest of us, it will be as if we never existed. And that day will come quickly (given the short amount of time any individual person has on earth). The point is that I just couldn't go on if I thought there was NO POINT to this life. Which, IMO, if you die and that is it? Then there is no point. Given how short life is, meaning that the time you will be here will be insignificant compared to the time you (weren't) and won't be here.

So I can't fathom why thinking of death would be something an atheist would do. I would fear it greatly if I thought that was the end. Or, actually, I'd think let's get to it. Since life is completely meaningless and therefore why live it?

But if Sweeney were still religious? Then her view on death would make more sense to me. Even though, she ISN'T going to be spending a lot of time in the Spokane cemetery, since you cease to exist when you die. Atheists spend time nowhere after death. Not that I think anyone spends time anywhere after death. They may or may not hang around anywhere. I'm not sure, which is why I said I'm INCLINED to believe that when you're dead you're dead. But that God will resurrect the dead when he returns.

Soon we WILL all be dead. And soon we WILL all be in the ground. Or cremated (another inane Catholic rule rewrite. Before cremation was bad and your soul would be in trouble if you were cremated, but now it's acceptable). But I do think that's healthy. As opposed to being a "dismal outlook". It absolutely does NOT, however, give "me this more palpable sensation with being alive". Although I can imagine for someone that it might. Just not an atheist. That an atheist would look at death this way is something I seriously do not understand.

Note that she said that her husband's side of the family does not talk about death. And that they are 3rd generation Jewish atheist. She does, and that is (I think) a holdover from being Catholic. But as an atheist, believing that when you're dead that's it. THAT, I think is a significantly more dismal outlook. And, for me - as a serious pessimist who embraces a dismal outlook - that's a dark place that I can't go.

Video: Episode 553 of Marc Maron's WTF Podcast from 11/24/2014. Note: I start the video at 28:25 because that is when the interview with Julia Sweeney begins (Marc interviews someone else first). The portion I quote above begins at 30:41.

SWTD #364

Friday, December 09, 2016

#TrumpDupes #1

This from Hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson... "I can take glee in that - I think Donald Trump conned them... I worried that he was going to do crazy things that would blow the system up. So the fact that he's appointing people from within the system is a good thing".

This "glee taking" as per the Bloomberg article (by Max Abelson) linked to by Buzzfeed's Sr. Writer Doree Shafrir in her 11/30/2016 tweet.

Wall Street Wins Again As Trump Chooses Bankers and Billionaires: After Donald Trump ridiculed Wall Street on the campaign trail, the President-elect tapped former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. executive Steven Mnuchin to be his Treasury secretary and billionaire investor Wilbur Ross to lead the Commerce Department. (11/30/2016).

BTW, Tilson (who, according to the article voted for HRC) also said "I'm a fan of Dodd-Frank, I think banking should be boring... I worry about Wall Street returning to being a casino".

Uh... OK. Maybe HRC voters can also take glee that Steven Mnuchin is Trump's choice for Treasury Secretary?

Nope.

Mnuchin is a former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. partner and movie financier with no government experience who spent the past six months working as Donald Trump's chief fundraiser. ... The part of his background that's likely to get the most scrutiny is the six years he spent running OneWest Bank, a Southern CA lender.

In 2009, during the depths of the financial crisis, Mnuchin joined with a group of former Goldman Sachs colleagues and billionaires to buy the remnants of IndyMac, which had collapsed after bingeing on reckless home loans during the frenzy of CA's subprime-mortgage boom. They changed the name to OneWest, turned it around and sold the bank for a big gain last year. Mnuchin may have personally gotten more than $200 million in proceeds from the sale...

The bank carried out more than 36,000 foreclosures during Mnuchin's reign, according to the CA Reinvestment Coalition, a San Francisco-based nonprofit whose deputy director, Kevin Stein, dubbed the bank a "foreclosure machine". The group has accused OneWest of shoddy foreclosure practices and avoiding business in minority neighborhoods... (11/21/2016 Bloomberg article by Zachary Mider).

"Steve Mnuchin is the Forrest Gump of the financial crisis" according to Senator (and president?) Elizabeth Warren. In that he "spent two decades at Goldman Sachs helping the bank peddle the same kind of mortgage products that blew up the economy and sucked down billions in taxpayer bailout money". By which she means Mnuchin got rich despite not knowing what he's doing. Except how to game the system. Something (The fictional character) Forrest Gump didn't do. Forrest Gump might have been dumb, but he wasn't a dishonest thief (see video below).

Apparently for Whitney Tilson it's a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"... and for that reason he is filled with glee. I'm not filled with glee. This was one of the reasons I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary. He would be appointing people who we could be assured would be taking Wall Street to task.

Will the #TrumpDupes care? Some of them might. But I think the majority won't. Because they are stupid. By the way, while I did vote for Bernie Sanders in the primary, I did vote for Hillary Clinton in the General. Because she would have been a lot better than Trump. A LOT better. Even on the issue of reining in Wall Street. Not as good as Bernie Sanders, but LEAGUES better than Trump.

I knew Trump was lying about "draining the swamp". Now he's confirming that he lied with these Wall Street Picks. He is FILLING the swamp. As LOLGOP writes (in a satirical Facebook post) "Trump to appoint dingo to watch baby".

Video: Democracy Now's Amy Goodman reports that banksters Wilbur Ross and Steve Mnuchin join Trump's cabinet as Treasury & Commerce Secretaries. Amy interviews David Dayen of The Nation (author of the article Profiteers of the Great Foreclosure Machine Go to Washington) who says "Mnuchin and Ross led companies that committed fraud to foreclose on millions of homeowners" (5:22).

#CrookedDonald #DonTheCon #draintheswamp #TrumpTransition.

SWTD #363

Saturday, December 03, 2016

#CrookedDonald #1

Note: My commentary below contains excerpts from the 11/22/2016 Washington Post article Trump Foundation admits to violating ban on "self-dealing", new filing to IRS shows by David Fahrenthold.

Donald Trump and trophy wife #3 (former nude model Melania Knauss) pose with one of the painters (speed painter Michael Israel) who created paintings of Trump that the Donald or trophy wife used foundation money to purchase ($20k for a 6-foot-tall portrait by Israel and 10k for a 4-foot painting by Havi Schanz).

The #notmypresident-elect also paid 12k in a charity auction for a Tim Tebow-signed football helmet. The issue is that items paid for with money from a charitable foundation MUST be put to charitable use. Trump using foundation money to pay for items for personal use is illegal (it's called "self dealing").

Trump also "settled a dispute with the town of Palm Beach FL over a large flagpole he erected at his Mar-a-Lago Club. The town agreed to waive $120,000 in unpaid fines if Trump's club donated $100,000 to Fisher House, a charity helping wounded veterans and military personnel"... and Trump made the donation with foundation money! More self-dealing.

Additionally "Trump's golf course in New York's Westchester County was sued by a man who had won a $1 million hole-in-one prize during a tournament at the course. The man was later denied the money because Trump's course had allegedly made the hole too short for the prize to be valid... the Trump Foundation donated $158k to the unhappy golfer's charity (afterwhich the lawsuit was settled)".

As per the title of the WP article, "President-elect Donald Trump's charitable foundation has admitted to the Internal Revenue Service that it violated a legal prohibition against self-dealing, which bars nonprofit leaders from using their charity’s money to help themselves, their businesses or their families. The admission was contained in the Donald J. Trump Foundation's IRS tax filings for 2015, which were... uploaded by the Trump Foundation's law firm, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius".

This admission that the Foundation broke the law is NEW. Previously they said they did not break the law, now they said they did. Break the self-dealing law numerous times in multiple years. Note that the lies from the foundation were necessitated by actions of Donald and trophy wife. They are the ones who broke the law.

In essence Trump STOLE money from his foundation contributors. They thought they were giving money for the foundation to put to charitable use, not for Trump to buy shit for himself or settle personal lawsuits.

Which makes me wonder, now that the theft of foundation money has been admitted to, what are the consequences? Jail time for Trump? Unfortunately, no. According to IRS tax code "IRC 6684(2) imposes a penalty upon a person who becomes liable for a tax under IRC 4941 for actions that are willful and flagrant, and not due to reasonable cause. The penalty is equal to the amount of the tax imposed under IRC 4941".

I don't know about you, but that penalty sounds a little light for what amounts to theft. 258K according to the Washington post. Money Trump STOLE "from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits that involved the [supposed] billionaire's for-profit businesses" (Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems).

Crooked piece of shit. Now that he's been "elected" preznit he's quietly paying back some of what he's stolen... using the excuse that he doesn't have the time for legal fights. His excuse when he settled the "Trump University" fraud case. Although he will pay $25 million (21 mil for the defrauded students & 4 mil for the lawyers)... but most students will only be able to recoup half of the money they were scammed out of.


crookeddonald.

SWTD #362

Thursday, November 24, 2016

Party Over Country

The Trump camp, they were actively rooting them on. All they cared about was winning. As long as we win, we don't care. That's not America ~ Progressive Talker Stephanie Miller on the 11/23/2016 airing of her show, re Russia hacking the DNC.

With Hillary Clinton's popular vote lead now exceeding 2 million, the evidence continues to pile up that the election was stolen. As I pointed out previously, Donald Trump told us that the election was going to be rigged, and, as investigative journalist Greg Palast has reported, it was. The rigging taking the form of bumping people off the voter rolls via Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach's Interstate Crosscheck. A voter disenfranchisement scheme that "purged 1.1 million Americans of color from the voter rolls of GOP–controlled states".

Now there are reports that the vote may have been hacked. The following is an excerpt from the article "Experts calling for recount of presidential ballots in WI, MI & PA due to possible election machine hacking" from New York Magazine.

Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in 3 swing states won by Donald Trump... The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they've found persuasive evidence that results in WI, MI, and PA may have been manipulated or hacked. ...

[On 11/17/2016] the activists held a conference call with Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and campaign general counsel Marc Elias to make their case... The academics presented findings showing that in WI, Clinton received 7% fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30k votes; she lost WI by 27k. While it's important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing... that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review — especially in light of the fact that the Obama WH has accused the Russian government of hacking the DNC.

The Clinton camp is running out of time to challenge the election. According to one of the activists, the deadline in WI to file for a recount is [11/25]; in PA, it's [11/28]; and MI is [11/30]. Whether Clinton will call for a recount remains unclear. The academics so far have only a circumstantial case that would require not just a recount but a forensic audit of voting machines. Also complicating matters, a senior Clinton adviser said, is that the WH, focused on a smooth transfer of power, does not want Clinton to challenge the election result. (11/22/2016 by Gabriel Sherman).

Also, according to political journalist Bill Palmer the vote totals ending up the way they did are statistically suspicious.

The following is an excerpt from Palmer's DATE You're Not Just Imagining It, The Hillary Clinton Vs Donald Trump Vote Totals Do Look Rigged".

In order to believe that the official vote tallies are legitimate, you have to accept that all of the [following] legitimately happened: African-Americans in the South went from turning out in droves for HRC in the primary to not caring if she won the general election. DJT got 60-something percent of the same-day voting in FL. The polling averages were wrong for the first time in modern history. Trump beat his poll numbers despite having spent the primary season tending to fall below them. Clinton fell below her poll numbers despite having spent the primary season tending to beat them. In every state where Trump pulled off a shocking upset victory, he just happened to do it with 1% of the vote. And in an election that everyone cared particularly deeply about [turnout was down].

I can accept any one of the above things happening as an isolated fluke. I cannot accept all the above happening. And so for once in my evidence-driven career, I'm left to believe that the conspiracy theorists are right: the vote tallies are rigged.

I urge you to read the rest of the Palmer article. What I quote above is (a portion of) what Stephanie Miller read on the 11/23/2016 airing of her program (the conclusion). "I'm not a conspiratorial minded person at all" Miller said re the possible hacking of the vote. But the article from Palmer (a "top political journalist") has her convinced the election was rigged.

As am I. And, don't forget that Republicans don't believe in fair elections. They don't believe in making their case to the American people and letting the voters decide. The proof is their efforts to manipulate the vote by disenfranchising as many voters as possible (specifically those who might vote Democratic). As the (now deceased) religious Conservative Paul Weyrich ("notable as a figurehead of the New Right") said "I don't want people to vote... In fact, our leverage goes up as the voting populace goes down".

Further evidence Republicans place Party over Country is their theft of the SCOTUS appointment from Barack Obama. Obama, as the serving president at the time the vacancy occurred (when Justice Scalia died), had the right to select a replacement of his choice. Instead Congressional Republicans stonewalled in the hope that Trump would be elected.

This, even though their internal polling said Trump would likely lose. Prior to election day John McCain announced "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up". He was talking about obstructing an HRC SCOTUS nomination for 4 years! A clear example of how Republicans put Party before Country.

BTW, as for convincing the Electors to vote for HRC instead of Trump, I read on another blog this would involve "throwing out the rules of the Constitution". An absurd assertion, given the fact that (as per FairVote) "Electors are also generally free agents, as only 29 states require electors to vote as they have pledged, and many constitutional scholars believe those requirements would not stand in a court challenge".

Article 2 does not contain within it a mandate that an Elector MUST vote for the candidate they have pledged they will support. In some states the elector is (by law) required to vote for their pledged candidate, but "the constitutionality of such mandates is uncertain" (as per Wikipedia). In other words, it would be fully Constitutional for an Elector to change his or her vote (although some states fine faithless electors).

As President Obama said, Donald Trump is "uniquely unqualified" to be POTUS. And I, as Obama does, am convinced "the Republic is at risk" if Trump becomes president.

Which is why I strongly believe that every possible legal avenue that exists to prevent Donald Trump from assuming the presidency should be attempted. I pray that Hillary Clinton listens to those who are telling her the election wasn't "free and fair" and that she should call for an audit of the votes in WI, MI & PA. Or that (enough) Electors change their votes so that Trump is denied the presidency.

Denying Trump the presidency is a longshot, but we won't know if it work or not if it isn't tried. I am SICK of stolen elections, and you know Republicans will continue to cheat in future elections. Should the response of the Democrats continue to be only to pump up turnout (in order to overcome the cheating)? Why not attack on ALL fronts? The fear (I'm positive) is that HRC will be painted as a "sore loser" if she contests the results. Which is why she probably won't. And Barack Obama (per the NY Magazine excerpt) doesn't want her to.

So the Dems are just going to roll over and accept the results, even though they almost certainly aren't kosher. But the stakes are just too high. A President Trump will seek to destroy Obama's legacy and roll back rights gained under our first African American president. I say that, FOR THE SAKE OF OUR COUNTRY, we MUST fight to prevent Trump from becoming our 45th president. Because, if Trump becomes president, we will SERIOUSLY be fucked (including the rubes who voted for him).

Also, you KNOW Trump and his supporters would be raising a stink if the election had gone the other way. So why the hell should Hillary supporters stay quiet and accept the results? Because they're afraid of being labeled "sore losers"?! I will never accept that Trump was legitimately elected (SWTD #358). Even if he occupies the White House as the Orange-Buffoon-In-Chief (which he very likely will), that doesn't mean I have to accept it or shut up about the election being rigged.

Petitions You Can Sign
->Call for an audit and recount of the vote. Target: Hillary Clinton (78,160 signatures the last time I checked).
->Demand an Audit of the 2016 Presidential Election. by Verified Voting (66,038 signatures).
->Electoral College: Make Hillary Clinton President on December 19. Change.org petition. (4,621,738 supporters with a goal of 6,000,000).

See Also
->The NSA Chief Says Russia Hacked the 2016 Election. Congress Must Investigate. [Excerpt] ...the director of the NSA, Admiral Michael Rogers, was asked about the WikiLeaks release of hacked information during the campaign, and he said, "This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect". ... Russian hackers reportedly targeted state election systems in AZ and IL. ...the Russian deputy foreign minister said after the election that Russian government officials had conferred with members of Trump's campaign squad. (A former senior counterintelligence officer for a Western service sent memos to the FBI claiming that he had found evidence of a Russian intelligence operation to co opt and cultivate Trump).
->Still time for an election audit by Ron Rivest and Philip Stark. USA Today 11/18/2016. [Excerpt] ...if we just want to check whether Donald Trump won the election, an audit might examine even fewer ballots, because it could proceed in stages. First it would check the results in the states Trump won. If auditing confirms those results, there's no need to audit in the states Clinton carried: Trump really won. That means auditing about 700,000 ballots in the 29 states Trump won, about 0.5% of the ballots cast in this election.

SWTD #361

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Electoral College Instruction From A Hard Working American

The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy ~ Donald J. Trump via Twitter, 11/6/2012.

It has been quite a long time, but I have returned. It is I, the Radical Right-Wing Terrorist Free Market Guy, a writer of guest commentaries for this blog. Although the last time I was published here was way back in 2011. My commentary then concerned how ObamaCare would be repealed. Because the Dems wrote it but didn't read it. So they had no idea how bad it was.

Now (finally) President Trump will repeal ObummerCare and replace it with something terrific. A free-market based solution that will provide healthcare for everyone at a fraction of the cost. Anyway, that isn't what I'm going to be writing about today. Today the subject is the Electoral College. An institution the crybaby losers who supported the losing candidate want to do away with.

According to J. Craig Scherf of Duluth MN (a Historical researcher), "the Founders intended to place a brake on popular opinion alone by the choice of electors who might deliberate on the choice of a chief executive".

Thomas Jefferson (who wrote the Declaration of Independence, but was in France when the Constitution was written) said "I have ever considered the constitutional mode of election... as the most dangerous blot on our constitution, and one which some unlucky chance will some day hit".

James Wilson, one of the authors of the Constitution, asked "Can we forget for whom we are forming a government? Is it for men, or for the imaginary beings called States?". James Madison, who was the primary author, must have overruled him. Thank God!

Because, as I recently discovered, winning the popular vote but losing the election is a thing only Democrats do. In recent history the fact that we don't elect our president via the popular vote has saved us from an Al Gore and (most recently) a Hillary Clinton presidency.

President Crooked Hillary Clinton? Obviously nobody would have wanted that. Except for a majority of the American electorate. But, as the researcher Scherf points out, the Electoral College is "merely one example of the numerous checks and balances throughout the Constitution that imprint it everywhere as a compact between states and as a representative democracy rather than a pure democracy based on population alone".

Hear, hear Mr. Scherf, I say. Especially since the Electoral College made George W. Bush and now Donald Trump president. Two of our greatest presidents. Despite Bush's presidency ending with a sharp economic downturn. And him getting us involved in unending wars in the Middle East by lying about Saddam having WMDs. Other than that, he was pretty awesome, I think.

As for President-elect Trump, all the signs point to him being a great president. Something the hate-filled Liberals will never admit. No matter that President Trump will likely bring back prosperity for all rich people. He said his mandate was to make America great again, and I believe he will.

If not? Well, he was elected by the Electoral College, so clearly the Founders would have said the popular opinion being that Crooked Hillary should be our next president is an opinion that the brakes needed to be put on. Rednecks and hicks want Trump. As well as some racists and bigots. And, obviously we don't want a break put on their opinions.

Which is that Trump (a man born incredibly wealthy - and also a egomaniac who decided to run for president to get revenge on Barack Obama for roasting him at the correspondent's dinner) is a man of the people who selflessly decided his country needed him. To save us from a charismatic tyrant who could manipulate the will of the people (something the Founders warned us about).

I'm talking about Crooked Hillary and NOT the rubes my man Donald manipulated by lying about building a wall Mexico would pay for and promising to take away their health care subsidies they don't want because they aren't freeloaders.

Soon Donald's fellow millionaires and billionaires will have the burden of over-taxation and overregulation lifted from their shoulders and they will be able to create 3 jobs for every man, woman and child who wants one (at substantially reduced wages once the minimum wage is eliminated).

And the country will rejoice that Donald J Trump is the president! Instead of president Hillary ruining the country and gay marrying Huma Abedin. And lezing it up in the White House (I've heard). Just to rub it in the face of America's hard working rubes. Christians who hate the sin of homsexuality because the Bible says it's wrong to chose to be gay.

And you KNOW madame President would have passed the TPP with the help of Congressional Republicans. Which is why I'm strongly in favor of keeping the Electoral College. Because no Republican has ever won the popular vote but lost the election. If it were the other way around, then yeah, I'd absolutely be for getting rid of it.

1651×1287

SWTD #360