Friday, May 13, 2016

Liberal Insanity - Bathroom Edition.

How do you know Obama and his liberal cohorts are trying to push anything they can in his final year through government agency strong arming?  When Obama, his Justice Department, and his Education Department send a letter to every school district in America telling them that they will let students enter the bathroom or locker room of their choosing or so help you God, they will cut your federal funding.

To sum it up more clearly: the same people who say teenage boys are just raging with hormones and there is a rape epidemic across the country want these same individuals to be able to enter the girl's locker room at any time by simply stating they "identify" as a female.

According to the Justice Department:
"The guidance explains that when students or their parents, as appropriate, notify a school that a student is transgender, the school must treat the student consistent with the student’s gender identity.  A school may not require transgender students to have a medical diagnosis, undergo any medical treatment, or produce a birth certificate or other identification document before treating them consistent with their gender identity."
In other words, no proof beyond simply taking somebody at his or her word is required.  And if you deny someone, despite how ridiculous you know the claim is, and they bring a lawsuit forward, God help you fight this in the courts as the federal government takes away all the funding you receive.

So now, your daughters not only could be peeing next to a man in Target, they could be changing or showering in front of boys their own age in the locker room after gym class.  And the Obama administration is sending a clear message: lather up.  Thanks Obama.  And the same goes vice versa, but I think I should apologize for assuming that boys will use this decree more pervertedly than girls will.  I guess that's just the female privilege talking.

But, let's get back to those federal funds.  As you probably know, most of the school system is funded by property taxes and state funding.  So where do federal funds go?  You know, only to those programs that provide free and reduced lunch prices to students of families that are either poor or struggling under the weight of the sluggish Obamaconomy.  So if your school gets its funding stripped, it's most likely going to be the poor and needy kids that suffer the most because of the Obama policy.  Remind me again how Obama is fighting for that poor black child who lives on the South side of Chicago.

I remember the Obama administration telling us college students quite repetitive and unceasingly that #ItsOnUs to end the "rape culture" on campus.  (This was done through the use of highly misinforming statistics that my econometrics professor went on a diatribe about last semester for a good 10 minutes. Yes, the female, minority professor - best professor so far, bar none - went on about how biased the results were in the survey because of leading questions.  I believe the exact words were along the lines of: they lead you on so much that by the end of the survey, if you've even been touched by another person, you've been raped.)  But getting back to the main topic on hand, #ItsOnUs to prevent rapes and sexual harassment.  #ItsOnUs to disregard this absurd order by Barack "I've got my pen, my phone, my executive actions, and my Justice Department" Obama.

This order by the Obama administration is ludicrous and deserves to be rightly laughed at, followed by no action by the school districts.  I can pretty much guarantee you with 99% certainty that my school district is going to completely ignore this entire absurdity.  I mean, we were one of the first schools in PA to stand up against common core.

The Obama administration says nobody should feel uncomfortable when going to the restroom.  I believe this obviously should extend to females who identify as females and males who identify as males.  What is the point of having two separate bathrooms if you're just going to let anybody use whatever restroom they want?  #ItsOnUs to use common sense to prevent adverse outcomes from occurring.  It's not the transgender students we're worried about; it's the other ones who will use this mandate as a shield for their devious plans.  I don't want high schoolers to feel uncomfortable changing for gym class, and I certainly don't want to hear any stories of someone being raped in their high school locker room.  It's just common sense.

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Always #NeverTrump.

Never.”  An adverb.  Meaning “at no time; not ever.”  Never.

That is the extent to which the discussion is now.  How never is never?  I firmly pledge never.  I will never vote for Donald Trump; I do not care how terrible the other option is.  Because to justify voting for a xenophobic, sexist, misogynist Democrat over a lying, corrupt, valueless Democrat is not democracy.  When given the option of voting for anyone in the world to be president, I can never justify voting for someone because I am voting against another, especially in a situation where I’m being given the option of whether I’d rather be poisoned by arsenic or cyanide.  

Never means never.

The rhetoric is now, “You either vote for Trump or you’re helping Clinton.”  I could never live with myself if I voted for Clinton; yet I could never live with myself voting for Trump.  The monstrosity stands against everything I believe in.  The egomaniac has supported everything from universal healthcare to rolling back the 2nd Amendment to anti-trade policies.  The man has behaved with the decency of a monkey flinging its feces as he hurls insults on Twitter at women, Muslims, minorities, and even those with disabilities.  He is an un-principled, disrespecting, entitled elitist with an ego big enough to redirect the orbit of the Earth.

Never.  Never could I justify giving this baboon the office of Washington, Lincoln, and Kennedy.  And most certainly, I could NEVER aid this man in his attempts to destroy the party of Ronald Reagan for his own self-gain.

Here’s what most people have forgotten.  Donald Trump has never understood what it’s like to be the average American.  Trump has never had a clue what we actually care about.  All Donald Trump has ever thought about his entire life is Donald Trump.

Either one of two scenarios is going to play out in the coming months.  The first I suspect is the less likely of the two – where Trump continues his crazy, hard, rigid policy stances that don’t appeal to many Americans.

The second, and what I believe will happen, is that Donald Trump starts running way to the left of where he already is.  He will say he’s “reconsidered” his positions or that after talking to experts, he is “evolving.”

Funny.  So the two options are that wacko Donald continue to be wacko Donald or the Trump Grump starts saying and doing anything to get elected.  You know, Trump turns into a politician – otherwise known as Hillary Clinton.

Either way, I will never be part of those options.

My one consultation prize is that Trumpsters will eventually come to a shocking moment of realization when either (1) they lose the presidency in a landslide or (2) they realize Trump was being a politician and never cared for them at all.  I picture the scene where their mouths will hang open for a minute or two; then all the Trumpsters down in Trumpsville will all cry boo-hoo-hoo.

I’ve gone into Dr. Seuss mode again.  Must have been another Sarah Palin speech or that stuff that Trump supporters have been smoking finally made its way across the Pacific.

Here’s the hard reality.  If Trump is a Republican, then I am not.  I and many others are willing to pick up our resources and time because we will never be involved in such a foul smelling load of cow manure.  Never really does mean never.  And you can’t win the presidency without us.  You can’t win the presidency without talk radio and grassroots activists on the ground.  It just won’t work.

Either get your act together or lose it all.  You lose the White House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and potentially even the House.  More importantly, you lose people like me.  You lose an entire generation to the Democrats.  I will be done fighting for the GOP.  I will be done defending the people of the party.  Most importantly, many will be done voting for you for decades.

Think about what you’re doing because once people walk out that door, they have no intention to return.  Never means never.  Don’t expect my vote in November.  Don’t expect my vote ever.  Goodbye GOP.  Maybe forever.

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

...But Before the Convention.

A few weeks ago, I had an idea of what a GOP therapy session would look like at the convention through a montage of hilariously selected songs (if I do say so myself) and some (intentionally) bad images to go along with them.  Well, I had so much fun putting that together that after my midterms finished up last night, I decided to put together a playlist for the highlights of the election session thus far.

Therefore, this is my prequel to the GOP therapy session.  This is ...But Before the Convention.

Event: Donald Trump announces his candidacy.

Song: "Wrecking Ball" by Miley Cyrus

I think this is appropriate on many levels.  Donald Trump came to destroy the GOP, and he's run an attention whore campaign.

Event: Donald Trump gives out Lindsey Graham's phone number to the world.

Song: "Call Me Maybe" by Carly Rae Jepsen

Hey, you're running for president
And this is crazy
But Trump just gave out your number
So destroy your phone, maybe?

Event: Donald Trump begins attacking Megyn Kelly after the first debate, suggesting she had "blood coming out of her...whatever"

Song: "Bad Blood" by Taylor Swift

Just too perfect a song to pass up for the situation.  Trump officially began his war on Megyn Kelly and, to a lesser extent, Fox News.  Next month, they will sit down for an interview for the first time since before he announced.  Expect headlines.

Event:  Donald Trump criticizes Carly Fiorina's face.

Song: "I'm a Believer" by Smash Mouth (this version for obvious reasons below)

And then he saw her face, now he's a believer ... that she shouldn't be president?  Who are you to judge on looks Trump?  He's like an orange ogre that lives in a tower.  Speaking of ogres... it's appropriate that this song was used for the film "Shrek."

Event: Trump attacks his opponents for being beholden to donor wishes.  (It's an ongoing event.)

Song: "Government Hooker" by Lady Gaga

The title of the song is pretty explanatory, but I would like to thank the early 2000's remake of "Lady Marmalade" for not making me search for hookers on Google.

Event:  Dumb (Sarah Palin) endorses Dumber (Donald Trump).

Song: "Team" by Iggy Azalea

And since the endorsement was done in such a sing-song form - like something Dr. Seuss would write...

Event: Marco Malfunctions.

Song:  "Mr. Roboto" by Styx

I think the Republican Party really missed an opportunity here.  I mean, the opportunity to nominate the first Hispanic cyborg.

Event:  Donald Trump says he can shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any support.

Song:  "Bang Bang" by Jessie J, Ariana Grande, and Nicki Minaj

I think we all know Trump's butt boy who'll end up being the one getting shot.

Event: Chris Christie has his moment.

Song:  "Bad Day" by Daniel Powter

I think we all felt a little like Chris Christie that day.

Event: Trump once again retweets white supremacists and receives the endorsement of David Duke.

Song: "Oops! ... I Did It Again" by Britney Spears

Trump's surrogates were forced to painfully dance around the topic during brutal television interviews.

Event:  In a last ditch effort, Marco Rubio goes full Comedy Central on Donald Trump - even going as far as insinuating something about Trump's hands and something else.

Song: "It's a Small World" by Disney (Curse You)

Because hearing this song is almost as painful as hearing Donald Trump describe his "Donald" on national television during a debate.

Event:  And then there were three.

Song:  "Survivor" by Destiny's Child

I think it only appropriate that this election season's motto be: "outwit, outplay, outlast."

Event:  The Cruz-Trump partnership from early on in the election is dissolved and a Cruz-Kasich partnership is announced.

Song:  "Since U Been Gone" by Kelly Clarkson

Because I totally see a Trumpertantrum when the Trump Grump found out about the alliance.

Event:  And through this chaos, the white knight known as Paul Ryan has been floated as the savior at a contested convention - which I am 100% behind.

Song:  "It's Gonna be Me" by *NSYNC

Let me break down the chorus for you...

Every little thing I do (Like run as VP, then Speaker of the House)
Never seems enough for you (Now you want me to run for President)
You don't want to lose it again (Yeah, I know Trump and Cruz are losers)
But I'm not like them (But, I'm not a loser like them)
Baby, when you finally (When you finally come to your senses)
get to love somebody (And see which candidate you really want)
Guess what, (Here's the kicker)
It's gonna be me... (I'm going to be the nominee)

Well, there goes my mind again...

Find these and many more appropriate songs that correspond with other events this election cycle below.

Sunday, April 24, 2016

A Message to PA Voters.

My fellow Pennsylvanians (mainly my fellow Western Pennsylvanians),

I would like to discuss the upcoming primary in our state with you.  One Western PAer to another.

I understand your concerns because I'm one of you.  Your #1 concern this election is what it has been for decades: the economy and jobs.  But what I fear is that we're all so desperate for the economy to improve that we are making irrational decisions this election - based on what politicians are promising, which is not based in reality.  Therefore, if you get your hopes up based on these promises, you're only going to be let down.

Look, I understand that there seems to be no opportunity in the area.  Wages are stagnant.  And to put the icing on top of the pity cake, the weather sucks.  If you look at the estimates for future population growth, the area is literally at the top of the list of where people are moving out of.  Here are just some of the areas in the PA-OH-NY area that people will be leaving most by 2020 that I drive through to get to school, live in, or have been in: Jamestown, NY; Pittsburgh, PA; Buffalo, NY; Erie, PA; Sharon, PA; Rochester, NY; Canton, OH; Wheeling, OH.

I've heard it my entire life - that the area has never been the same since the manufacturing jobs left in the 1980's.  However, here's the harsh reality that no politician wants to tell you and you don't want to believe: those jobs are NEVER coming back.

Since NAFTA went into effect in 1994, the United States has lost 4.5 million manufacturing jobs to foreign country workers.  However, as this article describes, if we wouldn't have lost the jobs to foreign countries such as China, most of those people still would have lost their jobs to automation.  The reality of the situation is that the United States cannot compete globally in the market for manufactured goods.

And this is where the current political season picks up.  You have candidates such as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders out there screaming "China is stealing our jobs!"  While Bernie Sanders has made no argument as to how foreign workers are "stealing" our jobs, Donald Trump has put forward the idea that the Chinese are manipulating their currency to make it so the US cannot compete with them globally for manufactured goods.  However, I would like to respond by saying the US has been partaking in US currency manipulation for years as well and nobody has complained about it.

Without making this too boring, the Fed, when dealing with the 2008-2009 financial crisis, decided it was going drop interest rates to practically 0%, where they have stayed until this year when they raised the interest rate target to 0.25% to 0.50%.  There's a simple macroeconomic connection every student learns in econ: You decrease the interest rate by increasing the money supply.  Because there's more money in circulation, this devalues the currency.  (In turn, the devaluation makes your exports cheaper and your imports more expensive.)

Furthermore though, I still don't understand this "stealing" argument many seem to buy.  There's a firm here in the US and another in China.  The firm in China has lower costs, so they are able to sell the good at the market price for less cost.  As a result, other firms that are able to produce this good at a lower cost also pop up in China, driving down the price of said good.  As a result, the US firms who have higher expenses leave the market.  Consumers now get the good at a lower price than they would have paid if it were produced in the US.

However, say you're a Bernie or Trump supporter, and you still think this is "stealing" jobs.  Would you still make the same argument if both firms were in the US?  There's a firm in Western Pennsylvania and another in Florida.  The firm in Florida has lower costs because they don't have ridiculous tax policies like PA does, so they are able to sell the good at the market price for less cost.  As a result, other firms that are able to produce this good at a lower cost also pop up in Florida, driving down the price of said good.  As a result, the Western PA firms who have higher expenses leave the market.  Consumers now get the good at a lower price than they would have paid if it were produced in Western PA.

Are you now telling me you would rather pay more for the same product?  Are you telling me you would want the government policing which firms are allowed to operate and which are not simply because it may move jobs from one place in the US to another?  I thought Trump supporters were supposed to be Republicans, who believe in small government.  Are you telling me you want to increase the size of government and regulate whether someone is allowed to start a business?

As Pennsylvanians, you have the right to be angry and upset with the economy.  But your anger seems to be misplaced.  You shouldn't be angry with China, now producing cheaper goods for us to buy.  You should be upset with Harrisburg.  You should be upset with your representatives.  You should be upset that the person who represents you has been in office longer than you've been alive and has not done one damn thing to help the economy and people he represents, yet he runs unopposed every year.  (Looking at you, Chris Sainato.)

If you were an entrepreneur or business owner looking to expand a company, why would you come PA?  Are you any more productive than workers in any other state?  There are certainly no tax incentives in place to help us compete with other states such as Texas, Florida, and South Carolina.  We have no competitive advantage in fields like California has on technology and New York on all things business. According to the Tax Foundation, we have the 32nd best state business tax climate.  With 31 better options, why would you want to come here?

Trump says to counter China and Mexico trade policies (which is free trade), he would impose a tariff on products coming into the United States.  Now, think about this logically.  He would have to increase the tariff to the point where you could either buy the US good or the Chinese/Mexican good + the tariff at the same price.  Trump would not be taxing the Chinese and Mexican companies.  The tax on the good would be passed on to you as the consumer!

Now, I love Oreos.  (I really love Oreos.)  It became a Trump talking point earlier when Nabisco said it was going to move its factory to Mexico.  The reason they have to do this as a company is because the United States has imposed a draconian tariff on sugar, making sugar twice as expensive in the US as on the world market.  (Trust me, it has nothing to do with health either.  What's the substitute for sugar? Corn syrup.  What state votes first in the primary and loves their corn subsidies? Iowa.  Politics as usual in the US.)  Additionally, the union wages can't compete with what they would have to pay workers in Mexico.

I really love Oreos, but I can't justify an increase in the cost of the product.  I think they're expensive enough already.  Could you imagine having to pay 6 or 7 dollars for a pack?  In fact, moving the plant to Mexico will probably save me money as a consumer of Oreos.  There are millions of consumers of Oreos.  Maybe the move to Mexico saves us all 25 cents per each pack we buy.  With sales of $2.5 billion - estimating the cost is $5 / pack (which is over the actual cost for sure), these savings would save consumers $125,000,000 a year based on the $2.5 billion sales mark.  Can you really justify 600 jobs in Chicago for that amount of savings for consumers?  Even at a savings of 5 cents, it still saves worldwide consumers $25 million that we can spend elsewhere.

The point being - if you are a Trump or Sanders supporter because you believe he will fix the economy, or get you a better job, or just get you a job, you are going to be sadly let down when you realize these promises will never be able to come to fruition based on the policy proposals these two have provided.  You will most likely be made worse off if these two get their way.

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

The Case for Armed Security at U of R.

I would like to take a moment from my travels halfway around the world to make a plea to my home University, its administration, its faculty, and my peers.  In recent weeks, hidden behind the widespread cases of norovirus, there has been another equally important issue to address: the arming of campus security.  Through the hysterical outcries of the anti-gun lobby on campus, I would like to make the case for armed security at the University of Rochester.

I was surprised to discover through emails that our security at the University is not already armed.  With the amount of mass shooting that have taken place at both universities and high schools over the country, many institutions, including my own high school, have taken the necessary precautions to hire armed security guards to protect individuals in such emergencies.

While I wish there were no shootings in America, just like those trying to prevent the arming of security on campus, I understand that we need to be prepared for such an occurrence if tragedy were to strike.  There are currently over 300 million guns in America, and while I wish we could prevent those who have ill intentions from possessing a firearm, the reality of the situation is that anyone looking to obtain a gun will find a way to get a gun.  If a person know he or she will be unable to pass a background check, there is always a firearm available for him or her to purchase on the black market.

There is no way to prevent those who wish to do harm with a firearm from obtaining a weapon, and therefore, we must be vigilant and put all necessary precautions in place to try to prevent a tragedy of this nature from occurring on our campus.  This means arming security.

God forbid, but if a mass shooter were to step foot on campus with the intent to inflict as much damage as possible, it would take the Rochester police department at least five minutes to reach the scene.  (This estimate includes the time it would take to drive from the police station as well as the amount of time it would probably take an individual to place a call once he or she noticed the imminent danger.)

The amount of damage a shooter could inflict greatly varies with the type of weapon(s) used.  Semi-automatic weapons would fire at a rate usually around 45-60 rounds per minute, but as they reach these higher rates, the weapon would have a greater likelihood of malfunctioning.  (This is often the story we hear in the aftermath of mass shootings.)  Another figure to help put this estimate into perspective is the sustained rate, at which a shooter spends time reloading, aiming, changes barrels, and accounts for malfunctions, which puts the figure of rounds per minute at about 12-15.

Taking into account mass shooters typically come prepared with multiple weapons already loaded, an estimate would put the figure about 25 - 30 rounds per minute.  This would mean 125 - 150 rounds would have been fired before a single police officer even arrived at the scene.  This figure is exactly in line with the gruesome Sandy Hook shooting where 154 rounds were fired in five minutes.

If University security officers were armed, I believe it would be a safe assumption to assume an officer would arrive to the scene in approximately two minutes considering they are always spread over campus.  Taking that into account, arming security officers would mean that we could most likely lessen the number of rounds fired by a shooter in a potential mass shooting by 65 - 100 rounds.

President Obama once tweeted in regards to gun violence:

Obviously, the President and I are on opposing sides of gun related issues.  However, the sentiment rings true.  Having an armed security presence on campus would obviously reduce the number of shots fired by a disturbed mass shooter, which in turn would most likely save lives.

Having stated my case for arming security officers, what I would like to do now is what I do best - poke holes in the opposing side's arguments.  On Facebook, this has been the article anti-gun Rochester students point to as their reasoning for opposing armed security.

First and foremost, the entire article seems to operate under the assumptions that campus security is inept, will not receive proper training to handle a firearm, and will bring a gun violence culture on campus.  Operating under these hypothetical assumption with which I immensely disagree, why does campus security even have non-lethal weapons?  If security is as inept and unable to handle these situations, why haven't we already seen acts of police brutality on campus as the author implies will happen if security is armed?  Obviously, a security officer with a taser would be able to inflict this brutality that is being fear mongered, so why haven't we seen these kinds of acts already on campus?

Additionally, the author states in the last paragraph with absolutely no evidence other than saying "this has happened" to support his claim that "if we arm campus security we will see not an increase in campus safety, but rather an increase in violence outside the campus bubble."  Actually, I believe the research and the logic points to the opposite.

I believe this is easy to see through the analysis of concealed carry as well as police patrols.  As concealed carry laws went into effect, they decreased the amount of crimes in those counties, but increased the amount of crimes in adjacent counties where concealed carry was not allowed.  In addition to those studies, an increased presence of police patrols in communities have shown a drop in crime.

The most often cases of crimes we get emails about are thefts that occur on the very outskirts of campus.  A year ago, I just happened to be one of the people who jogged by one of those occurrences back by the tennis courts.  It seems University of Rochester students tend to be targeted just on the outskirts of campus.  I think this is obviously because (1) the police do not patrol there and (2) criminals know that neither the students nor campus security that may be passing by and prevent the crime from occurring will be armed.  Therefore, the policies in place of not arming security may actually be putting students at a higher risk of crime on the edges of campus because you can think of the University as the county without concealed carry while the "real world" is the surrounding area with concealed carry, providing an incentive for criminals wishing to commit an act of theft to perform such an act on the edges of campus where the risk is much lower.

In conclusion, I stand firmly by the decision that the University of Rochester should arm security, and if I were on campus, I would be pleading my case because I care very passionately about the issue.  While I stand firmly in my belief, I encourage those with the responsibility of making this decision to do so on the basis of facts and figures rather than the pressures of fear and protests because this issue is about saving potential lives.

Monday, April 4, 2016

He Came in Like a Wrecking Ball.

I've figured Trump out, and my original assumptions from the fall were correct.  Trump never wanted to be the GOP candidate.  He's simply here to hurt the Republican brand and fracture the party, so we cannot win in November.  He is figuratively a human wrecking ball to the GOP, and it would not surprise me if he's working in cahoots with his good friend Hillary Clinton.

To prove my theory, we have a lot of ground to cover.  Let's go back to the very beginning...

When Trump first announced his candidacy, he kicked off his insult tour of 2015.  This was the first step in his (and Hillary's) plan to stereotype the GOP.  It seemed to play almost too good into Democrat talking points.  I think the original plan was to just give Hillary the talking points come the general; they didn't predict Trump would take off with a group of fringe Republicans and those who have never been involved in the democratic process.

In the beginning, Trump's campaign's was fueled by celebrity status and media attention.  The goal was simply to get him out there.  In the early stages, name recognition is really what drives poll numbers.  They wanted Trump's statements on the air 24/7, and that's exactly what they got.

That brings us to the first GOP debate.  Who had Trump been attacking up to this point?  Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, and Rand Paul.  It always confused me as to why Trump attacked Paul until now.

Jeb Bush was an easy target.  He was the "Establishment" candidate.  He had all the money.

Scott Walker was also understandable.  He was closest to Trump in the polls.  At this point, Walker had a very sizable lead in Iowa.

But why Paul?  If you remember, Rand Paul got the 8th podium at the Fox News debate.  There were a considerable number of other candidates between Trump and Paul at this point.

Paul was singled out because he represented a wing of the party - the Libertarian wing.  Jeb was singled out because he represented another wing of the party - the "Establishment" wing.  Walker was singled out because he represented the last wing of the party - the Conservative wing.  Where Bush and Walker were polling had nothing to do with why they were targets for Trump.  Trump was looking to separate and divide the wings of the party, and he was looking to attack the representative figures of those branches.  Bush's and Walker's polling positions were not causal effects of Trump's choice to attack, but merely correlations.  Trump was out to attack and separate the wings of the party.

Immediately following the GOP debate, Trump attacked Megyn Kelly.  I, as well as everybody else, assumed it was because he didn't like the question he was asked by her.  However, looking back now, it would only make sense that Megyn Kelly was to be attacked by Trump at some point, and that question gave him the perfect excuse to start.

The reason is that Megyn Kelly was the most adored newscaster for the Republican audience.  The last poll done on Kelly prior to the Trump incidence was in 2013 when she had a 44-9 favorable-unfavorable rating.  In the year and a half since that, she had be labeled the "brightest," "toughest, " "most beautiful badass" star of Fox News.  (In other words, she had been labeled the darling of the GOP audience.)

In a sense, Megyn Kelly was a person with which a good majority of GOP voters could agree on, and Trump couldn't risk the solidarity of the GOP by the influence of the media.  In a sense, he had to fracture the GOP's unity around Fox and attacking Megyn Kelly was the perfect way to do it.  In a sense, he accomplished that.  Just weeks after the Fox News debate, Megyn Kelly's unfavorable's shot up due to Trump supporters to 42-20.

But like the Bush-Walker-Paul scenario, it's in the aggregate that these moves make sense looking back now.  Who are the two other news personalities and commentators Trump has attacked the most?  Glenn Beck and S.E. Cupp.

Why them?  Megyn Kelly was Fox.  Glenn Beck is talk radio and the Blaze.  S.E. Cupp is CNN.  Following the pattern now?  He specifically pinpointed the most respected Republican in each outlet to tear the party apart.

Now look at organizations.  What is the one organization Trump has attacked more than any other?  Fox News!  It hasn't been MSNBC he's complained about; it's the one media station Republicans like (a lot).

We're getting close to the end game now, and this is where the plan finally starts to reveal itself.  Trump has successfully knocked out Walker, Paul, and Bush (as well as many others).  There are 4 candidates left: Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich.  Trump begins to attack Rubio when Cruz is clearly the biggest threat to Trump.  


Trump attacks Rubio because he's the only candidate left with a shot at winning the nomination who can beat Clinton come November.  Trump knows Kasich has no shot; Kasich has practically been half off the stage at every debate he was so close to the edge.  Rubio is the only one left who can win.  And those next few weeks, Trump went after him with a vengeance.

It all started coming together tonight as I wondered why Trump hasn't gotten off this sexism story.  He's done it many times before.  He's mastered the art of "say something else outrageous so they can't discuss what I just said."  However, the end game isn't to win.  The end game is to lose in the nastiest way possible - a brokered convention.

There are already people associated with the Trump campaign organizing protests for Cleveland.  Why would Trump's people being preparing to protest if they wanted to win?  It all makes sense that Trump wants to lose.  The only way he can fracture the party more is to leave it in shambles like the Democratic 1968 convention.  After that, the Democratic Party really didn't come alive again until the 1990's, and that was only with the help of Ross Perot.  

Trump comes out of this not looking like the one thing he has been calling everybody - a loser.  If he were to be the GOP nominee, he would get walloped.  Possibly even lose every state in the nation.  However, if he loses at a convention, he can say the nomination was "stolen" from him and cause havoc until November.

It all makes sense now.  He came in like a wrecking ball.

Saturday, April 2, 2016

Pro-Lifers Don't Let Pro-Lifers Vote for Donald Trump.

This week, the most telling moment of Donald Trump's candidacy was revealed, and one thing became very clear: pro-lifers don't let pro-lifer's vote for Donald Trump.

On Wednesday, Trump stated in an interview that some form of "punishment" would have to be enforced if abortion is illegal and a woman were to undergo the termination of her child - a position not even the most pro-life individuals agree with.

On Thursday, Trump attempted to walk that back by saying the doctors, not the women, need to be punished - a position at least a decent chunk of the pro-life community would support.

On Friday, he then said regarding abortion in an interview, "At this moment the laws are set, and I think we have to leave it that way."  Then, the Trump campaign attempted to walk that back Friday night by saying the laws need to remain that way until Trump were to assume the presidency, at which point he will change the laws through judicial appointments.

Why is this so revealing and important?

1) Because rule #1 to run as the Republican nominee for president is to be pro-life.
2) Because it shows Trump is neither pro-life nor has he though seriously about the issue of abortion.

A vote for Donald Trump is a vote for maintaining the current abortion laws and that is not pro-life.  Donald Trump is not pro-life.

I think up to this point Trump has been able to get away with the extremist hyperbole on issues that he's planning to walk back in the general.  However, he didn't recognize the severity in which the pro-life movement takes these issues and comments.

The pro-life movement has been one of the most powerful movements in America.  It is often remarked that as social issues move more to the left in America (see gay marriage and drug legalization), the one exception is the pro-life movement where millennials are as likely to be pro-life as their grandparents.  It has done so through very good messaging on issues such as adoption and has used scientific studies to enact restrictions on abortion procedures.

What Donald Trump doesn't understand is that people who are pro-life view this as a life-and-death issue, and for him to hurt the movement for his own self-gain was not going to happen.  In fact, as early as the Iowa caucuses, pro-life groups were urging their supporters to vote for any candidate except Trump.

It is clear now why this was and still is the case.  Because Donald Trump doesn't care about abortion.

His earliest comment about "punishing" women show he has no understanding of the pro-life movement and what it's objectives are.  It is as if Trump were trying to overcompensate for not being pro-life by trying to go as far out there as he possibly could.

Taken in context with the rest of his from this week, it is easy to see that Trump has not clearly though of any position on the issue.  First nobody agrees with him.  Then, he's on the edge of the pro-life movement.  And then, he completely jumps over the pro-life movement to a pro-choice stance.

So that leaves you with only two assumptions: Either Donald Trump is doesn't care about the issue of abortion at all, or he is pro-choice.  Whichever you choose, it is clear that Trump is not pro-life.

And this is my question to all you pro-life Republicans out there, which is almost a redundant term: After 8 years of a pro-choice president, why would you want to put someone in the White House who doesn't care about the issue of abortion or is pro-choice himself?

 Pro-lifers don't let pro-lifers vote for Donald Trump.