The 2016 Election – Part II

Thank you for coming along with me to part II. I’m under no delusions that what I write is of consequence. I’m kind of hoping that you are.

Previously, we discussed why Trump is a terrible nominee and why the Trumpkins are indistinguishable from Obama’s supporters. This is all part of one giant ball of nonsense I typed up quite a while back, but then lost all motivation to edit and post it. With the election upon us (TODAY!) I thought I would clean it up a bit and publish it for posterity’s sake.


You were previously challenged to ask a Trump supporter why they support Trump, but they aren’t allowed to mention or use a comparison to Hillary. Hillary has been setup as the embodiment of Lucifer. The absolute worst person on the planet. I suspect that if we ran Hitler against Hillary many would vote for Hitler. She has been turned into some kind bogeyman that embodies all evil. Is Hillary evil? I believe so. Is she as bad as Hitler? I don’t think so. As a matter of fact, as evil as she is, there are a lot of people on earth worse than Hillary. So to think that she is automatically worse than anyone the Republicans can run is silly. The Republicans have proven that we can also run an atrocious person.

I maintain that Trump and Hillary have more in common than they do differences. You probably won’t agree and that’s fine.

The Trumpkins and I will certainly disagree on this point: I think America will be better off if Hillary wins today.

Do you remember the election of 2010? People were angry with Obama. They were angry about Obamacare. They were angry about the bailouts. People were fed up and handed the GOP a historic victory in answer to Obama’s unpopular policies. Keep in mind that Obama was not an unpopular president. What will happen when an extremely unpopular president is in office? But that’s only half the story.

The actions of Bush and Obama have put the country in a terrible place. Quantitative easing, astronimocal national debt, years of 0% interest rates, reckless spending and constant raising of the debt ceiling have substantially damaged the nation. Budgets and audits have become a punchline. The stock market is being artificially inflated. The IRS has been weaponized and healthcare is in a deathspiral. Comey has exposed the FBI as corrupt, symbolizing the general state of the government. This cannot continue much longer and I would much rather have Hillary in charge when the unraveling begins.

The Republicans have a fragile hold on Congress and the party is very weak. The “perfect storm” (a weak, unpopular, ineffective Republican Party, terrible leadership and a Trump presidency) would cause a 2010-style shift to the left. Trump is extremely unpopular in his own party (the Democrats) and is also unpopular among Republicans. An enormous shift left is inevitable under Trump.

To be certain, an economic disaster is looming and it will likely hit during the next presidency. The debt will be around $20 trillion when Obama leaves office. He has doubled the debt during his eight years (after calling Bush’s debt increase “unpatriotic”). Under Bush, the debt increased about $5 trillion with extremely heavy war spending. But while Obama has continued many of the military operations, there is little to show for the massive debt he’s incurred.

Here, the Trumpkin will proclaim that Trump – being a masterful businessman – is the only one qualified to solve this problem! Sorry, wrong.

I will grant that Trump has been successful as a TV celebrity, but that’s about it. He has been generally successful with real estate; however, there is information indicating even that business may not be as healthy as he claims. He might be an average businessman. But he’s definitely not a genius who can solve the country’s woes. Although Trumpkins continue to believe that Trump took a $1 million loan from his father and turned it into $452.3 quatrillion-zillion, that is not true. Don’t take my word for it, though. Do your own research on this.

The economy is in trouble no matter who is elected president. You would have a hard time convincing me that Trump’s ideas on the economy are better than Hillary’s. Trump has promised to punish companies trying to escape the tyranny of the United States. He has promised tariffs, which tend to cause things like Great Depressions. He regularly voices his support for single-payer healthcare and has even been open to the idea of nationalizing banks. So, when things get bad would you rather have this blamed on Hillary so that we can get a better candidate than Trump in 2020? Or do you want this blamed (correctly) on the Republicans so that the Democrats sweep back total control of the presidency, the house and the senate by 2020?

Trump is a progressive Democrat in Republican’s clothing. The consequences for the country will be disastrous if he does everything he says he will do. I’m more worried about what he’s not telling us. I’m worried the most about what kind of president he becomes when things turn south and the country begins identifying his as a “loser”.

There’s one more part to this litany of ludicrousness. I’ll try to explain why I really, truly don’t care who wins this election. I’ll also explain why the Republicans have doomed themselves.

GOP Debates (America’s Plague)

Against my better judgement, I sat and watched most of the GOP debate tonight. Then, in an act of masochism, I followed along on Twitter as ABC tortured America. It seemed a bit duplicitous to badger the candidates with questions about waterboarding while subjecting viewers to this spectacle.

My discomfort started with the GOP tweeters who were just there to support their candidate and demean all the others. Even Kasich had people tweeting about his knockdown punches. Yeah, I was wondering what they were talking about, too.

Later in the debate – during the discussion on abortion, specifically – the Democrats tweeters suddenly came alive. The two most common comments were that “no one supports abortion at 9 months” and “my body, my choice”. If it weren’t so tragic, it would be comical. These progressive intellectuals proudly standing up for black lives and civilian lives in Libya and the sacred lives of cop-killers and terrorist lives in Guantanamo and the lives of dehydrated border-crossers suddenly forget what they’re about when you talk about truly innocent lives. Then it’s not a life, it’s a choice.

I think I get where they’re coming from. I vehemently disagree, but I try to understand. I’m curious if these so-called pro-choice advocates are capable of understanding the pro-life argument.

Hillary Clinton has made the following comment: “When it comes to women’s health, there are two kinds of experts: women and their doctors.” I imagine a setting with three people sitting in a room – me, my mom and a doctor. My mom and the doctor are deciding whether or not I should be killed. I’m not allowed to say anything; I just have to sit there and accept whatever choice they make. After all, it’s my mom’s choice. If she decides I should die, then I must simply accept it. I wouldn’t want to inconvenience her by continuing to live, even though she brought me into the world.

This scenario seems ridiculous, but it’s exactly what happens when a woman chooses to abort her child. Are pro-choicers capable of seeing abortion this way? I don’t think they are; otherwise, they wouldn’t be so flippant and crass when discussing the issue. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, don’t matters of life and death deserve respect when discussing?

Contrary to their most fundamental beliefs, even the libertarians like to jump on this bus. Apparently, natural rights don’t take effect until an arbitrary future date, which is determined by the government they claim to hate.

How do people come together for a common good? How do we temper the rhetoric? How do we find enough common ground to move forward?

Gay marriage is an example of something we can solve together. One side says gay couples should be able to marry. The other side says they don’t want churches forced to perform gay marriages. The solution? Get the government out of the marriage business. Churches can perform gay marriages or not. You can get a civil contract in order to obtain benefits if necessary. Everyone wins, right? Wrong! Now you have to bake me a cake.

We have an acceptable solution right in front of us, but one side refuses to accept it. Both sides, to some extent. How do we overcome this? Is there any hope?

I’m asking seriously, because I don’t know. A lot of my confusion is caused by my changing beliefs (a subject for a future episode). I thought America was on the same ride as me when the Tea Party appeared. I thought we were in it together to restore America to her former glory! In 2010, we rocked the politicians on both sides as an answer to the establishment collusion on Obamacare. Now, we seem to be falling back asleep. When candidates talk about repealing Obamacare it mostly elicits a golf clap or two.

On the Democrat side, half their party is willing to overlook the felonious actions of their front-runner. On the Republican side, they say they must defeat Hillary at any cost! Even if it means electing a candidate who doesn’t share our values and beliefs (even Hitler would be better than Hillary!).

We’re better than this. I think the Republicans just need to pop a caffeine pill and make sure they’re awake and on task a little bit longer. Hopefully, the Democrats will have their own Tea Party-style awakening and will begin to reject their establishment. When they do, we all need to be ready to come together. I think the old phrase “united we stand, divided we fall” is particularly true for our time. Washington calculates ways to drive a wedge between people and for too long we’ve fallen for it.

Now that we know their game, it’s up to us to rewrite the rules…

A Modern-day Flood. Boo.

Previously on NevadaBrad.com: I lamented – but didn’t necessarily disapprove of – the fact that most of Nevada’s representatives are not from Nevada. After griping, I noticed that the horse was still moving so this is an attempt to give it a proper and final beating (settle down, it’s just a wild horse).

First, a quick recap: Only 36% of the Assembly were born in Nevada. Only 19% of the State Senate were born in Nevada. Quick enough? Good.

So, just another interesting note. The Republicans tend to be far more balanced when it comes to picking native Nevadans. The Republicans claim 40% natives with 60% outsiders.

What do you think the ratio is with the Democrats? The natives weigh in at 24% with 76% for the outsiders.

So, what does it mean? It’s tough to say. On the surface it seems that we’ve all but lost the state to a bunch of outsiders that do not have the best interest of Nevada at heart. Did these people flee to Nevada with the plan to overthrow a red state with a small population? I think that’s unlikely. As stated in my previous article, these people were fleeing the fruits of their labors. Someone else did to them the same thing they’re doing to us. The problem is that we’re running out of places to which we can flee.

The next logical question is this: What’s with all the outsiders in elected office? Is it because of the sheer abundance of transplants? Or because native Nevadans have a tendency to avoid office? Or is it because we’re so flush with outsiders that it’s a given that the population, now comprised of outsiders, will vote for these weaklike-minded candidates, which are also inevitably outsiders?

Here’s a few quick numbers to help you understand what we’re dealing with. The population of Nevada is currently about 2.76 million. In 2000 it was under 2 million. That’s a 38% increase in just a little more than a decade. Unless the people of Clark County were finally successful in their Lepus curpaeums-Homo sapiens cross-breeding experiments (Area 51 stuff), then it’s obvious that people are flooding into our state. Why? They long to be closer to their favorite gaming establishment? They want the freedom to visit the Circus Circus buffet when the craving strikes? It’s most likely because they enjoy sleeping in the shadow of the majestic Spring Mountains. Or it might just be the beautiful summer weather.

Roughly 2 million people now live in Clark County. That’s a 45% increase over their 2000 population of 1.38 million. In Washoe County we’ve seen a 26% increase from 340,000 (2000) to 430,000 currently.

Whatever it is, there’s some reason they came here. And they continue to come here. Whether it’s favorable business, tax, housing (or whatever) conditions, I’m skeptical that our current leadership will preserve the qualities that drew them here to begin with.

We’ve turned from a nice red color to kind of an ugly blueish-purple. Now that people are waking up to the problems on both sides of the aisle, perhaps we have a chance to take our state back. Many on the left are disgusted at the early settlers/pilgrims that “stole” land from the natives. Let’s hope that they feel similar disgust at the modern settlers that have stolen this land from the native-Nevadans. And they can go home and let us get back to harvesting wild horse meat to sell to the French.

Bailout Winners and Losers

Just like Republicans occasionally do really stupid things (think Larry Craig and amnesty for illegals), Democrats can occasionally do good things. It’s rare, but not unheard of.

Yesterday, Shelley Berkley voted against the bailout plan along with Dean Heller. I’ve always liked Dean Heller, but I’m gaining a much deeper respect for him. I have to say that Berkley’s vote was even more impressive since it went against her own leadership. Having a proposal written by Reid, Pelosi, Frank and Dodd scares me to death. Even throwing some Republicans in the mix doesn’t decrease the fear factor.

Because Berkley and Heller did the right thing I have to commend them.

On the other hand, there are two big losers in this deal. First is Jon Porter. Second is President Bush. Unfortunately, Porter took the standard liberal line. I’m not sure what Bush is thinking.

More Neglectable Than Electable

This political season is looking pretty grim. Besides the fact that campaigning started way too soon, there just isn’t much to look at with the current contenders.

On the Democrat side the race is between two absolutely unelectable people: Hillary and Obama. Hillary’s policies aside, she is, without a doubt, the most shrill woman on the planet. If people think the world hates the United States now just wait until they have to listen to her. We’ll be in the middle of WWIII before you can blink. Obama is clearly more presidential, but his beliefs are so extreme that I can’t imagine enough people would vote for him. The remainder of the candidates don’t really have a chance against Hillary and Obama. It’s laughable that people like Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich are even running.

On the Republican side the decision is much more difficult since there aren’t any candidates that standout. I want to support Romney, but am finding this increasingly difficult each time he discusses his views on abortion. My primary concern is that he continues to insist that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no problem with their members supporting abortion. This is clearly not correct. The LDS church has made this official statement on their webpage, which states that the LDS church “…counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.” Although the wording says “counsels” and not commands, one must consider that it would not be advisable to go against the “counsel” of the church if they believe that the church is indeed led by God. For Romney to continue to say that it’s okay to be pro-choice is just rubbish. He states that he is now pro-life, so why can’t he just say that he was wrong before? I would support him whole-heartedly if he were to make a statement saying, “I was pro-choice before but I’m now pro-life. I was wrong and deeply regret my mistake.”

The other candidates have flaws that I consider to be fatal. Giuliani is still pro-choice and has strange ideas about gun control. McCain works against the Republicans as often as he works with them. Additionally, he’s responsible for atrocities such as McCain-Feingold. Thompson – besides that fact that he’s in his own little sphere instead of competing – supports McCain-Feingold, which is a fatal and unforgivable flaw. Ron Paul is a little too extreme. As much as I want to agree with him, I don’t think he has a clear understanding of the situation between the United States and the terrorists. The others have issues I like, but don’t have an overall image I can vote for. For example, Tancredo is a stud when it comes to talking about illegal immigration. Besides this issue, there isn’t anything that makes him standout.

One particular issue that distresses me is that some Republican candidates would use ridiculous anti-Mormon tactics against Romney. For example, Brownback had an aide that attacked Mormonism. Other candidates have had similar problems, even though the candidates have stated that they did not condone the attacks. At least three of the candidates are Baptist, a religion notorious for it’s vehement attacks on the LDS church. Although this does not automatically disqualify them in my book it certainly makes me question whether they indeed do not condone the anti-Mormon attacks on Romney.

I’m anxiously watching to see if a candidate will emerge that clearly deserves our support. I would love it if Romney would apologize and make himself that candidate.