Police Violence and Racial Tensions: War Intensifies

The past events of this week have brought the racial tension and police hatred to a fever pitch. The protest of police shootings has led to retaliation by the same people who feel oppressed.  The amount of death and destruction caused by this police versus colored people is absolutely unnecessary and unfathomable. It is unfortunate that police had to shoot and kill two black men. It’s unfortunate that 5 officers had to die in Dallas because of those same police shootings. Nobody should be dying from unnecessary violence. Not black people, Not police officers. I am beyond mortified by these events and the coming war that will only get worse unless we act to remedy the real problems that exist. This post is not a political grandstand nor is it an attempt to cover up or dilute the loss of life, no matter what color skin.

The first problem is obviously the social construct that is racism. People often forget that racism isn’t just limited towards black people but all people can experience it. It is accepted that black or colored people often face racism in common everyday situations. Unfortunately there are no laws or rules that we can make to fix racism. Racism is born out of our history. America was a slave holding nation in the beginning and after the civil war that same distinction that slaves had become the stigma of colored people. The racist ideas about colored people have never died only adapted over time. Now we see it in voting laws, education, police matter, and much more. Racism has one fix. It starts with you and me. In our everyday lives, we need to treat everyone fairly regardless of skin color. If you are in a position of power then judge people strictly on merit and character. Most importantly, encourage others to do the same.

The second problem is retorhic  of political nature. What I mean by this is that politicians especially liberals and President Obama tend to talk negatively about police. Yet at the same time they pass policies that hurt those people they say they want to help. The rehortic of gun control is also damaging to police and people who carry guns. The same people who want to ban guns are the same people who trust the police with guns. We need to stop talking and start doing something. President Obama does almost nothing but side with the victims. He gives no objective or constructive input on any of the situations that occur with gun violence by police or criminals. It’s unfortunate that the liberal media demonize guns and black people then it makes police shootings seem that much worse. The problem with talk is that its cheap. Politian need to shut up and maybe do something constructive to help mitigate this violence.

Now I want to look at what is not a problem and some possible solutions. It does no good to try to pick a side or try to sympathize with either of the victims. One thing that clearly isn’t problem is guns. There is no getting around the fact that guns will always get into the wrong hands. It happens and always will. We don’t need gun control just need to regulate who gets the guns. I have said this before, we need psychological evaluations every year just like a car inspection. Along with a yearly background check this will combat the number of people who get guns who might be a risk to shoot up some place.

Unfortunately there are limited solutions in tears of laws and rules. But one possible way to quell police shootings is through some stricter protocol of when an officer is actually allowed to pull the trigger. I personally know an NYPD cop. He and I have had conversations about police shootings. One of things that he told me was that officers are typically trained to go on their instinct. If they don’t feel safe then they are allowed to draw their weapon. I think officers should probably be trained to only pull the trigger if there is an absolute and immediate threat to their well-being. Such as if a suspect draws a gun themselves or another deadly weapon. The addition of body cams could help make sure that the officer actually does follow protcol. For me, I am just as concerned for the person who is being pursued by police as the police officer.

Another thing is make gun laws nationwide. The second  amendment guarantees the right to bears no matter what. Unify the gun laws so police know that in every town, county, city and state have the same laws. This way police can act accordingly. If every non-felon who has passed a psychological  evaluation year has gun than its fine. Another important thing if you do have a gun and the police ask you to identify where, then you should comply. The basic concept is that as long as you cooperate you shouldn’t need to worry about getting shot by police whether your white, black or any other color. However, on the flip side if you don’t comply then police should have a right to draw their gun. If you try to touch your gun then I would say they have to right to shoot. Its only fair.

If we don’t make changes to our justice system or to our social constructs this violence will only get worse. Its even worse because the two presidential candidates are totally blind to causes of this violence. Its never been white vs. black or police vs. black. All of these supposed rivals are human beings. We have set up these battles for political gain  or personal gain. This is not a new thing. We need to fix the laws accordingly and be more understanding of other’s struggles. Sadly, only a few people grasp the reality of this violence. The political policies of the democrats and republicans have only made the racism and wealth gap larger. Its no secret that the elites wants to battle each other. Look up Gender 21 or George Soros. Look up the Illumati. Look up who owns most of the world’s money. Its only about 300 families. People need to wake up. If we let these tragedies  control our emotions then we let the government take away more of our rights. Its a vicious cycle.

Just to remember to respect people of other races and respect the police, because like everyone else they have a job to do. Thanks for reading!

Advertisements

Safety over Rights or Rights over Safety?

I often think about the great debate that plagues Americans everywhere. It seems that all the struggles in America come down to the choice of safety and security or group and individual rights. This debate has brought out in detail by the recent mass shooting in Orlando over guns and radical muslim terrorists. This debate is nothing new. One of the problems of governemnt especially with a democratic government is that it allows free choice. Free choice in itself can be good and bad. You can choose to make good choices that help you or others. You can also choose to kill people. Of course, for every bad choice or legally wrong choice there is consequences. Our democratic government has fallen into the trap of limiting bad choices of its citizens. This is a natural process throughout our history as we advance through time. The problem with choosing security over rights is quite simply that it takes away the rights of the people. The people as the constitution states, run the government. It can be noted that dictatorships actually demonstrate a full view of an security state. The power of the government is vested in one person. That one person is the government and makes all the decisions. That dictator controls all the rights of the people. Therefore in theory, the safety of the people is guranteed because adjustments by the dictator can be made. However, many dictators are corrupted and use their power to undermine the safety of the people. Ultimately it undermines their rights. In a democratic government the debate over safety or rights is an issue because we follow a constutition which lays out the specific power limitations of government.

The constitution is a very important document that is not fully understood by many Americans. I want to point that the constitution doesn’t grant the government power to do whatever it wants. The constitution is not supposed to be taken advantage of or used to increase personal power or wealth. The constitution is supposed to make sure that our government does its job. The job description of the government is written in the constitution.  Checks and balances and Judical Review both are instruments to help keep and uphold the constitution. If people reconigze the constitution as a statue of limitations then it totally changes how you see our government. Remember the people run the government. Not government run people.

The constitution also lays out our rights as people that are basic to everybody who is an American citizen. The bill of rights is the most important addition to the constitution because it gives us those freedoms that we enjoy. Many people, politicans and groups argue over the 2nd Amendment. This is the right to bear arms. If you don’t know there are two ways to interpret the constitution, they are strict and loose interpretations. In each interpretation, the right to bear arms means the right to own a gun regardless of the purpose. The amendment actually stipulates two different laws. The first is that of a well regulated militia for the security of a free state. In a strict intepretation this would be out of date since we no longer have militias. In a loose intepretation this would mean that if necessary then a militia could be formed. The second part of the law applies to current events.

The second part states that its “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall be not infringed”. This statement in both interpretations means the right to own a gun is not to be taken away under any circumstances. The narrative after the most recent shooting is that assault weapons should be banned. Let’s set aside the fact that bans have never worked. (Tell me about bans: Drugs, Alcohol, Cigarettes under 18….how are those working out? If you ever drank under 21 or smoked a cig under 18 or smoke pot in a state wheres it illegal then you probably know that bans don’t work right?)  The problem with banning assault weapons under the second amendment is that there is no legal grounds to do so. A better solution that has no legal ramifications constitutionally is more extensive background checks and psychological evalutions at 1 year interevals. In this case, there is actually a way to choose safety AND rights. Unfortunately, the government would prefer safety because it increases their power. If they can take away your assault rifle then that’s techincally voiding the second amendment and legalizing all guns for bans. The logical solution is that getting a gun should be very hard through extensive background and psychological evalutions. I would propose a similar regulation to that of motor vechicles. You need to register your car every two years, get an inspectation (In NY STATE) every year, and update your plates. Its not that cheap to own a car with all the expenses like insurance and all that I just mentioned. So why can’t we do this with guns?

I think that its clear that our rights our being traded for security. I want to give one more example. The best example of government picking security over rights is after 9/11. Its obvious why the US government took the steps that it did to protect us. What isn’t so obvious is that they violated our rights while doing so. The main culprit is the Patriot Act. The Act gave legal power to government agencies such as the FBI, CIA, NRA and others to spy and keep track of all citizens. The means by which this was carried out violated many of the constitutional bill of rights. It far exceeded the power that the government should have had. The 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 9th amendments have been violated by the Patriot Act. This was done all in the name of security. You may ask then, how do we let this slip by us? The answer lies in who we voted in office. The congress has become very stagnant with the same people in office for many years. This allows for complacency and inactitivity.  One of the problems that occur in the safety vs. rights debate is that politicans are often on both sides. Politicans tend to claim that will defend our rights. In practice, they usually end up either creating new rights for their own advantage or taking away rights for some to help others. Politicans are plagued with self interest and greed. This is human nature. It seems that being a poltiican only makes these two vices worse.

Since 9/11, we have certainly traded a lot of rights for what seems like the same standard of security. I feel like trading rights for security has never worked. Many political observers have often noted this fact. I look around the world with new terrorist attacks every week, I can’t see how we are any safer. I also want to add another facet to the gun debate that also involves rights. The right to keep arms is usually in your house. However, the right to bear arms would suggest that an open carry policy is the constitutional standard. One of the common dominators of terrorist and mass shooting attacks is gun free zones. These safe zones are not so safe and are usually: schools, colleges, clubs, shopping malls, government buildings, convention centers, stadiums. Many people are against an open carry policy, usually offering the argument that America into Somali, a war zone. However, let me submit to you an example of open carry policy in a US state, a state that has had no mass shootings in recent memory since 1983. That is 33 years with no mass shootings. This state if you don’t know already was admitted to the union as the 49th state. It was purchased in Sewards Folly which should be a dead giveway!  Its in the arctic circle. Its Alaska! Yes, Alaska has an semi-restricted open or conceal handgun policy with similar restrictions on other guns. So basically, you don’t need a permit to carry or conceal a handgun. For other guns and assault weapons you may need a permit or not depends on where. So how can this be?

Well, my friends this is how gun control works. I want to use analogy to wrap up my post. Let’s say that Country A and Country B are neighbors. Country A has a nuclear weapon. Country B does not have a nuclear weapon. If Country A decides to nuke Country B there isn’t much that B can do about it. If both Country A and B have nuclear weapons (Same amount) then if Country A threatens to nuke B. The result will be one of two: Country B threatens to nuke or Country B is nuked and retalites. In a situation where both parties have equal strength of force it will become a zero sum game.  If country B does get nuked then retalites against A then they both loose. However, if they both decide against launching their nukes then they both win. This same logic can be applied to guns. This is usually called deterence. It can be more powerful than any passable law.

I know that personallly I would rather have my rights over safety because rights give you safety. The government can’t protect each individual its just not practical or possible. Allow me to suggest that we start advocating for rights over safety so we can guard the constitution, the law of the land.

Thanks for reading!

2016 New Year, Same old politics.

It is now 2016 and it is the election year. Donald Trump is still leading the polls for the Republican party. Hillary Clinton still leads the Democratic Party for the nomination. Interestingly, the political race has not changed much. With the Iowa causcas coming up in a month or so the stakes for the race to the nomination are heating up. The purpose of this particular post is to recap some ideas about the political race and some insights on what is going on with certain issues. Instead of speculating who may win or who has a better chance, I want to focus on the issues. Statistics and precedents can predict the winners. The winner will obviously become the leader of the free world with the power to influence and create policy. People tend to forget the President is merely a policy creator and influencer. His actual job description is to enforce the law that Congress writes. The executive branch must execute the laws. This seems simple on the surface but in reality, the complexity of issues and the lack of bipartisanship on the part of congress makes a President’s job much harder.  Conservative critics of President

Obama accuse him of using too many executive orders to avoid going through Congress. On the one hand, they have a point because Congress is supposed to pass the laws not the President. On the other hand, President Obama cannot work with Congress because of various extreme views within both parties. The executive order most recently used by Obama was for gun control. A controversial subject and order. I thought it was neccessary and the correct path until Congress decides to act. Let’s face it, background checks don’t obscure the individual right to own a gun. This is especially true if said individual is a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record or psychological affects. 

One hot topic that usually decides elections is the economy. The economy usually includes job creation, minimum wage and corporate taxes. The clear divide between a conservative and liberal policy is simple as lower corporate taxes and minimum wage to encourage job growth versus higher minimum wage and corproate taxes, respectively. There is nothing wrong with minimum wage in principle is a good regulation to keep wages from bottoming out. However, if raised artifically the minimum wage can adversely effect the economy and job market. The democratic party believes in a 15 dollar an hour minimum wage.  I believe that this is a misguided raise. Raising wages without using the market value as a guide is just stupid. I have said this numerous times in numerous ways that the it will end up increasing poverty and decreasing jobs. Common sense will dictate that a person who works at a fast food establishment should not be paid as much as some who works in bachelors degree position. Its not fair to that college graduate who paid at least 30 to 100 grand to attend an university. Another effect of artifcally raising minimum wage is that prices and cost of living will also rise with it. I really wish I could tell the Democratic candidates how dumb they sound.

Another hot button topic is healthcare. Obamacare is just an expensive mess that happens to insure people at an unaffordable and unsustainable rate. The simple fix for Obamacare is get it out of the government’s hands. Allow free competition among health insurance companies. The free competition will help lower prices because the best companies will have the MOST business. Obamacare is primarily a government run organization that picks the winners and losers rather than the market. For those who cannot afford insurance, cut some other useless government programs that cost money and use that money to subidize a strict bracket of uninsured. Once again, this is where conservatives want to repeal but I haven’t heard of a good plan to actually replace it. I think that my recommendation takes a part of the idea of obamacare but makes it better.

My last topic is college education debt. I recently recieved a call from Sallie Mae to repay my loans. (Its a struggle to pay for anything with no job) Fortunately all presidential candidates are putting forward plans to help reduce student debt. One program that New York State has just come out with is Get on Your Feet. I am in the process of signing up. It pays for your loans for two years. Its pretty good. However, what worries me is that these programs are costing taxpayer money. So what I would like to see is where is the money coming from? I feel like some tweaking to certain sections of budget could easily pay for college debt. For example, the military budget could be cut a little bit. The largest military spending budget in the world. I’ve heard college debt is approximately 1-2 billion. Consider that our military budget is about 600 billion to 800 billion. So just imagine if the government would hold the military accountable and cut about 5 percent that could fund healthcare, social security and college debt. Also we could still crust ISIS or anyone else. I actually go against conservatives because they would love to increase military but its not necessary anymore. We need to protect our borders and not worry too much about everyone else.

I hope you enjoyed my two cents. I am waiting in earnest for the nomination winners and looking forward to the debates that will come betweeen them. Those debates are usually the most interesting. Right now, I think Rubio will end up with the nomination for the Republicans. Despite Trump’s strong poll, he is not backed by establishment. Right now in the liberal camp, I think that Hillary Clinton will win. Clinton is the establishment democrat.  Should be interesting to see what happens. Stay tuned as I will update periodically.

Democratic Debate: Sanders v. Clinton in Aftermath!

If you had watched the debate on Tuesday then you will definitely want to read this post. In my last post about the debate, I went over how all the candidates did in a brief summary. Some were shorter than others because air time. I have decided to narrow down the field to two candidates. The other three candidates were in the debate just to make it interesting but have no real impact in the election. A few things before we get started here. There is an article on FiveThirtyEight that you should go read right now. Its called “Did the Democratic Debate Change the Odds?” In this article, they breakdown how each candidate fared in the debate. They also weigh in on Joe Biden and his non-appearance. I feel that the article pretty accurate represents my own views on who won the debate. As you may or may not know that FiveThirtyEight is one of my favorite sites because of uber-interesting articles that deliver. I also want to point your attention to another site that is worth checking out. It is called open secrets. This website open secrets, shows all known data on money in government and elections. If you really want the truth on how bad the American people are being corrupted then I suggest going to this website. For example if you want see how Donald Trump’s campaign is doing financially, you can go right here. You can do this for almost any candidate. Even the untouchable Hillary Clinton.

Go ahead and check both of those out after reading this. Now I want to look into how the media has treated the debate. I think its a really interesting factor to look at in an election. The media influence is greater than ever. This means it cannot be ignored in its coverage. A quick google search of the debate itself brings up some news. Many of headlines about Hillary Clinton. This and This and This. The media seems to think that Hillary won. I want to expand my own views in my last post. I will be using some of what I read in the FiveThirtyEight article to help me out.

Let’s start by recapping what I thought of Hillary:

Hillary Clinton is a former senator of New York and Secretary of State. Mrs. Clinton was able to stick it to everybody in this debate. She flatly denied the email scandal anymore attention than it had. Mr. Chaffe did throw a few jabs with his mention of no scandal. Clinton really stuck to her guns on foreign policy. Surprisingly she did make some sense by saying that a coalition to help in Syria was necessary. She was unapologetic about her decisions in the past. I could see that she was really trying to keep the focus on the issues and not her past. Unfortunately her past is so well known I think it played well for her. Clinton really pushed strong for rights and equality for women. However, Sanders also pushed hard. They both seem to think that smaller countries like Denmark and Norway were good models. The only problem is America is much larger in population. Once again, just like Sanders, Hillary could not answer how she might pay for anything. All I heard was increase taxes on rich.

Speaking of that, Republican bashing was Hillary’s leading role. Every opportunity that she got, she took to bash the republicans. Comparing the democratic debate as one that focused on issues instead of racism and women hating.  She was right about that. However, I feel like Clinton failed to really convince people that she won’t do the shady things of the past again. The mistrust of politicians is at an all time high. She is the poster child for bad politicians. This was brought out by the constant attack on her political flip flopping on issues. Anderson Cooper went directly for her saying any to get votes. I was not convince by her answers. Clinton seem to have strong performance by using other candidates positions to back her own. She was able to articulate many of her own positions because of the huge amount air time given to her. (Much to the dismay of Mr. Webb) I think that Clinton probably improved her polls by a few points. She’s a savvy politician.

So I have highlighted three different sections of my last post to talk about. (in bold) I felt like Clinton definitely reaffirmed to women everywhere that she has their back. I saw in another article on 538 about how her support with women keeps increasing. I think that her push for women and family probably drove up her stock. However, Mr. Sanders keep up for the most part with many issues including minimum wage and family leave. For me, these issues are nonsensical and very controversial. While I understand why Democrats support these types of policies, I just think they are misguided. (More on that with Sanders)

Moving on to the next bold part, is the republican bashing. Hilary seem to lead the charge in bashing them. I take no offense even though I do support Rand Paul. The republicans tend to write the headlines and jokes themselves. According to 538 there was a stat that Hillary actually bashed more than any other candidate. I feel like this political mudslinging almost ALWAYS works in favor of the thrower. Its an odd dynamic but negative press can hurt a campaign. (Again, Sanders seem to be positive, more on that later!) It was actually a pretty boring debate. However I have to commend the candidates for staying on the issues. Even though much of conversation about minimum wage and immigration seem to be a little misguided.

Overall though for Hillary’s sake I thought her air time and articulation of views put her as a true front runner. This comes despite the email scandal. I don’t see the appeal of her on a personal level. I believe that media is somewhat correct in saying that she won the debate. She has solidified her voter base. (Against my preferences)

***

Here is what I wrote about Bernie Sanders debate performance:

Bernie Sanders is a senator from Vermont. Sanders had a very strong showing despite being attacked early and often. One of the questions that kept him on the defensive was his record on guns. I have mentioned this in previous posts that Sanders hails from Vermont a gun loving state. Sanders was able to say that he is changing his position after all the mass shooting. He also tried to frame it in the sense of “Urban vs. Rural” states. Noting that rural areas tend to have lax gun laws. O’Malley smartly shot him down on this narrative because of his record in Maryland. (Pun not Intended/ Notwithstanding the failures in Baltimore) Sanders was also successful pushing for the usual minimum wage hike and paid family leave. I think that the question in my mind, and many others is how will you pay for all these expensive actions. He did mention that he would put a tax on the rich hedge managers or something like that. The thing about Sanders is that his plans all sound great. The problem is where is all this money coming from? All the rich people are moving out already so I don’t think taxing them more will make them stay. Overall though, I thought that Bernie stuck to his platform pretty closely and was able to separate himself from Clinton. I have to believe that Sanders will keep building up his support.

Mr. Sanders was surprisingly rough around the edges. He was not as polished as Hillary in the debate. However, Bernie came prepared and fought off an intense gun issue battle. I feel like Bernie struggled to keep it together during the questions about guns. I could see that his argument about rural vs. urban states was a good argument. I can’t fault him for framing it like that. There is really a lot of gray area in the issue. Sanders also did some strange and good things during the debate. One of the strangest things was his positive toward Clinton. Rarely if ever, do candidates show kindness to each other. Politics tends to be a bitter sport.  Personal attacks are the norm. (HIs behavior strangely markets his campaign of being out of the normal) I felt like his allying with Clinton definitely hurt his chances of increasing his votes. (538 says as much)  I feel like if he really want to rally his voters, he should have attacked Clinton. There is no shortage of ammo (no pun intended).

One of my personal bones to pick with Sanders as candidate is his over the top socialist economic policies. I know that he means well and everything. However, the logic behind his plans just is not there. He using an emotional argument to push something that has very little to do with emotions. Economists agree that increasing minimum wage only hurts the middle wage earners and it does not help lower wage earners. Everybody’s wages are tied together with the exception of the super rich. (This is who Sanders is attempting to hurt) Unfortunately for Sanders you can’t fix wages from bottom to top. It has to be done naturally through smart economic moves. Yes, Republicans and Bush Tax cuts also don’t help the lower wage earners. Suffice to say, this issue is totally misguided. In order to help people who are struggling to get by, we need to help businesses hire more people. Quite simply, less taxes for businesses. I’m not talking about major corporations like Walmart either. We need our 95 percent small business economy to hire.

Overall I thought Sanders perform very well in the debate. His handling of black lives matter was good enough. Its been clear through different polls that Sanders does lack the color voters. This is a tricky issue for him and other candidates. In my opinion, I think Sanders could further endorse this movement to help get more colored voters. Unfortunately, Sanders biggest downfall was his kindness to Clinton.

There you have it. I believe that Clinton really boosted her support while Bernie keep afloat. I am looking forward to the next debate. The next democratic debate will be in November on the 14th. Meanwhile the next Republican debate will be on October 28th. Once again, it should an interesting battle of the candidates.

Thanks for reading!

Democratic Debate Battle Royale

I hope you got a chance to watch the democratic debate on CNN tonight. It was quite the debate. It was even better than the republican debate! (I’m a conservative libertarian) The candidates gave it their all and really battle over the issues. Despite the fact that they agreed on the goals of the policy, the fight become over the means. Each candidate got fairly decent air time with exception of Jim Webb who seem to struggle to get any talk time. Of course, the focus was mostly on Sanders and Clinton. The other candidates Webb, O’Malley and Chaffe gave some good cannon fodder but in the end all trail Sanders and Clinton significantly. So I want to breakdown my reaction to each candidates performance. I will quickly go over the three 1 percenters (In the polls). Then I will go into some more detail with Clinton and Sanders who both seem to give strong performances.

The worst performance goes to Jim Webb. Mr. Webb just couldn’t seem to jump into the conservation. He couldn’t seem to defend his moderate positions. Webb just was out-democrat by both Sanders and Clinton. I will give him props for being a Vietnam Veteran. Unfortunately like his campaign, his lackluster debate performance will probably end his run sooner rather than later.

Lincoln Chaffe was another candidate who participated in the debate. Came out strong attacking Clinton and her scandals. Chaffe was a bit a flip flopper have changing parties from Republican to Independent to Democratic. Chaffe is the former governor of Rhode Island and Senator. His voting record is a bit shaky. However, like Webb he just couldn’t get much air time. When he did get time, he certainly made it count. Unfortunately for him, I don’t think it was enough to boost his polls too much.

Martin O’Malley is the former governor of Maryland. He gave the strongest performance of these three candidates. He was able to use both Sanders, Clinton and others arguments to jump into the conversation. There are two issues that O’Malley pushed hard that I took issues with.  First, his strict gun control policy has some questionable results given the unrest in Baltimore.  Clearly, with the death of innocent black African Americans his gun control didn’t stop it. One has to wonder if a national strict gun policy would have the same results. The second issue was on immigration. He seem to take it a step further than any candidate. I’m not sure offering free college to illegal immigrants is a smart idea. Considering that American students have massive student loan debt. However, I wouldn’t be against the eventual naturalization of illegals and their receiving benefits. I think that O’Malley is definitely more similar to Hillary Clinton than Sanders. Not sure how this will affect his polling. But he may be a little too radically progressive for American voters. In addition, his low poll numbers suggest that he isn’t going to be catching up any time soon. I think his lack of national political experience will hurt him because in democratic field it seems that this is a requirement.  (The GOP seems to be more on political outsider candidate road, think Donald Trump and Ben Carson)

Onto the top two candidates leading the democratic polls:

Bernie Sanders is a senator from Vermont. Sanders had a very strong showing despite being attacked early and often. One of the questions that kept him on the defensive was his record on guns. I have mentioned this in previous posts that Sanders hails from Vermont a gun loving state. Sanders was able to say that he is changing his position after all the mass shooting. He also tried to frame it in the sense of “Urban vs. Rural” states. Noting that rural areas tend to have lax gun laws. O’Malley smartly shot him down on this narrative because of his record in Maryland. (Pun not Intended/ Notwithstanding the failures in Baltimore) Sanders was also successful pushing for the usual minimum wage hike and paid family leave. I think that the question in my mind, and many others is how will you pay for all these expensive actions. He did mention that he would put a tax on the rich hedge managers or something like that. The thing about Sanders is that his plans all sound great. The problem is where is all this money coming from? All the rich people are moving out already so I don’t think taxing them more will make them stay. Overall though, I thought that Bernie stuck to his platform pretty closely and was able to separate himself from Clinton. I have to believe that Sanders will keep building up his support.

Hillary Clinton is a former senator of New York and Secretary of State. Mrs. Clinton was able to stick it to everybody in this debate. She flatly denied the email scandal anymore attention than it had. Mr. Chaffe did throw a few jabs with his mention of no scandal. Clinton really stuck to her guns on foreign policy. Surprisingly she did make some sense by saying that a coalition to help in Syria was necessary. She was unapologetic about her decisions in the past. I could see that she was really trying to keep the focus on the issues and not her past. Unfortunately her past is so well known I think it played well for her. Clinton really pushed strong for rights and equality for women. However, Sanders also pushed hard. They both seem to think that smaller countries like Denmark and Norway were good models. The only problem is America is much larger in population. Once again, just like Sanders, Hillary could not answer how she might pay for anything. All I heard was increase taxes on rich.

Speaking of that, Republican bashing was Hillary’s leading role. Every opportunity that she got, she took to bash the republicans. Comparing the democratic debate as one that focused on issues instead of racism and women hating.  She was right about that. However, I feel like Clinton failed to really convince people that she won’t do the shady things of the past again. The mistrust of politicians is at an all time high. She is the poster child for bad politicians. This was brought out by the constant attack on her political flip flopping on issues. Anderson Cooper went directly for her saying any to get votes. I was not convince by her answers. Clinton seem to have strong performance by using other candidates positions to back her own. She was able to articulate many of her own positions because of the huge amount air time given to her. (Much to the dismay of Mr. Webb) I think that Clinton probably improved her polls by a few points. She’s a savvy politician.

Overall, I found the debate to be very interesting and more focused on the issues. This is also due to the smaller number of candidates. The stark contrast between republicans and democrats is that democrats are actually in agreement on what needs to be done. Where republicans can’t agree on where to even start. The democrats bashed each other much less than the republicans bashed each other. I knew from the get-go that republican bashing would happen. Not surprisingly it came from Clinton and Sanders the most.

Just before the debate started, I was watching the analyst on CNN talk about VP Joe Biden. Biden is considering a presidential run. The conversation was very interesting because it seem that some in the media were tired of waiting for him to decide. I found this to be very interesting. I was thinking about how the debate dynamics might have changed if Joe Biden did decide to run. I do believe that Biden would have significant impact in the democratic primary. Biden would almost certainly give Bernie Sanders a run for his money. He may even knock Sanders out of contention. The biggest challenger to Biden would be none other than Hillary Clinton. Biden is on par with Clinton in political experience and political clout. Not only that but he is a sitting Vice President. Clinton identifies closely with Obama. However, I think that Biden would be able to more effectively use Obama in his election run. Obama might even endorse him. (A running mate for 7 years in a row probably means they are great friends) Granted President Obama may not be the most popular president but he does have an influence unlike any other endorser. So will Joe Biden throw a wrench into the race?

Thanks for reading! More coming on this debate and future debates!

Election Natural Selection- Survival of the Politic.

One of my favorite scientist has the best theories. I would say that this scientist is just behind my number one favorite scientist, Albert Einstein. Charles Darwin is my second favorite. Who better to represent the presidential election race? Darwin theories on life and evolution both revolutionized the way we think about how the life cycle works. His theory on natural selection works perfectly for both politics and comedy. (The comedic version is that only the smart people rise to top) In politics, there is especially in today’s election a vicious cycle. It’s a survive or die mentality. We have seen two candidates drop out already. (Rick Perry and Scott Walker) The vicious cycle that represents an analogous version of Darwin’s natural selection is one of candidates putting themselves on the line with issues that could potentially swing voters. The hot button issues in this election seem to be numerous. Of late, it seems gun control could determine a candidate’s place in the polls.

In my one of my other  post I dove into the deep controversy about gun control. Gun control tends to be a tricky issue because is almost impossible to eliminate guns or arm everyone and expect it not to turn into the wild west. Yet it is an issue that continues to run rampant with mass shootings every month it seems. The worst part is that no matter how much political clamor occurs, there is still no real action. Let’s be real that whatever regulations are in place are not working. It makes me angry that there is still gun free zones. The irony is that a gun free zone is a perfect place for someone who gives a shit about gun free zones to go and shoot up. The most common gun free zones? Schools, Colleges. So why do shooters keep going to our schools? GUN FREE ZONES. No resistance. Granted, I’m not saying students need guns. But in some states they are allowing teachers to have them. Rightfully so.  Not to drag this on but the first politician to eliminate the gun free zone will be my hero. At least, there is a small shift within the democratic party towards some type of gun control.

In other news, an interesting article came out with Politico Magazine: “Illegal Immigrants could elect Hilary”. I read this article and found to be really interesting. I recommend giving the piece a full read through before reading my comments. By now you have probably realized that I am a huge stats nerd. The piece goes into depth how Illegal immigrants could swing the election toward a democratic candidate. Interestingly the electoral college votes given to each state are determined by population. The law doesn’t define what counts as population so therefore everyone counts. Basically, the democratic candidate could possibly get four electoral votes. That is pretty big. You only need 270 electoral votes to win an election. (out of 538… fun fact same number of congress people) I actually wrote a post detailing why we should trash the electoral college because it’s outdated. This is an interesting notion that could illegals actually have a say in the election.

The other side of this issue is the illegal immigration that continues to cause problems. The biggest voice on this issue has always been Donald Trump. If Trump was smart and if he read my blog (LOL good joke), he would most definitely take this little article and use it to push his immigration plan. He would be smart to jump on it first because the worst nightmare of any GOP’er would be another democratic in office. (Let’s go libertarians!) It would certainly be a good rallying cry to help gain votes. Even though Trump may have a hard time convincing people that he’s not a racist. But, its a fair point to bring up that people who technically have no right to decide the election are actually helping decide it with their illegal presence. However, rumblings within predictions are calling for a landslide election — this remains to be seen. Regardless of the controversy surrounding illegal immigrants and what to do with them, i find it interesting that have this much impact on the election. This is deeper than the usual economic narrative. (A few years ago I swear that Trump could have been my hero, so young and stupid I was)

****

With so many drama queens in this presidential election, it is almost cliche to say this: Joe Biden is creating drama around his candidacy. There is a lot of speculation around Joe Biden. He certainly is an intriguing candidate. The current Vice President according one of the links predicting the race, Biden was polling at 20 percent nationally. Pretty damn good if you ask me. Awhile back I wrote about Biden and his candidacy, at that time he was basically denying any chance. I think that he has a good shot to win if he does enter. Obviously, I think we can expect him to be a moderate democratic. Taking the usual stances on minimum wage, gun control, and healthcare. I’m not completely sure where he stands on all issues but its a good guess that he holds mostly democratic points of view. (In my own view I would probably disagree with him on all issues) In determining whether or not Biden will run you have to look at the current situation. I can understand why he would wait. You have Hillary with a large lead over Bernie Sanders. The other candidates still in the race are inconsequential.  I would bet you he is waiting to see who will be leading come January.

Biden has to consider which democratic candidate he would rather face. In addition, he should not wait too long to jump in because the democratic party is only having six debates. (albeit controversial) If Biden misses chances to debate with his fellow candidates it could hurt or help him depending on how much mudslinging goes on. I would have to think this a tough waiting game for Biden. Looking at from a GOP point of view, you have to hope that Biden jumps in and steals some votes from either Hillary or Sanders or BOTH. This is what Biden wants to avoid for sure.

To bring this vicious cycle of politics to a close, you can see how politics truly is natural selection. A game of jockeying and mudlslinging, it never ceases to left everyone insult and nobody happy. Politicians tread a fine line between self interests, party interests and interests of their constituents. The democratic debate is October 13th. I hope you are as excited as I am. I am looking forward to hearing Hilary and Bernie battle it out. Even better is that I disagree with them so it should be fun pick apart later. Thanks for reading!!!