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!


NY Primaries: The importance of your Vote.

I was very excited today at the possibility of voting for the first time in about 4 years. What I failed to realize is that primaries don’t work like regular general elections. Now I knew that you had to be registered for the party of your candidate in order to vote. However, when I went to the polling station, I found out that it was only for democratic and republican voters. I am a libertarian and registered as such under independent. I have written a few posts on being libertarian which you can find here and here. Now if Rand Paul who was running on the republican ticket hadn’t dropped out, I may have been able to change my registration in time to vote for him. More on this later. My point of this post is to encourage New Yorker’s and people from other states yet to hold primaries to vote. So instead of voting, they ironically give me a sticker that says “I Voted”. HA HA HA..the irony is killing me. (Picture above)

I came across an article about changing your party registration on my favorite site FiveThirtyEight. The article discusses how hard it is change your party registration in New York. Here is the link. Obviously, this causes problems with voter turnouts because if you’re registered as an independent you cannot vote in the election. I was mistaken in thinking that I could still vote for Gary Johnson because I was registered. I think that the fact that third party candidates are not allowed in primaries is a bad thing. More than being mad about not actually voting because I don’t like any of the Democratic or Republican candidates. I am more angry with how the system is set up. Not being able to vote in a primary for a third party candidate really shuts down their chances at an legitimate election process.

Now I know that in the general election that I will be able to vote for whoever I want even myself. However, I think point here is that we need more choices in our elections. There is no logical way that in America, a melting pot of diversity that just two points of view can be applied to all 330 million Americans. I believe elections might be much different if we at least one other candidate. Elections are usually decided by two factors, electoral college and the popular vote. The more important one is the electoral college. I’ve explained how the electoral college works and why we should get rid of it before. I believe that a third candidate would allow for better debates. A third party candidate like Gary Johnson, for example would offer an alternate platform that could be enticing to both left and right. Libertarians advocate similar fiscal responsibility as Republicans and also social equality like Democrats. Just imagine all the best qualities of Hillary Clinton and lets say Ted Cruz in one candidate. Just minus the corruption, religious tinge and overall craziness.

I think the obvious connection with more candidates, primaries and party registrations is the actual voting. If you have made the same mistake or false assumption that I did then at least you had good intentions. I’ve written before that voting is an important civic duty and everyone should exercise it. Voting gives you a voice and a say in your government. The founding fathers wrote the constitution for the people not for the government to ignore and exploit. America was set up to avoid the tyranny of a monarch. I really think that people and especially young people should start taking voting seriously. I cannot stress it enough. The links to my other posts are here and I would encourage you to read them.

Even if you are like me and cannot vote in a primary then at least you have to register to vote in the general election. I can tell you from experience in voting in general elections that its a gratifying feeling to know that you help decide who will run this country. I have vote in two general elections. Obviously when I was 18, I voted for John McCain. Granted, I know your probably saying really!?!?! Yes Really, but you must understand as high school senior in a small up state New York town that being conservative was almost standard. Even today, my parents are conservative republicans. I understand now that typically hard working middle class people in rural areas usually are conservatives.The reason is simple, they would like to keep their money. However, the downside is socially things like gay people and transgender are not as accepted. Once I went to college and discover there as many different types of people I started to realize maybe republican wasn’t my party.

In 2012, I thought about voting for Mitt Romney but decided that his business campaign wasn’t really working for me. Instead I decided to pick an libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. In that re-election year for Obama, Gary Johnson actually received 1 million votes. This is quite a milestone for a candidate whose party is suppressed by the mainstream media mostly and by the election laws. I say that mainstream media suppresses libertarians because most networks don’t cover the candidates with one exception. Fox News actually has one program that is libertarian. John Stossel is the host and the show’s namesake, Stossel.

So get out there and vote! Thanks for reading!

Become a Libertarian, Today.

A variation of this article will be posted on http://FrontRangeVoluntaryist.com (December 1st)

I typically start my post with some current event relating to the information that I’m about to drop some knowledge on. However, today I want to go about this post differently. I have decided to actively push for more people to switch to the Libertarian party. At the very least, I would like to see more people consider it as an option. At best, I think if more people were to vote libertarian, it would force the government to recognize it and more importantly the mainstream media. So in this post, my main point is that you should consider and become a libertarian today, right now. You should weigh the odds and differences between being whatever you are now and being libertarian. Whether you are a democrat or republican, the libertarian has something for you. I urge you to consider the following:

The differences between the left and right are not very different at all. The democrats and republicans might say different stuff and give different reasons but their goals are the same. The ends are the same and means are different. However, in modern day politics there is more than one way to “skin a horse” or get things done. Here I am going to list the differences between Democrat and Republican.



Slightly lower taxes


Pro Choice

Slightly higher taxes

Now here are just some of some of the things both Democrats and Republicans support: Medicare, Medicaid, Foreign Wars, Social Security, War on Drugs, Patriot Act, Bailouts, The federal reserve…etc.etc. You might say “Big whoop de doo! I like my government programs” or maybe “Oh but we need those things to function as a country.” Right we need some form of them to function but the fact is that government doesn’t need to run them all. Government is worst babysitter because they do the most expensive and inefficient way. Let’s take social security for example.

Social Security was created in the 1930s by Franklin Roosevelt to help with Great Depression. The absolute worst economic crash to ever happen. It quite literally liquidated banks and put millions out of work. Such an extreme depression caused the need for extreme measures. Unfortunately, even after World War 2 when the US came out of the depression as the world’s number one power, we still continued these measures. Social Security was meant as retirement fund to help people save for retirement. It worked just fine until two things happened. First, the number of workers putting money into the system started to decrease in the 1970s through now. Second, the government under Reagan and again under Clinton withdrew funds from social security to pay for government expenses. Now in 2016, social security is due to be insolvent by the 2020s. The government should have never pulled out money from it. The problem is only made worse by the fact that all the baby boomers are retiring and withdrawing their share. Baby Boomers refer to people born just after World War 2.

Become libertarian because you should not trust the government with your retirement. Social Security should not even be government run. Any private bank can help you save for retirement. There is no reason especially if you are younger than 40 years old to have to pay into social security. The reason is that you won’t get any of that money when you retire.

Healthcare is another reason to become a libertarian. The healthcare system is a mess and its not just Obamacare. Medicaid and Medicare are also struggling with funding. The government is once again messing with private citizens and their ability to afford healthcare insurance. The problem with government run healthcare is that it reduces the speed and frequency of checkups. Just look at Canada, the wait times for time sensitive healthcare procedures can be deadly, because it takes so long.  The other problem is cost. Canadians and other countries came to America for surgeries because of the speed and relative superiority of our healthcare system. You might have heard Obamacare is supposed to make healthcare affordable for everyone.

Yes, the key phrase is supposed to. Obamacare is not what it seems. On some level Obamacare technically violates the constitution (Supreme Court ruled it doesn’t but I disagree.) because it forces everyone have healthcare insurance or pay a penalty. This I believe this is wrong. It should be a choice not a mandatory statue from the government. Despite Obamacare being mandatory, it also expensive. Usually healthcare insurance companies must compete with each other to gain consumers and make money. The better the insurance, the more money they can charge. However, if they charge way more than their competitors that offer a similar plan then one will have to lower or go out of business. In Obamacare, certain insurance companies are picked by the government to gain consumers via Obamacare. This eliminates the competition, price check and quality of the insurance because no matter what these companies are gaining paying consumers who are legally obligated to pay.

Does this system sound fair to you? If not, then become a Libertarian because you shouldn’t be forced into paying for ridiculous and arbitrary healthcare programs. Healthcare should be run privately with healthcare insurance companies competing by offering the most coverage for a cheap price.  Another reason to become a libertarian is taxes. Do you hate paying taxes? Do you feel like your taxes aren’t really use to your benefit? Do you think you pay too much taxes?

I noted that one of the differences between Democrats and Republicans is taxes. Obviously with these two parties you have a choice of lower or higher taxes. I personally was a republican when I was first eligible to vote. One of the appeals of the Republican party was lower taxes. How does no taxes sound to you? Impossible?

Yes, that is right. No taxes. Libertarians believe that there no should be no income tax or any tax really. Of course, its hard to imagine a world without taxes. Libertarians are under the belief that government has one job and that job is stay out of your business. The government’s duties as laid out in the constitution don’t necessary say they have to be involved with every little decision you might make. In fact the founding fathers wanted our government to less intrusive because we just split off from a Monarch who taxed colonies without regard to their opinions. The rallying cry was “No Taxation without Representation”. In order to get to “no taxes” it would take a lot of work. However, I think that more importantly its a philosophy. The philosophy that government should only tax the bare minimum it needs to do its constitutional duties.  In today’s tax heavy world, I think we should look to decreasing the federal budget in places where we spend too much such as the military and other unnecessary government programs.

If anything I have explained actually makes sense its because you should be libertarian. Libertarians are a small but growing political party that believes both Republicans and Democrats are full of shit. Those shitbags are ruining Congress. We need to wake the fuck up. Seriously. Our government has spent trillions of our taxpayers dollars. We have nothing to show for it. We need to hold government accountable. That’s what I believe Libertarians are about. We are government skeptics NOT what the media portrays us as people who want anarchy. We just believe in freedom. We believe in what the founding fathers saw as their vision for this country. A nation truly free from government domination.

So please, consider becoming Libertarian. Gary Johnson is a solid libertarian candidate for President. I would strongly consider googling him and look at his issues. You might find that Libertarian is for you!

Thanks for reading!

Voting Choices: Person or Policy?

It occurred to me recently that people support different candidates for different reasons. Whenever I see the news and they talk about the election, I hear how people show and spread support. Its interesting to me and I know there is studies done on how voters choose a candidate. My main thought here is that people pick a president based on either the personality or the policies of that person. I suppose one could consider both. Rather than cite a bunch of studies showing how candidates get elected, I want to focus on the Person vs. the Policy way of deciding. My theory is that voting for personality may not be the best result. If you disagree then definitely leave a comment explaining why. I will use current candidates as examples.

The first order of business is breakdown each way deciding by defining what each way means exactly. I also want to add a third category of Both/Random. This category is basically a combination of both personality and policy or could be just like a coin flip because the voter is indecisive. Personality in many studies is a huge among voter choices. I’ve seen many studies done and you can google them. Many of the past presidents have great personalities. Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, Thomas Jefferson..etc .Personality can mean things like friendliness, likability, empathy, energy, charisma, honesty, and sociability. Personality can also have negative aspects like dishonesty, aloofness, cold, lazy, and anger. The current candidates all display some or all these characteristics. I think Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump both can fit into likability, energy, charisma and sociability.  Meanwhile I would put Hillary Clinton with dishonesty, aloofness, and empathy. Are these traits really that important for each candidate?

I believe that personality only matters very little. The problem is that personality can get you elected and be well liked. But if you look at presidents with great personalities they usually had savvy policies that helped. The counter argument is that their personality pushed their policies through. I would contend that might be applied to one or two presidents because there is a lot of factors to consider with policy. So what does policy mean? Policy is what the candidate intends to do while in office. For example, President Obama wanted to push a new healthcare plan (Obamacare), kill Bin Laden and end the wars in Iraq, and various others. Now whether he achieved them is irrelevant to this case. All candidates have put forward policies. This information is (I believe) the most important information about a candidate that you will ever have. Their policies will determine the future of the United States and in turn your future. I feel like people forget that a President is a leader who is supposed to help execute laws that make America better off. Its in your interest to know what kind of policies the President might pass and understand how they affect you.

Since I can only use my own views to enlighten this conversation, I will be using my own logic to make a decision between a few popular candidates. I will consider both personality and policy to make a point. However, let me just say that I almost always choose on policy. First up: Hillary Clinton. I said previously that I find Clinton to be dishonest, aloof and empathic. I feel like her personality compared to other candidates is lackluster. As for her policy, if you have read any of this blog you know that I disagree wholly with the how not the end goal. I think that with policy for Clinton, she is just a bland democrat with nothing too special. Her policies ride in line with party practice. I can get on board with some of her family programs but my problem is how is she paying for these? Raising taxes is exactly what Republicans like too. Even though Hillary has a lot of baggage like the email scandal, I could ignore that if she was better with her policy. I’m a libertarian so she is too left with her policies.

Second: Bernie Sanders. I love Bernie Sanders personality. He might have the best one in this years election. He connects with young people and old people. He has energy, sociability and even date-ability? Apparently theres even a dating app for Bernie? So yes, Sanders has a banging personality. Once again, I won’t repeat myself but I put Bernie in the same category as Hillary. He is way too liberal. My problem with Bernie is that his polices are cosmetic because they look good on paper but in reality they won’t fix problems. My favorite example is minimum wage. I only talk about it every other post. Here. Here. Here. Here. If you haven’t gotten the point, its basically that an artificially inflated minimum wage creates problems for lower classes and the middle classes. Not to mention causing inflation and small businesses to go out. My simple problem overall with all his programs is how he is paying. I don’t necessarily disagree with his goal. Let’s face it that the rich people are not the problem, its the people who taking advantage of our tax code and regulations written specifically for them. My decision is no, for those of you feeling the Bern.

Last but not least: Donald J. Trump. Trump is a wrecking ball worse than Miley Cyrus. However, Trump combines some interesting elements of personality to really grab our attention. He is so outspoken and yet agreeable because of how  he talks. Trump’s style is literally a bull in a china shop. Do I like his personality? The short answer is I find it amusing and amazing how he can take over the media coverage basically shutting out other candidates. Its definitely been working as I predicted.  As for Trump’s policy, I would call it somewhat misguided. Trump doesn’t suffer from the liberal problem of how are you paying? (Remember Mexico, Putin and China are paying or so he says) Trump policies tend to be a little more racists, exclusionary, and make me who is really paying? Trump is in line with most republicans which means he wants to give tax breaks to people who don’t need them. Obviously, Trump’s wall on the border of Mexico and banning of Muslims is where his racism comes into play. If he could tone the racism, then increased border security is never a bad thing. I think for his tax plan that he doesn’t go far enough to really change much. My decision on Trump is also no.

Ok so I said no to all three. Here is the truth my horse in the race has dropped out. Of all the 30 or so candidates that declared, the closest candidate to my personal policy preferences was Rand Paul. The difference between Rand and the others is that Rand understands how the economy actually works. Its not even anyones fault because there is a lot of ignorance about the economy. So it does not shock me that most of the candidates have terrible tax plans and economic policies. I’m not an economist either. But trust me, the simple truth that the government pays for its crap with your money can explain why most candidates suck.

I hope that this article helps you make a choice, or I mean a better choice. I believe that policy is the way to go. It doesn’t matter what kind of personality any candidate has. You have to be mostly concern with policies because they actually affect your life. I realize that all of this is my own opinions and you can disagree if you want. In the end, I feel like if just a few more people consider policy when voting then we will make a better choice.

Thanks for reading!



Magic Economics via false promises

I recently read an article on facebook via the website libertarianism.com. The article is similarly named “False Promises and Uncertain Economic Truths.” The author is Aaron Ross Powell who has a JD from the University of Denver. His article explains that in short, the candidates are making false promises about the economy because no can truly predict or control the market. Of course, the one way to control an economy is state owned and run business and production. This method was used by the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. Stalin’s five year plans were supposed to help build Russia to a world power. Instead, his five year plans led to the largest class warfare and citizen deaths in world history. The other end of the spectrum can be seen in the early industrial revolution where children would often work 12 to 14 hour days without breaks, safety precautions and very little pay. The reality is that a market economy is one of the toughest things to predict. What is predictable is that the market will go up and go down.

In order to find meaning what today’s presidential candidates want to do with the economy, we must look at the past. Historically, the government has both intervened and not intervened. When the US was first starting out the Federal government was not as strong. The government was still figuring how to function. The Federal government didn’t start intervening until the early 20th century. The strategy of laissez-faire was used from the signing of the constitution until the 1929 stock market crash. This is not to say that the market had never crashed before 1929. It had crashed before but the changes in the economy is the key factor. For example, the idea of credit became quite popular during the 1920s. The concept of lay-away became all the rage. You could by a car and pay it off later. You could buy anything on the lay-away. This is basically like today’s credit card. The problem in 1929 was combination of factors but devaluation of money or inflation plus overuse of credit and investors selling off everything. This in turn caused banks to run out of money because there was no FDIC or insurance. Banks closed, and soon enough millions were out of jobs because companies went bankrupt.

In Powell’s article, he refers to two specific candidates Trump and Sanders. He also refers to America’s economy as modern. Once again, going back to history, the economy has gone through a series of stages. Usually there is three stages: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary. The primary stage consists of agriculture and subsistence farming and the like. The US went through this period mostly in the colonial days. However, agriculture still plays a lesser part of our economy. (Many of the crops like corn, wheat and others are now subsidized by the government) The secondary stage is manufacturing. This period runs from the early industrial revolution to around the 1940s. This is another stage that has declined over the past 70 years or so. The stage that the US economy currently engages in the most is Tertiary. Tertiary means services and that could mean anything from insurance to education. This stage (Tertiary) is considered to be a modern economy.

The average American usually supports a candidate from one of two parties. So let’s say you support either Trump or Sanders. (OR imagine your favorite candidate) Before we can examine if a candidate makes false promises, we have to examine what they plan to do to fix the economy. (If one could do such a thing) Surprisingly, I find that each candidate plan is same setup just different words. The most popular type of economic plan now a days is wealth re-distribution. Unfortunately, Robin Hood is a morally good fairy tale but it is not a good economic fix. So let’s look at both candidates, Trump and then Sanders’ economic plans straight from their websites. Usually taxes are the closest economic issue that every candidate will have something published on.

First Read: Donald Trump. Second Read: Bernie Sanders.

Ok so I have looked over each plan. Different parties but similar plans. Trump will cut taxes for the rich and corporations to bring business back to US along with his plan to improve trade relations with China. Trump also plans to simplify the tax brackets giving no taxes to the lower classes. Meanwhile Sanders will be paying for his plans by raising taxes, closing loopholes, and increasing social programs. You can argue about who’s plan is better or worse. But what’s important is that both candidates are trying too hard to make an economy work that just does not work like it used too.

I have problems with both plans. For Trump, my problem is that improving trade relations with China is next to impossible. For staters, the US and China are co-dependent. We need them just like they need us. The reason why they can manipulate currency is because they hold a large percent of our national debt. So there’s no leverage to make anything meaningful happen because China has the upper hand until we pay off our debt. Trump’s tax plan sounds alright but is typically conservative with tax cuts for the rich. He is just hurting the middle class and it will just continue the same problems as now. Now let’s look at Sanders. Sanders plan is just plain expensive. He wants to raise taxes on everyone. He going to have tax loopholes and wall street pay for most of his social programs. My problem with Sanders is his plans are cosmetic. The plan to raise minimum wage and tax the rich will surely backfire. Unfortunately you can’t just spend your way out of a shitty economy. I believe both Bush and Obama already have done that with little real success. The economy recovers naturally.

The one commonality between Sanders and Trump is on corporate taxes. They both want to eliminate loopholes and special interests. In the end, both plans look at the same problems. Politicians keep trying the same policies over and over again. Yet they wonder why nothing has changed in 30 years. Let’s remember that both Trump and Sanders are not establishment candidates. The goal of their campaigns is to run as Washington outsiders. However, I’ve look at the democratic candidates and republican candidates platforms. Sometimes I think they just re-worded and copied each other!

The false promise of prosperity because of these tax plans and promises of social programs is the real problem. Logically I can’t personally wrap my head around how either candidate will ever have any success in economics. The market economy is dependent on businesses making money. It usually works best when private competition is at its highest. The regulations to keep corruption, revolving door and monopolies is necessary. Something that candidates only pay lip service is the cutting of the federal government’s budget. Obviously, this isn’t an easy task. However, I have yet to see a solid plan for eliminating excess spending on the federal budget. I think the candidates especially from democratic and republican party under-estimate the importance of the federal budget and the national debt. The only candidate (Former as of last week) who has a strong voice and grip on this is Rand Paul.

I believe that in end, these plans only fix short term problems. The presidency is eight years. The new president could reverse these plans just as easy as they get put into place. The candidates don’t intend to mislead or make false promises. The American people are the fools for letting them. The point that Powell makes and the point that I want to extend is that before voting for a candidate make sure you know about the platform. Make sure your inform about how their economic policies might affect you. You have to look at the bigger picture. Be informed about what’s going with the markets and the world. For example, the recent downturn in the stock market is being caused by the dropping of the price of crude oil. The uncertainty of the world markets is another cause. You might see cheap gas prices as a good thing. (Everyone does!) However, just be aware that world is a place where cause and effect is the guiding rule. The economy isn’t magic and politicians might be tricks.

Thanks for reading!



Third Party Void in US elections

It seems that for the past 47 years (1968-2015), there has not been a significant third party presidential contender. This is now a common theme of American politics. The Republicans and Democrats have become so powerful and extreme that third party candidates usually get drowned out over the extreme views and big money. Third party contenders tend to be either in a niche political view or libertarian. In this post, I want to show some data from the American Presidency Project and add my own knowledge about why third parties no longer contend in presidential elections. I think to start on this question we need to discover how parties came about and transition to the numbers.

George Washington in his farewell address warned against the formation of political parties. The warning last through Washington’s two terms, which became the precedent. In election race between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, parties started to form. The party lines were drawn by the beliefs of about the strength and role of the federal government. This is a simple explanation but it serves as the basis for the parties as we know and understand them now. John Adams was a federalist who believed the federal government should play more of a role in running the country. Federalist also supported a strong constitution before its signing. Meanwhile, on the other side Thomas Jefferson who lost this election but won the next election was on the side of the Anti-Federalists. They opposed the signing of a constitution and were strong believers of state rights. The differences in organization gave the federalist a slight advantage and resulted in the signing of the constitution and election of John Adams as second President of USA.

The two parties further evolved as time went on. The two main parties were basically the same until the civil war in 1860. It was because of a third party that Abraham Lincoln was able to run and be elected as the first true Republican party president. Its quite confusing because some of the whigs and the democrats pre-civil war became today’s Republican party. The split of the Whig party created modern Republicanism. The 1860 election featured two third party candidates. It was first true third party election. It did not happen again for another 30 years or so in 1892 when Populist candidate James B. Weaver ran against an democratic candidate Grover Cleveland and an Republican candidate Benjamin Harrison. (Grover Cleveland won, fun fact: only president to serve two separate terms)

There was only 4 third party elections since 1892 going back to the latest impactful third party election. However, let me clarify that what I mean by impactful is a third party candidate won a state or states.  The last time a third party candidate won a state was in 1968. American Independent George Wallace won three states from the race. President Richard Nixon won that election. The next election to effected by a third party was in 1992 and 1996 This is the most modern example of an election being impacted by a third party candidate. H. Ross Perot had just enough votes to help Bill Clinton edge out George H. Bush and in 1996 Robert Dole. Then in 2000, Ralph Nader made a considerable run stealing some votes from Al Gore. Helping George W. Bush win. This is pretty much full run down of what the data can tell us. The numbers show us the results only.

The interesting question that I really want to answer is why are third party candidates not getting any traction? The problem is that data can only give us so much. I believe that American values are changing and becoming more extreme. This is evidenced by Congress’ inability to pass anything. A lack of bipartisan work tells me that extreme views are becoming the norm. This unfortunate for American voters of all kinds. Third party candidates can appeal to people who just don’t buy into the two mainstream parties. Another interesting fact is that many voters are independent. According to this April 2015 Pew article at least 48 percent of voters are registered as independent.  Of course, there is many other factors that cannot be overlooked like gender, age and race origin when looking at party affiliations. The question still remains unanswered though because none of these facts explain the strange void.

One factor that might be the most heavy influence on third party candidates is voter turnout. Voters have been turning out in historic lows. According to this article, approximately 36.4 percent of voters showed up at the polls. This might be the cause of a third party void. I have said this in previous articles that young people are the primary reason why voter turnout is low. I know and have met many people who say they don’t like politics or they can’t stand either party. As it happens, I am a person who can’t stand either party. However, I still vote. Civic duty is an important right to exercise. With the two party system, I think over time you tend to get more extreme because with no third party contenders the parties only have to be the opposite of each other. For example, if one party wants a higher minimum wage then the other will want a lower minimum wage. Its human nature to go more extreme to get your point across especially if you just have one opponent.

So you’re probably thinking all that explanation and history just to say voter turnout is the problem. Unfortunately that is where it seems to be creating the third party void. To put into perspective our two party system with rare third party candidates, we must look at Europe. In Europe, many countries have democracies with multi party elections. There is even countries with as many as 20 candidates in an election. I also feel like its healthy for a democracy to have many options. If there are many options for elections then it creates a fair playing field. In our two party system, there is usually 2 or 3 legitimate contenders sometimes all within the same party. The problem of a third party void is that it leaves out many voters who don’t like either of the two party candidates.

My recommendation to anyone else out there who ends up reading this and finds themselves not being able to pick a candidate like Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. I would strongly encourage you to look at third party candidates. Listen, I know they won’t win but if you vote and share then maybe one day we can change our two party system. Its not all about winning. Its about exercising your right to vote. Just my opinion here, but I believe that Rand Paul should switch to a third party. I think he could do some damage next election.

I hope you found this to be educational. Thanks for reading!






Republican Debate: The Media Bashing Monster

I regretfully did not watch the debate last night because I was watching the World Series. However, the good news I was able to record the debate and watch it this morning. Let’s talk about the World Series because during the conference series I said that I hoped the Blue Jays would win over the Royals. My reason was that the Blue Jays are power hitting team similar to the Cubs. The Mets’ strength is pitching especially their starters. The Royals even before seeing the two games already played versus the Mets, I saw they could be a potentially dangerous opponent. The Royals with their contact hitting and situational genius are the Mets worse nightmare. That is what we are seeing in the World Series. Unfortunately, as a Mets fan I have to concede to the Royals because the Mets have no answer.

I also have another reason for bringing up sports before going into the nitty gritty of politics. I was watching the Herd on fox sports 1 and he was talking about the similarities of sports and politics. It is a very similar world where winners and losers are created through a contest, both being of physical and mental in nature.  Both worlds are built on big money and big time publicity. Both drive the conversation of the media. Rarely ever do sports and politics mix but as an analogy I feel they work perfectly.

In this debate, we saw countless candidates bash the media especially coming from Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Interestingly enough, these two stand to gain the most from doing so. Mr. Trump kept quiet because as I have written before, Trump has the media to thank for the success of his candidacy. Almost everyone including pundits and others feel that Cruz and Rubio are the hold the line establishment republicans. One could also include Jeb Bush in there due to his large amount of endorsements. I will come back to Bush later. I thought Cruz and Rubio both put on strong performances. They were able to grab a lot of air time. They also made their points and plans clear. The more I listen to Rubio the more I actually like him.  I that think Rubio sometimes makes sense. He also has a legitimate shot especially if Carson or Trump fall apart.

As for Jeb Bush, it seems the end is near. This article that I have linked is a very interesting one because it breaks down the performance of Bush compared to the other candidates. Bush just couldn’t seem to gain any traction or talk time. Foreign policy was not Bush’s biggest fault in this debate. (They barely touched it) Chris Christie was another surprising candidate to me. Christie helped push Bush near the edge with his blast about fantasy football. Christie literally told him, “Look, who cares about fantasy football, if they want to play let them” I thought Christie along with Mike Huckabee also put on a strong performance. Huckabee has never been my favorite candidate. He’s a little too much into religion and pushing it on others. The problem is not that he is religious but that he is willing to criticize and tried to convert anyone who isn’t. Let’s face it, Huckabee, this country is moving away from not towards to god. Fewer people attend church every Sunday now than ever in the history of this country!

Before I move on to Rand Paul’s performance, I want to rant and rave about this fantasy football thing. I believe each candidate nailed it when they said government should not be involved. However, I do believe that unregulated gambling is above the law. These daily fantasy companies definitely stretch the rules. I don’t care if people want to gamble all their money away. The problem I have is that they might actually just be blind robbing people. I read articles that their commercials which are annoying as hell, fleece the regular person who would want to play. The word ‘fleece’ means trick in this case. They show these people who are actually professional gamblers that win millions. Its not right. At least portray the reality of the game. I think that regulation to make sure there is no false advertising and there is no insider advantage. Also stop playing so many damn annoying commercials!


Ok then, Rand Paul’s debate performance was lackluster because he got very little air time. It seems like my man Rand always the shaft on air time. Either way, when he did get a chance to talk, he made it count. He set some things straight about taxes, the fed, and healthcare. I love how everyone says Dr. Carson is sooooo fucking great. Bullshit. I’d take Rand Paul as my doctor any day of the week. Excuse my french. For one thing, I do like Rand’s tax plan as I have written in previous posts.  I think Rand is a dark horse candidate. Despite the media ignoring him, he is still doing well. Also unlike other candidates, Rand is a class act and polite. I think its going to take more than no media attention to kill his campaign. Give me any candidate against Rand and I’ll take Rand’s view on the issues 80 percent of the time. Vote Rand.

Now let’s turn our attention to the two clowns in front. Dr. Jykell and Mr. Hyde. Aka Dr. Carson and Mr. Trump. I thought they both underperformed. I feel like Trump’s punch lines have gotten old and stale. He has been saying the same things about the same issues. Its boring. I know that they have worked in the past. I would also place the blame on the moderators who literally asked him the stupidest questions (fittingly). While Trump struggles to find a new tune to scream, Dr. Carson just finds new ways to look like a novice. I just can’t get over Dr. Carson’s inability to explain his views on issues. I also feel like  he has no clue what he is talking about. Seriously. Especially with foreign policy, I rather have Jeb Bush. (Rand Paul over anyone else) There is a big part of me that wants to see both of these candidates get lost. They might be outsiders but I don’t think they can run it properly.

The only two people whom I didn’t mention is the Ohio governor John Kasich. I felt like he did a lot of talking. Unfortunately it was always the same thing. “I have a proven record and a plan to fix Washington.” (Repeat 7 times) OK Mr. Kaisch WE GET IT. ugh. We know that you did it in OHIO. If Ohio is so great then why can’t Lebron James fix the Cavs? Riddle me that. I digress. And Carly Fiorina. Carly seem to do okay. My opinion about her hasn’t changed. The moderators went after her HP experience. The only thing I do want to say is that if her and Hillary Clinton got in a fight, a big cat fight. I think my money is on Hillary. Clinton probably beats the shit out of Bill Clinton all the time. After all, Monica kinda made them look bad. hahahaha

To bring this post full circle, I am going to use a little sports analogy. With so many candidates in the Republican field the candidates have a distinct disadvantage. Hillary Clinton has it pretty easy as a frontrunner because other than Bernie Sanders there is no other legitimate threats. (Let’s face it, Bernie is hardly an enemy basically supporting Clinton in that debate) Meanwhile the Republicans face a longer and tougher road. In sports, usually better tested teams tend to win. However, the game is a little different. The problem that Republicans face is divided support at this moment. Meanwhile Hillary enjoys a strong lead with most of the support split between her and Bernie. If Republicans want to go for the victory, they will need to focus on maybe two candidates to push behind. The two strongest candidates both outside and establishment. The more voters behind the Republican nominee the better. The nomination is like a goal line stand, your just trying to punch in the touchdown. But you don’t want to use all your energy there, because the election is a marathon with the game going into overtime. Regardless of sports or politics, there is only one thing that matters, winning.

Thanks for reading!