You shouldn’t have to congratulate someone for not electing a fecal blossom like Roy Moore, but considering everything he represents, I can’t help but feeling obliged. This is for you, ’bama.
OK, so let me get this straight…if you don’t win the election, then it’s rigged. But if you do win, then it’s not rigged. Got it. Thanks. That tells me everything I need to know about you.
Do we want to hand over our nuclear launch codes to someone who is so immature and insecure that, when his policies where challenged and his record questioned, his first instinct was to make fun of someone else’s height and then claim that he has a big penis – on live, primetime television?
And for what it’s worth, “Little Marco” appears to have the bigger hands – at least compared to their relative head size. Not that there is anything to that myth, much like Trump’s blustery policy claims. And even if there were, everyone knows it’s not the size of the tool but how you use it that matters – and clearly Trump is a tool who is only interested in his own gratification.
…But A Mexican Ain’t One Of Them
If you listen to any of the many Republican presidential hopefuls, the biggest problem America is facing today is illegal immigration from Mexico. It’s become the hot topic of both candidates and the media alike. By comparison, there’s been relatively little discussion regarding the candidates’ views on other topics such as the economy, environment, and foreign policy, let alone on issues like education, healthcare, tax reform, energy independence, and gun control.
I’m here to tell you, folks: America has 99 problems, but a Mexican ain’t one of them.
So why has the Mexican border become the primary focus of the Republican presidential candidates’ campaigns so far? Probably because it’s easy to oversimplify, meaning the candidates don’t have to put much thought into it and develop an intelligent, comprehensive policy to address what is actually a very complex and nuanced issue. They can simply say, “I’ll stop it.” And if you are a real lunatic, you can even claim – as Donald Trump does – that the money to do so will magically appear.
Plus, it plays to the fears of the base supporters of the Republican agenda. It creates an enemy, and positions the candidate as the savior. Which is a lot easier to do than addressing a real threat like ISIS or climate change, because those enemies are going to be hard to defeat. And the thought required to overcome such challenges, or to even intelligently discuss the options, is well beyond the intellectual capabilities of most candidates.
A Basic Intelligence Tests for Higher Office?
Which leads me to ask: why don’t we have an intelligence test to at least select our top presidential candidates? Would anyone have a problem with that? Seriously?
Assuming a candidate can pass a unilaterally determined level of basic knowledge, they would then be eligible to run for our nation’s highest office. I’d go for a mix of basic intelligence along with a rudimentary understanding of the issues of a the day: economics, science, political science, geography, and geopolitics. Maybe it would be wise to throw in a little history as well, since we are supposed to learn from it.
I’m not asking for in-depth expertise on the issues of the day. That’s why you hire experts (unless you are George W. Bush, and then you put a political crony, like the commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association, in charge of FEMA, leading to the worst domestic clusterfuck in modern American history). I’m just asking for candidates that have above average IQs.
It’s a hard job, and an increasingly complex world. We’ve tried our richest and slickest for some time now. I think it’s a time we gave our best and brightest a shot at running this country. Is that too much to ask?
I thought the Fox moderators did an admirable job of asking some tough, pointed questions of each candidate last Thursday. Yes, you heard me correctly. I think Fox News actually did something right. #BlondesHaveMoreFun
Of course, conservatives are apoplectic because the Fox moderators did in fact do a decent job of questioning the candidates. I think they are a little miffed that the normally conservative cocoon of Fox may have exposed their entire field of candidates for the hypocritical buffoons they really are. #Irony
That said, few of the candidates actually answered the questions asked of them. Instead, they spun it around to recite the same canned message points each time they were called upon. And rarely did any of the moderators press them to answer the actual questions. #Weak
However, I thought the seven candidates in the first debate, those who hadn’t polled high enough to make it to the prime-time debate, did a slightly better job of answering the questions asked of them. #CandorDoesNotPollWell
All of the Republican candidates said they want to reduce the size and scope of government. And in particular, they said they want to reduce the amount of money our government spends. #AntiGovernmentPoliticianIsNotAnOxymoron?
Despite this aforementioned claim, all of them also said that they want to increase the size and scope of government – and particularly increase government spending – to do things like fight more wars, build and protect our borders, and enforce expansive immigration laws. #SpendThenBlameTheDems
In other words, all of the Republican presidential candidates are talking out of their asses. #Hypocrisy
And while all of the candidates professed outrage over our nation’s current debt, they failed to acknowledge the indisputable fact that much of this debt was created the last time a Republican was in the White House. When George W. Bush became president, our nation had a budget surplus, thanks to the presidency of Democrat Bill Clinton (who, incidentally, had inherited a budget deficit from Republican George H.W. Bush). But thanks to eight years of a Republican in the White House, Democrat Barack Obama inherited yet another massive budget deficit. #NoAccountability #Hypocrisy&Denial #SpendThenBlameTheDemsAgain
I think the debate spelled the beginning of the end for Donald Trump. He came off even more dickish than usual, and that’s saying a lot. His spotty record as a businessman was exposed, including the fact that he has had to rely on government entitlement programs like bankruptcy as many as 4 times in past 25 years to make up for his management failures. And it didn’t help when the moderators reminded everyone that each time Donny shirked his debts he left a lot of loyal employees – hard-working Americans – unemployed as a result of his repeated incompetence as a leader. #DonaldRump #BankruptAmerica
Plus, Trump made it clear that he’s more interested in Donald Trump than the Republican Party. In fact, he flat-out admitted that if the party chooses another candidate, he would continue to campaign as an independent. Which, of course, makes you wonder if he’d put the needs of the nation ahead of his own, should darkness sweep over this land and actually put him in the White House. #AllAboutMe
Though I think Trump’s popularity may serve as an important lesson for all candidates, but particularly Republicans. Republicans have falsely assumed that Trump’s appeal is based on their conservative ideals, when what people are really responding to is his unorthodox candidacy – the fact that he mocks the other politicians. Trump is walking proof that it’s really all about anger and rage against the system, rather than intellectual support for specific ideals or policies (especially since he has yet to articulate any of these). #WeHateBothParties
Ben Carson seemed to be largely ignored by the Fox moderators. Was this because he’s black, or because he’s smart? #SmartLivesMatter
And Lindsey Graham? All that guy cares about is starting a war. Look, we get it, you have invested heavily in the defense sector and want to make a killing – both in the market and on some battlefield. But try not to make it so obvious. Even Republicans have grown weary of wasting American lives. #WarMonger
For me, the brightest spot was Ohio Governor John Kasich. He’s what they call a compassionate conservative, and – despite his professions of faith – he sounded like a fairly reasonable, trustworthy guy. In other words, he seems to be the least bat-shit-crazy out of all the Republican candidates. I consider myself fairly liberal, but if the Republicans nominate that guy (which they surely won’t), I just might vote for him over Hillary Clinton. #VoteKasich
And speaking of Hillary Clinton, apparently she is far more qualified to be president than I realized. In fact, it seems she’s far more qualified to be president than any candidate on either side. You see, having listened to the Fox moderators and every single candidate in both debates, it’s clear that Hillary Clinton already is the President of the United States, a role she has apparently been sharing with Barack Obama for the past two terms. #FoxMisleads #PresidentHillary
I love to see all these Republican leaders and Fox pundits professing their support for the French and for the freedom of speech. Of course, these are the same assclowns who were enraged when the French exercised their freedom of speech by opposing our unwarranted invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The hypocrisy is baffling, though hardly unique to this issue. When Democrats criticized George W. Bush during his presidency, Republicans and their pundits went apeshit, saying that people should stand by their president and support his decisions. Yet the moment Barrack Obama came into office, they attacked everything he did. Everything.
This is partisan politics at its worst. Instead of blindly supporting our president, any president, we should keep our minds – and eyes – open and support our ideals. And that includes supporting the freedom of speech, even when – in fact, especially when – you don’t agree with what is being said.
It’s Election Day. And as I get ready to vote, I feel compelled to “throw the bums out.” This has been one of the worst Congresses in the history of Congress, and that’s saying a lot. It’s an embarrassment.
No matter what your political point of view, I think we can all agree on one thing: our current crop of politicians are entirely useless to anyone but themselves, or the special interest groups that keep them in power. This is true of all politicians, from local school board leaders to the clowns in our nation’s capital. They range from pandering fools to extremist idiots.
But there’s a problem with the “throw the bums out” approach, which has often attracted people to extremist movements like the Tea Party. You never know what kind of bums are waiting to get in. They could just as easily be worse than what we already have. And at least the incumbents have faced a few years of media scrutiny, whereas the new wingnuts have only endured that kind of scrutiny during the campaign. They just have to behave long enough to get elected, which most megalomaniacs can handle. Again, the rise and fall of the Tea Party is a testament to the pitfalls of this de-bumification philosophy.
So here’s my idea. Instead of simply voting for a specific candidate, those who vote to re-elect the incumbent should also have the option of voting to have one of the candidate’s fingers removed. This counts as a vote for the incumbent, like any other vote, except that – if re-elected, and if a majority of those who voted for for the decapitation of a digit – then they would have to have a finger surgically removed. Think of it as taking a finger from a politician who gave us the finger.
Now before you rush to judgment here, this is about more than simply chopping off political fingers. It’s an incentive, and I believe a powerful one. First of all, it will eliminate those candidates who are simply looking to push their agenda or line their pockets, which I estimate is around 90 percent of our current crop of politicians. And it will also ensure that those who do get elected work hard enough for their constituents to ensure that they won’t feel betrayed when the next election comes around.
Holding a political office should be about serving your constituents. Right now, it’s all about serving your contributors, and your ideology, and ensuring above all else that you amass and retain as much powers as possible. I think we can change this…one finger at a time.
When terrorists executed an American journalist they held captive, critics were quick to blame the Obama administration for not doing enough to save him. When word leaked that there had been an unsuccessful attempt to rescue the hostages, critics were quick to condemn the Obama administration for revealing such sensitive information…as if the terrorists didn’t know who attacked them.
This isn’t just a case of damned if you do, damned if you don’t. It’s a case of setting up a well-financed industry to ensure that you are damned for everything. How the hell are we supposed to overcome the challenges facing our nation, let alone our species, if undermining every effort of our leaders has become such a booming business?