Clinton Ran A Good Campaign

images.jpg

This will most likely be the most unpopular article I have ever written. Something I pride myself on though is being able to look at an event as objectively as I possibly can so that we can draw the proper lessons from it. Punditry has been unified in their opinion that Clinton ran a terrible campaign. I disagree. I think that Clinton maximized every single advantage she had. There were some things she could have done better but she was limited by other factors as well. The current groupthink only emerges because Clinton lost. If the reverse happened then they would all be saying Clinton ran a wonderful campaign and Trump a terrible one.

Loser

This brings us to the first point we have to address. If she ran such a good campaign then why did she lose? As a gamer (both computer and LCG/CCG) I know first hand that you can be a good player and have a good deck and still lose. In life there are times when you lose because the other player is just better. Clinton may have run a good campaign but Trump ran one of the best campaigns I have ever seen. Simple repeatable messages. Excellent branding of both himself and the opponent. Lastly marginalizing tactics his opponents could use against him. After all if you already know the mainstream media is biased against you then you call them fake news to turn people against them.

No Message

When you ask why Hillary Clinton was a failure the first answer people will give you is that her campaign had no message. What critics don’t understand is that this is a feature not a bug. Hillary Clinton ran as the establishment candidate to the radical change presented by Trump. The establishment candidate is not supposed to have a revolutionary message. They are supposed to say that things are going fine and that the other guy is crazy for proposing the changes that he wants done. Which is exactly what her message was.

Hillary Clinton being who she was could not run as anything but the establishment candidate. To do otherwise would be like getting a card pool filled with burn spells but making a control deck out of it or running a control character like a tank in Dota. It just would not work. One of the most important things in a candidate is knowing what you can do well and what you cannot do well.

First you had her history and connections all over the political world. People would scream fake if she was presented as the change candidate. Second she was running as the third term of Obama. If she were to be a change candidate then she would have to criticize policies enacted by Obama. Anything she said in that regard would just be used by Trump who was running against Obama just as much as he was against Clinton. More importantly the liberal media just made the case for the past 8 years that anyone who dared criticize Obama was a racist. Clinton would have difficulty doing this.

Funding

Being the establishment candidate Clinton had an easier time raising funds than Trump did. She milked this advantage for all it was worth. At the end of the process Team Clinton was able to raise 1.6 billion dollars for her election while Team Trump only raised something like 600-700 million. I cannot recall any other presidential election in recent memory where one candidate had a 2:1 advantage over the other in funding. It is true that one party will usually have the advantage over the other like with Obama outraising Romney, but never to this extent.

People have tried to say this did not matter as all the media coverage Trump got gave him something like 9 billion in free advertising. What they do not say is that of his coverage multiple studies show that over 90% was negative. If you want to consider negative advertising as money raised for the candidate then anytime someone runs an attack ad the money used for that should be considered spent by his opponent.

Political Connections

Clinton also maximized her political connections. Lawmakers, both Republican and Democrat, overwhelmingly wanted Clinton to win. This meant that major political figures did not attend the Republican National Convention or get involved in the Trump campaign. More importantly it also meant that they were able to threaten staff who used to help run Republican campaigns with being black listed for working with the campaign forcing Trump to rely on people who had gotten their experience in other countries like Manafort.

Beyond neutrality members of the Republican establishment even went over and above to help Clinton win. The Bush clan let it slip towards the end of the campaign that they would not be voting for Trump. The libertarian vice presidential candidate Weld went out and said he would only campaign in states that Trump was strong in like Georgia. Places which coincidentally the Clinton camp was trying to snipe. Most amazingly, the Republicans even ran a spoiler candidate in Mcmullin against their own guy.

Very few other candidates would have been able to achieve this much.

Last Word

I am not saying that Clinton made no mistakes. I think that she could have treated her left wing supporters better as she was trying to attract the center voters for example. While she did make mistakes she maximized every advantage that she could in ways no other establishment candidate was able to in the past.

If we are to learn anything from the 2016 election we have to give credit where credit is due. That is true for both Clinton and Trump.

 

Advertisements

Book Burning and the Left

th (5).jpg

With the recent controversies with the lefts call to remove historical statues ranging from Robert Lee, Christopher Columbus, and even reaching up to George Washington in some cases there have been some comparisons made between this and the Cultural Revolution promulgated by Mao in China. Several conservative thinkers have compared this to the period when the Chinese Communists would burn books. Make no mistake the left have been “burning books” but this is not it and it has been going on for a while now.

In the modern era there is very little merit in burning physical books. After all everything can be uploaded online within minutes. Therefore you have to achieve the same objective using different methods. When you burn books that you do not agree with what are you actually trying to do? In essence you are trying to keep information about different ideologies or perspectives away from your populace. It is a tacit admission that you think your ideas are so weak in open debate that the only way you can win the argument is to make sure that only your side gets presented. Making sure that only your side gets heard is the essence of modern day book burning. Lets take a look at how this is happening.

Youtube

From a simple site sharing videos Youtube has evolved into something else. It has in effect become a tv channel where you can watch anything you want for free. Sports highlights, Cartoons, and most important for this article news and political commentary. In Youtube there are channels that lean left and those that lean right. Young Turks and Secular Talk are good examples on the left and Louder with Crowder and Ben Shapiro are good examples on the right. The people making these videos rely on them to make a living to continue making more. Yet we have a constant stream of conservatives claiming that Youtube had demonetized their videos. Instead of getting a portion of the revenue whenever someone watches their videos they get nothing. Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Diamond and Silk, Infowars, and various other outlets have raised this issue. On the other hand very little on the left are affected.

What happens when you remove the financial reward for the right to make videos but provide it to the left? Eventually those on the right stop making them as they have to look for other ways to make ends meet. Ensuring that only voices on the left are heard.

Social Media

Everyone is on social media in some shape or form these days. It has been reported that a lot of Americans get their news and commentary from social media first before actual news stations. It has also been well documented that voices on the right have been routinely banned from twitter, facebook, and other outlets while voices on the left are not affected. Of course when you ban everyone on the right you ensure that only those on the left have the privilege of free speech. I use the term privilege deliberately here. We are entering into a society where only voices on the left have free speech while those on the right do not have it.

College

Colleges are supposed to be educational institutions where you are exposed to many different competing ideologies so you can learn about the world. Conservative pundits like Ben Shapiro used to speak in these places all the time. Yet increasingly they have been blocked as hate speech. On the administrative front they are asked to put up huge amounts of cash to pay for extra security and on the street are met with protesters physically blocking them from the venue on the day of the event itself. On the other hand you have known terrorists on the left able to speak without any difficulties.

Instead of actually confronting the ideas in honest debate the goal is to silence it so only one side is heard.

These are only a few examples. Once you pay attention to this you will see much more. We economic nationalists on the right have been fighting this tooth and nail and will continue to do so. We understand that this is more than just an isolated issue of one pundit or another but rather a coordinated assault to condemn all thought on the right as anathema. We will resist the attempt to suppress the free speech of every single person on the right with everything we have. Our elected establishment Republicans don’t even acknowledge this as an issue. Which side will you support?

The Truth: Racism in Virginia

th

In the aftermath of the events in Virginia the mainstream media were united in their message. They uniformly asked how was it possible that in this day and age this many people were joining organizations advocating for the rights of whites? This was their attempt to push the blame on the tragedy on President Trump. The truth is the answer is much older than that. Trump has only been in power for around half a year after all. The media did stumble upon the answer and it is racism.

Before I proceed I would like to stipulate two things that I think the left and the right can both agree on. First that there is a difference between how wealthy people are treated and how poor people are treated. You could take a person who hates African-Americans and he would still be deferential if someone like Oprah told him that he would invest in his business. Police would be more likely to be lenient to someone who could afford the best lawyers no matter his color than someone who could not. Second if you target any race for widespread discrimination they will form their own groups to resist this.

Racism

When the entire issue of affirmative action was pushed into the limelight by the Trump administration the Democrat controlled media was quick to point out that it was not because of minorities that Asians and whites were losing out on university slots it was instead due to other whites. They argue that whites tend to be legacy admissions and have a much higher rate of being accepted into the alma mater of their parents than other people. What the media misses here is that these legacies are all uniformly wealthy. After all the entire reason universities give them special treatment is to get donations from their parents. Rich white people have the legacy back door. Minorities have affirmative action and scholarships which exclusively cater to minorities. What do poor white people have?

This is not limited to education. Consider criminal justice. If you get arrested and you happen to be African-American or any other minority it is very likely that there is an organization whose sole purpose is to provide representation for you. If you are a rich white person or a rich person of any color for that matter you have access to the best legal talent money can buy. If you are a poor white person what do you have?

How about employment? If you are a rich person then you are most likely doing the employing yourself. If you are a minority then you have a better chance than average since the employer would like to prove that they have a diverse working environment. What about if you are poor and white? For that matter if you cried racism when you are poor and white what would happen? How hard would people laugh?

I do not deny that some white people profited from racism. They were able to build their wealth on its back. What does this have to do with most white people? Is the immigrant from Ireland just as guilty as the plantation owner in slavery days? How about the poor white kid who worked in the northern factories? Are his descendents able to get a head start on life because of his work? The truth is when you tell a race of people that they do not enjoy the same rights and privileges that other races of people do they will form organizations that advocate for their interests.

Institutional

At this point I hope I have convinced you that there is a difference between how poor white people and rich white people are treated. If everyone were a rich white person then you could discriminate against them and they would not mind as they have the means to get by. Instead we have an entire class of people unfairly discriminated against. I would like to go further than that. I would like to argue that the racism poor white people face is worse than any racism minorities currently face. If I were to organize society into layers of privilege I would place rich white people on top as they were able to build their wealth thru the racism of the past and pass all the advantages to their family and poor white people in the very bottom as they were not beneficiaries of racism before and are unfairly targeted by affirmative action now.

I divide racism into two categories. Note that this is simply a personal division that I use. Residual and Institutional. Residual racism is racism that a single person may possess but is frowned upon by society. Society will try its best to stamp it out. Institutional racism is racism that is encouraged by society. This can be thru laws, social affirmation, or thru other means. A good example would be slavery when it was still legal. Very few people questioned it or even thought they were racist when they owned slaves.

Consider this example. A black person is told by a university or potential employer that he did not get the slot he was applying for partly because of the color of his skin. Society would explode. Boycotts, social backlash, and any number of other things would happen. A lawsuit would most likely be filed and government would use its institutional power to fine the offending party.

Consider another example. A poor white person is told by a university or potential employer that he did not get the slot he was applying for partly because of the color of his skin. Society would not explode. In fact with the most recent Supreme Court decision it is the law of the land. A person can be denied entrance into university partly because of the color of his skin. Society would even go out of its way to reward institutions like that for promoting diversity.

Final Thoughts

Due to its institutional nature people practice racism against poor white people all the time without realizing it. Once society decides to discriminate against the less wealthy majority of an entire race of people and shame them when they cry racism is it any wonder that they decide to fight back?

 

Proof: Leak not Hack

th (2).jpg

I do my best to make original content for this blog which is why I rarely link to anything outside of it. I am breaking this rule today because this issue is too important. I shared a link yesterday to an article providing forensic proof that the DNC files were obtained via leaks and not by hacks. The main response I got is that the article was too complicated and difficult to understand which is a fair assessment. Like I mentioned however it is too important to leave it at that. I will try to explain the article in simpler terms today.  This is a link to the article forensic proof.

In short the article claims that the speed of transfer is too fast for it to have happened over the internet. It could only have happened if someone accessed it over a LAN. This means that it could not have been a hack, done over the internet, but a leak done in person.

Transfer Speed

When you transfer data from one device to another it is slower when you go through the internet than when you transfer it in person like from a flash drive. This is mainly because of two reasons. First when you transfer data over the internet there are multiple layers of connections you have to pass thru which slow down the connection. As opposed to having a flash drive where the only connection is in between the device and your computer.  Second if you’re using the internet to transfer data it like you are making a delivery thru a crowded highway. Other users are on the road and you are only as fast as the conditions of the road will allow. If you transfer data directly from one device to another it is like you are using a private highway.

Let me provide a real world example to make things clearer. When you download porn via torrent and you only have one seeder it is very slow. Your computer has to connect with his and the speed of transfer depends on the quality of both of your internet connections. If you were transferring from a flash drive then these factors would not matter.

The forensic analysts determined that the transfer rate was 23 MB/s. It could not have been done thru the internet especially when the hacking computer is supposed to have been located all the way in Romania. Check the link provided earlier for the exact methodology used.

Seth Rich

In response to this the left will try to make this all about the murder of Seth Rich. In our hearts Republicans know that Seth was murdered most likely by the Clintons. In the same vein we also know that proof for this will never be found. By making the conversation about the murder they can ignore all the evidence regarding the leaks.

In any case we now have scientific data driven evidence available to the public that the data was obtained from a leak and not a hack.

What evidence have you seen to show otherwise?

Are Democrats Racist?

michelle-racism-02.jpg

When you talk to Democrats they will tell you that the only reason that the GOP exists at all is because of racism. Any action they disagree with is quickly labeled as racist. When you talk to Republicans they will tell you that it is Democrats who are Racist because of how their policies work in the real world. Lets take a look at how these policies affect minorities.

Christian

Meet Christian. I have retracted his last name to protect his anonymity. Christian is an African-American and his lifestyle is that of a stereotypical nerd. He studied hard in high school and managed to graduate. Due to affirmative action he was able to secure a slot in Harvard. He thanks Democrats every day for the opportunities he feels their party has given him. This is where things took a turn for the worse. He found it very hard to cope with the coursework. He was used to being the smartest kid and he was now at the bottom of the class. It did not help that more pressure was put on him with all the student loans he had to take in order to afford college. He eventually cracked and dropped out. He is now equipped to face the future with his high school diploma and a mountain of student debt.

If Christian were an Asian or White he would not have qualified for Harvard and would have gone to a less challenging university instead. He would be well on his way to graduating and finding decent employment leading to future generations of African-Americans with better prospects and economic standing.

Jamal

Say hello to Jamal. He is a typical teenager. Like girls, playing online games, and basketball. He hangs out with his friends in the weekend and picks up part-time jobs when he needs money. In short he is living a happy childhood. He thanks Democrats that they keep the racist police out of his neighborhood. One day while walking home he was shot by another youth. His funeral was last week.

The police were afraid to go to his neighborhood. They know that if a situation happened and they were forced to defend themselves against a gentle giant or some other entity their life would be turned upside down for doing their jobs. If Jamal were white the police would have been patrolling his neighborhood and would have been able to prevent the shooting or get him aid promptly after the event. Jamal literally died because he was black.

Pedro

Welcome Pedro! He is a latino born to parents who legally migrated from Brazil. He is proud to be an American and is proud of Democrats for helping bring more South and Central Americans to the country even if they have to do it illegally. Due to various reasons Pedro was not able to finish High School. He attempted to work in construction and even as a waiter just to get a start somewhere but he always found that employers preferred illegals for those positions as they could be paid less. Out of work and out of luck he eventually joined a gang affiliated with MS-13.

If Democrats had prioritized Americans like him over illegal immigrants from Central and South America he would have been able to find employment and gangs like MS-13 would have been kept south of the border.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey is a father of two. Due to some complications his wife passed away a couple of years ago. He is trying to raise his two children on his salary but is struggling. He thanks the Democrats for providing an economy with full employment and he blames the evil Republicans for keeping his wages down.

Jeffrey works as a programmer for a popular company. Since there are very few out of work programmers available his salary should have been rising pretty quickly. Instead of increasing his salary or hiring more workers his company opted to hire more h1-b visa holders instead to keep costs down. If Democrats would have prioritized him first his life would have gotten better.

Just a snapshot of four lives all ruined by the racist policies of the Democrats.

The Difference Between Wikileaks and Media

cartoon-cbo.jpg

Yesterday wikileaks released an audio recording from Seymour Hersch where he confirmed that Seth Rich gave some confidential files from the DNC to Wikileaks. The left would like you to focus on the murder of Seth but that is not the main reason why this is relevant. The most important thing is that this is evidence that it was actually a leak not a hack. It is very important to remember that the intelligence agencies have a vested interest in destroying the reputation of Wikileaks and presenting them as a Russian front as they are the only organization that has held them even remotely accountable for their actions.

The main reason for this article today is to address one issue the left brings up. Why do nationalists and conservatives believe the leaks presented by Wikileaks but do not believe the anonymous information presented by the press?

It is not hypocritical or partisan to believe one and not the other. There is a distinction between them. Wikileaks does not make claims nor does it process the data. It presents the data leaked to them to the public and allows us to arrive at our own conclusions. The people involved are clearly named and, since they are usually public figures, have every opportunity to respond.

Reporters on the other hand give us information that anonymous sources have told them or from documents that they alone have seen. They ask us to give them 100% of our trust sight unseen. To justify this trust they cite the reputations of their respective institutions. The irony of this is all of these organizations have had to retract stories just this year while Wikileaks maintains its perfect record of never having to retract a single story since it was founded. Even on the standards that the media want us to use their credibility pales in comparison to Wikileaks.

When presented with an organization that presents the data to us and allows us to reach our own conclusions as opposed to one that insists on doing our thinking for us it is not strange for there to be higher trust placed in Wikileaks.

It is not a conspiracy, people being uneducated, or any other reason the left gives to explain away unwanted truths.

Pandoras Box

319e3d9c6839dbe632744892ca6bd60b--political-views-political-satire.jpg

Democrats have opened Pandoras box with their Russia narrative. Earlier republicans would have already fallen all over themselves in apology. They would have prostrated themselves at the altar of biased fake media in the hopes that they would be spared the wrath of CNN and MSNBC. We are not the previous generation of Republicans are we? If they hit us we hit back twice as hard. If CNN and MSNBC throw their hat in the ring for the Democrats then we marginalize them and diminish their power. The Democrats want to investigate Russia collusion so we should oblige them and investigate Russian collusion. The Trump administration has already started on this by requesting investigations on who funds certain environmentalist groups. That is not enough. We have to expand this to others. As Hillary Clinton would say after the last week in Haiti “Let the bodies hit the floor”

Environmentalists

As mentioned the Trump administration is looking into this already. The Russian economy is based on oil and natural gas. The higher the price for these goods the better the Russian economy does. Certain environmental groups are exerting effort to prevent the US from using fracking and other efforts to produce natural gas. If they are successful this means that there would be a lower available supply of natural gas and the US would not be able to compete with Russia in the Visegrad markets. Pushing the price of gas higher makes the Russian economy stronger and allows them to bully the Eastern European countries.

We have to look at environmentalists who push for this and see if they are funded by Russia.

Iran

The Iran deal gave billions of dollars to Iran and eased sanctions on Iran in exchange they agreed to some inspections they may or may not comply with in the future. This deal has been very beneficial for Iran while it has not been for the US. The primary ally of Russia in the middle east is Iran. Anything that benefits Iran benefits them as well.

We must take a look at the people who supported the Iran deal and check for funding from Russia.

Military

As everyone knows the US and its NATO allies bordering Russia rely on the US military remaining strong in order to combat the Russian threat. Democrats are mainly against any increase in military spending. We have to check and see if any of them are funded by Russia and are working for a weaker US military.

These 3 scenarios are just the start. Illegal immigration advocates could be setting up a situation like the refugee crisis in Europe to weaken America using Russian funds. The Paris treaty gets funds from developed countries like the US and hands it to “developing” countries like Russia. This is an instance where Russia could directly be receiving funds from the US. We have to investigate the people who support that deal for Russian funding.

The Democrats want Russian hysteria. We should give them Russian hysteria.

 

The Truth About Obama

th (11).jpg

It is always difficult to discuss a recent President objectively. If he is a Democrat they would like him because he pursued the liberal agenda and if he is a Republican they would like him because he pursued a conservative agenda. He would then be hated by the other party for the exact same reason. When I write that Obama was a terrible President, I say it not because he pursued a globalist agenda which I am against, but rather how he pursued his globalist agenda.

Once you observe the various agreements Obama pursued you can see the general pattern he uses to strike major landmark deals. He would pick an issue and then give so much benefits up front while requiring so little back that the other party that they would have to be stupid not to agree. To make the deal defensible there would be some sort of commitment the other party would have to make in the far future but the US would have no way to force the other party to comply. After all the benefits have already all been given up front. In essence all of the landmark deals he made were just to improve his image while providing no benefit to the United States.

Paris

Let us go thru some of his agreements to see Obama in action. The most popular would of course be the Paris agreement on climate change. The fact that he did not go thru the senate already makes this suspect as it would be easily cancelled.

As everyone knows Paris was supposed to get a commitment from all its signatories on how much they can reduce emissions every year. Once you take a look at the actual commitments you will realize one thing. The United States is one of the very few countries that actual put forth a meaningful commitment and is sticking to it. If you look at countries like Germany, India, and China they are actually increasing emissions not decreasing. The US is one of the very few countries that are actually decreasing its emissions.

In effect Obama pushed for a deal which limited US industry and promised billions to developing countries. In return he got a commitment which countries had no incentive to keep.  Of course getting that many countries to agree to free money looked good to the press and got good coverage.

Iran Deal

The Iran deal returned billions of dollars the US froze to Iran, allowed Iran to continue enriching Uranium, and promised to lift economic sanctions in the future. In return Iran agreed to inspections from the UN. Inspections that they will be forewarned about from a organization that has a vested interest in giving them a clean bill of health to keep the peace.

I don’t think I have to explain any further about how this was another deal which America paid a lot for but was just a way to generate positive coverage for Obama.

Compare this with the carrier deal for President Trump. Yes it did generate positive coverage for him and yes incentives were given. But those incentives are contingent upon maintaining a certain level of employment in the state of Indiana. If carrier reneged on the deal they would not get the incentives. If Iran reneges on this deal we are not getting the billions back.

A good leader makes decisions that may be unpopular now but is necessary. Take Truman and the nuclear bomb for example. He knew he may be condemned by history after he used the bomb but he still made the choice to do so because he wanted to save American lives that would be thrown away in an invasion of the home islands. On a personal note I think this may have saved Japan as a country as well. Resistance like they showed in Okinawa and Iwo Jima would not have left enough Japanese afterwards to continue having their own country. You can even see this trait with Trump. There would be nothing easier than to join the rest of the country in condemning Russia. The media and all the politicians would all join together in praising him. Yet we would ruin our relationship with Russia and Trump knows we would need them as leverage on China in the future.

It is not a coincidence that the democrats lost the greatest number of seats they ever did under Obama.

 

4th of July: The Hypocrisy of Hate

th (9).jpg

Another year and another celebration of Independence day. My peeve about this day is that it is the day liberals come out of the woodwork to complain about all the “terrible” things America has done in the past. I put the word terrible in quotation marks because it is precisely these actions which allow Americans to enjoy the standard of living they do now.

Liberals hold America to an impossible standard. Particularly when you consider the actions of other countries in that time period. If you were to actually follow the rules prescribed by those who complain about the actions of America in the past the country would have never become anything more than a minor power and would have most likely failed completely. For this article I will take a look at the two major complaints that normally come up. That of slavery and the various wars of aggression the US has engaged in.

Wars

When the subject of wars come up the first thing that gets brought up is the American Indian war and the Mexican American war. This is the best place to see the impact of these policies liberals condemn America for as the America we know today would literally not exist without them. The first thing we need to realize is that the Indian nations, Mexico, and the early form of America made up of the initial colonies were distinct countries. Each with their own diplomacy, interests, economy, and people. The Indians and Mexicans were not Americans. The Indians just happened to live in the same continent.

Without these wars of expansion America would have never extended beyond the original colonies. The rest of the continent would not have remained vacant. A combination of Mexican, Indian, or Canadian interests would have taken over. Instead of one great nation spanning from sea to shining sea we would have 3 to 4 nations of equal strength throughout the continent. When we look at the history of Europe and Africa I can think of no greater evil to inflict on North America than this. The entire reason the continent has been stable and escaped the damage of the world wars is because of the relative strength of the US as compared to its neighbors.

Slavery

What would this discussion be without slavery? Everyone is against it and acknowledges how horrible it was. The truth is America would not have the economic power it now does if we did not go through a period of slavery. At the end of the Revolutionary War the US was bankrupt. It had no money to pay its soldiers and most of its economy consisted of subsistence farming. The government even had to pay some soldiers with land grants because it had no money.

Without slavery there would be no cotton or other cash crops. Other countries in this time period used slave labor or some form of its equivalent with their colonies so US agricultural products would not have been competitive in other markets. Without this capital the US would have a difficult time setting up other industries. In fact it would be very likely that the country would never have developed out of subsistence farming and would have been the equivalent of yet another third world country.

Think of all the good America has done for the world. Take a look at World War 1 and World War 2 for example. Without American intervention how much longer would those have lasted? Would the allies even have won? An America that did not go thru a period of slavery and expansionism would not have had the men or materiel to send over. The most likely outcome is that it would have had its own fight with the other nations in the continent.

America is America warts and all. If you are a liberal and want an America that can take the lead in Climate Change, rescuing refugees, forcing people to acknowledge there are 30 million genders, or whatever other cause you are fighting for then it would have to be an America that went thru slavery, imperialism, and all other things that you hate. The moralist America that you preach, that never existed, would never have made it out of infancy.

 

The Great Democrat Con

cc0acd311506b8e39c537c8f5bc15e0d.jpg

The Democratic party has run the most amazing con job in political history. For the longest time it has convinced the American public that it is the party that works for the benefit of the working class while painting the Republicans as evil tools of corporate greed. In reality every single one of their major policies have massively enriched the big business they are supposed to be railing against. Despite their demonization from the press and complete lack of effort in defending their viewpoints it is actually the Republicans who pursue efforts that end up helping the poor and middle class citizens.

Lets take a look at a few of the most popular Democrat accomplishments.

Dodd-Frank

I have written about this in the past. According to Democrats this was supposed to protect the economic system from the banking industry being too big to fail and requiring bailouts. In reality it increased the market share of giant backs from 25% to 63% and increased the share of 4 banks from 11% to 43%. It has devastated smaller banks causing 25% of them to close outright and creating a period in the Obama administration where only 3 new banks opened as opposed to 100’s per year under Bush. Of course since there is no competition consumers take it on the chin as well as they have more fees to contend with.

Due to their brilliant marketing consumers still think Dodd-Frank is good for them and major Democrats like Bernie Sanders still want to continue this policy even after seeing its effects.

Obamacare

Obamacare was billed as a way to deliver affordable quality healthcare to every man , woman, and abortion in America. It was supposed to lower all premiums, let everyone keep the same doctor, and let people with existing illnessess benefit from insurance. The insurance companies complain about Obamacare but in reality they have more than doubled their profits under this system. In exchange for their doubled profits they have delivered massive premiums and sky-high deductibles. People were indeed covered but deductibles are so high very few people could use their insurance effectively. After all there is no incentive to provide quality insurance when the government holds a gun to your head and forces you to purchase it. In most cases you are forced to buy it from an effective monopoly.

Illegal Immigration

Democrats have always been big supporters of illegal immigration. The cynic in me says they do it for voters. Others will say because they want to help the poor citizens of South America and other places. Whatever the reason the policy depresses income for those who make the least.

Labor like anything else is a commodity. As with any commodity when there is plenty of supply its value drops. Illegal immigration increases the supply of labor massively undervaluing the labor provided by citizens. The concept is similar to plantations importing slaves in the past because they could not make the same profit paying citizens fair wages.

It is very sad that Republicans are too shy to point out these failures of Democrats enabling them to continue misleading their public about their image.