Until Trump announced, Hillary was the best choice for one reason: She understood China up close and personal.
Don’t underestimate the importance of experience with China in the 2016 election. That would be a mistake.
Before last week, the Republicans were just another group who looked so good as fresh, delicious, perfect, unlabeled GMO. Rand Paul showed who they were made of by rejecting TPA (AKA Obamatrade), which makes the President the emperor of all trade deals.
So, Rand Paul stood out. But Paul is more “smart” than “business” and he doesn’t have experience with China. <FAIL>
Scott Walker was doing great, but isn’t in Washington. He doesn’t have a voting record to haunt him either. Yeah-boo.
Hillary would have been predictable. She would have given the forked-tongued Republicans a run for their deep-pocket money. She would have done health care right just to put her name on it (Bill Clinton’s healthcare was dubbed ‘Hillarycare’ because she was behind it.) · · · →
1. Conservatives support carrying hand guns for self-defense. Blacks in the ghetto know how important that can be. Conservatism would have wanted Trayvon to be able to defend himself and “stand his ground” also.
2. Conservatives want it to be easy to start your own business. The biggest problem isn’t having start-up money, but getting the government bureaucracy out of the way. With the FairTax.org system, for example, you could hire employees without having to pay a CPA. Just give them money, that’s it… legally. But Democrats want to punish you if you have your own business ideas or if you give jobs to your friends.
3. Bling bling. They call it “taxing the rich”, but let’s call it “hating on the bling bling”. I like bling and you should too. Democrats aren’t your friends if you’re ’boutit ’boutit and like bling.
4. With big government out of the way, you don’t need a college degree to get ahead. · · · →
“Teamwork” isn’t all it’s smacked up to be. What actually makes people quarrel is confusion about what “game” they are playing.
If we’re all playing basketball, and some guy comes along and joins the game, but he starts expecting us to follow football rules… well, it won’t be long before we start arguing. That’s because we would no longer be playing “basketball”—we’d be playing “basketball de facto football”… where we use basketball words, call it “basketball”, but, actually, it’s football.
Probably, we wouldn’t get along with that guy. He might start condemning us for “not being team players”. Actually, we are great team players, but, we’re a team at playing “basketball”, not “basketball de facto football”.
The only people who could get along with him, well, probably don’t like to call things what they are. His only friends—the “team players” as he refers to them—like to play football, call it “basketball”, and tell everyone else we’re stupid and “don’t play well with others”. · · · →
The next big division in America may be over how to deal with political Moderates. It’s become a big problem. But what caused it? Because we let the Moderate problem got out of hand, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We haven’t reigned them in properly. And using the same methods that gave them power won’t reverse anything.
On the one hand, we have the third-party voters. “I don’t like either guy, so I’m going third party! It’s about principal,” they say. Okay, but which principals? Make sure that you elect a candidate who is either 100% perfect or 100% wrong—that principal? If so, okay. But good philosophies need to work. All the ideals in the world are useless if the candidate can’t get elected. What’s the difference between a perfectly unelectable candidate and a liar who breaks his campaign promises? I’d say, the difference is typically about 45% in the polls—except Ross Perrot narrowed that gap in 1992, helping elect Clinton. · · · →