If Only Shinola Was a Choice

For my entire voting life, I have always had to choose between Presidential candidates I would rate as shitty and shittier. Mostly, I've chosen shitty but sometimes shittier based on whether I thought Congress would be R or D controlled. This election appears to be no different.

When I ask people who have professed support for Trump why they support him, I get answers like:

• He's not beholden to anyone.
• He's not part of the system.
• He tells it straight.

Nobody tells me it's because he'll build a wall, block Muslims from coming to the country or make America great again! I assume those people exist but apparently I don't know any. The wall and the Muslim blockade are actually things he could get done with a Republican Congress. I don't even know what Make America Great Again means but if he starts with a wall and a blockade then I don't like the sound of it.

Trump has claimed he's worth something like $10B. And yet he is not funding his own campaign. He is lending his campaign money. Why? Is this his latest bankruptcy plan or is there some tax angle? Regardless, he's either fucking someone over or lying about not being beholden to anyone. Even if he pays off the loans he'll be beholden to someone worth $10B. How is that any different than taking money from Shel Adelson or some other rich donor? Do you think he'll make decisions that screw himself or his kids? Get real.

Trump is part of the system; he's just always been the other part. The part that gives money for access and influence. One of the few reasonable things Trump has said (which he walked back) was that if abortion was illegal then women who have abortions should be punished. The idea that women are the victims of the doctor (or whoever is) performing the abortion would be ludicrous and bullshit. Only the delusional could promulgate such a fantasy. Likewise, it doesn't matter if you are the donor or recipient, you are part of the same shitty, corrupt system.

Trump does not tell it straight on many things. He cherry picks. He repeats false stories that could easily be checked on snopes. If you think he tells it straight, you must have your head in the sand.

If you think Trump is anything other than a shitty candidate, you are either delusional or an idiot.

When I ask people who have professed support for Clinton why they support him, I get answers like:

• A female President would be good for the country.
• She has experience as First Lady, Senator and Secretary  of State.

The first is a reasonable opinion and the second is factually correct. Clinton is still a shitty candidate.

She is a true politician. She speaks out of both sides of her mouth. She switches her public stance on issues as befits the moment. She trades access and influence for money. She is everything that is wrong with politics.

If you think Clinton is anything other than a shitty candidate, you are either delusional or an idiot.

When November rolls around, these are likely to be your shitty choices. For me, I will as I usually do, hold my nose and vote against the shittier of the two.

Is This a Time for Optimism?

The potential for a President to benefit society is extremely limited. The potential for them to fuck it up is nearly limitless.

Fit Reality

I'm pretty terrible at predicting the future. And with that in mind I'll predict these two things:

-We have already reached "peak fitness bands". I saw a lot of people wearing these last year. Now, not so much. Until they have some real, provable, life extending medical use, they are a fad that will fade into niche product. FitBit, we hardly knew ya.

-Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality. Destined to become the 3D TV of the late 2010's, both VR and AR have their uses but they are not the next mobile phone. They are more like the next...fitness band. Again, there will be niche uses but the idea that they gain any widespread usage is pretty slim.

You can laugh and point when I'm wrong.

A Month Late and a Dollar Short

The Atlantic's David Frum touches on (and mostly dismisses) the idea I discussed previously of having another Republican run as Independent. His reason for dismissing it is that the President would be "illegitimate". Let me be clear, if, in 2000, Ralph Nader would have won Florida and the House picked GWB as President, he would have had more legitimacy than he did by having the Supreme Court decide the election.

Don't get me wrong, there will be an outcry. We might even finally get rid of the ridiculous Electoral College. But if you are looking for a prediction, I'll vote for a short term burst in interest in elections and then we'll get back to our usual trickle-away apathy.

Irony

Sanders lays of 225 of his non-union campaign staffers.

You Can't Pan for Gold in a Swimming Pool

The choices are now set: Clinton as Democratic nominee, Trump as Republican nominee. If you don't things things are set then, quite frankly, you are delusional. Yet to be determined is if some other Republican will be put up with the goal of deciding the election in the House, as I mentioned in a previous post.

Now that they are out, here's my opinion on the new losers (alphabetically):

• Cruz - He's either a true hard-right, no abortion, open-carry, "states rights" guy or he's an idiot. The former is the the type that appeals most to the most die-hard, vote under any circumstance Republican. If he's that type then at least he's sticking by his ideas. If he's not then he's an idiot for thinking that doing so could win him the nomination.
• Kasich - He tries to appear to be a normal middle-of-the-road guy but aside from a couple policies, he's not. He's stayed above the fray but only because he saw what happened to those that went into the fray. The last couple weeks he seems to only be interested in eating.
• Sanders - Sanders has been a politician for a long time. He is from a very small state. He is totally disingenuous when he claims to be an outsider. He rails against politicians being beholden to special interests who give them money and yet is beholden to his donors who do not represent the majority of the country (and apparently not the majority of the Democratic Party). He thinks that the poor should be helped and that trade agreements are bad. Trade agreements are almost universally accepted by economists as a net positive for the parties involved. However, that can mean that labor in our country that is paid far more than the prevailing world wage will suffer while people in some other part of the world will benefit. Also, everyone else in our country benefits by somewhat lower prices. Sanders position is that if you don't live in this country too bad for you. If you do live in this country, it is perfectly reasonable to ask every American to pay extra to support some small segment of the population. Sanders is right that there is a problem but he offers no actual solution.

Don't take any of the above as an endorsement in any way of either Clinton or Trump. But you can take all of them, as a group, as an indictment of our current political system and how it is set up to keep both parties in power.

Do You Feel Like You're Going To Ralph?

Sanders anagrams to SS Nader and he is sinking the Democrats chances of winning anything in November.