Like any good economist admits he cannot predict what will happen to the economy, I also admit I cannot predict politics. However, my spidey senses are tingling and sadly I have to admit that if I were to put my money on any one of the current candidates it would be...
Bernie Sanders.
Oh laugh as you might. I know he is a bona fide socialist and endorses policies that are even "too left" for most leftists, but hear the ole Captain out.
First, I cannot see why nobody else (at least to my knowledge) has pointed out the more-than-one parallels between Mr. Sanders and Mr. Obama. I say this not to be hyperbolic or because I hate Mr. Obama, but simply because it's true-
They're both socialists.
Sure Mr. Obama ran and presented himself as more of a "lefty independent," but his actions, words, and deeds in office (and his entire political career if you cared to study it instead of listening to his pablum speeches) is that of a socialist.
Tax the rich
Spend more money on the poor
Socialized medicine
His hatred for private property
His hatred for Western Civilization
Not to mention all of his affirmative action efforts to advance minorities and women at the expense of whites and males, which gives his version of socialism a particular racial and sexual flavor.
You combine that all together and you have a socialist who is no different in action, policy or voting that Bernie Sanders.
Ergo, so what if Bernie Sanders is a socialist? Our president is one too.
Two, socialism is no longer a four letter word. The Millennial generation proved that beyond a doubt in 2012. And so we must tip our hat to the long-LONG term strategy of the left to slowly but surely brainwash a generation through the schools into thinking that something like socialism is a "good thing." Ergo, while you, me, and our Baby Boomer counterparts either grew up in the 80's (knowing socialism was evil) or grew up in the 60's (only to have the Volcker Recession kick your ass into adult economic reality) and know the evils and drawbacks of socialism, the Millennials don't. They're SO brainwashed, they can't even put it together and realize that is was socialists (in the form of their teachers, professors, and leftist politicians) who have completely screwed them over in terms of
tuition/student debt/worthless degrees
a lousy economy/labor market
AND
that whole minor social security/medicare thing
Ergo, just as the Millennial idiots voted against their own best interests in 2012 (and 2008) they will most certain vote again to shoot themselves in the foot come 2016. And Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to help them do that.
Three, brainwashing and politics aside, the real reason I believe Bernie Sanders will win is (once again) something similar to why Obama won the nomination in 2008 - he's not an insider.
Well, yes, of course Mr. Sanders IS an insider. The loser is the epitome of career politician never working a real job in his life and immediately going into politics in his mid 20's. BUT the fact he runs as a socialist means he has something nearly no other politician has - honesty. And it is this honesty that effectively makes him an outsider and not part of the "established political class."
Consequently, because he's honest and forthright about his politics he at least STANDS FOR SOMETHING.
Something I disagree with wholeheartedly
Something that will continue and accelerate our decline.
Something I would thoroughly enjoy watching being implemented as it would just destroy the Millennial generation and the baby boomer retirements that heavily rely on them.
But at least something more than the self-serving pablum that is spewed from the mouths of Obama and Clinton.
And it is this, combined with the aforementioned traits of Mr. Sanders, that I believe he will get the nomination and win.
If Sanders is nominated the democrat party will be presenting PRECISELY what about 60-70% of the population wants.
1. A (reasonably) HONEST politician who
2. STANDS FOR SOMETHING and
3. That "something" is more free money at the expense of the "privileged class."
With such a candidate you'll win about 80-90% of Millennials, 80% of women, 90% of minorities, and 50% of men 30+, making it impossible for the republicans and whatever spineless, ball-less, SWPL establishment putz they decide to throw at the wall and hopes sticks.
Of course, the republicans could nominate their own equivalent of Bernie Sanders. An individual who speaks his mind. A individual who is honest. And an individual who isn't establishment republican. But republicans are already too busy shooting themselves in the foot and dumping Trump.
Alas, don't worry fellow conservatives and libertarians. The republicans will, as they always do, f*ck it up. They'll pick a nerdy SWPL square that has no spirit or character. A boring, connected establishment patriarch who's not the best candidate but "whose turn it is." And a sheepish individual who cannot handle the media and DARE doesn't get dirty and fight back.
So pour yourself a drink,
Make plans to vote with your feet
Participate in capital flight
And enjoy the decline.
http://aaron-clarey.podomatic.com/
http://www.assholeconsulting.com
https://www.youtube.com/user/AaronClarey
https://twitter.com/aaron_clarey
http://www.amazon.com/Aaron-Clarey/e/B00J1ZC350/
I will pour myself a drink, and toast the most honest candidate, Bernie Sanders. Then I'll pour myself a few more, cause the most honest is also likely most idiotic. But then again, I don't think he'll win because if you look at what is popular it is people who are attractive and content-free. An actual opinion might reflect badly on your sponsors.
ReplyDeleteBased on what I've seen so far, Bernie Sanders could win the presidency or, like Ron Paul, have a very enthusiastic supporter base but fail to gain the backing of the unenthusiastic sheeple who make up the bulk of voters. If Sanders wins both the Democratic nomination and the presidency, it will be one for these two reasons:
ReplyDeleteHe managed to successfully sell the image of being an outsider in D.C. uncorrupted by corporations or corporate lobbyists.
He promises more free stuff than anyone else, i.e. the best Santa Claus, by offering to forgive student debt and raise taxes corporate taxes to pay for the free stuff.
The clinch for him would be another massive economic downturn right before the election.
You might be right, but the Democrats might kneecap him just like the Republicans kneecapped Ron Paul with on-the-fly rule changes. Facing off against the Clinton's I wouldn't be surprised if there was some kind of "accident".
ReplyDeleteActually, the USA might be better off electing Sanders in the long run... It's more socially acceptable for the public to turn on a Jew than it is to turn on a black man or a woman, so he just might be the one to inspire the necessary revolt. ;-)
ReplyDeleteIf we must elevate a real estate tycoon to the office of president, I'd prefer Steve Wynn.
ReplyDeleteBetter the devil you know than the devil you don't, as they say.
ReplyDeleteI had thought the same thing. Your biz buddy Leykis opined some weeks ago that Bernie Sanders didn't stand a chance. He is really smart, but I did not agree. He did not give compelling specifics. The utility to the establishment in the parallels with BO is superlative and striking. I could see BilKderberg choosing Sanders of HC. If true to form as in 2008 and 2012, they will preside over our nation the first Friday-Sunday in June 2016 at Westfields Marriott Washington Dulles in Chantilly, VA.
ReplyDeleteSanders will hasten the decline, that's for sure
ReplyDeleteI actually agree with you. I was thinking of "endorsing" him in much the same way you "endorse" him here. I appreciate his straightforwardness. Of course, the odds of me actually voting in an election are about the same as me turning gay.
ReplyDeleteI despise his perspective on "family values", which seems to demand unconditional economic support that destroys the interdependency of the family, particularly the value of men. But hey: at least he's honest.
robert what, my thought also--accident.
ReplyDeleteOn the plus side, if Sanders is elected, then we won't have to deal with the slime from the Clinton machine....
ReplyDeleteYou pretty captured my thoughts so far about Sanders. The biggest difference between you and me is the level of value on his policies versus his honesty. This might be a a Millenial quality to care about honest (or purported honesty at least) than whatever political view he advocates. Too bad Ron Paul is too old, it would have been interesting if both parties had candidates our generation finds palpable.
ReplyDeleteSJW dogma is going to win it out. It'll be Hillary, the first woman president, unless Bernie comes out of the closet and wants to be the first gay president.
ReplyDelete"Take from the rich - and give to the poor" AKA - The story of Robin Hood.
ReplyDeleteAn entertaining children's bedtime story..
But - is it a viable economic policy with which to run a "superpower" country?
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/re-chocolate-bars-or-silver/
ReplyDeleteKaren: Mark Dice’s video expose of Boobus’s lobotomized mind is symptomatic of a much broader and deeper malady that manifests itself in so many areas of our culture. A few years ago, I presented my second and third year law students with the following question: “suppose all of us were to find ourselves stranded on a hitherto uninhabited island that we might reasonably expect to be our home for many years. What social conditions would you find important to foster our survival?” I was trying to get my students to see the long-term, life-enhancing importance of an environment in which the inviolability of privately owned property, respect for contractual obligations, means for peacefully resolving disputes, etc. was present. I heard no recognition of such principles from my students. Instead, they shouted out “free food,” “free clothing,” “free housing,” and “entertainment.” I truly did not expect such superficiality, particularly from seniors who were about to enter the lawyering profession. As one who has always tried to get across to others the importance of understanding causal relationships, I inquired: “who will provide these values? Who will incur the costs of obtaining them? Who will have an incentive to produce them, and what conditions must be present to foster such incentives?”
Not a single word was uttered in response to my inquiries. I was reminded of Edward Banfield’s distinctions among “upper class,” “middle class,” and “lower class” persons, their respective status determined not on the basis of wealth, but on the length of their time preferences. A widowed mother of four who scrubbed floors in order to provide for the care and education of her children would be considered an “upper class” individual. A wealthy playboy who spent his time and money in nightclub revelry, drunken womanizing, and other forms of profligacy, would be regarded as “lower class.” I also recalled the hypothetical example of a man who took a wino into a bar, put before him both a glass of wine and a $50 bill, and told him he could have either one. The wino would invariably choose the glass of wine. Mark Dice’s video shows us that while one can change the substance of the choices, the same time-preferences are at work. “I can eat the chocolate, but what can I do with ten ounces of silver?”