So Funny!

border wall
sarcasm

Maybe we can make a replica of this border wall on our southern border. It actually has an understated beauty and millions of people visit it each year. They make money off of this border wall and it’s a national attraction, in China, nonetheless, it’s a tourist attraction. The funny thing is that the government is fighting over essentially what is currently in place and the combatants have all, one time or another, voted in favor of placing, repairing or replacing the exact same thing that they are arguing about. It wasn’t immoral in 2010, why would it be now? Why would you want to tear down an existing barrier and replace it with another barrier that would be just as effective or ineffective, however you glass full option points you toward. People are going hungry folks. Just replace the parts that are in need. Use the other part of the funding for more sophisticated methods, like building a real life Spiderman that will catch the drug dealers in his web, lol, we’re not there yet. Compromise is good for the soul, it also will put food on the table for many. These people will not be alright if you prolong this. They will not be ok. It’s difficult buying food without money. I know.

Be consistent in how you vote or how you represent the people. It’s not your view you are representing, it’s your constituents. While I get it, we all get upset at the person in charge, you want to maintain your principles and your representative views. If you decided prior to update, replace, or fix the barrier where it wasn’t effective or it was dilapidated, then stick to that. You shouldn’t change your views as the person who heads the Oval Office changes. The American people are looking for consistency and efficiency. There will be items where you will disagree and then you can stick to those principles and your constituents will thank you for it. But if you had already decided that you weren’t going to just build a whole brand new wall, which I think is a waste of money, then stick to that.

Update: Both sides have made their case, I still remain confused. Is it the money being spent that they object to or is it that it will be 30 feet tall, not that 30 feet will make that much of a difference. I agree that stopping people that feed off of other people’s misery for a profit is a must, i.e. people and drug smugglers and anyone else and I guess people that throw temper tantrums… maybe, but I don’t quite know where they disagree? It was too general of an argument from both sides to see what is holding back a compromise. The President is a better speaker when he is extemporaneous, Pelosi seemed like she was resolute, Schumer is from New York and after reviewing his argument, it seems that they both believe in effective border security and the problem is what they believe would be effective measures. I say open the government for two months on the agreement that they will come to an agreement and work towards a compromise. Illegal citizens make up less than 1% of crime statistics, so if the argument is, they’re just coming here to commit heinous crimes, then that might not be enough to sway reasonable people. It seems to me, that since this is how they support their families abroad, committing crimes would be counter intuitive to their needs and goals. I do agree though on stopping smugglers. I hate to say this, it generally isn’t people that just immigrated that take this country for granted, it usually is people that have enjoyed it’s freedoms for a lifetime. We don’t know how good we have it because we don’t know how bad we can have it. I leaned towards the Dems argument which seemed to be a more grounded argument. That being said, we should have permanently disturbed any drug smuggling coming over the border by now and with that being said, most drugs come by air, sea and even underground (tunnels) then it comes through land that is not a port of entry, so unless we can make the wall go 30 feet under the dirt, float on water or levitate, it will have hardly any impact on drug smuggling. I think an honest assessment of the southern border should be done and IF there is any sections that actually need a barrier rebuilt, then I think it would be a good idea to allow the campaign promise to become realized, because increasingly, it almost seems it’s about full filling a campaign promise against not allowing that campaign promise be realized.

So Funny!

border wall

Maybe we can make a replica of this border wall on our southern border. It actually has an understated beauty and millions of people visit it each year. They make money off of this border wall and it’s a national attraction, in China, nonetheless, it’s a tourist attraction. The funny thing is that the government is fighting over essentially what is currently in place and the combatants have all, one time or another, voted in favor of placing, repairing or replacing the exact same thing that they are arguing about. It wasn’t immoral in 2010, why would it be now? Why would you want to tear down an existing barrier and replace it with another barrier that would be just as effective or ineffective, however you glass full option points you toward. People are going hungry folks. Just replace the parts that are in need. Use the other part of the funding for more sophisticated methods, like building a real life Spiderman that will catch the drug dealers in his web, lol, we’re not there yet. Compromise is good for the soul, it also will put food on the table for many. These people will not be alright if you prolong this. They will not be ok. It’s difficult buying food without money. I know.

Be consistent in how you vote or how you represent the people. It’s not your view you are representing, it’s your constituents. While I get it, we all get upset at the person in charge, you want to maintain your principles and your representative views. If you decided prior to update, replace, or fix the barrier where it wasn’t effective or it was dilapidated, then stick to that. You shouldn’t change your views as the person who heads the Oval Office changes. The American people are looking for consistency and efficiency. There will be items where you will disagree and then you can stick to those principles and your constituents will thank you for it. But if you had already decided that you weren’t going to just build a whole brand new wall, which I think is a waste of money, then stick to that.

IT’S NEVER EASY TO DETHRONE THE KING

the king

I can smell it. I can see it coming. It’s not all that strange of a story. People are foaming at the mouth at the chance of challenging President Trump for the Oval Office and they are going to make a crucial mistake, over confidence. While President Trump’s style of tit for tat makes him vulnerable, he has made some in roads that other presidents have refused to address. Trump has renegotiated several pacts, all the free trade pacts, and tackled China when no one would even try. He has also cracked down on illegal immigration, albeit I liked the old way better, but that plays strongly into his base and even leaks to some moderate lefties. He is getting us out of costly wars and the stock market seems to have no ceiling. People might disagree with his New York attitude towards civility, basically meaning civility is for the dinner table and no where else (please pass the potatoes), but that might not be enough to dethrone the king. He does have some weak points, climate change and immigration and the Russia debacle, but will that be enough to oust him in a robust economy? I don’t know that it will be. I will say though, if someone had stolen his phone or changed his password on twitter a long time ago, he would have a way better chance of getting re-elected.

There is one person that can definitely beat him, and it isn’t Joe Biden, sorry Joe, can’t call you a guarantee, bu there is one….. There’s always one.

Political Running Mates

Sarah Palin

I have wrote about who I think has the best shot for the Democrats. If one of those people get selected, they’re going to need the right running mate. We all know how important good running mates can be, they can make or break your candidacy. For some candidates, the right running mate is vital, Sen. Harris, and for some they have some leeway, Sen. Sanders. I have my opinions,

Rep. Gabbard – Since she is a frog’s hair from being a Repub, which I like, her choice should be a person with experience, a little older and someone with whom the voters can relate. Tom Steyer comes to mind. Billionaire Dem who had political ambitions but never really put himself in. This might be the perfect opportunity for a grand entrance.

Sen. Harris – Since she comes from the most liberal State in the union, her challenges are going to be to win over some red states or even purple states. She would need someone to the right of her that can appeal to those states that are teetering at the fulcrum of red and blue. The person I have in mind would likely not be her choice but she needs a Repub turned independent. A person that shares most of her views especially on immigration, Former Senator Jeff Flake or Beto O’Rourke, a Dem from a red state. It’s an out of the box choice but one that will work out well.

Sen Gillibrand – Since she comes from NY, the toughest state in the country (by reputation), then she might want to keep that trend. If Sen Booker does not get the nod in the primaries, he would be a perfect fit for Sen. Gillibrand. Smart, born in D.C, went to college in California, represents NJ.

Sen. Sanders – If Bernie gets the nod, his running mate is easy. He has to pick a woman that’s tough, can pull in Repubs, and can handle a debate. Two women come to mind, Rep. Gabbard if she doesn’t get the nod or Rep Abigail Spanberger that just won in a red district. Both of these women have some amazing background stories that can  and will guarantee his victory.

WHO HAS THE BEST CHANCE FOR DEMOCRATS

 

These are who I believe have a shot at taking the White House if The President’s momentum on the economy takes a downturn.

Tulsi Gabbard – Congresswoman from Hawaii and combat veteran who is as close to the middle as you will get for the Democrats. The one knock would be her age. At 39, her age at time of election, she would be the youngest person ever elected and experience will play a factor but maybe not against President Trump who is brand new to politics but not the presidency. The plus, she will be 39 and have a forward thinking mindset. She would also have almost 20 years of government work by that time and did I mention she is a combat veteran, a Major in the armed forces, that’s awesome. Her salutes come with more experience than most men have.

Kamala Harris – Senator from California, Ms. Harris is a skilled and seasoned former State Attorney General. Don’t let her effervescent smile fool you (not pictured) , she is extremely smart, tough, and a no nonsense of a person you will ever find. She is quick witted and insightful. The knock, she is from California. The only person to be elected to President from California was Ronald Reagan and he was a Repub, which might be the only way that can happen. Oh, and Herbert Hoover, he was a President right? If she was from… lets say…. anywhere else, she would have been guaranteed a victory. If Ms. Harris can pull off a victory, then she would have done what no man (I know she is a woman, every person with an eyeball knows she is a woman, I’m bringing attention to her ground breaking style) has ever done, be a Dem from Cali and win the Oval Office. Ms. Harris will smile and ask a question and by the time you answer she will have you admitting that there is no back door to politics and that she is the best candidate. Ms. Harris will have to pick a running mate from a State that can offset that problem. She should be careful who she aligns herself with because she will need the right people or it could kill her campaign.

Kirsten Gillibrand – A tough lawyer turned politician, Ms. Gillibrand is a natural leader. She comes from a state that has long history of taking the Oval Office. And who wouldn’t love to see two New Yorkers, Sec. Clinton was more midwest in temperament, go at it. Being from the same state as the current President, she would pose some very real challenges to President Trump.  The knock, she really isn’t that known, which I think is a plus, but her name recognition isn’t quite up there as Biden, Harris, or Sanders. The plus, well, you ever argued with an intelligent woman from NY? You have a better chance of winning the lottery twice on the same day then winning that argument.

Bernie Sanders – If it wasn’t for the debacle, lucky for President Trump, with the DNC, Sanders would have been President. The knock, the opposite of Gabbard, his age in the opposite direction. Sanders is a tough Senator that stands for what he believes and that’s to do the right thing. A motto that he carries on his sleeve. I voted form him in the primaries but was overruled by a bunch of dumbasses. If he shows some liveliness in a campaign, I think he can get it done. The plus, well, he is freaking Bernie Sanders, a man that got carried away by the police protesting injustices and the only person on the Dems that could have beat all the Repubs in 2016. There’s a bunch of Bernie’s, but only one Bernie Sanders. Feel the Bern, and let’s not forget his followers, the Bernie babies. This is the closest you get to Political stardom, and the whole time, Bernie remained humble and true to himself.

By the way, I’m a moderate, I believe in choice, from abortion to gun rights (oddly not marijuana). These candidates, most of them are centered and believe the same thing. I like middle of the ground politicians because I feel they can win over both parties and actually get stuff done.

How Can You Justify Legalizing Drugs

overdose

With legalizing marijuana becoming the movement of today, the New York Times wrote an in-depth review of what happens when people do drugs, attached below. What becomes apparent to me, my first thought, is how can legislators complain about these people if they are allowing the legalization of hallucinogenic drugs, (report from the National Institute of Health) into our society. The double edged sword of wanting to legalize drugs but then complaining about the what that legislation will lead to is nothing short of ironic. These people, that no doubt a majority started with marijuana, graduated to opioids. Very rarely do people start with hard drugs, the usual pattern, whether you want to admit it or not, starts with cannabis. My thoughts are if you don’t want your child to end up lying on the street with the possibility of overdosing on drugs, then applying stricter laws on mind altering drug should the more common sense approach. Revenue should not serve as a guide to decision making because in the end it will cost more than you will earn from these products to clean up the mess. If marijuana had a possibility of only having positive side effects, like alcohol, then I would be all for it. Alcohol, wine in particular, if taken in moderation and responsibly, will actually prolong your life, make you healthier. Marijuana has negative side effects from the the first puff as it damages lungs right away, albeit minimally, in prolonged use, even in moderation, it will shorten your life.