DEMO DEBATE 02/19/2020

Elizabeth Warren

The debate was 2 hours but it felt like it was only 30 minutes. After the opening bell, I paused it, got my traditional boxing snacks, and went back to watching it. It was a battle royale. I heard some people on stage say that after this debate that the Demos wouldn’t be voting for any of them but I disagree. I think this is the opening salvo to what the general election is going to be like and to my surprise, the person that I thought would most likely wither in these types of harsh, in your face, toe to toe, mano a mano slug debates was the one that came out the clear victor. Sen. Warren was straight out of the ‘hood, you know the Senate ‘hood, but nevertheless, went straight gangster (more Ma Barker less Rick Ross) on her opponents and they seemed shell shocked. It was brutal. Don’t listen to anyone, while I expect this not be the norm, it’s good practice to what you will face with your opponent. So if you got rattled and couldn’t take the heat, as the old saying goes, it’s time to get out of the kitchen. The Demos actually showed something in this debate, more to the point, Elizabeth Warren showed something, her spine is made of that same stuff they build the Space shuttle with and the Demos needed to show that, they needed to show they have uumph or is it oomph, good debate. Good luck on Super Tuesday to all the candidates.

This type of debate only worked because it was unusual. If this becomes the norm, people would get tired of it quickly.

IT’S THE END OF AN ERA (A SHORT ERA)

yang

As Andrew Yang closes out his bid for the Presidency, he will be sorely missed. As one of the few voices that had true insight and didn’t just blame his opponent for everything, Andrew showed something that is completely rare in the days of high tech gadgetry, common sense. It’s funny that common sense is as rare these days as a solar eclipse. Mr. Yang should not put his head down. He outlasted several highly regarded contenders, all by seeing the problem for what it is and finding practical solutions. If I were the top three candidates, I would be seeking Mr. Yang’s endorsement because, even though he didn’t get the nod, he has shown that he has the right answers. And if I were Mr. Yang, I wouldn’t just give his endorsement to just anyone but the person he truly feels will make the best candidate. A lot of people will be watching to see who he chooses.

DEMO DEBATE 02/07/2020

demo debate 02 07 2020

This was a really good debate. The candidates were animated but controlled. There is no easy path forward for these candidates but they certainly made a good case for themselves. If I had to describe the candidates with one word it would be:

Yang – Innovative

Buttigieg – Pragmatic

Sanders – Revolutionary

Biden – Stalwart

Warren – Energetic

Klobuchar – Tenacious

Steyer – Virtuous

It will be up to the voter to decide which one is a leader. A leader, to me, is not the person that has all the answers, I expect that they will have some, but the person that recognizes the right answer when it is presented to them and just as important, can recognize the wrong answer and be able to change course when necessary.

They were pretty emphatic in pointing out that judgement was the key, I believe that to be right. In any occupation where decision making is the priority, judgment, good judgement, is the key.

I also believe that any problem can be fixed through education. You fix our educational system, pay teachers a higher wage and, at the same time, hold them to higher standard, you can fix everything from racism to poverty. The reason why inner cities face such high rates of discrimination in the justice system is because the education system in these areas are overwhelmed. If my old stomping grounds, as they say, Paterson, NJ, had schools that were rated a 10 instead of a 1 in some cases, you would see an influx of wealth in that city because people want to migrate to where they can offer their child a better education. You fix the school system in inner cities you fix a majority of the social ills. That means more teachers, better paid teachers, more student teachers, better curriculum, more diversity, less worrying about my Hispanic child being left behind and passing him out of pity and more holding him to a standard that would allow him to thrive in the real world both educationally and morally. Teach a philosophy, not necessarily a religion, that’s up to the parents, but a philosophy that demonstrates that hard work and making the right decisions and doing the right thing is what makes us good people. I personally am a fan of Immanuel Kant, but there are many modern philosophers that can lead you down the path of wisdom. You are never too young, or old  for that matter, to learn to  do the right thing and make the right decisions.

It has always been my belief that you put the best two candidates forward from each party and the country can only benefit us a whole. I see 7 good candidates on this stage, I have my opinion, and I think it was demonstrated, as to who is the candidate who can bring us all together. That candidate might or might not have been on the stage, that’s my personal decision and that’s the way I’ll vote.

An example of some past leaders that represented the values and leadership skills that I held to be dear to me are Eisenhower, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Obama. They all had something in common, they united the country.

Iowa Dems release ‘100 percent’ of caucus vote totals showing Buttigieg ahead, amid calls for recanvass, FOX NEWS

iowa cuacus

Iowa caucus made simple.

Lol… Deja vu …. can anyone say repeat

Funny, Demos make ballots into linear accelerator relativity and wonder why they can’t get the votes in on time

Repubs show a pic and say push here.

Just give the State to Pete, he earned it. I already have a headache listening to this nonsense. You can’t run a ballot box and you want to run a country, is what people are thinking.

 

SOTU

 

LOL…. You have to hand it to both sides. The President went sans handshake (with the coronavirus out there, I’m sure it was just precautionary) and the Speaker went paper shredder (the Speaker is all about recycling). It’s good to see that they were being both medically and environmentally conscientious or is it contentious. I get those two mixed up.

IOWA POLLS ARE HERE AND I’M PUTTING WHO I THINK IS THE BEST CANDIDATE FOR THE DEMOS

klobuchar

I have my reasons and I’ll explain some….

If I were to tell you that two people got into a fight outside a bar, what is your first thought, two dudes got into a fight. That’s the way it is. No offense to my brethren but we had it so good for so long and women had to struggle for everything for such a long time that evolution has made them the savvier, smarter ones. We lock ourselves out of our house, guys try kicking down the door, women call a locksmith. We get lost, dudes say I’ll find it, women use google maps (they ask for help). We can’t open a pickle jar, guys hanker down and use all there might even if it means we don’t eat because there is no fucking way this pickle jar is going to withstand my awesomeness until we decide its defective and throw it away and go buy another, women use a butter knife to break the vacuum seal and open the jar. This is the evolutionary process. Men haven’t really evoluted (not sure that’s a word but I’m a dude so we’ll make it one now) because we have been the dominant ones for so long, women have adapted and overcome their hindrances which were mostly dudes not opening pickle jars (a metaphor) to become the better adapted beings. For these silly reasons, which are actually real reasons when put into perspective, I’m voting for a female in the Demo primaries and then decide later who to vote for in the general election. Of the two women, Klobuchar is the one that can win it all and make the best President, But, I have said this before, my ESP without the N was right then, I believe it to be right now. The reason for me is that Klobuchar is hard to rattle and the election are going to be all out verbal kung fu and I think Warren can be put on her heels and made to go on the defensive, while Klobuchar could definitely deliver.

DEMO DEBATE 01/14/2020

demo debate 01 14 2020

I’m going to make this real simple. In my opinion

Buttigieg and Steyer made the best arguments to be nominated.

Klobuchar had an off night but I think she had other things going on

Warren was good but attacked Sanders in a he said she said matter that should have never made the news

Sanders is the Godfather of the Democrats but was hindered by this he said she said business

Biden needs to keep focus, he isn’t stuttering, he is actually thinking ahead too much and conflating his answers.

Messages were all the same from the candidates with Buttigieg and Steyer seeming to resonate and be steady with their message

Still though a Klobuchar presidency would be interesting

Everyone saw that there was something missing at this debate. It was sort of boring. We all know what it is  …….         ….      Yang!

Whether we like it or not, it’s a television debate and your opponent knows how to work a camera, while boring is probably best for the head of the Executive branch, people watch to much reality TV and are drawn to the person that illuminates, like a shiny penny, so either get on your game or, as we say in the northeast, forgetaboutit…. So get energetic, take a 5 Hour shot before your debate, drink 5 or 6 red bulls, make us believe that you believe what you are saying because I literally fell asleep watching the debate

And for goodness sake, no petty sh….. stuff.

DEMO DEBATE 12/19/19

demo debate 12 19 19

Let me start by saying that Demo debate was different as in that it had less people on stage than the number of cousins in my Hispanic family for the first time, that’s saying something. Most debates looked like a family gathering minus the Spanish and sangria, alright, a small family gathering minus the Spanish and the sangria and either salsa, merengue, bachata or cumbia music in the background. And of course in the debates only one person spoke at a time while, which is also a little different.

All candidates are very deserving of being on that stage and would make great leaders, in my opinion, but like in all gathering either debates or fiestas, there is always a couple of standouts. In the fiestas it could be a good thing or a bad thing, my ex-wife who could dance salsa and mesmerize you or the guy that left most of his sangria on his shirt. In these debates it’s the person that commands the stage with a mix of humor, logic and poise that leaves you wondering why this person isn’t the logical choice for President. Unlike other times when I went into a more in depth blog about these candidates on the topics, I’m going to point out some factors that impressed me and underwhelmed about these candidates. In no particular order, actually, the order you see in the picture above, I’m going to address them.

Biden –

Con: Joe might rely a little too much on his predecessor. He needs to distinguish himself or set himself apart even if he has the same mindset. Small gaffes aren’t hurting him now but in the sure to be heated debates against Trump, Trump will put pressure on him and he has to be able to maintain clarity and be quick witted, which he did show in this debate. His experience, being in Washington too long can sometimes desensitize you. No military experience.

Pro: Joe has conviction and if anyone on that stage can work with both parties, it’s him. He would be the most likely candidate to get the most bipartisan support from the congress and senate. This means that things might actually get done. His experience, being in Washington that long, he made some friends and learned a few tricks. Also, I feel that Joe would actually punch you in the nose, you noticed that I put that on the pro list. He has a backbone, like Teddy, he gives you the feeling of the kind word while carrying a big stick analogy.

Buttigieg-

Con: Pete, being as young as he is, can’t really point to too much national experience. People might worry that he will have problems dealing with the Senate or if the Senate will try and bully him because he is so young, similar to what they did with Obama.

Pro: Pete is poised. He came under fire and didn’t blink, didn’t seemed fazed, never lost his swagger, returned fire and stood his ground. Pete is also measured, he doesn’t put plans forward that he believes won’t have a shot of making it through legislature. He is ambitious but not overly ambitious, which would be a con. Pete is progressive, he has bright analytical ideas that only come with people his age and intellect. He isn’t relying on what worked twenty years ago, he is relying what would work now and in the future. Military experience, who else put their lives on the line, thank me all you want, and I appreciate your thanks, but remind people that you put more skin in the game then anyone else there, you actually put your skin on the line for what you believe. Pete is electable and he listens to the science.

The one thing I would say to Pete, we are all on a first name basis in this blarticle (a combo of blog and article or just a blah article, your decision) is next time someone questions you about your experience or touts their experience in Washington, you might want to take that opportunity to ask them if they are happy where Washington is now and if they aren’t then obviously the people there aren’t the solution and if they are then obviously they would like four more years of what they have now. Let them make that decision and then remind them that people, ordinary people, think that Washington is the problem and that they have been there for a while and call it a home away from home while your intention is to be a temporary fixture to clean things up and to get the hell out of there. I think it was a missed opportunity when Sen. Klobuchar challenged you on your experience, my answer would have been that or, noting where Washington is today with these debacles, it might have been I have no experience fucking sh*t up, just fixing stuff, maybe not in such salty language, but you get the gist. Then I would have added the part about wanting to be a temporary fixture. That was my first thought when I heard the criticism as an answer that would have gone to the heart of people touting there Washington experience, then I would have gotten the sangria from the bottom of my podium and sang “El dia de suerte”,…… maybe don’t do that.

Klobuchar –

Con: Her voice is a little shaky, she seems like she wants to yell but is holding back. No military experience.

Pro: Amy has a bunch of pros. She is a fireplug. She is funny. She has no awkward compunctions about getting in your face and telling you exactly how she feels, even though I feel she has actually been holding back a little which, if she lets those feelings out, might turn into a con. Amy points out that she has not lost an election to date. Amy is strong willed and seems like a person that gets sh*t done. Of all the women candidates left, she is the most electable and has the best chance to get elected.

If the stories are true about her throwing stuff at her employees, I was hoping that she would throw a clipboard at one of the moderators, I really don’t know that if that would hurt or not, it depends on what preceded it. One of my favorite teacher used throw chalk or erasers at students that used to fall asleep and he was a great teacher. Maybe her staff was falling asleep, and if so, that’s what you get, toma juevon, despierta!! That means please wake up. Sangria anyone??? Amy is only 59, 60 if and when elected. Young enough to go those 8 years and old enough where those clipboards just won’t have that uumph when they hit you, that they would’t hurt that much.

Sanders –

Con: Might sound ageist but, we all know where I am going with this, his age. No military experience.

Pro: Bernie is the person that started the revolution, say what you will, most of the other candidates except for Joe, are feeding off of the Bernie blue print. His experience is only a plus, unlike Joe, because he seemed to have the wherewithal to get it right the first time around 99 percent of the time. He is the father of this movement and Bernie stays the course. Bernie is also fair minded, he would take both aspects of the argument and criticize both sides equally as needed. Bernie is tough and he is fair, he is this political arenas Mills Lane.

Steyer –

I’m going to pass on Tom because I just don’t know enough about him, he was a little late to the game, or as we like to say “los que llegan tarde no toman sangria”, (really does not translate to this situation) but that is a personal decision, but he says all the right things and seems like the genuine article. It’s actually los que llegan tarde quedan sin sillas which means those who arrive late are without seats, also maybe, not the best analogy, since he was on stage.

Warren –

Con: Like Bernie, her age. No military experience. Doesn’t seem to have that punch you in the nose we’re going to war if needed mentality, meaning that against her opponent, in a debate that would undoubtedly turn nasty, I can see her get a little rattled, and unfortunately, that Pocahontas remark is going to come up.

Pros: Extremely smart. A excellent debater. Steady as a rock in her ideologies. Took 100,000 selfies. Took the Bank industry to task in a show of force Patton would have been proud of. Selfless and devoted to the country. Wants to do the right thing, will do the right thing.

Yang –

Con: Experience in Government. No military experience. Might hesitate to go take bold action against a foreign government, meaning that he might be too nice.

Pros: Experience in Government. Funny. Probably the most analytical and out of the box thinker of all the candidates. Relatable. Should be the nominee in a perfect world but we live in this one. Andrew is a remarkable talent that seemed to take this challenge on a dare but damn it if he isn’t what might exactly be needed. Andrew has moxie, (stole it from Bernie), and courage to say things that at first people seem to laugh at but then, after the sangria hangover wears off, you say, he is exactly right. But like being on a sangria hangover or stupor, most of us won’t realize it until it’s too late. President Yang, has a good ring to it.

Andrew is also the candidate that will, if not nominated, say “I told you so”, because he is right, it’s that simple, and if you don’t heed his advice, you will probably fail. Andrew is right about why the Demo’s lost in 2016, why this country will flounder if we don’t start becoming the leaders in future technology and why the economy will falter if we don’t take steps to level paying wages and force these big tech companies that utilize robots to pay a stipend or force them to hire a person for every robotic arm, even if it’s just to sit there and look at this robot do everything.

 

 

 

 

Congresswoman Tabbard’s Present vote

Tulsi Gabbard

This might sound silly but the Congresswoman’s present vote seemed to me the fairest solution that anyone running for President could vote. Congresswoman Gabbard realizes that any vote, yea or nay, would be self serving due to her aspirations of running for President and also realized that her vote would not affect the outcome, so she did the honorable thing and chose to abstain from making a decision one way or another. I know she will be called out for it but I think that she made the smart move. It shows character and wisdom from a person so young. The number one motto should always be “to do the right thing”, I think the congresswoman showed that in this instance, others might disagree.

DEMO DEBATE

demo debate 11 20 19

The Demo debate was actually better than the others. Part of it was that it did not include opening remarks, a departure from earlier debate itinerary. For some reason, I couldn’t tell you why, but it was more informative and detailed in where the candidates differed and where they were alike. For that you have to give credit to MSNBC, they found a format that worked. It could have been the deletion of opening statements, it could have been the more in depth questioning, it could have been the extended time for the candidates to answer, it could have been the candidates themselves who actually made really good points and challenged themselves on honest differences.

I agree with some of the commentary and disagree with other parts. My takeaways are that Sen. Sanders is still the most relatable candidate in the Democratic field. His mix of humor and hard nosed policy decisions stand out. Sanders is spry, quick witted and seemingly a good decision maker. The one thing that voters look at is his age. As unfair as it is, and it is, people look at his ability to do two terms as President. I, for one, don’t have a problem with it.

Mayor Pete came under the most scrutiny by his counterparts but not only did I think he handed it well, I think he got the better of the conversation. When Klobuchar challenged his credentials, he hit back by saying that you’re complaining about how things are going on in Washington but that’s where you work. When Gabbard challenged him on his readiness and judgement, Mayor Pete, well, to put it simple, he called bullshit on what she was alluding to. Mayor Buttigieg is 38 but he, along with Sen Booker, is a Rhodes Scholar, what does that mean exactly,

Mr. Rhodes’ Will contains four criteria by which prospective Rhodes Scholars are to be selected:

  1. literary and scholastic attainments;
  2. energy to use one’s talents to the full;
  3. truth, courage, devotion to duty, sympathy for and protection of the weak, kindliness, unselfishness and fellowship;
  4. moral force of character and instincts to lead, and to take an interest in one’s fellow beings.

Only 32 people from the U.S. get selected yearly, so there is a great honor in it. There is a certain vigorous rigor that goes into qualifying for such a prestigious honor. Mayor Pete also served in Afghanistan, as an intelligence officer, and he was elected as Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, which has a population of over 100,000 people. He is young in comparison to other candidates and past Presidents. Theodore Roosevelt, 42 when he took office, was a year younger than JFK when he took office, who was 3 years younger than Bill Clinton when he took office. You might have to be a Rhodes Scholar just to understand this paragraph. All were good Presidents, Teddy being the sole Republican but maybe the best of the bunch. Bill Clinton was also a Rhodes Scholar and the last President to actually balance the budget. My point here is, out of all the Presidents, the younger guys did pretty dam good. Oddly, my two favorite candidates are the youngest and the oldest in the field.

It doesn’t mean I’ll vote for them, I’m independent, I haven’t decided yet. President Trump still has a way to go before his term is up and he has to campaign but I am of the reasoning that if you put the two best people forward from their respective parties, the country can’t go wrong. Only one party has that distinction of nominating a person this time around and that’s the Demo’s, the Repub’s have an incumbent.

Sen. Harris might be the smartest person in the field of candidates. She has unequivocal logic and reasoning. Sen. Harris makes points that you can’t help but agree with because you know she is right. The senator’s problem is if it resonates with the voters and their nostalgia of what seems to be a really good President in President Obama, which seems to be leaning towards former Vice-President Biden. Her other problems were the shellacking she took from Gabbard the first time around, and I hate to say it, but the fact that she is a …well … a she. I want a female President. I want to know the difference in managing styles. It may be the best kept secret on how good a female President is or can be but there is this male hysteria that, whether we want to admit or not, makes people hesitant. People fear the unknown, they like to play it safe, it’s a natural human response. Fear is a powerful weapon. Sen. Harris has to be strong, authoritative and be a woman at the same time, not that women can’t be strong and authoritative, I’m just talking about the stigma or biases that we hold in this society. It’s completely unfair. She figuratively has to punch you in the nose and make you feel wanted at the same time. All her male counterparts have to do is… talk. If she raises her voice, people label her an angry woman or on that time of the month, if her male counterparts raise their voice, their labeled enthusiastic, committed or passionate. If she corrects you, she is labeled a know it all, if her male counterparts correct you, their labeled intelligent, at least that’s the way some people see it. Those are the biases that are holding this country back from electing a woman president.

One point I would like to make is that over 72 thousand people died from illicit drugs last year. That’s from overdoses to homicides to other factors. That’s more than all terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, I think. If you get rid of the cartels, you get rid of a lot of what is wrong on this hemisphere. If you had an idea to try and pressure and persuade Mexico to man (woman) up and that included using military factors, then, by all means, what is the military for if not to combat foreign entities of any kind to stop killing our citizens. It would also reduce other monetary and pecuniary obligations like rehab centers and prisons. Also seizing the cartels monies would be a pretty good windfall. I’m not sure what international law and foreign policy is but it should include stopping the flow of drugs in a more permanent way instead of playing the gopher pop up game. Take one cartel leader in and another pops up.

I also think Congresswoman Gabbard gets a raw deal and that Yang should get more time to speak. Yang seems like the real deal but his talk time is limited. Funny enough, it might just work out in his favor.