Friday, May 27, 2016

The Stuff of Nightmares

Sources for Johnson and Trump photos, all others are public domain.
There has been a bit of talk around the virtual water cooler at work concerning this year's Presidential race. I know some folks who are nominally Democrats (hey, it is Rhode Island after all) who don't much care for Shrillary and are uncomfortable with Comrade Bernie. Up North in the ancestral homeland I have any number of friends, family members, high school classmates, etc. who are simply ga-ga about Comrade Bernie. Whenever I mention something unfavorable about Comrade Bernie on Facebook, I get at least one "Feel the Bern" comment in response. Yes, you know who you are, there's more than one of you, I know.

Now I am a native Vermonter. Born and bred in the Green Mountain state and (used to be) proud of it*. Not so much anymore. I just don't understand the attraction of that aging socialist loon. No, I don't like him, not at all. He's another failure who somehow thinks that socialism (or communism if you will) could work "if only the right sort of people were in charge." Of course, I understand that he thinks that Castro and Chavez are the cat's meow. I guess it's because of the economic powerhouses and bastions of human rights Venezuela and Cuba have become.

(What, they're not? Sorry, my bad...)

Now that Libertarian fellow up there (one Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico) I had never heard of until this past week. I caught a blurb of an article indicating that he thinks we don't need aircraft carriers anymore. My first thought was "What a complete idiot." My second thought followed much along those lines only with more profanity. Then I did actually think about the efficacy of the modern Nimitz-class (and soon to be commissioned Ford-class, yes, I hate that name) in these modern times. Ooh, China, big bad ship killing missiles, etc., therefore we don't need carriers, the Chinese will just sink them. (I hear that from time to time, it irks me.)

My fourth thought (after careful cogitation vis-à-vis the carrier issue) followed much along the lines of my first and second, though with perhaps a bit more profanity than was absolutely necessary. Or polite.

What exactly is a Libertarian? Well, the source of all knowledge says: The Libertarian Party is a libertarian political party in the United States that promotes civil liberties, non-interventionism, and laissez-faire economics and abolition of the welfare state. No, I am most assuredly not a libertarian. I'm more of a monarchist. As long as I get to be the monarch. Otherwise color me as a generic conservative. Though I probably would support Robin Lee as emperor. He has interesting ideas and a bizarre sense of humor. Something I would require in a sovereign.)

So who would vote for this Johnson fellow? Those who are not Democrats but cannot abide "The Donald." Who is the presumptive Republican nominee. So in reality, by not voting for "The Donald," they are sort of voting for Shrillary. Who is the presumptive Democratic nominee. One might argue that those who won't vote (as a protest against "The Donald") are also voting for Shrillary.

Politics is confusing. It upsets my stomach and makes my head hurt. We hates it...

I have been reading about the various polls, predictions, prognostications, entrail-reading, and tea leaf scanning concerning the Presidential races. And found the following to be of some interest -

(Source)

So if it's "The Donald" versus Shrillary, can you say "Madame President"? She also beats Cruz (who certain colleagues of mine refer to as "The Devil." Seriously, why don't people like the Tedster?)

Now Kasich would beat Shrillary in this poll. Not that close either. I am puzzled that I know next to nothing about Kasich. Other than one of my colleagues assuring me that "he would make a good President." As the chap voted for Obummer, twice, I can't say I am altogether confident in his judgement as to who would make a good President. (In his defense, he now regrets voting for The One, the second time anyway.)

Of course, Comrade Bernie beats "The Donald," Cruz, and Kasich. (No, not all at once, that would be silly. Not to mention probably illegal. Each party gets one candidate. So I'm told.)

So why are the Dems so high on Shrillary? Is it because it's "her turn"? Is she the heir to the Obama "legacy"? (Whatever the Hell that is.)

Why are the establishment Republicans so down on the Trumpster? I mean I understand it at some levels. The man is a bit of an ass, a demagogue, and I don't really trust his judgement. He's no statesman. Admittedly I have a deep distrust of businessmen. Oh, maybe that's why the Republican Establishment doesn't care for him. In truth, he ain't one of them. Maybe that's a good thing? (I have no love for the Republican Establishment. Bunch of know-it-all and RINOs.)

So Sarge, who would you prefer to see as the Republican candidate? Glad you asked. This guy:
Louisiana Governor Piyush "Bobby" Jindal

I had the opportunity to listen to a long interview with him on the radio whilst traveling to the ancestral homeland to visit Madame Mère. I was impressed with him, truly I was. (Even though I found his support of Common Core somewhat baffling. Meh, we all have our faults. Won't be me casting the first stone!) Yes, you're right, I shan't be holding my breath awaiting a Jindal run in 2016.

So those are the players. One colleague finds the prospect of a Trump Presidency terrifying. His candidacy and his behavior smacks of something from 1930s Germany. His fiancée's Dad survived the Holocaust. She refuses to watch the news anymore. As an amateur historian who has studied that period in depth, she has every reason to be nervous, at the very least.

Same colleague figures that Shrillary would be a horrid President, in fact, he figures she'll be impeached and then imprisoned within her first year in office. If she gets that far. Some of us think that she'll be indicted sometime this summer.

But then who will run for the Democrats? The Democratic Establishment has no love for Comrade Bernie, who, as I mentioned above, isn't really a Democrat.

So perhaps a four (maybe five) way race. Johnson, "The Donald," Shrillary, and maybe Cruz or Kasich running as independents. Hell, the Comrade might go that route himself. (A six way race for President? What are we, Europe? No, not yet. But close.)

What's my nightmare? Joe "Junior Mints" Biden steps up to the plate at the last minute and offers himself to save the Democratic Party.

The voters, totally confused by the sight of Shrillary in an orange jumpsuit (issued by the state), "The Donald's" weird looking orange hair, Comrade Bernie's increasingly ludicrous promises of "free stuff" (for which someone has to pay, even the Sandernistas will figure that out eventually) and everyone wondering why Cruz and Kasich are still campaigning, will throw their reluctant support behind the Vice President. Even though they wouldn't want him anywhere near their daughters.

The outcome (in my nightmare) looks like this:



Hail President Biden!


Oh, and the Special Advisor to the President. Of course.


Yeah, the stuff of nightmares.

Though Biden isn't looking all that bad, considering the others.

I think he'll come out of the woodwork and soon. Should be interesting.

Of course, if Shrillary doesn't go to jail, then she wins and we will know that the fix was in from Day One. If she gets elected, I might actually miss The One.

Nah, that won't ever happen...






* Rather like I used to be proud of the Air Force. Sigh...

26 comments:

  1. A vote for Johnson is a vote for Shrillary.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Take not the counsel of your fears. Take care of the little things and the big things take care of themselves. https://youtu.be/SJ2hJezvd2I

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm surprised nobody in the media initialized Jindal.

    As for Vermonters backing whatshisname, I chalk it up to parochialism and the fact he has no real track record running anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Darn tablet!
      It was supposed to say - initialized Jindal to "PBJ"

      Delete
    2. I think you're right on the Vermonters, no other explanation makes sense.

      Delete
    3. Just so you know, Piyush, like limberger, is fine at a distance but gets stinky and obnoxious when you get close up. I say that as someone who voted for him a few times, thought highly of him, spent some time with him, learned he is shallower than Lake Ponchartrain. He is as bad a public servant as has ever existed in Louisiana because he is sodden with desire for power above all else. The only real difference between him and The One is no difference at all - they simply pander to different groups but their pandering for power is cut from the same cloth.

      RAS

      Delete
    4. Interesting. It's good to get reports from the folks who are actually on the ground in a politician's home turf.

      I've only seen him from a distance. Thanks for the report RAS.

      Delete
  4. Someone who I greatly respect told me recently that he believes that Obama is just waiting for Bernie to be eliminated before the Democratic convention at which point he will direct the Attorney General to immediately indict Hillary. At that point he announces that Biden is the only possible compromise candidate. (And I think that Fauxahontis would be the potential VP) Considering all the other devious things that have emanated from the Oval Office in the last eight years this has a certain credibility.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the scenario that haunts me.

      Delete
    2. I am afraid there is some plot afoot that would work to Biden's ascendency. I am not going to commit to the internet what I think it is, but I'm watching, with dry heaves on occasion.

      Delete
  5. “It may be necessary temporarily to accept a lesser evil, but one must never label a necessary evil as good.”
    ― Margaret Mead

    Sums up this election for me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. There are some interesting op/ed pieces out there today:
    1) Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds) has a "modest proposal" (and yes, I thought that title quite clever of him);
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/05/26/donald-trump-imperial-presidency-obama-executive-action-order-power-column/84907556/
    2) Peggy Noonan, WSJ;
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-embodies-washingtons-decadence-1464302560
    3) Kimberley Strassel, WSJ (one of my favorite columnists)
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-rakes-the-clinton-muck-1464302380

    If a Democrat takes the WH, be it by outright win or by third party taking votes from the Republican, we will see an expansion of federal hegemony, the SJWs will continue to ramage through our social institutions, and the SCt will obtain a solid liberal majority for at minimum the next 30 years (presuming that newly-appointed justices may be in their 50s and serve into their 80s.)

    I suspect that the country will survive a Trump presidency (as Reynolds suggests, he'll be paddling upstream with any policy changes), after all, we [so far] have survived Obama [although just barely].
    I firmly believe that the country, after another 8 years of destructive liberal policies, will not survive in any form recognizable to us elders.
    But, I'm an elderly & cranky curmudgeon, so what do I know?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought that the Reynolds article was brilliant. Sad but he's right. The Noonan and Strassel articles are behind that pesky WSJ pay wall. In addition to being (like you claim to be) a kinda-elderly and cranky curmudgeon, I'm also cheap.

      I know we'll survive Trump. Shrillary or Comrade Bernie, nope, that's the death of the Republic. How very Roman of us.

      Delete
    2. You let a paywall stop you?
      I used to have a WSJ print subscription, but the third year they raised it to the "regular" price, so I dropped it. A few months later, I got a solicitation to give a gift subscription (at a killer price), so I gifted one to my dog, Murphy (apparently, WSJ doesn't/didn't double check for identical delivery addresses.) Third year they raised it..., so I dropped it.
      WSJ permits a limited # of "free" articles (per day, maybe?) and it drops cookies on your computer to count them. So:
      1) First option: Delete your cookies*; access WSJ online; highlight article title and Google search it; click on result to open "free" article.
      Rinse, repeat. When you run into the paywall again, you can nuke your cookies again and start over.
      2) Second option: in Chrome, do Control-Shift-N to go "incognito"; this works for me sometimes, sometimes not.
      * unfortunately, killing off your cookies also destroys some of their convenient features, like remembering auto-saved logons and passwords. Tradeoffs, tradeoffs. Life is a series of tradeoffs. ;-)

      Delete
    3. Not sure why but your latest comment had to be retrieved from the spam filter.

      Pay walls nearly always stop me, my security software doesn't like cookies. All I saw at those links was a couple of sentences then a button to sign in/subscribe. I never push those buttons.

      Once burned, twice shy. Also I have my settings so cookies are verboten. Yes, it's a pain, but it's saved me a couple of times.

      As a computer guy I could get past the pay wall. But as a locked screen door keeps the honest out, pay walls keep me out.

      It's a philosophy more than anything else.

      Delete
  7. In this country and all over the world we are Keynesians. "The errors of Keynes have empowered sociopathic political classes all over the world and deprived the world of the economic progress we would otherwise have enjoyed.

    As a young man, Keynes and his friends became what he himself described as “immoralists.” In a 1938 paper called “My Early Beliefs,” he wrote:

    We entirely repudiated a personal liability on us to obey general rules. We claimed the right to judge every individual case on its merits, and the wisdom to do so successfully. This was a very important part of our faith, violently and aggressively held, and for the outer world it was our most obvious and dangerous characteristic. We repudiated entirely customary morals, conventions and traditional wisdom. We were, that is to say, in the strict sense of the term, immoralists."
    (Good ol' John wrote this as quoted from Mises.org)
    See anything familiar going on today in the Executive, Justice, Homeland Security,State Dept., etc.?
    Anyone? Anyone?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It does ring some bells.

      A new Dark Age is upon us, perhaps.

      Delete
  8. ...found an open copy of the Peggy Noonan column.
    http://patriotpost.us/opinion/42878

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It is widely assumed that Mrs. Clinton will pay no price for misbehavior because the Democratic president’s Justice Department is not going to proceed with charges against the likely Democratic presidential nominee."

      We shall see, I suppose.

      Delete

Just be polite... that's all I ask. (For Buck)