The Donald Part 2: Implosion

It's fascinating to see how the very things that fuel someone's rise to power ultimately lead to their downfall.  Hitler rose to the height of German politics by demonizing Jews, Communists, and Bolsheviks.  That very xenophobia that rallied the Germans around his Nazi standard ultimately led to his decision to brake Molotov Ribbentrop and invade the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa.  This massive miscalculation of the military manpower of the Soviet Union stemmed from his belief in the superiority of the Aryan race, and ultimately led to the collapse of the Third Reich.

Donald Trump faces a similar situation now.  Recent filings to the FEC show a tremendous fundraising deficit between Trump and Clinton.  Trump ended May with $1.3 million cash on hand next to Clinton's $42.5 million.  Trump himself has argued that this is irrelevant since he could self-fund from his personal wealth (more on this later), and his use of free/social media minimizes the need for campaign funds.  Regardless of his personal wealth, these recent disclosures point to a huge organizational deficit as well.  He has a total of 69 paid staffers within his campaign next to the 700 of the Clinton campaign, and he also just fired his campaign manager.  Even if Trump does self fund, his lack of campaign organization will face tremendous problems coordinating community outreach programs, running get out the vote efforts, and registering new voters- things that are crucial for votes actually materializing on election day.

Trump ran and won his primary campaign on pure ego and bravado.  That same ego has led to him refusing to reach out to RNC donors. and these financial problems.  Reports have stated the RNC gave Trump a list of 20 donors to call for money.  For anyone wondering, the process of politicians begging donors for money is exactly as humiliating as you would imagine.  Trump, who ran on the premise that he doesn't need money and that he's so great "donors come to (him)", got through three calls before he gave up.

If Trump's ego refuses to let him stoop to begging for donations, his funding won't come in the levels needed to run a successful national campaign, making it more and more likely Trump will need to self fund.  This is where it gets interesting.

Trump does not have the liquid cash necessary to fund a $500 million - $1 billion national campaign. He himself has mused he may need to "sell a couple of buildings" in order to self fund this campaign.  If he wants to continue through this campaign, he will need to put his personal fortune on the line.  It is highly likely that regardless of what happens with Trump's funding, he will lose this race.  He will lose a humiliating race to Clinton on an international level, and personally pay handsomely for the privilege. possibly ending up broke with his Trump brand irrevocably associated with racism and fringe conspiracy theories.  As we approach the GOP convention in Cleveland, I think this will become more and more apparent to Trump.  The question is what does he do about it?

If he refuses to both solicit donations and wager his personal fortune and self fund, he will financially cripple both his campaign and Republican down-ticket efforts.  This will be devastating for the GOP, potentially losing the White House, the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court all in one election. He could self fund his campaign.  This will still financially devastate GOP down-ticket races and will endanger the GOP control of the House and Senate.

He could also drop out, I'll assume with some bullshit excuse so he can save face.  A key point here is whether it's before or after the nominating convention.   Although the fallout will be different depending on the timing, either way the GOP would be in chaos, very likely handing all three branches of the government to the Democrats.

So what's the GOP to do?  I have no idea.

Nation Votes Unanimously to Return to British Rule

November 9, 2016 [WASHINGTON, DC]- In a stunning turn of events, the United States voted in a historical national plebiscite to return to British rule Wednesday after historically low turnout in the 2016 Presidential Election.  Both candidates received zero votes after they even refused to vote for themselves.  Said the candidates in a joint press conference, "We realized we are nowhere near presidential enough to hold an office once graced by men like Washington, Franklin, Lincoln, or Richard Nixon. Our bad."

"Our nation has sent a defining message," said one political analyst. "We tried taxation with representation for 200-some years and it clearly has not worked out," later adding "God save the Queen".

In an act of contrition, the Former Colonies shipped 13 tons of Earl Grey tea to Buckingham Palace aboard a freighter carrying a banner reading "Please take us back".  Representatives of the Royal Family have so far refused to comment on the story, saying only "We just broke up with India a few years back- we're not really looking for a serious relationship right now".

Da Bizness

The Service:

I'll take any VHS tape you send me and write the file onto a thumb drive for you to enjoy whenever and wherever you like.  The file will be written into a .mov format, which is readable by any Mac or Windows computer.  It will be written onto a SanDisk 32 GB thumb drive- each full 2 hours long VHS translates to roughly 2-2.5 GB of data, therefore you can expect 12 full VHS tapes to be saved onto one thumb drive.  If you have more than 12 VHS tapes, you will need to pay for extra thumb drives. 

I'm happy to work with you to accommodate special circumstances as much as I can, such as writing each VHS to multiple thumb drives, etc.

Pricing:

$20 + $8 per tape, and the first tape is free.

If you want some sort of special accommodation, I'll be happy to work out an acceptable price with you.  I'll accept payment via venmo, cash, or personal check.

Contact:

You can reach me to place an order or ask any questions at day2pj@virginia.edu.   If you need to mail me your VHS tapes, I can give you my address then.

2016 Election Part 2- Sealing the Deal

We have chaos on the right.  I think it's really hurt the GOP by putting the worst parts of their ideology on display and trump-eting them for the American public to witness.  This provides a perfect opportunity for a Democrat to swoop in in the general and win it all.  The problem there is the serious lack of exciting and electable candidates on the left.  We instead we have two, each of whom has exactly one of those characteristics.  Clinton is electable due to her name recognition and substantive experience as a civil servant.  Bernie inspires a lot of excitement among his devotees, but his far left tendencies make him tough for the general public to get behind.  In a match up of Bernie vs. anyone on the right, it's entirely possible that Bernie could win out.  But it would take us dangerously close to a Trump White House.

I cannot, in good conscience, vote any current candidate on the right into office.  I'm not particularly excited about anyone on the left.  With that being the case, my political goal has shifted from electing someone I really want into the White House to defending it from crazy people.  How can this best be achieved?

I think the Democrats could win this election right now if Bernie were to drop out of the race and instead become Clinton's running mate as the Democratic nominee for Vice President.  Clinton has electability but lacks credibility. Bernie has credibility but lacks electability (sorry, I swear these rhymes aren't on purpose).  If you combine the two into one ticket, each person would shore up the deficiencies of the other to create something much more politically strong.

At the head of the ticket you would have Clinton, who has real experience as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State.  She also has strong name recognition and she would be the first female president (which is actually a big deal). While she lacks credibility and trustworthiness with the fervent left, she is (relatively) appealing to moderate voters.  Bernie, who has earned serious credibility over a lifetime of rigorous adherence to his political ideals, would lend his trustworthiness and credibility to the Democratic ticket.  Having Clinton at the top of the ticket would also help make Sanders more palatable for the general electorate.

Announcing this early on in the process would also dramatically boost the Democrat's chances in the general.  While the right could potentially be dealing with the chaos and fallout of a brokered convention, the Democrats would be uniting early on behind a nominee and her running mate.  I should also mention that a slight variation to this scenario would be if Clinton were to win the nomination one way or another, and then have Elizabeth Warren as her running mate.  Warren's credibility would have similar effects on Clinton's campaign as Sanders would.  She would also then be the presumptive nominee in eight years (though I wouldn't say this in the case of Sanders, given his age).

Like I said, I'm not thrilled at the prospect of Hillary winning the White House.  I'm getting pretty tired of the Presidency being something passed on from family member to family member- we are a nation founded on a revolution against political dynasties, dammit.  But given the current possible future outcomes of this election, I think this may be the least terrible option.  

"It is a well known and much lamented fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

-Douglas Adams

2016 Election Part 1- The Donald

(Note- This was written before Rubio dropped out and Katich won Ohio, but I'm too lazy to go back and edit this)

The 2016 election cycle has simultaneously proved to be hilarious, outrageous, terrifying, and depressing all at the same time.  On the right, we have the rise of the Donald and the fall of the establishment, embodied by the abysmal performance of Jeb! Bush.  On the right we have Clinton vs. Sanders, the battle of dishonest and untrustworthy vs. the honest and trustworthy self-proclaimed socialist.  It'll be hilarious when the next president, and this can be applied to literally every single candidate out there, is sworn in with a horrendous approval rating.

On the left, we have Clinton and Sanders.  Regardless of whose policies you agree with more, Sanders is dangerously unpalatable to the general electorate.  Even if you like his policies the most out of any candidate out there, the vast majority of people vote on the general feel they have for a candidate, kind of like playing the word association game in the ballot booth.  The "socialist" moniker, as deserved as it may or may not be, is enough that it could sink the left's chance of winning against any candidate on the right in the general.

Clinton faces some serious issues in her perceived trustworthiness and establishment-ness, best exemplified by her email server scandal.  She also lacks charisma in that she doesn't inspire the same level of enthusiasm among her supporters that Bernie or Trump do among theirs.  Relatively few people out there, I think, would be excited by Clinton taking the White House even if she's the first female president.  I think there's a strong likelihood she will win however, simply by the process of elimination.

We'll start on the right with Ted Cruz.  The anti-establishment blue-collar-representin' GOP hopeful that went to Princeton, Harvard, worked as an advisor to George W. Bush, and married a Goldman Sachs banker.  Take a few seconds, and go google something along the lines of "Ted Cruz Hate".    Literally everyone that has had to work with Ted HATES him.  Democrat, Republican, everyone.  A direct quote from Lindsay Graham (R- South Carolina)- "If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.".  I won't spend  time going into why Ted Cruz is hated, other articles out there are readily available to give more color on why.  But imagine a President that has to work with a Congress where every single Congressman out there hates him on a personal, not even professional, level. Lol.

Let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that Marco Rubio doesn't know what he's doing.  He knows EXACTLY what he's doing.  Marco Rubio is undertaking a systematic effort to use every dollar and talking point the establishment can come up with to beat Donald Trump and mask the fact that he has no substantive experience or character to qualify him to be President.

This leaves the Donald.  The confluence of forces leading to the rise of Trump makes the weather patterns of The Perfect Storm look like a sunny spring day.  Since Obama took office, the right has adhered to a strategy of "massive resistance" (google that too, if you don't get the reference) where any attempt to compromise with the sitting President was tantamount to treason and grounds for excommunication.  This proved fairly successful- with the aid of loudspeakers like Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc. the Tea Party rose to prominence despite spouting racism coated in obfuscation like Obama being a Muslim Kenyan socialist.  The establishment encouraged this.  Why wouldn't they?  They ended up winning back both houses by refusing to disavow and even encouraging this kind of rhetoric.  Now the chickens have come home to roost and now even the establishment themselves is being skewered for their perceived lack of ideological purity.  This is exacerbated by the fact that any primary candidate on the right is now being subjected to this same level of scrutiny.  No moderate that could potentially expand the Republican voter base can pass through the primary (even more so than in previous years).  

With the Donald as the leading GOP frontrunner, there are several ways this could play out, each of which will be fascinating to watch.  We could reach a brokered convention, and Donald loses.  His supporters will be furious, likely believing that the establishment overruled the political will of the electorate.  This could lead to some sort of permanent split in the GOP into two parties, the establishment and the tea party.  With their unity dissolved, they will likely be an ineffectual political force for years to come.  Donald could also win the GOP nomination, either through a brokered convention or winning outright.  There is a strong likelihood he will lose the general because of his lack of appeal to moderates and independents.  The GOP would stay politically unified, but greatly hurt in their capacity to win future elections, as their reputation for the white upper class christians that hates immigrants, minorities, women, and the poor (very overgeneralizing here, but you get the idea) etc. will be further ingrained into the zeitgeist.  Or Donald could win it all, in which case...

...

Oh and also- Kasich is a thing, which pretty much summarizes his accomplishments in this election to date.

The End of Daesh (the Islamic State)

It's absolutely fascinating to review, in hindsight, how those that seek to conquer and control others seal their own downfalls through the very traits that led them to successful conquests in the first place.  Take Hitler as an example.  After his lightning advance through Europe faltered at the Battle of Britain, he was perfectly capable of consolidating his control over mainland Europe before redoubling his efforts to invade Britain.  Had he succeeded, the US would never have had a staging area to invade Europe, and it's possible that Europe could be a predominantly Nazi state today.

But he didn't do that.  You could make the argument that Hitler broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement (the non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union) for purely pragmatic reasons, namely the oil rich fields of the Caucus region, but there was something more to it than that.  The Nazi ideology he espoused that led to his rise to power despised communists, jews, and bolshevism.  He had always aimed to conquer the Soviet Union. Furthermore his stunning victories in Europe fed his cultivated image of invincibility and strategic brilliance, leading to his overconfidence and underestimation of the Soviet Union on the eastern front.

If any history majors out there want to chime in about how I got my WWII history wrong, feel free to let me know since I'm not claiming to be an expert.  All I mean to point out here is that the very factors that led to Hitler's rampage throughout Europe (among other things, like Russian snow) ultimately led to his defeat.

The Islamic State (Daesh) is doing something similar now.

Because of the ideological soup they swim in, I don't think Daesh has any real concept of how little power they actually have.  Daesh's initial military success through Syria and Iraq was mainly due to the fact that they weren't facing a motivated opposition force, and were able to feed off of the general Sunni's population's dissent at the Shia dominated Iraqi government and the chaos of the Syrian civil war.

Daesh truly believes themselves to warriors of God.  It was this ideological force that drove them to trample over the poorly motivated Iraqi government, and that led to their successful recruitment drive of foreign fighters.  But I think it has also left them either blind or willfully ignorant to the military realities of their current international terror campaign.

Every attack they launch at a new nation earns them another new enemy, and motivates their victims even further to retaliate.  With it's nuclear arsenal, France alone could glass (for those not familiar with the expression, "glass" as a verb refers to nuking predominately sandy areas such that the heat turns the sand to glass) all of Daesh's held territory in under a week.  If Daesh should launch an attack at the US, turning to the American public in favor of deploying ground forces en masse, the US military could steamroll Daesh in a matter of weeks.  I should acknowledge the campaign could be bogged down by an insurgency as it was in the earlier 2000s, but I'm still fully confident in our armed services to get the job done.

Or, and it will be extremely interesting to see if this occurs in the coming days, should France invoke Article 5 of the NATO Treaty designating an attack on a member state as an attack on all member states and bring the full wrath of NATO down on their heads, all bets would be off.  NATO was designed for World War 3.  The war would be something along the lines of throwing the Sun at an ice cube.

The shifting geopolitical realities created by their attacks are absolutely astounding as well.  With Iran's influence over the Shia militias fighting Daesh in Iraq, the US has begun thawing relations with Iran, one of the founding members of the "Axis of Evil" just a few years ago.  Furthermore Daesh has pledge to attack Russia in the near future.  Should an attack occur, all of a sudden Russia becomes even more militarily involved than it was before when it was just propping up the Assad regime- now they're in it for revenge.  Beijing has even offered to help France!

All of a sudden you have the US, France (if not most/all of NATO), Iraq, Iran, the UK, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the Kurds, Turkey, and probably even more nations I can't remember off the top of my head all fighting Daesh.  All once mortal enemies now united against a common foe.  I swear the next global summit will be in Raqqa, Syria, with Hollande, Putin, Obama, etc. all singing Kumbaya and roasting marshmallows over the smoldering embers of what was once known as the Islamic State.

I could be wrong about the future, things might turn out differently.  But I'm confident that with each new attack, Daesh comes closer and closer to their own demise.  Each new attack expedites the political shifting and maneuvering that is needed to end Daesh.  Each new victim creates a new quest for vengeance.  Their days are numbered.


PS.  On a tangentially related note.  PLEASE STOP FUCKING HASHTAGGING EVERYTHING.  It annoys me to no end.  Every goddamn tragedy has to have some fucking hashtag.  STOP IT.  It is slacktivism at it's worst, and it trivializes the event and what the victims had to go through.  All it is is a way for people to feel good about themselves for posting their support on social media. Stop. It.

Quick & Fun Media Analysis of the UNC Shooting

I'm currently on my lunch break (chipotle), so I'll try to make this quick.  So I can get back to my burrito bowl.  There's a news article being shared around facebook right now about the tragic shooting at UNC chapel hill- http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/2/11/three-students-shot-dead-near-unc-chapel-hill.html.

In the article, the police report suggests the the motivation seems to be related to an ongoing dispute the students had with a neighbor regarding parking.

Here's the fun part-

Their religion apparently had absolutely nothing to do with what happened.  The fact they were muslim appears to be as relevant to the situation as what genders they are, or what they were studying, yet the headline proclaims front and center that they were muslim.

The end result of this is a lot of people decrying the biased mainstream media for not covering this shooting of the muslims as a result of their own islamophobia.

The shyamala-llama twist- The article is actually preying on fears of islamophobia, not actual islamophobia.  Because the shooting had nothing to do with them being muslim, the authors prey on their  audience's fear of islamophobia to incite their audience to action.

I'm not sure I did my thought process here justice, but like i said I'm eating some chipotle right now.  Kinda distracting.

Also, it's not that islamophobia isn't real, it's just not relevant to this case.