The media's negative spin on Bernie Sanders.

The mainstream media is really downplaying Bernie Sanders's state primary and caucus wins and greatly touting Hillary Clinton's victories.  Could it be that corporate controlled media is afraid of a Sanders presidential candidate nomination?  Clinton is really the Republican-light candidate and would fit in with business-as-usual politics, therefore I am not surprised that the media is spinning a certain Clinton victory.  But I am thinking that things are not so certain.

The Republican party is so hell-bent on getting rid of Trump, but I think that Trump will disappear if Sanders gets the nomination.  This is because I still believe that Trump is a shill for Hillary.   I think if Republican party wants Trump to go away they should make sure that Sanders wins in all of the remaining states and gets the presidential nomination.

I do hope that Sanders gets the nomination because I do believe he is the only hope for saving the American middle class.  

Bernie Sanders really needs to win on Super Tuesday.

I really hope that Bernie Sanders comes through on Super Tuesday.  After not the greatest showings in Nevada and South Carolina, I am concerned for his campaign.

I think Massachusetts and Vermont will come through for Sanders, but a lot of the states voting on Super Tuesday are southern states, and because the Clintons are from the South, Hillary may have the advantage there.

I was surprised that a lot of Sanders's supporters are twenty-somethings.  They are probably recent college graduates who see very little employment opportunities using the skill-set that they learned in college.  They are probably unemployed or underemployed and they are the first generation to get the full brunt of country destroying policies of Nixon, Reagan, and two Bushes.  They see a not very bright future ahead for this country as I do, and Bernie Sanders is the only candidate really promising to do something about it.

If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination I will vote for her , but her husband has done some lasting damage to this country as well.  NAFTA and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act under his administration has also weakened this country's economy, therefore I worry that Hillary is also a wolf in sheep's clothing.  

I know Barack Obama ran on a platform of change and didn't deliver, but it doesn't mean that Sanders will be the same way.  I think he will at least make the effort.  If Clinton gets into office the Republicans will hem and haw about her, but I think ultimately she will do there bidding and not make any more change than Obama did in his two terms.

It is very important for Sanders supporters to participate on Super Tuesday if is campaign is going to continue to have momentum, so please get out to vote on March 1.

Donald Trump's road to the Republican presidential candidate nomination is going as I predicted.

Instead of the ultra-conservative right-wingers trying capitalize on Donald Trump's appeal, they are, of course, flat-out denouncing him as a viable candidate for President.  A recent issue of the conservative magazine "The National Review" has the front cover dedicated to a multi-author feature entitled "Conservatives Against Trump."   The feature's authors go down a laundry list of how Trump is not aligned with conservative movement and therefore not a viable Republican candidate.

Trump is of course winning most of his primaries and caucuses and most likely will continue to do so, because what he says, no matter how nastily he says it, is more in line with what Americans want to hear.

The conservative movement is really for the top 1 percent of earners and magazines like "The National Review," "The Weekly Standard" and news organizations like Fox are out to market it to the masses.  They refuse to see that Trump's success shows that their message is no longer getting through to the American people.  They cannot keep saying that, "white is black" (or in an economic sense "red is black") and get away with it.

I still think that the top 1 percenters and the Tea Partiers are going to continue to denounce Trump every chance they get, and when the time comes for the Republican convention, they will push delegates into voting for the number two candidate instead of Trump.  Whether or not this actually happens, at some point Trump will get disgusted and run as a third-party independent candidate.

I do not think Trump is a serious candidate for United States and he may only be there to help ensure Clinton gets voted into the White House. I can't imagine he says the things he says in such a tactless manner and expects to be taken seriously.   I am willing to bet if Sanders gets the Democratic nomination Trump will drop out of the race altogether.  We can just wait and see what happens.

And to make things worse, billionaire and former NYC Mayor, is also considering running for President as an independent.   I think his candidacy will be more about the hot button issue of gun control, and upset conservatives even further by ensuring a Republican loss.  Whatever happens it is going to be a very interesting election year.

Ted Cruz is Canadian. And he scares me.

Ted Cruz is in my opinion Canadian.  At one point he had dual citizenship.  He has renounced his Canadian citizenship, but this means nothing.  Americans are not allowed to have dual citizenship, period.  Go try to become a citizen of another country and try to remain United States citizen, just try to do it and see what happens  This means that Cruz is Canadian and he should not be allowed to run for United States President.  Yet he seems to have quite a great deal of financial backing to skirt the law.

It is just like the rich elite to want show off how the law does not apply to them.  They are special and they want to get a Canadian in as President just to show how powerful they really are.  

Another thing that bothers me about Ted Cruz aside from this ultra-right-wing agenda is that he is very disturbing to look at.  He is very uncharismatic in my opinion.  While running for President is not a beauty contest, a Presidential candidate should have a certain commanding yet comforting presence.  Cruz just gives me the heebie jeebies.  I cannot see how right-wing supporters can look at him and say, oh this is the guy I want running this country, but I guess he is telling them what they want to here in order to get their financial support.  The appeal is there for them, but I just don't see it.

There are lawsuits against Cruz trying to stop him from running because of his past Canadian citizenship, he should not have the right to.  I am just amazed that this would not scare financial backers away, because he may not be a viable candidate.  Trump has the right to sue him, but hasn't done it yet.  Perhaps he is afraid it will backfire and make Cruz some sore of right-wing martyr.

Ironically, if Cruz becomes President, I think a lot of Americans are going to want move to Canada, but I doubt the Canadians will want to let us in. I hope someone will stop Ted Cruz, because I think that even if Trump wins the Republican party will not let the delegates vote for him at the Republican convention.  And if my theory is correct, Trump will only run as an independent if Hilary wins the Democratic nomination.  

I hope in the end the lawsuits challenging Cruz's right to run for President will eventually do him in as a viable candidate.  

  

My Speculation: Is Donald Trump a shill for Hillary Clinton or could America turn into the United States of Trump?

I know I have all but abandoned this blog.  Who has the time these days?  The recent news of Donald Trump throwing his hat in the ring for the Republican nomination for United States President is too hysterical not to comment on.  Below is just all my speculation and opinion.

As other people have speculated, I believe that Trump is not making a serious bid for the White House and if Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, does not get the Democratic nomination, Donald Trump will withdraw from the race altogether.

Have you noticed Donald Trump has been way ahead in polls for the Republican primary? He has really been telling the middle class what they want to hear.  Close the borders, cut taxes on the Middle Class and raise taxes on the wealthy.  This is not what wealthy Republicans want to hear, they want to keep the borders wide open to flood the United States with cheap labor, they want the shrinking Middle Class to pay for everything with through their taxes, and they want their own taxes reduced to nothing.  It doesn't look like Trump will be getting any donations from the wealthy ultra-conservatives. but he doesn't care because he has plenty of his own money.  And if he doesn't get the nomination, he has then threatened to run as third party candidate.  I think here is where things get interesting.

Mr. Trump is a little too crass and blunt for the Republican party style and he knows it.  At some point either top GOP officials will tell him to take a hike, or perhaps at some point he will pretend to get fed up dealing with the GOP and then run as a third party candidate.

Here Mr. Trump is acting  like H. Ross Perot did for Bill Clinton.  In  1992, Perot ran as a Third Party candidate and pretty much divided the Republican vote which helped Clinton to win.   I do not believe Perot was in cahoots with the Clintons, I think he at least made a sincere bid for the White House.   For the 1996 campaign, seeing Perot as a spoiler for the Republican party, the corporate controlled media helped squash Perot's second attempt by not selling him any airtime on their networks and helping with a smear campaign.

The Clintons so desperately want to be back in the White House again and I am not sure why, but I feel that it is most likely that hey are in cahoots with Trump.  I could be wrong and Trump is really making a sincere bid for the White House,  I have to say he does tell the American public what they want to hear.  And he did have his own TV show for a while which may have added to his appeal.   Well if  my speculations are wrong,  America better get ready to change its name to "The United States of Trump."

On a side note, I recently read a book about narcissism and Trump and Charlie Sheen were given as two celebrity examples, oh boy.

Democrats and Republicans, the old two man con?

Here is a theory of mine that I would like to share with you. I think the American people are being set-up, with one of the oldest tricks in the book, the two man con. I think at some point after the FDR presidency the wealthy powers-that-be got together to figure out how they could stop the scourge that is the American middle class. Using their money and influence they financed the campaigns of both Republicans and Democrats and pulled the strings so that whoever was elected would be the candidate that would do their bidding.

Their first soldier was Richard Nixon who went to China to lay the groundwork for the mess we have now, the one where all of our manufacturing jobs are moving over there. After Nixon managed to engage himself in criminal activity, the American people wanted anyone but a Republican. What the proponents of plutocracy came up with was Jimmy Carter an inexperienced Georgia Governor from a peanut farming family.

President Carter did an incredibly poor job, especially when it came to handling the economy, it would almost seem that his policies help exacerbate the stagflation that lead to his ultimate defeat by super Republican, Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan, a former B-movie actor turned puppet for the Republican party, did intentional and irreparable damage to social security, and drove the national debt sky high.

The gilded age he created was so great that he got his Vice President, George Bush, senior in for another term before the economy collapsed in in the late eighties and early nineties.

Then the proponents of plutocracy found Bill Clinton, who they assumed was another inexperienced Southern hick Governor this time from Arkansas. But, "Slick Willie" lived up to his nickname, and this Rhodes scholar was no hick by any means. He knew how to play ball like a Republican, so much so, one would wonder if he was a shill from the Republican party with his approval of NAFTA among many other very conservative policies. Also, thanks in part to the Internet economic bubble, he managed to even get elected for a second term.

The Republicans were not going to stand for three terms of Democrats. If they let this go on the United Stated could have the longest Democratic presidential run since FDR, and there was no way that was going to happen. The powers that be then stuck Al Gore with the unpopular Joe Lieberman which lead to a narrow defeat in Florida, by George W. Bush.

Bush appeared as clueless wonder, that relied heavily on his Vice President to make important decisions. Decisions that would ultimately lead to the financial mess we are in now. For his second term W. was virtually unopposed by John Kerry, another very conservative Democrat, that offered very little different from the Bush campaign, and therefore he was was easily defeated.

But W. who cared more about sending soldiers to the Middle East and sending jobs overseas did absolutely nothing to help the United States economy which had turned into one great Ponzi scheme.

Realizing that the no one in as single election term, Republican or Democrat could get the economy out the quagmire it had been placed in the purveyors of plutocracy knew that they had to get yet another inexperienced Democrat in office, to make sure that the Democratic party will look completely inept and they could have four years to find another Republican to at least appear to come to the rescue.

They found Barack Obama, who had about seven years of experience representing Illinois in the United States Senate, and that's it. Just as the powers-that-be have planned, he appears to be either taking no action or similar action that Republican president would have taken in reaction to the current economic crisis; like Nero, he just fiddles while Rome burns.

So there you have the basic pattern, aggressive Republican (Nixon) inept Democrat (Carter) aggressive Republican (Reagan & Bush), inept Democrat Bill Clinton (inept only in that he was a very economically conservative Democrat), aggressive Republican (George W. Bush, but it was really Dick Cheney), inept Democrat Barack Obama. Isn't there anyone else out there who thinks this pattern is not coincidence? Can we do anything to stop this? If we re-elect Obama will we get four more years of him doing next to nothing to further the economy along? Or will he be followed by another heroic looking Republican, who will pretend to be coming to save the day when he or she is actually just furthering along the destruction of the United States as we know it?