Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Monday, September 26, 2016

My Opinion of the Presidential Debate September 26, 2016 YMMV

Segment 1, the economy goes to Trump. His plan much more beneficial. Clinton's plan is disastrous and would put many out of business.

On to segment 2, prosperity/taxes. Segment 2: Nobody answered the question. Both fail.

Segment 3: Clinton loses, disconnected from reality and some really BAD ideas. She proved she's clueless about guns. A couple of good ideas. Addressing help for mental illness is great (except should be addressed state/locally not federally as outlined in the Constitution)
Trump, some good ideas but stop and frisk is a BAD idea, I agree with Hillary on that.
Both agreed on mental illness so they both get points for that.
Trump edges out Clinton only because of her less than stellar support of police.  Otherwise it would be a tie.

Segment 4: This question was poorly asked. Tie.

Cyber-security segment:
Hillary loses. She was so concerned she had an un-secure server and did not even defend it in her segment. She diverted the questions away from cyber security to ISIS to avoid the question.
Trump seems to have a better handle on cyber security than Clinton.

Segment on ISIS:
Trump is correct about getting out, many military leaders had advised against leaving Iraq.
Not so sure about taking the oil.
He's right about the Iran deal. NATO should be paying fair share and what they owe by contract and focus on terrorism. Could have spend his time on ISIS not defending "I did not support the was in Iraq"
Hillary wants to continue same failed policies.
Working with local law enforcement is a good idea.
Hillary flustered.

Last segment. Trump is right about Iran.  Trump takes a firmer stance with foreign countries than Clinton.  She has a women’s touch, which wouldn’t work with many of these countries, especially in the Middle East.  
Clinton is in denial about “putting a lid on nuclear Iran.”  She’s trying very hard, but what she outlined does not represent “standing up to bullies”. 
Hillary is running a more negative ad campaign than Trump and she didn’t deny.  FYI, Hillary, we live in a Republic, not a democracy.

Result: Tied.  Lester Holt asked good questions when he could get them in.  He lost control of the debate several times.

Update: Polls

People say you win or lose a debate in the first 30 minutes. That's probably the reason Trump won the debate in all but one of the polls I've seen. Though Hillary said she spent much time preparing, she appeared less prepared, less at ease and more flustered than Trump. Clinton has a greater disconnect to millennials than Trump. If she wants to win the next debate she'll need to get out of the gate faster and connect better to the millennials.
Trump Win: TIME, CBS, FOX, PIX, Heavy The Hill, Atlantic Patch, Drudge, The Right Scoop, The Hill, True New JerseyClinton Win: Orlando Sentinel

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Why the People Who Agree with This Meme Are the Ones Hurting the Poverty-Stricken

The first thing those who agree meme are going to say is “how am I hurting the poverty-stricken?”  

To understand how, you must first go back and look at our government and our Constitution and understand how the government is supposed to work and why it is not working, why it is not only not helping the poverty-stricken but hurting them in so many ways.
Our founding fathers were some pretty bright men.  They put a lot of thought into our Constitution and to how the country would run best for everyone.  The Constitution was created specifically with checks and balances and to give the people a voice.  Unfortunately, the Constitution has been bastardized by using self-helping “interpretation” of the Constitution for their own purposes.  They do this by convincing people that what they are doing is helping the people and the people give them control. 

The Constitution gives equal power to the federal government and to the states.  The states are not subordinate to the federal government; they have equal power.  Those in the federal government who want control have duped the people into believing that the federal government is above and has more power than the states.  The Constitution says otherwise. 

The Constitution gives the federal government control over managing the country as a whole, such as making treaties and defense: “commonDefence and general Welfare of the United States.”  It does not give the federal government control over caring for the individual, that is left to the state, and as part of the state, communities and individuals.   “Thepowers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibitedby it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  Keeping the needs of communities and individuals at state level keeps control in the hands of the people.

What happens when the federal government takes over control from the states is that the individual gets lost?  The federal government says: lets help the poverty-stricken and people say ‘yes, lets help the poverty stricken.’  The federal government sets up a generic program to “help the poverty-stricken.”  This generic program has to be broad and generic that it helps the most people with one program.  Unfortunately, doing it this way is costly and impossible to manage well.  It is wasteful and doesn’t best help the people it is purported to help.  What it does do is give control over the people’s lives to those in charge.

To understand how this is especially harmful, bad, and wasteful we must look at how things would be if the government was run as the forefathers had intended and outlined in the Constitution.
First the federal government would only take care of federal matters, in other words making treaties and the defense and care of the country, not the individual, as a whole. They would only need to tax just enough to maintain just those things.  Much less wasteful spending.
All other matters would fall on state and local governments.  In other words, in the hands of the people.  The people of the state and communities would be responsible for caring for their own.  It would be much easier to identify and to help, in individualized ways, the people who need help.  Local tax payers would have a vested interest in where there money goes and therefore there would be less waste and more help.  There would be more assistance for these people because your money wouldn’t go into some generic fund, it would go to help specific people in your community.  You could actually see where your money is going and who it is helping.  People would get back on their feet quicker because the tax payer would hold them responsible.  The tax payer would also be motivated to help them get off of assistance and on to their feet.  The tax payer would ensure people who don’t need the money don’t get the money and that the money is directed to where it is needed most.

So to those who agree with that meme, you are allowing a government who is not supposed to be managing caring for the poverty-stricken to mismanage it instead of insisting you do it yourselves.  It’s lazy and it’s wasteful.  Cutting wasteful spending ensures there is more money for the poverty-stricken.  This can best be done at the local level.

Don't be content with allowing those who don't need the money, your money, to steal it because you think it's some noble gesture to allow people to receive money they don't deserve because you are afraid someone who needs it won't get it.  That's idiotic.  If you really want to help the poverty-stricken, if you want to make sure not a single poverty-stricken family goes hungry, take back control from the federal government and make sure your tax dollars, your charity, your money goes where it needs to go.  You should have control over where your charity money goes.  You decide where it goes.  It will be directed to those who need it and there will be more of it going where it needs to go.  Don’t allow someone else to decide where your charity money goes.