Tag Archives: bernie sanders

Bill Clinton vs. Sanders

By ‘left’ I don’t mean all liberals. Bill Clinton, despite his flaws, is an example of a liberal who, through his technology initiatives, promoted individual success, unlike Sanders who threatens to suppress and punish it. Clinton understood that the health and success of an economy depends on the ability of exceptional people to innovate and create, and keep what they earn. Welfare liberals want to eliminate all inequality, suppressing the exceptional and elevating the weak; Neo and Classical liberals understand that the best outcome for society is one where everyone can succeed and compete to the best of his abilities, even if some will have more than others.

Bill Clinton: a message of opportunity, wealth creation, and hope:

Sanders: a message of division and class warfare:

He’s Right, Part 2

There’s a reason they call him Senile Sanders:

The graphs below show that wages for men have actually fallen more than for women, that the gender gap has narrowed since the 80′s, and that the decline was most likely triggered by the financial crisis, which hurt both genders:

We should not expect intellectual honesty from someone who isn’t much smarter than the low-information voters he’s pandering to. The fact that someone who is so demonstrably feeble-minded can become president is not only a failing of democracy but a potential national security risk.

‘Low Information’ Sanders

With the exception of the Supreme Court and the primaries, not much going on in the news. We’re still in a slow news cycle and in an autopilot economy of things being sluggish but never approaching the crisis the left seeks.

Thomas Sowell endorses Cruz over Trump. No shocker there.

As part of the post-2013 SJW narrative collapse and the rise of centrism and rationalism, even celebrities, and people on Reddit and elsewhere, are finally realizing that Sanders and the rest of the left want to destroy wealth and punish the most successful, not create wealth and promote success. The internet, which includes social media and sites like Reddit and 4chan, threatens the leftist order, which depends on ‘old media’ to spread their propaganda that, up until the rise of social media, largely went unchallenged. We’re seeing the rise of minimalism and alternative/niche ideologies (such as NRx, alt right, HBD, red pill, etc), in rejection to the shallowness and banality of mass media and normative, politically correct discourse…Related to shallowness and pandering, Senile Sanders thinks wealth can be created by spreading is from the most productive and successful to the least. This desire to spread the wealth and attack the successful dates back to 20th century communism but rebranded under Obama and Sanders, both of whom appeal to ‘low-information’ voters (similar to the proletariat in communism), including welfare recipients and student loan deadbeats – not well-informed people who create economic value and are capable of critical thinking. As opposed to lifting up the cognitively exceptional, the left seeks to make them conform to thee standards to the lowest common denominator. Yes, There are rich, smart people (limousine liberals) who Support Sanders, but the vast majority of his supporters have neither of those qualities. It’s just another peasant revolt, albeit with ballots instead of pitchforks. Bill Clinton, as disreputable as he is, understood that a growing welfare state was unsustainable and hence enacted welfare reform. Some on the ‘right’ say Sanders ‘stands for something’, which makes him ‘better’ than Hillary. Others on the right argue he will hasten the decline of America, paving the way for a far-right government.

Bernie the Brainiac?

From ILANA MERCER’s article Schooling Beck On Trump’s Nullification Promise, this passage about Bernie Sanders being a ‘brainiac’ stood out:

…But face it; “tear down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev,” didn’t bring down the Soviet empire. Neither was Communist Russia crushed by Reagan’s exorbitant “Star Wars fantasy of space-based missile defense.” Rather, Communist Russia collapsed under the weight of a centrally planned economy (the kind Brainiac Bernie Sanders and his supporters are eager to usher in).

But is senile, wealth spreader Bernie a ‘brainiac’? The evidence suggests ol’ Bernie is no smarter than Obama, which isn’t a very high bar to begin with.

Liberals have mostly succeeded in brainwashing the general public, pundits, and the media into believing their politicians are smarter, more intellectual than conservatives. However, Tevi Troy, in an article Philosophical Pragmatist in Chief?, argues that supposed intellectual superiority of liberal politicians may be mostly a myth:

Barack Obama is hardly the first liberal politician with an impressive academic pedigree to be celebrated as a savant. Michael Barone pointed out that Adlai Stevenson, the original “egghead,” died with only one book on his bedside table—the Social Register.

He died with only a single book in his possession, hardly the makings of an intellectual.

And what about the great wealth spreader in chief himself?

One way to discover that Obama is not the great intellectual Kloppenberg hypes is from the information the White House occasionally releases concerning the president’s reading habits. His reading periods appear to center around his vacations; he apparently does not read very much when not on holiday. In a conversation with the New York Times’s Michael Powell, he acknowledged that one of the challenges of the presidency is that “you have very little chance to really read. I basically floss my teeth and watch SportsCenter.” For example, the New York Times’s Peter Baker reported in early October 2010 that Obama was “seeking guidance” from reading “presidential biographies,” including Taylor Branch’s book,The Clinton Tapes. On December 25, more than two months later, the Washington Post also reported that Obama was reading the Branch book, which suggests that the very busy president is understandably taking a while to get through its 720 pages. Understandable, in any event, for a politician, although perhaps not for a celebrated intellectual.

In other words, when Obama does read, he’s a slow reader.

On the other hand, George W. Bush is a voracious reader, going through as many as 100 books a year:

There is a myth perpetuated by Bush critics that he would rather burn a book than read one. Like so many caricatures of the past eight years, this one is not only wrong, but also the opposite of the truth and evidence that bitterness can devour a small-minded critic. Mr. Bush loves books, learns from them, and is intellectually engaged by them.

Contrast that to Obama who can barely get through a single book a year. It’s Obama who is an amiable dunce, not Bush.

Back to Sanders, if you read his Wikipedia profile, nothing about his formative years stands out. He finished college at the age of 23; it’s not like he was a prodigy or anything remarkable. Some his tweets suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of issues, owing to his senility and or lack of intellect necessary to grasp the abstractions of complicated issues. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, is much smarter, and in senescence is still sharp.

Here some Tweets that show Bernie may be cognitively unfit for command. First, confusing Islam as a race instead of a religion:

Second, not being aware that gun trafficking federal laws already exist:

And is Bernie not aware that there is an obesity crisis in America, preeminently among low income families:

Senile Sanders…it has a nice ring to it. Putting someone this inept in such a high office could be a national security risk.

Hillary the Lesser of Two Evils

From Canto Talk: The Democrats are really socialists now

That’s right. There is no real difference, and that is not a good path to national election for the Democrats.

President Clinton tried to move the party to the center. He worked with the GOP to pass welfare reform and signed free trade agreements like NAFTA. Clinton understood that the party had gone too far to the left and was losing the middle class.

Perhaps V.P. Biden can put the party back in the middle. At the same time, how can he please the Sanders vote if he does that?

Not long ago, the left mocked the GOP as the party of old guys clinging to their guns and the 10th Amendment.

It looks like the Democrats are the party of old guys (and ladies) clinging to the Great Society and their Woodstock LPs.

In 2008 Hillary Clinton, for all her flaws, was correct about Obama’s inexperience, his softness on terror, his connections with unsavory individuals, and inability to appeal to working, hard-working white males. Obama won despite failing to receive the majority of the white male vote:

Along with Sarah Palin, Hillary at least deserves some credit for exposing Obama for the wealth spreader and Islamic sympathizer that he is. We can poke fun about her email server and pantsuits, but I would rather have Hillary as president than Sanders, and many on the right would also agree Hillary is the lesser of two evils. Bernie Sanders wants to spread your wealth through regulation, entitlement spending, and taxes to those who did nothing to earn it.

The welfare liberals like Sanders want to cling to to the ‘old era’ of overpaid jobs that don’t create enough economic value, whereas some on the right understand that the economy is changing in way where productivity and quantifiable results have precedence over wages and benefits.

Trump & Sanders

Any 2016 speculation before the primaries is pretty much a waste of energy. If Bernie loses to Hillary in Iowa and Hew Hampshire, he’s pretty much finished, baring some major scandal or gaffe for Hillary. The GOP field is more diverse, with many candidates neck-and-neck, making it harder to determine a front-runner from the first few primaries, but if Jeb wins the first two by a comfortable margin, it’s pretty safe to conclude he will be the nominee.

A misconception is that the GOP is trying to suppress certain candidates, but this is false.

People choose the nominee through the nominating process of primaries and caucuses, not through some secretive cabal that convenes by a pyre in a castle to anoint the ‘chosen one’. When Trump loses (which he most certainty will) it won’t be because the GOP ‘establishment’ was keeping him down, but because he wasn’t able to get enough delegates to win the convention. What happens is these ‘maverick’ candidates tend to screw up, as we saw in 2012 with Herman Cain and Rick Perry, or they simply don’t get enough votes in the primaries. Yea, these moderates may suck, but they keep winning where it counts (the primaries). The media creates this narrative that people are tired of ‘politics as usual’, yet when people go to the voting booth they vote for the usual. Donald Trump, for all his chest-thumping, will probably pullout before the deadline, as he has always done in the past, using his brief candidacy as just another PR stunt. In the unlikely event he files the necessary financial disclosure forms, for many possible reasons (inexperience, gaffes, scandal), Trump will simply fail to win any primaries despite all the hype he’s generating now, while candidates that are boring but reliable pull ahead, analogous to the Tortoise and the Hare fable. ‘Boring’ wins the nomination, going as far as H.W. Bush in 1988. Candidates that are too ‘extreme’ or candidates that are not career politicians tend to fare poorly in GOP presidential primaries. That’s just the way it is.

Some on the right say the millennials are hopelessly infatuated with Sanders, much in the same way they were with Obama, but on Reddit, especially on viral Imgur posts of Sanders quotes, there are a sizable number of dissenters, so it’s not like every millennial is in the tank for Sanders. Many millennials, especially some of the smarter ones, know that Sanders is promising policy that is not only economically destructive, but also unconstitutional (especially the part about wealth confiscation). Much like Obama, Sanders appeals to the ignorance of the masses for votes. Some liken Sanders to a liberal Ron Paul, in which case I agree: they both advocate wealth destroying policy.

Ron Paul = destroy your wealth by ending fed/raising rates and making stock market & real estate prices fall

Sanders = destroy your wealth through taxes and regulation

That’s why moderates tend to win and why I (and many others) don’t want to see our hard-earned wealth destroyed by impulsive populists who have nothing to lose if everything falls apart under their destructive leadership.

In the event Sanders becomes president, it will reflect a major failing of America’s system of government and a major argument for neo-reaction, or some sort of alternative to the system we have now (such as requiring a minimum personal ‘net worth’ and or a certain threshold of IQ to vote), as if Obama wasn’t reason enough for such an overhaul. Checks and balances only goes so far.

Related: Some Thoughts on the 2016 Campaign