200 Days Out : Hillary in a blowout

I'm going to make this short and sweet.  At this point,  Hillary will be the Democratic nominee,  and Trump almost certainly will be the GOP nominee.   Based on polling data over the past few months, it is clear that Trump would not only lose by at least 10% in the popular vote,  but would likely be a disaster for the GOP all the way down the ticket.  Let's hope that is true;  the karma boomerang for the hateful and disgusting politics of the Republican party is many years overdue.

With Trump as the nominee,  even if the GOP doesn't mount an alternative choice (which would probably make things even better for Hillary),  I see the first female President winning in November in a blowout,  over 400 electoral votes.  Honestly,  it might get even better,  but we'll have to see how the polls shake out once nominees are set,  and the VP candidates are chosen.

My latest prediction:

300 (or so) Days Out

I'm about a week behind here,  but who's counting?   Here is my updated map,  I think my main change is Florida to the Democratic nominee.  Really, there is very little significant polling this far out.  I should have taken into consideration that there would be plenty of polling regarding the primaries but very little for the general election.  So really,   this isn't based on much. The truth is, at this point the more interesting question is: who will the nominees be?   One reason I moved Florida back to the Democratic camp is that the Republican party is just a godawful mess right now.   Trump and Cruz are the leading candidates and ... well let's be honest,  they're both big old steaming piles of dog shit.  Trump is a racist and a narcissist .  Cruz is a douche who is hated by just about everyone who knows him.   I don't see either doing well in the general election and further,  given that Trump almost certainly IS a narcissist,  I believe if Cruz is the nominee,  Trump will run as an independent.  If that happens,  Hillary or Bernie is likely to win all the toss ups, even states like North Carolina and maybe Arizona.

Hillary/Bernie is the other interesting question at this point.  I will say in the past week I've experienced the first belief that Bernie really could become the nominee. I still love both candidates and I want the one most likely to win in the general election to become the nominee,  and I still,  right now,  think that is Hillary.   The truth is Bernie is a liberal,  Hillary is a moderate but a very sane one. Bernie is the better candidate but unless the Democrats take both the House and Senate (unlikely,  given Gerrymandering)  will it really matter which of them is President? I don't think so. That's just my personal belief.   I'm sure Bernie will talk about liberal issues that liberals care about, more often than Hillary,  and when he does, his positions will be liberal, and Hillary's will be moderate (or,  as Fox will call them "insanely communist socialist freedom hating and satanic").

Enough blathering.. here's my updated map...

The Manipulation of the Mindless Masses for Money, Money and more Money

To paraphrase Andy Rooney,  Didja ever notice all you have to do is mention guns,  or background checks,  or waiting periods - and you are immediately met with shouts of tyranny and trampling of our freedoms?   Didja ever notice that this type of reaction somehow only ever happens with the 2nd Amendment?

I believe many staunch gun rights advocates have a knee-jerk (or NRA-inspired knee-jerk) reaction to ANY attempt to discuss gun control, background checks, waiting periods or anything similar. It's like there has been a short circuit integrated into their brains that ANYTIME ANYONE says ANYTHING about guns, they spit out some rote response about the 2nd amendment.

But what about when other Amendments are changed or modernized?   Take the 1st Amendment for example,  free speech specifically.   Why isn't there a large group of angry people complaining that by not constitutionally protecting the false shouting of "fire" in a theater, or that by not constitutionally protecting libel and slander, the big scary Government is taking away our freedoms, and crapping on the Constitution.  Hmmm?

Why wasn't the decision that libel is NOT protected under the 1st amendment met with staunch resistance, outcries of tyranny and demands for the reinstatement of our total unfettered freedom to say whatever shit we want to!? Why wasn't the decision that falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded area, causing panic, injury, and possibly death - why wasn't the decision that this is not constitutionally protected under the 1st amendment - why wasn't that met with an endless supply of angry mobs beseeching the rest of the country to wake up and smell this governmental power grab of our personal rights and freedoms!? Why didn't that happen?

Well... it didn't happen because when those things came to pass, we actually had a situation where both major political parties cared about improving our country and both parties saw the benefit and logic behind the decision and neither party pandered to hysteria, or (more accurately) were paid to pander to hysteria. But the REAL reason it never happened is because it's bullshit and anyone who can think rationally knows it.

Anyone who can think rationally knows that it is not a threat to your freedom of speech to say you cannot materially and substantially lie about someone else to the point where they are harmed because of your lie - and not be held responsible for your actions. It is not a threat to your freedom of speech to say "you can say just about anything you want... but of course you can't do obviously criminal things like falsely yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater and causing panic and injury to others" - that is not a threat to your freedom of speech and everyone knows it.

So why then is the 2nd Amendment different? The minor reasons I've already stated above, but the major reason is this: The gun manufacturers want to sell more guns because it makes them more money, and - SPOILER ALERT - they like money. Money is important and your life and the lives of anyone killed by guns is not only not important, it is virtually insignificant, especially compared to money. Further, those gun manufacturers pay the NRA well to make sure and stir everyone up about their freedoms being trampled, and the NRA in turn stirs everyone up, and pays the politicians handsomely to do the bidding of the gun manufacturers. When people die, the number of potential gun owners lost in each massacre is greatly and obscenely outnumbered by the increase in guns sold to the remaining portion of the population who are willing to be manipulated into buying more guns. The more shootings, the more profits to the gun manufacturers -- and let's not forget our lesson: money is important... they like money.  Money good.  YUM.   Death insignificant.

As for the people being (easily, in my opinion) manipulated by the gun manufacturers, why don't they care about other Amendments the way they do the 2nd?  Well,  the answer is in the question,  because they're being manipulated and don't care to ... stop being manipulated.  I believe they believe the 2nd Amendment is more important than, for example,  the 1st Amendment, because when we compare the two, specifically comparing the differences when the two are "changed" or "modernized" by laws or by the Supreme Court, I believe those people think their guns and the 2nd Amendment are vital to preventing the loss of their freedoms, while the 1st Amendment.. not so much. Nothing could be further from the truth (or reality). Guns and the 2nd Amendment aren't needed when you have so many willingly following and accepting the lies of people like Trump.... When you happily accede to the government takeover of your rights and your freedoms... why would you need a gun? You're already invited them in to rob you! They rob you of your most valuable asset - knowledge.  And you let them.

While the NRA scares you into thinking the negro boogyman is coming to your house and you better be arm yourself to the teeth - the Billionaire egomaniac quietly ships your neighbors back to Mexico, all with the boisterous approval of the white folks who are just here to "make America great again".

So when I see the knee-jerk reaction to anyone saying anything sensible about gun control or background checks or waiting periods, my reaction is "you didn't even think about what was said before shouting '2nd Amendment!! FREEDOM!! TYRANNY!!!' in my face, did you?" And the fact that you aren't shouting the same things about sensible changes or restrictions to other Amendments, like the 1st for example,  that proves to me that you are being manipulated. Worse,  you probably have no idea to the extent to which you are being manipulated. Which is exactly how those who seek to manipulate you like it.

Further,  the fact that you aren't screaming when we change the definition of Freedom of Speech,  and the fact that you aren't screaming when the Supreme Court tweaks the meaning of the words in an Amendment other than the 2nd proves to me,  absolutely fucking proves to me that when  you spew haughty warnings about our sacred Constitution - you are totally and completely full of hypocritical bullshit.  

It's very similar to people who take one part of the bible,  scream that it's the word of god and unquestionable and then completely fucking ignore other parts of the bible that they don't feel like following.   Sorry dude, but don't tell me how much you love and protect our Constitution when you not only fail to protect other parts of it with equal fervor,  you actually behave and support policies that directly contradict the Constitution.   Am I really supposed to take someone seriously when they scream that the Constitution is sacred and keep your hands off my guns and the 2nd Amendment... and then turn around and want to violate both the equal protection clause (14th Amendment) and freedom of religion (1st Amendment) by enforcing their religion on others?   Talk about taking away someone's freedoms.   The Federal Government isn't taking our freedoms,   you're thinking of radical far right fascists like Kim Davis,  Rush Limbaugh,  and anyone who thinks that this is a Christian nation and our laws should be based on the Bible.  FAIL. Obscene and blatant violation of the 1st Amendment.    

The Kentucky Dirty

skank

noun

1.

a fast dance to reggae music

2.

(slang) a promiscuous female

This post is not about reggae music.

Let's talk about Kim Davis.  Fuck her.  Ok,  next topic.

400 Days Out....

Updating my 2016 Presidential Election prediction today,  you will note the only changes from 100 days ago are:  I took Arizona and Florida away from (Hillary) and I added Ohio to the Democrat total.  Arizona was just me screwing around,  I have no reason to believe that yet; at least not until I start seeing some polling there - which likely won't be until next year.   Florida polls look more favorable to the GOP lately,  and Ohio doesn't look bad for Democrats so I swapped those two.  Other than that not a lot of changes.

Meanwhile in the past 100 days we've seen the insane jackass Trump get a UUGE lead over all the other "LOSERS" and now that lead is pretty much gone,  as the quiet spoken but equally jackass Ben Carson (Token Black!)  now is basically tied with Trump.   You remember Carson right?  He's the one that thinks jails are homosexual factories,  you go in straight but you come out gay.   Oh,  and he's a doctor.   A doctor... who doesn't know how homosexuals are made.   I bet your average person with down's syndrome knows how homosexuals are made,  and if I had Michelle Bachmann's email address,  I'd ask her.

As for the actual candidates,  I'm not going to make any real predictions this time around - it's all just too crazy.  Still probably Hillary though Bernie definitely has some momentum,  and if he can convince Democrats he can win it all,  he could actually win the nomination.  On the GOP side,  I don't care,  they're almost all evil fucking assholes with no redeeming values and I hate them all.  Ok I might not hate John Kasich, and his chance of getting the nomination is about the same as Bush's chance of telling America his brother "kept America safe"  and not be called out for that pile of bullshit.   Maybe Bush thinks the English language works the same as everything else with Republicans and you can just have an opinion about what words mean,  and "kept America safe" actually to him means "ignored dire warnings of imminent terrorist attack,  went on vacation,  and then read a children's book while the biggest terror attack in the history of the country was taking place".

Ok enough about the GOP field of dicks.  Here is my prediction 400 days out:

Worst. Argument. Ever.

"But if we let a man marry another man,  what's next... a man marrying a dog?"

This,  ladies and gentlemen,  is the "Slippery Slope"  argument.   Also known as the worst and most illogical argument ever.  The slippery slope template is basically this:

"We cannot let A happen,  because if we do,  then it is absolutely positively an undeniable fact that B will happen,  we cannot stop B from happening if A has occurred,  and we can all agree that B is horrible and should never happen,  right?"

How is this quote any different than the first quote in this post:

"But if we let a man marry a woman,  what's next.... a man marrying a dog?"

Answer:  it's not any different - it's the exact same failure of logic and reason. It is the EXACT same argument:  If we let something happen,  then the other thing will happen.   But has anyone actually ever said "if we let a man marry a woman, what's next... a man marrying a dog?"  No.  And do you know why?  Because the only people using slippery slope arguments when it comes to things like gay marriage are people who are bigoted, hypocritical and ignorant.   And those people of course don't have any problem with men marrying women (and divorcing them when they get cancer,  and marrying a different woman,  and then cheating on that 2nd wife while publicly whining about someone else's affair).   So they never make that particular argument because they are cognitively unable to see that the flawed and failed argument can be applied to heterosexual marriages just as easily that they apply it to homosexual marriage.

Speaking of flaws,  the flaws of the slippery slope argument are quite obvious:

1. Prove that if A happens,  it is absolutely 100% positively true that B must happen. You can't. Therefore B is irrelevant to A. 
2. I support A but not B,  you assumed I support both.  You are wrong. 
3. And,  most importantly:  WE'RE NOT FUCKING TALKING ABOUT B,  WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A!   You cannot logically argue against A so you want to talk about B instead.  I will not allow that.  Logically explain to me why A should not happen based on the merits of A and only A.   You can't.  

Let's start with #3 (because it's most important and most powerful in my opinion):  We're talking about this not that.  We're talking about A, not B.   The relevancy to logical humans is of course this: you must not be able to argue against A,  since you're trying to make this about B instead -  and this is exactly why people use a slippery slope argument:  because they can't actually logically argue against A !   Call them out on this every time.  Every damn time.

Let's talk about #2 next.  The important point to note about #2 is that there is an assumption made on the part of the person making the slippery slope declaration.  If you claim to support gay marriage,  for example,  and someone on the other side of the argument says to you "but if we let a man marry a man,  the next thing you know someone will want to marry their dog,  or their toaster".   If this person knows you support marriage equality and is making this slippery slope argument to you - what they're really saying is that you must also support a man marrying his dog,  or a toaster.   Because what they're saying is if we let A happen, then it will absolutely positively lead to B happening.   And that is of course another flaw of the slippery slope argument because it requires that this be true:  every single person who supports A would of course obviously also completely support B as well.   Which is absolutely not the case,  ever.   My response to slippery slope is usually something like:

We're not talking about men marrying their dogs,  when someone proposes that perhaps you should ask me what I think about that rather than assuming I would go along with it.  Or,  if you want I can tell you right now that no I do not support that,  yet I do support a man marrying a man.   The reason for the difference is quite easy,  for starters a dog cannot give consent.   A dog is unable to satisfactorily and unquestionably consent to marrying a man.  But two adult males most certainly can give clear consent of their intention to marry each other. Having said that,  it is irrelevant why I would not support a man marrying a dog,  or a toaster,  because neither has anything to do with a man marrying a man.  They are completely unrelated to one another and I do not need to prove that I would support one but not the other,  and I do not need to logically state why I would not support a man marrying a dog - but I did anyway,  just because it's so easy to show how incredibly stupid your argument actually is.  

This effectively blows the slippery slope argument out of the water because what slippery slope says is "Under no circumstances must we let A happen,  because if we do,  it is an absolute fact that it will inevitably lead to B happening."   This is of course wrong because first there is no rule or law that says if A happens it means B happens automatically;  and it is also wrong because clearly there are people who support A but not B and thus,  a majority supporting this does not mean automatically that a majority support that.    You see, the power in destroying the slippery slope argument lies not in the person making that ridiculous argument,  but in the person the argument is being presented to.  Because the person making the argument is most obviously against both A and B!   And for their argument to be valid,  the recipient of such logical bunk must clearly support both A and B!   The argument only works if YOU agree that you would go along with both. That's the magic of the Worst. Argument. Ever.   The power is completely in the other person's hands.   All you have to do is say "Sorry,  I support A but I don't support B , so you're wrong".

And finally,  completing our trek backwards,  we have #1 which is the simplest and shortest route to shut down a slippery slope argument.  You simply say "Prove to me that if a man marries a man it means a man can marry a dog,  or that it will lead to the legalization of a man marrying a dog.  Prove this to me that it is absolutely true this will happen,  without question and without any shred of doubt.  Prove to me that it is a rule or law of physics that if one happens the other must follow.   Go ahead,  I'm waiting....."  And wait you shall.   It cannot be proven, why?  Because slippery slope is the Worst. Argument.  Ever.

I have never once heard a slippery slope argument that is not logically and completely broken.  Not once.  The reason is,  by definition it is already a failed argument.   We're not talking about that we're talking about this.   That alone is enough.   "We aren't talking about that".   Period.   All slippery slope arguments are logically broken by definition.  You cannot give me a slippery slope argument that cannot be destroyed by "we're not talking about that we're talking about this ".   Try it.  I challenge you to give me a slippery slope argument that is not fundamentally broken and invalid.

Here are some fun slippery slope arguments I made up just for the hell of it.  You may notice some are related to actual slippery slope arguments that have been made in the past,  with key changes on my part -  that is intentional to show just how ridiculous slippery slope arguments are.  Others are just nonsensical random comparisons that illustrate the stupidity of the slippery slope argument through exaggeration:

• If we let white people marry other white people,  what's next.... white people marrying white bread?
• If we let women vote,  what's next.... letting shoelaces vote?
• If we force people to have car insurance in order to legally operate a motor vehicle,  what's next.... forcing people to eat Skittles? 
• If you must be 18 to buy cigarettes,  what's next.... requiring people to be 18 to buy toilet paper?
• If we make it illegal to smoke in restaurants,  what's next.... making it illegal to eat in restaurants? 
• If we make it a law that you have to wear a seat belt while driving,  what's next.... making it a law you must sleep hanging upside down from the ceiling?
• If people are allowed to eat Skittles, what next.... forcing people to eat dog poop?

Worst.  Argument.  Ever.   

THB

The Hypocrisy of Throat Shoveling

(note:  I started this post a few days ago and now that the all important decision on same sex marriage has been delivered by the SCOTUS today,  I figure there is no better time to publish this)

"I'm so sick of the gay agenda being shoved down my throat!" Ignoring the obvious juvenile comeback to that one, this is one of the most common hypocritical statements coming from conservatives these days (and for the past decade).  The truth is, it is conservatives that wish to shove their agenda down other people's throats.  Let's examine...

Have you ever heard a homosexual person come out of a Nicholas Sparks' romance movie and exclaim anything along the lines of "What a sweet movie, except I'm really tired of straight people shoving their agenda down my throat!".  No? Of course not.  How about say... a movie like The Wolf of Wall Street - ever heard someone leave there saying "I'm so sick of rich corporate bastards shoving their agenda down our throats!" ?  No? I didn't think so.  If you're straight, have you ever been confronted in public by a GLBT person, who takes offense because you are holding hands with or kissed your partner, with something like "That's disgusting! There are kids here! Stop shoving your heterosexuality down my throat!"  Or if you're gay, do you have any straight friends who have a story like that? No?  Nah, I didn't think so.  What the neo conservative movement calls "shoving the gay agenda down my throat" is actually more accurately described as "people living their lives in a way I don't accept, and worse,  they don't try to hide it from me or pretend, just to make me feel better". The truth is, it is the conservatives that want to shove their agenda and their views down everyone else's throats.

When a Christianist (this is what I call a person who pretends to be a Christian, to distinguish from actual good Christians) complains about gay marriage and whines about the gay agenda, what they're really upset about is that their religious agenda is failing.  What really bothers them is that more and more the far right nut jobs are unable to enforce their views and beliefs on everyone else. What is touted as Freedom of Religion is actually "the lack of my ability to force my religion on others".  Let's examine that...

Amendment I to the Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Pretty simple. Is there anything about Christianity being more important than Buddhism, Nihilism, Atheism or anything else?  There is not.  But Christianists seem to think there is, and this is one of the main reasons we hear the constant whining and bitching about things being shoved down their throats.

Here's the the most important thing about Freedom of Religion: Yours ends where mine begins, and vice versa.  What I mean by that is you are free to exercise your religious beliefs, as long as they do not prohibit me from exercising mine. Freedom of Religion, like Freedom of Speech, is not absolute. You cannot do whatever you want, especially if that includes breaking the law, just because you claim your religion demands it. Think of it in the most extreme terms. If I started a religion and said "There is only one rule in my religion, to go to heaven you must kill at least one person every year for 5 years in a row. After the 5th year, you will get your ticket to heaven stamped and you're good to go."  Would someone subscribing to that faith be shielded from legal action if they killed someone? Would they be able to just throw up their hands and yell "Religious Immunity!!!" similar to that South African prick at the end of Lethal Weapon 2....

...of course not! And that just drives home the point that the Constitution is the highest law of the land, not someone's (anyone's) religious beliefs. And, if Congress cannot make any laws establishing a religion (in this example, Christianity), then what possible legal power does a Christianist have to impose their religion on someone else?  None. Zero. Zilch.  And yet, that is exactly what they seek to do when they seek to deny gays and lesbians from marrying.  

What is the reason Christianists give for being against the freedom to marry whomever you choose? The Bible. But that's religion, not law. Furthermore, it's their religion.  If I can't subscribe to a religion that says I have to shoot someone to get into heaven, and if that exercising of my "Freedom of Religion" doesn't take precedence over your right to not be murdered, then your religion doesn't take precedence over my life, either. It really is not a complicated matter.  You do whatever you want to do, and let other people do whatever they want to do. 

When Christianists seek to prevent gay marriage what they really are doing is saying "MY religious beliefs say that you cannot marry whom you choose, if they are the same gender" and what they're also saying is "YOUR religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are irrelevant here, all that matter is what I want you to do and what I want you to do is to follow MY religious beliefs, regardless of what your religious beliefs are".  And to continue this path of progression... what that means is what they're saying is "I have Freedom of Religion but you do not,  I wish to impose my religious beliefs on you, and FUCK your Freedom of Religion!".  Which of course leads us, finally,  to this: "I want to shove my religion down your throat". Make no mistake,  that is what is really what is being said when Christianists tell you that same sex couples should not be allowed to marry.  

If I sound angry, it's because I am.  This is an obscene violation of citizen's rights, and the Constitution.  Sarah Palin loves to throw around the terms "un-Patriotic" and "un-American" to anyone that disagrees with the crap that flows from her hole she calls a mouth.  But the truth is, there aren't many things more un-American than trying to force your religion on others.  That's Iran or Saudi Arabia, that's not America. The irony is, Christianists don't see how similar they are to groups like ISIS.  They think ISIS is the opposite of what Christianists are, but actually they're just two sides of the same oppressive coin. 

But back to why Christianists are against the freedom to marry whomever you choose. As I've discussed, they have no reason other than their religion.  Every other lame excuse I've ever heard has been destroyed by LFR (Logic, Facts and Reality). Let's look at a few examples: 

1. "If Homosexuality is natural, why aren't there gay animals"?   There are   NEXT!
2. "Gay people choose to be gay"  Oh really?  Tell me the exact date and time you chose to be straight,  along with specific thought processes you went through weighing whether you should be gay or straight and how you finally chose one over the other.   NEXT! 
3. "It's unnatural".  See #1.   NEXT! 
4. "It's gross".   So is that shit stuck in your teeth.  NEXT!
5. "Marriage is for procreation ONLY".   O.M.G.  This is one of my favorites. So incredibly ignorant. So every straight couple should have to submit proof of fertility before receiving a marriage license, right? And if any member of a straight married couple loses the ability to procreate (menopause,  anyone?) that couple's marriage should immediately be dissolved at that point,  right? And any post-menopausal female should automatically be precluded from ever marrying again,  right? Wrong. NEXT! 
6. "If we allow a man to marry a man what's next?  What about if a man wants to marry a dog".  Ugh.  Well for starters,  I could say the exact same thing about straight marriage.  "If we allow a man to marry a woman,  what's next, a man marrying his dog?". It works illogically just as well either way.   Oh and also,  slippery slope theories are bullshit. A slippery slope argument is basically this: " If we let this thing happen, what's next, some other thing that has nothing to do with the first thing?" Um... well that's simple.  We'll talk about that other thing when someone brings it up, until then we're talking about this,  not that.  NEXT!
7. "A child needs both a mother and a father".  Ok so then any pregnant woman who isn't married and refuses to be married before giving birth should be forced to abort, right?  And any couple that divorces should either be forced to still live together with their kids,  or if they refuse to live together then the kids should be taken from the split couple and adopted by a couple that is married,  right?   But here's the best one:  Say a woman is married to a Marine in Iraq...they have 3 kids.... he gets killed in battle... immediately we should remove the kids from her home and give them to a married couple instead,  right?  Yeah,  I didn't think so.  NEXT! 
8. "If gays are allowed to marry it will weaken my marriage".  Only if you're a closeted homosexual.  NEXT! 

The interesting thing is many of those claims have the same logic fail. They are things that when turned around to apply to heterosexual people, they are immediately exposed as being completely asinine.  I've never heard anyone suggest that people who can't have kids should not be allowed to marry, have you?  That tells me anyone using procreation as an "excuse" is just making shit up because they don't really have an argument and probably are only against marriage equality because "it's icky". 

What this brings us back to is the one valid complaint conservatives have about gay marriage: it's against their religious beliefs.  Yes, it is. But your religion does not trump the Constitution and thus, if gay marriage is a violation of your religious beliefs then I suggest you avoid getting gay married.

Marriage is a right,  and denying the right based on gender is a violation of the 14th Amendment...

...and as of today,  Friday June 26, 2015,  The Supreme Court of the United States agrees.  Let's end with this wonderful news:

Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.