One of the REAL Reason Trump's Skipping the Debates

Normally, and under normal circumstances, I'd lambaste someone for not attending any presidential debate, regardless of the side. While I don't think debates are the end all to be all, I do think that they are important to better understand our candidates and what they are running for or on.

Hell, I watch democrat debates all the time simply because I have always felt that in order to disagree with a democrat candidate, I need to know exactly what it is I disagree with. I don't have that answer if I choose not to tune in simply because I assume I will disagree with everything they have to say.

But I side with Trump on his decision not to participate, and it is not because I also happen to be a Trump supporter.

The question is, what substance would we expect to get out of Trump's participation? What could we learn about his plan for America? What could we learn about his thoughts on Ukraine and issues facing us regarding the border? About taxes. About the economy? About inflation?

The simple answer is, we'd learn nothing at all. Because those questions would not be the types of questions anyone would be interested in asking him. It would all be about the false indictments and bogus impeachments and the make-believe January 6th insurrection.

Not a single question he'd be asked would advance his campaign or offer us a better consideration of what he wants to do or will do if he were to be reelected.

Even when it comes to Fox News debates, no one ever bothers to put a real conservative on the panel. They always opt for the lefter leaning hosts. Chris Wallace in one of the 2020 debates all but tried to throw Trump under the bus and frankly trampled all over him disgustingly.

And that's me saying that despite my very real take-away from those 2020 debates that Trump did an extremely poor job at them. But I have been critical of Trump many times in the past for various antics. But it never wavered my thoughts about his presidency, which I think is important.

I continue to be displeased with some of his antics as I think it detracts from the real issues we face and his real answers as to how we solve them, and as I have said time and time again, sometimes his own antics leave him in a spot to make those antics the focus rather than the substance of his message.

People need to hear his message.

But that goes right back to why he's dismissed himself from the debate stage. Even if he does attend the debates, his message will be moot. Because again, no one will ask him about the message. What Trump would essentially be agreeing to by attending the debates would be to accepting an invitation to a literal non-comedic roasting which would focus entirely on things that matter very little to the American people.

In an odd way you could make a comparison here to a jury trial and the right decision many lawyers often make not to put the accused on the stand. Optics. Or the possibility of bad optics which would do more harm than good in defending their case.

In other words, while the optics of Trump's not attending the debates, in the eyes of some, is bad optics in and of itself, the fact is that if he were to attend, the optics may well likely be much worse.

Part of the problem is what debates have really become. Hosts are chosen essentially by what side the particular media outlet has decided they want to support and advance. And so, the questions themselves are often geared toward driving a particular narrative rather than getting to the heart of the important questions.

Trump has also realized this from the 2020 debates specifically. Even if his performance, by my measure, was horrible, I also had to honestly step away and ask myself, was his performance driven by just Trump being Trump, or was it driven by the manner and types of questions he was being asked?

The media has been rife with so much bias anymore that one might even rightly question whether or not debates are even an important part of the question of who is best to lead. As I said before, I have found them to be helpful in order to better understand where candidates are coming from. But is that really true anymore?

The real question is, does it hurt him? I don't know the answer to that. I will say that so far it doesn't seem to have done any damage at all, and in fact, may even be helping him tremendously. The closest second in the race is Ron DeSantis and by every measure he's so far behind Trump right now that in most cases we'd have already decided he stands no chance.

So, the likelihood that Trump will indeed be the GOP nominee appears to be almost imminent. Which is perhaps another reason Trump has decided to bow out of the debates. It's already been decided and so why bother with the debates at all? Just focus on the campaign and reaching out directly to the people who are interested in his message and be able to freely offer the message he wants to deliver instead of the message the media would rather be heard.

Did you know that The Springboard has a YouTube channel? Check it out for discussions of money, investing, business and other related things. You can also follow The Springboard on his Facebook page.

Free Stuff Ain't Free, Folks

With the democrats getting going in their "race to the White House," we are of course hearing the beginnings of all sorts of promises they are making that are supposed to make your life better, and perhaps in some ways more prosperous even.

But, it's "free" stuff they are mostly chattering on about, folks.

Free college tuition, free healthcare, and even one of the contenders, a businessman by the name of Andrew Yang, is talking about just simply cutting every single citizen over the age of 18 a guaranteed monthly check for $1,000 to help boost your bottom line and supposedly, level the playing field.

But the reality is that nothing that is government funded is actually government funded. It is taxpayer funded.

The reality is, folks, that at the end of the day SOMEONE has to pay for all of this stuff that the government wants to "give" you. Remember, the government DOES NOT operate as a FOR PROFIT organization. EVERYTHING the government takes in in revenue comes directly from you...the TAXPAYER.

The government is not out there opening up a few McDonald's franchises to take in a few extra bucks. They are getting every single dime of what they take in from the people who pay taxes.

So what is a free college tuition? It is a tuition that you will ultimately actually pay for anyway. And depending on how things go, your children and grandchildren, and even your great grandchildren will have to pay for as well.

What is a free $1,000 per month? It is basically taking from Peter to pay Paul. You give the government your tax dollars, and they give it back to you in the form of a guaranteed monthly payment.

Anybody should be scratching their head at that.

Beyond that, you might be saying hey, there are enough of those evil millionaires and billionaires out there who can pay more into the system certainly to help to cover all of this free stuff. So then, if that were the case, it is actually free, right?

But hold on a minute here. Here's a little fact that you need to know.

Even if you literally confiscated every single dime of every single millionaire and billionaire in the country, you would not even come CLOSE to covering the amount of money needed to pay for all of this free stuff, let alone make a dent at all in the deficit NOR the debt itself.

And eventually, the money would run out. No matter how you look at it, the only way any of these programs stands a chance to be viable, everyone would have to pay something. Ultimately, the tax code would have to be rewritten to now find ways of getting more money from the hands of even those in the 50% who don't technically pay any taxes at all.

By the way, it should be noted that if you paid $5,000 in taxes but got a refund check of $7,000, you are part of that 50% that does not pay any taxes at all.

Paying taxes is NOT sending the government a check, or having them pull money out of your paycheck. Paying taxes is either getting less back than you paid in, or owing more than you paid in.

If I paid the government $5,000 and got a refund for $2,000, I paid taxes. They kept $3,000. Catch my drift?

I only bring these examples up since many people think they are taxpayers just because they send some of their money to the government. But unless you get less back than you paid in...you are not a taxpayer.

Look, the main point here is that nothing in this world is ever free. Everything ultimately must be paid for by someone. And there is not enough money, believe it or not—but it's the truth—to cover the expenses of everyone in the country when it comes to just college tuition and healthcare alone, let alone anything else the government may want to promise to hand out to you.

Free is not free, and the more you take, ultimately the less you will get in the end.

No one ever got ahead from a handout. Anyone on welfare or food stamps has not gotten rich from that money. Nor has anyone who collects social security alone ever get ahead.

As the democrats get up on their podiums and start making promises to give you this and give you that, keep in mind that what they are actually giving you is something you have already, or will eventually have to pay for one way or another.

Trump Wins 2nd Presidential Debate

I know how the pollsters and news media are trying to slant the 2nd presidential debate. They are slanting it the way one would fully expect.

That Hillary Clinton won.

But, and I say this despite any admitted bias I may have with regard to Donald Trump's candidacy, I think it is clear and undeniable that Trump came out of this debate as the clear winner. Hands down. Look, I try to be fair in any analysis I make—on both sides for that matter. I thought Trump also clearly lost the first debate, and for a variety of reasons. That is, to my mind, a fair and honest judgement.

One thing that stood out for me in this second round was that Trump appeared way more prepared than usual to discuss the issues, and to lay out in more detail exactly what he wants to do, and more importantly, how he intends to do it. He was also considerably more contained than is his usual modus operandi as well. Something that I think is exactly what he needed to do in order to sway some on-the-fence voters, and perhaps to also solidify any voters in his base who may have been considering, for whatever reason, to jump ship.

Forget any establishment republicans who may have already jumped that ship. They are jumping for other reasons—of course.

The truth is that Donald Trump was on message, and frankly on-target. The one thing that few in the liberal media will give him credit for is how he effectively managed to shut down the discussion of the leaked tape. Both the moderators and Hillary Clinton, I think, quickly drew the conclusion that if they were to further discuss the issue, Trump would have effectively unloaded myriad talking points with regard to Bill Clinton's infidelities and misdeeds—and Clinton would have been in a very uncomfortable and difficult situation defending that. It took only a few strong words and a suggestion to allow the moderators, and even Clinton, to move on to the next issue. Had Trump not been so effective in his response to this issue, it may well have been the entire focus of the evening and he would have lost.

And of course, winner of the best line of the night also goes to Donald Trump when he suggested that had Trump been in charge of the law, Clinton would have been in jail. Despite obvious gasps from some in the audience at that remark—but I suspect many of those gasps came from Clinton supporters—I think the audience at least understood more clearly the seriousness of the issue of her emails as a whole. In preceding and following remarks I think Trump was able to convey two key issues with regard to the emails.

• Hillary Clinton has stated over and over again that she is best equipped to handle classified information, yet clearly her handling of the emails sent and received while she was Secretary of State via an unsecured server clearly breach that assertion—Trump also reminded voters that she lied to the FBI, and even reminded Clinton herself of her statement that she did not know what the letter "C" meant.
• It is impossible to know who may or may not have had access to her server and who may have gotten hold of any of the emails she sent or received—missing or not. This is potentially a serious threat to national security.

There is one more thought on the question of whether or not anyone who may be our enemy may have potentially gotten hold of classified information. How do we know that someone may not be holding on to that information to use it much later against us in some way? The server was not secured, no one really knows whether or not it was in fact compromised, and if it were, it would be difficult to know who was responsible for it.

Trump was very right to point out that only the media has seen this issue of her emails as "one to sweep aside as not that big of a deal." And I think he did so brilliantly.

And of course Trump also, I think, won the argument about taxes when he pointed out that even had he not paid taxes, he was still operating within the law—unlike what she had done with her emails—and that he was simply using the tax code as it was written by lawmakers. And he was very good to point out as well that singling him out for using the tax code as it was intended was foolish since every single rich person, armed with accountants and lawyers, would use the tax code in exactly the same way regardless of their party affiliations. His comments regarding this issue were much more effective, I think, than simply saying he was "smart." This laid out a more detailed rationale. And I think the audience got it when Trump also effectively pointed out two key things about taxes.

• Trump was not in a position to CHANGE tax laws. He was only in a position to FOLLOW tax laws, and to USE provisions in the tax laws as they were written by lawmakers. Clinton, on the other hand, was clearly better positioned in her former roles to make changes or push for changes if that is what she had wanted to do. She did say she was always against this or that item in the tax code—but while touting 400 pieces of legislation with her name on it, she did not single out a single piece of legislation with her name on it that addressed changes to the tax code. 
• He clearly stated an area of the tax code he wanted to change, and that would be carried interest. He said he used it like anyone would because, under the current tax code, it's what you do. But if he had his way, he would change it.

I think all in all Donald Trump explained most of his positions well. Be it his position on Syrian refugees, illegal immigration, the corporate tax rate and how lowering it would help businesses to better compete, and put more money in the pockets of the middle class, to explaining effectively why it can be harmful to let our enemies know what our intentions or timelines happen to be in any action we may take.

I have always advocated that nations need some secrets in order to ensure national security. 

Clinton, on the other hand, and for the first time for me, looked a bit frazzled—even surprised—by what was going down. I think Clinton was thoroughly convinced that this debate would go entirely a different direction. I can just hear the discussions before the debate, "With this tape out there, Trump will have nothing else to talk about...and we finish him." But that of course did not happen, and Clinton did not see any of what Trump delivered coming. The fact that he delivered with mostly tact and only once really raised his voice, and was well versed in the issues—all of this put Clinton clearly off kilter, and if anyone looked unprepared for this debate it was Hillary Clinton.

To be honest, despite my misgivings regarding the moderators which still leaned obviously left, I did find myself a bit surprised by some of the audience questions which put Clinton a bit in the hot seat. But, it was a town hall style. And even staunch Clinton cohorts will readily admit that when it comes to town hall's, Clinton always fares poorly. 

My thinking is because she has trouble actually talking about issues that aren't rehearsed, has trouble with questions she does not expect, and does not resonate well with the American people in general. 

As I said in an earlier post, the media and the polls that follow will all do their best to tell a story about a Clinton victory. They will do their best to suggest that the entire election is tilted in Clinton's favor. They will continue to flaunt any gains she may make in polls as "huge support gains" even though we all know that the steepest gains during this entire election has come from Donald Trump. 11 point swings are huge support gains in polls. Not 1 or 2 percentage point swings, But that's not how the media likes to tell the story.

In a nutshell, Trump won. Nuff said. Will he go on to win the final debate? Who knows? It depends on whether or not Trump can continue in the way he did with this last debate, and it depends on how well he can defend or deflect from any other garbage the left may try to pull out of the woodwork to shift the discussion from the issues, to what Donald Trump says or does.

Be Smart Tonight During the Debate!

Don't fall for it!

That is my suggestion as you prepare yourself for what is expected to be a monster debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, which by the way, is a calculated and orchestrated timed event if you throw in the recent release (or leak, whatever you want to call it) of tapes showing Donald Trump engaged in vulgar language directed at women.

Look, this what the DNC and the media are all too well known for. They want to skirt the issues and the reason they want to do that is because they cannot speak to the issues. This is a tactic the media and the DNC have been engaged in for years and for years they have gotten away with it.

Don't fall for it!

Do I think that the leaked tapes shed good light on Donald Trump? Of course not. But really, you could easily suggest that the words he used, and the conversations he engaged in are not unlike conversations that occur every single day in nearly every facet of society. It's real talk even if it's not necessarily appropriate talk.

And by the way, has anyone questioned statements Hillary Clinton made to secret service agents while she was First Lady? There's some pretty damning language there if you ask me. And while her language may not necessarily be directed in the way Trump's comments were in the leaked tape, they are still nonetheless foul, and certainly disrespectful and outright horrible.

May I use the word deplorable?

The DNC and the media want nothing but one thing to happen, because it works for them. They have designed campaigns around finger pointing—if you put all of the emphasis on the other guy, and you push hard enough, all you have to do is simply sit there in the debate and watch the nuts go after your opponent and eat up all of the time in the debate without ever once having to have your positions or your failures addressed at all.

If you fall for it then the media and the DNC will have their way once again. Hillary Clinton will not have to address her 33,000 missing emails, nor the clear and numerous lies she made to the FBI, which Comey has confirmed, nor the clear and numerous lies she made to the American people about the whole thing. She will not have to address what she did with the more than 600 calls for help by U.S. Ambassador in Benghazi, Chris Stevens, who of course is now dead along with three other Americans due to a lack of concern and action by the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton while she served as Secretary of State. And while we're on the subject, neither will she have to explain to the American people why she lied about that too, not only to the American people, but to the very families of the dead. You have to ask the question, because anyone paying attention knows the reason the lies were made in the first place was to secure a second term for President Obama, "Mrs. Clinton, how can you guarantee that you will put America first and keep Americans safe from clear and present danger when it is clear that you put lives in danger in order to support a false narrative that 'Al-Qaeda was on the run,' that would have been proved false had the true nature of the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi had been revealed?" And the question also has to be asked, "Mrs. Clinton, how can the American people be assured you will be honest with them when it was clearly illustrated that you lied to the American people and to the FBI about the nature of your missing emails?"

And then we're back to the issue of what Trump said in those leaked tapes which should directly lead anyone paying attention to now shift focus onto the stuff that Trump made all too clear he did not want to touch. And that is the question of Hillary Clinton's own attitude towards women which is—again for anyone paying attention—deplorable.

Yep, I chose to use that word again.

Hillary Clinton allowed a child rapist to get off while she was a defense attorney. This was a 13-year old girl, keep in mind, who was raped. And tapes that exist of Hillary talking about the case show very clearly that she knew the guy she was defending was guilty. She knew it. And not only did she know it, she reveled in the fact that she got the guy off, and she also reveled in putting the onus and emphasis on the girl who was raped.

She put the onus on the girl who was raped. She blamed the victim. When she knew the guy she was defending was guilty.

This bears emphasis and it is why I chose to repeat it in italics. War on women? This is what this essentially comes down to right? Only the DNC and the media are painting it with a different brush and they have been doing this right from the moment it became clear that Trump was going to be the nominee for the republican party. They have focused on Trump's three marriages. They have focused on Trump calling women this or calling women that. And now there's the leaked tape.

And not a single question to Hillary Clinton about her own husband's infidelities nor about documented attempts by Hillary Clinton herself to silence the victims.

Hillary Clinton's own record with regard to women is deplorable and yet no one is reminded of that, no one brings it up—which is especially amazing when stuff like this comes up in regard to Trump. It should. Any reasonable person should conclude that this entire issue is really an issue of the pot calling the kettle black, and if you ask me, the DNC and the media knowing this should steer clear of any mention of any of this sort of thing because under normal circumstances it would be damning because there is enough on the other side to bring up that it would make the entire issue moot to bring up on the Trump side.

Don't fall for it like the media and the DNC are sure you will.

How clear it is that the media and even so many Americans just don't pay attention. Even in the first debate (and even Trump missed the opportunity), while Clinton smugly shirked her shoulders and did some weird little torso dance at the podium saying, "By the time the night is over I suspect I will be blamed for everything," it should have been brought to the fore that that was the excuse made for every single failure of the Obama administration including the failures of Clinton while she was Secretary of State that all of it could be blamed on the mess that George W. Bush left for them all. George W. Bush was blamed for everything. Why didn't anyone bring that up? Why didn't Trump bring that up? Why didn't the American people catch that? Why didn't the media catch that, or the moderator of the debate? Hell, even the pundits didn't catch that.

Don't fall for it!

Look, in no way am I defending anything Trump has said or done during or before the time he was running for president. But clearly there are defenseless things on both sides, and frankly I think the things on the Clinton side are more defenseless—but that may simply be an opinion. So again, why the focus on Donald Trump's statements? Why the focus on Donald Trump's actions? Why can these defenseless acts not be put to bed like they should be by the mere fact that both sides have defenseless things in their bags?

I stand before a man having killed someone. I too killed someone. It is established we're both

murderers. So, logically one should conclude we go on to the next topic. Neither of us can point toward the act of murder because we are both guilty of the same thing. It's moot.

Okay, both sides have horrible records with women. So let's just move on shall we? Let's move on, in fact, to what is important for Christ's sake and not again fall for the tactics employed to skirt the important issues.

What are we going to do about ISIS? What are we going to do with the Iran deal? What are we going to do about jobs? What are we going to do about the economy? What are we going to do about the failures of the Veteran's Administration? What are we going to do about North Korea? How will we address the issue of illegal immigration?

And again, if we fall for it, if we allow the DNC and the media to do it again, we won't hear about these issues and the American people will have effectively been duped yet again. We'll only hear about how bad a guy Trump is while not hearing about how bad a woman Clinton is. How bad her husband was.

The entire thing just irritates the hell out of me because I so badly want to believe that not only are the American people supposed to be smarter than all of this—for crying out loud republicans are supposed to be smarter than all of this. But they're falling for it. So many are falling for it. Smirks on their faces, haha's in their commentaries, I told you so's and innuendos...

Can you not read between the lines? Can you not see past the smoke and mirrors? Are you unable to see the forest for the trees? Are you so easily duped and swindled? My God, if this is so easily accomplished by the DNC and the media—how the hell do you get through life without the wool constantly being pulled out? Do magicians seem like a real thing to you? At this point I swear if the DNC and the media worked hard enough at it you might even believe that world is indeed flat. The DNC and the media is so convinced of your stupidity that they comfortably report it as news that the Syrian conflict, and the greatest threat to national security is absolutely climate change.

That last thing should really allow you to see what's going on here because surely you don't believe that climate change is responsible for a fucking war! Clearly you don't believe that climate change is the greatest threat to national security!

Don't fall for it!

As for the line of questioning we will witness in tonight's debate, of course it will be more of the same. Skirting the issues, focusing on Trump this and Trump that, Clinton smirking and smiling, moderators clearly in the tank for Clinton, and hand selected robots of the DNC and the media who will ignore Clinton and trounce sharply on Trump. And you have a choice when you watch this go down. You can either show your true intelligence and see the writing on the wall...

Or you can fall for it.

And now for something completely different:

Why Hillary Will Not Win The Election

In the stock market we typically follow the philosophy that past history is not necessarily indicative of future results. But a lot of the time when it comes to presidential elections and politics in general, history can be very telling. Even while there are some changing demographics and of course, different dynamics at play with this upcoming election, there is still enough data among the electorate right now that tend to suggest that history may well be very telling as to whether or not Hillary Clinton can seat herself in the Oval Office.

I am taking the position that Hillary Clinton cannot win, although I am also openly saying that it is too early to firmly stake that claim.

Set aside some of the issues of her political tenure that I think should be enough to preclude her from ever holding an elected office or cabinet position of any kind such as Benghazi, or the email scandal. The question becomes whether or not Americans are satisfied with the current state of the Union, and how they feel about the direction the country is headed.

In a recent Monmouth University poll likely voters were asked whether or not they would vote for Obama for a third term if he was able to run, and only 27% of those polled said yes. 43% said they wanted someone else. With Hillary Clinton not having clearly defined how her presidency would be different than Obama's, and how her candidacy is not necessarily a continuation of the same policies of the Obama administration, this puts her almost in lock-step with Obama. If 43% would be unlikely to vote for Obama, how would they then circle back to Clinton, essentially equating to a third Obama term?

I do not believe that voters will.

Let's not forget that many Americans, even those who typically have supported Obama, are also becoming more aware that perhaps the policies of the Obama administration, for all of the hope and change promised, have simply fallen short. The economic numbers have not improved much. The jobs situation has perhaps seen lower unemployment numbers, but there are still many quality of life issues when it comes to what types of jobs are being filled. Even having more people working means nothing if those jobs aren't helping to dramatically improve anyone's bottom lines. And it would appear that foreign policy has been a disaster at best—and the recent events in France won't help Clinton either—and according to other polls Americans are not exactly convinced that the country is safer today, and many are also considering that the next attack on American soil may just be a matter of time.

History shows that it is extremely rare in any event for one party to maintain the White House for 12 years straight. I do not believe that, despite all of the hype surrounding Obama's two-terms, and any excitement for another historical moment in the making if Hillary makes it to the White House, that there is enough there to provide her an opportunity to buck the trend.

And Hillary is also trailing every single one of the republican candidates, and I think that is quite telling considering who she is ultimately up against. The usual players are not the front runners. Who is leading in nearly every single poll?

The non-establishment. Non-politicians. Non-government.

The numbers alone seem to signal if not for a history repeating shift to the republican party as would otherwise be the case, but a strong and growing dissent and resentment toward the status-quo when it comes to the entire landscape of politics. Hillary is clearly completely immersed in this world that a growing number of Americans are simply tired of. As well, it seems to me that even if you take a look at the small list of democratic candidates, and any enthusiasm that may exist in the democratic side going to just one primary candidate, it begs the question; If the democrats, or any democrat in the party, felt strongly that the Obama presidency was a huge success, would there not be more candidates coming front and center to eagerly make an attempt at continuing the legacy? Enthusiasm can sometimes be defined by who shows up to take a shot, and on the democratic side that number is quite small. This becomes even more glaring when you consider the controversies which have surfaced during Clinton's run. Anyone eager to take up any slack in what would be considered a strong and in-the-bag victory would readily step forward and say, "What about me?"

I think the truth is that Hillary Clinton is not the automatic president everyone seemed to want to suggest she was going to be. That becomes even more clear to me now.

It is still too early to tell as I stated before. But what does seem clear to me is that the republicans have the best shot they have had in a long time to secure a victory, and I would not be at all surprised if that victory doesn't even necessarily go to the republican party even if the future president bears an "R" after their name, but to the non-establishment which just happens to be strongest running on the republican tickets.

I simply feel that history will prevail despite the changing demographics and dynamics of this election, and democrats will not enjoy another four years in the White House. That leaves Hillary out almost indefinitely since Bernie Sanders, her strongest opponent, comes nowhere near the numbers of any of the republican candidates. If Donald Trump is a "long shot," Bernie Sanders is a shot in the dark in comparison.

Whoever wins the White House, rest assured it will not be Hillary Clinton.

After The First Democratic Debate

After watching the first democratic presidential debate on CNN it left me with one primary insight. For the first time in a long time, the GOP has a strong chance of actually winning the White House. Say what you will about the top contenders on the stage in the GOP primary race, but I think their message is stronger, is more resonant with the American people, and I think that the American people are tired with the failed policies of our current president, the democratic party leadership, and are ready once more to try something different for at least the next four years.

In a way, for all of the pull and tug of the democratic party to put Hilary Clinton front and center in the race, I think this has actually worked to greatly harm their chances. Hilary was a darling with The People for a time. That much is clear. But that love affair, if you want to call it that, is waning in the face of more scandal, and a much clearer picture of where president Barack Obama has left us—in muddy waters in nearly every single thing he has touched. So what you have in the field of runners are what I can only classify as terribly weak contenders. If there are any real hopefuls out there, they have largely stood in the shadows feeling as though they have no chance against Clinton, so why bother?

And by the way, what the hell is Lincoln Chaffee even doing in the race?

I have been a republican. I have been an independent. And now I am a proud democrat. What? So basically what you are telling the American people is you don't know a thing about where you stand, who you are, what you want to be, and if one thing is clear, if you can't make up your mind about what you want to be called, how the heck can we trust that you can make your mind up on any of the important issues you might face as the president?

Give me a break, dude.

As for Bernie Sanders, let's face it. He is simply cow-towing to a largely growing population of people who want something for nothing. But, what he and others in his party fail to understand when they try like hell to demonize the rich, is that a large part of the reason the poor have grown, the middle class have shrunk, and the rich have blossomed is due to the very policies they wish to advance and promote which have failed. The economy is in the dumps and people are feeling the pinch because the democratic party since Obama took office has not been able to take on the task of fixing the problem with the right approach. Rather than acknowledge that, the democratic party does what it always does. It points the finger at the republicans and of course, believe it or not, it's still Bush's fault.

If you wanted to use a word to describe what Bernie Sanders is proposing it could be bankruptcy. Why bankruptcy? Because it's what people resort to when all else is failed. Fuck it. I'm done. Time to tell everyone else to go fuck themselves too since I can't get it together on my own. Rather than dig deep into things like the state of jobs in America, the low labor participation rate, and the reasons why welfare recipients are more likely to sustain collecting benefits rather than go out and get a job and go it alone, the democrats—and Bernie specifically—just want to artificially lift the bottom rungs of the ladder because it happens to be the easiest answer for them. Capitalism is just an evil beast that much be destroyed.

Yet amazingly, the truth of the matter is, that had the United States not made it's economy largely capitalistic, we would never have become the nation that we are. Capitalism brought America to power, and the lack of it will bring the country to its knees. Is that what we really want? Is that what the democrats really want?

All in all I would call the debate interesting. Enlightening? Yes. But only because it confirms for me, and hopefully for a good many others that we cannot continue on the path we are on, and therefore we must look to someone on the other side to right the country, and get us back on a path forward. Not a single one of these candidates is worth a damn. Not a single one of these candidates is offering us anything solid in answers as to how we acknowledge what has not worked, and how we do something different to make it work going forward.

It is still a long road ahead to the White House. So long as the American people are tuned in and paying attention we have a shot at actually getting the hope and change we were historically promised nearly eight years ago. If their not, or if they are still in bankruptcy mode, we are doomed.