The Bernie Campaign Motto

If I had to sum up a campaign motto for Bernie in a simple slogan, I’d say it has to be “make them an offer they can’t refuse.” I know most of us associate that with mob activity. But it fits nicely to Bernie Sanders. It is more of a doctrine.

He simply capitalized on the idea of making them an offer so enticing (and stimulating) they cannot turn it down. I mean why should they? All they have to do is vote for him, not like that is costing them anything really. Or so the rationalization goes. Meanwhile, they won’t even know they’ve been baited.

When Trump used the line “what have they got to lose” it actually applied. Meaning people have been locked into failing schools and communities for years, sometimes generations, without improvement even though they kept going to the polls voting for it.

They thought they were doing the right thing only to be lied to over and over again. All politicians really want or need is that vote. Then pols can go on their self-absorbed way. But why give people the improvement when it is the desire for it that has kept them coming out to vote for you? That’s a simple strategy many pols embrace. In other words, why give up the goose that is laying those golden eggs so nicely?

And yes, Democrats and Republicans have both engaged in this “keep them coming back for more” strategy. (Abott and Costello would love that bit)

However, this whole concept of ‘nothing to lose’ is the mentality younger generations have perverted into a ‘why not’ attitude which seems to, more often, get them more than it costs them in the long run. You can’t blame them for trying anyway even if it doesn’t pan out.

Now Bernie uses one gimmick. That is the sales pitch he typically turns to in town halls, usually stacked with his supporters. He suggests he wants a little survey to make his point. He asks them if they believe healthcare is a human right? Then they cheer. He asks if college tuition should be free and government should pay off student debt? They agree. On and on he goes, ticking off item after item on his list. I mean they aren’t going to say no, why should they? So they can’t refuse.

No one is sitting there thinking that it might not be quite right. In fact they are thinking that it should be an actual “right”.

That, in effect, is the explanation for his entire campaign. He’s there to give them what they want. It is not about practicality it is about desire. Oh sure he schemes up some numbers on a paper of how we can pay for it by just “asking a little bit mo’ from the rich.”

It sounds good so what is the problem?

That is: it sounds so good. No one is going to say, “I think we should skip on that but what is the rest of your plan?” No, that is Bernie’s whole plan. There is nothing else to it. That is the plan, a quid pro quo to get him elected. If he was buying votes it would be wrong. But since he is buying your votes with the government’s taxpayer money it is okay. And who cares about what it will cost when it is really just about what you want anyway?

Bernie is no fool but he is making one out of you. And if our elections are now only about demanding what goodies and “freebies” you want to demand, then we are in uncharted territory. They’ve already decided they want to give you a right to kill a baby all the way up to date of birth for whatever reason. If they compromise on the virtue of life, what won’t they be willing to do?

Besides, those gifts and rights they are going to give you are just a cost of doing business. It’s like the car dealership with that enticing gimmick to get you to come down to the lot. Test-drive a few.

How can you say no to that? So the campaign and election is not about Bernie and his record, or what is best for the country, it’s about what you want. And you should have it.

Remember, his answer to any question then is to turn to the crowd and say do you think healthcare should be a right – to get free medical service? He knows the odds are highly stacked in his favor. He justifies his campaign on your need.

And with all this strategy in mind, he says he is going to get the largest voter turnout in history to win. Does it work? Well, it is not costing Bernie anything.

So the next time you see him turn to an audience to ask the question, ask yourself what is the answer to that?

In Bernie’s mind “why complicate it?” And why should we?

Right Ring | Bullright

Bloomberg Bust

As Michael Bloomberg divests, purges all his assets and swears to a vow of poverty, he enters the Democrat primaries. Headline alert. Bye bye, Bloomberg News.

Not really, but isn’t that what new Democrat rules demand? This may get very interesting very fast. Goodie! I’m sure AOC and Bernie could help him redistribute his wealth.

And who will be the lucky recipients of all his extra cash? Just asking for a friend.

What an exciting time in politics! When will the festive de-wealthing begin? I think the giveaways should be live on TV. (that’s just me)

Let’s see how this banner of the Big Gulp cleanses his vast fortune.

Right Ring | Bullright

Ukraine On The Brain

One thing that American people should be outraged about is any idea that the success of the current US president – indeed future of the US – should be determined by Ukraine. Not to mention our election of a president and the next one.

But this is the exact situation the Democrats have put America in. Ukraine is now at the center of all that. We should be appalled but many people are cheering this on.

We just annexed the future of America to a former satellite country of the USSR. One that has had its share of corruption and is engaged in its own sovereign preservation. Something Trump wanted to look into.

But back in 2016, radical Democrats put Ukraine smack into the center of their conspiracy theory (coup in the making) by DNC’s and Democrat operatives’ collusion with it in US election politics. Ever since they have been covering for that fact. Now they have brought Ukraine straightforward into their current goal of trying to impeach the POTUS.

I can’t believe this is anything the people would care about, with regard to choosing our president, except for remote hopes of working with Ukraine to eliminate corruption. But that corruption in Ukraine is where Americans’ concern stops.

It is hard for me to believe that people want Ulraine to determine our present president or our future one. That would seem absurd. But apparently that is the road Democrats are going down and what they believe. Their whole impeachment now rests on a corrupt country waging a battle to protect itself from Russia’s covetous hand.

If Democrats do not want foreign meddling or interference in our elections, they sure have a real funny way of showing it. If successful, it is hard to imagine there will not be some heavy consequences for that. Imagine the people who were obsessed for two and and a half years with a myth of foreign influence in our elections, now are determined to once again inject foreign interference into our politics.

Do Americans fall for such a cheap plot? I don’t believe so. But radicalized Democrats are determined and invested in making that case for it.

Then they put an acting ambassador to that country at the center of their “resistance” case. So while Ukraine is resisting Russia’s military overtures, Democrats put that whole issue into the center of their seditious resistance against a sitting US president – even in congress. And they are etching Ukraine into US history by doing so. They have entered Ukraine into the congressional record in one of the most serious things congress can undertake in America, the impeachment of a president.

But make no mistake; they had put Ukraine in the center of election politics since the 2016 election. They continue to build on that plot right into their current seditious coup mission.

Right Ring | Bullright

Trust Dictionaries

I am going to leave this one up to Webster’s who seems to understand the nuances of Socialism and Communism vs. Capitalism.

The gripe I have is with Leftists who state a simple definition of Socialism as government owning production or the means of production. Some in media also use this definition. This has long been used as a blanket denial of socialism. One can say that definition is the hurdle and they are not advocating that. Thus, they blame you for misstating their position. It becomes a semantics argument. I reject that — and the approach.

That is why I believe Dem0ocrats are some of the most disingenuous or dishonest people there are. And why it is often pointless talking with them. They’ll throw these simple or deceptive meanings out there and expect you to comply with it. What is the point?

It is better to say government controls the means of production. Even that is a little flawed in today’s definitions of Socialism. They’ve been working at creating vagueness for years.

So here is the definition of Socialism and I encourage people to see this page for more information. Webster’s claims communism is one of their most looked up words.

Socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Socialism vs. Social Democracy: Usage Guide

In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, “pure” socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.

Then we come to the basic Hitler description of Socialism. Asked prior to WWII about abolishing private property, he wanted people to keep their private property just as long as they understand that they are agents of the state. In this way, government does not need to own production or private property, merely control it. While you may own it, you and the property are virtually controlled by the state. All they need is control.

That same philosophical distinction can apply to production. All the state needs is control, which can be achieved by regulations or other arms of the state. So that is the dirty thing Leftisits don’t want to talk about or you to know, as long as you accept their definitions.

Shopping Sprees

I’ll make you a bet, do you think I could do a non-political post? I bet I can.

So I’ve taken a swing at almost anything else and why not say something about consumerism — one of the biggest and quirkiest subjects of our time? In my opinion.

Actually there is something in it worth talking and thinking about. It was made clear to me in a recent trip to some very old familiar turf. I hadn’t been through there in about ten years so sure there would be some changes.

What unfolded in front of my eyes almost defies description. Yep, everyone knows how development goes on and how it’s all done in the name of progress…or so they say. I have never seen that much change in that amount of time to one area.

I didn’t see the housing developments though they must have been there lurking in the background. Though I could not miss the amount of commercial, and I mean 90% retail, development. Other than that I could not miss the monstrous growth of schools either. (I thought they were plenty large then) But let’s just stay with the retail, business end.

Now years ago there was a hot debate over the condition of retail. The consensus seemed to be on the side of brick and mortar’s decline. Well, judging by what I saw, I can safely confirm that did not happen. But one did not expect an explosion of retail expansion anywhere. I guess anywhere other than there. Okay, it was always a hub of discount retail activity and sort of the bargain basement of the area for outlets with tourism. But no more. I saw every major chain represented that I could think of and a few new ones, too.

Of course the whole purpose of this piece was the topic of consumerism. That old debate centered on Internet sales taking over business of brick and mortars. Or at least squeezing them out of the market share. Ha, well, maybe that market is much bigger than even I originally thought. And in the marketplace there should be room for all.

Doing my own thinking about this, while driving along miles of brand new retail stores and mega-plazas, I came to the conclusion that B&M shopping is different than online. My rule of thumb now is that if you want or need an exact item you may go online to purchase it. But if you aren’t locked in on an item, want to examine things, compare or just shop then you would do well to hit the stores — despite traffic and the headaches.

I hear a trend everyone talks about where people are buying almost everything online. Some people that is. Good for them, convenience and all. But there are others who are not sold on the total online bit, not yet anyway. For them the shopping may be split between types. It occurs to me though that the total online crowd may be missing something.

If I stretch out my personal theories, which are no better than yours, I could see a day not too far away when some people may not really know how to shop in real life. That virtual shopping is much different. They got that techno-retail thing nailed.

Like the way cell phones and their addictive use seems to consume people, there could be a time when people just don’t know how to do something without the smartphone or the internet. Face it, shopping is a thing most of us grew up with and adapted to. We may hate it sometimes. But I can foresee a time when some people don’t have those basic life skills. Did I just say shopping is a life skill? Sigh.

I mean actually running down the isles to find something or settle on a different thing or brand without the use of their good old technology crutch. A good trade off? After all, once in a store Google is not going to tell them what isle the coffee or pickles is in. No GPS coordinates with Siri, the obnoxious navigator. They have to look for it which will be like work to them. Physically taxing. That also requires familiarity with the store to be able to quickly find things. You can’t have that when you don’t spend time in a real store.

And I can see a time when it might require stores to have guides for newbies, walking them by hand through their mission. An adventuresome culture shock. I may be exaggerating but not by much. It could be an overwhelming or traumatic experience for them. They might think, “I remember when I was little my mother used to come through the store and she didn’t like it.” So some people may have phobias over that kind of shopping and maybe even need therapy to get accustomed to it, if they even want to.

Well, my little trip just reassured me that there still is a lively market for “retail reality.” With all the new stores someone is shopping in them. But that’s another question, just who are all these people? However, maybe I am the extreme exception because my trip had nothing to do with shopping or buying anything. Observation was enough for me.

Right Ring | Bullright