Category Archives: Politics

Just Another ‘Assault’ on the Trump Campaign Trail….

Just Another ‘Assault’ on the Trump Campaign Trail….

Posted on by • Posted in Politics • Tagged , , , , , , , , , • 1 Comment

–April 5, 2016

The word “assault” seems to be a tagline of the Donald Trump campaign of late, as numerous incidents of assault have been alleged over the past month at various campaign events, with the press stirring the pot with overheated reporting on each supposed event. Of the three primary “assault” incidents receiving the most press coverage, only one deserves to be termed “assault,” one is utter bullshit, and the third represents a case in which the alleged “victim” is actually the assailant.

The first one is easy: On March 9, 78-year-old John McGraw sucker punched a protester who was being led out of a Fayetteville, NC Trump campaign rally by law enforcement. Anyone who’s seen the video will have to agree that it was essentially an unprovoked assault and that McGraw should have been (and was) arrested…or—for those who believe one good punch deserves a like-minded rebuttal—been punched right back by the protestor. No doubt about this one whatsoever—it was an assault.

The second assault, and the one receiving the most coverage, concerns Breitbert news reporter Michelle Fields charge that Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski grabbed her by the arm and “nearly threw her to the ground.” And when I say “press coverage,” I mean a ludicrous level of coverage, aided in part by all the other candidates piling on the bandwagon insisting that  Trump should fire the campaign manager for the egregious assault.

Horse-fucking-feathers, I say…. If that incident constitutes “assault” then that bird that landed on the podium in front of Bernie Sanders last Friday was an assassination attempt.

Anyone looking at the video of the incident can see that the campaign manager pulls the journalist away from Trump with about the same force that she was using on the candidate in an effort to make him stop and answer a question. And this after two clear entreaties were made by the Secret Service to please step back from the candidate. The “nearly thrown to the ground” part of the allegation is equally bogus, as she hardly misses a beat in turning around to continue her pursuit of Trump.

As Donald Trump said, “nothing there,” and yes, if that incident is supposed to be an assault, then Trump should file charges against the reporter for her assault on him. The fact that charges have been laid at all is absurd, and is indicative of how…I don’t know…how America is becoming a nation of whiny crybabies (but I guess I’ll save that for another rant).

Oh, and while unsubstantiated, some (admittedly right wing) news sources are now reporting that the “victim” is a serial filer of assault charges, with charges filed against five different people over the years, but with all being dropped.

The third assault incident seemed to be on the verge of garnering massive press coverage, with initial headlines referring to the poor victim as a “teen” or “15-year-old girl,” who was groped and pepper sprayed at a Trump rally in Wisconsin. The story had all the makings of a press-frenzied black eye for Trump, but seems to have been quickly discarded and forgotten. Perhaps because numerous videos have emerged that show that the alleged victim is actually the aggressor and probably deserved to be pepper sprayed.

The incident was videoed by numerous people in the crowd, and can be viewed as it unfolds from just about every angle. From everything I’ve seen in the videos the girl is aggressively arguing with an older man, gets more and more agitated and starts heaving her girth at him while getting more and more agitated. The man is obviously trying to back away from her, but is stymied by the crowd. The man’s hands are up in the air as if to say I don’t want any part of you, and then she starts screaming about how he had groped her (ahem, “total bullshit!”). And then she hauls off and sucker punches him in the face, and someone else in the crowd (rightfully) nails her with pepper spray.

I say rightfully because all video evidence shows her to be the aggressor, and it’s obvious that the man accused of groping was only trying to get away from the belligerent cow. She sucker punched him and got hit back in return—end of story. At least it should be….

Oh, and for the record, I did not write this in support of Trump, I wrote it in support of “truth.” Something that will undoubtedly get in shorter supply as this race continues to unfold.

—Originally published April 1 in Hash It Out!

Washington, DC to Fight Crime with Stipend for Criminals

Washington, DC to Fight Crime with Stipend for Criminals

Posted on by • Posted in Politics, Social Commentary • Tagged , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

—February 5, 2016

The brilliant minds of the Washington, DC Council have reportedly come up with an innovative crime fighting measure that is sure to stop crime in its tracks before it even happens….

Or not!

As written and unanimously approved on first reading earlier this week by the Council, The Neighborhood Engagement Achieves Results Amendment Act (NEAR) will pay a stipend to District of Columbia residents who are considered at risk of engaging in criminal behaviour or at risk of becoming a victim of violent crime if they participate in behavioural therapy and remain crime free.

That’s right, Washington, DC residents will have the privilege of seeing their hard-earned tax money being used to pay potential criminals not to commit crime. Instead of handing their hard-earned money over to a mugger on the street taxpayers will just give it to the DC government, which will then make sure that it gets into the hands of the most deserving potential criminals who promise to curtail their criminal activities.

What do ya think: Win-Win? 

The NEAR bill was introduced by Council Member Kenyan R. McDuffie as a “public healthth-2 approach to crime prevention” and, along with that oh-so-tough-on-crime stipend, would also insert social workers and psychologists into police units and expand the city’s monitoring of both patterns of violence and of police abuse. The bill would also narrow the definition of “assault on a police officer.”

According to McDuffie paying a potential criminal $9,000 in stipends “pales in comparison” to the cost of someone being victimized by a crime, and subsequent costs of incarcerating the offender.

The McDuffie bill was offered as a “compromise” to Mayor Muriel E. Bowser’s anit-crime bill, which had been opposed by community activists, McDuffie and other council members, and subsequently shot down last year by the Council. For her part, the Mayor rejected the NEAR bill as a “compromise,” noting that it “fails to include any provisions to combat crime.”

For the record, Washington DC has seen its violent crime and murder rate spike by more than 50 percent over the past year, and while the criminal violence levels aren’t yet approaching the levels seen in the late 1980s and early 1990s when DC was known as the “murder capital of America,” the upward trend has been quite noticeable.

Other than negative comments from the mayor and the police, opposition to the NEAR bill has been muted; however, community groups, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and Black Lives Matter have been effusive with their praise. Such groups have urged passage of the NEAR bill, and agree with McDuffie that crime prevention is better served by treating it as a “public health problem” rather than treating it with stricter enforcement and penalties.

The District Chapter of the NAACP supports the city’s efforts to “bring a public health, community based approach to criminal justice reform.” The NAACP further urged the council to reject efforts by the mayor to add some “tough on crime” provisions to the NEAR bill, arguing that her “failed crime bill would expand police powers and contribute to mass incarceration.” Meanwhile Black Lives Matter supports the bill because it “treats and responds to violence in our community as a public health issue, integrates new approaches to prevent crime and improves law enforcement training and data collection.”

The NEAR bill is modified on a program in Richmond, California, which pays male residents aged 13 to 25 considered to be most at risk of killing or being killed a monthly stipend of between $300 to $1,000 in exchange for following a “life map” of positive behavior. The program is funded through a mix of municipal taxpayer funding and private donors. According to a report presented to the DC Council, 79 percent of participants in the Richmond program have not been suspects in any “gun” crimes since joining the program, and 84 percent have not been injured by gunfire.

If, as expected, the NEAR bill is approved, funding would have to come from other programs, according to the DC chief financial officer, and it is unclear whether the DC Council will be able to determine how exactly to fund the program for the next fiscal year. As currently drafted, the program is expected to provide the stipend—along with mental health counselling and job training—for up to 200 “at-risk” potential criminals and/or victims each year.

Along with the possibility that the program may be entirely underfunded as currently envisioned, we wonder if the program will reach the right potential criminals. Free money will certainly be enticing for some; however, when your average street-level drug dealer can make that kind of money in a month, he (or she) will likely stay on the street—despite the potential for violence— rather than take the government’s relative measly handout.

So, Hash-It-Out—

Is this a bold, innovative solution to address violent crime, or…

…the most ludicrous crime-fighting strategy you’ve ever heard of?

—Published in hashitout.com February 5.

Patriotic or Not?—Hashing Out The Bundy’s Struggle Against Government Tyranny

Patriotic or Not?—Hashing Out The Bundy’s Struggle Against Government Tyranny

Posted on by • Posted in Politics, Social Commentary • Tagged , , , • Leave a comment

—January 29, 2016

Well, the siege at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon is winding down, with the ringleader and 10 of his followers under arrest, and four hold-outs still rattling their sabres (AR-15s and the like) at the refuge over the alleged tyranny of the U.S. government.

For those of you unfamiliar with this story, Ammon Bundy and about 20 very-well armed associatesimage.adapt.480.low.bundy_1272016 took over the wildlife refuge on Jan. 2, ostensibly in protest of a federal prison sentence handed down to Oregon ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond for arson on public lands that the ranchers grazed their cattle on. Upon the Bundy seizure of the refuge, the Hammonds quickly disassociated themselves from Bundy, proclaimed that the Bundy gang did not speak for them, and urged Bundy and his gang to leave the refuge.

Bundy just as quickly quit referring to the Hammonds’ plight as the excuse for the armed take-over. The new excuse posited the seizure as a protest against the Federal Government’s unconstitutional ownership and management of federal lands, and Bundy’s militia vowed not to give up the refuge until the government turned it over to the people of Harney County.

But not all the people. While the refuge is actually part of an 1.78 million-acre Indian Reservation taken from the Northern Paiute tribe in violation of an 1868 treaty, Bundy, while recognizing the tribe’s historic claim, told the press that “they lost that claim.”

Meanwhile, the vast majority of people in Harney County agree with the Hammonds that the Bundy militia does not speak for them, and urged them to give up the occupation and go back to their own homes in Arizona, Nevada or wherever they hailed from. Many area residents also noted confusion about why the self-proclaimed patriots decided to occupy Malheur and expressed the sentiments that “they don’t speak for us,” and “we don’t want them here.”

Well, the government—federal and state—kept its distance from the refuge and the siege has thus far lasted some 28 days at what is excepted to be great taxpayer expense, not to mention great inconvenience to the residents of Harney County, who are under a partial lockdown, with schools closed and businesses related to the popular refuge shut down.

Now, we could stop right here and ask you to hash out your thoughts about whether the Bundy militia is comprised of true-blue patriots or self-righteous, right-wing Looney Tunes. But no, we’re going to go back a couple of years to another siege of sorts, which was initiated by Ammon Bundy’s father and has yet to be resolved.

You see, in April 2014, a self-proclaimed militia came to the defence of Ammon’s father Cliven Bundy, whose cattle were being impounded in the Gold Butte area of Clark County, Nevada by the Federal Bureau of Land Management. The impoundment was ordered due to Cliven’s failure to pay more than $1 million in grazing fees and fines for non-payment and non-compliance with grazing regulations over the course of two decades.

For the record federal grazing fees are relatively cheap and represent a 93 percent discount from what the private sector charges. However, Cliven in 1993 declared, among other things, that any federal ownership or control of the land was null and void, and spent the next 20 years all but ignoring federal efforts to collect any payment due or force compliance with grazing regulations. Cliven did attend the many federal court proceedings against him, all of which ended up in favor of the government and ordering Cliven to pay the ever-increasing fees and fines and comply with grazing regulations.

And finally, on April 5, the government took direct action by starting the round up and removal of the trespassing Bundy livestock that had freely grazed with impunity for so long. Armed militia members and other antigovernment protestors showed up at Gold Butte shortly thereafter and  demanded the release of the Bundy cattle. More federal agents were called to the scene and an armed stand-off of sorts ensued. After several days of escalating tensions the government backed down, released the Bundy cattle and withdrew.

Cliven quickly followed up his success by demanding the country sheriff disarm the National Park Service at Lake Meade and Red Rock Park, and then declared that county sheriffs across the country should “disarm the federal bureaucrats.” Cliven became a darling to the Tea Party, the extreme-right wing of the Republican party and prominent members of the right-wing press. This quickly faded within a week after Bundy, wise sage that he is, publicly stated that African-Americans might be better off as “slaves, picking cotton and having a family life,” rather than living off government subsidies.

The federal land known as Gold Butte is no longer “managed” or “patrolled” by government personnel. Armed Bundy supporters reportedly patrol and block access to the land, as well as intimidate trespassers, especially those that give hint of any ties to the government. Bundy walks around as a free man and has still not paid any of the $1 million plus in fees and fines owed for his use of government land. Of course, according to the Bundys, the land doesn’t belong to the government, it belongs to “the people.”

So, Hash It Out! Is Cliven Bundy a scofflaw or a defender of the people’s rights and ownership of the land? Are the Bundy militia members patriots or domestic terrorists? And, should the government continue to let these “patriots” of whatever stripe take over federal land without repercussion, or arrest them for their various transgressions?

—Published in hashitout.com Jan. 29, 2015.

Forget “Gun” Control—How About “People” Control?

Forget “Gun” Control—How About “People” Control?

Posted on by • Posted in Politics, Social Commentary • Tagged , , , , , • Leave a comment

—December 3, 2015

With every mass shooting that happens in America gun control proponents amass more ammunition in their ongoing struggle to ban or otherwise restrict gun ownership and usage in the country. And yet, they keep shooting blanks….

I would posit that a large part of their problem lies with their emphasis on controlling guns rather than the people who use guns. It’s an inconvenient truth but: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Two AR-15 semiautomatic rifles didn’t walk into the San Bernardino, California Inland Regional Center on their own accord yesterday and start shooting people. No, two obviously deranged people walked into that center for people with disabilities and shot up the place using AR-15 semiautomatic rifles.

Guess what? The two AR-15 semiautomatic rifles are not to blame. And yet that is what gun control proponents will fixate on, all but ignoring the people who actually fired those guns and slaughtered 14 innocent people.

Another inconvenient truth: “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Take Washington, DC, which had the strictest gun control laws in the nation in the 1980s and early 1990s, and yet had among the highest gun violence per capita in the nation during that time. For quite a few years it was known as the nation’s “murder capital,” with handguns being the primary murder weapon of choice.  And gee, how could that be possible as Washington, DC had an outright prohibition (since annulled as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court) on the ownership of handguns? Guess the criminals weren’t too worried about the five-year prison sentence for possession of a handgun.

So, again I ask, why the emphasis on controlling “guns” rather than people? Here in my adopted country of Canada, the government in the late 1990s enhanced its already stringent control on guns with something known as the “long gun registry.” It turned into a billion-dollar boondoggle in which efficient bureaucrats (pardon the oxymoron) milked the taxpayer teat at a rate of about $255 (and continually rising) per registered gun.

The program, which was scrapped in 2013, was never proven to reduce gun violence. Canada’s auditor general, in reviewing the government’s performance report on the registry, determined that the report did not show how the registry minimized “risks to public safety with evidence-based outcomes such as reduced deaths, injuries and threats from firearms.” Law enforcement users of the registry were mixed in their feelings about its usefulness, with many departments believing the program to be ineffective in deterring gun violence, but useful for determining whether guns might be present in particular homes that they might be called to or were otherwise investigating.

A quick question: Which deadly weapon kills more Americans every year than guns?

Give up?

Automobiles.

Have you ever heard anyone talk about “automobile control?” No, and that’s because the emphasis isn’t on automobiles, but on the people who drive them. If someone wants to drive a car in America they have to be trained and licensed. There are different classes of license depending upon vehicles driven, and the license can be revoked if a driver fails to follow the rules of the road.

Why shouldn’t the use and ownership of guns be treated in a similar fashion? If someone wants to own or use a gun, he or she should be required to possess a valid license, based on passing a gun usage and safety class, not having any criminal convictions involving firearms, and not having any medical or psychological conditions that might preclude or limit the safe use of a firearm. A basic license would allow for the use or ownership of a standard rifle or shotgun, while other classes of the license would allow for use or ownership of handguns and/or semiautomatic rifles, based on even more stringent training and requirements.

Failure to have a license could result in impoundment of firearms, fines and other penalties; and criminals committing gun crimes without a valid firearms license would be subject to enhanced penalties such as extended prison terms.

Overall, the entire program could be modelled on state automobile licensing programs, and even be operated under their auspices, as they have existing infrastructure in place to operate such a program. State governments would just need to add new computer software and hire division of firearms officers to perform all the tasks that need to be done in the issuance of a license.

To ease the transition into the new licensing scheme, long-time, law-abiding gun owners could be grandfathered in without the need for the safety/training class, and the requirements to become licensed could be phased in over several years on an age-based process.

And those states reluctant to adopt firearms licensing programs could receive encouragement from the federal government, which can threaten appropriation of state highway funds or enact other encouraging measures.

So all you gun control proponents, think about it: why control the guns when you should be controlling the people who use them?

Will Canada’s New Leader Impact the U.S.?

Will Canada’s New Leader Impact the U.S.?

Posted on by • Posted in Humor, Politics • Tagged , , , , , • Leave a comment

–October 26, 2015

Well, kids, there’s a new sheriff in town….

Not here. No, up in that vast cold territory to the north of us–the land of moose, beaver, eskimos and ice hockey known as Canada. The country held a national election last week, in which the incumbent prime minister was ousted by a political dilettante.

Today’s Question: Who is Canada’s prime minister elect?

a.) Steven Harper

b.) Thomas Mulcair

c.) Justin Bieber

d.) Justin Trudeau

Steven Harper is the current long serving incumbent prime minister and leader of Canada’s Conservative Party. But don’t let the party’s moniker fool you, as Canada is a left-leaning country and Harper is about as conservative as Bill Clinton. So, Harper, even though not particularly close to either former Republican President George W. Bush or current Democratic President Barack Obama, managed to toe a middle line and helped maintain reasonable U.S.-Canada relations for the past 10 years.

Thomas Mulcair was the third-place finisher in the election. Leader of the New Democrat Party, Mulcair is about as “left” as one gets in mainstream Canadian politics. In fact, this party’s moniker is also suspect as it should be called the New Socialist Party. Had Mulcair won, his policies and governing style would alienate America and probably lead to a U.S. nickname for him something along the lines of “Hugo Chavez of the North.”

Justin Bieber is a famous pop star from Canada, and sure, had he been on the ballot he undoubtedly would have scored some of the youth vote, but this Justin as Canada’s prime minister would be like Americans voting in Tila Tequila for president.

tumblr_mrxqi5CCjn1qze0z6o1_1280Justin Trudeau is the prime minister elect. A member of Canada’s Liberal Party, he is going to be running that cold territory for at least the next few years, and will in part dictate whether Canadian-U.S. relations continue in good standing. The Liberal Party, which lies pretty much left of center, is where it is supposed to be on the political spectrum, and there’s no reason to believe that Justin will not get along with the Democrats in Washington. The Republicans, though, and a Republican president, should one win the election in 2016, might have some issues with young Justin. Though we trust that any such issues would not be enough to thoroughly trash the long-standing good relations enjoyed by the two countries.

Let’s flesh out what promises Justin made on his road to the prime minister’s office and try to determine how America will feel should he successfully implement them as law.

One of Justin’s first acts will be to pull Canada out of active participation in the U.S. led coalition against Islamic State. While having a close ally pull out of the fight might seem cowardly, it’s not like Canada’s contribution–six obsolete attack jets and a few hundred soldiers–was going to tip the scales either way in the fight. And Canada being Canada, will undoubtedly replace its military commitment with an equal measure of humanitarian aid to those displaced by the war. From what we understand, Obama has already forgiven Justin for pulling out, and any potential future Republicans in power will likely have no problem living with it.

And speaking of humanitarian aid, Justin has already promised to take in thousands and thousands of Syrian refuges. This will not have a direct impact on U.S.-Canadian relations, but the U.S. has been concerned about Canada being both a haven for terrorists, and a back-door entryway for them, since the early days of the War on Terror. Thus, border control issues, which are already sometimes painful with tit-for-tat measures between the countries, could become a source of greater contention.

Actually, due to another Justin promise, the border could get downright ugly….

Justin, you see, has promised to legalize the use and sale of marijuana, a promise, that if kept, would put Canada at significantmarijuana_leaf odds with America’s ongoing War on Drugs. We’re guessing that President Obama, who hasn’t sent the Feds into Washington or Colorado with their marijuana legalization efforts, will keep a low profile on the issue when Canada goes legal. However, should the Republicans gain the White House, things could get very ugly, especially given that most Republicans still maintain a zero tolerance stance.

We’re not trying to debate the pros and cons of marijuana legalization here, we’re just pointing out that Justin Trudeau is taking the debate to a new level, as Canada will likely become the first country in the world to allow nationwide legal use and sale of marijuana. Whether America will be accepting of this or whether it leads to trade sanctions or worse remains to be seen.

This issue then, is likely to be among the biggest determinants of the future of U.S.-Canadian relations.

So, Hash-It-Out! Should Canada legalize marijuana how should America react?

a.) Do nothing at all.

b.) Watch and monitor to see if legalization should be adopted by the U.S.

c.) Close the border and impose sanctions until those dumb, pothead Canucks relent.

or, d.) Use it as a pretext for invasion. The Canucks are almost American anyhow and would welcome us with open arms.

—Originally published by Hash It Out! on October 26, 2015

Hashing Out the Latest Hillary Clinton News Feed

Hashing Out the Latest Hillary Clinton News Feed

Posted on by • Posted in Politics • Tagged , , , , , , ,

—Oct. 9, 2015

Front-running Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is a dominant factor in the nation’s political news stream. And given that “news” can help make or break a candidate’s campaign, we decided to look at this month’s news feed to date in order to determine whether it was helping or hurting Hillary’s campaign.

Of course, news can be biased depending upon the source, with some news coming from the left in hopes of helping her campaign, and some from the right with an aim towards smearing the candidate. And yes, there is likely also some truly unbiased news in the mix. Thus, when considering the news and its impact on the candidate, one should also keep the source in mind and give weight to the bias that may be playing a role in how the news is being reported, and to what extent the truth of the story is accurately being portrayed.

For today’s exercise we want you to weigh each news item for level of truth, apparent slant, and, perhaps most importantly, relevance. Hash these stories out, internally and with others, to determine if each story gives you reason to vote for Hillary, or vote for another Democratic candidate. Tally up your responses to find out whether you would give your vote to Hillary if this was all you had with which to judge her candidacy.  Oh, and for those who already know they will not be voting Democrat no matter what, just try to pretend that the Democratic field represents your only option for president.

Hillary Clinton Comes Out Against Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Deal, The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 7– Hillary is possibly straining her relationship with the Obama administration, as her declared opposition to the Pacific trade deal undercuts President Obama’s efforts to win congressional approval for the pact.

A brave political gambit or is something else afoot?

Hillary Clinton Approaches Debate, and Bernie Sanders, With Caution, The New York Times, Oct. 6–This story details the dilemma Hillary faces in her Democratic Primary campaign against the current top rival Sen. Bernie Sanders. That is, how to successfully fight him without alienating the Democratic voters that support him.

“Damn the torpedoes” is apparently not her modus operandi….

Secret Service agents: Hillary is a nightmare to work with, New York Post, Oct. 2– This story claims that the recently released book–First Family Detail–“exposes Hillary as an epically abusive Arctic monster.” With direct quotes from the book, the story purports that Hillary is especially rude to members of her Secret Service detail and likes to use the F-word. The story claims that the book’s author writes “flatteringly and critically” about people from both political parties, but fails to highlight any examples beyond Hillary.

Guess you need to read the book….   

2010-04-01-hill12 Quirky Emails on Hillary Clinton’s Server, CBS News, Oct. 8– Quirky yes, and while not necessarily newsworthy, perhaps enlightening. In a July 11, 2011, 2:24 a.m. one-line email response to an aide’s email notifying her of the Fukushima earthquake in Japan, Secretary of State Hillary asks, “Do you have my shawl?”

They (whoever “they” are) do say email messages can be taken out of context….

Don’t be fooled by the ‘new’ Hillary Clinton, Fox News, Oct. 8–This story warns potential voters not to fall by Hillary’s efforts to present herself as “warm, fuzzy and funny, characteristics heretofore unknown in the former first lady, comer New York Senator and former secretary of state.”

Actually, the article seems to be more about the bias of NBC’s coverage of Hillary, suggesting NBC stands for “Nothing But Clinton.” 

Hillary Clinton: I’m Not Interested in VP Job, NBC News, Oct. 5–“Hypothetically speaking, no,” Hillary has no interest in being the White House second fiddle.

Guess she’s hypothetically been there-done that, what with eight years as second in command at the White House in the 1990s.  

Hillary Clinton to push new gun controls after Oregon Shooting, Chicago Tribune, Oct. 4– Hillary has apparently made strict gun laws a “centerpiece of her presidential campaign.”

A brave move, given that gun control has always served as a political hot potato….

Hillary Clinton Wants to See Lenny Kravitz’s ‘Penisgate’ video and Megyn Kelly Doesn’t Like It, Inquisitr, Oct. 6– In an interview with Lena Dunham, Hillary expressed interest in seeing the infamous video of Lenny Kravitz’s wardrobe malfunction. This in turn spurred Fox News Host Megyn Kelly to call the interview not “fitting for a presidential candidate.”

 Surprised that Hillary even knows who Lenny Kravitz is, let alone wants to see his penis….

Hillary Clinton Got Fired from a Job in Her 20s–You’ll Never Believe What it Was, People Magazine, Oct. 5– Canned from an Screen Shot 2015-10-08 at 5.23.31 PMAlaskan salmon packing cannery for being too slow and complaining that the fish smelled bad.

Hillary suggests that she was fired because she raised concerns about the cleanliness of the operation; however, because she also claims the entire operation “was gone” the next day, we find this story a little fishy…. 

OK, kids, based on the news items above, would Hillary get your vote for the Democratic nomination–Hash It Out!

—Originally published Oct. 9, 2015 by Hash It Out!

Who is This Carly Fiorina, and Is She a Contender?

Who is This Carly Fiorina, and Is She a Contender?

Posted on by • Posted in Politics • Tagged , , , , , ,

Looks like there’s a new emerging star among the field of 16 or so candidates seeking the Republican nomination for its presidential candidate. If political pundits are correct, Carly Fiorina was the top-dog debater during Wednesday night’s CNN-sponsored Republican presidential debate in Simi Valley, California. Ms. Fiorina, who has never held political office, reportedly trumped (pardon the pun) her more political astute colleagues on the stage, as well as front-runner Donald Trump, who has also never held political office.

thUntil recently, Ms. Fiorina’s candidacy–announced May 4–has not garnered much attention by the press, beyond recognition that she is the only female in the Republican field. However, the media spotlight, which loves a fight, honed in on her after The Donald made disparaging comments about her looks earlier this month. In an interview with Rolling Stone he said, “Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president.”

The Donald, who has been rebuked for disparaging comments he’s made about other women–such as calling Fox News host Megyn Kelly a “bimbo”–later back peddled and said that he was talking about her “persona,” not her physical looks. He also claimed that his negative comments about women were being made in the context of him being “an entertainer,” implying that they are made for the sake of humor.

In rebuttal to Trump’s comments, and in a move that brought her more attention, Ms. Fiorina in a speech to the National Federation of Republican Women, said, “Ladies, look at this face. This is the face of a 61-year-old woman. I am proud of every year and every wrinkle.” And then, during Wednesday’s debate when asked to respond about The Donald’s original comment about her appearance, replied, “I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said.” In short, Ms. Fiorina was essentially implying that Trump could kiss the women’s vote goodbye.

For our part we’re not going to comment on Ms. Fiorina’s beauty, or whether there’s a lack thereof; however, we do wish she’d quit jerking her head around so much while speaking. With her pencil-thin neck it makes her look like a hyperactive bobble-head doll.

During the debate Ms. Fiorina promoted her strong conservative leanings by emphasizing the need to significantly increase America’s military, defund Planned Parenthood, and keep fighting the “War on Drugs.” She also successfully jabbed and parried with her colleagues on the stage, with many pundits claiming that she bested Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and The Donald when she one-on-one sparred with them, and that she proved to be the best debater of the night.

But can she really take the Republican nomination?

Ms. Fiorina’s only other foray into politics was the 2010 Senate race in which incumbent Sen. Barbara Boxer defeated her by 10 percentage points. While Ms. Fiorina ran on the strength of her strong business credentials, which includes becoming the first female chief executive officer of a top-20 Fortune 500 company, it was those very credentials that likely lost her the Senate race.  As the Boxer campaign pointed out, during Fiorina’s five-year stint as Hewlett-Packard, 30,000 U.S. HP workers lost their jobs and the company’s stock price dropped 50 percent, all while her salary tripled.

Ms. Fiorina defends her record at HP by stating that she ran the company during a difficult time and had to make “hard choices,” but that those choices ultimately made the company stronger. She repeated this line during Wednesday’s debate and noted that she also presided over one of the largest mergers in corporate history.

Despite Ms. Fiorina’s rebuttals, her troubled tenure at HP, along with subsequent firing, will undoubtedly continue to haunt her during this campaign. Just go to the website carlyfiorna.org for an example of how badly this could haunt her.

—Originally published Sept. 18, 2015 by Hash It Out!