A press conference as called by Donald Trump's penis

America, America, excuse me. Excuse me.

I am huge, let me just tell you about it. Huge. And I love you. I love the people here. They’re beautiful, wonderful people. America has the best people. Especially women. I love women. Some men, too. I like men. And men love me, they really do. They love me. But women. Women are incredible. Incredible. At least three of them have loved me back, and you can check the record on that. But the rest are liars. Losing liars. I hate those women because they lie. They all want me. They’re jealous. Jealous loser women.

But that’s not why we’re here, not why we’re here. As your soon-to-be-president’s dick, I want to set the record straight on a few things. Excuse me. Excuse. Me. Penis is talking here.

I am incredibly successful. You look at my numbers. They reach billions. Billions. … Your graphic is wrong. I know I said three before. But it’s billions. Trust me. Billions. And, you know what, the Hispanics, Black people, Asians, even Muslims, they love me, too. We've made deals. Give and take. I’m a businesspenis, you know that. I know that. I’ve probably hired thousands and thousands and thousands of people. I’m creating jobs. And I don’t discriminate, no, I don’t discriminate. I love all people. They’re so beautiful. Incredible. And they want it. I give people what they want.

As for the issues, I hit the important things. The big things. I make the tallest, shiniest towers. Because I can make them. And I make them great. And they’re big. They’re really big. Like me. You know this already. I also have the most money. The most. Of anyone in the world, I have the most money. Look it up. Check my Twitter. People love that about me. It resonates. People can almost feel me when I talk about it. They like a successful guy. And I’m successful. Let me tell you. And I’m going to build the biggest, longest, best-looking wall you’ve ever seen. It will look just like me, watch. I guarantee you there will be no bigger wall in the world, just like there is no bigger penis in the world. I guarantee you this.

And internationally, I’m really big. Maybe even bigger than here. I’ve had five, ten, actually thousands of people tell me how big I am out there. I’m yuuuuge. You already know that. But leaders, they will listen to me because I know how to talk to them. Once I put myself on the table, maybe alongside the gun I bought and make the stupid small hands carry around, those people will be bending over backward to do what we say. They’ll be begging for it—this deal I’ll make with them. And I make the best deals. And it’s good for them in the long run, it is. But it’s better for us. I’ll always make sure it’s better for us. I get what I come for. And I come for what I get. Look at my record. Don’t believe these lying losers.

And my final point is, hey, listen. I disavow my hands, okay? I disavow them. I don’t have anything to do with them, and they don’t have anything to do with me, alright? I mean, we work together sometimes. But mostly at night, when I can’t sleep. I hardly ever sleep, you know. So, yeah, we work together every once in a while, but that’s it. And let’s get this straight right now, they work for me. I’m in charge of them, and I tell them what to do. And they love me for it. Just like the women do. Like all the people, really. People and hands just love me. And I love them. Incredible. But I disavow them. Tiny, small traitors. Lightweights. I’m the real deal. Huge. So successful. Even my daughter loves me. I mean, I think she does. She hasn’t said that, but I think she would. If she wasn’t my daughter. Point is, everyone loves me. Because I’m big. Tremendous.

You know you want it. You’ve been waiting for this, America. And I’m going to give it to you. I’m going to make you great again.

The last debate

I'm here, watching the last Republican debate before the Iowa caucus, and I'm looking at all of these men talking about immigration, and I'm still just as boggled as I was three months ago when this all started. Why do none of these people know what they are talking about?

Listening to the Republicans versus the Democrats, and it's like they are talking about two different countries, with two different sets of issues. And the Republicans keep talking about issues that don't exist. Or, the issues exist: immigration is an issue that is very important.

But the solutions don't address the problem.

Like, building a wall, stopping people from coming in, not trusting those born in other countries, using them as scapegoats for hate and fear. These are the solutions to immigration that they're talking about. And they're arguing over who wants to be the most extreme about this.

Meanwhile, the Democrats talk about the middle class and how to fix our ailing infrastructure, what to do about climate change, how to stop ISIS, you know, important things.

The most of this debate, as with all Republican debates, is a sniping match between the candidates. They spend all their time pissing on each other. They are all scurrying around as if their fellow Republicans are the scourge of the Earth. The only thing worse than the primary opponents are the Democrats.

They are looking so desperate right now. Why are they so frantic and testy? Why aren't they calmly telling us what they would do for the country?

Why is the Republican Party its own reality show this year?

Donald Trump isn't even there.

This isn't a debate. It's a pissing match.

There is no winner here.

Just seven desperate, angry men making themselves look bad.

So, who REALLY won the #DemDebate? -- Guest Post

Who won the first #DemDebate? Well, it sort of depends on who you ask, and I think that is the most interesting thing to come out of last night. If you look at almost any mainstream media channel or webpage (CNN, MSNBC, ect.) then you’ll come away with a pretty clear indication that Clinton won and that it wasn’t particularly close. Sanders, most news outlets agree, had a nice showing but fell far short of Clinton’s “dominance”. And in any previous election that would be the end of the story. Clinton won running away, and barring some kind of major scandal this primary is over. The problem for Clinton is that this isn’t any previous election, and there is something of an unknown factor that overwhelmingly believes that Sanders won this debate. Sanders was the most Googled name during the debate, almost from start to finish. He gained 35k new Twitter followers, while the rest of the nominees combined gained just over 20k. The closest online poll has Sanders only winning with 68% of the vote, with that total reaching up to 85% in some polls. The real question is…does that actually matter?

It’s easy to dismiss “The Internet” out of hand, partially because it’s never really mattered before. There’s an argument to be made that The Internet is partially the reason that Obama got nominated over Clinton eight years ago, and I do think there is some merit to that, but for the most part Obama won through conventional, grass roots support. While The Internet was generally in favor of Obama, I don’t think it actually swung the election in any meaningful way. With Sanders, it’s different, but it’s easy to miss the distinction. Sanders has been garnering huge turnouts to his speeches, a lot like Obama did eight years ago. The difference is that when Obama was doing it his staffers were on the street, getting the word out. With Sanders, they have spent very little money on getting the word out, relying mostly on word of mouth. And by “word of mouth”, I really mean “The Internet”. And it’s clearly been working, gaining him audiences as large as 25k at a time.

Does having your name Googled and gaining Twitter followers translate to the polls? Recent events suggest that it might. After Carly Fiorina’s performance in the first Republican Kids Table Debate, she was the most Googled name of the night, and gained the most Twitter followers. Her poll numbers increased enough to get her moved to the real debate a few months later, although they had to change the rules to get her there. In this case, I think the power of The Internet had little to actually do with the change, but the correlation is interesting enough to note. If Sanders sees a five to ten percent increase in poll numbers we might have to pay closer attention to Google and Twitter trends, but I think his numbers are unlikely to change any more than three percent. And that’s because I believe traditional polls are becoming increasingly inaccurate.

In my opinion, the most important thing that any candidate said last night was when Sanders claimed that in order for any Democratic nominee to enact any of their policy changes, it would take a political revolution. Considering the number of Republicans in the House and Senate, he’s absolutely correct. That revolution needs to come from younger voters, a demographic that has, historically, very low voter turnout. But if you look at the crowds Sanders has been drawing, it’s been mostly younger voters. If you look at where he’s most popular, The Internet, you can start to understand why his polling numbers don’t match up to his seemingly fervent support. The most astounding thing I’ve learned all year is that traditional pollsters only call landline phones, never cell phones. In a day and age where more and more people, specifically younger people, are never even setting up a landline, this practice seems woefully outdated. If the people who are likely to say they’re willing to vote for Sanders are never being asked the question, it’s no surprise Sanders isn’t polling in a way that matches his apparent support.

There is one other major reason I believe the fact that Sanders name was Googled more than anyone else last night matters. If you look at the traditional polls, Sanders “Unfamiliarity” rating was around 40% prior to last night. Despite the crowds he’s been drawing, and despite The Internet being on his side, he’s almost never talked about on traditional news outlets, and he doesn’t spend much money on advertising. After last night, I fully expect that number to drop significantly. That may or may not translate to increased poll numbers for him, but it’s very unlikely to make them drop in any meaningful way. While I think that traditional polls are becoming less accurate, that doesn’t make them irrelevant or even unimportant, especially considering the impact of younger voters is a huge mystery.

Which brings me back to the question of who won the debate last night. Clinton had a good showing, and did everything her supporters wanted her to do, including the traditional media. She didn’t commit any major gaffe, and she attacked her opponents in areas where she had a clear advantage over them. She was smart, poised, and articulate in her points. It was clear that she had practiced and was ready for everything that came at her. Sanders, on the other hand, was passionate, genuine, and, in what most people are calling the moment of the night, willing to throw politics aside to defend a fellow candidate against what he perceives as an absurd assault. This defense of Clinton and her email scandal seems to generally be perceived as a sign of his integrity and interest in what’s right over what’s political. In a climate where people seem to be tired of “politics as usual” and are increasingly interested in a candidate who’s willing to speak from the heart, even if what they have to say isn’t popular, this is important.

Clinton did exactly what she walked onto that stage to do, but did she convince anyone who’s on the fence to vote for her over Sanders? I don’t believe she did. To be honest, I don’t believe there are a lot of people on the fence when it comes to Clinton, although I do believe that she may have convinced people that don’t like her that, if she does win the nomination, things won’t be as bleak as they thought it would be a week ago. In other words, I don’t think she helped herself in the primary, but I do think she helped herself in the general election, and that seems to be the reason the traditional news outlets believe she won the debate.

The problem is that Sanders also did exactly what he walked onto that stage to do. His two biggest limitations were people not knowing who he was and his problem with non-white voters, particularly black voters. Gaining almost twice as many Twitter followers as the other four candidates on stage combined as well as being the most Googled name of the night may have taken care of the first problem. And the fact that he was only one of two candidates to actually say the words #BlackLivesMatter (the other being O’Malley), and was the only candidate to not only bring up the example of Sandra Bland, but to actually #SayHerName, will likely help with the second problem. No matter what the traditional polls and media outlets say, Sanders seems to have likely helped himself both in the primary AND in the general election, and for that reason I give the edge to him over Clinton.



...

Mike Provencher is a writer and father living in Connecticut.

Why are we talking about immigration?

If you were lucky enough to miss the debate last night, let me sum it up for you quickly:

BRAGGADOCIOUS

REAGAN

W KEPT US SAFE

HEY, I HEARD YOU SAID MEAN THINGS ABOUT ME, YOU JERK HEAD.

SHUT UP, JAKE TAPPER, I AM NOT FINISHED YET.

Got it? Okay, cool.

During all this blahblahblah, however, the Republicans spent an inordinate amount of time discussing immigration. Like a full half hour almost. And it was cringe worthy.

Yeah, there was the same old talk about the beautiful wall we're going to build around our borders with the fancy doors. And then there was some talk about fingerprinting every single person coming over and keeping an eye on them. I mean, we can't just be trusting them foreigners trying to make a better life for themselves, right? And one of them was like, I don't know, a dome or a force field or something equally ridiculous. And those jerk students and workers for our companies overstaying their damn visas. They are totally out of line, definitely. How dare they contribute to our society and cultural network with the money they earned and are putting back into the system. WE SEE YOU.

I know I'm convinced. I'm packaging up some legos to send to the cause right now.

Anyway, at one point, Donald Trump said (I know, I know, bear with me), that we are the only nation that allows a baby born on our soil to be a citizen, and he went on and on about how we then have to take care of that baby for, like, 85 years. AT LEAST. The horror.

But then, to my surprise, most of the Republicans standing on that stage were like, ya know, Trump's got a good point there. We gotta give that one to Trump. Yup. Babies being born here, and then we carry their asses for nearly a century. Something must be done. Good point, Trumpy.

No.

Nope.

Nooooooo.

First of all, when a child is born in the United States, they are an American citizen. That's kind of like our thing, guys. Yes, we are one of the only nations (if not the only nation) that has this rule. Because IT'S LIKE OUR THING. It is one of the things that makes us amazing. It is one of the few things left that make us amazing. It's a touchstone of our heritage as an immigrant country.

We are a country of immigrants. Can we please keep that in mind?

Second, all those Republicans stood in abject horror as they talked (wrongfully) about Planned Parenthood. They are pro-life. They argued over which one was the mostest pro-life. Dear God, we must take care of the babies! Who is thinking of the poor, defenseless babies? Why are American women so fucking cold-hearted that they'll just kill all the babies who can't even speak for themselves!

Unless they're brown, though, am I right, guys? All those immigrant babies should be born in the ocean to shorten their lifespan so we don't have to take care of their greedy asses.  We love every single baby. Unless we hate that baby because its parents are from another country. Those dicks.

Third, last time I checked, a baby didn't actually stay a baby for 85 years (unless I'm doing this whole parenting thing really, really wrong). And, like, citizens have rights and everything which I know is a total bummer, but in return they work jobs in our country and pay taxes in our country and support services in our country, and basically make the country work.

Like, you know, people.

Babies born on U.S. soil, who are then U.S. citizens, are, in fact, productive, fruitful members of our society who contribute to our national money base and follow the rules set forth by our founders.

They are not wailing, needy, no-go, babies for 85 years.

So.

Actually, that was a really bad, flawed, made-no-sense point and the Republicans who agreed with Trump there should be ashamed of their inability to logic correctly. What even was that.

And finally, lest you forget, Trump is like best buddies with Mexico. And China. They love him so much. He told me. So, at least there's that.

Ways Mitt Romney Is More Juvenile than my Preschoolers

I think the title here speaks for itself. No introduction needed.

1) He rewrites history.

My girls will say, "Hey, remember when you said you were going to give me a lollipop?" When I said, "I'll give you a lollipop tomorrow after breakfast, if you behave."

Romney takes it a step further.

He'll straight up claim that the Obama administration is trying to spread misperceptions about him by saying he doesn't care about 100 percent of the people. Which, obviously, he does.

Oh wait, no. That was Romney who said that 47 percent thing. I saw the video.

2) He confuses words and their meanings. And he makes words up.

Sure, my girls use words like "boccki" just for the hell of it. Mitt Romney uses words like "misperception" when under pressure. It's misconception.


3) He cannot answer direct questions.

Me: "Did you go potty?"
Twins: "I really like Superman."

Candy: Can you talk about assault weapons that were once illegal and are now legal?
Mitt:

4) He blames everything on mom.

Did you know that the rising violence in America rests solely on the shoulders of single moms? Thanks for that insight, Mitt.


5) He says straight up ridiculous things.

My girls: "Mom, I'm a unicorn!"

Mitt Romney:

(PS - I suggest checking this out for a while.)


6) He has no respect for authority and will act petulant and rude when simply being reminded to follow the rules.

7) If he doesn't like what you're saying, he'll try to intimidate you. He will simply repeat things louder and more persistently than you (just like my kids), then laugh as if you're the asshole (not like my kids. A new level of immaturity even they have yet to achieve).

8) He uses really big hand gestures as if the reason you don't understand him is that you are incompetent. My kids also employ this method to indicate really big and really small. But it's for them not for me.

9) He'll tell you what the rules are, thank you very much.

Me: "Give her back the toy."
Girls: "It's my turn."
Me: "You just had the toy. Now it's her turn."
Girls: "No...WAAAAAAAHHHHH."

Candy: "It's time to move on."
Romney: "If he gets two minutes I get to respond!"
Candy: "You answered the question first and we have another audience--"
Mitt: "WAAAAAAAAHHHHH."

10) He will tell you with absolute certainty things that are patently false.

Girls: "I didn't poop my pants."
Me: "Are you sure? Because I smell it."
Girls: "Yes, I sure."

Romney: The President didn't come out and say it was terrorism until two weeks later.
Obama: Actually, I said that in the Rose Garden the next day.
Romney: In the Rose Garden, hahahahaha, you did? In the Rose Garden, the next day?
Candy: Um, actually, yeah, he kind of did.

Just shows you the kind of confidence he can portray about things he actually knows nothing about.

 

Image and Politics

~All the TV channels say Mitt Romney won the debate.~

As Americans, we are so obsessed with image and likability that we refuse to open our minds to facts, numbers, models, scales, or anything that could possibly help our nation.

This is a problem that has been perpetuated since I was a little girl. American history, the course we have to take eight billion semesters of, all we hear about is how great we are. But we're not. I mean, we are, but we're not flawless. These problems we have...they're not little. I don't know if Americans think they're stupid, or what, but start giving them figures and they tune out.

Don't count yourself out, Americans! You can understand this! You can grasp it. Have confidence.

But no, these days, if a gaffe-ridden politician can show up to a podium and not say something like, "I don't know why windows on planes don't open," he wins a debate.

Americans are proud of eschewing facts. They think it speaks to their character and judge of character if they "go with their gut."

It does, but not in the way we think it does. Obama is criticized for being the "celebrity President" but when he comes out muted with facts and projections to support his plans, no one pays attention.

Because Mitt Romney is doing his best impression of a bulldozer. Unfortunately for Romney, even with his repeatedly vague assertions, the fact checkers came through. For those still watching.

Something one of the PBS commentators kept saying is that Mittens won because he looked happier to be there.

Well, yeah.

He's got a shot at the presidency! Woot! I'd be psyched, too. Obama has to defend his right to be there. Not as exciting.

Plus, did anyone think that maybe Obama was peeved to be there because he had to spend his 20th anniversary talking to a Republican millionaire?

And talk about image, poor Jim Lehrer. Yeah, he had a hard time, but can anyone expect him to meekly shut the candidates up right after his job and livelihood has been threatened? You take Big Bird, you take Jim Lehrer. I'd be nervous, too.

Image means so much to us. Too much. And it frames everything we think about. So much so that when someone bucks the image train, everyone jumps behind them in a show of solidarity. They are so impressed with themselves about how image doesn't matter to them that they have to shout really loudly about it.

Just so you know, that doesn't count. Those people are just as obsessed with image as everyone else. The louder you talk about how awesome you are for embracing the little guy, be it the bus driver bullied or the new anchor who just broke all boundaries and kicked butt defending herself and her weight, it's still about image.

I don't know how we can move away from this. I just thought I'd point it out.

Anyway, for those of you interested in some specifics, here's a link to the plans brought up in the debate. (You'll have to click farther than the blog itself. The plans are in the links.)

Washington Post

Here's a distribution table, showing exactly where people fall and what should be defined as middle class.

(Spoiler, you're probably not rich.)

For those of you who don't really want to go through all that, let me bring you to my side the American way:

So, yeah, I'm an Obama supporter. Maybe I'll tell you why in the upcoming weeks. But it has nothing to do with gifs and macros and everything to do with policy and personal experience.

Whomever you want to be your next President...please vote. (Unless you're in PA. Free pass.)