Bernie Sanders Must Be the Next POTUS

Iain Coston

Author's Note: In this series, I will be examining the top three reasons why each candidate should be the next President of The United States. This is the third.


As voting begins for the primaries tomorrow, I wanted to make sure I wrote this before any decision is made. Because I have such tremendous influence on others, I wanted to get my two cents in before ballots are cast. As you may know, the reason for this post's existence is for me to find three things in every candidate that will not make people go

if they're elected president. Now go get an icepack, it's time to #FeeltheBern

1. He's Practical kind of
One of my pet peeves when citizens are having arguments, is when people can't decipher when someone is explaining something that is a logistical or practical observation, versus an opinion of what they want. For instance, when I wrote a post on the minimum wage, my intention was to create an explanation of what the experts and facts are trying to tell us. Of course, people (including myself) are wrong all the time, but it's not as if I want people to be paid less. My personal desire is for no one to have to worry about money. However, I simply believe that on the list of things that create helpful  economic opportunities for the marginalized, minimum wage is not found. You can want certain things but know that that's not how the world works.
---
Is this about Bernie or you?
---
I'm getting to that. It's called analysis.
---
Hurry
---
Well, maybe I'd get to it faster if you would be quiet.
---

Sorry...
---
It's okay...just...just pay attention, okay?
---
*sniff*
---
Anyways, Bernie has publicly been shanked for this. At the first Democratic debate hosted by CNN, the other candidates didn't like that he criticized them on their approach to add laws to tighten gun control. They wanted the moon, the stars, and the cow that has the fantastic calves to jump over them all. However, whether or not that's good or bad morally, Sanders correctly tried to remind them that Republicans don't like their position. His point was that a president has to work with people who disagree with him or her, and asking for extremes on either side isn't a practical way to get laws passed. Unfortunately, his fellow candidates took that as him siding with the GOP, rather than realizing he was only pointing out they're tough to work with. Good job Bernie.

2. He's honest but not offensive
This probably is only here because of the hair-who-must-not-be-named, but it is relevant nonetheless. This election has been a lot about comparing candidates who are authentic, and those who exist to serve self-interest groups. While I am of the belief most of them are a little bit of both, Sanders is probably one that is heavily authentic. I only say "probably" because I think there's still some scenario where he is a secret sleeper-cell agent hired by McDonald's. If not, his authenticity is something I think most can appreciate. What is even better is that he goes out of his way to be polite and keep it on the issues, even when his main opponent is under investigation by the FBI. What a guy. To me, it's refreshing. He's no nonsense, likes to talk about the issues, and is classy about it. And it's attracting a lot of people, with many who even like to dress up like him. They eat this stuff up.

Yummy

3. He wrote Seinfeld
I know this may come as a surprise, but Seinfeld is one of the greatest shows in the history of television. It'd be insane to not include this. If his presidency is a tenth as good as Seinfeld was, America will definitely be great again. And if you disagree with that, you're probably a communist. Which isn't that far from Sanders, so that might not be as much of an insult to you as it is to me.
---
editor whispers in ear
---
What?
---
whispers
---
Sanders didn't write what?
---
whispers
---
Larry David? Hold on, lemme see....

--------

 

Ohhhhhh....never mind then.

---

There you have it. Three...well...two great reasons why you have to vote for Bernie Sanders. He's a lovable guy who loves to be lovable. What's not to love?

-----

Iain Coston

3 GOP Debate Thoughts

Iain Coston

Author's Note: I watched the entire (?) big debate before people actually start voting for the Republican candidate on Monday. Here's some stuff.

I like to think of the GOP debates along the lines of a super cool gladiator fight. Just without the gladiators, the cool, and the super....Actually, I take that back. Debate is cool. Yeah, that's right, I think debate is cool. You know who else does probably? 

Dope.

Alright, here are three things that stood out to me last night.

1. The GOP is still diverse
Even without Trump (see below) different people said different things about different ideas that have different implications. That either means the Grand Old Party is fractured, rife with creativity, or doesn't know what's going on. I'd like to think it's the second one, most people probably think the first, and I'm sure it's actually the third...but then again that describes most of my life. 

Yes I am.

As far as what specifically happened, let me indulge you. Rubio did his Rubio thing and talked a lot about how America needs a super-boss good army and how Rand Paul is a terrorist and Ted Cruz is an enabler because he voted for something Paul liked. I would have appreciated it more if Marco Polo kept that in it's own field of defense, instead of trying to bring up how horrible Rand Paul is whenever he was mentioned.

Luckily, there was also good discussion on Iran sanctions, like how long one should wait to tear up the Iran deal. I think the average time was five minutes after the first cup of afternoon tea at the White House. 

Besides that, there was the usual discussion of how many tax cuts there should be, where they should be, and when they should be. If you like ideas for tax reform, this was a buffet.

Also, there was debate between who among the top-tier candidates would get the "liberty" vote that Ron Paul created within the GOP. Which I can only assume created some semblance of awkwardness when the moderators asked Rand Paul what he thought of his dad (Ron) thinking Ted Cruz would get those votes. That's more awkward than...

*shivers*
---
In the end, Rand laid down a sick burn by claiming that Cruz was the only Republican to miss the vote on auditing the fed soooo if you're a nerd and know what that means, then you'll know that comment was total fire. 

2.Clinton got bashed

Bet you didn't see that coming. You know though, the best line on this subject came from Carly Fiorina, even though she was regulated to the under-card debate. You'll see it on the interwebs at some point, but when asked about Clinton, the former HP CEO said,  "She says she's qualified for the white house, she's probably more qualified for the big house."

Oh Snap

I mean, she won't win and stuff, which sometimes makes me sad, but she can really whip out one-liners like Harrison Ford used to whip out six packs. He still kind of does, but now it's the other kind.
---
(whisper)...beer...
---
Shhhhh...this is a family friendly blog.
---
Sorry...
---

Anywho, bashing Clinton is a very knee-jerk reaction at this point, but I mean, that's also what you have to do if you still want to get those obligatory applause moments.

3. Trump kind of proved a point

At this stage in the race, only a few great lines are going to maaaayyybe make a difference. There were a few good ones, but as far as taking down Trump goes, it's like hurling a purple sock filled with D batteries at John Cena. 

Yikes...but I would literally pay to see you do that.

Trump wasn't even there too guys. HE WASN'T EVEN THERE. As badly as many of Americans (and many around the world) would have liked to see Trump take a hit, I'm not sure that happened. There wasn't much that these other GOPers did to make them look even better than the Donald. Because of this, you should dislike the other candidates even more. Why? Because now (if his poll numbers rise or stay the same) Trump can use this to prop himself up. The candidates didn't do much (or enough) to create separation. He can now say he doesn't even need to show up to do well. And if you don't agree then you need to go home and rethink your life.

Thank you Zoidberg.

Point is, Trump probably won in the end, so go home and eat some Little Debbie doughnuts. Preferably chocolate. 

------

Iain Coston

Donald Trump Must Be the Next POTUS

Iain Coston

Author's Note: In this series, I will be examining the top three reasons why each candidate should be the next President of The United States. This is the second.

I wanted to save this one for last. But writing about Donald Trump is like plunging a toilet...you have to get it done quick before it gets any worse. However, I will not be bashing the mogul of 'Merica. Instead, as the series indicates, I will be looking at the things that, if they were done in isolation, might bring down the stress levels of all the anti-Trump-ites. Lesgo. 

1. He's Really Rich
Guys, I don't know if you know this, but he's really rich. Reaaallllyyy rich. Dolla Dolla Bill y'all kind of rich. You might need to be a political science fanatic to know that, but I'm taking the chance.

Mm...

The thing its, if elected, he would be the richest president ever...by a long shot. Now, you may be asking why that is relevant. And I hope so because I give brownie points to those who ask questions. 

The thing is, because he was in the real estate business, Trump probably got a lot of his wealth by being triksy like the Hobbitses (I have no source to back that up, but I would bet two whole dollars that I'm right). However, I believe that most of it came from him being good at something. And that something would be branding and knowing what will be popular. He makes a lot of investments, and knows how to communicate what he's thinking (we'll leave the specifics to another post). Let me explain...Some people looked at the words he uses, and calculated that he talks at a third-grade level. Very simple. In politics though, that's a good thing. Those who don't really pay attention know exactly what you're saying. You're blunt and sometimes...dare I say it...rude. He's probably talked like this throughout his career. The reason why it ruffles our feathers so much now is because with business, the bad stuff has to get cut, and people understand that if you're not being efficient, you're probably going to get cut. With government...that's not (always) the case. Either way, it can't be a bad thing to have someone who's made his living off of "You're fired" put in charge of cutting off the fat in our government.

2. Hark, A Tax Plan!
Yessir-ee-bob. A real plan. It may not be the best plan ever, but it is something. And it's not all bad. The Tax Foundation took a peek at his plan and found a few things. It will be eliminating federal taxes for single people who make less than $25,000 a year, and for couples making less that $50,000. I think poor people will like that. Also, the maximum rate for those single filers making over $150,000 is 25% on income and 2o% on capital gains. I think rich people will like that. The Tax foundation found that wages would increase, GDP would increase, and leave American's with more moolah in their pockets.

Thanks Obama.

By now some of you are probably thinking...

---

But Iain, won't that  mean the U.S. wouldn't be able to pay its bills?

---

Wow, I'm flattered you asked, but even though I'm not an economist I would disagree. My reasoning is that if you cut programs that cost a lot of money, then you can lower taxes to Trump-levels, and still pay the bills. The problem is that things would need to be cut out. Like...well, I can't give a good analogy now, but I'll think of something. 

3. He has a Presence (Or maybe it's just the hair...)


When it comes to negotiating with other countries, you don't want a tough negotiator, you want a good negotiator. Many times they will overlap, but the former doesn't guarantee the latter.


While I don't have any experience negotiating nuclear agreements with hostile nations, one has to think that it's good if the other country respects you. When it comes to Russia, Trump has an admirer. Putin apparently digs him. At first it seems strange, but I think I found a few similarities...

Imagine that meeting in the oval office.


Jokes aside, it can't hurt to have Putin respect Trump and have it be more likely to have peace with Russia. As long as Putin was telling truth. Which happens all the time, right?
---
There you go, the top three reasons Donald Trump should be president. I understand there are things about him that are a tad unsavory, but think of all the doors this would open...

oops...

------


Iain Coston

Marco Rubio Must Be the Next POTUS

Iain Coston





Author's Note: In this series, I will be examining the top three reasons why each candidate should be the next President of The United States. This is the first.

Marco Rubio is considered the sexy candidate. Not by policy, or by his success in the government (or lack thereof *cough*), but aesthetically. Even his wife is a former Miami Dolphins Cheerleader...It's not really that fair. Because of that, I won't include it in his top three reasons. So if you're on the fence, you should probably get off of it (It's not good for your tailbone) and consider these three factors...

1. He Can Pull off Knowing As Much (or More Than) Old Geezers
Yes, most of these people are smart to a certain extent, but for Marco, it is imperative he comes across as one of the smartest in the room. He has to be over and above most of the other candidates to make sure they take him seriously. If he doesn't play his cards right however, he will make a fool of himself. Just think of Matt Damon in Ocean's 11. 

#SexyTime

One of the ways he has done this (besides knowing a lot about foreign policy) is by the way he defends himself. In the fall/winter of 2015, allegedly he was irresponsible with his finances while serving in the Floridian government. As the young gun, this has to be defended in just the right way so it doesn't seem as if he is trying to cover up a mistake from the past. Not only did he explain how it wasn't corruption, he also attempted to use it to his advantage, saying, 

 "It will be good for this country to have a President that knows what it feels like to have your house lose its value because of irresponsible and reckless behavior by Fannie and Freddie, by the Federal Reserve...It would be good for this country to have a President that knows what it's like to owe money in student loans like I once did.”

Now this could be just a suave maneuver just like every other politician. What do you guys think?

Oh....okay then. That saves me a lot of time. 

2. He Is Looking to Cut Waste (Really)

I think the one thing we can all agree on is that government waste is bad. It's like a Michael Bay movie. It's all fluff we can do without. Luckily, Rubio isn't waiting until he gets elected to actually try and kill the Bay-like spending. The Sun Sentinel reported this on the 12th. Apparently, my source says that he introduced a bill that would prevent Cuban immigrants abusing the immigration system. They were coming into the U.S., taking benefits, and getting out of dodge. The article claims,

"Rubio's bill would require Cuban immigrants to prove they were persecuted in Cuba to qualify for cash, food stamps and Medicaid, like asylum seekers from other countries."

So...I think it's good. I would like to see how this would actually be implemented, but it's a start, and it's more active than you can say for many people on Capitol Hill. 

3. He Can Swag It Out

I know, I know, I said I wasn't going to talk about this. I try to control myself, but sometimes...it's just...

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Look, I'm not that enamored with him, really, I just think it can be a major factor in an election. Mainly for those that don't pay attention. Put yourselves in the shoes of a completely uninformed voter. Compare the following. I used equally attractive pictures to prove my journalistic integrity:

---

---

---

C'mon. The election is basically over. It's like Fabio vs Seth Rogan guys. 

There you go. The top three reasons Marco Rubio must be the next POTUS. If not, maybe he'll do fine at Calvin Klein.

-----

-Iain Coston

Words That Mean Nothing in the 2016 Presidential Race

Iain Coston

Author's Note: Words should mean things, amiright?

Yes, the presidential race is...still going. We've had poll after poll after poll. And debate after debate after debate. Yet somehow we're still weeks away from people actually going to the booths and voting. 

---
Gee Iain, that's not too bad.
---

No no, I'm sorry. Not for voting for president. Just for the candidates placed in this rigid two-party system. Then those candidates will face off. Then they will do more campaigning. Then there will be more debates. Theeeeennn we'll be able to vote for the president. Oh, and probably not the one that you really ever wanted. Just the one that this two-party system allows you to vote for. 

There, there, don't you fret. I've concocted something to help decipher who you might want to vote for. For this (and future) election cycle(s), here are three words to question whenever anyone wanting to be president utters them.

Comprehensive

This is a get-out-of-jail free card when asked about how to solve a problem. When questioned on how a candidate is going to fix a problem, and how it's different from the laws already on the books, candidates simply answer "comprehensive reform" and everyone applauds. Does this mean less control, more control, effiecient control? What man, what? When you listen to the actual words articulated by these homo sapiens, they are saying nonsense (surprising, right?). It's especially common from the already crowned Democratic Nominee.

---

Adviser whispers in ear.

---

Ooohhh.....

---

It's especially common from the Democratic frontrunner......Great save Iain....

Here's a drinking game for you (apple juice of course): Every time Hillary Clinton says "comprehensive", drink a shot of whatever liquid you are consuming (mom, I'm serious, I'll be playing with apple juice). You'll be filled with nutritious liquids within minutes. 

You're welcome mom's of America. 

Choice

Children, no candidate means actual, complete freedom of choice on everything, or even most things. When someone claims another is "anti-choice" it's not a thing (I know, I know, people are usually referencing abortion, but roll with me here). At least, not in the general sense. Maybe deep down, some of these gentlemen and gentleladies will desire that, but will never admit it, and will never ever ever try to slip it through legislation. They just don't want everyone to have choice in every area. For instance, I've heard somewhere that Donald Trump wants to make America great again. One of the ways he wants to do this is enabling school choice and getting the federal government out of the way. He even wrote a book about it.  But when it comes to international business trades, he's not a fan of freedom for American business owners.  It seems like anyone who doesn't agree with 100% of what the man says is penalized just for not jumping on the Trump hair-wagon. Now, I'm all for USA, and like a true American, I enjoy me some freedom. That reminds me of another American Hero.....

Yes indeed Captain Planet. The power is indeed mine.

---

sniffs

---

Diversity

Don't worry, I love diversity. I embrace it. I encourage it. I am a product of it...multiple times over. It is because I am such a lover of mixes and matches that I do not enjoy parties trying to be the most diverse for the sake of attaining it. Just because you have diversity doesn't guarantee success, but that's for another time...

In politics, it is crucial to have different points of view, but having different races for the sake of being different doesn't always mean it's being done out of honesty.

---

Iain, that's insatiable. We need to make sure we have different races represented. The Democrats have been doing a great job of having diversity of both race and background. Unlike those racist Republicans.

---

--
Harumph
---
Look, I'm not saying any party is any more or less racist than the other, but we should stop pretending that in general (notice my emphasis?) you can call one party more inclusive than the other...especially when that party-that-shall-not-be-named has three (and only three) white people---sorry...that's insensitive--- three honkies in their party. You're welcome.


So there you go. Words to not live by and that mean nothing in the 2016 race. Let's hold our politicians to higher standards. 

Sorry, haha, couldn't help myself.

-----

-Iain Coston

Minimum Wage Might Mess With Many Multitudes

Iain Coston

Author's Note: This topic is of great interest to much of America these days. So I'm going to try to act like an expert in something that people spend their whole lives studying and still don't...come up with...a good.....answer......cool.

You know you want it. It sounds good....no, wait, stop. I'm not talking about McDonald's breakfast all day...

..but that's good too. 

To my past self and many people today, having a mandatory, government-enforced minimum wage to help those in dire straights seems like an obvious thing to do. 

I'll admit, I'm not an expert, so it might be a bad idea for you to continue reading, but I think it's one of the best decisions you'll make all week. Especially if you're a terrorist or a drug dealer.....well...even then....

Anywho, let's get into it.

I was browsing the internet (as most lifeforms do) and came across an article by John Komlos, a professor emeritus of economics at the University of Munich. A while back he He wrote an article for PBS explaining how current GOP front-runners are dumb-faces because they don't want to (forcibly) raise the minimum wage. Now, while I will not complain about what he thinks about certain candidates, his assertion that they are wrong about this particular subject smells of old lime paint (It doesn't smell good). How dare I have the cahones to criticize an expert? Let me explain...

Here is why my nose crinkled after finishing this article. He only names one other expert in the field of economics (who did some cool work on this very subject  that was later disputed...not two years later) who vouches for the mandated raise , and before that when he quotes Ben Carson saying, "“Every time we raise the minimum wage, the number of jobless people increases.”, he responds, "...the matter of fact is that there is no evidence to back that assertion..."....... No evidence? NO EVIDENCE?!??
---
Turns over table
---
Throws My Little Pony Custom Microwave out of the window
---
Iain, calm down
---
Oh, sorry. 
---
Fixes table
---
But still, hold on there my find friend Komlos, I, Iain Coston, (the non-educated sitting in his tiny apartment) disagree. Luckily, my opinion doesn't rest on my own laurels. In fact, quite the contrary. It is founded on some of the best (besides the fact the only expert Komlos quotes published a disputed study). Thomas Sowell (one of the most renowned economists in the world) writes extensively on many subjects in his book, Basic Economics. In it, he tears apart (mandatory) minimum wages, mentioning how most evidence shows that while those employees who are worth the raise in wages will get that raise, if it is not financially viable for businesses to keep others, they will fire them and/or not hire more people. And it's not just in the present-day U.S. He gives examples of Japan, India, South Africa, etc from several time periods. People who are marginalized by society tend to be the ones hurt by a minimum wage. That's not at all a slight to those who work hard but don't make the cut. That's just how business and economics (and the world) works. It's sad, but for those who get fired, it's even worse when you literally price them out of a job. Most of these people affected are the inexperienced and poor. Unfortunately, that's a thing that happens. A lot. 

Again, don't trust my coffee-and-energy-drink-powered millennial brain. Look to more evidence. Jeffrey Clemens is a professor at UC San Diego. He got a PHD from Harvard (so that makes him a smarty-pants) and he did a study recently that is floating around the internet. This showed a few things. Market Watch points out that that the percentage of  young people "who held a job fell to 28% from 40% between 2006 and 2010. Although more people in that bracket have since found work, the study found, only 33% were employed at the end of 2014." Also, from Clemens' findings, "Between 2006 and 2012, the average effective minimum wage rose from $5.82 to $7.55 across the United States...The evidence supports the view that this period's minimum wage increases had significant, negative effects on low-skilled workers' employment." Also, he found that while you can mess with the numbers to make it seem like there might only by a 0.49% overall change in employment some places, those same areas will have their young and uneducated populations take a hit over 5%.

Many who want to raise the minimum wage will want to do it out of an honest desire to help the marginalized, but recent (and past) evidence points toward the opposite outcome. Obviously, I could be wrong but I judge what I know by what I see. And what I see is most experts and evidence saying it doesn't look good.

...

Oh look, N.Y. Governor Cuomo just raised the minimum wage!
-----

-Iain Coston