Tonight's primaries will break it or break it

Frick and Frack

Tonight should make or break Bernie Sanders in the Democratic race for the nomination. His "Future to Believe In" will probably be that he is relegated back to being the Independent socialist without a clue on how to run an economy that he was before he ran.

On one hand, he is promising to fight hard right to the convention, but, on the other hand, he is saying that he will assess his options on Wednesday after he gets his 74-year-old socialist butt kicked. He will return to his home in Burlington, Vermont. 

Of the six states involved in the primary, the final states, New Jersey and California are the two that will matter the most if Sanders wins them. Hillary already has the delegates for the nomination, but with hundreds of votes up for grabs, a Sanders win will make her look as weak as "I didn't have sex with that woman . . . Miss Lewinsky."

Senior Democrats are trying to pressure Sanders to step aside and allow the Clinton dynasty to take the throne. President Obama is probably going to endorse her today or tomorrow, reassuring the American public that there isn't even a "smidgeon" of evidence of any wrong doing on Hillary's part.

Personally, I hope Sanders kicks her pear-shaped butt just to give her some reality.


Tweet

Bloomberg may throw your soda cup in the ring

Michael Bloomberg, billionaire, former New York City mayor, and owner of Bloomberg News, a media outlet, is thinking  about running against another billionaire real estate developer and TV show entertainer from New York City if Trump gets the nomination. It looks like that's what's going to happen, but hey, ya never know. 

Of course, Bloomberg will also need to run against people on the left, notably a woman who may be indicted for disobeying the law regarding the Espionage Act, and who has logged more miles than any other Secretary of State while doing nothing for the country, and whose family foundation funds may have been used illegally and to buy political influence for foreign countries.

Another leftist Bloomberg will have to run against if he truly wants to become POTUS is a socialist who, as a New Hampshire senator, has done very little with his time in the Senate and who believes in the possibility of raising taxes on Americans to 90%.

The other leftist was mayor of a failed Baltimore, Maryland, then governor of the same state. He is as relevant to this election cycle as a yo-yo is to a flounder.

Like Donald Trump, Bloomberg says he will finance his campaign with his own money and has already commissioned a poll and ordered his advisers to start drafting plans, but he will likely wait to see what happens with the Iowa caucus on February 1st.

Bloomberg, a notorious flip-flopper has run as a Democrat, a Republican, and would now run as an Independent.

Ted Cruz (R-Tx) is a close second to Donald Trump, while Bernie Sanders (D-NH) is making a "shhtrong" bid for the Democratic nomination. 

Like Sanders, Bloomberg is pre- "The Howdy Doody Show," which makes them both quite old.

Changin' with time

While Bloomie's odds at actually winning the election is on par with winning the lottery without buying a ticket, he would probably screw things up for both parties in the general election. As a person who has screwed up New York City by regulating everything possible, that suits him just fine.

One would think that owning an entire media platform would disqualify a person from becoming president, but the times, they are a changin'.

Although no Independent ever was elected to POTUS, Bloomberg, a supporter of highly restrictive gun laws might sway disaffected voters on both sides of the aisle.

If, in fact, he were to get elected, it would be a blow to the Constitution and our civil liberties. 

C'mon folks, the guy put restrictions on the size of soda pop servings allowed in restaurants, and like Moochelle Obama, would even try to control the food we're allowed to eat, and then there's that little issue about the Second Amendment.


Tweet

Lady Duh Duh of the DNC

The chair-cretin of the DNC, Dummy Wasserman Schultz, could not answer "Hardball's" Chris "Tingles" Matthews question: "What's the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?"

Usually Matthews throws underhand softballs to Democrats, but this time Obama's love child got tough with Lady Duh Duh.

Dummy Wasserman Schultz

Instead of explaining the differences, Schultz chose to not answer the question but instead, attack Republicans, as if that was a sufficient answer.

"What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?" Chrissy asked, freezing Duh Duh like a deer in the headlights.

"I used to think there is a big difference. What do you think it is?" leftist Matthews asked again. "A Democrat like Hillary and a socialist like Bernie Sanders."

Bobbing and weaving, Schultz's anemic reply: "The more important question is what is the difference between being a Democrat and being a Republican?"

Undaunted, Matthews again asked the overachiever: "What's the big difference between a Democrat and a socialist?"

Having skipped that class in high school, Schultz again did a progressive fandango: "The relevant debate that we'll be having this campaign is what's the difference between a Democrat and a Republican."

She blathered on: "The difference between a Democrat and Republican is that Democrats fight to make sure everybody has an opportunity to succeed and the Republicans are strangled by their right-wing extremists."

So, she was implying that Republicans don't want everyone to succeed. How mindlessly superficial and false. The reality is, Democrats continue to hold the poor hostage to entitlement programs that ensures they will never stray from the fold, while Republicans believe that we all have an innate ability to achieve reasonable success, if we work for it.

So even with the answer she was willing to provide to skirt the question, Schultz was unable to articulate an answer that actually had substance. But honestly, has she ever said anything of substance as DNC chair?

The difference between a Democrat and a socialist is almost inconsequential. You can't tell them apart anymore. Both want big government, with total control, which translates to total dependency upon Big Brother.


Tweet