In my experience, I used to believe that I was sort of middle of the road. I believed in civil rights (especially LGBT rights) and the environment, I was sorta neutral about welfare and social security (it seemed to make sense for older people and the other for people who couldn’t work), and I was pro-business and anti-government overrun. It seemed like an okay stance to have, something the was a good mix between extremes. However, I have come to realize what I thought was true about at least one of the parties was actually dead wrong.
Bottom line, you can’t actually trust either party. There are politicians that claim to be pro-lgbt or pro-women, who nonetheless publish rape fantasies about women. If you want to vote intelligently you have to do some research into the actual actions of the candidate.
And I’m sure some people will see this and still deny what they saw. Guess what? Looking at observed facts and filtering them without question is a sign you may have been brainwashed.
Let’s start with some facts. These are not facts that will agree with the newspapers. This is what I have seen.
1. Most of the people coming out of college today (which is almost mandatory to be hired for an entry level job, despite the fact that it lands you in debt which you have almost no hope of paying, given the fact that most college training is not actually used) are effectively screwed. They have an entitled mentality from seeing college as another place to party. They either move back home with parents (fine, I did it) and mooch (not quite as fine, if you are going to stay do some work and earn your keep), no prospect of being hired because college didn’t teach them any practical skills (let’s assume they got in on a minority scholarship, then proceeded to take classes like Russian Literature or Creative Writing without any desire to become a writer), and a mentality that the reason that they aren’t being hired has NOTHING to with the fact that their employable skills are garbage, their attitude sucks (see entitled above), and they are expecting to be employed regular hours in a sub-par economy. No, to their mentality (which has been influenced by careful brainwashing… see link above) these potential employers are just rich fat cats who have loads of money and just don’t want to “share.” This person is going to support liberal causes because they see the conservative as the party of these “hoarders.”
2. Right off the bat, let’s explain an inherent problem of this theory. You see, I’ve worked at Walmart and Amazon. Amazon was an archetypal big factory, with some strong anti-union policies (we had a staged “vote” on whether they would unionize or not), and some very strange security (I’m not gonna tell you half of the weirdness about that place). They were a business that made no bones about the fact that their employees were expendable, but the thing is, they hired a huge amount of people and paid them fairly well for a 10 hour entry level job. They also had a shopping center nearby that appeared to be well-supported by the company (since the customer didn’t shop locally and the employee who made quotas had money to burn on shopping). Oh yes, and Amazon has no profits.
Walmart on he other hand, was exclusive in its hiring and extremely cheap in its payment of employees. They also competed heavily with local businesses making areas into a husk that had a fraction of its income. Oh yes, and they worked a food stamps loophole, paying their employees enough that they had to depend on SNAP and then taking advantage of this fact.
Money at the end of each day is shipped to the Waltons (Bentonville, Ohio although they live in tax free areas), draining money from the local economy. And like any good parasite, when everyone had almost no money, they moved on.
You can read more about Walmart in “How Walmart is Ruining America and the World (And what you can do about it.)” Books about Amazon will tell you how its CEO Bezos is basically a psychopath, but not about how it hurts small towns. Both of these jobs were good training, and I’m glad I had them. But they also demonstrated two completely different value systems, one being “serving the community” while you rob it, and one actually involved helping people out in the area by keeping them employed while having a no-nonsense attitude about work. Work isn’t about “sharing” wealth. Working is not about handouts, it is about (a) serving the company, or (b) serving the community, depending on whether you are a part of a big business or a local one. Collecting a check when you did little for either is not how it works, because the company is not set up for your personal bank account.
2b. There is another problem. The small local business. They are not avoiding hiring because they are fat cats, they are not hiring because they generally haven’t the money. You see, these taxes on the rich don’t even scratch the income of people like the Waltons, but they make it hard for the “rich” property holders to employ. Suppose I make $100k a year (versus Walmarts millions at least). This sounds impressive on paper, but let’s convert this wage to hourly.
Then let’s factor in the expense of living in a nice neighborhood, plus taxes,and security, and alot of other crap. To start with, if your employees are paid $10 and hour, you are making only roughly 5x their salary.
The after taxes (the bracket you are at is roughly $18,481.25 plus somewhere between 28% of your total for being over the last bracket, which unless I screwed up somewhere reduces this big amount by half)
Employees expect you to be “rich”. Mmmm, how is that working? What, you can’t afford to employ me? You must be one of those rich robber barons. And not a retired old person hiring for a few days a week.
3. I hope you noticed the dynamic of Amazon and Walmart. Because this is the same dynamic of conservative and liberal groups everywhere. One practices favoritism, pays barely a living wage, and the other hires as many people as possible, and works them hard but compensates well. This is the same.
3b. Let’s talk about this wonderful idea of social security. Sounds like a good idea, right? Free money. You get it when you’re old, to help you when you are retired. Sounds great, huh? So charitable? Now let’s get into the truth of the matter. On every paycheck, I pay roughly $16. This is 16x that of my federal income, or 4x either Medicare or VA Tax. Maybe if I earn more it will be closer to the others, but currently I’m paying a lot compared to my actual taxes. But it’s all good once you get older, right? Uhhh, not really. As I learned in civics class (about the point, I began to be completely cynical about the government), this fund is routinely dipped into to pay expenses.
This is you money which, last I checked you could conceivably invest ($16 twice a month should be about $384 a year, over 30 years if I put it into investment, might make up to 1% interest (you have to search for a good place to invest). This is just for my wages. If I had the money to do as I pleased with, I could spend it on a vacation 10 or 15 years from now. Not a great one mind you, but considering I took a road trip of the country on roughly $1500, not terrible. Or I could wait 30 years, and hope that they don’t raise the minimum age again, so I’m too old to do anything with this money but pay medical bills. Thanks Uncle Sam, I really wanted to give a chunk of my income to pay for a service I may not even live long enough to use!
3c. Same with medicine. Despite claims that we have the “world’s best medicine” it isn’t even close. There are basically four types of medical payment.
(1) Pre-insurance: This was the model prior to the notion that medical insurance is a “right”. People paid what they had, and yes, some people could lose their shirts on expensive medicine. However, as Adam Smith will tell you, price is governed by supply and demand. If something is rare, it will be priced high. But if its price exceeds what people can reasonably pay, demand will go down, and with it, price.
(2) Insurance: Unfortunately, insurance changes the dynamic. This allows supply and demand to be ignored, which is why housing, schooling, cars, and medicine have all overshot inflation, they are allowed to be bought on credit.
(3) Bureaucratic: This is Obamacare, which is sacred cow to the liberal agenda. However, under my parent’s plan after this law, I am required to own insurance. However, it paid 0% of my psychologist visit, meaning as a transgender person, I cannot afford to get therapy (I used the last session begging my therapist to let me change my gender by writing a note). Simple fact, when you cover everyone, people with better plans wind up paying more for less. Plus, because doctors and insurance agents want their money, the idea that they are being forced to charge less makes them charge more instead. We currently have not the best, but the worst insurance. I’m sure you doubt me. No worries, I’ll show you my insurance card. How the deductible or whatever that I have to pay before they cover anything is 5 digits.
(4) Socialized medicine: Interesting fact, I wound up researching Canada and Japan. They have higher taxes on medicine, but the insurance is much better. Either 1 or 4 wold be fine. But since #1 allows me to just not have insurance (I don’t go to the doctor anyway, having sat around half-naked too many times in cold germ-infested areas), this is a better option. Especially since socialized medicine is too much like the Social Security that I may never live long enough to use.
If you wanted affordable healthcare, you do away with insurance. Stop expensive procedures like chemo and mammograms. Teach people that it isn’t about germs but health. Suddenly costs will dip because everyone is healthy again.
So what did I learn about the liberal party? I mean, surely, if I vote for them, they will be generous and help with my LGBT rights. They’re being charitable. Right? Wrong.
First off, I had these rights already. They were what was known as natural rights. Before the major stuff going around where Obama “granted” rights to LGBT people, I had a perfectly legitimate right to enter the bathroom of my choice. This was thanks to state rights granted by private groups. The same was true of my right to change my gender on my ID. These rights were being secured quietly by individuals, like Nicole Maines in Maine (strange coincidence, named like the state). It was already a granted right. Obama publicized the issue. This did nothing to protect the rights of transgender people. Instead, it exposed them to the news coverage, which triggered backlash. In effect, LGBT were getting extra press they didn’t need. Compare this to Japan, where being effeminate was seen as “kawaii” and several famous people became convincing members of the opposite sex, thanks to a better diet and effective medicine. For the most part,they have actually succeeded in acceptance. In the US, despite our claims of tolerance, we have largely done the opposite. Why?
Because “diversity” is a type of covert prejudice. When you point out who Muslims or blacks or women or transgender people are a “special group” what you are actually doing is singling them out for mistreatment.
LGBT rights are not, and should be a political issue. This is the basic ability to live and work as my chosen gender, and not have someone tell me who I can and can’t marry. We can spend massive amounts of money trying to enforce LGBT rights (that as I said, already existed), only to have homophobic bastards ticked off and ready to hurt us. Or we can protect the right life life by illegalizing “transgender panic” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense) and leave any marriage rights or bathroom rights to the buildings and churches that believe in human dignity.
So to sum up, the liberal party is adding a ton of privileges that won’t solve our fundamental problems (jobs, housing, marriage, and normalcy), we don’t need (I don’t want $25,000 because someone misgendered me) and are instead making us a target.
Not just that. Everyone of college age has been taught that the liberal party is a civil rights party and those mean old Christians (first, there is a difference between fundamentalist “Christians” and people who believe in loving your neighbor) who want to prevent gay wedding cakes or something are part of that OTHER party. Therefore, people tell me, if I am a real ally to transgender people, it should be my duty to vote for her. Nevermind that Bernie ignored an AIDS group that called on him. Nevermind that Clinton only recently had any opinion at all on LGBT people, and at certain points was actually opposed. I mean, that’s the core of this article. Liberal party is for the minority. Right?
The Democratic party was originally the slave party, and at some point during the civil rights movement the parties appeared to switch sides. But lest we forget, Democrats were the big slaveholders in the South. Lest we forget, after the war, they were the members of the KKK.
You will not be taught history this way probably, because it has likely been revised with the names changed. You will probably think Abe Lincoln was a Democrat.
Nope. Whig, then Republican. But at some point they switched sides right? Well, they managed to convince people of that, but what if I told you, that’s not true, either?
Look again at diversity.
As I say, it is a way to single people out. Then look at our diversity “quotas” of immigrants that are getting invited in. If you value women, LGBT people, the environment… these people don’t. Their countries throw acid on women, or rape them. Their countries stone LGBT people. And as for their environment, many of the lands these people live in appear to be deserts (I’m not sure if that’s their doing or not, though). If you are voting for Clinton on purpose, shame on you. This is for people reading though, that are voting on a mistaken belief that Hillary will help things. Any benefits will be short term. The long term is a return to slavery. No thanks, we had that in the civil war.
Before I go, though, I’m going to talk about something else. Before you automatically think “okay, I’m convinced, I’ll vote Republican,” one last gem of wisdom. Democratic and Republican aren’t parties, they are mindsets. The ideals of Republican are based on small government, self-destiny, and freedom from slavery. The ideals of the Democrat are big government, that social programs are needed, and at the very heart of it, a taker culture (one that bothers other people for what they have rather than minding one’s business). Here is the thing, though. A fundamentalist Republican Christian is the last two in name only. Christians are known by their love, which the homophobe doesn’t have, and Republicans were set up to prevent slavery (and mainly to mind one’s own business), so these candidates are neither. If our country is to thrive, it needs to throw away its slavery past, and stop dredging up racism, and it needs to treat people as people. People aren’t “minorities” that sounds like you are calling them “little people” or something. And is that is to happen, we have to stop having half-educated people that would actually agree to “end women’s suffrage.”