Cyberherbalist's Blog

In my earlier post I suggested that I would prefer Bernie to stand against Trump, and if a Democrat were to win the presidency, I would prefer Gabbard.

Well, things have firmed up in the race, so now the only two Democrats in the race are Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders.

Oh. My. Freaking. Gosh.

A virtual communist vs an incipient dementia sufferer.

I don’t know what else to say. Neither one should be able to defeat Trump, and either one would destroy the USA.

The Democrat Party has indeed jumped the shark.

The first question occurs to me, which Democrat currently running would I prefer:

• To face President Trump in November
• To be president if Trump is defeated in November by the Democrat

The second question is which Democrat would be the absolute worst to win the presidency.

The answers are two Democrats, since one is the answer to two questions.

Who would I prefer to face Trump in November?

The short answer is Bernie Sanders.

The reason for this preference is because I believe Bernie has the best chance among the front runners to get beaten soundly by Trump. He’s also the best chance of causing the Democrat majority in the house to disappear.

Who would I prefer to be president if Trump were to be defeated in November?

The short answer is Tulsi Gabbard.

The reason for this preference is because Tulsi shows patriotism: she’s a serving Army National Guard officer.  She also seems far less crazy than Sanders or Warren.

Would she be a genuine threat to Trump if she were to get the Democrat nomination? I don’t know. I rather doubt it, but it seems possible she might stand a better chance than any of the other Democrats. She’s seems quite personable, has intelligence and ability to think on her feet, is an attractive person, and doesn’t have the baggage that some of the other major candidates have: she’s not an obvious liar like Warren, is not a crazy Socialist like Bernie, nor an apparent dementia case like Biden. I can’t compare her to Buttigieg or Klobuchar, since I’m not knowledgeable enough about them. But I do have a small positive feeling about Klobuchar, given her raising of the hand about concern with socialism at the last Democrat debate (alone of all the others). But that’s all I got with Klobuchar.

I might have to study both Buttigieg and Klobuchar a bit more, given that they have both managed to step a bit closer to front-runner status than they were previously.

Which Democrat would be the absolute worst to win the presidency?

The short answer is Bernie Sanders.

The reason for this fear is that Bernie is, at best, a socialist, and at worst, a closet communist.  He is also in poor health (recent heart attack), meaning that whichever loonie tune he selected as vice president would be president in short order (and I dread thinking who that might be). And it has become apparent that a number of his campaign workers are absolute communist sympathizers, talking privately about sending people  with whom they disagree to re-education camps, among other things. Bernie has attracted such dregs of humanity that I am certain that he would destroy the United States.

Fortunately, he has a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected.

An Interesting Correspondance

Isn’t it interesting that my preference for Trump’s opponent is the same person who I feel would be the absolutely worst president?

I’ve been watching the Democratic nomination “progress” with some degree of interest, since whoever is left at the end will face Trump in November. And since no Democrat currently (or previously) running is “safe” for the country, I must regard Trump as the safest choice for 2020.

And now Andrew Yang has bowed out, after his disappointing performance in New Hampshire today. It was inevitable in any case, since his so-called “Freedom Dividend” program is a completely air-headed idea. Who could possibly think anyone would go for it?

So, who’s going to come out on top in the New Hampshire primary?  It looks like Bernie Sanders so far.  I’m writing this while the results are rolling in (watching the “Don’t Walk, Run! Productions” livestream, and Twitter.  I need to go to bed, but this is keeping me up. Why? It won’t matter, but I’m terribly curious.

The former front-runner, Joe Biden, is coming in rather low, with 8.3% of the vote. If you’ve been listening to him lately, he actually sounds like he’s slipped into some kind of dementia.  Pretty sure he won’t be able to recover, from an election point of view.  If true, it’s probably for the best, for him at least, since there seems to be some evidence that he’s corrupt and could face justice. Nobody would pursue a mentally-deficit Biden.

I have a feeling that despite the fact that Bernie, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar are rocking New Hampshire at the moment, the eventual nominee will be Bloomberg, who isn’t even participating in New Hampshire. The Democratic National Committee is completely opposed to Sanders being the nominee, and I am sure that they will bend all their efforts to keep him from winning the nomination.

So, who’s going to be the next dropout out the 8 running in NH?  My guess is that will be Tulsi Gabbard.

I’m going to bed now.

Greta “How dare you?” Thunberg recently came into criticism by President Donald Trump, in which he tweeted:

And of course he was instantly vilified.

This is “bullying”?  Don’t think so.

Remember the uproar over the Covington kid who got vilified by media and politicians just because he stood smiling uncertainly at a native American “elder” who was beating a drum in his face for no reason that the teenager could determine at the time?  All those Democrat politicians had no problem whatsoever bullying a teenager who hadn’t gone searching for the limelight, who wasn’t even an activist, and whose only offense was to stand there?  Now THAT was bullying.  Joe Biden needs to look up the meaning of the word.  And apparently so do a number of other self-serving politicians and media hacks.

An acquaintance of mine posted on Facebook:

Whether or not you agree with Trump or Greta Thunberg, for the president of the United States to attack a 16 girl (who can’t even vote in the US) is really inappropriate.

I tried to refrain from responding, but I couldn’t help myself. So I wrote:

Yeah I read his tweets. Calling those “attacks” kind of stretches the definition past sensibility. And Greta didn’t mind, apparently. She incorporated his tweets into her Twitter bio. Which is kind of classy of her, IMHO.

To which he responded:

So, that makes it all OK?

And I say:

Of course it does. If she were some high school child writing a letter to the President of the United States (or some other head of state) expressing her opinion, however well- or ill-informed, she would and should expect nothing more than a respectful “thank you for your thoughts” letter back. But that’s not what is happening here. However sincere she is about what she is being induced to say, this is not just Greta Thunberg expressing her personal opinion. This is a well-financed and highly organized political campaign — and Greta is being used by her parents and others as a front person for a point of view.

She does not get to stand in front of the world shouting “How dare you!?” and then expect immunity from response. And Trump’s response was extremely mild. I would have responded “No, how dare YOU?! Go home, finish growing up, and come back when you have something of your own to say and not what others are whispering in your ear.”

Do you know what people have told me, a nearly 70-year old college educated man, when I have expressed an opinion on anthropogenic climate change? “Shut up, you don’t know what you’re talking about.” And yet a 16 year old girl who hasn’t even finished high school gets to shout “How dare you!” to the world and everyone is expected to say “Oh, isn’t that sweet!” I don’t think so.

While she has every right to speak up in public in the manner she has spoken, by doing so she has shed the anonymity and the shield of tolerance for youth that she would otherwise have rightly expected. But I don’t think she expects complacency in response to her remarks. By the evidence, she expects and welcomes criticism. And that is totally appropriate.

I do think that Greta is being shamefully used by people who do not have her best interests at heart. If I had a child who suffered from Asperger syndrome, I would not be tossing her out into the tensions of global discourse like they have at such a young age. It is at least borderline child abuse, in my opinion.