Enough About Hillary's Damn Speeches!

Somewhere, in the transcripts of Hillary's speeches, is a line so damning, so deplorable, that it would immediately sink her candidacy for President. What could this line be? Did she swear on a stack of Bibles to give the execs at Goldman Sachs their own suite in the West Wing? Did she express her genuine desire to give tax breaks to CEOs and pardon white collar criminals? Perhaps she even said something like, "I hate poor people, if only we can wipe them out." Now that, that would be devastating!

Except... all this is imaginary. It's what Bernie Sanders wants you to think when he hits Hillary, time and time again, with the same repeated lines. Hillary gave speeches to Wall Street. They gave her money. Therefore, she must intend to screw the poor, feed the rich, and ride off into the sunset with her pockets full of gold.

All this is insinuation. Bernie loves when you ask the question, "If she has nothing to hide, why won't she release her speeches?" Because the question is all he's really after. If there was truly a smoking gun, something so horrible, it's unfathomable that all the reporters covering the campaign, all the people who attended her speeches, the Democratic party leaders, etc. etc. wouldn't have unearthed it yet. Of course, Bernie and his supporters would have you believe that the fix is in--that hundreds of unrelated people--including those who would just love to make their careers on such a scoop--have conspired to keep whatever it is under wraps.

So... why doesn't Hillary release those emails... I mean speeches?

Hmm. See what I did there? I mixed up emails and speeches. Because, well, Hillary was through this whole mishegoss once before. You see, the Republicans were sure--positive--that Hillary's emails had broken confidentiality laws. Or maybe not, but surely there was something in them that revealed she was actually working for the devil. Maybe she even caused Benghazi! Ok, so there wasn't anything there, but... that's just because she didn't release them all. What about those missing emails? Oh, she released even more? Nothing in those? Well there were some missing. Certainly. And how about those ones she released. That liberal commie reporter--Sid something. Was he advising Hillary on policy? Did she reveal something to him? Yeah there's nothing there, but there might be...

This shit went on for a year. More than a year. And the friggin FBI was combing through that shit.

All that came out of it was a steady drumbeat of nothing that slowly eroded her poll numbers. No criminal actions, no questionable ethics. Just more insinuations. More guilt-by-association tactics. More articles where people just skimmed the headlines and said, "Hmm, they're paying so much attention to this, maybe she is up to something." In the end, that release of emails was nothing--except a gift to her opponents, a way to extend the news cycle of articles "investigating" her communications.

This is the same goddamn thing. No... actually, I take that back. At least you could argue that maybe... just maybe... a law was broken with the emails. Which is why Hillary was compelled to release them. But in giving speeches, no laws are being broken, unless the transcripts reveal she was doing lines of coke with Lloyd Blankfein on stage. There's nothing to hide, except what is probably a business-friendly speech. Which isn't in dispute. I think we all know Hillary wasn't reading the Wall Street execs the riot act about their irrational gambling habits. We're smart enough to know that Hillary was probably lavishing some praise on these "wealth creators," and thanking them for helping rebuild the economy after 9/11, etc. etc. It was most likely the boringest shit you can imagine.

But if Hillary released those transcripts, you can bet that every phrase, every word will be parsed by the media, the Sanders campaign, and the Republicans. It won't matter that no promises were made, no illegal actions were revealed. They'll comb through looking for anything that could possibly be used to portray Hillary as a hypocrite. "See!" the Bernie supporters will cry to the heavens, "She is in bed with Wall Street!" As if all anyone needed as "proof" were a few meaningless lines from a speech to a firm that had paid her to be there. "Wall Street is the backbone of America," you can easily imagine Hillary saying. The same way every single politician ever has said, "Farmers are the backbone of America," or "Autoworkers are the backbone of America," or "The American Association of Chiropractors is the backbone of America." But you know Sanders will highlight that line and say, "Hillary says Wall Street is the backbone of America... well I say Main Street is the backbone of America!" And his supporters will cheer and yell "Fuck Hillary" and whatever they were chanting last night, and instead of focusing on the issues that face America and the policies needed to fix them, Hillary is spending her time defending herself over each new line that her opponents choose to trot out.

Why would anyone give their opponent more attack lines? It's not being honest and open, it's being stupid. I don't want a President who bows to pressure and releases something that can be used to stir up anti-American propaganda. And that's all this is--Hillary refusing to give her opponents material they want to use in attack ads. That is all.

Meanwhile, Bernie has been incredibly reluctant to release his tax returns. Unlike Hillary's speeches, tax returns can reveal illegal activity. They may show that Sanders, who claims to be the poorest man in Congress, actually has Wall Street money himself. Now that would be devastating. It's also in the public interest to see his tax returns. What matters more--what someone said, or what someone did? Tax returns can reveal Sanders didn't give a cent to charity. It can reveal that he's heavily invested with a Wall Street firm. It can reveal contributions he's received before his candidacy, which may have come from the very people he's condemning now. Maybe he even owns some flophouse rental properties that squeeze tenants for money. This is all speculation of course... but unlike the speculation surrounding Hillary's speeches, the release of Bernie's tax returns will show concrete actions, not vague verbal assurances.

If you're going to question, "Why doesn't Hillary release her transcripts?" you must, in good faith, also question why it's taking Bernie so long to reveal his taxes. Why is he on the same side as Donald Trump on this issue? What is he hiding?

I assure you, if he's hiding anything, he's not hiding words.

Honestly, it's all counterproductive for the Democrats when they stop discussing real issues and adopt the Republican strategy of slinging mud. It doesn't help anyone. Certainly not anyone who wants to make sure we don't end up with Trump or Cruz as President of the United States.

So Bernie Bros, enough about Hillary's damn speeches.

TL;DR: Hillary won't release her speeches because all it will do is provide quotes for attack ads. Bernie won't release his tax records for a similar, but potentially more damaging reason.

Who Do The Republicans Want to Lose With?

Lost amid the Republican party panic over Donald Trump's inexplicable appeal to the uneducated, bigoted, misogynistic base they've pandered to for many years is the fact that essentially, this a debate over which candidate gets to lose to Hillary Clinton.

After they lost to Barack Obama for the second time in 2012, the Republican party establishment, caught by surprise that Americans would vote for and re-elect a black man, took a long hard look in the mirror and decided they needed to change in order to win a national election. The demographics of the country were working against them. Unless they could appeal to African-Americans, Hispanics, single women and young people, and move closer to the center on several issues, their prospects for winning any national election in the future were nil. For the simple reason that those groups made up the fastest growing segment of the electorate. Math wasn't on their side.

Instead, the Republicans changed absolutely nothing. For the last 4 years, not only have they doubled-down on polices despised by the very groups they need to attract, but they've established themselves as the Do-Nothing party, determined to shut down government and refuse to do their jobs because... "it's really hard guys and Obama boo hoo!"

This was never the way to win. You can't just nominate a token Hispanic guy (or two). Not if everything you communicate and do makes it clear you just don't trust non-white people, women, pretty much anyone who isn't a 65-year old racist.

This election was always going to be a loser for the Republicans. And more than anything else, that explains Trump's rise to the top of the Republican polls. In prior years, electability would be vital-- the reason why Mitt Romney and John McCain were elevated as candidates. But Republican voters haven't forgotten the outcomes of those elections. It didn't matter that these two boring guys who measured their words and avoided scandal were electable... they lost.

Since Trump or Rubio or Cruz or Kasich will lose too, what's the point? Republican voters would rather go down swinging with an insult comic reality TV buffoon than choose someone who is just going to demonstrate the declining appeal of their policies. In fact, a Trump loss in the general election is the best possible outcome for the party, because it allows them to claim it's The Donald's fault, and not the fact that they've aligned themselves with a dying share of the electorate. They can go another 4 years continuing to do absolutely nothing and in 2020, nominate an establishment candidate who will go on to lose as well.

The silly idea that somehow Mitt Romney could come in and save the party--it's not going to happen. Republican voters have seen where that road leads. This party isn't dying because of a lack of qualified candidates, it's dying because its ideas are appealing to less and less people. Trump distracts from all that, so why not have him front and center in a race that's already lost?

This Apartment's Eye-Bleeding Decor Is Nightmare Fuel

You've been obsessed with the dream of finding a Manhattan apartment to call your own. But who can afford anything at these prices? Fortunately, prime real estate in New York City's East Village has become available. If you make less than 100,000 grand a year, and have $111,000 for a down payment to buy in the HDFC co-op, this beautifully-designed 3rd-floor walkup can be yours... all yours! The only catch? Your soul.

Let's take a tour...

Living Room

Living Room

Open kitchen, good light. A wood(?) floor that appears to have been assembled by a blind/drunk carpenter inspired by the melting clocks of Salvador Dali. Will staring at the floor slowly turn you into a raving lunatic? Perhaps. But it's safer to stare at the floor than the...

Bedroom walls....

Bedroom

Bedroom

Someone really went all-in on the blue here. The electric-shade assaults the eyeballs upon first glance. A second look reveals an almost ethereal glimmer, as if spirits have taken up residence inside the paint itself, waiting to emerge and sprinkle you with fairy dust while you slumber. The bed, adorned in other shades of blue, looks as if it is being swallowed into the walls, which is probably what happened to the previous owners, which explains the source of the spirits in the first place.

The floor, meanwhile... what is going on? It looks like the linoleum(?) tiles have been moving around on their own....

Foyer

What is going on here? We appear to be in a space where time/dimensions have become jumbled--one era's mosaic tiling giving away to the completely schizophrenic arrangement of what I'm now convinced is simply white sheets of construction paper. The paint on the walls has been applied just as haphazardly, save for a neatly formed rectangle where perhaps coats once hung. The door jamb is chipped away, clear evidence of someone trying, desperately, futilely, to get out. We've almost reached the most alarming room of the apartment, but first, a detour to...

The Bathroom

What is under that bathroom sink, shrouded by a mysterious theatrical curtain? A puppet show? A tiny production of King Lear? How much blood was used to make the paint slathered on the bathroom walls? That mirror... If you stare into it a second too long, your head shrinks. Which may be the best possible outcome, because if you enter into our next room, your head will explode anyway...

Kitchen

This is where we reach the heights of interior design. Are the cupboards... wallpapered? With some sort of braille/morse code? Yes. Is that new(?) wood(?) flooring any match for the old tile, reaching up with icy fingers from somewhere beneath? No. The tiling around the oven (which may contain the remains of pagan sacrifices), is black as night, reflecting the new state of your soul. It also matches the fridge!

This apartment can be yours for $370,000, which is a steal for the East Village area. Maintenance is only $400 a month, and your soul's eternity in hell.

The Robot Sex Revolution Is Almost Here

In honor of the forthcoming sex robot, Roxxxy (on pre-order now!) check out this old Adam's Life classic: Oh, My God Oh, Mr. Roboto: Top 10 Hottest Robots!

This continues to be a quote that makes me giggle:

"Once you have a story like 'I had sex with a robot, and it was great!' appear someplace like Cosmo magazine, I'd expect many people to jump on the bandwagon."

Yes, that's all it takes. An article in Cosmo.

Of course, the CEO of Roxxxy's development company, Douglas Hines, says their sex robot isn't all about sex.

"The physical act of sex will only be a small part of the time you spend with a sex robot - the majority of time will be spent socialising and interacting," he said.

This raises all kinds of questions, such as, will the robot share your political views or will she be a real Ann Coulter? Will she insist you spend football Sunday going apple picking with another robot-human couple? Or nag you about those few extra pounds you put on over the holidays?

Or, as Dr. Kevin Curran, some guy the BBC interviewed, puts it, "Can a robot marry? Can a robot couple adopt a child?"

I say, who wouldn't want the Terminator as their dad?



Touching.

Don't Worry, You've Still Got Your Religious Freedom

Following the landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage, religious conservatives are in full-on panic mode. "HOW COULD THIS BEEEEEE?" they cry to the heavens. "Our religious freedom is being trampled upon!"

No, it's not.

Let's lay it out on the table. Before the Supreme Court's decision, it was your religious right to believe that same-sex couples were inferior, that they were sinners. You could preach that their lifestyle would destroy the fabric of America. You could refuse to let them marry in your church.

Now? Well, you can still do all these things.

You can still put all your beliefs into practice. Same way you could before. No one's forcing you to convert. The Supreme Court decision does not mean you have to become gay. It does not mean you have to divorce your wife and marry her brother instead. All it means that gay couples enjoy the protections and benefits of the law just like straight couples.

Now, let's say you're a government worker responsible for handing out marriage licenses. Let's say you're a conservative Christian. You don't believe same-sex couples are valid. If you're forced to give marriage licenses to these couples, are you being forced to do something against your religion?

No.

If you're getting paid to carry out duties decided by the state, you have a choice. A religious Jew will probably not take a job in a pork sausage factory. A committed Buddhist will probably not work in a slaughterhouse. If you're in a job that entails doing things you think your religion frowns upon, you're welcome to leave that job, anytime.

The government is not making you change any part of your personal lifestyle. It's merely telling you that in your role as a government agent, you can't cast your beliefs onto others. You have the liberty to live how you want. The LBGT community has the liberty to live how they want. No one can force you to be in a same-sex relationship. You can't force them not to be. TO EACH HIS OWN.

The Pilgrims, the founders of our nation, fled England because the state-sponsored church sought to control their beliefs. They came here to practice their own brand of faith. Religious freedom gives everyone the right to believe and act in accordance with their beliefs. It doesn't mean your religion trumps others.

The second you stop others from making personal choices, you're no longer practicing freedom, you're destroying it.

This is how freedom works. Freedom does not mean you have the freedom to make other people less free.