Glenn pro bailout?


Will food lines be the 'IN' thing for the winter of 2008/2009?

GLENN: I told you, well, forever I'm against government bailouts, but that ship has sailed so long ago. Now we have a bailout that is $700 billion. Do not believe $700 billion. Don't believe it. I sent an e mail out, what, 11:45 last night, Stu?

STU: Yes.

GLENN: What did I say would happen with the bailout?

STU: You said it would be more like $2 trillion.

GLENN: Sovereign funds no, that's not it. The $700 billion bailout, the latest story here is that it is probably going to be $1.3 trillion. Do not believe that. It's not $1.3 trillion. It is over $2 trillion that this bailout is going to cost. And here's the great thing, this according to Bloomberg just a few minutes ago. Bush administration widened the scope of its $700 billion plan to avert financial meltdown by including assets other than mortgage related securities.

You must hear this. Please have some meat I'll give you dessert here in a second, but you must hear this because it only makes you you'll only question me saying the bailout is a good thing even more. You'll say... what! Officials made changes two days after unveiling plans for an unprecedented intervention in financial markets. The change will potentially allow purchases of car loans, credit card debt and other devalued assets that may force an increase in the size of the package. No! It's not going to be, not going to be over $700 billion. It's going to be over $2 trillion.

Now, why is this happening and why am I willing to say AIG was the only one that I would have considered bailing out last week, but I still was not for the bail I have not been for any bailouts. Why would I now be for bailouts? Let me give you the story on what happened this weekend in Nancy Pelosi's office. Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson, the secretary of treasury, did everything they could last week to try to bail everything out. I believe they made things worse but I know a lot of financial people don't but I believe you just, we went, we started going down the bailout route. What they were trying to do is build another firewall. Well, they didn't put the fire out. You can build firewall after firewall after firewall. You've got to put the fire out. And nothing they did fixed it, and every time they would fix it, they will say, well, this one's going to fix it, and it didn't. The fire just kept getting bigger and bigger and bigger.

So over the weekend Nancy Pelosi's office, you know, had the white hydrangeas that you, by the way, are paying for sitting there on the table and a bunch of Democrats and Republicans were sitting in there and here comes Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke. Ben Bernanke, by the way, an expert on the Great Depression. That is his expertise. That is his field of study was what happened in the Great Depression.

Well, last week Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America had a shotgun wedding. They got together. Regulators pumped in another $85 billion for AIG. I said, where did you even come up with that amount, last week; it's not going to fix it; it's going to get worse. Then on Wednesday night they saw the market absolutely freeze. No one in business could borrow anything from any bank. Nobody was and that means that all business in America would have stopped Thursday morning, stopped. October 30th, 1929. That's what this that's what Wednesday was. You have to remember, the Great Depression didn't the stock market crashed in October 29. The Great Depression was up and down, stocks looked good and then bad and then things would get better and then, "We're getting better, we're getting out of it" and then it crashed again. It wasn't until government came in and just absorbed everything in 1933 after FDR that then it was done for ten years. Then it was the Great Depression for ten years.

Bernanke comes in and he says the credit lines in the financial system, lifeblood in the economy completely frozen. It was threatening to halt all lending in the U.S., forcing businesses to close and lay off workers. They were also seeing massive amounts of money being moved out of the country.

Remind me, Stu, to talk about the money that was short selling last week from Britain and Dubai.

Bernanke says you could see massive failures of businesses within days that goes beyond the banking system to large name brand companies. Big, big, gigantic companies are ready to go under in America. The people who left the meeting said they were shocked by the description of Armageddon from Bernanke. This was this weekend. They looked shaken. Chris Dodd said it was as sobering a meeting as any of us have ever attended in our careers here.

This is what's really going on behind the scenes. You are getting a little puppet show in front of you. Now, how does that bring me to the bailout? I think government being involved is really bad because I will tell you the things that they won't tell you. I have done my homework this weekend. I have as Stu will be able to tell you, I have connections to people who do not want can't go on the record, cannot go on the record.

Stu, do you trust these people?

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: Okay. It is not something they are not people that are stand to make money. They are people that truly, truly care that talk to me because they believe you need to know but they can't say anything because if they said something, it's over. Correct?

STU: Yeah. And I think more importantly than that maybe even, at least for their actual comments is that they are less alarmist than you.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

STU: They don't they are not jump to conclusions people, they are not jump to conspiracy, they are not jump to

GLENN: Oh, no. They think I'm crazy, some of the stuff I mean, I get e mail from some of them and they're like, "You don't really believe that, do you." I mean, they are really these are rock solid people.

STU: But on this issue, you know.

GLENN: And, Stu, have they ever because you know all of my conversations. Have they ever said what they said to me in the last few days?

STU: No. They're getting scarier and scarier.

GLENN: Yeah. Always optimistic, always like, "Hey, look, we can " it's a different ball game, gang. The world changed last week. Here's what's happening. We are now digging fire lines. That's what we're doing. And the choice is now. And to use this example remember, I'm a guy who believes you let the forest burn; it's good. There is something to a forest burning. It replenishes the Earth. It becomes stronger, the soil has more nutrients in it. It's actually a good thing. You let the forest burn. So understand that I believe that in the economy, I believe in failure, I believe in let the forest burn. With that being said, there comes a time when you're in a firefight that you must dig a fire line. Let the forest burn, but you've got to move everybody, "Okay, everybody come to the hospital and by the police department and city hall and grab all your belongings, grab everything and we're building a fire line right here, but we've got to save the hospital. We've got to save the grocery store or the farms. We've got to save it. So build a fire line. Do not put the forest out because the forest is going to burn."

Are you with me so far, Stu?

STU: I'm sorry. What? I was just checking out the sports center showing all the NFL highlights in it. No, I think I understand where you are.

GLENN: So where I am now is what you're being told about this bailout is that this is a bailout and it's going to help everybody. Now we can stop it. No, we're not. What we're doing is we're allowing it to burn without burning everything to the ground. We are trying to save whatever we can so we have something that we can hold onto. That's what's happening. If the fire burns out of control, it burns everything down. It burns mom and pop grocery store and it burns General Motors and it burns General Electric, it burns all of it down to the ground because there's just, the money is just not there. Nobody everybody's in panic mode and what they're trying to do is bring it down as softly as they can, but this is not going to be a soft landing.

"Ladies and gentlemen, prepare. We're about ready to hit the runway, although I have to tell you right now nobody wants you to know this, but there is no runway below us. It's actually a forest, but hey, we're doing the best we can so the plane just doesn't fall out of the sky. Buckle your seat belts." That's what's happening. The President can't get on. Nobody can get on and say, "We've got two choices, gang. We're just going to turn the engines off or we're just going to, you know, they are just going to let them go and they will eventually turn themselves off and the plane will fall out of the sky," "Or, we know that's a forest beneath us and we know this is going to do just a buttload of damage but at least we'll have pieces of the plane we can put together and there's stuff on the plane that we need." And here's a crazy idea. There's people on the plane!

That's what congress is considering right now. This, I believe, has to pass, and you will see it in the next few days. You're going to see, I think, gigantic failures. You are going to see big failures come in the next few days and it's just, it's not done yet. It's not done yet. And if the government doesn't okay this, well, that's what's going to happen.

Now, here's the semi good news. If the weasels stay out of it, the people that are writing this right now, some of them are weasels, quite frankly I think some of them are evil, but a lot of them are really good and, in fact, I believe that Wednesday night was 9/11 in the financial industry. They know what happened. However, they're still the Pentagon hasn't been hit yet and there's still somebody up in the air that's flying towards the White House. It was 9/11 the World Trade Center has been hit and that's what's happening in the financial market right now. And there are good people that are trying to they are the 9/12ers. They don't care about necessarily and I'm not talking about all of them they don't care necessarily about their one financial institution. They are trying they are doing service for America. There are good people that understand what's going on and there are good people that are involved in this plan. There are also those people, those good people, they are trying to keep the weasels away because the way this is being written right now is let's say the Glenn Bank is the good and honest bank. Let's say the Stu Bank is the evil Stu Bank.

STU: What kind of example is that? Why aren't we

GLENN: That's a good one.

STU: Why are you talking

GLENN: So the Glenn Bank is in trouble. No fault of Glenn, but he's got all kinds of problems and many of them psychological in nature, and the money, the assets that he has, some of them are defaulting and if he doesn't get them off his books, he's going to go away and he's going to go out of business.

Same thing with the Stu Bank. Well, the way this bailout is going to work is everybody comes, "Bring out your dead, bring out your dead." And so you wheel it up and the Glenn Bank brings out the dead and they really are dead and they're like, I'm really sorry, man, I did everything I can to save them. And the Stu Bank comes out and they're like, "You're not dead yet, I'm not dead yet." They're like, "Yes, he is." "No, I'm not." "Yes, he is," "no, I'm..." [gunfire]. The Stu Bank was intentionally coughing on people.

STU: You are calling me a murderer, aren't you?

GLENN: And he was saying, "What? My people aren't sick at all." And now he's saying, "What? Look, they should be over here." So Stu gets an F for the way he handled his business. I get an A for the way I handled my business. Everybody brings out their dead, they are evaluated and they're marked, Stu Bank, Glenn Bank. They are marked. Stu Bank gets an F. Glenn Bank gets an A. The federal government is taking all of these assets and they are holding them. And they are holding them for three or four years. In the meantime the Stu Bank and the Glenn Bank need to raise money and to need to get their financial house in order to be able to buy these things or offset the losses when they come back. So I get an A. So when it's time for the government to sell these assets, let's say I bought a dollar's worth of stuff for $10 is the government, that's what's going to happen. I'm going to say, "All right, you know what, all you dead people at the Stu Bank, I'm going to give you 10 cents for every dollar's worth." And Stu takes that, okay? And he gets his financial house in order. When we sell them, here's what happens. We sell them and we go, "Oh, Stu, that's right. You were really a shifty company, yeah. We just sold it for 80 cents. No soup for you." And we get the 70 cents and it goes right directly into the treasury of the United States.

The Glenn Bank comes and they say, "Oh, yeah, I remember you. You were a good guy. Yeah, we just sold yours for 80 cents. We're going to give you 20 cents of that 80. We're keeping the rest. And Stu, by the way, still no soup four." That way they are going to punish the bad and reward the good. Those who were just swept up into it and weren't doing anything, they're going to get it, except because the American people remember this is the way it's supposed to work. The American people get money out of it because those assets aren't always going to be bad. The market will come back and you'll be able to sell those assets. But the guy who was screwing us, he shouldn't get help. He shouldn't get any. He's got to pay for it. He's going to get screwed in the end. That's the way it's supposed to be.

Me personally, I don't believe a single weasel in Washington. I don't believe any of these people are actually going to do jack and not put, you know, gummy bears and the big huge presents under the Christmas tree. They are looking at this as, you know what, this is what I'm going to get out of this; so I don't buy it. I will just tell you the plane is falling out of the sky. We must land the plane as softly as we can. This is going to be very bad. It is not going to it is something that we are it's worse. I mean, it's now you've got the government involved as well, but you've got to save somebody and you've got to have some of these assets when you land the plane.

Help you at all, Stu?

STU: Yeah, I mean, you are right it doesn't make me it doesn't make me feel anything but dirty because I mean, the source of my optimism on the economy is that we have the free market and our economic resiliency is based on capitalism which I believe not only to be the most effective but also a moral system.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: So the problem with this is we're taking that out of the equation.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: We're taking capitalism out of capitalism.

GLENN: Well, no, you are trying to put some of the capitalism back in and the capitalists are doing it, not the Washington people. The capitalists are doing it. The people, some of the people involved in this are actually pushing for the capitalism to remain in there. They do not want the government in here. They just don't feel that they have any choice. The bad ones are saying, "Yeah, sweet deal." The good ones want those penalties still in there for capitalist reasons.

It's time for our April 29, 2019 edition of our Candidate Power Rankings. We get to add two new candidates, write about a bunch of people that have little to no chance of winning, and thank the heavens we are one day closer to the end of all of this.

In case you're new here, read our explainer about how all of this works:

The 2020 Democratic primary power rankings are an attempt to make sense out of the chaos of the largest field of candidates in global history.

Each candidate gets a unique score in at least thirty categories, measuring data like polling, prediction markets, fundraising, fundamentals, media coverage, and more. The result is a candidate score between 0-100. These numbers will change from week to week as the race changes.

The power rankings are less a prediction on who will win the nomination, and more a snapshot of the state of the race at any given time. However, early on, the model gives more weight to fundamentals and potentials, and later will begin to prioritize polling and realities on the ground.

These power rankings include only announced candidates. So, when you say "WAIT!! WHERE'S XXXXX????" Read the earlier sentence again.

If you're like me, when you read power rankings about sports, you've already skipped ahead to the list. So, here we go.

See previous editions here.

20. Wayne Messam: 13.4 (Last week: 18th / 13.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

A former staffer of Wayne Messam is accusing his wife of hoarding the campaign's money.

First, how does this guy have "former" staffers? He's been running for approximately twelve minutes.

Second, he finished dead last in the field in fundraising with $44,000 for the quarter. Perhaps hoarding whatever money the campaign has is not the worst idea.

His best shot at the nomination continues to be something out of the series "Designated Survivor."

Other headlines:

19. Marianne Williamson: 17.1 (Last week: 17th / 17.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Marianne Williamson would like you to pay for the sins of someone else's great, great, great grandparents. Lucky you!

Williamson is on the reparations train like most of the field, trying to separate herself from the pack by sheer monetary force.

How much of your cash does she want to spend? "Anything less than $100 billion is an insult." This is what I told the guy who showed up to buy my 1989 Ford Tempo. It didn't work then either.

Other headlines:

18. John Delaney: 19.7 (Last week: 15th / 20.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Good news: John Delaney brought in $12.1 million in the first quarter, enough for fifth in the entire Democratic field!

Bad news: 97% of the money came from his own bank account.

Other headlines:

17. Eric Swalwell: 20.2 (Last week: 16th / 20.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

The Eric Swalwell formula:

  • Identify news cycle
  • Identify typical left-wing reaction
  • Add steroids

Democrats said there was obstruction in the Mueller report. Swalwell said there “certainly" was collusion.

Democrats said surveillance of the Trump campaign was no big deal. Swalwell said there was no need to apologize even if it was.

Democrats said William Barr mishandled the release of the Mueller report. Swalwell said he must resign.

Democrats say they want gun restrictions. Swalwell wants them all melted down and the liquid metal to be poured on the heads of NRA members. (Probably.)

16. Seth Moulton: 20.6 (NEW)

Who is Seth Moulton?

No, I'm asking.

Moulton falls into the category of congressman looking to raise his profile and make his future fundraising easier— not someone who is actually competing for the presidency.

He tried to block Nancy Pelosi as speaker, so whatever help he could get from the establishment is as dry as Pelosi's eyes when the Botox holds them open for too long.

Moulton is a veteran, and his military service alone is enough to tell you that he's done more with his life than I'll ever do with mine. But it's hard to see the road to the White House for a complete unknown in a large field of knowns.

Don't take my word for it, instead read this depressing story that he's actually telling people on purpose:

"I said, you know, part of my job is take tough questions," Moulton told the gathered business and political leaders. "You can ask even really difficult questions. And there was still silence. And then finally, someone in the way back of the room raised her hand, and she said, 'Who are you?' "

Yeah. Who are you?

15. Tim Ryan: 21.6 (Last week: 14th / 20.7)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When you're talking to less than sixteen people in Iowa one week after your launch, you don't have too much to be excited about.

Ryan did get an interview on CNN, where he also talked to less than sixteen people.

He discussed his passion for the Dave Matthews Band, solidifying a key constituency in the year 1995.

Other headlines:

14. Tulsi Gabbard: 25.2 (Last week: 14th / 25.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Tulsi Gabbard torched Kamala Harris in fundraising!!!!! (Among Indian-American donors.)

No word on who won the coveted handi-capable gender-neutral sodium-sensitive sub-demographic.

She received a mostly false rating for her attack on the Trump administration regarding its new policy on pork inspections, a topic not exactly leading the news cycle. Being from Hawaii, the state which leads the nation in Spam consumption, she was probably surprised when this didn't go mega viral.

Other headlines:

13. Andrew Yang: 27.2 (Last week: 12th / 27.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Yang has a few go-to lines when he's on the campaign trail, such as: "The opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math." Another is apparently the Jeb-esque "Chant my name! Chant my name!"

Yang continues to be one of the more interesting candidates in this race, essentially running a remix of the "One Tough Nerd" formula that worked for Michigan Governor Rick Snyder.

I highly recommend listening to his interview with Ben Shapiro, where Yang earns respect as the only Democratic presidential candidate in modern history to actually show up to a challenging and in-depth interview with a knowledgeable conservative.

But hidden in the Shapiro interview is the nasty little secret of the Yang campaign. His policy prescriptions, while still very liberal, come off as far too sane for him to compete in this Stalin look-alike contest.

Other headlines:

12. Jay Inslee: 30.4 (Last week: 11th / 30.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If you read the Inslee candidate profile, I said he was running a one-issue climate campaign. This week, he called for a climate change-only debate, and blamed Donald Trump for flooding in Iowa.

He also may sign the nation's first "human composting" legalization bill. He can start by composting his presidential campaign.

Other headlines:

11. John Hickenlooper: 32.2 (Last week: 10th / 32.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

John Hickenlooper was sick of being asked if he would put a woman on the ticket, in the 0.032% chance he actually won the nomination.

So he wondered why the female candidates weren't being asked if they would name a male VP if they won?

Seems like a logical question, but only someone who is high on tailpipe fumes would think it was okay to ask in a Democratic primary. Hickenlooper would be better served by just transitioning to a female and demanding other candidates are asked why they don't have a transgendered VP.

Other headlines:

10. Julian Castro: 35.7 (Last week: 9th / 36.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Lowering expectations is a useful strategy when your wife asks you to put together an Ikea end table, or when you've successfully convinced Charlize Theron to come home with you. But is it a successful campaign strategy?

Julian Castro is about to find out. He thinks the fact that everyone thinks he's crashing and burning on the campaign trail so far is an "advantage." Perhaps he can take the rest of the field by surprise on Super Tuesday when they finally realize he's actually running.

Other headlines:

9. Kirsten Gillibrand: 38.1 (Last week: 8th / 37.8)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Gillibrand wants you to know that the reason her campaign has been such a miserable failure so far, is because she called for a certain senator to step down. The problem might also be that another certain senator isn't a good presidential candidate.

She also spent the week arm wrestling, and dancing at a gay bar called Blazing Saddle. In this time of division, one thing we can all agree on: Blazing Saddle is a really solid name for a gay bar.

Other headlines:

8. Amy Klobuchar: 45.1 (Last week: 7th / 45.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Klobuchar is attempting a run in the moderate wing of the Democratic primary, which would be a better idea if such a wing existed.

She hasn't committed to impeaching Donald Trump and has actually voted to confirm over half of his judicial nominees. My guess is this will not be ignored by her primary opponents.

She also wants to resolve an ongoing TPS issue, which I assume means going by Peter Gibbons' desk every morning and making sure he got the memo about the new cover sheets.

Other headlines:

7. Elizabeth Warren: 45.3 (Last week: 6th / 46.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Elizabeth Warren is bad at everything she does while she's campaigning. I don't really even watch Game of Thrones, and the idea that Warren would write a story about how the show proves we need more powerful women makes me cringe.

Of course, more powerful people of all the 39,343 genders are welcome, but it's such a transparent attempt at jumping on the back of a pop-culture event to pander to female voters, it's sickening.

We can only hope that when she's watching Game of Thrones, she's gonna grab her a beer.

Other headlines:

6. Cory Booker: 54.9 (Last week: 5th / 55.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Booker is tied with Kamala Harris for the most missed Senate votes of the campaign so far. He gets criticized for this, but I think he should miss even more votes.

Booker is also pushing a national day off on Election Day—because the approximately six months of early voting allowed in every state just isn't enough.

Of course, making it easier to vote doesn't mean people are going to vote for Booker. So he's throwing trillions of dollars in bribes (my word, not his) to seal the deal.

Bookermania is in full effect, with 40 whole people showing up to his appearance in Nevada. Local press noted that the people were of "varying ages," an important distinction to most other crowds, which are entirely comprised of people with the same birthday.

Other headlines:

5. Robert Francis O’Rourke: 60.2 (Last week: 4th /62.6)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Kirsten Gillibrand gave less than 2% of her income to charity. The good news is that she gave about seven times as much as Beto O'Rourke. Robert Francis, or Bob Frank, also happens to be one of the wealthiest candidates in the race. His late seventies father-in-law has been estimated to be worth as much as $20 billion, though the number is more likely to be a paltry $500 million.

He's made millions from a family company investing in fossil fuels and pharmaceutical stocks, underpaid his taxes for multiple years, and is suing the government to lower property taxes on a family-owned shopping center.

He's also all but disappeared. It's a long race, and you don't win a nomination in April of the year before election day. If he's being frugal and figuring out what he believes, it might be a good move.

But it's notable that all the "pretty boy" hype that Bob Frank owned going into this race has been handed over to Mayor Pete. Perhaps Beto is spending his time working on curbing the sweating, the hand gestures, and the issues with jumping on counters like a feline.

Other headlines:

4. Pete Buttigieg: 62.9 (Last week: 3rd / 62.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When we first put candidates in tiers earlier this year, we broke everyone into five categories from "Front Runners" to "Eh, no." In the middle is a category called "Maybe, if everything goes right," and that's where we put Pete Buttigieg.

Well, everything has gone right so far. But Mayor Pete will be interested to learn that the other 19 candidates in this race are not going to hand him this nomination. Eventually, they will start saying negative things about him (they've started the opposition research process already), and it will be interesting to see how Petey deals with the pressure. We've already seen how it has affected Beto in a similar situation.

The media has spoken endlessly about the sexual orientation of Buttigieg, but not every Democratic activist is impressed. Barney Frank thinks the main reason he's getting this amount of attention is because he is gay. And for some, being a gay man just means you're a man, which isn't good enough.

When you base your vote on a candidate's genitals, things can get confusing.

Other headlines:

3. Kamala Harris: 68.6 (Last week: 1st / 69.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

There are a couple of ways to view the Harris candidacy so far.

#1 - Harris launched with much fanfare and an adoring media. She has since lost her momentum. Mayor Pete and former Mayor Bernie have the hype, and Kamala is fading.

#2 - Harris is playing the long game. She showed she can make an impact with her launch, but realizes that a media "win" ten months before an important primary means nothing. She's working behind the scenes and cleaning up with donations, prominent supporters, and loads of celebrities to execute an Obama style onslaught.

I tend to be in category 2, but I admit that's somewhat speculative. Harris seems to be well positioned to make a serious run, locking up more than double the amount of big Clinton and Obama fundraisers than any other candidate.

One interesting policy development for Harris that may hurt her in the primary is her lack of utter disgust for the nation of Israel. There's basically one acceptable position in a Democratic primary when it comes to Israel, which is that it's a racist and terrorist state, existing only to torture innocent Palestinians.

Certainly no one is going to mistake Harris for Donald Trump, but a paragraph like this is poison to the modern Democratic primary voter:

"Her support for Israel is central to who she is," Harris' campaign communications director, Lily Adams, told McClatchy. "She is firm in her belief that Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, including against rocket attacks from Gaza."

Just portraying the rocket attacks as "attacks" is controversial these days for Democrats, and claiming they are responses to attacks indicates you think the Jeeeewwwwwwwws aren't the ones responsible for the start of every hostility. Heresy!

Someone get Kamala a copy of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' before she blows her chance to run the free world.

2. Bernie Sanders: 69.2 (Last week: 2nd / 68.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If Bernie Sanders hates millionaires as much as he claims, he must hate the mirror. As a millionaire, it might surprise some that he donated only 1% to charity. But it shouldn't.

It's entirely consistent with Sandersism to avoid giving to private charity. Why would you? Sanders believes the government does everything better than the private sector. He should be giving his money to the government.

Of course, he doesn't. He takes the tax breaks from the evil Trump tax plan he derides. He spends his money on fabulous vacation homes. He believes in socialism for thee, not for me.

Yes, this is enough to convince the Cardi B's of the world, all but guaranteeing a lock on the rapper-and-former-stripper-that-drugged-and-stole-from-her-prostitution-clients demographic. But can that lack of consistency hold up in front of general election voters?

If Bernie reads this and would like a path to credibility, clear out your bank account and send it here:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Funds Management Branch
P.O. Box 1328
Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328


Other headlines:

1. Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.: 78.8 (NEW)

Joe has run for president 113 times during his illustrious career, successfully capturing the presidency in approximately zero of his campaigns.

However, when the eternally woke Barack Obama had a chance to elevate a person of color, woman, or anything from the rainbow colored QUILTBAG, he instead chose the oldest, straightest, whitest guy he could find, and our man Robinette was the beneficiary.

Biden has been through a lot, much of it of his own making. Forget about his plagiarism and propensity to get a nostril full of each passing females' hair, his dealings while vice president in both Ukraine and China are a major general election vulnerability— not to mention a legal vulnerability for his children. But hey, win the presidency and you can pardon everyone, right?

His supposed appeal to rust belt voters makes him, on paper, a great candidate to take on Trump. The Clinton loss hinged on about 40,000 voters changing their mind from Hillary to Donald in a few states—the exact areas where victory could possibly be secured by someone named "Middle Class Joe" (as he alone calls himself.)

No one loves Joe Biden more than Joe Biden, and there's a relatively convincing case for his candidacy. But we must remember this unquestionable truth: Joe Biden is not good at running for president.

He's a gaffe machine that churns out mistake after mistake, hoping only to have his flubs excused by his unending charisma. But, will that work without the use of his legendary groping abilities? Only time, and a few dozen unnamed women, will tell.

Also, yes. Robinette is really his middle name.

If only Karl Marx were alive today to see his wackiest ideas being completely paraded around. He would be so proud. I can see him now: Sprawled out on his hammock from REI, fiddling around for the last vegan potato chip in the bag as he binge-watches Academy Awards on his 70-inch smart TV. In between glances at his iPhone X (he's got a massive Twitter following), he sips Pepsi. In his Patagonia t-shirt and NIKE tennis shoes, he writes a line or two about "oppression" and "the have-nots" as part of his job for Google.

His house is loaded with fresh products from all the woke companies. In the fridge, he's got Starbucks, he loves their soy milk. He's got Ben & Jerry's in the freezer. He tells everyone that, if he shaved, he'd use Gillette, on account of the way they stand up for the Have-Nots. But, really, Marx uses Dollar Shave Club because it's cheaper, a higher quality. Secretly, he loves Chic-Fil-A. He buys all his comic books off Amazon. The truth is, he never thought people would actually try to make the whole "communism" thing work.

RELATED: SOCIALISM: This is the most important special we have done

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism. They use their status as corporations to spread a socialist message and encourage people to do their part in social justice. The idea of companies in America using socialism at all is as confusing and ridiculous as a donkey in a prom dress: How did this happen? Is it a joke? Why is nobody bursting out in laughter? How far is this actually going to go? Does someone actually believe that they can take a donkey to prom?

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism.

On the micro level, Netflix has made some socialist moves: The "like/dislike" voting system was replaced after a Netflix-sponsored stand-up special by Amy Schumer received as tidal wave of thumb-downs. This summer, Netflix will take it a step further in the name of squashing dissent by disabling user comments and reviews. And of course most of us share a Netflix account with any number of people. Beyond that, they're as capitalist as the next mega-company.

Except for one area: propaganda. Netflix has started making movie-length advertisements for socialism. They call them "documentaries," but we know better than that. The most recent example is "Knock Down the House," which comes out tomorrow. The 86-minute-long commercial for socialism follows four "progressive Democrat" women who ran in the 2018 midterms, including our favorite socialist AOC.

Here's a snippet from the movie so good that you'll have to fight the urge to wave your USSR flag around the room:

This is what the mainstream media wants you to believe. They want you to be moved. They want the soundtrack to inspire you to go out and do something.

Just look at how the mainstream media treated the recent high-gloss "documentary" about Ilhan Omar, "Time for Ilhan." It received overwhelmingly bad ratings on IMDb and other user-review platforms, but got a whopping 93% on the media aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

This is exactly what the media wants you to think of when you hear the word socialism. Change. Empowerment. Strength. Diversity. They spend so much energy trying to make socialism cool. They gloss right over the unbelievable death toll. BlazeTV's own Matt Kibbe made a great video on this exact topic.

Any notion of socialism in America is a luxury, made possible by capitalism. The woke companies aren't actually doing anything for socialism. If they're lucky, they might get a boost in sales, which is the only thing they want anyway.

We want to show you the truth. We want to tell you the stories you won't hear anywhere else, not on Netflix, not at some movie festival. We're going to tell you what mainstream media doesn't want you to know.

Look at how much history we've lost over the years. They changed it slowly. But they had to. Because textbooks were out. So people were watching textbooks. It was printed. You would bring the book home. Mom and dad might go through it and check it out. So you had to slowly do things.

Well, they're not anymore. There are no textbooks anymore. Now, you just change them overnight. And we are losing new history. History is being changed in realtime.

RELATED: 'Good Morning Texas' joins Glenn to get an inside look at Mercury Museum

You have to write down what actually is happening and keep a journal. Don't necessarily tell everybody. Just keep a journal for what is happening right now. At some point, our kids won't have any idea of the truth. They will not have any idea of what this country was, how it really happened. Who were the good guys. Who were the bad guys. Who did what.

As Michelle Obama said. Barack knows. We have to change our history. Well, that's exactly what's happening. But it's happening at a very rapid pace.

We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased.

I first said this fifteen years ago, people need clay plots. We have to preserve our history as people preserved histories in ancient days, with the dead see scrolls, by putting them in caves in a clay pot. We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased. And I don't mean just the history of the founding of our country. I mean the history that's happening right now.

And the history that's happening right now, you're a problem if you're a conservative or a Christian. You are now a problem on the left, if you disagree and fall out of line at all. This is becoming a fascistic party. And you know what a fascist is. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or a Republican or an independent. If you believe it's my way or the highway, if you believe that people don't have a right to their opinion or don't have a right to their own life — you could do be a fascist.

Christianity might seem pretty well-protected in the U.S., but that's not the case in many parts of the globe.

On Easter Sunday, suicide bombers made the news for killing 290 innocent Christians in Sri Lanka and injuring another 500. On Tuesday, ISIS claimed responsibility for the massacre. Of course, the Western world mourned this tragic loss of life on a holy day of worship, but we forget that this isn't an isolated incident. Indeed, Christians are discriminated at extreme levels worldwide, and it needs to be brought to light. And whenever we do highlight brutal persecutions such as the Easter bombings in Sri Lanka, we need to call them what they are — targeted attacks against Christians. Sadly, many of our politicians are deathly afraid to do so.

RELATED: Hey media, there is absolutely a war on Christians!

A 2018 Pew Research Center study found that Christians are harassed in 144 countries — the most of any other faith — slightly outnumbering Muslims for the top of the list. Additionally, Open Doors, a non-profit organization that works to serve persecuted Christians worldwide, found in their 2019 World Watch List that over 245 million Christians are seriously discriminated against for their religious beliefs. Sadly, this translates into 4,136 Christians killed and 2,625 either arrested, sentenced, imprisoned, or detained without trial over the year-long study period. And when it comes to churches, those in Sri Lanka were merely added to a long list of 1,266 Christian buildings attacked for their religion.

These breathtaking stats receive very little coverage in the Western world. And there seems to be a profound hesitation from politicians in discussing the issue of persecution against Christians. In the case of the Sri Lanka bombings, there's even a reluctance to use the word "Christian."

After the horrific Pittsburgh Synagogue and New Zealand Mosque shootings, Democrats rightfully acknowledged the disturbing trend of targeted attacks against Jews and Muslims. But some of these same politicians refer to the Sri Lanka bombings with careless ambiguity.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face?

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, for instance, certainly did — calling the incursions "attacks on Easter worshippers." Understandably, the term confused and frustrated many Christians. Although, supporters of these politicians argued the term was appropriate since a recent Associated Press report used it, and it was later picked up by a variety of media outlets, including Fox News. However, as more Democrats like 2020 presidential candidate Julián Castro and Rep. Dan Kildee continued to use the phrase "Easter worshippers," it became clear that these politicians were going out of their way to avoid calling a spade a spade.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face? For starters, Christianity in democratic countries like the U.S. is seen differently than in devastated countries like Somalia. According to Pew Research, over 70% of Americans are Christian, with 66% of those Christians being white and 35% baby boomers. So while diverse Christians from all over the world are persecuted for their faith—in the U.S., Christians are a dominant religion full of old white people. This places Christians at the bottom of progressives' absurd intersectional totem poll, therefore leaving little sympathy for their cause. However, the differing experiences of Christians worldwide doesn't take away from the fact that they are unified in their beliefs.

By refusing to name the faith of the Sri Lankan martyrs, politicians are sending a message that they have very little, if no, concern about the growing amount of persecution against Christians worldwide.

Martyrs don't deserve to be known as "Easter worshippers." They should be known by the Christian faith they gave their lives for. Decent politicians need to call the tragedy in Sri Lanka what it is — a vicious attack on the Christian faith.

Patrick Hauf (@PatrickHauf) is a writer for Young Voices and Vice President of Lone Conservative. His work can be found in the Washington Examiner, Townhall, FEE, and more.