Donald Trump and the Protestant advantage in Republican primaries

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks

The other day billionaire Donald Trump went out of his way to mention to a crowd in the South that he was a Protestant.  A Presbyterian, to be precise.
  
The Republican party has never nominated a Catholic for President. NEVER. Not for President.

This is not a minor point:  Jeb Bush is a convert to Roman Catholicism and Marco Rubio is a Roman Catholic from birth. Chris Christie is listed in Wikipedia as being Roman Catholic.  George Pataki and Rick Santorum are also listed as Catholic.  Hence, they cannot win the Republican Presidential nomination.

The Republican party has never nominated a Catholic for President.  True, Paul Ryan, a Catholic,  was its VICE-presidential nominee in 2012 but the vice-presidential nomination is hand-selected by the Republican presidential nominee and rubber-stamped by the Republican convention.  Ryan would never have been on the ticket if he had to go through the primary process.  Simply put, a Catholic cannot win the Republican Presidential nomination. It has NEVER happened.  Moreover, no Catholic has ever even come close to winning the REPUBLICAN Presidential nomination.  Even the Mormon Mitt Romney was more acceptable than a Catholic.

The bulk of Republican PRIMARY voters are Protestants.  
These are just facts.  Trump knows this.  Hence, Trump is one of the few WASPs (White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestants) running. 
Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Scott Walker are some of the other WASPs but they are fading fast. 

Dr. Ben Carson is a Protestant (Seventh Day Adventist) but Dr. Carson is no WASP.  

Likewise, Ted Cruz is Protestant but -- like Dr. Carson-- he is no WASP. Also, the obviously Hispanic surname "Cruz" sounds too  Latino and, hence, confusingly "Catholic-sounding."  Again, like Dr. Carson, Ted Cruz is no WASP.

Carly Fiorina was raised Episcopalian and is now a non-denominational Christian, so it is fair to say she is a Protestant.  She certainly is NOT a Catholic.  She does, however, have a very "Latin" sounding name, the italian surname "Fiorina".  Ironically, "Fiorina" is her married name; her maiden name, and the name she was born under, is Sneed.  So she has the same problem that Ted Cruz has: they both have surnames that are very "Latin" sounding and, hence, confusingly "Catholic-sounding."  Also, as a woman, Fiorina is not a White MALE Anglo-Saxon Protestant.  Again, Fiornia's married surname "Fiorina" does not sound Anglo-Saxon and this, along with her gender, will hurt her in getting the nomination. Fiorina will do all right but eventually she will hit the proverbial "glass ceiling."

 The only White Male Anglo-Saxon Protestant with the resources to win the Republican nomination is Trump. Trump knows this.  Ergo, Trump wins the Republican Presidential nomination.

Why Estate Tax is WRONG: "May a man keep his mistress in luxury but not his daughter?"

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks

Evelyn Waugh summed up the absurdity of an estate tax by merely asking, "May a man keep his mistress in luxury but not his daughter?"

Meaning, while you are alive, your money remains your money.  The moment you die, for some strange reason, what was your money suddenly belongs to the government.  While you're alive you can spend your own money as you see fit:  You can spend it on riotous living or you can give it to a TV preacher or  gamble it all away at a casino or spend it on your mistress to keep her in luxury.  But your daughter will not gain the benefit of your fortune when you die because the government suddenly says it is wrong for her to have it since she didn't work for it.

So . . . a man is allowed to keep his mistress in luxury but not his daughter.  The daughter must work (assuming there is any work to be found, which appears more and more unlikely).  

Hence, a man may keep his mistress in luxury but not his daughter.  

• Moreover, the Estate Tax is BOTH immoral and COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE ! The government actually gets MORE money if you eliminate the estate tax. With the estate tax (i.e., "Death Tax") in place, the incentive is to die BROKE. Why give it all to the gov't? Just spend it all on riotous living in your own lifetime! Your heirs get nothing; no business gets built up over time and no extra long-term income to the government. Your mistress will be kept in luxury but not your daughter. Check this link out:  http://www.thestandardleader.com/stephen-moore-right-now-is-the-time-to-kill-estate-tax/5560/
• 
  

HAIR PART THEORY DEBUNKED: Left side hair part for men or right side hair part? Which is better?

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks

Left Part or Right Part [for men]

I’m not saying the argument that there is an advantage in life for “left side” hair part (for men) is necessarily wrong.  There might be something to that theory, although it seems to me that the evidence is mainly anecdotal.

In the spirit of free discussion and open debate, I offer some counter arguments and counter examples to show that the right side part for men may actually be the superior part. 

·      In 1976 Jimmy Carter parted his hair on the right side and won the Presidential election. In 1980, Carter switched hair part sides and was parting his hair on the left side.  The result:  he lost the election in a landslide to Ronald Reagan, who parted his hair on the right.

·      Ronald Reagan, famously parted his hair on the right side.  He won 46 out of 50 states in the 1980 Presidential election (defeating newly left hair-parted incumbent President Jimmy Carter).  In 1984,  right side hair-parter President Reagan won 49 out of 50 states against the left side-parter, Walter Mondale, one of the biggest landslides of all time.  This seems to me to be a powerful counter-example to the “left side hair part is better” theory.

·      In the 2000 Presidential election, Al Gore (right side-parter) lost the election but won popular vote.  The retort is Gore should have even won MORE votes than he did but the right side part cost him votes. Huh?  That’s pure speculation.  What everyone concedes is that Gore, the right side hair part candidate, got more votes than his opponent, George W. Bush, the left side hair part candidate. Anything else is mere speculation.  If you are going to speculate – and you shouldn’t --you could even argue that if Gore were a left side hair parter he would have received much fewer votes. The irrefutable fact is, Gore, the right side hair-parter,  got more votes than George W. Bush, the left side hair-parter. REPEAT:  The right side hair-parter,  got more votes than the left side hair-parter. 

·      Much of what matters with hair part has to do with your face.  In my opinion, men with larger noses might actually look better with the right side part. I note that Bobby Kennedy (right side parter) had a larger nose than his brother, JFK (left side parter).  The right side part drew less attention to Bobby’s large nose. 

·      Right side parters have been very successful:  For example---  Frank Sinatra; Cary Grant; the aforementioned Ronald Reagan; Dean Martin; Bobby Kennedy; Gary Cooper; Paul Newman; Gregory Peck; the late actor Steve McQueen; Warren Beatty;  Matthew Broderick; Dustin Hoffman (e.g., "The Graduate"); Laurence Olivier; Bill Clinton; the poet Robert Frost; Steve Martin; the young Ryan O'Neal; Spencer Tracy; Peter Lawford; Rock Hudson; John Wayne (see"Reap the Wild Wind"); Orson Welles (see Citizen Kane) and Clint Eastwood were all right side parters.  Sometimes Ryan Reynolds sports a right side part. Sometimes, in his early career, Peter O’Toole had a right side part. It didn’t hurt their careers and nobody shunned them.  The argument that you have to be tall and handsome for the right side hair part to work doesn’t follow: see the not unhandsome but definitely not tall John Major (right sider), below. In 2014, Matt Damon was sporting a right side part, and Mr. Damon -- while handsome -- is not particularly tall.  

·      Former British Prime Minister John Major – and right side parter -- did not come from a wealthy background and was said to have lost a job opportunity because he was short of stature.  Nevertheless, despite lack of social status and stature, this right side parter made it all the way “to the top of the greasy pole” (in the phrase of Benjamin Disraeli) and became Prime Minister of Great Britain.  Hardly an example of someone being “shunned.”

·      Depending on one’s degree of baldness, the right side part can do a lot to make you look like you have more hair. I think as a man ages, parting the hair has more to do with which side of his hairline is receding more.  Hence, if the right side hair part covers the baldness better, men choose the right side. In my personal case, I notice that with my right side part, my head is fully covered with hair and it looks like I have a nice, thick head of hair.  This coincides with the theory that “thinning hair” looks the absolute worse;  better to shave your head and go with the completely bald look than walk around with thinning hair.  So, a right side part that makes you look like you have lots of hair is superior to a thinning hair look.  This might explain why Rush Limbaugh used to be a right side parter in his youth.  His hair was thinning and parting it on the right side made him look like he had more hair.  Eventually, he went bald.

      In conclusion, there are too many counter-examples to support the theory of an overall advantage to the left side part.  Perhaps back in the day the left side was considered better in stodgier times but in today's hip, tattoo loving, modern society there may be, if anything, a slight advantage to the right side hair part for men.  The right side parters give off the vibe of being a tad bit more individualistic; more of the "entrepreneurial" mindset; a bit more daring.