Fantasy football and fantasy liberal policies

At the CNBC televised Republican debate, one of the CNBC questioners asked a question about fantasy football.  The question referred to the nature of fantasy football, in that it involves betting money on an uncertain, basically unpredictable outcome, and whether or not this kind of behavior is gambling.

But voters may wonder if it’s not just fantasy football that is at its core gambling, and whether voting for liberal politicians, particularly at the national level, is also a fantasy that is, essentially, a gamble.  After all, President Obama promised that everyone can keep his doctor, that the average family would save $2,400 a year on medical insurance costs, and that he would have the most transparent administration ever.

He also promised that his race, against all laws of discrimination, should be used in his favor.  That voters should discriminate against the white presidential candidates who ran against him.  That he, since he is black, can understand the plight of blacks in the U.S.  Given the results of president’s Obama tenure in the White House – namely, that blacks have a higher poverty rate than ever, and that their unemployment rate and food stamp use is higher than ever – a case may be argued that voting for liberal policies is also betting on an uncertain outcome, whether or not it is in its essence gambling.

After all, it is not just President Obama, but the entire policy agenda of liberal Democrats that has failed.  If the liberal politicians were on the internet as a fantasy team, it would appear that they always lose.  That they always fail to achieve their goals, to push their agenda into the end zone, to eliminate poverty, high unemployment, and discrimination.

Their promises are big, but their results are uniformly dismal.  Then again, if a football team lost all the time, if a quarterback always threw interceptions, if a running back always fumbled the ball, then nobody would want these players on his fantasy football team.  This raises the question as to why voters still think liberal Democrats are going to win in their strategy to improve the social status of minorities. 

In fact, liberal Democrats are so effective at failing to reach their goals that voting for them is not a gamble.  It is a sure thing.  It is certain that they will fail.  Anyone who doubts this need only look at the amounts of money they have spent helping the most needy – programs that now number in the trillions of dollars – and write a box score of plays made – i.e. policies proposed and goals achieved.  It is a record of nearly complete failure.

So in the final analysis, voting for liberal policies is not a gamble; it is a sure thing.  They are certain to keep spending money and keep failing.

At the CNBC televised Republican debate, one of the CNBC questioners asked a question about fantasy football.  The question referred to the nature of fantasy football, in that it involves betting money on an uncertain, basically unpredictable outcome, and whether or not this kind of behavior is gambling.

But voters may wonder if it’s not just fantasy football that is at its core gambling, and whether voting for liberal politicians, particularly at the national level, is also a fantasy that is, essentially, a gamble.  After all, President Obama promised that everyone can keep his doctor, that the average family would save $2,400 a year on medical insurance costs, and that he would have the most transparent administration ever.

He also promised that his race, against all laws of discrimination, should be used in his favor.  That voters should discriminate against the white presidential candidates who ran against him.  That he, since he is black, can understand the plight of blacks in the U.S.  Given the results of president’s Obama tenure in the White House – namely, that blacks have a higher poverty rate than ever, and that their unemployment rate and food stamp use is higher than ever – a case may be argued that voting for liberal policies is also betting on an uncertain outcome, whether or not it is in its essence gambling.

After all, it is not just President Obama, but the entire policy agenda of liberal Democrats that has failed.  If the liberal politicians were on the internet as a fantasy team, it would appear that they always lose.  That they always fail to achieve their goals, to push their agenda into the end zone, to eliminate poverty, high unemployment, and discrimination.

Their promises are big, but their results are uniformly dismal.  Then again, if a football team lost all the time, if a quarterback always threw interceptions, if a running back always fumbled the ball, then nobody would want these players on his fantasy football team.  This raises the question as to why voters still think liberal Democrats are going to win in their strategy to improve the social status of minorities. 

In fact, liberal Democrats are so effective at failing to reach their goals that voting for them is not a gamble.  It is a sure thing.  It is certain that they will fail.  Anyone who doubts this need only look at the amounts of money they have spent helping the most needy – programs that now number in the trillions of dollars – and write a box score of plays made – i.e. policies proposed and goals achieved.  It is a record of nearly complete failure.

So in the final analysis, voting for liberal policies is not a gamble; it is a sure thing.  They are certain to keep spending money and keep failing.