Tariffs and Trade Wars

At this point, I think saying that our president is insane may be the nicest way of putting it. The latest way of proving this seems to be by giving a voice to people who watched Roger And Me 30 years and have never shut up about it, or the man who directed Roger And Me 30 years ago and never shut up about it, by attempting to implement protectionists in the United States. So I figured we should actually look at some of his cases and talk about why he's obviously wrong.
One of the most common cases Donnie and his supporters have made is that Canada, the country Washington D.C. is currently targeting the hardest, has incredibly high tariffs on some products. What Donald seems to ignore is that many economists consider Canada's policy to be a bad thing. For instance, when IGM asked economists from many different schools of economics if "Adding new or higher import duties on products . . . to encourage producers to make them in the US - would be a good idea" 0% of them said yes. And before anyone mentions it, this includes David Autor, who wrote The China Shock.
Caroline Hoxby, an economist from Stanford, commented that "tariffs would make the average American worse off". This is a  statement that is so obvious that it shouldn't take a Stanford economist to explain that. Why do I say that? Well just look at the definition of tariffs. 
Tariffs, as defined by the Merriam Webster online dictionary are "a schedule of duties imposed . . . on imported or . . . exported goods". Basically, a tax that increases the cost of goods from a certain country. Now here's the question no tariff supporter is willing to answer, who pays that tax? The answer is, obviously the consumer. And while the average virtuous middle-class liberal may go on about how "I wouldn't mind paying more", he never thinks that some people can't pay more. Those are the people who are hurt the most. 
So the President is right when he says Canada has a high tariff rate. But as the old saying goes, if your friend (or in this case, someone you're trying to make an enemy) jumped off a bridge, would you? 
So it's been established that protectionism hurts people, that's obvious. However, does free trade help people? The answer is also as obvious, but in this case, it's a yes.
While it's very easy to imagine that free trade only helps the big companies that ship jobs over to China, that's far from the case. What the people who support protectionism never tell you is that said "outsourcing" lowers the price of products and, as such, gives us greater purchasing power. 
YouTuber Shane Killian (who I don't agree with on most issues, but has made informative and entertaining content on free trade) calculated that in 1993, one year before the implementation of NAFTA, it would have cost someone over $17,000 to have all of the features present in your average iPhone. And that's ignoring the features that he couldn't calculate because they didn't even exist in any form back in the 1990's. Don't believe me, how many times did you video call someone over the course of that entire decade? Post NAFTA, the iPhone X is so easy to get people can line up around the block, regardless of income, to buy the newest model. This is only because they use so much oversea labor. 
Now, some may respond that this will cost the country a large number of jobs. This is true, but putting the economy in a vacuum like this is never a good idea. The fact is, the elimination of these jobs from the United States economy has been nothing but a positive for the average worker for all the reasons listed above. The fact is, the economy will adjust. In fact, it already has adjusted. At least, that's what the Trumpers keep telling me. After all, more jobs left this country in Trump's first year than Obama's last. So the prices of products only go up but that doesn't matter because it will create jobs the economy doesn't need.
So now there's only one thing that the president and his supporters have left to rely on, the old idea of the trade deficit. This is one his supporters, including many this blog has already covered, have left to rely on. For this, all you really need to do is understand what the "trade deficit" is to understand why this doesn't make any sense.       
A trade deficit, as defined by Investopedia, is "an economic measure of international trade in which a country's imports exceeds its exports". Basically, a trade deficit is when a country buys more from another country than it gives out. However, what the anti-free trade crowd never tell you is that this number is 100% meaningless.
Let me show you what I mean. Did you know you have a trade deficit with any store you go to? You give them money, but they never give you any money. Do you care? Of course not, they gave you what you bought. 
What I'm getting at is, the trade deficit is also a pretty silly argument. 
All of this makes one thing perfectly clear, the United States needs free trade to survive and continue to be prosperous.  

Throwback: Dinesh D'Souza's Awful Argument Against Gay Marriage

A while back I wrote a review of the Dinesh D'Souza film Hillary's America. However, when I wrote that article I made it clear that wasn't my first choice:

I was going to do a throwback on some chapters from his book Letters To a Young Conservative, but I was unable to get a full copy in time.-Me, about a week ago 

Well, thanks to the great folks at archive.org, I now have access to his book for the next two weeks. Remember, it's not piracy if it's from a .org. 
The chapter I picked to do an article on is chapter 23, Against Gay Marriage. It is Pride Month after all. But before I do that, let's look at some of the other chapters present in the book:
-How Reagan Outsmarted the Liberals
-Why Professors Are So Left-Wing
-How to Harpoon a Liberal
-Speaking As a Former Fetus . . . 
-Why Liberals Hate America 
It should be noted that I may have to go back to this book because there's honestly a lot to cover. But let's look at why the gays annoy D'Souza so much:

"Recently, I saw a group of gay men marching in a pro-choice rally . . .I asked myself, what possible interest could homosexuals have in this issue?"

I don't know Dinesh. Why do you, a straight man (and for as obvious as that joke would be Dinesh doesn't talk about gays enough for me to think he's in the closet) have an opinion on gay marriage? It's like people can have opinions on issues that don't personally affect them. 

"Then I realized that gay activists hope to legitimize their lifestyle by promoting a view of sexuality that is completely severed from reproduction."  

 You can also blame that on condoms, the morning after pill, spermicide, implants, medical surgery, and I could go on. 

"As the political activism of gays today suggests, homosexuality has become an ideology."

The pro-gay marriage conspiracy to, allow people to do whatever it is they want. Not only that, but Dinesh has figured out the 3 step plan for the gay agenda.

"The first step is tolerance. Here the argument is, 'You make think we are strange and disgusting, but put up with us'. And many Americans go along with this."

Okay, that seems like I perfectly valid argument. I mean they aren't hurting you, so who honestly cares? 

"Then the gay activists move to stage two. This step may be called Neutrality, and it involves a stronger claim: 'You should make no distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality'"

Again, sounds like a perfectly valid claim. 

"If this step is conceded, the gays are ready to advance to stage three. This step may be termed Subsidy 'We have been discriminated against for centuries, so now we want preferential treatment'"

3 years after gay marriage has been legalized nationwide and this has still not happened. Just saying.

"It does not appear that very many gays want to marry"

Then why did any of them fight for it? 

"Marriage could put a serious crimp in the promiscuous lifestyle of many male homosexuals."

Because as we all know straight people are never promiscuous. Ignore the fact that the average person has 7.2 sexual partners in their lifetime. Louisiana, which has supported every Republican since 2000, has the highest amount of average sexual partners per person at over 15! So maybe it's conservatives who don't want to get married because of there promiscuous lifestyle. Or promiscuity has very little to do with rather or not you'll get married later in life, just saying. 

"The real goal of the gay movement is to break down moral resistance to the homosexual lifestyle."

He's on to them. 

"Not long ago homosexuality was considered an illness."

Tfw when you're so conservative you want to go back to a time where gays were considered mentally ill. 

"Now moral criticism of homosexuality is described by gay partisans as a kind of psychological disorder." 

 According to who?

"The person who has moral qualms about homosexual behavior is said to be 'homophobic'."

Homophobia is not a mental disorder, that would mean there's an excuse. It's just normal bigotry. 
Dinesh then goes after journalist Andrew Sullivan for being pro-gay marriage.

"Sullivan's argument can be condensed to the slogan 'Marriage civilizes men'"

 How about age civilizing people? Or lack of energy civilizing people? Or responsibility civilizing people? Or needing to work for someone and not bash them over the head so you can be paid civilizing people?

"Marriage doesn't civilize men, women do"

How?

"Ronald Reagan made this point many years ago"

Of course he did. Why wouldn't he? 

"If not for women . . . men would still be running around in animal skin and wielding clubs. . . male nature needs to be tamed, and that taming is done by women." 

Am I the only one who finds that kind of sexist? I mean I know a lot of gay men, and none of them are ever "running around in animal skins" or "wielding clubs", let alone both. For that matter why only gay men? Why aren't asexual men? What about bisexual men? Are they just "running around in animal skin" or "wielding clubs" or both or neither? 
I'm sure most of you know of the Kinsey scale. If not, it's the scale of human sexuality related to orientation. 0 typically meaning 100% heterosexual, 6 meaning 100% homosexual, 3 meaning 100% bisexual. What exact number on the Kinsey scale equals "running around in animal skin and wielding clubs". 
But to make sure, I asked a real-life gay person who will go anonymous: 

Me:Hey [his actual name], can I ask you a question?

Gay Guy: Sure

Me: Do you ever run around in animal skin or wield clubs?

Gay Guy: No

 But he wasn't letting me off his case that easily.

Me: Are you sure?

Gay Guy: Yeah I'm pretty sure 

Now, I also had to make sure he wasn't just an exception.

Me:Do you know any gay men who do?

Gay Guy: Uhm, no. I don't think so.

But maybe Dinesh can come up with some real examples of this happening:

"Untamed male nature can be witnessed in . . . gay men who have had hundreds, if not thousands, of anonymous sex partners." 

Citation needed. 

"Marriage is defined as the legal union of two adults of the opposite sex who are unrelated to each other."

Well, was but this book in 2002. I love the right-wing notation that marriage isn't something we humans just made up one day. Heck, we changed the definition when we made it straight people only. 
That's really all the arguments he makes, so as you can see, Dinesh is kind of an idiot.  

  

     

  

      

  

  

The Daily Wire Meltdown

On Friday it was announced that CNN contributor Anthony Bourdian killed himself at the age of 61 years old. A man who CNN has called "a gifted chef and storyteller" and who many have felt sad for. Combine this the recent death of Kate Spade, also from suicide, and the nation is currently trying to figure out what's going on. 
Now I didn't know much about either of these people until this week. I don't follow famous chiefs or fashion so I would have no reason to know about either of these people. Basically, I don't have a dog in this fight. However, and this is a big, however, this doesn't mean that I can't call out the awful reactions I have seen from the right in response to this.
Take, for example, the founder and editor in chief of The Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro. In a recent episode of The Ben Shapiro Show, he spends some time talking about the new "epidemic" (I'll explain why it's in quotes in a bit) and how his website is going to talk about it in the future. But let's hear why he thinks this is happening:

First of all, clinical depression is obviously linked to suicide  

Okay, Ben figured out a basic psychological fact, I'll give him that. I take it he makes sure of that with his wife (who is a doctor, in case you haven't heard) but still.

I would suggest there is a societal lack of meaning. That young people have basically been taught  . . . there emotional state is key. . . we've treated each other as objects. Some of that has to do with . . . social media.

Slow down. Ben already talks fast as it is and now he's giving one nonsense reason after the other.

And some of that has to do with decline of religion 

What? 

There are good studies that suggest

This will be fun

 As religion declines . . . rates of depression go up

Which studies? Yeah, remember the rule of thumb I gave a few posts ago. Whenever someone says that studies show something, they haven't read those studies. 
However, while Shapiro talks about the changes that are going to be made, it seems like another columnist jumped the shark a little. Yes, it's time to talk about Matt Walsh. In a recent post, Matt thinks he found the reason the whole suicide thing is taking place, atheism. 

People will say that suicide is on the rise because we are not doing enough to fight the "mental health crisis" but . . . the rate was a fraction of what it is today back when nobody had ever heard of "mental health".-Matt Walsh

This [the story of Adam and Eve] was before doctors, so cancer and that kind of stuff didn't exist yet-Stan Smith

Figured I'd keep it in Matt's ballpark with what I compare him to. In fact, let me burst Matt's (and the entire media's) bubble real quick, there is no depression epidemic. The rate of diagnosis has gone up, however, the rate of depression has stated the same and we are just getting better at finding it.
Ignoring this fact has led to all sorts of weird conspiracies popping up that we need to ignore. Remember, when we made this same mistake before we honestly thought vaccines caused autism. The housewife who hid her drinking problem in the mid-1950's didn't have depression by the standards of those days, now she would because we know more about depression. Or, no one use to die of AIDS, they died of GRID.

There is an emptiness at the core of our culture . . . [because] We have fled from God . . . and embraced a soft kind of nihilism

And where is Matt's proof that either of the two people that caused him to write this article, Anthony Bourdian and Kate Spade, were nihilists? Seriously, I'm asking you because I can't find it. 

We stop at the brain . . . but we never pause to ask why all our brains have apparently gone haywire . . . If this is all just a matter of mental disorders, why in the hell are these "mental disorders" so common now?

This is one of the main mistakes Matt and his types have made with how they address issues. They always assume that we have always had the exact same knowledge and as such whenever something ticks up or down, it's because of humans. Also, Matt doesn't understand anatomy very well.  

I think it's because [depression] is not purely psychological. It goes beyond our brains and into our souls

Matt, where is my soul? Point to my soul right now. Also for it to not be psychological it would have to be at least somewhat physical. 

What everyone craves deep in their bones

Your bones do not have cravings. Fine, I'm nitpicking.

What everyone craves deep in their bones is truth and meaning. . . that is objective and inherent and beyond our ability to remove or change.But our culture tells us that nothing of the sort exists . . . And if we make nothing of it, and find nothing of it, then . . . there is no reason to carry on living anymore.

 For the record, Matt did not cite one study or article during that entire rant. Nor does he during this entire column. Not the claim that we need "meaning . . . that is objective and inherent" (whatever that means), or the claim that nihilism is on the rise, or that "our culture" is promoting it.

If someone is feeling [depressed], yes, it is good to give them a number to call, and tell them they are not alone and people care for them . . . But it's not enough . . . People need more than . . . therapy and phone numbers. They even need more than the knowledge that other people love them. They need meaning. They need hope. They need there to be a point to all of this, a reason.

Quick question to Matt, what does that even mean? I guess you could ask what the meaning of what you just said was, or was the point of all of that, the reason. Oh, by the way, guess what he thinks the solution is.

Well, praise God because . . . there is a meaning. God is our founation . . . We are not mere accidents. We are not clumps of dust that grew randomly from the Earth and somehow devoloped consciousness and a moral code and the capacity for love. 

Random question: Does Matt have a deadly fear of lists with commas? 

That doesn't make sense, and we all know it doesn't make sense, and we will literally kill ourselves trying to make sense of it.

Can I have the list of famous, well known, and vocal atheists who have killed themselves? Hitchens didn't, Harris hasn't, Dawkins hasn't, TJ Kirk hasn't, Cult of Dusty hasn't, George Carlin didn't, and I could go on. Also, notice my use of commas and learn Matt. 
One more thing, I showed this to fellow Ephrom Report blogger J.P Savard, and his words exactly:

Walsh: I think it is because the disorder is not purely psychological.

J.P,: Dude, you're still not answering the question

Walsh: something about God

J.P.: Matt no

Walsh: That doesn't make sense, and we all know it doesn't make sense, and we will literally kill ourselves trying to make sense of it. 

J.P.: Nothing does, Walsh. Nothing does.  

Walsh also talked about this on twitter, and did a little better:

You can’t go on about “the right to die” and describe suicide as “death with dignity” and then expect that your words of solace to suicidal people will mean anything. You just explicitly promoted suicide as a dignified and rightful death. What did you think was going to happen? 

So Matt doesn't think there's a difference between letting someone who is going to die very soon and in horrible pain (physical pain by the way, not emotional ones) and allowing people with a long life ahead of them. Interesting to know he's that simple in his worldview.  

We treat “doctor assisted suicide” as not only morally acceptable but even courageous and inspirational. And then we scratch our heads and wonder why so many people are killing themselves. We are fools.

Who's inspired by doctor-assisted suicide? 

Here’s a crazy thought: if we don’t want people to commit suicide, maybe we should stop celebrating suicide. 

I do agree with Matt that we shouldn't celebrate suicide. Good thing no one is doing that. 
Back to Ben:

You see this in regard to opioid addiction as well 

Ugh 
Let's see if he's at least more tolerable in article form.

Surely rising rates of opioid abuse have contributed to the suicide increase 

Citation needed. 

There's one measure that we . . . can take more immediately: thinking about how we cover suicide. 

Now up until now, you may be thinking "isn't this the same reaction these people had after the last shooting?". 

In the age of mass media, the . . . Werther Effect . . . is the temporary uptick in suicide rate that often follows heavy media coverage of suicide.

Conservatism: The philosophy that society is best when people are ignorant. 

when Netflix released the suicide-glorying 13 Reasons Why

13 Reasons Why didn't glorify suicide. It told a story about suicide.
So what's the moral here? If you don't want people to kill themselves, pretend that never happens. Just like they pretend boom-bust cycles don't, or really most things.   

  

  

  

   

Will Italy Make The Right Give Up On Capitalism?

In case you haven't heard, Italy is going to have a far right "populist" (in quotes because Republicans are almost never populist) government soon, at least that's what you'll hear if you listen to conservatives. Most notably, Infowars editor and chief Paul Joseph Watson. 
In his recent video, The Truth About Italy Paul spends more time than expected for a conservative praising welfare and going against capitalism. In fact, here's a list of some more liberal views Paul seems to have adapted. 
-Getting angry at EU commission president Juncker for saying "Italians need to work harder and stop blaming the EU for there problems" 
-Praising democracy (remember these are the same people who complained about "tyranny of the majority" when Trump was "elected") 
-Supporting welfare for mothers and child care provided by the government (I wonder how much longer until he supports Universal Healthcare)
-Most notability, the man who once made a video called Why Capitalism is Great seems to have given up on capitalism in exchange for, nationalist socialism I think. 
(Note: I'm not calling Paul a national socialist as in NAZI with that last statement. I'm simply saying he seems to have a nationalist social view while having an economic view similar to socialism. For as much as I disagree with Paul, calling him a NAZI would obviously be inaccurate.)
Of course, Paul also praises the new governments view that abortion and gay marriage are plots to depopulate the world or something. Did Paul become a secret liberal and is currently trying to re-redpill his audience while throwing in some harder right views in the hope they don't notice? But what I find most interesting, as already mentioned, is Paul giving up on capitalism. I mean it's not like he's the king of principles.

Twitter has suspended known Alt-Right extremist Steven Crowder. Wait, what? Crowder? Yes, Crowder. . . Censorship of conservatives MUST be addressed by lawmaker. #FreeCrowder

No one should be forced to provide a service. Just as a gay-owned print shop shouldn't be forced to make signs for the Westboro Baptist Church. 

His rationalwiki article (yes, I'm that kind of liberal) even has a whole section about his flip-flops. But what are his newfound issues with capitalism? I'm going to paraphrase, I linked the video a little earlier in the post if you're really curious:

Global capitalism has ruined culture and identity by allowing other cultures to exist together. 

 Of course, the idea that capitalism ruins culture is straight out of the views of Karl Marx himself. The idea that capitalism erodes culture is something that communists have been pushing for a long time. Paul is also happy that the new Italian government will make Italy full of Italian culture. It seems like someone who is angry about Miss America becoming communist (I'm not joking) seems to also not know about Stalin's Russification plan.
So have social conservatives given up on capitalism in order to keep the good old fashion views? Well honestly at this point I'm not even sure they had it. 
I remember back when wife with a purpose (you know, that really silly Paleoconserative) had a twitter account she posted an image that was farms back to back with cities and simply asked: "what went wrong?". Of course, the answer is obviously a free market that allowed such cities to happen. I also recall her conspiracy mongering about child tax credits leading to the great replacement (it's a very long story) but don't quote me on that. 
The fact is the new right has long given up on the free market in replace for moralism. And it's my hope that maybe the sane can slap some sense into them like we used to. 

    

Throwback: David Koch Runs For President

Note: This is more or less an updated text version of a video I made in January 2018. You can watch it here if you so choose. This post have been overall improved since the original version and as such is the definitive version.  
You ever heard of a libertarian. I don't blame you if you haven't, after all they typically aren't considered a big threat in our political sphere. However, despite what libertarians would have you believe, there is one group of people that love them, big business. David Koch ran as vice-president on the Libertarian ticket in 1980, it's as bad as you think. Those who watch The Thom Hartmann Program may know about this (watch it here), but Bernie also posted it on his website (read it here).
So what does it say? Well let's find out together.

We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission

So right of the bat we see where the Koch brothers lie of issues. They're spending $400 million and the midterms by the way. So of course this is going to be on the list. 

We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs

I guess 45,000 people every year isn't enough for the Koch brothers. To be fair I don't think they don't want people to die, I just think they really don't care. Also I'm going to be skipping some of these to keep from repeating myself.

 We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary

Senior poverty only went down because of Social Security, yet they seem to ignore that. But even then, Social Security would work if they stopped spending the money (notice how no other country has to deal with it going bankrupt). 

We support the eventual repeal of all taxation 

Tfw you try to make Reagan look moderate on taxes. Of course this would lead to a boom-bust cycle, of course these people don't care. 
Also remember people, low taxes are good for everyone and not just the rich. Trust David Koch to tell you that. 

We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.

Because private schools never lead to indoctrination.

We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency

Would you like some Koch brand smoke with that air? Also here's there opensecrets.org page if you're curious. Notice how many of them deny climate change.  

We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system

Anyone who knows how the toll road system worked during the industrial revolution knows how this will end up. Mainly, a large amount of toll roads. Hope you have quarters with you. 

We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration

Go to the supplement industry for your medicine if you really think that's a good idea. 
I think you get the idea at this point. Just be happy these nuts have basically no influence when it comes to actual policy. 


  
  

Throwback: My God, Hillary's America Is An Awful Movie

With Donald Trump recently deciding to pardon Republican commentator Dinesh D'Souza, and I wanted to write an article about him. At first, I was going to do a throwback on some chapters from his book Letters To a Young Conservative, but I was unable to get a full copy in time. If I ever do, I promise I will do something related to that book. 
However, then I remembered a review I wrote of his film Hillary's America a while back. You see, I use to want to be a film reviewer and even did a few on Blogspot back in the day. This is one I never published and only had on a google docs page for quite a while. I figured in honor of both the recent news and Dinesh making a new movie, I should release it to the public.The only edits I've made is to do things like improving the grammar in order to make it readable, otherwise, it's in its original state, as well as to make it fit better for Blogspot. I should also warn you, it's a little long and not the best. So enjoy. 

Hillary’s America is a 2016 “documentary” made by conservative filmmaker and author Dinesh D’Souza. Upon its release, it has been somewhat of a milestone in the documentary genre. For instance, it was the first documentary to win a golden raspberry award for worst picture. I decided, out of pure curiosity, to subject myself to this film and what I found was a goldmine of complete nonsense.

I think the best way to get an idea of what a film is like is just talking about how it begins. After all the start of a film is by definition what your audience is supposed to see first so many filmmakers use it as a chance to put there best foot forward. This movie, for instance, starts with people in a choir singing about happy days [the exact lyrics are “happy days are here again”] while we see the camera go back to the democratic party logo [the donkey one] as a string puppet. Cut to an animated segment of many infamous people in the Democratic party in a surprisingly decent, if not kind of weird [oh who am I kidding, very weird] scene.
The visuals in this movie are actually a great example of how dishonest Dinesh can be. Seeing as this is a “documentary” that talks about things from as far back as the 1800’s it was understandable Dinesh was unable to get recordings of it. Due to this a lot of times when Dinesh is talking he puts on footage of some of his friends acting out the events in question. This I don’t have an issue with as I see why Dinesh would do it [he doesn’t want a large chunk of the movie to be just him talking over pictures of people] and he doesn’t try to pass it off as real.
It’s when he does that I do have a problem, such as when he finds a secret room in the DNC containing pictures of [and even slave chains from] famous racist democrats. Or at the start of the movie when he’s in jail and he does things like read a book with a flashlight when everyone is supposed to be asleep.
Oh yeah, Dinesh starts the movie in jail. This is how he puts what he was convicted off at the beginning [and I mean the first time we hear his voice] of the film:

It all began when the Obama administration tried to shut me up

 Whoa, those are some big claims, it would be a shame if that was a downright lie. What actually happened was Dinesh was found guilty of breaking campaign finance laws that had existed long before Obama. He also took a plea deal which is odd because if he was innocent why would he say he was guilty? For that matter, how do you even violate campaign finance laws post Citizens United Vs. FEC?
But no instead, Dinesh is convinced it’s because his previous film, 2016: Obama’s America, was just so right the Obama administration couldn’t handle it. I guess his predictions were so accurate and showed how bad Democrats are and how great Republicans are that the movie had to be censored by not trying to restrict it in any way. I’m sure you don’t need to be convinced but here’s what the crystal ball himself said he knew was going to happen.
1. Obama deliberately reducing America’s power in the world or weakening our military. Funny he can’t give one example of Obama releasing a budget that cuts military spending, but still. For the record, here’s a graph of military spending by country from the same year this movie came out:

 2-Obama will weaken our allies and strengthen our enemies. The examples Dinesh uses specifically are Iran and Cuba. What Dinesh seems to leave out is we are enemies with these countries because we installed and supported dictators [The Shah and Fulgencio Batista respectably]. But even then remember that graph I just showed you, try to find either Iran or Cuba on it.
3-He will put major industries under government control. Like that time he forced all airplanes to have scanners and, no wait that was George W. Bush. I know, he means Obamacare, just couldn’t resist.
As for Obamacare, it kept the private health insurance industry intact. It forced people to pay a fine if they didn’t have private healthcare, how is that bringing it under government control? Plus it was a Republican plan for decades. Nixon came up with it, Senate Majority Leader and Republican Presidential Nominee Bob Dole proposed it in 1996, Mitt Romney passed it as governor in 2004, The conservative Heritage Foundation wrote papers about how great it was, and both Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Senator Chuck Grassley supported it. But a Democrat passed it so I guess it’s bad now.
He also mentions Dodd-Frank, which was weak when compared to Glass Steagall which it was trying to restore.
4-Obama will double the national debt. This one I was surprised by because if Dinesh wanted someone who would cut the deficit he should be praising Bill Clinton, the last president to balance the federal budget. I think Dinesh may have heard of him considering his wife is in the name of the movie.
5-He will slash defense spending. This was kind of hard to do while both doubling the debt and still having the largest military in the world but he found a way.
So Dinesh goes to jail and brings up politics with convicted felons who are obviously the type of people that regularly engage in politics. Of course, because they are bad people, they are Democrats. It’s so bad that when they see Hillary Clinton announce she’s running for president they all start clapping [as totally happened in reality by the way].
However while in jail Dinesh learns everything he needs to know about cons. Which leads to Dinesh finding out the true con artists, you see where this is going.

It is at this point of the film Dinesh starts his main case, around a half-hour in. That the democratic party was, and still is, the party of racism.

For instance, Dinesh goes after how both the first democratic president and founder of the democratic party owned slaves. With that in mind I’m sure Dinesh hates these following people just as much:

-Benjamin Franklin

-John Hancock

-Thomas Jefferson

-James Madison

-George Washington
Considering that everything these people did for this country while being huge racists, I assume Dinesh considers the US to be a racist nation.
To be clear, I’m not defending slavery. I’m saying that at one point it was considered morally acceptable and sometimes people who change the world fall into the trap of not questioning their society in every way. I don’t hold it over the head of Andrew Jackson for owning slaves for the same reason I don’t hold it over the head of many of the founders.
Plus the last president to own slaves wasn’t a Democrat. It was the 2nd Republican president, Ulysses S. Grant who did own a slave from 1857 to 1859. Do I hold that over the heads of the Republican party? Of course not, it was at a time when that was okay.  
To give you an idea of how ignorant what Dinesh is arguing is, the idea that as time goes on people change, I figured we should jump ahead 100 years. After all, if nothing ever changed within the Republican party I should be able to look at say, the 1956 platform, and see no difference between that and the quotes and stories of major Republicans or ones who had been in office recently.

We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs—expansion of social security—broadened coverage in unemployment insurance —improved housing—and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people.-1956 Republican platform

Republicans believe the best way to assure prosperity is to generate more jobs. The Democrats believe in more Welfare- Ronald Reagan

We shall continue vigorously to support the United Nations.-1956 Republican Platform

Trump budget seeks 37% reduction in UN’s peacekeeping funds-Bloomberg

Procedural changes in the antitrust laws to facilitate their enforcement-1956 Republican Platform

 The Republican promise is for … less regulations-Rand Paul 

 I think you get the idea, people change with time.
So you may be wondering why, throughout this review, I haven’t really talked much about Hillary Clinton. Well despite the movie being called Hillary’s America the movie doesn’t really talk about Hillary Clinton. It takes him over an hour to really get into her, and as for his points, what do you expect. No seriously, what do you expect? Rather it be because of all the points he’s made at this point or because you’ve heard all the points since the 90’s, what do you expect?
Okay, there’s one other thing I feel like needs to be mentioned, that’s his nonsense attack on Planned Parenthood.

First Dinesh goes after the fact that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a racist. Mind you [as far as I’m aware at least] Sanger never owned slaves meaning [by Dinesh’s own logic] Planned Parenthood is still better than the United States.
The other point he has is the infamous racist call in which someone asks Planned Parenthood could be used specifically to perform abortions on a minority. Now let’s ignore that this call led to a paranoid man shooting up a Planned Parenthood, we shouldn’t but we will. Let me show you the problem with complaining about this and instead of making it a Planned Parenthood we’ll make it a Pizza Hut.

Employee: Thank you for ordering Pizza Hut, may I take your order

Customer:Yes I would like a meat lovers pizza with extra cheese, some crazy bread, and sauce.

Employee:Anything else?

Customer: Yes, can I make sure my money only goes to white people?

Let’s say you say yes

Employee:Sure

Customer:Okay great

Now let’s say you say no

Employee: No

Customer: Well then never mind and I’m never ordering here again. I don't support white genocide.

As a result, of this person just lost a customer as well as lost the money of the person in question. This could also get someone fired since they just may have also caused a boycott. With that in mind, I think I see why Planned Parenthood put up with a racist caller.   

 

So I Guess Democrats Are Racist, Or Something

So, let's talk about this week. It seems like the Republican party has been spending this entire week making false comparisons with there political enemies. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a new tactic (see Dennis Prager comparing a pedophile preacher to the morally questionable founder of Playboy). It just seems like this is the week all the stars aligned and they decided to find as many reasons to do this as possible. 
Combined with this and the MANY other tactics they use in order to lie, and you get something truly special. Quite possibly the most recent, and yet longest ongoing example, is the idea that the Democratic Party is racist. 
Yeah, this is one that's been going on for a while. It seems that over the past few weeks, Turning Point USA director Candace Owens has been going crazy explaining how Democrats are racist.  

 The next time @RepMaxineWaters @CoryBooker Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton open their mouths to tell us why blacks should align with the Democrats, close your eyes with me and visual: [Shows a picture of Stephen from Django Unchained]

It seems like Candace forgot that liberals are supposed to be the ones always complaining about racism with no proof, as she just accessed 4 people of being racist with no proof. For that matter, I thought liberals who always insulted minorities who didn't agree with them, odd that's exactly what Candace is doing.  
This isn't the only she's done this by the way. Recently, she even went on Prager "U" in order to explain why "playing the black card" angers her so much. This is odd though considering she used to literally go under the name Red Pill Black and aimed to create a channel that would "promote conservativism to a black audience".
Mind you, she doesn't really make any case as to why the Democratic Party is racist in this video, but that may be because Prager has so many other videos on that topic. 
For instance, Carol Swain has made two videos on this topic. One for both the Democratic and Republican party. Of course, very little of it makes any sense:

The Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, opposed Reconstruction, founded the Ku Klux Klan, imposed segregation, perpetrated lynchings, and fought against the civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s.

Interesting, now let's look at what Dennis (since he does hire all these people) has to say about how the left views slavery:

The Left’s view is that America was founded by rich white males who were intent on protecting their race, their wealth, and in many cases, their slaves.

So Dennis's view is that the Democratic Party was founded by rich white males who were intent on protecting their race, their wealth, and in many cases, their slaves. But hypocrisy is a virtue so I guess it doesn't matter. 
Here's some of her commentary on the civil rights act:

Eighty percent of Republicans in Congress supported the [Civil Rights Act of 1964]. Less than 70 percent of Democrats did. Democratic senators filibustered the bill for 75 days, until Republicans mustered the few extra votes needed to break the logjam.

Funny how she ignores one of the most important critics of the bill from within the Republican party. Barry Goldwater, who was the Republican nominee in the '64 presidential election, was against the act.
Here's a statement Carol makes that is just weird:

[E]very black representative in the House until 1935 was a Republican. And every black senator until 1979 was, too.

Funny she mentioned the Senate because out of the 3 African American Senators, 1 is black. As for the House, there are 2 incumbent representatives that are both African American and Republican, compared to 41 that are Democrats. If pure numbers mean anything, then it's odd you even brought this up in the first place. 
But okay, let's see the proof Carol has that the Democrats are racist now after all the founders were racist and it would be a virtue to say they're not bad but the Democrats are:

Massive government welfare has decimated the black family. Opposition to school choice has kept them trapped in failing schools.  Politically correct policing has left black neighborhoods defenseless against violent crime.

May I ask how it's not the "bigotry of soft expectations" to say that black people are just going to go on welfare? Also, I thought the left just called everyone they don't like racist, now if you're against school vouchers you're racist. And may I ask how political correctness of all things has caused any impact on violent crimes. 
So to review, Democrats are bad because they were racist a long time ago and America is good even though it was racist a long time ago. I think these people think this makes sense, and like always, they are wrong.