More Opinion by The Springboard

THE UPRISING OF THE AMERICAN PARTY "Clearly the voters are engaged right now, at least for sure on the republican side, and what they have concluded is that the republican party has not done their job. Thus, Donald Trump gets their vote."

Saturday, November 19, 2016

The Trumpanomic Effect: Part One

Now that the election is over and we know who the president is going to be, it is time now to analyze what I think will be one of the largest impacted areas of a Trump administration.

The economy.

As an investor I am now spending considerable time evaluating some of the promises that President-Elect Donald Trump made during his campaign as they apply to economic considerations. And what I see is enough to make me literally salivate. Of course, he is not yet in the White House, and the House and the Senate need to be onboard with any plans the Trump administration may lay before them. But there is a positive here if you have not noticed.

The republican party, and even some of the most staunch never Trumpers within the republican party are all now clearly and openly rallying in favor of the president-elect.

Seeing Ted Cruz moving in and out of Trump tower negotiating with both Trump and Pence and other members of the transition team, and hearing Cruz now speak to the American people about his now positive views on what Trump will offer is one thing. But Mitt Romney has also apparently moved on over to the Trump train as well, even after virtually calling for the election of Hillary Clinton early on in the campaign.

It's one thing that the GOP controls both the House and the Senate. It's entirely another that they are in support of the president-elect, and by all accounts, appear to also be entirely onboard with much of his agenda as well. Even Ted Cruz specified that Trump's overwhelming defeat of Clinton and the GOP win over democrats, despite what all thought would be considerable odds, defined a clear mandate by the American people that they want the campaign promises to be fulfilled. And if the GOP wants to maintain their power, they are going to have to deliver on that mandate or face their ouster come the next round of mid-term elections.

So, when it comes to the economy, it looks like we may see the ratification of a good number of some of the ideas that Trump offered to right the listing economic ship. And from an investors perspective, this means we may see some very interesting positive developments in the stock market going forward.

And by the way, it's not just the stock market that will benefit. If Trump can get done what he wants to do—especially in the first 100 days—of course American workers will see massive benefits as well. It's really not rocket science to understand that the underlying factor of more Americans working, even making higher wages, coupled with other factors are the benchmark of a strong economy.

Think of the impact of the middle class and my point is proved. When the middle class is vibrant and strong the economy flourishes. When the middle class is in jeopardy, the economy slips and falls.

One thing that seems clear to me is that if Trump can get done even half of what he advocated for during the campaign, we are going to see massive upswings in jobs, and even massive upswings in median income across the United States. I honestly believe that a whirlwind of economic growth is right around the corner, and if the economic policy put forth by the Trump administration looks anything like I think it will, we are headed for long term growth that may even make the undeniable success of Reaganomics pale by comparison.

In the following series I will outlay some of the factors that I think will spur on this economic growth, and the reasons I think they can be powerful enough to potentially uplift the American economy in very short time. I don't think we're looking at four or more years to see results here. I think we will begin to see results, actually, after just two years into the Trump administration. And in some ways if I am to be totally honest, even two years may be a conservative estimate.


Because if the American people can see the light at the end of the tunnel, and if there is a positive attitude toward what our economic future holds, this will reflect very early on (and in some cases is already being evidenced a mere 10 days after the election results) in how Americans react to it. Things to watch with abided attention are the U-6 unemployment figures, consumer confidence figures, retail sales, and the housing market—particularly housing starts as opposed to depletion of existing inventories.

My shortlist advice? You better have some cash lying around to toss into the markets, and I will be telling you where I will be putting a lot of mine, because waiting too long may well put you miles behind the curve once this thing really gets going.

I told you all along that Trump would win, and win big, and laid out all of the reasons I saw that coming. Now am I going to tell you that the economy is the next big winner, and will lay out all of the reasons why I see that coming as well.

Saturday, November 5, 2016

Why I Still Believe Trump Wins It All

Well, here we are. A mere four days before the fate of the nation will be determined by the American voter. And what do I think is going to happen? Of course, I think Donald J. Trump will become our 45th President of the United States. My belief that this will be the case has not changed, however it has been solidified by recent "revelations" about Hillary Clinton's emails. Why the quotations on the word? To my mind if you have been following the real news, these new "revelations" are more like affirmations. With clear indications that the Clinton camp rigged it's own nomination process, was complicit in hiding emails originally said to be benign correspondence about wedding preparations and yoga classes, and released information by the FBI that it is possible that at least five foreign intelligence agencies hacked those accounts and gained American secrets, no matter how much the media has worked to silence the news, shape the news, and mislead the American people in a concerted effort—the American people are a bit more privy this time around to what is going on. And while I am not a true believer in what the polls say, the massive swings following the announcement by the FBI that their investigation into Hillary Clinton was being reopened after discovering correspondence in Anthony Weiner's case clearly shows that Americans are paying way more attention than they have in the past.

I think the polls are still wrong, and by a lot by the way. But it's not the final number that matters. It's those massive swings that tell a story.

So where do I think all of these votes are going to come from to propel Donald J. Trump into the White House? For one thing, one has to wonder where all those Bernie supporters are going to go? Obviously it is now clear as a bell that the Clinton camp and the DNC all worked against his campaign—and not in the usual way which is the important part to consider. I think many of those Bernie supporters, even if they have been telling pollsters otherwise, are going to vote for Donald Trump on election day. Some may already have done that.

You also have the dynamic of the primary results which I think factor in, and that is the fact that during the republican primaries Trump received more votes in a republican primary than any other candidate in the history of the republican party. And it wasn't just by a few votes. It was massive. In fact, the win that Trump accomplished to receive the republican nomination was so massive that words like decimation, annihilation, and okay major ass kicking would all accurately describe how badly the other republican candidates on the stage were defeated. The thing that is important to understand about the importance of this alone is multi-fold, but rather simple actually.

  • In order for Donald Trump to have done this is to attract independents and democrats to the republican party.
  • Clearly voter enthusiasm for this candidate was as well, massive.
Voter enthusiasm and gaining the independent vote are essential to winning an election. And of course, one cannot ignore the rallies, and it is something I have been talking about for a while. The rallies are an important gauge on voter sentiment and the direction of the vote.

One clear thing to keep in mind is that of those people attending Trump's rallies, how many of them—or rather what percentage of them—are actually registered republicans? I'm going to say that many of them are not. In fact, I think many of them are in fact democrats, and certainly many of them are independents. You have to ask yourself the question, if those attendees of the Trump's rallies were largely republican, would the party have fought so hard initially against his nomination?

I hardly think so, especially because for years the party has longed for this kind of response to any candidate they've put before the American people. This time it just so happened to be someone who was not necessarily who they had hoped for.

Primary election results, voter enthusiasm, the republican party having record registrations, a very high percentage of democrats who have changed their vote or their registration during this election, the numbers of attendees at Trump rallies, and the ability of sources other than the traditional news outlets to share the truth about Hillary Clinton will all lead to Donald Trump winning the presidency. And while I cautiously suggest that he will win by a landslide...

I think Donald Trump just might indeed win by a landslide.

Sunday, October 23, 2016

Why I Think The Economy Is Broken

There is not a single factor, but myriad factors which holds down wages and stunts the progress of the entire economy. And in order for us to fix it, we need to fully grasp this. Because until we do all we will continue to get is nowhere.

Let me just say that mostly on both sides there are misunderstandings of what needs to be done. For the liberals and democrats, of course, their solution is to simply mandate wage increases—such as to the minimum wage—and to raise taxes on the corporations and the rich. For the conservatives and republicans they're still believing that global trade is the answer. If we can sell stuff to the rest of the world that will create jobs and increase wages.

We know, however, that neither of these solutions really work.

First of all, you cannot artificially raise wages without there being rippling consequences within the economy. As I have said many times before, corporations and small businesses are not ATM machines. And certainly they are not the Fed that simply prints more money when it needs to. So, in comes the union machine. Folks, take a look at Detroit as one of the best examples of artificially increasing wages—and even benefits for that matter. But of course this was not the government who did this, although factions of the government certainly did and do encourage it. Not only did unions demand higher wages for employees, and not only did they fight for more health benefits, pensions, and other monetary things which cost a ton, but they also contributed to bylaws which turned otherwise efficient operations into unmanageable, and ultimately unprofitable ones.

In any business there is a rule of thought that you charge a customer what he or she is willing to bear.

But it is not just a matter of what the customer is willing to pay. It is a matter of what a customer can pay in realistic and reasonable terms. In other words, a business knows that there is a fine line
between trying to get more than what they are entitled to for their product or service and outright pricing themselves right out of business.

You can apply this simple idea to the unions. The difference between the business machine and the union machine is that a business knows what a customer is willing to bear, and it also knows how much a customer can afford to pay. In the case of unions, many of the monetary demands were made without anyone on the union side, and especially the employees, knowing what was even on the balance sheet.

The unions, in my opinion, should have had two jobs. One of those jobs was to make a stand for the interests of employees of course. Their job was to create an environment whereby employees could be reasonably compensated for the work they did, and that they would enjoy some of the benefits of a thriving corporation through wages and benefits. Something I think is important, by the way, despite my misgivings about unions in general. But their other job was to also be the spokesperson for reason and rational thought. Their job was, essentially, to educate the workforce they were representing on the reality of the situation.

There is a danger, I think, when we become so convinced that the rich and the corporations they own are simply greedy. Somehow we have come to a place where when we think of the rich and the corporations we think of the giant in the Jack and the Beanstalk story sitting in his castle above the clouds hoarding and counting his golden coins with no regard for anything but the fact that he has the golden coins.

The rich do not sit on their money. It is part of the reason not only do they become rich. But it is a part of the reason they become richer.

In other words, the rich invest their money. And even when it comes to common shareholders they have one simple demand of the corporations for which they hold a stake in.

Make more profits.

But in order to do that that really doesn't mean lower worker's wages, fire workers, send jobs overseas, reduce benefits, and gouge the customers who buy their products or services. Granted, there may be some who believe that way, but I would call them the minority. What any common shareholder—or major shareholder—wants is a growing and thriving business to continue to deliver dividends and profits. For a lot of us that means growing the business and expanding the markets we operate in.

If you talk to many employees the one common theme always seems to be that they are just a number, that the fat cats really don't need them, that they are a burden and that for that reason corporations will go to any length to shut them down and send them packing.

For me that's a false reality, and a silly way to think. Because anyone who understands business also understands that yes, employees do fall onto the liability side of the ledger. But, they are as necessary as any other cost of doing business. The reality is that a business indeed wants to focus on growth and expanding their markets—but when employees walk out the door and when employees have to be replaced, there are two things that come out of this.

Distraction and cost.

For one, when you have to spend time in the day strategizing over how to bring in replacement
workers, and when you have to spend time in the day seeking out new workers and being engaged in the hiring process, you are going to have less time in the day to focus on strategizing keeping the machines running and expanding the business. It's a distraction. And then there's the cost. Even in unskilled labor, you have to train the workers. And during that process there is going to be some level of transition and downtime whereby the operation will not be at its optimum efficiency.

For those who say unskilled labor is a job even a monkey can do let me just say this.

I have worked in many "unskilled labor" jobs during my tenure in the workforce. I have seen workers come in who worked in similar settings prior to their working alongside me who were still not able to simply walk onto the production line and run the operation flawlessly. You still had to have other employees showdow them, and you still had wrong buttons pushed, and problems within the process which ultimately slowed things down—and cost the company money.

It is better to have a strong and reliable and fully trained workforce committed to the process and committed to the company than to have a revolving door. Smart businessmen know this, and so therefore it is misnomer that employers simply do not care about the people who work for them.

It's a very small example, but say you own several rental properties. What's more efficient and cost effective for your business? Keeping tenants over the long haul, or constantly having to find new ones to rent to?

Of course there is a need to always evaluate the workers you already have and determine whether or not they are serving the best interests of the business. For those that are not, of course you have to make decisions about whether they stay or go. The same would apply to my tenant example. If the renter is consistent in paying but breaks windows, knocks holes in the walls, or otherwise jeopardizes the business—they are no longer an asset. It is common sense really.

Unions essentially created bad tenants. So many, in fact, that at some point in time it makes more sense to simply shutter the doors than to coninue to seek out new tenants—or be burdened by the cost of keeping the bad tenants you already have.

And then you have the matter of taxes.

It has always amazed me how many people think that by simply raising taxes, you, and I do mean you will somehow benefit better by it. The reality is that taxes, just like employees, are a cost. And when you are spending money in one place, you obviously cannot spend it in another place. And again, the rich and the corporations are not the giant in the Jack and the Beanstalk story. Their money will be worthless if all they do is hoard it. In order to get richer the rich and the corporations must find ways to make their money grow. And that means investing those dollars into more factories, more retail outlets, more products or services in their lines, and it means it will take more people—workers—to get it done.

And by the way, those additional workers will pay more taxes. The more product or service moving through the economy the more sales tax revenue. The more workers with money to spend will also contribute more to the tax rolls as a whole. Lowering taxes does one primary thing. It encourages the flow of real dollars into the real marketplace and when you do that, even if taxes are lower, more tax revenues will be reaped simply because there are more dollars moving around in the real economy to tax.

Why does the Fed lower interest rates when the economy is in a slow down? To encourage more money to enter into the real economy. Lower taxes does the same thing. It speeds up the process of free money flow in the economy.

When interest rates are lower more people will buy cars, more people will use credit cards, more people will buy houses, and thus the markets move upward in a fluid fashion. Raising the interest rates slows the economy down in much the same way that the example I provided about a business pricing itself out of the marketplace ultimately shuts it all down.

Raise taxes and you slow it all down. Lower taxes and it all speeds up. It's not rocket science. It is very basic economics, folks.

The more money you have to spend to fuel your car, and to keep the lights on in your house, the less money you will spend on newer cars, adding square footage to your house, or simply going out for a dinner night with the family.

Everything slows down when certain dollars are siphoned into one pool for which all other pools suffer as a result.

And then there are regulations.

Regulations can be put into two categories. Those that are created through government policy, and
those that are created out of those bylaws I was talking about as it applies to unions. You can make rules that allow businesses to freely and openly compete, and expand, or you can create rules that make it harder, or impossible, to do that.

If you look at the macro here what you begin to see are those myriad issues I was referring to at the start of this. Higher taxes, unruly unions with bylaws that scrape away at efficiency, higher costs of wages and benefits for less work, and rules and regulations put forth by the government and the unions—and laws created in the interest of global trade have all worked to hurt the American worker, and to dissolve what were otherwise good paying jobs, only to be left with an economic disaster. Workers make less, and therefore can not spend as much, and because corporations can no longer reasonably compete, since the door was open to go elsewhere for their labor, they have done so.

I have long held that the idea of global trade was a good one when it became the "law of the land." But somewhere along the line it got away from us. Before it was a convenience and a novelty to be able to expand our personal dollars by having the opportunity to buy that cheaper item made in Japan or some other place. And it was a "feel-good" moment to think that by putting out dollars into those other countries would also lift their economies, thereby making it more possible for them to buy what we made. What we saw in all of this was a win-win.

Going back to my tenant example, what better opportunity to raise your rent than when your tenant gets a pay raise. If one person is making more money, then everyone ultimately makes more money. If global trade would have worked, we'd all have been making more money. Us and the Japanese and the Chinese, and whoever else you want to throw into the equation.

Why did Detroit fall? Why is our entire economy falling? Again, there are myriad factors to consider in all of this. High taxes, over regulation, and stifling of efficiency—it has essentially shut the whole thing down. And what we're left with is a horrible situation where half of the workforce is on government assistance, and the other half is working for pennies on the dollar. Those who are making it, by the way, are having to support the half that aren't.

And also by the way, we used to do it that way before this all happened. We did. The difference was that we did it by our earned wages being used to support the earned wages of another. Paul worked on the production line making beds and mattresses and used that money to buy cars from John who worked on the production line making cars. And John went out and bought a new TV with the money he earned making cars that supported Joe who made TVs. And all three of them supported Tom who drove the trucks to get the products moved, and Sally to stock the shelves, and Roderick who made the sale.

These days who is their to support? Paul doesn't make beds and mattresses anymore. John doesn't make cars anymore. Joe doesn't make TVs anymore. The jobs left don't pay as much, and when any one of these guys buys a bed or mattress, or a car, or a new TV, it takes a much greater chunk out what they can spend on other things—like even a hamburger at Burger King.

And now for something completely different:

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Voters, Not Media Should Pick Presidents

Do you see what's going on here with the media? To steal a phrase used in a Frank Caliendo joke while he was doing an impersonation of former president George W. Bush, "It's not like it takes a rocket surgeon," the attempts by the media to use their full force to discredit and destroy Donald Trump while ignoring what is now becoming a mountainous ton of intel against Hillary Clinton and all of her cohorts, which by the way, includes the media, is so glaring it almost hurts. The question becomes, are they getting away with it?

Besides the clear and intentional smear campaign the media is positioning against Trump—and it's not just the smearing of course, but the hiding and non-reporting that is very much a part of this campaign by the media as well—people should be considering something else in all of this when it comes to the media.

We are supposed to trust all of the big dogs in the media, right? NBC, CBS, CNN, and okay I'll lump in Fox News as well just to be fair. Although of all of the media (and I honestly say this with no bias) Fox News is being the most fair in all of this with some exceptions of course. I mean, when we think of news, these are the agencies we think of mostly. ABC is in there somewhere as well, but really I don't think too many people pay attention to them anymore for news. Then you can also lump in the dead tree news outlets like the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post to name some of the more noteworthy ones.

These are agencies that are supposed to be the most trusted sources for our information.

But, here we also have two sources right now giving us more dirt and real talk and frankly, real information than any of these news outlets combined. TMZ and of course Wikileaks. Wikileaks is sharing a mountain ton of emails between top people in the Clinton camp, giving us remarkable insight into the inner workings of her campaign. The emails we are learning of, by the way, are pretty damning. Or they should be damning. But the big news outlets are mostly ignoring them, instead focusing on Trump this and Trump that. The tape recently released (or leaked) with Trump being less than virtuous nothwithstanding—but it was TMZ who released information that was proved to be true that NBC had the tape for months, and that it not only intended to time the release to damage Trump, but they had clear intent to edit the tape to focus the emphasis on Donald Trump's comments and to try to keep their own Billy Bush out of the picture.

The thing that is most troubling for me really is that we have come to a very dark place when it comes to the media. It's admittedly tougher these days—or at least it seems that way, maybe the media has always slanted its coverage—to try to form an informed and educated decision about matters that are important. I have always said that in order to form an opinion on anything you can't just rely on one single source, or even a couple of them. You can't take (for me, a conservative) every word by Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, or even Ann Coulter dare I say, as the gospel. You have to painfully look at multiple sources—including by the way the liberal media.

When it comes to the NBCs and the CNNs of the world there is something you have to be able to do. And frankly you have to be able to do it no matter where you are getting the news. It's something I learned in grade school, and that is you have to be able to read between the lines. In literature, for example, we called it context and the art of interpretation. Mostly we applied these principles to fiction. What is the author trying to convey? What is the underlying message in the story? When the story is largely metaphoric, what is the author referring to?

A great example of this for me would probably be a remarkable story, and to this day a favorite of mine, by Franz Kafka. The Metamorphosis. A story about a salesman, mostly an ordinary man, falls ill and slowly morphs into an insect by the end of the story. If you read between the lines, and if you examine the context, and when you dissect the theme, what you decide is that the story really isn't about a man who becomes an insect, but rather a story about a man tormented by a world crashing in on him, who becomes isolated, and how the world seems to ignore him as he changes into something very different than they recognize as the norm.

Whether it is Chris Matthews or Anderson Cooper doing the storytelling, or Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly, no matter who it is, you have to have the ability to see beyond just what they are saying and detect the biases, detect the slants, and detect where they may be conveniently leaving something out. When any of these guys may show a video, for example, or share a sound bite, you have to go beyond what they show you and seek out the entire video or the entire sound bite to get the real story.

The problem is that so few people actually do this. This is not to disparage anyone or call anyone stupid. It's not even to call anyone lazy. But frankly most people just hear something, and grasp hold of that, and consider it true without ever digging further. And the news media knows this. And of course, so does the democrat party. And if one thing stands firmly true over many decades, the liberal media is as much an extension of the democrat party as many have accused Fox News of being an extension of the republican party is.

It is a situation that I also find scary in many ways. Now, I am not going to in any way compare the United States to Nazi Germany. But, we are all too well aware of the effective use of propaganda films used by Nazi Germany to convince their people of things. And bringing it to present day, certainly Islamic terrorists are doing exactly the same thing as we speak. In our own country, the media can largely be classified as one giant propaganda machine. They are wielding heavily the power of their pulpit, and they are using that power to shape the minds of people into thinking one way or the other.

In this case however, there is much danger in their doing this.

Because if we don't know the truth, and if we are not willing to or able to seek out the truth, we have really lost our country. Because when the media controls the information, and when parties and factions with agendas control the information, these people also ultimately control elections. And this is, as I said, a very dangerous, and even disconcerting thing.

And it's not just what the media hides we need to be weary of. It's the stuff they don't verify for truth until much later when it's too late.

I don't care which side you happen to be on in this election, But what I do care about is that any decision being made about who becomes our next president is based on real information, real facts, and real dissection of the information and facts, to come to an informed decision about the election.

Do you see what's going on with the media here? Do you? We are being spoon fed things to try to dissuade us from seeking out the real answers, and to try to shape our opinions. They are trying to make us angry at the other side—and mostly they are doing it to make us angry at Trump. Scared of Trump. And that would be fine for them to make all of these accusations and encourage all of the innuendo if they were reporting these things fairly and accurately as it applies to both sides. It would be fine if they were equally sharing what we know about Hillary Rodham Clinton. If they weren't leaving so much out. Including in the debates mind you, which is of course controlled by the media as well. Sometimes it is not just about how you ask the question. It is about which questions you ask, and as well, which ones you don't.

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

The Uprising of the American Party?

These days, being a lifelong republican is met with some angst. Many times in the past I have written about the disarray of the democrat party and how that ultimately effects their standing with the voters, and of course, how it effects elections. But here we are, republicans, pretty much in a mess worse than I have ever seen on the democrat side. And what is it all about? Donald J. Trump, of course. He's absolutely frazzled the establishment—and frankly I don't think they know how to handle this. But it should be easily explained away for these guys if you ask me.

Why is Donald Trump, our nominee, resonating with the voters of our party?

Look, it's a simple thing really. I have long said that I do not feel a need for term limits in Congress and the Senate so long as the voters are engaged and paying attention. We have a system designed where it is the people's choice who stays or who goes when it comes to elections. The only reason term limits would be needed is when voters are pretty much tuned out, not paying attention, and just checking boxes at the polls without knowing what it is their elected officials accomplished...or did not accomplish.

Clearly the voters are engaged right now, at least for sure on the republican side, and what they have concluded is that the republican party has not done their job. Thus, Donald Trump gets their vote.

But yes, this is a time of angst. If you have paid attention to the republican party over the years the one thing many of us have argued is that we do not ever have a candidate that speaks directly to the people. We wind up with guys who look exactly like the tired and old stereotype of a typical republican. Old rich guys.

Granted, Trump is old. And he's rich.

But, he's Donald Trump. And say what you will about why Donald Trump is a household name for many Americans no matter which side they happen to be on, he has at least accomplished one major thing—he has tuned in many Americans to the electoral process who may have never bothered to care or tune in at all to.

So, he at least has our attention. Republicans and democrats and independents and non-voters alike mind you.

And because they (the American people) are now tuned in they now also realize an awful truth. Washington D.C. and all of these elites who reside there now, and who frankly have been there before them for many years, are screwing us over and good. And they have gotten away with it largely because no one was paying attention, and no one was there to bring it all to light. Donald Trump is saying to the American people what is wrong with the process, what is wrong with America, and why it is so important we all get it this time around and begin the long and daunting process toward real change. To start the process of restoring America to HER people as it was intended by our founders, and stop dead in their tracks the establishments on both sides to stack the deck and rig the whole kit and kaboodle to the detriment of everyone.

Americans rejoiced about change not so long ago when Obama made it his promise to bring it about. But he didn't change anything for the better, and unfortunately no one was paying attention to what he failed to do, and thus he was elected twice.

So, the republican party now has a guy at the forefront who is speaking to swaths of Americans, who is bringing new excitement to the electorate and bringing new-found interest to the party, but yet all they want to do is shut him down. Why? Because they don't like what he says, or how he says what he says. Look, the truth is that Donald Trump is more like you and I despite his billions of dollars in the bank than any career politician, and frankly I think this is one of the reasons why he scares the hell out the establishment the way he does, and why they are so eager to try to shut him down. He's an American. Dare I say an everyday American? When he speaks about economics, and when he speaks about wars, and when he speaks about back room deals in Washington he speaks like each and every one of us speaks in our break rooms, at our family gatherings, and in general to our friends. He says what is wrong, he does not parse his words, he does not spout off in terms no one can understand, and in ways that skirt the truth and make the ugly sound pretty. And again, this scares the hell out of the establishment because for years they have been able to use words in fancy ways to make the American public see things in a different light than the truth would lay out before them.

If you have a good thing going and no one is any the wiser, why throw a cog in the wheel to mess that up?

That's exactly what the establishment has had for years. A good thing. The people were none the wiser. And so long as they were none the wiser, why mess that up?

Trump is the bad guy, and the target of establishment republicans, because he threatens to mess up a good thing they have had going for years. That's why they want to shut him down. That's why they want to rally around Hillary Clinton, attacking Trump instead of her. Because Trump threatens their existence in a way no one before him really has. He's telling the American people the truth. He's shedding light on well hidden realities. He's engaging regular, working people like you and I. He's getting us, the American people, the average working Joe, to see that what politicians tell us, what they promise us, and what they do, and what the effects of lies, innuendo, and spin do to hurt us greatly with us virtually unaware it is even happening—but slowly. The pain comes slowly. The tactics and the policies and the fancy speak hurts us in calculated measure over time so that piece by piece, bit by bit, wrong by wrong, we simply get used to things as they are, and by the time things are so bad—we don't feel the pain as greatly. It has become the norm. It has become our way of life.

Surely the democrats have mastered that with the welfare state. 

It's like the mindset of an embezzler really. I can take a few pennies here and a few pennies there and no one really notices. The ones who get away with it are the smart embezzlers. The ones who get caught are the ones who grow impatient with the process of embezzling a little bit and then just go for broke. Politicians don't have to grow impatient. They control the process. For them they don't have to worry about getting noticed. There is nothing more friendly to an embezzler than the lack of an accountant. And for a politician, there is nothing more friendly than a voting public who is none the wiser.

Trump is the accountant who just walked in on a huge and long-time embezzlement.

And just take a look at who's who in the establishment now denouncing Trump—again—either directly or indirectly. Career politicians. Elites. Paul Ryan, the Bush family, and John McCain just to name a few. Go ahead and toss in the Romney family as well if you want to. These are family in politics. These are the embezzlers of our freedom and of our lives, stripping away one piece at a time, slowly but surely, but with calculation. And now someone has called their bluff. Now someone has shed light on their deeds, And now someone has the ear of the people.

Again, this scares the hell out of them.

The fact is that I am a republican. But I am also able to observe. I know what's going on and I don't like it. And that is why I can and do support Trump. Maybe it's not even a republican thing. Maybe that is just what I have been calling it all these years for lack of a better word. But I have checked the boxes just the same, and I had faith that the guys I sent to Washington with R's behind their names would do my bidding and make America a great place to live. I sent them there with the faith that they would right the wrongs of progressives and slam the door on liberal policies. I sent them there with faith that they would tell the American people the truth about why conservative principles worked better, and why anyone should rejoice in the implementation of conservative policy and ideology.

But they failed. And Trump is winning, at least when it comes to republicans. And he is dismantling the party. So being a republican these days is met with angst. Because I am angry as hell at my party and like so many American people are too. I am so angry that Trump resonates with me too. And I am angry that the republican party in all but denouncing Trump has shed light on the real corruption I denied was ever there within even my own beloved GOP. I am angry that it appears that the republican party, when all is said and done, really were no better than the democrats I so deplored were. I am angry that it appears that a two-party system is really just one party.

The political party.

And the rest of America be damned.

I am voting for Trump, now, not because he happens to the republican nominee. I am voting for Trump because I think he has the right plan to bring the country back to the people. Parties be damned. Republican, democrat, green party, libertarian, independent? To hell with all of that garbage. It's time to simply be an American.

Monday, October 10, 2016

Trump Wins 2nd Presidential Debate

I know how the pollsters and news media are trying to slant the 2nd presidential debate. They are slanting it the way one would fully expect.

That Hillary Clinton won.

But, and I say this despite any admitted bias I may have with regard to Donald Trump's candidacy, I think it is clear and undeniable that Trump came out of this debate as the clear winner. Hands down. Look, I try to be fair in any analysis I make—on both sides for that matter. I thought Trump also clearly lost the first debate, and for a variety of reasons. That is, to my mind, a fair and honest judgement.

One thing that stood out for me in this second round was that Trump appeared way more prepared than usual to discuss the issues, and to lay out in more detail exactly what he wants to do, and more importantly, how he intends to do it. He was also considerably more contained than is his usual modus operandi as well. Something that I think is exactly what he needed to do in order to sway some on-the-fence voters, and perhaps to also solidify any voters in his base who may have been considering, for whatever reason, to jump ship.

Forget any establishment republicans who may have already jumped that ship. They are jumping for other reasons—of course.

The truth is that Donald Trump was on message, and frankly on-target. The one thing that few in the liberal media will give him credit for is how he effectively managed to shut down the discussion of the leaked tape. Both the moderators and Hillary Clinton, I think, quickly drew the conclusion that if they were to further discuss the issue, Trump would have effectively unloaded myriad talking points with regard to Bill Clinton's infidelities and misdeeds—and Clinton would have been in a very uncomfortable and difficult situation defending that. It took only a few strong words and a suggestion to allow the moderators, and even Clinton, to move on to the next issue. Had Trump not been so effective in his response to this issue, it may well have been the entire focus of the evening and he would have lost.

And of course, winner of the best line of the night also goes to Donald Trump when he suggested that had Trump been in charge of the law, Clinton would have been in jail. Despite obvious gasps from some in the audience at that remark—but I suspect many of those gasps came from Clinton supporters—I think the audience at least understood more clearly the seriousness of the issue of her emails as a whole. In preceding and following remarks I think Trump was able to convey two key issues with regard to the emails.

  • Hillary Clinton has stated over and over again that she is best equipped to handle classified information, yet clearly her handling of the emails sent and received while she was Secretary of State via an unsecured server clearly breach that assertion—Trump also reminded voters that she lied to the FBI, and even reminded Clinton herself of her statement that she did not know what the letter "C" meant.
  • It is impossible to know who may or may not have had access to her server and who may have gotten hold of any of the emails she sent or received—missing or not. This is potentially a serious threat to national security.
There is one more thought on the question of whether or not anyone who may be our enemy may have potentially gotten hold of classified information. How do we know that someone may not be holding on to that information to use it much later against us in some way? The server was not secured, no one really knows whether or not it was in fact compromised, and if it were, it would be difficult to know who was responsible for it.

Trump was very right to point out that only the media has seen this issue of her emails as "one to sweep aside as not that big of a deal." And I think he did so brilliantly.

And of course Trump also, I think, won the argument about taxes when he pointed out that even had he not paid taxes, he was still operating within the law—unlike what she had done with her emails—and that he was simply using the tax code as it was written by lawmakers. And he was very good to point out as well that singling him out for using the tax code as it was intended was foolish since every single rich person, armed with accountants and lawyers, would use the tax code in exactly the same way regardless of their party affiliations. His comments regarding this issue were much more effective, I think, than simply saying he was "smart." This laid out a more detailed rationale. And I think the audience got it when Trump also effectively pointed out two key things about taxes.

  • Trump was not in a position to CHANGE tax laws. He was only in a position to FOLLOW tax laws, and to USE provisions in the tax laws as they were written by lawmakers. Clinton, on the other hand, was clearly better positioned in her former roles to make changes or push for changes if that is what she had wanted to do. She did say she was always against this or that item in the tax code—but while touting 400 pieces of legislation with her name on it, she did not single out a single piece of legislation with her name on it that addressed changes to the tax code. 
  • He clearly stated an area of the tax code he wanted to change, and that would be carried interest. He said he used it like anyone would because, under the current tax code, it's what you do. But if he had his way, he would change it.
I think all in all Donald Trump explained most of his positions well. Be it his position on Syrian refugees, illegal immigration, the corporate tax rate and how lowering it would help businesses to better compete, and put more money in the pockets of the middle class, to explaining effectively why it can be harmful to let our enemies know what our intentions or timelines happen to be in any action we may take.

I have always advocated that nations need some secrets in order to ensure national security. 

Clinton, on the other hand, and for the first time for me, looked a bit frazzled—even surprised—by what was going down. I think Clinton was thoroughly convinced that this debate would go entirely a different direction. I can just hear the discussions before the debate, "With this tape out there, Trump will have nothing else to talk about...and we finish him." But that of course did not happen, and Clinton did not see any of what Trump delivered coming. The fact that he delivered with mostly tact and only once really raised his voice, and was well versed in the issues—all of this put Clinton clearly off kilter, and if anyone looked unprepared for this debate it was Hillary Clinton.

To be honest, despite my misgivings regarding the moderators which still leaned obviously left, I did find myself a bit surprised by some of the audience questions which put Clinton a bit in the hot seat. But, it was a town hall style. And even staunch Clinton cohorts will readily admit that when it comes to town hall's, Clinton always fares poorly. 

My thinking is because she has trouble actually talking about issues that aren't rehearsed, has trouble with questions she does not expect, and does not resonate well with the American people in general. 

As I said in an earlier post, the media and the polls that follow will all do their best to tell a story about a Clinton victory. They will do their best to suggest that the entire election is tilted in Clinton's favor. They will continue to flaunt any gains she may make in polls as "huge support gains" even though we all know that the steepest gains during this entire election has come from Donald Trump. 11 point swings are huge support gains in polls. Not 1 or 2 percentage point swings, But that's not how the media likes to tell the story.

In a nutshell, Trump won. Nuff said. Will he go on to win the final debate? Who knows? It depends on whether or not Trump can continue in the way he did with this last debate, and it depends on how well he can defend or deflect from any other garbage the left may try to pull out of the woodwork to shift the discussion from the issues, to what Donald Trump says or does.

Sunday, October 9, 2016

Be Smart Tonight During the Debate!

Don't fall for it!

That is my suggestion as you prepare yourself for what is expected to be a monster debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, which by the way, is a calculated and orchestrated timed event if you throw in the recent release (or leak, whatever you want to call it) of tapes showing Donald Trump engaged in vulgar language directed at women.

Look, this what the DNC and the media are all too well known for. They want to skirt the issues and the reason they want to do that is because they cannot speak to the issues. This is a tactic the media and the DNC have been engaged in for years and for years they have gotten away with it.

Don't fall for it!

Do I think that the leaked tapes shed good light on Donald Trump? Of course not. But really, you could easily suggest that the words he used, and the conversations he engaged in are not unlike conversations that occur every single day in nearly every facet of society. It's real talk even if it's not necessarily appropriate talk.

And by the way, has anyone questioned statements Hillary Clinton made to secret service agents while she was First Lady? There's some pretty damning language there if you ask me. And while her language may not necessarily be directed in the way Trump's comments were in the leaked tape, they are still nonetheless foul, and certainly disrespectful and outright horrible.

May I use the word deplorable?

The DNC and the media want nothing but one thing to happen, because it works for them. They have designed campaigns around finger pointing—if you put all of the emphasis on the other guy, and you push hard enough, all you have to do is simply sit there in the debate and watch the nuts go after your opponent and eat up all of the time in the debate without ever once having to have your positions or your failures addressed at all.

If you fall for it then the media and the DNC will have their way once again. Hillary Clinton will not have to address her 33,000 missing emails, nor the clear and numerous lies she made to the FBI, which Comey has confirmed, nor the clear and numerous lies she made to the American people about the whole thing. She will not have to address what she did with the more than 600 calls for help by U.S. Ambassador in Benghazi, Chris Stevens, who of course is now dead along with three other Americans due to a lack of concern and action by the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton while she served as Secretary of State. And while we're on the subject, neither will she have to explain to the American people why she lied about that too, not only to the American people, but to the very families of the dead. You have to ask the question, because anyone paying attention knows the reason the lies were made in the first place was to secure a second term for President Obama, "Mrs. Clinton, how can you guarantee that you will put America first and keep Americans safe from clear and present danger when it is clear that you put lives in danger in order to support a false narrative that 'Al-Qaeda was on the run,' that would have been proved false had the true nature of the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi had been revealed?" And the question also has to be asked, "Mrs. Clinton, how can the American people be assured you will be honest with them when it was clearly illustrated that you lied to the American people and to the FBI about the nature of your missing emails?"

And then we're back to the issue of what Trump said in those leaked tapes which should directly lead anyone paying attention to now shift focus onto the stuff that Trump made all too clear he did not want to touch. And that is the question of Hillary Clinton's own attitude towards women which is—again for anyone paying attention—deplorable.

Yep, I chose to use that word again.

Hillary Clinton allowed a child rapist to get off while she was a defense attorney. This was a 13-year old girl, keep in mind, who was raped. And tapes that exist of Hillary talking about the case show very clearly that she knew the guy she was defending was guilty. She knew it. And not only did she know it, she reveled in the fact that she got the guy off, and she also reveled in putting the onus and emphasis on the girl who was raped.

She put the onus on the girl who was raped. She blamed the victim. When she knew the guy she was defending was guilty.

This bears emphasis and it is why I chose to repeat it in italics. War on women? This is what this essentially comes down to right? Only the DNC and the media are painting it with a different brush and they have been doing this right from the moment it became clear that Trump was going to be the nominee for the republican party. They have focused on Trump's three marriages. They have focused on Trump calling women this or calling women that. And now there's the leaked tape.

And not a single question to Hillary Clinton about her own husband's infidelities nor about documented attempts by Hillary Clinton herself to silence the victims.

Hillary Clinton's own record with regard to women is deplorable and yet no one is reminded of that, no one brings it up—which is especially amazing when stuff like this comes up in regard to Trump. It should. Any reasonable person should conclude that this entire issue is really an issue of the pot calling the kettle black, and if you ask me, the DNC and the media knowing this should steer clear of any mention of any of this sort of thing because under normal circumstances it would be damning because there is enough on the other side to bring up that it would make the entire issue moot to bring up on the Trump side.

Don't fall for it like the media and the DNC are sure you will.

How clear it is that the media and even so many Americans just don't pay attention. Even in the first debate (and even Trump missed the opportunity), while Clinton smugly shirked her shoulders and did some weird little torso dance at the podium saying, "By the time the night is over I suspect I will be blamed for everything," it should have been brought to the fore that that was the excuse made for every single failure of the Obama administration including the failures of Clinton while she was Secretary of State that all of it could be blamed on the mess that George W. Bush left for them all. George W. Bush was blamed for everything. Why didn't anyone bring that up? Why didn't Trump bring that up? Why didn't the American people catch that? Why didn't the media catch that, or the moderator of the debate? Hell, even the pundits didn't catch that.

Don't fall for it!

Look, in no way am I defending anything Trump has said or done during or before the time he was running for president. But clearly there are defenseless things on both sides, and frankly I think the things on the Clinton side are more defenseless—but that may simply be an opinion. So again, why the focus on Donald Trump's statements? Why the focus on Donald Trump's actions? Why can these defenseless acts not be put to bed like they should be by the mere fact that both sides have defenseless things in their bags?

I stand before a man having killed someone. I too killed someone. It is established we're both
murderers. So, logically one should conclude we go on to the next topic. Neither of us can point toward the act of murder because we are both guilty of the same thing. It's moot.

Okay, both sides have horrible records with women. So let's just move on shall we? Let's move on, in fact, to what is important for Christ's sake and not again fall for the tactics employed to skirt the important issues.

What are we going to do about ISIS? What are we going to do with the Iran deal? What are we going to do about jobs? What are we going to do about the economy? What are we going to do about the failures of the Veteran's Administration? What are we going to do about North Korea? How will we address the issue of illegal immigration?

And again, if we fall for it, if we allow the DNC and the media to do it again, we won't hear about these issues and the American people will have effectively been duped yet again. We'll only hear about how bad a guy Trump is while not hearing about how bad a woman Clinton is. How bad her husband was.

The entire thing just irritates the hell out of me because I so badly want to believe that not only are the American people supposed to be smarter than all of this—for crying out loud republicans are supposed to be smarter than all of this. But they're falling for it. So many are falling for it. Smirks on their faces, haha's in their commentaries, I told you so's and innuendos...

Can you not read between the lines? Can you not see past the smoke and mirrors? Are you unable to see the forest for the trees? Are you so easily duped and swindled? My God, if this is so easily accomplished by the DNC and the media—how the hell do you get through life without the wool constantly being pulled out? Do magicians seem like a real thing to you? At this point I swear if the DNC and the media worked hard enough at it you might even believe that world is indeed flat. The DNC and the media is so convinced of your stupidity that they comfortably report it as news that the Syrian conflict, and the greatest threat to national security is absolutely climate change.

That last thing should really allow you to see what's going on here because surely you don't believe that climate change is responsible for a fucking war! Clearly you don't believe that climate change is the greatest threat to national security!

Don't fall for it!

As for the line of questioning we will witness in tonight's debate, of course it will be more of the same. Skirting the issues, focusing on Trump this and Trump that, Clinton smirking and smiling, moderators clearly in the tank for Clinton, and hand selected robots of the DNC and the media who will ignore Clinton and trounce sharply on Trump. And you have a choice when you watch this go down. You can either show your true intelligence and see the writing on the wall...

Or you can fall for it.

And now for something completely different:

Monday, April 25, 2016

The Gang of Two In the GOP

I have to admit that these days it is becoming real tough for me to call myself a republican, because as much as I have long identified with the party and its core principles, I also happen to be an American, and I believe in the will of the American people over all other things. The republican party these days seems more interested in making their own pick for nominee than what the American people and many in the party are deciding.

That would be Donald Trump of course.

You could say, as many have implied throughout this race, that Trump has turned the presidential race into a circus. But I would argue that the real circus is being created and directed by the republican party itself, and by the other candidates in the race who—let's face it—are clearly losing as the delegate counts stand right now.

Sure, maybe there is some hope on a second, third, fourth...whatever...ballot. But even if Trump does not get the necessary 1,237 delegates needed to be an uncontested nominee, there is no way at this point in the race that either Cruz or Kasich are going to get anywhere near the number of delegates Trump will ultimately wind up with. Now we of course have this "teaming up," which I will just go ahead and call it ganging up, between Cruz and Kasich to try to keep delegates from going to Trump in the final leg of the journey to the nomination. In a word it's simply ludicrous to me. For all of the complaints of whining the others on the trail have lambasted Trump for, this seems to me to be the ultimate whining.

It's not fair! It's not fair! He's not one of us and now he's winning and it's not fair!

So what is the core argument they are making for the teaming up? Trump can't win, and in order to protect the country from Hillary Clinton they have to stop the front-runner dead in his tracks to "save the party." But let's be clear about one glaring thing I see—if the American people feel that the nomination has been hijacked, and they will feel this way, what makes anyone think Cruz or Kasich are ultimately electable? They're not. They will be considered shills of the party, the "chosen" ones, not by the electorate, but by the establishment, and whether or not any rules were in place and followed through the course and into the selection process, the American people will not care. And they will not perceive things any other way than an election and candidate was literally stolen from them at the hands of the very people that the voters love to hate these days.

You are NOT going to win ANYTHING if, when all is said and done, it is clear that you are the runner up and are GIVEN the trophy anyway. Rules be damned, the voters will not give a rat's ass about that. And Hillary will get to be president by default.

I am actually quite a bit surprised that the GOP is failing to see this. It seems to be one of the dumbest and most naive maneuvers I have seen the republican party attempt in a very long time.

Let's take a moment to examine one other thing here. So the republican party thinks, with certainty, that Trump cannot win in the general. But all throughout this race Trump has defied every poll, every odd, that showed him in a bad spot. Whose to say he can't do it again? In the general.

I just think that the republican party is shooting itself in the foot right now with all of these antics and tactics it is trying to deploy against the clear front runner. It will all backfire if Trump comes out the clear winner even without the needed 1,237 delegates and he does not get the nomination. What's more, you mean to tell me that if Cruz had the most with 1,236 some rule would not be changed to allow the lack of needed delegates and make Cruz the nominee?


The only reason the delegate rule is being so coveted right now is because the candidate who is winning is not one of their own, not the one they want, and frankly the GOP doesn't give a damn what the American people or even many republicans want—

And that, folks, makes me ashamed right now to call myself a republican.

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Taking "Pay Yourself First" One Step Further

The age-old adage in the art of saving away a few bucks for a rainy day and beyond, pay yourself first, is still one of the best ideas to not only plan for, spend around, but to also live by with absolute determination and commitment. For years I have advocated what I like to call the 80/20 rule which basically states that you only live on 80% of your means, and save and invest the 20% you don't need. These days the amount I save is actually higher since the 20% affords, eventually, an increase in your means through dividends, capital gains, and other things that the money "in the bank" tends to generate.

Money makes money is another thing everybody says, but that is also absolutely true.

Something that I find often gets overlooked in all of these concepts surrounding saving money is actually a very important factor that can, if not considered, eat away and terribly counter a great deal of the effort you put into your savings commitments.

The COST of money.

Where this factor is most encountered, it is when we are dealing with how we manage and use credit. Most people who understand credit also understand that there is a difference between good debt and bad debt. Naturally there are some people who will tell you that there is no such thing as any good debt. I am not in that camp. By my definition good debt is debt which leverages an  appreciating asset such as your home. In this instance the cost of the debt is typically negated by the appreciating value of what has been financed. Bad debt is debt that is used to leverage depreciating assets, such as a vehicle. But even I am guilty of making use of this kind of debt—although I do everything I can to minimize the impact. For example when my wife and I purchased our Ford Edge a few years back we put down $10,000 to keep the monthly payments down and reduce the overall interest we would pay. I did the same thing recently when I replaced my old Ford Sport Trac with a newer Ford F-150 and laid out $14,000 cash at the bargaining table.

But the worst debt is the credit card.

Credit cards can be used in ways that actually help you toward your savings goals. For example, I use a Discover card which pays me cash back on every purchase. The trick here is to pay the card as you use it otherwise the cash back rewards are really worthless.

But rather than use credit cards, and finally we're getting to the meat of what I meant when I said let'syour own line of credit? I call this little concept the Credit Savings Account, or CSA. Key here is that if you are following strict savings plans, there should be plenty of money sitting around somewhere that you can allocate to a "credit card" where you are your own bank. My CSA sits in my checking account and when I use it, it is as simple as swiping my debit card.
take the concept of paying yourself first one step further, why not simply establish

And by the way, this is a great way to also avoid overdraft fees, and WORSE, paying for overdraft protection which is absolutely a total waste of money.

Here is how I set up my CSA:

  • Establish an amount to fund the account with and determine this to be the credit limit.
  • Establish a day each month when you will make payments. Mine is on the 20th of each month.
  • Establish an interest rate you will charge yourself. This can be whatever you want it to be. I typically charge myself anywhere from 15%-29.9% depending on the balance, but I never pay myself less than 15% interest.
  • Establish a minimum payment based on at least 3%-5% of the balance. But of course you can repay yourself any way you want.
When I calculate the interest I don't bother with how credit card companies actually do it, using daily periodic rates and average daily balances etcetera. But of course if you want to you can do it this way—but it is naturally much more time consuming. Here is an example of how I will determine my payment and interest:

  • Balance ($300) x 15% interest =  $45 / 12 months = $3.75 (this is my interest charge). Balance ($300) x 5% minimum payment = $15. In this example I will pay $15 on the 20th (my due date). Of the $15 I will apply $11.25 to the principle (balance) and direct $3.75 to interest (which will be deposited to my savings).

There is a caveat here. When you set up this account for yourself you must avoid playing games with yourself, such as forgoing making a payment, or playing around with the interest you charge yourself. This will foil any benefit a CSA will afford you. You are the banker. Act like one and fiercely demand payment and interest, and penalties when you don't pay.

Establishing a CSA takes paying yourself first one step further because it will accomplish two very important things. 1) it will force you to save more money away and 2) it will reduce your cost of money since you are using the CSA in lieu of traditional credit cards.

Perhaps even when I bought my vehicles I should have simply paid cash and set up a loan for myself.
Hmm. Something for me to consider on the next set of wheels I think. Let's keep our fingers crossed that Ford doesn't actually come out with a new Bronco or I may have to revisit this idea sooner than I would like.

Friday, March 18, 2016

Brokered Convention A Win For Hillary

So, we are of course still having to have the discussion, when it comes to the GOP convention in July, that there is a strong possibility of a brokered convention if Donald Trump, the clear front-runner in this presidential race, does not garner the 1,237 delegates he needs to seal the deal on the republican nomination. But why we are having this discussion at all is really the begging question, is it not?

In other circles someone commented to me that, "So you are okay if we break the rules for Trump if he doesn't get the required delegates?" I responded, and I think quite rightly, "Would we even be having this discussion if, say, Ted Cruz fell short of the 1,237 delegates before the convention?"

Of course that ended the discussion. Because the person who made that comment knows all too well that he would be okay if Ted Cruz, or anyone else for that matter, got the nomination without the required delegate count—but because we are talking about Trump here, that changes everything.

Because no matter how many times the GOP tries to give the impression it will support the front-runner, those of us who pay attention to what's between the lines know all too well if the GOP can find any way possible to deny Trump the nomination, that is exactly what they will do.

The thing that I find a little bit surprising here is that for years the republican party has been wanting desperately to find a candidate who can reach reach out and grasp hold of voters who might never even remotely consider voting for any republican candidate.

Donald Trump is doing that.

He is getting support from evangelicals and non-evangelicals alike. He is getting broad support (believe it or not) from women. He is getting broad support from (again, believe it or not) Hispanics. And while he may be falling a little bit short garnering support from blacks, there are still wide swaths of other demographics he is pulling toward the republican party that the party itself has not been able to do for a very long time.

He's even pulling in democrats.

There is another very big factor to keep in mind here and that is that Trump has also provided the republican party a huge (or should I say yuge?) increase in voter enthusiasm and voter turnout—when you look at voter turnout as a whole, enthusiasm and turnout is up 65% for republicans and down 45% for democrats.

How did Barack Obama win, partly? Voter turnout. Voter enthusiasm. Voters all but fell over themselves to get to the polls, and of course there were great efforts by PACs and other groups to load up buses and get voters to the polls to check the box for Obama.

Without a doubt Mitt Romney screwed the pooch on the campaign trail and I lay that down easily as a large contributing factor to his defeat, albeit a nominal defeat, by what was clearly a failed incumbent president. But you can also attribute low voter turnout as a large reason why Romney could not fill the gap. Many republicans were so unenthusiastic, and so not smitten with Romney as the candidate, that they just stayed home. If even a fraction of those people would have gone to the polls, it may have sent Obama packing.

I think even the GOP has to know that, in part, this is precisely why they did not win the last election.

So along comes Trump and gets the juices flowing. It may not be the guy that the republican party had hoped for to bring this along. But nobody else has been able to do it. And instead of embrace the victory this is, they only want to trounce Trump, stay the course, and disenfranchise large swathes of the very voters they have been trying to attract that Trump has attracted. Hell, he has practically laid these voters at the very doorstep of the republican convention.

Of course part of the problem the GOP and other republican and conservative voters have is that he's too brash, he's offensive, he's inexperienced, he's unrealistic, and whatever other word one can derive to relate to, "He will destroy America and bombs will fly."

Horse pockey.

The fact is that Trump is doing exactly what every single other politician has done before him—and I think we can now safely call Trump a politician. Donald Trump is telling the American people what they want to hear. It's that simple. And it is resonating and that is why the voting public is responding the way they are.

Read my lips, no new taxes. You can keep your doctor. We will attack pork barrel spending...

All of a sudden we are actually believing that everything a politician says he will do will actually be done? I mean, really. Are we really trying to say that here? We're trying to say this with a straight face?

When Donald Trump gets into the White House, if that is what happens, he will face the same realities and the same challenges as every single president always does. Not only that, but what defines an administration's accomplishments or failures is also largely dictated by what the focus of the day happens to be. Things happen, things occur in the world that cause presidents to have to shift focus, and of course there are multitudes of people that will surround any president and provide him or her with whatever current intelligence on a variety of issues happens to be...

And with reality front and center courses change.

Why would Trump be any different? I mean, don't get me wrong, he has my support in large part because he will do some things differently to my mind. But there are myriad things he won't do just because he can't, or because there will be enough smart minds surrounding him to give him some very important statistics and data and examinations into what the real and true impact may be of anything he has proposed. And like all president's do, he will change course.

Look, the bottom line for me is that if Trump gets the nomination we may lose the general election. Okay fine. Or we may not. Who really knows, right? Polls have been wrong, pundits have been wrong. It's always so easy to try and make an idea a truth when we all know it's not. But a few things are certain to lose the general and ensure Hillary winds up in the White House. To my mind, and without any doubt, one of those things is to broker the republican convention. If the GOP actually denies Trump the nomination no matter if he has the 1,237 delegates or not, there will be far more anger from the voting public than ever before that their voice is not being heard, that the establishment is rigging outcomes, and that the American people are sheep while the government and all of the power-mongers within the system don't give a flying rats ass about what the people want.

Precisely, by the way, one of the reasons that right now a guy like Trump is blowing it out of the park.

At the end of the day I think we should simply be looking at who out of the remaining three candidates have the most delegates (or two if Kasich finally comes to his senses that he has no chance of winning) and say okay. That's the nominee. Because otherwise what is all this other process about? Why did we waste our time with campaigns at all? Why did we bother to go before the American people and see what they think about who is running? Why waste time with all that if at the end of the day it doesn't matter, and no matter who the PEOPLE want it comes down who the PARTY wants?