The Brett Baier and Kamala Harris Interview: My Final Take

Going into the interview I had some concerns, even though I have great confidence and faith in Brett Baier to ask the hard questions, that he might go a bit light on Vice President Kamala Harris, or even allow her to close question segments with the final word with no clear rebuttal.

He didn't do that. He challenged her on claims. He presented her former and current positions and gave her the opportunity to explain the contrast. He presented polling outlining voter sentiment on a variety of issues that are not favorable to Kamala Harris on the economy, the border and other issues and point blankly asked her why, if she has a better path forward, the majority of the American people seem to be indicating they disagree with her.

Look, I am going to give Kamala Harris at least some credit for sitting down with Brett Baier. She easily could have said no, and I am sure that she was prepared to be in an interview situation that would be unlike anything that she would ordinarily be accustomed to.

But she didn't pass the smell test. She didn't answer the questions, and I think a lot of her combativeness during the interview was more to stall it, present less time for real questions, and control the interview than to display a sense of command.

What she ultimately did was spend the bulk of the interview taking shots at Donald Trump and dismissing the dismal results of the administration she was part of for the past four years, taking no responsibility, acknowledging no mistakes, yet at the same time trying to distance herself from Joe Biden.

As you would expect, Harris was armed with an arsenal of talking points, and she wanted to get them all out in rapid-fire as best she could.

In the end, I don't think the interview did any good for the Kamala Harris campaign, but at the same time I am not sure if this close to the election, it changes any minds either. But it did present a glaring example of why a Kamala Harris presidency poses more danger to the American people than she wants to claim a Trump administration would be.

Again, we have results to go by. We have Trump's first four years, and we have Biden's last four years, and she is correct to point out that there is a stark contrast between the two choices, only all of the problems that have happened in the last four years were partially under her command.

Over and over again she lobbed accusations against Trump about the dangers he poses, from threats to democracy to weaponizing the military against the American people, yet at the same time completely dismissing the fact that 79% of the American people in polls say that we are headed in the wrong direction as a country.

That's her problem to own and explain, by the way, because Trump wasn't there to steer the country anywhere. And actually, Harris' attempt at an answer to the question why was actually a bit bizarre, if you ask me. "It's Trump's rhetoric for the past decade," she tried to assert. But as Brett pointed out, "You were in the White House. Not Trump."

The bottom line is that we are in the final throes of this election. I think we have all the information we, as voters, need in order to make a final decision. I tend to believe that decision is Trump. But of course, it's hard to tell when the media seems to want to point us in a different direction. 

Like I have said before, I think any popularity or lead Harris has ever had has largely been driven by media spin much more than voter sentiment. Will the race be close? Who knows? It shouldn't be. But again, who knows?

All in all, I am going to give Brett Baier a thumbs up for a hard hitting, on point interview that I think touched on key issues and questions that gave us a better picture of the real Kamala Harris, unfettered by the usual media drooling over her or the left that we are used to.

We got to hear the right questions asked, and the American people got to see her unable to answer them with any conceivable substance. The left wing media will of course say Brett attacked Kamala Harris or was rude to her. But I'll just say that's because he didn't ask her what her favorite color is or what she plans to serve on her table at Thanksgiving.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

READ ALL OF THE TAKES ON THE BRETT BAIER INTERVIEW WITH KAMALA HARRIS

Take One: Brett Baier and Kamala Harris on the Border
Take Two: Brett Baier Puts Kamala Harris Into a Deer In Headlights Mode with Immigration Question
Take Three: Brett Baier Continues to Lock Kamala Harris Up on the Economy and Her Campaign Slogan

Brett Baier Continues to Lock Kamala Harris Up on the Economy and Her Campaign Slogan

One of the most frustrating things about Kamala Harris' repeated assertions during the Brett Baier interview, was this notion she was trying very hard to convey that Donald Trump is not putting the interests of the America people first in his campaign. 

What? Where have you been?

Trump has talked about the devastating blow to American families that inflation has caused. He has talked about the border. He has talked about the economy. And he has talked about the need to reduce high prices at the gas pump.

"Donald Trump has no plans," she kept saying.

Only the reality is that Trump has had plans all along, including many of which he had already implemented during his first four years. Policies and plans that were mostly effective and worked, by the way, no matter how badly Harris wants to convince the American people they didn't.

Brett asked her specifically regarding the economy, "Why do you think most people say they trust Donald Trump more than you when it comes to the economy?" And once again she skirted the question, instead bashing Trump as well as citing Nobel laureates and the Wall Street Journal as sources to say, "They trust our plan."

Which is essentially, the same plan the Biden administration was wanting to pursue—Harris is really just an extension of that even if she somehow wants to try to separate herself from it, while at the same time telling The View she wouldn't change anything the Biden administration did during their four years in office.

Again, am I the only one completely confused here?

I go back to what I have said before. Who was in office these past four years? Was it Donald Trump? Or was it Joe Biden and Kamala Harris? She acknowledges we have all these challenges and problems that need to be fixed. But it wasn't Trump who was in the White House when they happened and now, she's the one with the better ideas to get us out of it?

Brett asked her another very poignant question about her saying over and over again that her presidency would turn the page. "You've been vice president for the past four years. What are you turning the page from?"

Where I find her "answer" is remarkable is how she framed it, basically trying to suggest we are needing to get away from divisiveness, pointing fingers and passing blame, and trying to take people down instead of lifting them up.

Wait a minute. Would that be like accusing a political opponent of crimes? Of insurrections? Of trying to jail him? Of having wall to wall endless negative coverage comparing Donald Trump to Marxists and fascists and Adolph Hitler himself? 

She says Donald Trump's rhetoric instills fear in people's minds. So, what does saying that he will become a dictator, wanting to use federal law enforcement agencies to jail dissenters, take down democracy or whatever other evil plans he supposedly has—all of which are patently untrue, by the way—do to not instill fear in people's minds?

She is basically saying that we need to turn the page ahead against all the things her administration has been front and center of for the past four years, orchestrating all along.

At the end of the day, the fact is, Harris has nothing new to offer the American people and she's trying as hard as she can to erase the last four years and somehow pin all of America's woes on Trump. There's no other way of putting it. 

The question is, who's really buying it?

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

READ ALL THE TAKES ON THE BRETT BAIER INTERVIEW WITH KAMALA HARRIS

Take One: Brett Baier and Kamala Harris on the Border
Take Two: Brett Baier Puts Kamala Harris Into Deer in Headlights Mode with Immigration Question
Take Four: The Brett Baier and Kamala Harris Interview: My Final Take

Brett Baier Puts Kamala Into a Deer in Headlights Mode with Immigration Question

If you ever wanted to know what a deer in headlights looks like, it was Vice President Kamala Harris as she was squarely trapped by a question brilliantly framed, that she thought she nailed the answer to.

"There's a lot of people that look back at what you said in 2019 when you first ran for president," Brett began. He reminded her that she supported allowing immigrants who were in the country illegally to apply for driver's licenses, that she supported free tuition for illegals at universities, as well as offering illegals free healthcare.

"Listen," Kamala Harris said, almost seeming irritated by the question by her body language. "That was five years ago."

She went on to convey her regard for the law and asserted she didn't advocate for these things while she was vice president. But of course, we all must remember, she was the vice president. Biden would have had to sign off on these things, and I contend even for him, these ideas would have been considered far too radical to take seriously.

Because of course, they are radical, and I think most Americans, including many Democrats, would be opposed to them.

She basically tried to throw out the notion that she would ever go back to her former position. But it was Brett's follow up question that was the gotcha moment. "If that's the case, you chose a running mate, Tim Walz, Governor of Minnesota, who signed those very things into state law. So, do you support that?"

Her pause was nearly 3-seconds long, which may not seem like a very long time. But clearly, she was taken aback by the question and immediately the wheels were spinning in her head. One could have pictured a sudden appearance of Will Robinson's robot in "Lost in Space" entering the frame warning, "Danger! Danger!"

The problem with her ultimate answer is the same as is the problem she has with most of her answers. She didn't answer it. She said her and Tim Walz are committed to following federal law. Yet clearly, Tim Walz had different interests as governor. So, which is it? She changed her position on the position and now Tim Walz has too?

How much more confused can the American people be made trying to figure out what Harris is actually for or against? Why didn't she condemn Walz' law or have further comment on it? Will she now, if elected, go to the courts to ask to challenge Walz' law on the grounds that it violates federal law? And will Walz, who enacted it, now side with her in the challenge?

Does this make sense to anyone?

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

READ ALL THE TAKES ON THE BRETT BAIER INTERVIEW WITH KAMALA HARRIS

Take One: Brett Baier and Kamala Harris on the Border
Take Three: Brett Baier Continues to Lock Kamala Harris Up on the Economy and Her Campaign Slogan
Take Four: The Brett Baier and Kamala Harris Interview: My Final Take

Brett Baier and Kamala Harris on the Border

From the very first question Brett Baier asked in his interview with Vice President Kamala Harris, he had to be as wholly frustrated with her "answer" as I found myself, and that I think a good many Americans would be frustrated with as well.

She did not answer it.

What she did was completely go around it. She kept bringing up the bipartisan bill, and yet the question was not about what they wanted to do nine months ago. It was about what decisions they made on day one, within hours of taking their oath of office, that caused the border issues that have now become a top concern for many Americans, that were clearly a result of their decisions, not Donald Trump's.

She kept wanting to try to hammer it home. "We have a problem." Yeah, sure, that's great to recognize that. But why is it that you can't recognize that it was the decisions of the Biden administration that made the problems big problems? What she's talking about fixing is something that, it is clear, her and Joe Biden broke.

And what of the very stinging question Brett asked her about the border patrol and the bill? "They supported it. But they also just endorsed Donald Trump and said you've been—quote—a failure with border security. Why do you think they said that?"

"I think they're frustrated," Kamala Harris told Brett. 

Yeah. Okay. But why? If your policies, as Harris suggests, were to address the border issues how come the border issue has only gotten worse? How many times, when even Democrat governors and mayors came out and said, "We've got a problem here," did Harris go out alongside Joe Biden and repeatedly tell the American people that the border was secure when clearly it wasn't?

They are her words. "I think they're frustrated." But Brett also reminded her that the Biden administration rescinded 90 Trump border patrol policies, and in the interview, she tried to make the claim that Trump's border policies did not improve things at the border. But the reality is, that doesn't seem to jive with what the border patrol believes to be the case.

If rescinding Trump's policies were an effective strategy on the border issue, wouldn't the border patrol then be endorsing Kamala Harris instead of Donald Trump? Instead, they are "frustrated." But apparently not at the man whose policies they know would be reimplemented on day one if Donald Trump were to be elected.

She was literally talking in circles in spite of herself, and the reason is, she has no answer. And that's part of the reason she was trying so hard to dance around it. They rescinded Trump's policies because they disagreed with them. The plan failed. They are responsible for it. They lied repeatedly to the American people about the issue. And now they simply want it to go away and make it appear that Trump is playing poltics now with the border, when all along the very reason they nixed Trump's border policies was because of politics. Not what would have been in the best interests of the security of our border and the American people.

The bill was nothing more than a last-ditch effort to make it appear they were taking the border issue seriously. But of course, we know that was simply a trick. One that in other circles, she's been able to get away with performing. But Brett wasn't letting her have her "moment" to pour on the spin.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

READ ALL THE TAKES ON THE BRETT BAIER INTERVIEW WITH KAMALA HARRIS

Take Two: Brett Baier Puts Kamala Into a Deer in Headlights Mode with Immigration Question
Take Three: Brett Baier Continues to Lock Kamala Harris Up on the Economy and Her Campaign Slogan
Take Four: The Brett Baier and Kamala Harris Interview: My Final Take

Kamala Harris and the Illusion of Change

Looking at the Kamala Harris campaign, I can't help but recall the early 90's Jack in the Box E. Coli outbreak, which tragically killed four children and infected 732 people across four states. This comparison isn't meant to disparage Jack in the Box or dredge up old events that they likely prefer to remain in the past.

The truth is, it was one of the worst incidents of its kind at the time, and Jack in the Box nearly went under for good. Their name was tarnished, and no one would dare eat there. So, what did they do? They tried to rebrand themselves as Monterrey Jack's instead.

The problem is, it's essentially still Jack in the Box with nothing more than a new sign and name. The leadership, business practices, food sources, quality standards, and sanitary standards all remain unchanged.

Which brings me back to Kamala Harris. They've done nothing more than slap a new label on the same product. It's the same Kamala Harris as always, just with a different facade.

There was a time when you could be fairly confident that a rebrand wouldn't fool anyone. People would catch on quickly. "Hey, wait a minute, this is just a Sourdough Jack with a new name. What's going on?" But the difference is that the times we are living through now are probably the most politically divided as we have ever seen.

In times like these, logic and critical thinking go right out the window, and they have.

Yet, I can't shake the feeling that times might not be so different after all. Perhaps it's just hope, wishful thinking, or even naivety. But I want to believe that as a people, we haven't entirely lost our grip on reality. Can it be that now, when it seems like we've lost all sense, it's really still there? Lurking in the shadows. Just waiting for the right moment to emerge and bring back our faith in the system and what's right in the world.

When you look at the polls, there are so many things that point to this presidential race being a very close one. Based on what we know, it shouldn't be. Not if the elements that make up commonsense were working properly.

Moreover, the media should be falling all over itself over what the Harris campaign is trying to pull off. After all, they own the archives. All they have to do is rewind the tapes, and not all that far back, to see we're being lied to and badly.

The rebranding shouldn't work. Not only based on what they are trying to sell us as the new and improved Kamala Harris. But based on the last four years that Kamala Harris was part of. She went along with all of the policies Biden put into place, and when those policies failed, she went out and defended them.

The economy is humming along. The border is secure. Inflation's not so bad (hey folks, dontcha love this thing we call Bidenomics?)...

How could it ever be possible that the past four years could be in such stark contrast to the four years prior, that we could be lied to about the president's health, and that Kamala Harris could go on the view and tell the hosts she would not change a single Biden policy decision, and still be elected president?

If Kamala Harris pulls this off, take note Jack in the Box. If you ever need a comeback, she's your gal.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. Check out my new YouTube channel as well, appropriately titled The Springboard, where I discuss a variety of topics there as I do here.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Kamala Harris Speaks More Word Salad with Oprah Winfrey

The term world salad was not something coined for Kamala Harris. In fact, the term has been around for a very long time. Sort of like the term fake news, that many people think Donald Trump came up with. It's actually been a term in circulation since the 1890s. Trump simply popularized it.

But the term word salad absolutely applies to Kamala Harris anytime she speaks off script and without a teleprompter, and her recent Town Hall with Oprah Winfrey, which followed a similar (in fact almost uncannily similar) bit of lines as her ABC interview with Brian Taff just days after the debate, was no exception.

Not only did Kamala Harris dodge questions and answer replies in riddles, but she also pretty much said nothing at all.

Every time you see this you wonder, "Is the media getting all this? What about the voters?" Because you still see endorsements and high accolades coming. You still see polls suggesting she's surging in popularity against Trump.

How?

Well, sane people can ask this question when witnessing any of this. But not all voters are sane, of course, and as far as it goes for Democrats, I haven't decided yet what to think of what they're thinking. Can they just be that focused on winning that they don't care that Harris' policies will send America so deep into the abyss there may never be the possibility of a return?

What worse, does anyone really know what any of her policies even are? The Babylon Bee posted a hilarious article suggesting that going to the Harris/Walz campaign page would simply redirect you to Trump's page.

You have to admit, that is pretty funny, by the way.

What makes me scratch my head even more is how someone like Oprah Winfrey could not be worried about her credibility endorsing Harris for president after a Town Hall like that. Was Oprah able to make sense of anything Kamala Harris said?

Probably not. Oprah Winfrey may be a lot of things, but dumb isn't one of them.

Better yet, can anyone not just articulate what they think Kamala Harris stands for or why she the best choice to be president, but explain to us what the hell she is even saying that makes any sense to anyone?

I mean, imagine hearing a string of words in any normal setting and saying to yourself, "I have no idea what she just said, but I like it."

Beyond that, isn't it a very obvious clue that we're being played by the media and her handlers? I mean, how can she step up to a podium and sound clear and good but fall so miserably flat on her face in a one-on-one interview with voters or reporters?

Because she isn't the person the media wants us to believe she is. How can she ever be in command of the country when she can't even be in command of her own words?

Imagine a conversation between her and Putin. First, he'd need to translate her words to Russian. Next, someone would have to translate her words into actual English so that the Russian that came out on the other end would even make any sense. If that would even ever be possible.

The danger in all of this is as I have said so many times before I have lost count. That the media has too much power to influence the minds of voters, and that alone could potentially put her in the White House, and by the time we realize we made a mistake, it's going to be way too late to fix whatever happens because of it.

At the end of the day all we can hope for is that it all really is just smoke and mirrors that the voters are buying this Kamala Harris as the best choice for America story. Sort of like what the media was doing back when Hillary Clinton was running against Trump, and we were told she had a 95% chance of sealing the necessary 270 electoral votes to become president.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Is it Gross Incompetence with the Secret Service or Something Else?

I get it. Conspiracy theories can be a dime a dozen, and don't people get a little bit tired of hearing them? Don't things just sometimes happen and it's no one's fault but the people doing them? Most of the time that's probably true, and most of the time conspiracy theories are just that.

Theories.

But they become conspiracy theories sometimes for good reason. It's like a puzzle. The more pieces you put together, the more it begins to form a whole picture.

We now have two assassination attempts on former President Donald Trump's life. Two of them that are 65 days apart. And in both cases, the shooters were mere yards away. One could even say the shooters were in obvious places.

On a rooftop within clear sight of the former president. And one hole away on a golf course.

But I stressed the word "two" for very good reason, because it seems rather uncanny that this would happen. How many times have there been multiple attempts on a former or sitting president? On top of that, you have to consider that in the entire history of our country there have only been 17 assassination attempts made against presidents or presidential candidates, and only five were successful.

It just makes you wonder. What in the hell is going on here? We already know that the Secret Service was grossly incompetent to protect the former president in Butler, PA. The director resigned shortly after being hammered by Congress, with unanimous calls for her resignation from both sides.

But how much transparency was offered to the American people about that? Not much. And why withhold certain information? For days, and even weeks, the Congress interviewed people from the FBI, the Secret Service, and other agencies involved with Trump's protection detail.

They were saying some things. But it wasn't what they were saying that was at issue. It was what they weren't saying. What were they hiding? Were they hiding things? Were they hiding these things to protect themselves? Or was it because of something else?

Before, most people were wondering why an obvious rooftop was not covered at his rally where the former president received a graze wound from a flying round from an assassin's gun. Now we have to ask, "Where was President Trump's detail on the golf course?"

Wouldn't they have several things going on here to ensure a wide swath of coverage to protect not only the former president, but one who's life was already put on the line? Perhaps drones in the sky. Secret Service agents at hole 5 and hole 7? Or maybe they'd just secure the whole damn golf course? Or did they? 

So, how did the shooter get past their radars? Especially in a setting where the Secret Service would have presumably had far more control over the locale than at a rally attended by tens of thousands of rally goers.

How did this happen?

Look, I have no experience in law enforcement, and certainly about protection details. But I have to seriously question if what we are witnessing here is gross incompetence or it's that the Secret Service is in on these attempts somehow.

Granted, unlike the Butler shooting, the shooter is in custody, and so we may be able to know much more about his motivations and what led up to this attempt. I am certain there will be more hearings held, and maybe that too can offer some insight.

Maybe it's just that we have a lot of crazy people running around. It could be as simple as that. It's TDS that has reached an extreme level so extreme that it has now turned haters into cold-blooded killers.

Either way and whatever the answers happen to be, I just can't help but think to myself that something stinks to high Heaven here, and sooner rather than later we need to figure this out and get things back under control.

How many historical events do we need to create when it comes to Donald Trump? Most impeached. First to be indicted. First to be convicted. And now, two assassination attempts?

Enough is enough.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Jason B. Truth Has a Good Notion About the Fallacies of Allan Lichtman's Prediction Kamala Harris Will Win the Election

Is he Nostradamus? I am talking about Professor Allan Lichtman who is predicting that Kamala Harris will win the election in November. You know, the same guy who just months ago compared Joe Biden to George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and predicted that he would win the election just mere months ago?

I guess he didn't see that disastrous debate coming that shook apart Biden's chances and thrusted Vice President Kamala Harris to front of the race. But I digress.

Sure, Lichtman does have a few presidential elections under his belt. He's been making bold predictions for more than 40 years, and you can't take away from him that he's been right a lot of the time. But not because he knows what the outcomes will be. 

I admit, I do find Lichtman's prediction a bit disconcerting and alarming. But I also think he happens to be dead wrong here. But I won't steal anyone's thunder. I recently read a piece chock full of videos showing cracks in Lichtman's formula and predictions, and what's behind the "magic" of it all that I think you, dear readers, will find equally interesting and enlightening.

Jason B. Truth lays it all out in clear detail for us to enjoy and digest in his article, "Allan Lichtman Predicted a Kamala Harris Victory? Get Real!" Trust me, it's worth a read.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Last Night's Debate Was a Flop

It's the one thing I dislike the most about Trump, even though I support him and will vote for him. I know what his positions are, and I have a good idea what the country will look like if he goes back to the White House for another four years.

But all too often he simply misses golden opportunities to convey certain messages Americans need to hear. Especially those who are independent or undecided voters.

The debate last night was mediocre at best. I don't think it served to do much to change the course or move any needles. For either candidate, by the way. This was not really a debate for Democrats or Republicans who have already made up their minds. This debate was for those who are still on the fence.

To be fair, this debate was more for those voters who are mostly on the fence about Harris more than Trump. People already know who Donald Trump is and they have the past four years when he was president to go on. They have heard the messages, seen the interviews, and watched the rallies.

Trump is far from a mystery.

But that leads me to asking what in the hell was on the mind of ABC when they asked the questions? Especially the ones they asked Harris. It's not a mystery that the Kamala Harris front and center today is not the same Kamala Harris we saw for the past 3 1/2 years, and I think ABC should have dug more into that.

What the American people wanted to know was, "What is that you want to say to the American people to separate yourself from...yourself, and the positions you held for so long, and what changed your mind? Are these a change of heart that you are truly committed to now, or did you simply change your positions for political reasons? If you felt, before the nomination, that your positions may be unpopular and perhaps make you unelectable considering how radical some of them were, how can we now be assured you don't still hold these positions personally while stating different positions publicly?"

On top of that, she kept saying, "We're going to do this," and "We're going to do that." But when did ABC challenge her on those statements and ask, "Where were you for the past 3 1/2 years when all of these problems you say are problems happened under your watch alongside Biden?"

Why did they not challenge her about lying to the American people about President Biden's health? Because isn't that an important thing to consider? If you are fit to be Commander in Chief, shouldn't you be able to recognize a grave threat that comes from within the White House itself that poses danger to American lives and the state of the country?

If you would hide that, what else might you hide?

ABC could have and should have challenged her on the "record." For example, they could have asked her about one of the key concerns on most American's minds. Inflation. They could have challenged her on her claims of price gouging which everyone knows was not the reason inflation happened. They could have asked her how she plans to tackle inflation differently than Biden has.

And why did ABC not put her to task more on the border? Another key issue of concern to voters across both aisles. Why did they not press her harder on the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal which cost American lives and left billions of dollars worth of American military equipment on the ground and in the hands of the Taliban? Why not push her more on what happened and what her thoughts were on the breakdown of communication between her and Putin and Zelinsky that resulted in Putin invading Ukraine anyway?

They didn't ask her much about the economy. And when she made the claim several times that Trump's plans would cost American's $4,000 more a year to afford, why didn't they remind her of the additional $11,000 Americans must spend annually to pay for inflation, and what impact she feels that has had?

Needless to say, many opportunities were lost here. But on both sides. ABC missed the opportunity to give us a better picture of what can only be classified as, "The new and improved Kamala Harris." But Trump missed many opportunities as well to clearly state his differences and convey a stronger message to rebuke many of Harris' claims and position shifts.

Overall, neither candidate did well in my opinion. Still, I think Trump won it. But not on substance. He won it simply because there are fewer questions we need to have answered by Trump than need to be answered by Harris. Harris was the focus here. And we didn't really learn much about her at all. For that reason, I contend she lost, because the things the independents and undecideds wanted to know were simply all questions left unanswered.

She delivered talking points and campaign slogans rather than offer solutions or explanations of her sudden change in ideology on myriad issues.

Fox News has offered an invite for a second debate in October. I think both candidates need to agree to it, because I think both candidates did not accomplish their goal on this one.

Like what I write about or the way I write about it? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

It Happens to the Best of Us, It Happened to the Media

There is a saying some people like to use all the time that says, "It happens to the best of us." While the saying applies mostly to otherwise good, honest people caught in a simple mistake, I will allow the news media to have the saying at least for now.

I am fully admitting it's hard to call the media "good people."

For one thing, and this is no secret mind you, they lie. The media. And if they're not lying, they're shaping narratives that are caught somewhere between a lie and a half-truth.

It's been a long 8 or so years, folks. From the moment Donald J. Trump came down that escalator at Trump Tower to announce he was running for president to now, with Joe Biden as the sitting president. It's been one thing after the other, and constant.

If they weren't bashing Trump, or aren't bashing Trump now, they were giving praise after praise for Joe Biden—and outright lying to us about his health and fitness to be president. The untold lies about his record of successes notwithstanding.

Reality often hits the fan, so to speak. It happens to the best of us. And the media has finally come to terms with the idea that they simply cannot continue the lie about Joe Biden's health or fitness to be president anymore. The gig is up. It's simply undeniable after what can only be labeled as a complete disaster of a performance by Joe Biden on the debate stage.

There's a point when one can at least "get away" with the lie. Not that it makes it okay to tell the lie, but there's no real consequence for telling it. People will still afford you some level of credibility, and when you're in the media credentials are everything, right?

Regardless of whether you are telling the truth or not, you still have to appear intelligent and informed to a degree. Sort of like a salesman when you think about it. He might be completely full of shit, but you still feel like he mostly knows what he's talking about. He needs that. He needs you to feel that.

In the case of Biden and his debate performance, what was widely suspected to be, and that he was long-time accused of became so glaringly obvious it was simply impossible to ignore it. If this would have been a spin-room in a sales office, that performance would have been a firm acknowledgement, "There's just no way we can sell this anymore other than for what it actually is."

The media now has no other option, in order to maintain any sense of credibility, but to be honest. Joe Biden is just not fit to be president.

You saw it first, immediately following the debate from the panel on CNN. And instead of their initial thoughts quieting down, they are doubling down on the idea that Joe Biden cannot win, and especially that he shouldn't even be running at all.

Take the George Stephanopoulos interview, which was a one-on-one with Joe Biden recently. It was hard knocks. These were very direct and tough questions. I'd say probably some of the toughest questions ever posed to a sitting president, let alone a Democrat one.

There was no room in this one to sit back in one's chair contemplatively and ask the president what his favorite flavor of ice cream happened to be.

This is about the future of America, and everyone gets that.

There's also no foreseeable turnaround that's going to happen here either. I am not sure Biden gets that, or his team for that matter. The news media is not going to suddenly change their mind. Even if Biden somehow manages to pull off a good debate performance in September, I think it will be too little too late.

Suddenly all eyes will turn back to the State of the Union address, and the media will have to wonder—like so many of us already wondered before they ever would—what was he on? What did they give him? It's a rouse!

No one is going to buy it that if the president was a rambling mess on Monday through Saturday, but all put together well on Sunday, that it wasn't because of some reason. The reality is that the reality simply can no longer be ignored or brushed aside.

Why would the media turn their backs on their guy and not defend him to the hilt no matter what? Again, it's because they need to be at least somewhat credible. America is watching, and they are watching very closely. They are seeing what they are seeing, and there's no way to sell the story any other way than what's right in front of their eyes.

Granted, it doesn't mean we will start getting the whole truth from them. Come on. Get real. Look at how they continue to report on Trump. When Trump wins in November, and I think that's easier to predict now that he actually will, they're not going to give up on bashing him and telling lie after lie about him.

But see, the difference is they can still get away with the Trump lies. They cannot get away with the Biden ones. In an ironic sense, it means that what the American people at least get in the meantime is the truth we need within the other lies they'll tell. 

The lies about Trump, in other words, don't matter as much as the truth about Biden does. 

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

A Surging Post Begs a Question

Sometimes an old post surges for whatever reason and it makes me wonder why. Especially if the post in question happens to be one that is not evergreen, and really is no longer relevant. Not that I mind if a post like that does surge, of course. Regardless of whether they are relevant or not, I still get paid for them.

Unfortunately, I can't see what search terms someone may be using to find them. But this post, in particular, begs a question, especially as we are rolling deep into another presidential election coming up in November.

It has long been felt by some that our current president, Joe Biden, hasn't really been running things. So, who is? Many have suggested that it's our former president, Barack Obama, secretly behind the curtain pulling the levers and strings and serving as a shadow president.

I admit, it's always been an idea sort of "on the fringe." Even I suspect it at least. If it's not Barack Obama running things, perhaps it is a collective of sorts within the administration? 

Do we have any logs we can check to see if any staffers have been in frequent and direct contact with Obama? Or would that make things too obvious? Would there be another way the communications are occurring? 

It's tin-hatty to a degree. But nowadays you just never know. It's hard to really know what's going on when you have a president who 99% of the time appears out of his wits. What is interesting to me is that the very post that is surging, "President Obama Is Not My President," may be surging based on the very premise that he is operating as a shadow president, and people are searching for things looking for an explanation or theorem on that idea.

The post had nothing to do with that, of course. It was speaking on a Mosque that was being proposed to be built at Ground Zero where the Twin Towers were taken down by Muslim terrorists on 9/11 and Obama's support for that at the time, which I felt was a slap in the face, and an unpresidential move considering what happened there.

I already had issues with Barack Obama's actions, and this was simply a final straw to conclude that perhaps it was time for him to step down. A position that I feel now may have been a bit extreme. Nonetheless, it's very old news. So, what else could be the reason the post is surging?

Does it say anything, even, about the coming election? About the possibility more people are questioning or more deeply examining their decision in November away from Biden? Who's finding the post? Democrats? Republicans? Independents?

The latter, if that's who's looking, would be even more interesting, of course, since it's usually the independents who ultimately determine who the winner is. 

Regardless of why the post may be surging, it does seem to suggest, at least just below the surface, that if an irrelevant statement that President Obama is not my president—which is obvious—is catching some attention, that at least in title only, the idea is relevant to today in that way.

Because I would assume nobody is suddenly finding new interest in the Mosque, or even anything that occurred during Obama's lackluster presidency.

What else can it be, is the question?

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. You can also follow me on X.

Mike Pence Not Endorsing Trump Doesn't Matter

In a recent interview with Fox News, former vice president and presidential candidate, Mike Pence, said that he cannot, in good conscience, endorse former president Donald Trump in the 2024 election, but that he also cannot vote for Joe Biden under any circumstance, but that he is keeping it a secret who he will be voting for.

I might assume it would be for RFK Jr., but who knows? And frankly, who cares? It doesn't matter anymore than his lack of endorsement for Trump does.

This is not to suggest that I had issues with Pence when he served as vice president or that I took issue with his failure to question the certification of electors in 2020. I said then that I thought he carried out his duty in necessary fashion, and I continue to believe that today.

My preference would have been for Trump to have conceded the election and ask questions later. But that also does not suggest I don't believe that 2020 may well have been a stolen election.

We still need to get to that truth regardless of what we find in any outcome, because as I have said many times, our elections matter and the American people must have faith in them. A large swath of citizens have questions, and I think that demands answers.

Nonetheless, it's his decision to make whether or not he wants to endorse Trump. At the same time, I disagree with his assessments that Trump has walked away from confronting the national debt or is shying away from his commitment to the sanctity of human life. I also do not agree with him that some of these criminal charges sway his decision either—because at this time no GOP member should be okay with what essentially equates to the weaponization of our justice system for political reasons and is designed to remove choice from the American voter and stack the odds in favor of a competing party.

Is Trump the best choice for America today? That is a question that can be hotly debated. But is Trump the only choice for America right now? I think he is.

I continue to believe that we have some deeply concerning things happening within our government that has very deep roots, and threatens our democratic republic in ways that are unimaginable. Part of my support for Trump stems from that, believing that no other candidate in the recent pool of GOP contenders would have done a thing about any of it, but would have rather simply entrenched themselves into the very deep state we are fighting against and embolden it.

I also believe that Mike Pence is part of that establishment. And perhaps that's really what his motivation is to choose not to endorse Trump. Not to protect the Union. But to protect those who wish to maintain their control and power over our government and the people of this country.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or follow me on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. Want to get on board the Bitcoin surge and get some free Bitcoin? Check out FreeBitcoin for hourly spins, games and more.

The Not So State of the Union

Was it the State of the World? The State of Ukraine? Where was America in President Joe Biden's final address to the Union? If you were paying close attention, America wasn't part of it. In fact, it wasn't a State of the Union address at all. It was a campaign speech.

Where was mention of massive fentanyl deaths that are claiming the lives of 100,000 Americans every year? Drug cartels controlling our border states and the border crisis itself and the impact it has had across the nation? The cost of goods and services and eroding personal economies affecting every American household navigating through the pain of inflation? Where was talk about the massive rise in crime and chaos happening across our cities and towns?

Instead, Biden shouted at us in what was nothing less than a dark, pessimistic, and foreboding rant that put politics before American interests, and instead of addressing the core issues that are of concern to every single American.

On the issue of the economy, he tried to prop it up by saying, "Our economy is the envy of the world," even though the average American needs $11,400 more today to maintain the same lifestyle they enjoyed in 2021. Since Biden took office, grocery prices have risen 17%, cash strapping hard working Americans and straddling the poor. Instead of focusing on the core issues causing the inflation, such as the supply chain crisis and the high cost of energy, he railed against "greedy" corporations for price gouging and shrinkflation.

He once again took aim at Republicans for being the cause of trhe border crisis when everyone knows it was his decisions on day one to end Trump's border policies which was followed by a flood of illegal immigrants into our country. He blasted Republicans for not passing a border security bill that would do nothing to actually secure the border.

All in all, Biden simply missed the mark. Sure, he was amped up. He was more voracious than usual. But it was all for show. What was missing from his riled-up speech was substance. It was missing the core issues and what he plans to do about them. What was missing was where we are now, how we got here, and what he will do to fix it. According to Joe Biden, everything is fine in America, and we just can't see it.

He offered no solutions. He passed the buck. He assigned blame. He shrugged off bearng any responsibility for many of the issues we are faced with, and in typical Joe Biden fashion, he entirely dismissed the real State of the Union Americans are actually living in.

He chided and scolded and blasted, fist pounded and yelled. He looked and sounded more like an angry old man hyped up on too much coffee than a president ready and willing to lead all Americans united together into a better and brighter future.

I won't call his speech out as a total disaster. But it wasn't good, and I don't think it wins Biden any points except among his die-hard supporters which, quite frankly, are leaving in droves every single day as his policies and actions separate themselves from the reality we are all dealing with that cannot be escaped from.

What Americans want from our leaders is a sense of urgency that we can see they feel when times are not so good, and for them to accept and acknowledge the reality rather than sell us a bill of goods. We want to be understood and uplifted and have a sense that our leadership will forge better paths ahead for us.

How can we be assured that the challenges we face can be addressed and made into achievements if our leaders don't even convey a sense that the challenges exist?

When President Biden denies the truth and turns a blind eye, it leaves Americans with no hope. No sense of resolution. When his focus is on the safety and protection of other countries and other people while leaving Americans behind, it makes Americans wonder which country it is he is leading?

I would find it hard to believe that any honest, thinking person who watched that speech walked away feeling better about the current state of, or future of America. And that was the job of the State of the Union. It was the job of President Joe Biden.

Like so many other jobs since his administration took control of the White House, he didn't get this job done. Even if his speech really was essentially a campaign speech, you can't win over the American people and earn their vote relying on denial and lies to get it. All the assurances that we are on the right path and have strong future prospects have to be conjoined with the reality Americans actually live.

His State of the Union did not accomplish that.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. Sharing my blogs on X, Facebook and other social media is also a great way to support my page if you like what I do here. As always, thanks for reading. You are appreciated more than you know.

More Questions than Answers with No Cognitive Test for Biden

"The President passes a cognitive test every single day," said Karine Jean-Pierre in response to questions relating to why Biden did not have a cognitive test included in his annual physical.

The problem with her answer is, of course, that the question of his mental state is the very reason the question is a question. The People want to know, and it has been a question for a very long time. Not only for Republicans who have already largely decided the answer. But Democrats have been asking it as well.

So, what are we to believe is the real answer here, because any thinking person has to question the choice that was made here by the doctor and why the Biden administration decided to not push the issue? You would think that with a president so heavily questioned about his memory and fitness mentally to lead the country—someone would have decided to insist on the test to be done simply to hopefully put the question to rest.

All the decision does, to not do the test, is to raise more questions.

Did the doctor truly determine no test was needed? Or did the Biden administration persuade the doctor to conclude that because they all knew he wouldn't be able to pass it?

In fact, the question was a rather hot one right after the Hur report was released which made comments about Biden's memory, with Karine Jean-Pierre fiercely claiming, "You do not see the president as we do, and he is very sharp in all of our encounters." Biden angrily lashed out at reporters that his memory is fine while only mere moments later introducing the President of Egypt as the President of Mexico.

Even Biden himself should have insisted the test be done to prove to the prying public that they are wrong about their questions.

Perhaps they feel it was a smarter move to avoid the test and potentially avoid their Pocahontas moment such as was the fate for Senator Elizabeth Warren and her Cherokee claims. At the same time, I think what they were up against was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Because people aren't dumb. If Biden couldn't pass the test, which many people believe he can't, the answer in the minds of voters remains the same despite the doctor claiming that no test was necessary.

President Joe Biden is in mental decline, and that is precisely why no test was done.

Because we are smack dab in the middle of an election here, and all the Democrats want to do is win it. I have a strong suspicion that they already have plans in place to remove Joe Biden from office as soon as he does win it, if he should happen to win.

The 25th amendment could be applied, and Kamala Harris has already stated to the American people, "I am ready to lead," which seems to suggest she may become the president in the event of a Biden/Harris victory.

Does this hurt Joe Biden's chances of winning? I think it does. A large portion of Democrats are not convinced. And not all Democrats hate the country. Most Democrats, according to all the polls, can't stand Kamala Harris and find her to be a disaster in waiting if she ever becomes president. 

Either way, the fact remains that not including a cognitive test in his annual physical was a major misstep. Simply telling the American people he passes a cognitive test every single day is not enough. Because in the eyes of the American people, he is not passing that test. If we can't see it, your answer and the doctor's opinion mean nothing.

Like the way I write or the things I talk about? Follow me on my Facebook page or follow me on X under Twitter handle @jimbauer601. Do you want some free Bitcoin? Check out this Free Bitcoin Generator and have some fun while earning cryptocurrency.

Trump's Support Only Grows Despite Denials

I am sometimes, or I should say often times, confused by how some people's minds work. And that's not meant to be an insult in any way. It is simply an observation that I think some people's minds simply aren't functioning properly.

Take this statement we hear all too often, "Trump is losing support."

Huh?

I mean, to believe that one would have to completely have their head buried literally in the sand. It is demonstrably untrue. I know many people want to believe it, of course. Facts are hard for some people to swallow and even harder for some people to accept.

Trump is GAINING support. And in droves.

Granted, you do have to take polls with a grain of salt most of the time. They just aren't necessarily reliable. At the same time, when they begin to show a pattern, you have to take them more seriously. At least on the surface.

Trump is winning.

What is more telling here is where the polls generally come from and the way most polls are weighted to favor Democrats. If these polls show Trump in the lead, it means more than when it showed Hillary Clinton was in the lead. 

BECAUSE the polls are weighted to favor Democrats.

And because the polls are weighted to favor Democrats, when X number of people say they are supporting Trump for president, it means that the number of people actually supporting Trump for president are much higher.

In other words, the polls may well be weighted to favor Democrats, but there comes a time when that extra weighting gets crushed by reality and the reality becomes more and more evident in the results.

President Biden's approval ratings across every single issue important to Americans are in the tank. Americans are not happy with what he's doing. It's clear as a bell. You can't hide it because the reality is just too strong right now.

You couple that with what the polls are showing regarding Trump winning in key swing states, that's telling. You match this information up with how strong his support among Republicans is, that's telling. You look at where Trump is fairing regarding his own approval on key issues, that's telling too.

Americans are overwhelmingly agreeing Trump is better equipped to deal with the economy. He is seen as the one who can fix the border crisis and deal with the crime issues. He is seen as the one who can better manage the current wars happening around the world.

Across the board, and among nearly every demographic, Trump is gaining support. He is also gaining the confidence of the American people.

Also telling is the growing, and I mean growing number of Americans who are now saying they believe something was not right about the 2020 election and are questioning what happened and who was really behind January 6th. There is also a growing number of Americans unhappy with the indictments and constant negative media reporting about Trump—they are rightly asking the question, how bad is this guy, really?

In other words, they are seeing through the smoke and mirrors and less than ever are buying into every story being told.

Still, some people refuse to believe it. They refuse to accept it. 

But Trump IS gaining support. Believe it or not. Accept it or not. The truth cannot be made into an untruth. 

In 2016 Trump got 63 million votes. In 2020 he got 74 million votes. That means 17.5% more people voted for him in 2020 than did in 2016. He gained support. He still lost, if we believe the results, but nonetheless, the argument could not be made that he lost support.

He had 8% of the black vote in 2016. He had 10% in 2020. It is estimated he has 11%-13% of it now. He gained black voters.

He is also polling well among women, college students and Hispanics. He is gaining support. 

This is not to say that his winning in the general come November is a shoo-in. I want to be very clear about that. And it is not to say we can necessarily trust the polls either. I am simply saying that Trump is stronger than ever and is just getting stronger, and no matter how many people want to deny it or not believe it, the reality is telling a much different story, and the polls can't bury the truth any more than the media is able to right now.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

Donald Trump: The Greatest Show on Earth

I recall being captivated and mesmerized by the ever evolving and twisting plot lines of that TV show, House of Cards. Even if the show was pure fiction, one wonders how much of it was actually true? Not the story itself. But how politics really operates. Behind closed doors. What really goes on?

Especially in our current times.

A show like that gives us a deeper look into what power actually looks like, and what people may be willing to do to get it and hold onto it. It's a dangerous place, Washington D.C. And perhaps if House of Cards had any basis at all in fact, I'll be damned if wasn't a fictionalized documentary somewhat loosely based on the life and careers of the Clintons.

What we have unfolding before us now is a new show. Except that this one isn't fiction. It's a reality show unlike any other one we have seen before. And people are glued to their screens. There are twists and turns at every corner. And the plots seem to get crazier than ever.

It started at the first scene when Trump came down his escalator at Trump Towers to announce he was running for president. The fire of politics was set ablaze and the powers on both sides' insides churned. Perhaps the threat wasn't truly appreciated at first. Until one-by-one Trump toppled what would have been top contending opponents on the debate stage and all along the campaign trail.

He had to be stopped.

And they tried everything to do it. The GOP scrambled to find a reason to bar him being nominated. Even when it was clear he would be the nominee, they tried to find ways to deny it. The Democrats were already in talks long before Trump even won the election about impeachment in case he actually did win.

Ultimately Trump did get the nomination of course. In the end to deny it would have been a form of political suicide for the Republican party. "But he won't win," they thought and talked about in closed circles. "We'll just have to deal with the reality that Hillary will be the president and we'll work on the next election."

But he did win. Not by the popular vote. But he won the electoral college, and in the end that's all that matters. And he won despite what all the polls suggested that it was a practical shoo-in for Hillary Clinton.

The party had no choice but to rally around him. The people decided he was not only the president, but the presiding face of the Republican party.

But of course, his presidency was fraught with one challenge after another. He was caught in the crosshairs of investigations, impeachment hearings, a media onslaught and a long list of what became known as Never-Trumpers within his own party.

Not a single accomplishment would go without scrutiny and even denial it ever occurred. The Democrat party all but censured Trump, not by vote, but by their actions, dismissing nearly everything he tried to do, claiming his presidency was not only illegitimate. But that he stole it with the help of the Russians.

Without question, I don't think anyone can deny that Trump's presidency was perhaps the most sensationalized of any presidency ever. The entire term ran like a TV show right down to a Speaker of the House ripping up a State of the Union speech—something you would have thought you would never see in real life except on TV.

And then there was the election fallout. People went to bed with Trump clearly in the lead only to wake up the next morning and discover that Biden had won. And there were all sorts of controversy surrounding that. And then there was the "insurrection." 

This was a made for TV series of events unlike any other even the best writers could ever have dreamed up. And now we have all the king's horses and all the king's men once again trying to deny Trump's ability to even run with states sending cases to their state supreme courts to deny primary ballot access.

And of course, there are all the wild accusations of criminal intent and indictments stacked up against him—whether or not there is any merit to any of it isn't what matters. It's made the entire process a show that is impossible not to watch.

Because it's that power we're seeing coming front and center for us all to witness first-hand. This is the true nature of politics, or at least what it has become. 

It has been the greatest show on Earth, and we don't know how it ends yet. We're just in season 7. 

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

Axelrod Says Biden May Have Worse than 50/50 Chance of Winning in 2024

I am no fan of David Axelrod, Obama's former campaign guru, but I agree with him when he recently publicly said that he feels Biden's chances of winning in 2024 are not only basically 50/50, but more likely much worse.

Granted, neither Biden nor Axelrod are fans of each other. Biden publicly called Axelrod a prick once. Either way, you have to at least give Axelrod credit for knowing a thing or two about elections and campaigns. 

Besides, I think one would actually have to be a fool to even consider Biden has any chance at all—despite who he is obviously running against and all the baggage that has been placed on Trump—if you use past history as any indication of what should happen here.

I mean, the guy's had a worse presidency than the worst president of all time, Jimmy Carter for Heaven's sake. It's been a literal disaster for the last four years. I think even many democrats, although they'd not be willing to state it out loud, would even admit things were much better when Trump was around than with Biden mucking the place up.

Nothing's working. That's the bottom line. And Biden's just not liked. Many don't even believe he's pulling the freaking reins here. So, who is? Who knows?

Either way, the country is going to hell in a handbasket and the people who vote simply can't ignore it. Beyond that, even while polls are often terribly unreliable, the polls are showing very strong leads by Trump in key swing states—states that are critical to win in any general.

Why do I find the polls a little bit more reliable in this case?

Two things to observe here. Polls are traditionally heavily weighted to side with democrats and many Trump supporters won't necessarily be openly vocal about their support for him.

So, if the polls are showing Trump leading, you have to run away with the thought that the numbers may be even bigger in support of Trump than the polls could even possibly demonstrate. I mean, I'm not going to call it now and say Trump might win by a landslide in 2024.

But I think Trump is going to win by a landslide in 2024.

Okay, okay. You caught me. I said that about Trump against Hillary in 2016 and that wasn't exactly a landslide. But it was an undeniable strong lead against her even if she ultimately beat him by 2 million votes in the popular vote.

You have a couple of things happening here. One is that Trump's popularity has only gained the more the democrats and the media have gone after him, and really, when you get down to the brass tacks here, there's simply nothing positive for Biden to even run on.

Sure, he can go out there and tout all those jobs he "created." But most people understand those were simply returning workers from the shutdowns. Not new jobs. He can go out there and talk the economy up. But Americans on both sides of the aisle can see their utility bills. They can see the final price at the gas pump higher than it was when Trump was president. They feel the reality of the economy any time they walk into a grocery store and fill their carts.

No matter which side you happen to be on, you have eyes, and you have a brain, and people can see and understand right in front of them that things aren't nearly as peachy as is being painted.

Not only that, but one has to wonder. Is Biden outright lying to us? Or is he just stupid? Maybe it's a little bit of both, actually. Again, who knows? Biden's a liar anyway, and he never did seem too bright. So, it could be anything.

The bottom line here is that it's not just David Axelrod ringing the alarm bells. Even when you look at approval ratings, it's just clear that practically no one thinks Biden is doing a good job. A recent poll also showed that more than 70% of those polled believes Trump is better equipped to handle the economy than Biden is.

And let's face it. The economy is sort of what Biden seems to want to be running on.

He simply has no solid ground to stand on. He can try to sell unicorns and rainbows, but nobody's actually buying it.

Speaking of polls, what's telling as well of Axelrod's rather grim prediction, is that not only is Trump beating Biden in nearly all of them. So are Trump's top 2 rivals. And they aren't small numbers there either. 

Both Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley beat Biden by several percentage points according to most polls.

Now, there is yet another dynamic to consider as well. That's the never Trumper or anyone who will simply not vote for Trump under any circumstance. This actually puts votes right in Trump's pockets. I mean, look at where RFK Jr. is. He doesn't beat Biden. Not by a longshot. But if he gets 2% or 3% of the vote?

It's curtains for Biden even if Biden has any chance at all without someone contesting him. And yet another poll, among democrats only, says 54% would prefer a different candidate than Biden.

For whatever it's worth, I think it is very clear (even if it still too early to tell) who will be president in 2024. And while I won't say it will be Trump, I can say it won't be Biden. But of course, I have a brain too, and so I think we can all agree it will actually be Trump who takes the win.

David Axelrod may be a prick in the eyes of Joe Biden. But in the eyes of the American people, Biden's a loser.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or follow me on Twitter (X) @jimbauer601. 

Election Denial Is Not a Reason to Say No

Former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and many others in Congress on both sides, in this whole clown show we currently are watching unfold before our eyes as we once again can't seem to pick a speaker are citing Jim Jordan's "election denial" position as a key reason he simply can't be the speaker. 

But do we have short term memory problems here, folks?

Beyond just the tweet from 2017 from Nancy Pelosi that resurfaced after she publicly made the same assertion that denying Biden's win is a big reason to say no to Jim Jordan's bid in which she wrote, "Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to protect our democracy and follow the facts." What the hell was the entire four years about while Trump was president? What seemed to be the primary function of Congress under Speaker Pelosi's charge?

To deny the election of President Trump and get him out.

The odd thing to me is this. In 2016 there was no evidence that the election did not happen as the voters decided it. And I don't say that as a republican nor as a Trump supporter. I say that because there was literally nothing to suggest that Trump did not win in 2016 other than innuendo and accusation placed by Hillary Clinton and the democrat party that somehow Trump colluded with the Russians to seal the deal.

Something that was clearly debunked at every turn no matter how long investigations ensued trying to make their accusation valid. But of course, they couldn't because it simply wasn't true.

But that didn't matter. Not to the media. And not to the democrat party. In their eyes Trump simply was not the legitimate president under any circumstance and it was their job to oppose him no matter what and oust him from office whatever it would take.

The work of the American people, in their eyes, literally became the removal of a duly elected, sitting president against the will of the American people, and to convince the American people they were doing the right thing.

Going back to that "no evidence" argument regarding 2016, there seems to be quite a bit of it regarding 2020—or if it is not evidence per se, it's at least a lot of question marks that deserve a deeper dive look and some more definitive answers other than, "Biden won, just deal with it."

Look, I am not even so much an election denier as I am simply a concerned citizen who thinks our elections matter, and if there are questions, we ought to be interested in knowing what the real answer is. Perhaps if the media and the then leader of the House, and even the American people had been quick to dismiss the idea of a stolen election in 2016, I could accept a quick dismissal of the same in 2020.

But we have a complete reversal here, and we have since Biden was "elected."

Jim Jordan has simply been one of the more vocal congressmen asking questions and wanting answers. "Let's look into it," he has said. Because again, unlike the Russia collusion hoax which had all sorts of evidence pointing to "it didn't happen," the questions regarding to 2020 at least point to, "it possibly happened."

Without rehashing the suggestions I have made in the past, which I believe are legitimate questions; we know that Trump received 10 million more votes in 2020 than he got in 2016. We know that Biden supposedly got the highest number of votes for any elected president in the history of the United States, and that before mail-in ballots were counted, which were about 90% for Biden, Trump was winning the electoral college.

If nothing else, I think we need to know more about how those mail-in ballots were received. By whom and under what oversight? What checks and balances were there and how were they verified? 

Either way, what we have here is simply a mess of great proportion. And it is costing the American people valuable time. Not only that, but it's also thoroughly eroding any sense by Americans that we can rely on our government and our elected officials to get things done that are critical to our lives and to the nation's needs.

For the past 7 years what we've seen is chaos. Frankly from both sides. And right now, at least on our side, we're seeing massive division that is hurting us, and I think it may hurt us going into 2024 no matter who the nominee happens to be, even if I am convinced to this point it will be Trump.

We cannot be a party divided and stand any more than we can be a nation divided and stand. If the question barring Jim Jordan from the speakership is simply his stance on the 2020 election, well, we've been down this road before with Pelosi. No one complained about her attacks on the election which led to four years of investigations and impeachments. So, why should it be a problem for Jordan?

Granted, I don't want to see more of what we saw under Pelosi. But at the same time, I also think there is just too much work to be done that isn't getting done as bickering back and forth seems to be the only job Congress has any more.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on Facebook, YouTube and X at @JimBauer601 to keep up with the latest from all the places I share my thoughts and opinions.

Just STOP With the Impeachment Talk

Don't get me wrong. I don't like President Joe Biden and think his administration is a complete and total failure seriously harming the lives of Americans and erasing much progress we've made as a country in recent years.

Or even over decades.

That being said, with Speaker McCarthy tossing out that word, "impeachment," it grates on me a bit. Has Biden done anything impeachable? Perhaps the real answer so far is that we simply don't know yet. Are there things that should be seriously looked into regarding Biden, especially his dealings with his son and the many allegations that have surfaced long before he "won" the 2020 election and became president.

Okay, there is also, for me, the lingering question about what really happened with that 2020 election—I am not one to outright say he stole it by the way. I simply think there are too many unanswered questions and it troubles me more Americans aren't at least interested in the possible answers.

That would be an impeachable offense for sure.

Beyond that I think, and this became very apparent with Trump's presidency, that impeachment may be becoming just a political thing more than a tool to potentially remove a really bad guy from office. It's simply losing its strength as something to be taken seriously. And I think impeachment should be an absolute last resort and very serious thing for very serious infractions having been committed by our top elected official.

Nixon, had he been impeached rather than resign, I think would have been warranted.

None of Trump's impeachments were serious, especially considering the allegations were all false, and anyone really paying attention would have immediately known it was all about a democrat party simply not liking who was in the White House and trying to find any way they could to remove him, regardless of whether there was cause or not.

It's not the same thing but it's at least relatable, but the word "racism" has suffered similar softening. It was overused and accusations of racism were assigned to things that had nothing to do with race at all. The word no longer has the stigma it once did. Racism uttered now is more likely to conjure rolled eyes than serious horror.

Is Joe Biden fit to be president? No. Is Joe Biden doing a good job and advancing causes for the American people? No. Is his presidency benefiting the country or Americans? No. But are any of the things he's doing (or not doing) impeachable? No.

He's just a terrible president and that's all. 

I think the best course for the republican party is to simply focus on 2024 and how we convince the American people to make the best choice for America. Which granted will be a tough sell considering Trump is the foreseeable front runner and regardless whether or not I have no problem with him returning to the White House, many Americans are apprehensive—despite my belief that many of those apprehensions are based on lies and innuendo and false pretenses.

In other words, people have formed their opinion of Trump largely on what the media has led them to believe, not necessarily based on what the truth is. Even with all of the supposed charges and indictments against him, it is being used as a "thing to consider." But of course, people paying attention know it's all just politics and based on nothing but that.

I simply think we're too quick lately to throw out impeachment and it is doing more damage to the tool of impeachment than anything. If we reach a point where a real impeachment is absolutely necessary, no one will take it seriously because we've removed seriousness from the option to use it for real reasons.

Drop the impeachment thing, McCarthy and let's just get our attention on the upcoming presidential election and use our time to form strategies to bring our message to the American people why the ONLY choice in 2024 should be the GOP.

Like what I have to say or the way I say it? Check out my new YouTube channel, "The Springboard," where I talk about money, business, investing, saving and other money related issues. You can check out my channel here.