Suggesting Trump Will Seek a Third Term is Stupidity

I swear, sometimes the left can be so stupid. Yes, I said it. even though it does break my rules just a little bit. I try very hard to avoid name calling since I usually believe it kills the argument. But sometimes the left just does things, or especially says things, that are just stupid, and you can't do anything else but call it out for what it is. 

This is particularly true when it comes to things Trump says that the left just hangs on and spins this way, that way, and the other.

Do they really believe what they say Trump is saying half the time is true? It seems they do. Or they are trying very hard to convince people that Trump is saying things he's actually not saying at all. 

When he said, "I will be a dictator on day one," it spun their heads around and the next thing you know it was all the left could talk about. For them it was confirmation.

"He's Hitler! Here's the proof!"

The thing is, we all know what he said. We all know what he meant. And we all know the context of what he said. He was not saying he wanted to be dictator at all. It was tongue and cheek. It was not meant to be a proclamation. And it wasn't one.

So, what's the latest? The 3-term president comment. I don't even think the left is really paying attention. He said, "I might even be considered a three-term president." He did not say he was intending on changing the rules even though he did reference Franklin Delanor Roosevelt who died in office during his fourth term before changes were made limiting presidents to two terms.

Granted, and I have said this many times, sometimes Trump does say things that can be easily misinterpreted or read wrong. But at the same time, one simply has to understand Trump and how he talks to get through to what he is actually saying.

He believes he won the election in 2020. Whether or not you believe that doesn't matter. But he believes it. And he knows that many Americans, especially many of his supporters, also happen to believe it. 

During the entire time he has been out of office he has done presidential things. He's met with world leaders. He's headed his party. He's endorsed candidates and campaigned for them. He's kept talking to the American people. He's gone to places where disasters have occurred affecting Americans.

In the eyes of some he's the legitimate president. Some people across the oceans believe it too. And that's the context one need to add to what he said about the three terms.

If Trump was president in 2016, and he was the acting president in 2020, and then is reelected in 2024, that would be his presumed third term holding office. Again, perhaps his wording makes it difficult to grasp that. But that's essentially what he is referring to.

"I might be considered a three-term president."

In other words, historians one day might make the assertion that even if the published result was that Biden won the 2020 election, in the eyes of many Americans, Trump never really left office. He just governed from somewhere other than the White House. If he wins in 2024, it's sort of a confirmation that Americans were really on his side all along even if the face at the podium bearing the Presidential Seal belonged to Joe Biden.

It is patently stupid to suggest that Trump is saying he will seek a third term in 2028. For one thing, Trump has always been a champion of the Constitution, and constantly talks about the government as The People's Government. He never says, when referring to the White House as his house, but rather our house.

He's not a dictator. He has no interest in the power. He simply wants to do what's right for the American people and continue the work he started in 2016 that went on pause in 2020.

Granted, it may just be another tactic rather than stupidity. But it sure should make anyone being sold this line feel like at least their own intelligence is being challenged. The left has no record. I've said that a million times. They know it. So, all they can do lacking a record is try to scare the American people into voting against Trump.

If they can paint him as an evil man wanting to be a ruler as opposed to being a president, they will pull out all the stops to do it. In the meantime, it gets really frustrating even though I happen to think that most Americans aren't dumb enough to fall for any of it—and their displaying of their stupidity on the left actually helps Donald Trump.

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. You can also check out my YouTube channel, The Springboard.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Did HubPages Shadow Ban Me?

Is it about quality, or is it something else? As you are probably aware, I also write for HubPages, which is a community of several sister sites including HubPages itself. And just like here, a lot of the content I write is regarding conservative politics. 

Something that is not necessarily discouraged over there, by the way. I think that's important to point out. I don't want to be unfair to HubPages at all. Several of my conservative posts are what they call, "featured." In other words, a featured post is one that HubPages has determined meets certain quality standards such as good, solid content that is a certain length, that is generally well put together and worthy of being "listed" on their main page, or becomes published on one of their sister sites.

Unfeatured posts are almost invisible. 

I say almost because of course, over the years I have a bit of a "built-in" audience. So, it's not like no one will see a post that is not featured. And even though I have my profile settings set to only show featured articles, I can still physically include an unfeatured article in the highlights, and I did that.

When I look over the article in question, "We Must Put Our Country Before Party," there is nothing about it that seems to obviously separate it from anything else I may have written on the site that has been featured before it.

Although in it, I mention (or question) the mental capacity of President Joe Biden. Could that have something to do with it? Is it an article lacking quality? Or is it one they simply don't like what it implies? I don't even do it in a particularly mean way. In fact, it was not accusatory in so much as it was simply suggestive.

The question for me is, am I being shadow banned simply because the editorial team dislikes the context of my content rather than it being an issue of "quality," as was suggested in the form letter that is often provided when an article on HubPages is not featured.

In the letter it says, "It's possible that your article is not featured because it contains spammy elements." The post promotes nothing at all and in fact, contains no links at all. Neither does it make any reference to other articles on their site or elsewhere.

They go on to say, "If you don't see any spammy elements in your article, then it was likely defeatured for failing to meet HubPages' general quality standards." That is a fairly generic statement, especially considering I have been writing for HubPages for 15+ years and am quite aware of their quality standards and how to write and structure an article that meets them.

Over 50 of my articles are featured, and of the ones that aren't, they were featured at one time. The reason they are not now is due to their age and their current relevance, since many of my articles are not evergreen, and became unfeatured over time simply due to a lack of traffic to them.

How many people today are reading about the presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama?

Other suggestions regarding quality they suggest is that the article may have been too short or underdeveloped. It far surpassed the 700 minimum word count, and it was not laid out any different than previous similar content. "It may have had formatting issues, broken or unrelated links, and/or significant grammatical errors."

None of those are at issue. Granted, that's based on my own personal assessment. But again, the article follows the same general manner in which I write all of my pieces, regardless of where I happen to write them.

The point of my discontent here is not that my article was not featured. I have been writing long enough to know that not everything is the highest quality, and even I can admit when I may not have put my all into something. 

It happens. I get it. It doesn't bother me. 

What does bother me is that if it appears to be the case that a form of censorship, outright or simply making something hidden, is what's happening—that's where I take issue. I write opinion. Sometimes it's not a popular one. But it doesn't mean it doesn't belong somewhere.

And that's not to discount the fact that I actually appreciate the high standards by which HubPages determines its content. It makes the site better. It drives more traffic to the site because even though it is a mostly self-publishing platform, there are still eyeballs making decisions in back rooms to determine what they show to readers to find.

Like I said, I have a built-in audience. But that organic traffic which can help to build and grow that audience comes from articles that are featured. So, what happens to an unfeatured article and why does it matter? Why could it be considered a form of shadow banning? 

Featured articles enjoy increased visibility is one reason. For example, an unfeatured article lives on HubPages. But it's not on their "Discover" page, which is the main page everyone sees when they go to the site who do not have an account. If something is not featured, only your existing audience will ever see it.

Featured articles are showcased on topic pages and appear as "Related Articles" on other similar featured posts. They are also made available to search engines. In other words, if your article is not featured, it lives on the site, but it is kept from searches. It is internal to HubPages, but is deeply buried and much harder for anyone to find.

As I said before. It is almost invisible.

Just like any media is going to be, there are many within their office walls who tend to be liberals and of course, carry on with a very liberal agenda. Conservative speech is not banned on the site. Not hardly. But it's also not the first time very specific speech has been shadow banned by the site.

To me it is a matter of that slippery slope. Free speech is free speech, and all opinions, even if we strongly disagree with them, deserve to be heard. If you're not careful, eventually only certain selected speech is ever allowed.

I don't think that my comments in the article in question were harsh or mean. I also do not think they were unfair or didn't at least provide some context and explanation behind why I made them. I think they just made an editorial decision to keep the opinion as quiet as possible.

I did send a response asking if they could provide a more detailed explanation. But often times those go unanswered. 

The important thing for me is that all voices be heard and that even if the content does not agree with the opinions of the editorial staff, articles should not be hidden from view based only on that alone. At the same time it is their site and I respect what they do, and what their site allows me to do. I will respect their decision regardless. 

But of course, I will also publicly share my opinion on what I think about it.

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

Social Security and the Global Cash Shuffle

by Leonard Knath, staff writer

I am starting to wonder about the money. You know, the money we supposedly don't have to shore up Social Security that the Democrats keep throwing out there? "It will be insolvent by (insert date here)." It's something we've heard for decades, and the prediction seems sort of akin to the one about the end of the world disaster claims the left likes to make all the time.

You know, those lefties. They sure do like to predict disasters, don't they? It's almost like a favorite pastime of theirs.

The end of the world is coming folks. Hold onto your britches, grab your ankles and stock up on your kale and kombucha.

Oh yeah. And don't forget to send us some more money to make sure we can take care of these most important issues facing all of humanity. Yeah, yeah. More taxes. Lefties like those too. Only, so long as it comes from someone else's wallet—let's go bilk the rich!

How long has Social Security been going insolvent for now? It's not gone yet. It's just sort of chugging along like a rusty tricycle. But it's coming. That front wheel is going to come off any time. It's just a matter of time, folks.

Are we to believe them? 

There are billions of dollars of cash going over to Ukraine. Israel gets a billion-dollar arms coupon. Didn't we drop pallets of green on Iran not that long ago? There's a lot of money, it would seem, for everyone else. But Grandma's clutching onto her Social Security check like it's the last Twinkie before the apocalypse.

Priorities, right?

Not that I have anything against Israel. It's a real and frightening reality show over there. It's Survivor: The Middle East Edition. Only you don't get voted off. You die. The same goes for Ukraine. It's a tragedy. I feel for them too.

But what about Grandma? She just wants a modest check to keep her bingo nights alive. And she paid her dues to get it.

How does it look to her when she sees the government seems to have pockets deeper than the Mariana Trench but when it comes to finding money to shore up Social Security, the government turns their empty pockets inside out?

Stealth bombers? Sure, let's put in a few orders. What's a trillion bucks? Chump change, really. Money to go around to secure the rest of the world? Sure, fire up the presses. We've got work to do, folks. Who cares if we don't really have the money? 

What we have to do is cut through the bullshit. Americans have paid their dues. The government has made promises it ought to be able to keep. Americans work hard, grinding the 9 to 5 hamster wheels dodging office politics and burnt coffee.

All the while Grandma's been sending money her entire life to the very people now telling her they can't afford to give anything back. She may have some cataracts, but she's not blind. She sees all the money going to everyone else. Not only did she pay into Social Security. She paid into all the other stuff too that the government wants to spend money on.

The time is now to ask our government, where's our slice of the pie? When do Americans matter more than the rest of the world? Why do we keep sending the government money only to be told they don't have any for us while shelling out untold trillions to anyone but Americans?

It's a lie. It has to be. Either way, whether or not the money actually exists isn't even the point. If the government can find the money to support everyone else, I think they can surely find the money to help Grandma.

Leonard Knath, pronounced like math, is a seeker of truth and an adamant denier of the status quo. He makes his home in Stratford, New Jersey in Camden County where he lives with his wife Dee and their two cats, Lawson and Saul.

For more great content from The Springboard, follow us on Facebook to keep up with the latest posts.

© 2024 Leonard Knath 

Democrats Don't Have to Own the Consequences of $20 Minimum Wage

Even though the reality is that it's mostly the Democrats who hold most of the wealth, they are always trying to paint themselves as "for the working class." When it comes to the $20 an hour wage hike in California for fast food workers with some exceptions, of course all of the things we said would happen are happening.

Layoffs, reduced hours, and price increases.

There's a reality in all of this, as there always is, that you simply can't get blood out of a stone, the money is not there that everyone believes is, and you can't just make up a number and say, "Everyone can afford to pay that."

It's just not how it works in the real world. In order to determine an appropriate wage, you must first evaluate the books to see if you can afford it.

Most of the time when it comes to the majority of things Democrats do, I tend to believe they simply want what they want, and they don't think things through. They never consider the consequences of what they do or evaluate the impact. In this case, I am inclined to wonder, "Are they doing this quite on purpose. Is it part of a larger picture strategy?"

The Democrats want you to hate the rich. They want you to think that these companies and business owners only care about their bottom lines and themselves and couldn't care less about their workers on the front lines.

As people are laid off, hours are cut and prices rise, the Democrats can go before the American people and proclaim, "We've got your back, and look at what they do in response? They don't care about you." In other words, even though to any thinking person the blame lands squarely on the Democrats who raised the wage to cause the problems, they can pretend it's all the mean, greedy corporation's fault.

The Democrats can simply wave their magic wand and whatever happens, they don't have to own it. Just like they mostly did with regard to inflation. "It's not our fault. These businesses are simply gouging you, and that's why prices are higher."

It's those evil rich that are at it again, taking your money and exploiting their workers for their own gain.

It's patently untrue. We, on the conservative side, know it. But there are a good many people who will fall for the narrative and completely believe it and that is what the Democrats are banking on. When someone gets laid off or has their hours cut due to the $20 an hour wage hike, who will they blame? Gavin Newsom? Or the business owner?

Most likely they are going to blame the business owner. The Democrats get to look like they are doing all the right things and when things don't happen as expected, they can blame someone else for what happens.

Everyone wants people to make more money and have more opportunities. The difference lies in how we accomplish that best. Because the commonsense thing is that in order for people to really realize these opportunities, it has to be a win, win situation. If the businesses are the source of the opportunity, and they are, then their health and well-being is just as important as the health and well-being of the workers. 

I often say to beware of someone who offers "help." Because all too often there's an ulterior motive to it, and it's going to come with a catch. While it may all look and sound good on paper, the reality is that it will probably do more harm than good. Especially if it it's coming from a Democrat.

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.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Watch the Democrats Closely on the SAVE Act

It is something that has been talked about ad infinitum for decades. Voter ID. Yet the left, of course, has forever been adamantly opposed to it. They say it is an attempt by Republicans to oppress and disenfranchise certain sectors of society and make it harder for them to vote.

The reality is that voter ID requirements would do neither of those things. In fact, it would ensure the integrity of our elections and protect every single American and ensure all votes in elections are fairly cast.

Our elections in this country are one of the most sacred things we have to maintain our Republic the way that our founding fathers intended. The voice of the People matters in our representative system of government, and it ought to be taken damn seriously.

Recently, U.S. Senators John Kennedy and Mike Lee joined forces, along with other Republican colleagues, to introduce the SAVE Act, or the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, which would provide an amendment to the National Voter Registration Act to make it clear that states must require proof of citizenship when they register individuals to vote in federal elections.

The main concern is the massive influx of illegal border crossings that are occurring as a result of the disastrous border policies of the current administration.

While it is already set in law that only citizens can vote in federal elections, how do you safeguard that when you don't know who is casting the vote, or whether they are truly eligible to vote at all? And what is the potential, say, if even just 1% of the illegals who have entered the country do vote somehow? That's potentially hundreds of thousands of votes which can very much impact the results.

The SAVE Act does not require voter ID. It simply requires states to prove votes are cast by confirmed citizens. But it does leave it up to the states to determine how they go about this.

The bill would also require states to clean up their existing voter rolls and remove any current non-citizens from them. It would provide for more accountability, creating higher federal penalties for registering non-citizens to vote, and ensure that "proof of citizenship" is provided by voters in acceptable ways that can be verified.

I think it's a no-brainer law, frankly. It's sad we need it. But we do.

It's a Republican lead bill and what will be interesting to see is how Democrats decide to vote on it. You'd think it would be a slam-dunk bi-partisan bill. But you can almost bet Democrats will oppose it. If and when they do oppose it, I think Americans need to listen very closely to the reasons they provide against it.

The question is, what would be the harm in simply making sure the voters who vote in our federal elections are actually citizens of the United States?

We're not talking about people being oppressed or disenfranchised here. We're simply saying, "Prove you are an American citizen." Because without there being a set law that at least requires citizenship to be verified, the door is wide open for anyone to vote.

Including illegal immigrants.

The bill is up in the air for now. But I think it's one to pay close attention to especially as we draw nearer to the upcoming November presidential election. The border crisis is one created by design by the Democrat party and Biden's border policies. Do we accept that it's simply an action taken in the interest of "inclusion and acceptance of people simply seeking better lives," or if they adamantly oppose the SAVE Act can we safely assume the Democrats are simply trying to source new voters?

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