Questioning 2020 is Not About Trump, It's About America

I found myself in an interesting conversation with someone recently wherein the topic of Donald Trump came into it, as well as the 2020 election. 

I told him that I sided with the opinion that there was strong reason to suggest that the 2020 election may have been stolen, although I did not assert that I had made that conclusion and firmly believed it. "Strongly suspect," and "firmly believe," are very different positions.

"But you support Trump," he said. "That's why you think that way."

I told him that idea could work both ways. "You support Biden, and that's why you think it couldn't have happened."

The reality is that my suspicions do not, in fact, come from my support of Donald Trump. Rather they come from another place entirely. My love of country and my deeply seated patriotism. That's a very hard pill to swallow for most Americans who aren't at all on Trump's side because, of course, the media has portrayed anyone in the MAGA cause as looney toons who are active in a cult-like mentality.

While there is always going to be a fringe faction in any political party or group, it rarely makes up the whole. But it certainly gets the most attention and somehow tends to be the main focus.

Trump supporters are, by and large, simply a group of conservatives who support a leader whose values and ideas align with theirs. It doesn't make them looney. It simply makes them active participants in the political discourse who happen to have an opinion that differs from those on the left.

By their definition, that MAGA is a cult, you could say the same thing about those on the left who support Biden.

I told him, "As an American above all else, I simply want to have faith in our electoral process. I think any American should ask questions and not simply accept things because their side won."

Not only is the thought that because I support Trump, that I deny the 2020 result, it's because I am supposed to be bitter that my guy lost. Except, I have never been bitter before, and usually I can find a good reason to at least understand why my guy lost and have talked about it ad infinitum on here.

John McCain and Mitt Romney, for example, were terrible candidates who ran horrible campaigns. That's why they lost to Obama. Whether or not I agreed that the American people made the right decision, I had no reason to question that the voice of the American people was nonetheless heard.

That, above all else, should have a very big bearing on why I feel the way I do now. In other words, becoming a Trump supporter in no way made me suddenly change my overall viewpoints or how I feel about America.

I have no interest in seeing America compromised just to see a guy in office who happens to be the guy I support. We have a process. The candidates campaign, and the voters decide. It's that simple. And most of the time, it generally works out. 

Obama, for example, took us down a wrong path. But was he the worst thing to ever happen to America? I will leave that open for debate, but I think we can mostly agree that the system, at least, seemed to be working and when it came down to Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump the right choice was made.

The American people did not want to continue down Obama's path with Hillary Clinton carrying on with his "vision for America" by proxy. Despite all the accusations to suggest otherwise, all of which were proved to be false, he was duly elected and won the election fair and square.

The point of this post is not to rehash all of the reasons why I think the election may have been stolen in 2020. The point is to make it clear that what I strongly suspect has nothing at all to do with my support of Donald Trump and has everything to do with my support of country.

I simply want to know the truth because there are enough valid questions, in my view, that we need to at least be interested in seeking out the answers for.  And I think it should be a concern for every American regardless of who won or lost.

Elections matter. They always have. Elections do have consequences, and there are enough examples in history that serve as glaring examples. But the worst consequence is to have someone in office who isn't supposed to be there. To have someone who may have been selected rather than elected.

That's dangerous. It's a serious threat to our democratic republic. If we ever arrive at a point when we truly, as a people, no longer question what our government does just because "our guy" won, that's really the end of America.

We can't trust our government, and we can't trust the media. So, what's left? It's up to We the People. We need to be interested in ensuring that even if the wrong choice is made to lead us, that it was our choice to make the wrong one.

I am not sure if I was able to change the person's mind in our conversation. But if nothing else I was at least able to explain why I feel the way I do, and why I think it is important to be cynical.

It's not about winning elections in so much as it is about preserving this great nation and making sure that our government remains one that is by, for and of the People. When our founding fathers set this country up, that was a core value, that the American people would be the ultimate curator of accountability against it.

We cannot be that if the only word we accept is theirs.

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.

Have You Ever Eaten a Tuck's Pad?

When you write a novel called, "Great Expectations," it almost most certainly has to be good, because the title alone has already suggested to the reader it will be.

When it comes to food, most of the time when you see a picture presented of something you order or buy, you know there's going to be at least some sense of glorification, and what winds up on your plate will not exactly resemble what was advertised.

But it's still usually relatively close. It's still relatively good. You can still relatively accept it for what it really is.

That was proven to be far from the case when I decided on a Banquet homestyle gravy and sliced white meat turkey meal as a quick dinner. 

I swear, that Banquet gravy and sliced white meat turkey meal got more laughs than the funniest comedian to ever grace the stage at the Improv could ever hope for. Not that our meal was the joke of the century, but it sure packed one hell of a punch line to our plates.

Granted, it's not like I was expecting something gourmet. It's a frozen meal, of course, and just like when you order a steak at Denny's, you're not looking for something 5-star when it arrives. But what I was expecting were at the very least, 12 slices of decently portioned turkey.

From the picture, you'd have expected that there would have been nice sized pieces to serve up. Instead, you literally had to fish out the slices in a lake of gravy. In fact, of the supposed 26 ounces shown on the package, I am certain it was about 20 ounces of gravy and 6 ounces of actual meat, although I cannot verify that since I did not actually weigh the slices.

As for the actual size of the slices themselves? I am not kidding at all when I say that they were only slightly larger than a Tuck's pad.

I mean, in the box's picture, you'd think you were going to get a heaping plate of at least something remotely worth eating. It is not an exaggeration at all to suggest that the plate they used was, in fact, a tea saucer.

The box stated, "Enlarged to show quality." What did they use? The Hubble space telescope?

Sure, the box is going to be the thing that makes the sale in the first place just like the title, cover and back cover blurb on a novel will put a book on your reading list. But if the goods delivered don't match the sales pitch, it doesn't mean someone will buy it again—or read the book over again thinking maybe you just missed the point the first time around.

Embellishment is one thing, such as that juicy, well-crafted hamburger on the menu looks like that you know will never be served to you. But where's the line between embellishment and outright false advertising? Because, at least when it comes to this Banquet offering, that's clearly what it is. 

Either way, the bottom line for me is that it matters enough to me that I won't be buying this product again. And Banquet ought to be ashamed of themselves on this one. 

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.

Using the Rule of 5 When Buying Things

Getting ahead financially, or even managing your budget can be a difficult task. But it is never impossible if you at least think about it. Sometimes one of the ways to do that is by having unique ways to force yourself to not only think about what you spend but force yourself to think about ways to save.

All too often, part of the problem is a lack of forward thinking, or the, "I want it now," mentality. What can especially get us into trouble is relying too heavily on credit, and not thinking about what the real cost of things are when they are financed.

We all know about the value of compound interest on assets. But compound interest applied to liabilities can devastate us.

For a lot of people who carry large amounts of debt, they tend to think of their debts as manageable so long as they can make the payments. The reality is that if you cannot afford to pay the debts off tomorrow immediately, you cannot afford to carry the debt.

If debt is used responsibly, it can be a useful tool with some additional rules applied. For example, if the cost of the interest on any loan is less than the amount of interest you are earning on cash in savings or investments, the debt is "affordable." If the cost of the interest on the debt is greater than the amount of interest you are earning on any cash or investments, it is better to use the cash instead of incurring the debt.

The rule, however, creates a caveat. But it is one that works to your advantage.

The Rule of 5 is a very simple concept, and one that can be applied, and even probably should be applied to nearly every purchase you make, with some exceptions—such as real estate, for example.

The idea is to accumulate money before you spend it rather than to simply earn it and then spend it as it comes in. You may see a pair of shoes you want, for example and think, "I have $50 right now to buy them, and so therefore I can afford them."

The reality is that you cannot actually afford them. Even if you have the cash right now in your hands to buy them.

Applying the Rule of 5 means that before you can rightfully claim to be able to afford that pair of shoes, you need to have at least $250 of available cash on hand that is expendable—in other words, not tied to any other commitments.

It makes you stop and think about your money before you hand over your hard-earned cash. It's posing a very simple question. "Can I afford to buy 5 pairs of these shoes?" If the answer is no, you wait until you can before you actually make the purchase.

Not only does it avoid spending money today, but it also forces you to save additional money and to think about your reward for having the money differently. Instead of having nothing left after your purchase, you have the joy of knowing that you have $200 left. On top of that, you can now apply that to other future things you may want to buy.

Although the Rule of 5 can seem impractical when it comes to certain purchases, I think it is essential. It gives us a peak into what we are actually doing to set ourselves back financially. Something we rarely pay attention to, which ultimately gets us into all sorts of financial problems.

"Can I afford this car?" you might ask. "Can I buy 5 of them?" is the better question. Even if you decide to take on a loan, it doesn't mean you can afford it. 

"But if I want a reliable car, and I have to pay at least $30,000 for one that is reliable, who has $150,000 lying around to justify it?"

The answer is, "Most people don't have that kind of money lying around because they have never considered the Rule of 5 in regard to anything else. Especially when it comes to the small things."

We are all well aware of the age-old adage that good things come to those who wait. It is rarely applied to reality when it comes to most people. Even if you applied the Rule of 5 on a smaller scale, the rule could still work.

For example, say you can afford a car payment that is $600 a month. You aren't going to be able to afford $3,000 a month. But you can afford $120 a month. So, when you decide to buy a car, you find one that will only cost you one-fifth of the payment you can make.

How about considering applying this rule in your favor? You effectively make the $600 payment after you buy the car and have a payment of $120, but instead of paying $600 each month to a loan originator, you pay $480 to yourself and put it into savings or investments.

If the loan term is for 5-years, at the end of that term you'd have effectively saved $28,800 which can be applied to whatever future assessment of a vehicle you can afford would be. It is either used as a hefty down payment on something, or it is reapplied to the rule of 5 and divided into a 5th over the course of another 60 months giving you an additional $96 of monthly spending power, meaning now you can afford a payment of $216 per month when added to the $120 per month you could reasonably afford to pay before based on the Rule of 5.

Of course, applying this rule does not mean that what you are ultimately trying to do is to be able to necessarily buy more things. It simply means that if something happens tomorrow that negates your ability to afford things in the longer term, you are able to at least cover everything in the short term.

If you suddenly lose your job, you can still pay for what you have, and if you have applied the rule appropriately to everything you buy over time, you probably have something to fall back on as well to cover the necessary day to day expenses until you can find a replacement job.

The idea is to simply think about your money in terms of its intrinsic value and apply that value in order to get the most out of your money over the long haul.

There is nothing more comforting than knowing that if your income fell to zero tomorrow, you could still afford to pay off every single debt you have five times before you've actually run out of money. More importantly, the Rule of 5 forces you to think about your money more carefully before you pull out your wallet.

| "If you are digging a hole, it is best to bring a ladder with you along with your shovel, because ultimately you are going to want to have a way to climb back up to the surface." |

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. Did you find this blog useful? You can support this page by sharing it with others.

No More Speaker Fiascos, Please

I am once again torn after Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene filed a resolution, a motion to vacate Mike Johnson as Speaker of the House. Whether or not we will have another Speaker fiasco is up for debate as many House Republicans have expressed, "It's not the time," but certainly there is even growing disdain for Speaker Johnson among Republican voters outside of Congress.

The issue for me is that while I disagree with Johnson's decision to allow for more funding to Ukraine, I have also expressed numerous times the need to have at least some modicum of unity within the party, and to have an understanding that while we all want certain things, we're not ever going to get everything we want.

I don't want an all or nothing government anyway, regardless of who is in charge. It doesn't get the work done if you have that expectation or operate that way. The job of Congress, in my view, is not to do the bidding of the parties, but to do the bidding of the American people they represent.

That means having a discussion on the issues, searching for and finding that important middle ground, and deciding things on the basis of compromise that still gets something done even if neither side gets a perfect resolution.

I grant you, the topic of Ukraine is a hot one. It's not our fight. I admit to having mixed feelings about it. Unlike many of my fellow Republicans, I am not as huge a fan of Putin as some my Republican friends seem to be. I view Russia as an evil regime with interests and ideals far removed from core American values.

They are allies with countries like Iran and China for Heaven's sake. And I disagree with Putin's rationale for invading Ukraine in the first place.

The bottom line is, I have no admiration for Putin at all, honestly. I feel for the citizens of Ukraine, caught in a battle they likely will never win. But the amount of money we are sending over there just feels wrong to me when we have other issues inside our own borders to address and a ballooning debt crisis.

I mean, what's the end game for the United States, really, when it comes to Ukraine?

Look, we're only 7 months away from the general election. Can we afford to have another clown show Speaker fight? And I know that assessment might piss of some of my fellow Republican friends. But that's what it is. That's what it looks like to the general voting public. It especially looks like that to the all important independent voters who ultimately decide who wins the race.

I get it. We're conservatives. We're Republicans. We take the higher moral ground and unlike the Democrats, when we have bad dogs, we scold them. 

Meanwhile, all of this infighting also does another thing. It creates a huge distraction. There's work to be done. We should be filing resolutions and having discussions that advance the interests of the public at large. 

I don't like all of what Mike Johnson is doing. At the same time, I have no expectation that I will find myself in agreement with him 100% of the time. Just like with any politician. I don't even disagree 100% of the time with the Democrats.

I think it is important to air our concerns and state our disagreements. But immediately calling for someone to be fired just because we didn't get our way on one or another issue to me is simply childish and uncalled for.

The big question is, how do we expect to win elections if it appears we cannot even agree with ourselves? How can we convince the American people we know how to lead if we can't even decide who leads us?

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.

Will the Real Joe Biden on Abortion Please Stand Up

The Biden administration is seeming to want to make the overturning of Roe v. Wade and abortion rights a key issue as we draw nearer to November. After all, with the border issue and inflation being #1 and #2 issues concerning Americans, and they have miserably failed on both of them, what else is there to try and win votes on, right?

But there's a giant flaw in their stated positions, and not that politicians on both sides of the aisle aren't prone to a little vote pandering and being a bit disingenuous, but I think some voters siding with Joe Biden at least on the issue of abortion should have more questions than answers.

Because at least if abortion happens to be a key issue swaying a decision to vote one way or the other, trying to understand the root position, or what it probably is, is a pretty important thing to add to the equation, if you ask me.

President Joe Biden never supported Roe v. Wade and was always against abortion, even in the case of rape or incest.

That's important to point out, I think, regardless of where he says he stands on the issue now. Or where he said he stood on the issue from day one of his presidency. Because it's more important to understand how much "fight" will be in defending the issue if a voter gives him another four years in office to do it.

The issue of abortion for Joe Biden is effectively a pander. It's a way to solicit a vote. Because if there's one thing he knows, it's that most people won't bother to check his record and the media isn't going to report on it.

If they do, they will do it very quietly on page 952 of course.

When it comes to Roe v. Wade itself, it wasn't long after the Supreme Court issued its decision in 1973 that Joe Biden stated he disagreed with it, going on to say, "Abortion is always a tragedy." He generally stayed with that position all the way until a few months before he ran for president in 2020. 

Some have chosen to suggest that Biden has simply "reckoned with his Catholic faith," and is now acting on the "greater good," but that does not at all comport with what his stance has been all along. And is this generally a position that you suddenly change your mind about? Especially when your position is deeply rooted in your faith?

In 2006, even before he became the vice president, he said in a televised interview, "I do not view abortion as a choice or a right." That's a stark contrast to what he says his position is now, even taking an opportunity during his final State of the Union speech to scold the Justices, and told them directly, "Women are not without electoral or political power."

His stance now wants to be seen as direct and firm, and both he and Kamala Harris have been pounding the podium at speech after speech saying they will stand strongly for "women's reproductive health," a term they like to use instead of abortion, by the way.

Joe Biden has also always been against any federal funding for abortion, specifically having been a longtime supporter of the Hyde Amendment which banned federal funding for abortions even in the cases of rape or incest. That was his position entirely until he hit the campaign trail in 2019.

It is important to know these things if this is an issue topmost on anyone's radar when it comes to their choice in 2024. Because you have to examine why the position changed only prior to an election campaign in 2020?

Any issue that is important to a voter is a reason to cast a vote for a candidate if you think that candidate is going to fight hard for your cause. But you have to reason that the personal conviction of the candidate is as strong as his word.

Will he be strongly and firmly engaged in fighting for your cause if he gets a second term, or is he just saying that to get a second term now that the decision on Roe v. Wade is set in stone? Just like he said he was for your cause to get his first term?

In other words, his position on abortion was very clear. He was against it. And the only reason he ever said he was okay with it and would fight for it was because that's what he knew voters wanted to hear. It gave him a marked contrast with Trump's position and his message, at least in appearance. 

He wanted to win over a faction of voters and so he decided to say one thing other than what he probably would have said if he had stated his position from the heart rather than to appease a base.

The question is not about what Joe Biden's position appears to be now. The question is whether or not you believe him. Because if abortion is a key issue for anyone undecided, and you think Biden's got your back, you might want to reassess that. He doesn't want to have your back. He wants to have your backing.

If he wins in 2024, you can bet the abortion issue will become ancient history, and he'll just forge ahead with the real agenda to push progressive, liberal ideology on things like climate change and DEI.

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.