Gas or Food? Oh, Cry Me a River

Cue the violins. Here come the sad songs, the despairing portraits, the finger pointing and—once again—the flushing of common sense straight down the drain.

Forget politics for a moment. It doesn't matter who's at fault for the government shutdown—even though we know it's the Democrats, to be clear about that. What matters is that paychecks are frozen, and yes, that stinks. Nobody wants to work for free. But the work still has to be done, and someone still has to do it.

And let's be honest. Those paychecks will eventually arrive. That's not the real issue.

After the Great Depression one lesson became painfully clear: You cannot depend on the economy, your job, or any so-called "safety net" to rescue you when things collapse. You have to rely on yourself. At least to some degree, you have to be prepared.

What did Rush Limbaugh used to tell us? Create your own economy so you aren't forced to abide by the rules of the real one.

That's why the 6-month rule was born. Save half a year's salary and create a rainy-day fund. It's been preached for nearly a century. Yet here we are, hearing stories of air traffic controllers—who earn around $125,000 a year by the way—claiming they can't afford gas to get to work.

So, what happened? Did they miss the memo? Ignore the advice? Or simply choose not to prepare?

Look, I'm not without compassion. I understand the frustration. Even when it comes to the world outside of government, CEOs make decisions all the time and someone gets hurt in the process and people have to make tough choices.

But let's be real. What these air traffic controllers are facing, and what anyone faces in this position—it's a self-inflicted wound. Jobs vanish. Paychecks stop. That's life. It's been this way since the beginning of time.

So, who's to blame when you're left exposed? The greedy rich? The bickering government? Society? The system? Or maybe, it's you. The one who ignored the warnings, skipped the preparation, and left yourself vulnerable.

Spare me the sob stories. Life isn't fair. Sometimes you're left holding the bag through no fault of your own. But the larger truth is timeless. This cycle has repeated for generations and will repeat long after today's headlines fade.

From layoffs to government shutdowns to people losing their SNAP benefits, the story is always the same. It's someone else's fault that someone must suffer. Yet, as I said before, it's not like the memo hasn't been out there for everyone to plainly see it. The endless dependence. The failure of so many people in society to be able to fend for themselves in some way when the time comes.

People making six-figures living paycheck to paycheck.

Like I said, I am not without compassion or feeling. I do get it. But I also get that sometimes things are just beyond our control, and so we have to have a backup plan to compensate for that.

The harsh reality is that if you are caught unprepared, it's your own damn fault. It's really as simple as that. End of story. Stop the violins.

You wrote the song, but you missed the chorus. And like all choruses do, that's the part that repeats over and over again and sticks the most prominently in memory. It's hard for me to shed a tear when someone falls victim to the obvious.

Like the things I write about or the way I write about them? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. Want to help keep the lights on here? Consider using my Amazon link the next time you're shopping. Your support is always greatly appreciated.

©2025 Jim Bauer

You Cancelled Us and Now We Cancel You

The left birthed cancel culture. They cheered when Aunt Jemimah was erased, when the Redskins were renamed, and when Uncle Ben quietly disappeared. They toppled statues and called it progress.

But they never imagined the blade might swing back.

Stephen Colbert? Fading. Jimmy Kimmel? Flailing. The View? On life support.

There's an old warning: Be careful what you wish for—you might just get it. And they did. They got the culture war they wanted. But they didn't count on the majority waking up.

They thought "woke" was popular. That it was righteous. That it was winning.

Then Bud Light happened. Then Target. Then Cracker Barrel. Then the 2024 election when the Democrats lost everything and Kamala Harris conceded to Donald Trump.

Now the cancellations are coming for them. Not out of spite, but out of clarity. The progressive movement is being rejected—not by fringe voices, but by the silent majority who never bought the message in the first place. 

It was easy to shout when the megaphone was theirs. It was easy to silence dissent when the media played backup. And thus, it was easy to pretend the country had changed.

But it hadn't.

We hadn't.

Our values didn't shift. Our principles didn't vanish. The foundation of this nation—its decency, its grit, its common sense—remained intact. The left just tried to convince us otherwise. Like magicians, they used smoke, mirrors and camera angles to sell the trick.

But we saw through it.

And now the same cancel culture they weaponized is being turned on the false narratives, the curated outrage, and against the phantom majority.

We're setting the record straight.

They stood at podiums, hijacked sporting events, hijacked award shows, and told us what to think. And for a while we listened. Some even nodded along.

Maybe the word DID change, and we just fell a bit behind getting the memo?

But then we talked to each other. We looked around and we realized, "This isn't us. This isn't the whole. This isn't the truth."

So, thank you for the invention. We'll use it now for the common good. Because good always wins. And your mistake was believing evil could prevail.

You tried to cancel everything we hold dear. Now, we're cancelling the lie.

We win.

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

©2025 Jim Bauer

Is it a Rift or Just Business: Elon Musk vs. Donald Trump

Boy, how the tides turn in Washington. Once, Elon Musk was the quirky face of liberalism, and of course, Tesla's eco-friendly (kinda sorta) cars won over the tree huggers all caught in the web of the terrifying prospect of a global climate crisis.

Well, he's still quirky. Maybe even still a bit liberal.

But he's clearly leaned right, seeing more promise in a Trump presidency than a Harris one. Where are his allegiances? Well, it might just be that Elon Musk really doesn't have one. And hey, I'm not saying that's all bad. Who wants to be a sheep? Really, he's just being who he has always been. Elon Musk. A man who has always danced to his own tune, unapologetically doing what suits him in the moment, and not always really giving much of a damn what anyone thinks about it.

Really, hasn't controversy and Elon Musk always pretty much gone hand in hand?

His so-called rift with Trump now? Maybe it's just business. Without a doubt, his darling company, Tesla, took a major hit when he aligned with MAGA—dealerships and charging stations got bombed and the cars were attacked.

Look, it's no secret that Tesla buyers are mostly liberals. If Musk wants to sell cars, he has to restore the Tesla brand—and perhaps his own—by softening his conservative ties. Like it or not, if he's chasing profits, he has to appeal to the people buying, and that's not the MAGA crowd.

Musk's tactics? Disconcerting, to say the least—linking Trump to Epstein's list and suggesting he owed his presidency to him. But let's be honest, the Musk we see now is the same Musk we've always had. Same goes for Trump, really. When Elon Musk was launching his Tesla into outer space or Donald Trump was calling Rosie O'Donnell nasty names—what we see is what we get.

So, are we really all that surprised by Musk's moves? The product hasn't changed. Whether it comes to Trump or Elon Musk, they do seem to be genuine articles in that they speak what's on their mind and really aren't all that interested in what some people might think about that.

For whatever it's worth, and however uncomfortable it can sometimes make me, I can actually admire that. Who wants someone who cow toes like a sheep?

That's not to say that Musk's sudden sprint to the MAGA side didn't have an agenda behind it. Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. We can't necessarily get deep into Musk's brain to figure out exactly what was on his mind.

We just know that Musk now seems to have sort of changed his mind.

But again, it may be more about business than anything. Or maybe he is actually a little bit crazy as I have always suspected. He's certainly always been able to stay in the news and on people's radars. Maybe that works for him. Maybe his antics work for him now going against Trump, even if, at the same time, it might leave more people on both sides more confused than convinced about what he actually thinks or where he actually stands.

Many might be asking, "Who's side are you really on, Mr. Musk?" Maybe the reality is that he's not on anyone's side. He's on his side. And really, when I look back at all the positions Musk has ever taken, that seems apparent that that's the only side he has ever been on.

Again, that's not necessarily a bad thing even if I don't entirely like or agree with what he's saying now.

What he has effectively done to now is to stir the pot really good and get everyone talking. Democrats. Republicans. MAGA people and liberals. 

Either way, whether this rift is a good thing or a bad thing is to be seen. Who knows what the outcome will ultimately be? He'll lose some new friends and regain some old ones, perhaps. He's done it before. I think it's likely he'll do it again.

Like I said, he's quirky. He's Elon Musk. This is what he does. It's what he's always done. Can you really get angry about it? Or do you just accept that this is what it is, take it for what it is, let the cards fall where they may, and go about our days?

In the meantime, watch what Tesla's stock does. What Elon Musk is at the end of the day is a master marketer, and he's a pretty damn smart businessman. Maybe not being able to actually know what side he's actually on is the best strategy he can have. And that might ultimately be what all this is really about.

Or he's subtly sending us a different message. That we aren't all that interested in ideas or truth as much as we're interested in agreeing with each other all the time.

Like the things I write about or the way I write about them? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. Also, check out some of my other articles and commentary on HubPages or follow me on X at @jimbauer601.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

The 'Yes' or 'No' Trick in Congressional Hearings

Let's be candid and fair here. Both sides of the aisle in congressional hearings engage in this practice. They pose what they term "a simple yes or no question." However, when you actually listen to these questions, you'll often find that they are not straightforward yes or no questions at all. Instead, they are meticulously crafted to establish a foundational claim that the questioner wants the respondent to confirm or deny. Their goal is a "gotcha" moment, and these questions are specifically designed for that purpose.

The reality is that no one asking the questions are genuinely interested in the answers. Rather, they use their five minutes as an opportunity to deliver a narrative that supports their preconceived conclusions. When the person being questioned attempts to clarify the details or explain their actual position beyond the confines of the question, the questioner can conveniently dismiss them by saying, "I guess you don't want to answer the question, let's move on." 

The reality is that most questions almost always require more than just a simple yes or no, especially depending on how they are framed—and let's be real here, politicians are as masterful at asking questions that lay traps as they are at answering questions with non-answers.

It's a trick for the cameras and a way for the questioner to commentate rather than to actually learn what the respondent actually believes.

I will admit, as a political junkie, it can be entertaining to watch. At the same time, it can also be a bit frustrating because, we all want to hear the answers to real questions regardless of what aisle we happen to be sitting on.

The purpose of asking questions, by their very nature, are not to hear the views of the person asking the questions, but rather to understand the views of the respondent. When we get gotcha questions such as are posed in these hearings, what we get instead is a one-sided view and before anyone can even attempt to answer, they're more often than not simply cut off.

Of course, the time limits are part of the problem. These senators and representatives want to get as much "information" out as they can and if they allow questions to actually be answered, they'd run out of time before they can say all they want to say.

Maybe we should change the rules. Limit the time for the questioners but stop the clock on their time for the answers and allow a separate time limit for the answering part of the back and forth. If we did that, perhaps these congressional hearings would actually serve the public better than they do.

When we don't get real answers, but instead only receive commentary, we, as voters, have a much more difficult time getting the answers we actually want to hear. It makes the whole thing seem like nothing more than a show.

More than that, wouldn't it be better for the respondent to decide whether the question is a yes or no one? After all, it's their answer. If it were as simple as a yes or no, I am sure that's how the question would actually be answered.

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.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

Schumers Spin is a Dance Around Biden's Mental Acuity

I get it. Politicians have a knack for speaking in a way that only politicians can. It's either in their DNA, or they undergo a rigorous orientation upon taking office, complete with courses on the art of "communication."

How to dodge questions while appearing to answer them. How to create the illusion of transparency. How to lie convincingly and make it seem like you're being truthful. How to craft intricate riddles that no one can truly solve, yet make you sound ingenius.

It is literally an art form.

Remember when Chuck Schumer and his fellow Democrats dismissed claims about Biden's mental acuity as right wing conspiracies? Then came that infamous debate performance, leaving Democrats visibly stunned.

"Oh, God. We can't possibly spin this anymore. Can we?"

They couldn't spin it anymore. The writing was on the wall, clear as day. But to be fair, they're still dodging the question, doing their best to find creative ways to deny the truth. This was evident once again when Chuck Schumer was recently asked on Meet the Press if he felt he misled the American people with his comments.

He didn't answer the question. Instead, he rambled on about Biden's "record," his supposed accomplishments, claiming he achieved more than any other president in history, and highlighting achievements that marked a very successful presidency. 

Beyond none of that being true, it was a relatively simple question. "Did you and the Democrat party mislead the American people about President Joe Biden's health?" Of course, answering that question truthfully would have posed another important question that no one really wants to address.

If Joe Biden's mental acuity was in decline, then who was making the decisions? Who was truly running the country? And whoever that was, how much power did they amass in Biden's mental absence? Could they have controlled Harris? Were they controlling Harris? Was she merely a Manchurian candidate?

During Trump's first term, without any doubt, he posed an existential threat to The Establishment. Were Joe Biden and Kamala Harris the ultimate opportunity for them to reaffirm and cement their power indefinitely?

Conspiratorial, I admit. Crazy? Maybe. Possible? You never know. But I digress.

When Chuck Schumer skillfully dodged the question, the follow-up might have been even more revealing. "Do you believe Biden could have served another four years?" Schumer's response was that he didn't want to speculate. For all intents and purposes, that's a no, which circles back to the original question.

If Joe Biden wasn't in mental decline, why did he debate performance essentially seal the deal for calls for him to drop out of the race? If he was fit to lead, wouldn't that have outweighed the impact of the debate? And if it were true that he wasn't experiencing any mental decline at all, and it was nothing more than a bad night at the podium, why couldn't that be easily conveyed after the debate to change the Democrat's minds?

I understand Chuck Schumer's going to speak like he does. He's seasoned. The real question is whether the American people buy his answer, and I believe the answer is no. Beyond that, if the Democratic party continues to blatantly mislead the American people and dodge the truth, how will they ever restore the trust they lost in the last election?

Not that I'm rooting for them to do that, mind you. I'm just making an observation and asking, what else were they hiding?

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.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

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

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

We're All Angry Paupers in this New Economy

by Leonard Knath, staff writer

Hey folks, gather around. It's time for another episode of, "What in the hell is wrong with the world today?" Let's talk about the cost of food. Yeah, you heard me. Food. The stuff we need to survive. You'd think it would be a basic human right. But no. Instead, it's become a luxury item.

Have you seen the prices lately? Well, of course you have. How can you miss them? And what about those damn eggs? What's going on with that? Since when did having a dozen eggs in your shopping cart get raised eyebrows from people passing you in the aisles?

"Enjoy your scrambled dinner, Rockefeller."

Of course, you can't blame the stores or even who makes all this stuff. It's inflation that's done it for anyone who wasn't aware. It's an invisible hand reaching into our pockets pulling out whatever spare change we have left.

Kind of makes me think of a bad magician. You know the one. He says, "Give me a dollar and I'll make it disappear," only to grab it, spin around, and run.

As a matter of fact, I think this magician has long, dark hair and a rather grating cackle.

Speaking of politicians, they just stand with their thumbs up their asses telling us it's all under control. Yeah, sure it is. Just like we were once told that the Titanic was "unsinkable."

I am pretty sure they want me to be dirt poor. Those stinking Democrats. They want me poorer than poor. How else can they entice me with their free stuff so I will vote for them? I still won't, but you get the idea. Beyond that, any time I get a bill there's another fee, another service charge. 

The greatest inventor nowadays invents new ways to take my money. "Oh, you want to breathe air? That'll be $5.99 plus tax."

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 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

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

Politics Lacking Decorum is as Old as Politics Itself: Is the Current Political Atmosphere Anything New?

As can be said about so many things in life, "Perspective is everything." Most of us aren't necessarily historians. Even if we know a little bit about our past, we don't always remember it exactly for what it is, but for what we perceived it to be, based on what we see now.

The reality is that dating all the way back to the 18th Century in American politics, campaigns and politics in general, have always been nasty. And I think it's important to consider that as we get closer to the 2024 election, with so many people having this perception that somehow something has changed in the political discourse.

It really hasn't. It's just different faces and different names, and of course, a lot of how we see it all unfolding depends a lot on how the media portrays things.

And there's no question the media has a clear side and an agenda.

We feel like things are out of order and lacking a sort of decorum. But I think that's more of a perception than a reality. Again, I largely blame the media. They want to present danger, and the only way they can do that is to make things look like they are different now than they have always been.

When you think of all the name calling that has tossed around about Trump, it's really nothing new. In 1796, Alexander Hamilton wrote a piece under a pen name that was a scathing accusation against Thomas Jefferson that he was having an affair with one of his slaves.

Granted, that accusation turned out to be true.

But he also called Jefferson a coward, claimed if he was elected a Civil War would erupt sending the nation into a bloody chaos, and called him an atheist.

Even more telling of the "times," in comparison to the one we are in now, where Trump supporters have been labeled as deplorables, or MAGA extremists, racists and whatever other mean moniker you want to attach to what is being said, is Hamilton's saying of Jefferson supporters, "They are cutthroats who walk in rags and sleep amid filth and vermin."

That's a pretty ugly thing to say about your opponent's supporters. But again, this was 1796. Not 2024.

We act shocked when things like this are said. "Well, I never!" But of course, it's only our perception that ugliness is something new that makes us think that. 

And what about Trump's antics? How foreign is that to politics? Name calling, ridicule, and personal attacks were present in 1796 just like they are now, with Ben Franklin's grandson writing that another opponent, John Adams, was old, bald, querulous, crippled, blind and toothless.

If you simply wrote that line by itself, you might think it was from the pen of Donald Trump himself referring to Joe Biden in a mean tweet.

In 1828 Andrew Jackson was accused of being a cannibal and having eaten indians for breakfast. They called his mother a prostitute and claimed Jackson was the result of a British soldier who consorted with his mother for money.

Imagine these statements today. In fact, if you think about it, today seems tame compared. Has anyone been called a bastard child born from prostitution who ate indians for breakfast?

"Sleepy Joe" almost seems like a nice thing to say. It's rather benign. But of course, Trump gets labeled as dangerous, childish, and just downright mean. "This is so out of the ordinary," people claim. But of course, it's politics as usual. Nothing has changed. The history tells us the real story.

People said about Barry Goldwater that if you elected him the Soviets would drop nuclear bombs on your kids.

I think the thing that is important here is to consider the candidates not for what they say. Not for how they act. Not for the severity of their mudslinging. But for their policies and what they otherwise offer in terms of what they will do for the country. It is also important to restore our understanding of the way things are now so that we can have a better understanding that things really aren't any different now than they were.

We're not in as much of a chaotic, unhinged political environment as we think we are. If 1796 were today, the headline might have been, "Yo mama is a whore!"

Beyond that, it also offers a bit of a perspective into what have been come to be known as, "mean tweets." They didn't have social media back in the day to do their mudslinging and make wild accusations and engage in name calling. They did it in the papers. They did it on the campaign trail during rallies and speeches. The main point here is that they did it. Regardless of the forum. They did it.

Politics is as it has always been. Down. Dirty. Ugly. And nasty. The "pleasant" times of the past is something that only truly exists in our imaginations. And as I said, the chaos an unpleasantries we see today, compared to then, seem rather tame in comparison.

No one's mother has been called a whore and no one has been accused of eating indians for breakfast. Or Mexicans, for that matter, which might as well be the modern-day equivalent. On top of that, one must also consider that election interference is nothing new either. In fact, although Jefferson lost the election to John Adams in 1796, there was an implied notion that the French were interfering in the process to elect Jefferson.

Gosh. Doesn't all this sound familiar?

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

Gunther Eagleman Goes Too Far

As I tend to have to repeat myself about all the time, just because I am a conservative Republican who is voting for Donald J. Trump does not mean I am going to be on our side 100% of the time, nor am I going to share certain views someone else holds just because.

I'm a Republican. I don't need to be a jerk or stoop to the childish antics of the left to be that. I simply hold views that differ from the left. That's it. And they are my views. Even my own views are not going to always align with my side, or theirs with mine.

I'm also not going to simply ever blindly disagree with the left just because it's a view coming from the left.

Look, I think Joe Biden is a failure. His presidency will go down in history as one of the worst presidencies in history. I don't say that as a Republican. I say that as an American engaged in what happens in the country and to the country. It's that simple.

Do I also believe Joe Biden is a scoundrel? Yes. I do as a matter of fact. From the questionable sniffing of women's hair to his odd fondling of children, and to the rather creepy suggestion by his daughter he took showers with her. There are some things I find rather disturbing about the man personally.

I make no concessions on that. Joe Biden is not only a terrible president. He's a creep.

But to suggest, as Gunther Eagleman did in a recent poll on X, that being a Joe Biden voter means the voter is a pedophile is, to put it bluntly, ignorant. And I normally agree with Gunther Eagleman, don't get me wrong here. 

I just don't think it's either an appropriate question or an appropriate suggestion. It serves no purpose. It only serves to further divide sides and close ears and eyes to the facts. Gunther Eagleman has a platform available to him in which he can further the discussion and this is the direction he takes with that?

What is important, in my view, is to be able to have an open dialogue about the policies and issues that concern every American. Republican, Democrat, or independent. And does anyone think an independent is going to view a question like Gunther Eagleman poses as serious, or that it will make anything else he says worth taking seriously?

Besides, it doesn't take a leftie to make a pedophile. Pedophiles come in all shapes and forms, they come from all religions, and they can be conservatives just as easily as they can be liberals. I would venture to guess that there are some Trump voters who are, in fact, pedophiles themselves.

I just think it's wrongheaded and I don't mind saying so. I'd say it's also a copout just like I would accuse the left of if they did something similar. You either have an argument or you have an insult. 

I mean, look at the things the left says about us for Heaven's sake. Things that are vile and horrible. And of course, patently untrue. We certainly don't like it when it is done to us. If Gunther Eagleman's question is an attempt to turn the tables on the left and give them a little of what they dish out, maybe then it makes at least some sense?

Still, to my mind it makes no sense. That's not who we are. We're not voting for Donald Trump or against Joe Biden for any other reason than we feel Donald Trump is better for the country and Joe Biden is not. Why not just leave it at that?

We have the ability to state our case, and there is no need to stoop to the lows of the left. Comments or suggestions like this only serve to invalidate any legitimate argument we have to make.

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

© 2024 Jim Bauer

2020 Was All About Covid, Fool

Nearly every time the mail in ballots in the 2020 election are brought up as a matter of suspicion and concern that there may have been some nefarious goings on there, the left jumps up and waves their arms. "Hey! Over here! You do realize there was a pandemic, right?"

Covid. The infamous Covid. It's always there as an argument.

The left tried to make the same argument to explain the Biden rallies which no one attended. "Of course, there was no one there, you fool. No one wanted to die, unlike the idiots on your side."

So, brilliant one as you are, tell me; out of the potentially hundreds of thousands of Trump supporters who attended his rallies are dead and gone now? Not only were they Trump supporters attending rallies during one of the deadliest pandemics of our time, they were probably also unvaccinated and doomed to death from that too.

Of course, some people may have gotten Covid. Maybe even some people died. But if the rallies were the supposed "cause of death," I am sure that would be front page news and every bit of the 24-hour news cycle.

Rachel Maddow would have been tossing up images of lines of coffins heading for their final resting spots screaming, "Count the bodies in the wake of Trump's rallies! The stupidity! The abomination!"

It didn't happen. And furthermore, for all the efforts of the left and the media Covid wasn't even that big a deal. Okay sure. It wasn't good. People did die. I'll never discount that. But when you compare Covid to the Spanish flu, it wasn't even close.

The Spanish flu killed 10% of the entire world population. Covid took only 0.08% of it. How does it even compare?

It doesn't.

So, essentially the mail in ballots were just common sense because no one wanted to get Covid and die. Duh, right? Only it isn't the duh moment the left really wants it to be. By their measure of the threat and danger going to the polls in person might have posed, Trump probably would have lost the 2020 election simply because all of his supporters were dead from attending his rallies.

Only he got 11 million more votes in 2020 than he got in 2016. So, I guess that argument is kind of out, isn't it? Let's say just 10% of the 76 million people that voted for him attended his rallies at some point during the pandemic. That would be potentially 7.6 million people at risk.

The entire world death toll was only 7.046 million out of a world population of nearly 8 billion people.

Regarding Covid as well, the left and the media likes to banter on about how bad Trump bungled it. I mean, we all know now that during the entire time of the pandemic the WHO and the CDC kept changing their minds and got a million and one things wrong about it.

Tell that to a Democrat and they readily say, "It was a new thing. How could they know?" Except, Trump was supposed to have all the answers, right?

And tell me, what did Biden do better? Covid deaths doubled during Biden's watch. How come the left didn't jump on him for doubling the death count? Even when he was mandating the vaccines? That didn't work, by the way.

Oh, I suppose so long as it wasn't Trump making the bad decisions it was okay. God only knows how much worse things might have been if it wasn't Joe Biden screwing it up.

The thing about the 2020 election is that so many things simply didn't add up. Not the vote counts. Not the mail in ballots. Not the fact that the majority of the mail in ballots were votes for Biden. Not that Trump was winning before the mail in ballots were counted. Not that Biden got the most votes ever in the history of American elections.

Nothing to see here, folks, Biden won. Get over it.

And then of course, when you question anything the left likes to point to judges and prosecutors and this guy or that guy who all tell us, "The election was fair. Just deal with it, accept it, and move on." 

As I have said many times before, this is like asking the foxes how the hens are doing. "The hens are fine," say the foxes. There may be nothing left in the coop but feathers and bones, and perhaps a few sly foxes went into the coop and learned how to cluck, but it doesn't mean we can be assured the hens are actually fine if no one bothers to go inside and check.

We have been lied to about Covid. We have been lied to about the election. We have been lied to about the insurrection. And all that's being offered to answer the questions is to go and rely on what the liars tell us?

Who's the fool?

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

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.

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.

Hey Catturd, the Running Mate Does Actually Matter This Time

Catturd, a social media influencer who has made quite a name for himself over the past 5 years sharing his conservative viewpoints on X, formerly known as Twitter, was recently in studio with Tucker Carlson on his Tucker Carlson Encounter show and was of the opinion, when asked who he thought Trump should pick as his running mate, that the Vice President doesn't really matter all that much.

Most of the time I find myself in agreement with much of what he says. And I mostly agree with him regarding his statement with Tucker Carlson as well. Except for one thing.

Trump can't run again in 2028.

He mentioned he likes Vivek Ramaswamy. Certainly, he's been saying many things people want to hear, and challenging the status quo in similar ways to Trump. But can he win in 2028? Would he be the one to carry on Trump's agenda and capture the hearts and minds of staunch Trump supporters?

Because that's, I think, what we (or rather, Trump) needs to strongly consider regarding who he ultimately picks as his running mate. Who can carry the torch at the end of Trump's final term? And win!

If it were Trump's first turn at bat, maybe it wouldn't matter as much. Much can be said about Pence as his first pick being questionable whether or not he wouldn't have been just another George H.W. Bush after Reagan. 

Ultimately, Pence, I think it is safe to say, didn't matter. Besides, he was a polar opposite of Trump anyway. Had the election gone the way we wanted it to in 2020, Trump would have had his second term, much of the agenda would have been in place and working, and things in place would have been harder to undo.

What the country needs more than anything, and very clearly is a major turnaround, and it needs to be one that can stick. And that means we need to have not only a strong four years ahead with a Trump administration, we need someone who sits in the office of the Vice President who can carry that turnaround into another eight years after Trump's final day in the White House.

Unfortunately, I think this rules out many current known members of the Republican party, especially even the ones who ran against him in the primaries.

In order for Trump's legacy to succeed him, whoever is set to take his reigns in 2028 needs to be someone who aligns well with Trump's plan and vision, and who has the tenacity and strength in which that all gets carried out, who can gain the appreciation and respect and support of Trump supporters in a way that those voters can have confidence that the successor will be the right man (or woman) for the job.

Maybe Ron DeSantis is that guy? Who knows? I have to say I was not very impressed with his campaign even if I continue to think he's been a fantastic governor.

Catturd has it mostly right. At least in theory. Vice Presidents don't usually matter. But this is a different set of circumstances in that this is not a consecutive term for Trump if he is elected back into office. This is the only four years we are going to get. And Trump needs to pick someone we can have confidence in to carry us through a strong 12-year run of leadership that hopefully permanently reverses the attempt of progressive politics to change America into an unrecognizable place that we may never be able to escape from.

The running mate matters more than ever 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.

Fetterman Backlash May Be Unwarranted

Let me be clear. I generally do not support democrat senator John Fetterman. But then, do I really support people? Or do I support positions? Because regardless of whether or not I am a conservative republican, positions and policy are things I have always said, that for me, trump all other considerations.

Fetterman has, of course, received quite a bit of backlash over a comment he made on X regarding the Israel-Palestine clash over the recent attack by Hamas against Israel that has now escalated to cause the deaths of thousands on both sides.

Many of those deaths are unfortunately innocent people and children. The cost of war is real and there are always innocent bystanders who get caught in the crosshairs. And no one, including me, is calling for more death and destruction. However, there is a caveat here.

Essentially, Fetterman has said that there should be no ceasefire. I tend to agree with what he said on the basis that Hamas initiated this war and what Israel is doing is simply responding to that attack. Israel did not ask to be fired upon. But Hamas and Palestine did. 

Ultimately, I think there needs to be a strong message sent. If you attack us, there will be a price to pay. We may disagree on the underlying basis, in the eyes of Hamas, for the attack itself. But nonetheless, we were attacked, and we are going to respond.

Any country that finds itself under attack has to respond in the interest of protecting its citizens overall. And making it clear to anyone who wants to launch an attack that there will be consequences if that action is taken.

You might say that Israel has made its point. The death toll is double for Palestine than it has been for Israel. Israel has essentially won if you only go by the numbers. So, why not end it there? And maybe there is an argument to be made on that basis.

However, it's not the first time that Hamas has done this. This has been an ongoing conflict dating back decades. It's both a religious war as well as a land war. It is a disagreement between two nations about who has the claim to the Gaza strip ever since land lines were redrawn post 1967.

Ultimately, there has to be a consequence for Hamas. There has to be a consequence for Palestine. There has to be a reason for them to reconsider attacking Israel the next time they may plan to launch one. And because the attacks have been ongoing for so many years, right now Israel has a strong interest in sending a very strong message that the terrorist activities of Hamas will simply not be tolerated.

In a way they are saying, "We can have this debate behind closed doors, hashed out reasonably and sensibly in a diplomatic way. But the minute you decide to hash out this dispute with shells and bombs, we are going to respond similarly."

And they have a right to do so. Israel is well within their rights to react.

I think part of the backlash against Fetterman's comment is because there are sides who think that a ceasefire is the answer to the problem. Just stop the fighting and have both sides go about their days. Of course, most of us know that's not true. Nothing will change in the minds of either side if a ceasefire happens today, and it will only be a matter of time before we are having this discussion again.

There comes a time when anyone who is constantly under attack is going to say, "We've had enough and are tired of being your target." Thus, Israel's response to the most recent attack.

I wish that both sides could simply come to an agreement. I have stated in the past that I strongly agree with the policy of the United States to support a two-state solution and divide land lines between both Israel and Palestine along the Gaza strip to the way they were prior to 1967.

Both sides oppose this, and thus they continue to fight for what each sides think is theirs. And of course, the Palestinians don't like the Jews. They don't think that Jews should exist at all. So, here we are in this locked position with no real foreseeable resolution.

The question becomes, if a ceasefire happens today does it do anything to truly stop the carnage? Not today. But tomorrow. When the next attack happens and the fight surges on once again? If you think about it, sometimes war deters future action and saves lives.

It's been shown in wars of the past and in severe actions taken by our own country against Japan in WWII.

The entire situation is a sad one. I understand principally the stance on both sides. I wish there was a workable solution. I wish we could simply call for a ceasefire and call it done. But I am not sure a ceasefire really does anything but kick the can forward and put more future lives in peril.

When should it end? I don't know. I do know, however, that we cannot coddle terrorism and allow it to happen without consequence. There has to be a response and there has to be a strong one. And that response needs to be strong enough to send a very clear message.

Perhaps what should end this is for Israel to simply tell Palestine, "This ends now. The warring. We must now sit at the table and talk. And until that happens, we will continue to respond in the manner in which we are now."

If the war is to truly be won, the only way to truly end it, is to sit down and talk about their differences, air them out, and be willing to compromise to find a solution that may not give both sides entirely what they want, but one that ultimately is acceptable.

Fetterman gets a pass from me on this one. 

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on YouTube and Facebook.