#MAGA

F*ck Trump?

C7EE72AC-CBA0-42E2-9253-C41134CBAA35.jpeg

Would DeNiro have got the same rapturous applause at the Tony’s for saying “F&ck Trump” if it were held this evening? Most likely answer is yes. Hollywood and the liberal mainstream media outlets can’t wipe the bitter taste from their mouth that the man they despise so much has done something not seen since Reagan and the fall of the Berlin Wall. While details of any negotiations are sketchy it is without a doubt a milestone in history.

They say “it takes one to know one.” Even if it holds true that both are narcissistic madmen, that’s what it took to achieve these talks. This is the power of unpredictability. Unlike the gutless and all too predictable diplomacy of recent decades, expediency has not been put before principle. It took a horses’s head in the bed to make Kim realize that he must reform. Better to do so on terms that are in his favour than face military reprisals. Sometimes being the most powerful military in the world has its advantages. After all Al Capone said, “I grew up in a tough neighborhood where I learnt you could get much further with a kind word and a gun than just a kind word.”

How political elitism has been exposed since he took office. While Trump has had a volatile revolving door in his own administration, how telling to see the smiles wiped off the face of G-7 cronies. Instead of working for the greater good of constituents they seem insistent on padding future careers in bodies they have set up for life outside politics. Spineless and literally “brow” beaten.

Unconventional, brash, rude, petulant, moody or whatever else the liberals want to rightly or wrongly categorize Trump as, DeNiro would be well advised that the global audience witnessing Trump shaking hands with Kim are probably overwhelmingly applauding the President indirectly saying “F*ck DeNiro”

Will liberal media go back to reruns of Stormy Daniels or admit they have been so wrong?  Expect belittling articles downplaying the significance of these talks. Whatever they scribe the script for the 2020 re-election is already written, even if Bill Maher gets his wish for a recession.

Does Trump have a right to brag about unemployment?

E8E0C7BE-1B5E-460A-A348-49B9C2837141.jpeg

The Trump vs Obama camps are lighting up over who was responsible for the drop unemployment rates. Looking at the long term decline one could argue that Obama was a key part of the decline and the incremental drops in the rate are Trumps. Here are the raw figures.

In Jan 2009, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Obama had 115.818m people full time employed. In December of 2012 that number was 115.791m. (-270,000). There were 8.046m and 7.943m part time jobs over the same period. Minus 103,000. At the end of his 8 years, there were 124.3m FT jobs and 5.554m PT jobs. All told his FT workforce went up 8.48mn and PT fell 2.492m. So gross employment increased 5.98m.

Trump started at 124.3mn FT and as of May 2018 there are 128.657m FT jobs and 4.948m PT jobs. So he’s increased FT 4.347m and cost PT 606k. Net increase of 3.741mn jobs. So even if you ran the narrative that Obama’s second term was enough to put the “Great Recession to bed”, Trump has achieved 63% of Obama’s employment legacy in only 30% of his first term as president.

The number of people working two or more jobs surged to over 8mn (a record) under BHO as did food stamps (doubled to c.48m before coming down to 43m by his term end). SNAP stands at 40m now. 3mn fewer.

30 million people claim disability and welfare in the US. The Social Security Administration (SSA) highlighted that back pain and musculoskeletal problems are 33.8% of claims for disabled workers, followed by mental illness at 19.2% in 2013. This compares to 8.3% and 9.6% respectively in 1961. Half of claims in the 1960s came from heart attack/stroke and ‘other’ categories which made up only 17% of the 2013 figure.

Yet the truth is that if Americans wanted more of Obama’s successful policies, Hillary was Obama 2.0. No change in policies. Sensible to keep if they wanted the status quo. Ironic that 19 out of 25 states that voted for Trump had poverty levels exceeding the national average. Which means that had the “marry the state” policies of the Obama admin resonated with the poor it would have been a coronation for Hillary. This is a perfect example as to why a hollowed out middle America want to live the American dream rather than queue up for more welfare. God Bless America?

 

Trump bashing efficacy

A7885F15-20F0-4EFA-B442-87D6A46A2163.jpeg

Rasmussen notes the obvious impact of a public growing tired of the broken record:

“Eighteen months after Election Day, many Democrats and their allies in Hollywood and the media continue to attack President Trump in an unprecedented fashion. But few voters think it will pay off for Trump’s opponents in the next election.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 43% of Likely U.S. Voters think there is too much Trump-bashing going on in the popular culture today. Thirty percent (30%) say there isn’t enough, while 21% feel the level of Trump-bashing is about right.”

Who’d have guessed?

A2881330-F6C5-4A8C-BCE1-D9077590AB09.jpeg

In what world do people think wailing works as a way to win over people in an election? Strategy and policy matter. Rasmussen Reports writes,

In fact, just 15% of Likely U.S. Voters believe focusing on the president’s possible impeachment is a better campaign strategy for Democratic congressional candidates than focusing on policy areas where they disagree with Trump. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 70% think focusing on policy differences is a better political strategy. Fifteen percent (15%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Forty-one percent (41%) now believe the president will be reelected in 2020, up from 34% in late December. Twenty-six percent (26%) still think Trump will be defeated by the Democratic nominee, but 31% felt that way four months ago.

Twenty-five percent (25%) say the president will be impeached before serving his first full-term in office. That compares to 29% in the previous survey.

A sizable majority of Democrats agrees that policy differences, not impeachment, is the better political strategy, although a plurality of voters in the opposing party still says the Republican president won’t finish his first term in office.”

The marketplace for free speech weighs Wolf & Trump

0DDA3817-B905-4CEE-8389-D32655BBE425.jpeg

Poor old Michelle Wolf. You know, the young lady whose fingernails-down-a-chalkboard voice made off-coloured jokes surrounding abortion, Trump’s bedroom prowess, his daughter being as useful as an empty box of tampons and even portrayed WH Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders as a fat softball playing lesbian Uncle Tom for white women. Adam Sandler has just shredded her $4mn contract to star in Little Niki via Twitter. While CM is always against boycotts, compelled speech and virtue signaling, we’re struggling to work out whether Sandler terminated it on the basis of tasteless content or awful delivery? A combination perhaps?

Wolf tweeted back that she was fine with that because she was to play a role in the reboot of Bride of Chucky. Unfortunately that film role has also been cancelled, costing her another $410,000.

Freedom of speech is a funny thing. Wolf has every right to express what she chooses but should not complain if her backers (including her liberal mates) retreat because she picked the wrong audience to showcase them. Humour is always about fine lines. Sadly for Wolf she couldn’t even memorize her humour, having the read her jokes (?) out. The best comics don’t need scripts and can shred people off the cuff. That’s what makes them funny.

Yes, many have equated Wolf’s remarks to Trump’s greatest hits saying it’s unfair to pick on her. As a reminder Trump said,

grabbed her by the p*ssy”,

“I moved  on her like a bitch”,

“African countries are sh*tholes”

or

Michelle Wolf was over the top

Yet the market for free speech weighed his and her offensiveness. American voters had every opportunity to make sure he didn’t enter the White House on the basis of his vulgar remarks about women made over a decade ago. (Un)fortunately for them, his election to blow up the establishment was deemed more relevant to Americans than locker-room talk made in private over a hot mic.

Presumably, Wolf, much like Kathy Griffin (of bloodied severed Trump head fame), offer absolutely nothing outside their careers. They’re most unlikely to be able to force two nations to take up peace negotiations or shirt front dictactors. So when they stake their risky actions on going ‘viral’ to boost their careers and it blows up in their faces, the sole responsibility is theirs. No sympathy. In fact if it wasn’t for Trump they’d be virtual nobodies.

So is the marketplace for free speech unfair? Think of the price of people, stocks, bonds or anything else you can think of  varies depending on the market weighted bid/offer of the underlying assets. Sadly for Wolf and Griffin, the bids dried up almost immediately. For Trump, market expectations have long since been priced.

Really?

8F6C101A-1A3F-479E-AD44-F24103E3B5B4.jpeg

Really? Does Newsweek honestly believe that 59% of Republicans don’t want a woman president in their lifetime? Could it be GOP supporters don’t want to see a woman made president solely on the basis of gender? Is that irrational?

It is highly conceivable that many Republicans would back someone like US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, if she ever runs given her strength and purpose, regardless of how appalled Democrats might be. Even worse, the Democrats would die a thousand deaths knowing her Native American/Sikh background would singlehandedly outflank almost any identity driven political candidates the DNC could field itself.  To be thrashed at its own game when the opposition party doesn’t even know the rules. The irony!

However Newsweek would not be budged going straight down the line of how poor old Hillary Clinton was the innocent victim of rampant sexism. Aren’t Republicans bigger racists than sexists?

Newsweek’s Tim Marchin wrote,

Clinton’s candidacy was, of course, a big moment for women in U.S. politics. No other woman has ever earned the nomination of one of the major parties. After her loss in the election—to a man accused by multiple women of sexual misconduct—2017 became a year that was, in many ways, defined by women leaders…Millions of people took to the streets across the world in the Women’s March shortly after Trump’s inauguration. More recently, the #MeToo movement has helped shed light on just how many women have suffered from harassment, discrimination and assault. The movement has also revealed accusations against a number of men in positions of power.”

Marchin would have been far better off  conceding that Clinton’s campaign of identity politics (Obama 2.0) was on the ballot paper. It wasn’t wanted. The electorate preferred to place a serial p*ssy grabbing silver back with an agenda that better suited their needs.

Marchin might have reflected that Clinton ran her campaign like a coronation rather than a democratic election and deplorables voted for the guy who actually made the effort to see them. He may have pondered that even having an advantage of getting the questions before hand (aka cheating) saw her lose. To have her husband randomly meet the Attorney General on an airport tarmac days before the FBI testimony. Mere coincidence and who wouldn’t talk about the grandkids? It had nothing to do with her gender. It had nothing to do with those darned white women controlled by their red-necked husbands on voting day. She was an awful candidate.

More shameless clickbait journalism which tries to shame Republicans with a gotcha question bound to have wide interpretation. Here’s an idea for the Democrats – run a better candidate.

Rasmussen poll shows voter distrust of political news at new highs

B9D632C1-98C1-4EEB-B547-00FBE205D019.jpeg

A new Rasmussen Reports national poll finds that 54% of Likely US Voters now say they do not trust the political news they’re getting. This is up from last June’s previous high of 46%. Only 36% did not trust political news in January of 2017, but that number was in the 40s from 2014 through 2016. Fake news? Supports yesterday’s post which saw Rasmussen defend its polling integrity from criticism thrown at it by the mainstream media. At least this NY Times op-ed finally grasped the concept of growing mistrust in political news despite the rest of the paper ignoring it.