Debatable Debate Observations

If the Democrats have no better ideas than presented tonight, they have no hope. Which is a good thing.

When the question includes the phrase that 60% of democrats believe that the economy is doing well, is it appropriate to respond that the economy is only working for the rich? Maybe 60% of democrats are the rich. How do you win when running against 60% of your own party? This pretty much sums up the democrats’ chances.

Tulsi Gabbard had the best moment when she told Representative Ryan that “being engaged” is an unacceptable answer to the parents of dead soldiers.

NBC was picking winners by whom they allowed to butt in, whom that did not and by who they called on most frequently. They mostly allotted time according to each candidate’s polling position. However, Mayor DeBlasio was allowed to butt in when the other lesser candidates were not.

NBC’s favorites: Castro, Booker, Warren, O’Rourke, Klobuchar and maybe DeBlasio.

Warren had a nice closing statement, but she was a wallflower through most of the event.

Fluency in Spanish is now required to be a witness to the entire political discussion.

It should not be a crime for a foreigner to enter our country without a visa. Every migrant here, coming here or thinking about coming here should be welcomed with government programs to help them get and stay here.

NBC did a horrible job of running the debate. Technical sound problems interrupted the debate, the moderators did not drill down for details and Lester Holt had to tell Chuck Todd where he was. As a 

result, the candidates were allowed to make feel good promises without having to explain how they could deliver. But when you allow ten candidates on the stage, it’s difficult to drill down.

Every democrat is for abortion at the sole discretion of the involved woman and the government should pay for whatever the woman demands.

The Democrats would all cave to Iran and re-sign the Obama deal. It’s too scary now. We should give the Iranian’s what they want.

Individuals should be taxed up to 70% and businesses 28%.

Biggest winner, Gabbard for her zing of Ryan. Biggest loser, Ryan.

Second place: Castro. He was given a lot of time and he made the most of it. Second biggest loser: Klobuchar. She was higher in the polls so got more questions. She didn’t falter but didn’t shine. She had more to lose than most and she lost it.

Luckiest candidate: Warren. None of the candidates went after the front leader of tonight’s pack.

Most courageous candidate: tie between DeBlasio and Castro. DeBlasio had the presence to start talking at the end of another candidate’s answer and Castro called O’Rourke on the specifics of his immigration plan. Castro was making the point about repealing the law that makes it illegal for migrants to cross the border.

DeBlasio also had the courage to state what Democrats should be for: 70% taxes, free college, free pre-school, public healthcare, abortions at will, and a Marshall Plan for the Latin America countries where our immigrants are coming from. (I believe that the Marshall Plan was to rebuild physical infrastructure for countries that already had strong social infrastructures and institutions. What good would physical infrastructure do without social infrastructural?)

My personal ranking of the performances (not on policy positions but on wooing the audience, I must admit, I don’t agree with any of their positions): Gabbard, Castro, Booker, DeBlasio, O’Rourke, Warren, Klobuchar, Delaney, Ryan, Inslee.

Overall impression, tired policy ideas (not to mention outside of working class values), no signs of leadership, and boring personas. I think it was DeBlasio that stated that the democrats had to be the party of the working cleass again. If so, they should do some polling of their policies with the working class. But that wouldn't work with the coastal elites that run their party.

Donald Trump can sleep well tonight.

Obstruction is Comey’s Sting Operation

The following is an opinion of the events surrounding the initiation of an obstruction of justice charge against the President of the United States.

 FBI Agent Peter Strzok admitted in a text message to FBI lawyer Lisa Page that they initiated an investigation into “Russian collusion” as an insurance policy to take the president down in the unlikely event that Donald J. Trump would win the 2016 Presidential election. As a result, our nation has been torn apart for over two years by a witch hunt that the FBI had no just cause to initiate. The Mueller Report just confirmed this point. No American colluded with the Russians.

Almost two years ago, FBI Commissioner Comey told the President that he was not the subject of the Russian investigation. Mr. Comey knew there was no just cause to include the President in the investigation. The President requested that Mr. Comey tell the American people these facts. Mr. Comey refused noting that Congress knew the facts. Frustrated with the suspicion being cast on the legitimacy of his election, President Trump fired Mr. Comey.

Then, Mr. Comey purchased reinsurance by illegally leaking a government document to the media. Mr. Comey admitted to this illegal leaking in Congressional testimony. He further admitted that his purpose was to cause a Special Counsel to be appointed. Mr. Comey knows how the FBI works and that a deep dive into almost anyone’s life would uncover something that would not be flattering. More importantly, he knew the President’s temperament and most likely thought the President would fall into a perjury trap (a trusted FBI tactic). The reinsurance policy was a sting orchestrated by FBI Commissioner Comey at the expense of the American people. Now, many Americans are concerned that our President tried to obstruct justice by impeding an investigation that the President knew (and Mueller confirmed) was a witch hunt. Who would impede an investigation that would prove them innocent?

This is not to say that the President acted professionally. He did not. He may have tried pushing some incorrect buttons but was rebuffed by his staff. That is a stain on his character. The fact that he allowed his staff to steer him clear is a sign that he accepted their advice. Donald J. Trump is Donald J. Trump. The American people knew that when they elected him.

Twenty-two months, thirty-million-dollars, and unprecedented division between Americans that has shifted Congress’ focus from solving America’s problems to partisan sniping. Thank you, Mr. Comey, your illegally initiated sting operation is now being taken up by the Congress. It appears America’s problems will have to wait years longer. God help those in need of affordable health care. God help those vulnerable migrants on our southern border. God help our border patrol agents being imperiled by Congress’ lack of action. Sorry, but Congress has no time for you at this point. For now, the sting continues. And, the sting is king.

Comey Indirectly Admits His Lack of Professionalism

Former FBI Director Jim Comey put his foot in his mouth again. After his day-long session with a congressional subcommittee, Mr. Comey immediately entertained a swarm of reporters that were eagerly awaiting him (and he them). To the question of what Mr. Comey thinks about the Mueller investigation, Mr. Comey replied that the investigation is proceeding “rapidly” and “extremely professionally.” Mr. Comey noted that an indication of his assessment is the fact that you (the reporters) do not know anything about the investigation except for what you can gleam from court papers filed by the investigation team.

Great insight from Mr. Comey. The investigation is “extremely professional” because it does not leak. Now, how did Mueller's investigation get started in the first place? Oh, that’s right, it was triggered by Mr. Comey’s willful and self-serving leak of notes he made regarding his impressions of meetings he had with the President. Notes that are government property and prohibited by law from being leaked. Notes that are also protected by the President’s executive privilege. At least Mr. Comey realizes what professionalism look like, even if he does not practice it himself.

President Trump Has Already Won the Trade War

China’s economy is suffering from the tariffs imposed by President Trump. That is why China’s President Xi Jinping agreed to a tariff truce last night. He knows that he has already lost the war.

In its last quarterly earnings report (September 20, 2018), Micron Technologies noted that the China trade tariffs would impact its upcoming fiscal year earnings a bit. Micron also reported that they were making changes to its supply chain to minimize the tariffs’ impact. It was noted that those changes would take two or three quarters to complete. Last week, only two months after Micron’s earnings report and supply chain statement, the CEO of Micron made a statement that his company has already completed most of the supply chain changes needed to mitigate the impact of the China trade tariffs.

American businesses have very complex supply chains with operations around the globe. It may take a few months, but most American businesses are going to minimize their footprint in China. China is now too risky. Businesses do not like risk. Furthermore, there are many more options available to American businesses today than there were when China was the place to go for manufacturing facilities with state-sponsored, sweetheart financing deals. India, Vietnam, Singapore and Malaysia are a few example of China alternatives. But, made in America is the best alternative.

There may be a temporary truce on tariffs, but China already shot itself in the foot. American businesses will continue to minimize their exposure to trade wars. Thus, in three months, China will be more disadvantaged than they are right now in negotiating trade terms.

This is a win for America and a win for the world. China has been practicing predatory trade policies and a line has now been drawn in the sand. Expect that line to be pushed back even further. Expect an increase in fair trade between good-willed member states of the world community.

If the Democrats Win Back the House...

The Democrats have a good chance of winning back the House of Representatives. If so, Nancy Pelosi could regain her previous position as Speaker of the House (putting her 2nd in line to become president if something were to happen to both the President and Vice President).

However, a good number of Democrats running for Congress have gone on record that they would not vote for Representative Pelosi if they are elected. Apparantly, some Democrats correctly see that Ms. Pelosi is not good for the party.

Remember, however, that the full House of Representatives vote for the Speaker. Ms. Pelosi could win with Republican votes. In fact, if the Democrats win the House back, I recommend that Republicans throw their full support for Ms. Pelosi as Speaker. Think of Speaker Pelosi being the face of the Democrat Party as we conduct the 2020 elections. What more could a Republican want.

The Democrat’s Conundrum

To be or not to be. That is the question that I ask of D.

To bee the party of political correctness, microaggressions, quiet spaces, stuffed animals and coloring books. Or, to be the party that “cannot be civil” until their back in power, of Maxine Waters in your face, of the anti-fa big whities attacking “little whities” at a Portland intersection. Of running people out of restaurants via verbal assaults that scent of physical threats. And, of Erik Holder "kicking them when they go low."

The party of cuddling or the party of violence? Ah, what a conundrum. And what unclear messages that D is sending to voters.

Look for a “What Happened Part 2” following the midterms. But, don’t expect the D to learn anything new this time either.

The Science Behind the Kavanaugh Confirmation Process

Democrats love to say that Republicans are denying science. Well now the shoe is on the other foot. The psychological science is clear that a recovered memory is about as accurate as a dream. Psychological science also dictates that a “survivor” (horrible term) should not process their past trauma in a public setting. However, the Democrats USED Dr. Ford as a pawn to further their political goals with no regard for Dr. Ford, Judge Kavanaugh and both of their families.

Dr. Ford has experienced some trauma. What it was and what or who perpetrated it upon her is unknown. She wanted to remain anonymous for good reason; she is a psychology professor and probably knew what was best. Damn, Democrats are so self-centered that they not only ignored the science, but they caused harm to a lot of people.

I have consulted with a doctor of clinical psychology who is also a licensed psychologist for this wisdom.

Cannot wait for the November elections. That straight Republican lever is looking so sweet.