Thursday, August 27, 2015

Poll; "Why Have The Pundits Got It So Wrong On Trump?"

As poll after poll shows Trump continuously rising despite all the pollsters and pundits direst predictions and fervent hopes the question arises; how have the 'brightest and best' managed to utterly stuff this up? Here are a few possible reasons to choose from.

Monday, August 17, 2015

Is There An Electoral College Path For A Sanders Presidency?


On the negative side for Sanders aficionados the short answer is it is almost beyond the realm of possibility. On the positive side a Sanders candidacy would do much better than Mondale's and McGovern's disasters.

Although on first glance the 2012 win by President Obama seems substantial it turned on the usual suspects, a small number of key states. If Florida/Ohio/Virginia/Colorado had gone to Romney. All within the realms of possibility as the margins commenced at 0.5%  Romney would have been elected.

What gave Obama the victory was the unprecedented turnout of Black voters in Ohio without which state no Republican has ever won the presidency.

For Sanders, who is clearly struggling with Black voters at present, to gain the same amount  of Black turnout in 2016 seems improbable. Thus the smallest decline in Black turnout (not to mention vote switching to Donald Trump should he be the nominee) would make his candidacy a struggle at the very least.

Worse, should Trump be the nominee and his prediction in his message of "bring back jobs from China" and Hispanics will support me because of jobs" that he would win the "rust belt states" of Ohio/Pennsylvania/Michigan come true, then Sanders would be finished.

A possible day after the 2016 presidential election would look like this in a Trump/Sanders match-up;




If Trump were not the Republican nominee, and Michigan and Pennsylvania went for Sanders the GOP would still win comfortably.

Perhaps surprisingly even if Ohio were removed from the GOP even without Trump as the candidate the Republicans would still win the presidency as the result would be a tie with the GOP dominated House of Representatives choosing the president.

Elite Pundits Ignore"Trump Vote Block" 56% Of GOP Vote-Highest Yet

I've  explored previously how in poll after poll what I deem as the "Trump Block i.e. those current candidates who are ideologically aligned on the base/conservative side are polling between 48% to 55%.

This fact, which flies in the face of all the "experts" and pundits who have consistently advised that Trump is a flash in the pan, and that the GOP nominee will come from the Establishment side-i.e Jeb Bush. 

The poll results I have highlighted have not seen a single mention from any of the leftist media for good reason-it just doesn't fit their political view and it makes a mockery of their prognostications. More to the point their utter disdain of the base of the GOP.

They can run but they can't hide from the facts which are that in the  latest Fox poll, which is perfectly aligned with the last three polls I examined, not only has the "Trump Base" increased in support to its highest level at 56%, but the *first four on the list are all from the "Trump base".

The "Establishment" candidates total just 31% and Rand Paul 4%. This blows away the pundits claim that if Trump fails the preferred Establishment candidate i.e. Jeb Bush or perhaps Kasich  would then pick up the pieces and run away with it.

The point that if Trump did fail his support is unlikely  go to Bush and would go to either Carson or Cruz. But such is the disdain of the base by the pundits that they can only see the scenario that suits them, which has been  the case with Trump from the inception.

 On the other hand it can be plausibly argued that some of Walker's support would flow to the current "Trump Block" if he pulled out which would, on current polling put the group at  +/-60% a much more likely scenario than the pundits concept.

*Trump 25% Carson 12%  Cruz 10% Huckabee 6%  Perry 1%  Santorum 1% Jindal 1%  Total 56%


                                                              
      

Sunday, August 16, 2015

The Ten Point Case For Sarah Palin As Trump's Vice-President

Since Donald Trump is all but assured of the Republican nomination speculation has, naturally, turned  to considering who his running mate might be. I present below the case for Governor Palin as I see it






GOP's Front-runner Donald Trump indicated he would wish to have former governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin  "in my administration" An administration includes, of course, the vice-president.

Asked during an interview with Kevin Scholla on talk radio show The Palin Update whether he would consider asking Palin to serve in “some official capacity,” Trump replied enthusiastically.“I’d love that,” he said. “Because she really is somebody who knows what’s happening and she’s a special person, she’s really a special person and I think people know that.”

In the interview, Trump said that both he and Palin had been victims of unfair attacks from the media. Trump said he looks at Palin’s ability to handle such coverage with admiration. “She took so much nonsense, lies and disgusting lies,” Trump said. “She handles it so well. 

She’s tough and smart and just a great woman so it’s an honor to be with you today.” “I don’t even think she knows how important she is, okay?” Trump said. “Maybe that’s part of the beauty of Sarah Palin.”


There are a number of takeaway's from that statement which lead to a case for Governor Palin as his running mate; "Trump/Palin 2016."

1. They are obviously compatible which is an important aspect of a viable campaign team. This is not the first time both Trump and Palin  have praised each other-the famous "Pizza Summit" was just one example. Trump recently Tweeted to Palin that he would "love to have another Pizza meeting."

When asked directly about a ticket Trump responded "I don't think she would wish to put herself through that again". That is of course a million miles from "She said she would not etc and leaves the door wide open.

2. Being of the same mind and personally compatible would lead to a smooth running administration. President Wilson hardly spoke to his vice-president Thomas Marshall in just one of a number of instances of poorly compatible executive team having a deleterious effect on an administration.

3. Palin would add to the team her executive experience in government at the level of hands on administration as a governor. This would help blunt the charge that Trump has no political and governing experience.

4. There are some in the base who view Trump as not a genuine Republican, much less a conservative. Palin would guarantee the enthusiasm and turnout of those potential voters and fire up the base exactly as she did for McCain in 2008 when she put him in the lead before the economic crisis made even her herculean  efforts of no avail.

5. Given that Hillary is the Dem's nominee Palin would stop the ridiculous "war on women" meme dead in its tracks. If on the other hand Hillary isn't the nominee, and there are no women on the Dem's ticket, then obviously Palin would provide gender balance to the GOP's advantage.

6. Nobody in political life has been as thoroughly vetted as Palin. There are absolutely no hidden things, real or imaginary, that the left could dig up on her that have not be canvassed in extremis. What this means is that the GOP team could proceed straight into campaigning and delivering their message without the usual distractions that the media digs up.

7. Palin's pro-life bona fides are absolute and indisputable. Her endorsement of Trump would take away any doubts potential pro-life voters might have about a Trump ticket.

8. Palin is a proven campaigner with the ability to draw massive crowds, as opposed to for example Paul Ryan who added little to the Romney ticket. The turnout for her in Florida was massive and in such a key state could be a deciding factor.

9. Palin is "media ready" she is a natural on television and her every appearance would attract substantial viewers making her a key "get' for the media and ensuring a wide audience for the ticket's message.

10. After 2008 Palin is media savvy and could handle anything the interviewers threw at her with aplomb which a novice to the media furnace might not be able to deal with.




"Trump/Palin" is literally "old hat" and the fact that it was mooted years ago shows that the concept has been taken seriously as something so obviously substantial and advantageous deserves to be. 
Whether its time has come remains to be seen, but most certainly it is to be considered seriously as the ten points (there are others of course) indicate.

Addendum; Palin on Trump.

Palin has also praised Trump in recent weeks. After Trump questioned Senator John McCain’s status as a war hero, Palin said that both men are heroes. “I have the good fortune of knowing both John McCain and Donald Trump well,” Palin told CNN. “Both men have more in common than the today’s media hype would have you believe. Both blazed trails in their careers and love our great nation.”


In 2011, after President Obama released his birth certificate: “Media: Admit it. Trump forced the issue.”
Later that year, after the two shared a pizza: “Every time you go to New York, you’ve got to see Donald Trump. … I approve of his independence.”
In 2014, after a Buzzfeed hit piece on Trump: “This nervous geek isn’t fit to tie the Donald’s wingtips. Don’t ever give him attention again.”
Palin even defended the Donald  after he bashed McCain — the man who first brought her south to the Lower 48.

And of course there is the Palin /Trump interview at OAN which, too date, has over 3 million views which shows the power and interest in Trump and Palin. LINK

Video#4 'On Point' with Gov. Sarah Palin & Donald Trump







Fair use notice: This website contains copyrighted material, the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Excerpts of such material is made available for educational purposes, and as such this constitutes ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Act. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this website is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Original material published on this website may be excerpted and the excerpt reproduced for the purpose of critical reviews. However, such original material may not be reproduced in full on another website or in any manner without prior approval from this website’s owner. In all cases when material from this website is reproduced in full or in part, the author and website must be credited by name and a hyperlink provided to this website.

Saturday, August 15, 2015

If Trump's Right Florida Or A Hispanic VP Is Not Vital To 2016


If front runner Donald Trump is correct in his assessment on which states he would win in the presidential election it is a game-changer, dramatically so;

"Trump told  Breitbart News that the Rust Belt—places like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and others—where blue collar American workers, many of them Ronald Reagan Democrats, are states he will certainly win if he wins the GOP nomination.
“Those are my states,” Trump said."


What such a change in Electoral College wins would mean is that Trump would be elected president without needing to carry both Florida and Virginia. These two states went to Obama twice, albeit closely, and under the usual circumstances the loss of either, especially Florida, means that it is nearly impossible for a Republican to win.

Normally if Florida is lost the GOP supporters can turn off their televisions about 9 p.m. on election night as 29 Electoral College votes are just too many for them to pick up elsewhere-especially  given how tight the electoral map is for the GOP. Even with Florida in the bag, both Virginia and Ohio have to be won to ensure a tight victory, something that hasn't happened since 2004.
But if Trump's assessment is correct, that his appeal to blue collar voters in the "rust belt" is such that he can carry Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan he would, presuming he held the "McCain/Romney states, tie with the Democratic nominee at 269/269  (see map 1 below) at which point the election would be thrown into the Republican dominated House of Representatives* who would, presumably, choose Trump (the Senate would choose the Vice-President)

In point of fact winning Ohio/Pennsylvania and Virginia (see Map 2 below) would eliminate the need for the House to act as Trump would have 272 votes-3 more than needed. This would seemingly be an easier road to victory as Romney lost Virginia by only 3.88 points but Michigan by 9.50 points. Trump would also have to win Iowa which has been a blue state more often than red in recent years.

There are some possibly significant implication to follow if polling shows Trump holding substantial leads in these rust belt states. Firstly the "Reagan coalition" would be back in place with the combination of the 'solid South" the Midwest, plus blue collar workers, and would bring to the polls the "Perot voters" in these key states which analysis shows stayed home in 2012.

Secondly it would negate the seeming imperative to have a Hispanic on the ticket to win Florida, thus putting the chances of a Trump Bush or Trump Rubio (or even Martinez or Sandoval) further away than might have been originally considered. That's not to say any of those combination might still happen or be an insurance policy-or even icing on the cake in the Electoral College.

There are of course many reasons to have a prominent Hispanic on the ticket, not least with an eye on future demographics, but also to show that a tough policy on illegals is not aimed at the Hispanic community at large. 

On the other hand studies have shown that, apart from Florida and perhaps Colorado, the Electoral College route for the GOP is not, at present, Hispanic depended. Interestingly though, early polls in Hispanic areas have shown Trump to be the preferred choice "because of the prospect of jobs" which is if course a universal message and the key to the rust belt states as well.

MAP 1
MAP 2


*The constitution is very clear on the matter. Article 12 states, inter- alia:


"The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice."

Friday, August 14, 2015

After The Next Crash-What To Do With the Banks?

Very clear from the outset, I am a conservative by nature and by politics and a firm believer in the free-enterprise system. To any sensible person there is no alternative as history has clearly shown that the alternative systems of state control end badly, usually in the death of millions.

What is also obvious is that all economic systems,whether they are wrong or right, get distorted when they move beyond mathematics and the natural process of return to equilibrium. The distorting factor is of course human nature.

The banking system is rife with fraud and gross manipulation-that is incontestable. To list all the banks that have faced massive fines (but hardly any of the perpetrators going to jail) would make this article far to long-just one example, the "Libor" rigging which was a fraud involving trillions will suffice.

As is the usual case with that scandal a further regulatory system was put in place which will, possibly, close that door but only a fool would imagine for a moment that other banking rip-off schemes will be hatched, or more probably are currently going on.

A point may be raised that since there is a government guarantee on bank deposits to a more than reasonable amount, then this ongoing corruption is not a worry for the average person and the system is what it it is. It works reasonably well and there's nothing that can be done about it. That is of course an incorrect assumption;

"Because Libor is used in US derivatives markets, an attempt to manipulate Libor is an attempt to manipulate US derivatives markets, and thus a violation of American law. Since mortgages, student loansfinancial derivatives, and other financial products often rely on Libor as a reference rate, the manipulation of submissions used to calculate those rates can have significant negative effects on consumers and financial markets worldwide.

But beyond the direct affect on the individual there is the question of morality. Is it right to have an economic system where the major underpinning, the banking system, is so rife with fraud and immoral behavior? What message does it send to ordinary workers when the supposed 'brightest and the best" are shown to be immoral, venial and uncaring for anyone but themselves?

Sadly, except for eternal vigilance and a continuous patching of band aids over the festering wound of corruption nothing, similarly as with the 'War on Drugs" can be done as things stand. Only radical approaches can deal with either and can't/won't happen unless some cataclysmic force or event eventuates to open the door to amelioration.

This happened before and the steps taken were a major advance which could only have come about after some dramatic event. In 1933 at the height of the depression,  and with a run on the banks, President Roosevelt's administration saw substantial reforms which underpin the current system today. 

It is hardly beyond the bounds of possibility that the current American economy, "standing" on trillions of dollars in printed money and a stratospheric national debt might, at any point, undergo another and even more catastrophic collapse.

In the event of a major 1929 type disaster, what might be the economic and moral action as regards the banking system that might benefit the entire nation (except the fraudsters)? At that point what possible reason could there be to resurrect an inherently fraudulent, morally corrupting banking system which is impossible to control?

The alternative could be to scrap the private banking system altogether under such circumstances and re-institute the failed banks and their branches under a truly independent commission which could include representatives of as many aspects of American society e.g Unions, business people, academics, politicians, clergy and etc. 

The element in banking which seems to cause the most mischief, the demand on employees to constantly ramp up the banks profits to ensure large bonuses, would be removed as would be the grossly immoral salaries the senior bankers enjoy.

The creation of money for profit, for that is what banks do, would see the profits returned to the public who make it possible. This through either lower banking fees or payments to the federal government to reduce the national debt or to be used for more schools, infrastructure, and anything that will benefit the greatest number rather than a tiny minority.

The free enterprise system would emerge unscathed from such a change as of course banks don't produce anything in themselves, rather they enhance the flow of funds to those who do create real wealth. Why the banks should make such massive profits and corrupt the values of the country whilst doing their job is a question that needs attending to, but won't be until it is too late as the political will is not there.

There is nothing more certain, as history shows us, that the economic system is cyclical and in due course a major correction will come to the disequilibrium that is currently the situation. 

If it is of a dramatic nature it may be a blessing in disguise as it could provide the political will, overriding the deeply entrenched interests of the financial community, to permanently fix this blot on the moral landscape.


Thursday, August 13, 2015

Trump's "I Paid For This Microphone" Reagan-ite Moment



First Donald Trump stood up to the Fox hit job at the candidates debate when Megyn Kelly asked the most ridiculous "question" that any potential presidential candidate has ever been asked in such a forum. He replied with humor and dignity and fought back unbowed.

 Instead of being his downfall, as the media crowed would happen after the debate, Trump has not only held his leadership position but is now within three points of Hillary Clinton in the latest Iowa poll.

Then after Democratic Party (Socialist) Senator Bernie Sanders was cowed by a couple of radical BLM hooligans into walking off the stage after they invaded his platform at a public meeting Trump responded:

"Asked at the press availability about an incident in which Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders — a contender for the Democratic nomination and the only candidate in either primary drawing crowds larger than Trump’s — ceded his microphone to two Black Lives Matter protesters who stormed the stage at an event this past weekend in Seattle, Trump called it “disgusting.”
“I would never give up my microphone,” he said. “It showed he was weak.”

These two events can be viewed as Donald Trump's
"equivalent of Ronald Reagan's "I paid for this microphone" moment which ensured his unstoppable momentum to the nomination and eventually the presidency.

A bit of history:

"In January of 1980, the Iowa Republicans decided to have a straw poll as a part of their caucuses for that year. Bush's hard work paid off, and he defeated Reagan by a small margin. Bush declared he had the "Big Mo" (for "momentum"), and with Reagan boycotting the Puerto Rico primary in deference to New Hampshire, the victorious Bush looked like he might actually beat Reagan to the nomination.

With the other candidates in single digits, the Nashua Telegraph offered to host a debate between Reagan and Bush. Worried that a newspaper-sponsored debate might violate electoral regulations, Reagan subsequently arranged to fund the event with his own campaign money, inviting the other candidates to participate at short notice.

 The Bush camp did not learn of Reagan's decision to include the other candidates until the debate was due to commence. Bush refused to participate, which led to an impasse on the stage. 

As Reagan attempted to explain his decision, the editor of the Nashua Telegraph ordered the sound man to mute Reagan's microphone. A visibly angry Reagan responded "I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green!" (the editor's name was in fact Jon Breen). 

Eventually the other candidates agreed to leave, and the debate proceeded between Reagan and Bush. Reagan's quote was often repeated as "I paid for this microphone!" and dominated news coverage of the event; Bush did not make an impact with the voters."


What has transpired, then and now, is that both men were perceived as fighters, uncowed by a censorious "authority" media and a blatant attempt to break and silence them. 

These were transformative moments and I have little doubt that Trump's "Reagan" moments will also be looked backing history as a major turning point.

Certainly there was the visual element to these moments but at the core there was a much deeper meaning to them which caused an "in the gut" response from the public.

The subliminal message is simply this; 

"This man fights for himself, perhaps he will fight for me, my family and my country in the same manner."

In Reagan's case the "gut-feeling" subliminal response was completely correct as will be the case with the public's reaction to Donald Trump.

Poll;What Cabinet Role Might Sarah Palin Have In Trump's Administration?

"Donald Trump would consider tapping former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to serve in his administration, the billionaire presidential candidate said this week. Asked during an interview with Kevin Scholla on talk radio show The Palin Update whether he would consider asking Palin to serve in “some official capacity,” 

Trump replied enthusiastically.“I’d love that,” he said. “Because she really is somebody who knows what’s happening and she’s a special person, she’s really a special person and I think people know that.” In the interview, Trump said that both he and Palin had been victims of unfair attacks from the media. Trump said he looks at Palin’s ability to handle such coverage with admiration. 

“She took so much nonsense, lies and disgusting lies,” Trump said. “She handles it so well. She’s tough and smart and just a great woman so it’s an honor to be with you today.”

 Which administrative post would Governor Palin be best suited for in a President Trump administration? Vote results will be passed on to the Trump team for their consideration.

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

POLL:Trump;"I'm Open To A Woman VP"-Vote For Who That Might Be



Front-runner Donald Trump advised in an interview at 'The Sneed Report Chicago Sun Times' that he is "open to having a woman as his VP running mate:



"GOP presidential hopeful Donald Trump tells Sneed he would be open to having a woman as his running mate.
Trump, who continues to soar in the polls despite a femme flap/furor stemming from a question posited by FOX debate moderator Megyn Kelly over derogatory names she claimed Trump had called women in the past, tells Sneed:

“Certainly, I would consider a woman as a running mate,” said Trump.
“I am all for the concept. It would have to be the right person and I’m not going to go into who that would be right now. But I have great respect for women. I have great respect for women who are executives in my company. I have great respect for women’s judgment.


“Having a woman as a running mate is certainly a consideration. A very good consideration. It would be something I would strongly consider.”







Fair use notice: This website contains copyrighted material, the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Excerpts of such material is made available for educational purposes, and as such this constitutes ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Act. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this website is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Original material published on this website may be excerpted and the excerpt reproduced for the purpose of critical reviews. However, such original material may not be reproduced in full on another website or in any manner without prior approval from this website’s owner. In all cases when material from this website is reproduced in full or in part, the author and website must be credited by name and a hyperlink provided to this website.

China's Economic Crisis;Businessman Trump Or Zero Capability Hillary?

China, after advising they would only devalue once turned around and devalued a second time, causing economic chaos across the world. Whether this action will lead to a major economic slump is to be seen, but what it does point out is that a grossly over-leveraged world is poised on a clifftop with a gaping chasm below.

With the presidential campaign well under way this economic shock should give pause and bring a moment of considered reflection. The obvious question that arises is "who would be best able to deal with an major economic crisis?"

I'm afraid to say to all the media Beltway pundits that their attacks on Trump have all just exploded into nothingness in the face of economic reality. Their childish concentration on things like Megyn Kelly's "bleeding"  is an idiotic distraction when it is a time for the grown-ups to step up  the plate.

We are now faced with the reality of what affects the person in the street-their income, their jobs, their mortgages i.e. all the important financial things. 

To think that Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush or Scott Walker or Carson/Huckabee/Rubio et al would be in any way as capable as Trump in dealing with those matters in a crisis is preposterous. As for Fiorina, her career at HP also makes the comparison ludicrous.

America has been down this path before. When the 2008 crisis hit President Bush looked like a deer in the headlights. McCain ludicrously suspended his campaign to attend to the crisis, and then had nothing to offer having no understanding of financial complexities. 

With no one else to turn to the country voted in a "Mr.Cool in a crisis no drama Obama" community organizer with no financial management experience-and here we are.

Donald Trump responded, with the voice of a prophet and the voice of experience, to the Chinese devaluation in a manner that it would be ludicrous to expect from any other of the 21 or so candidates to respond:

"Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Tuesday said China's devaluation of the yuan would be "devastating" for the United States as the global currency war entered a new and critical phase.
"They're just destroying us," the billionaire businessman, a long-time critic of China's currency policy, said in a CNN interview.

"They keep devaluing their currency until they get it right. They're doing a big cut in the yuan, and that's going to be devastating for us."

Earlier on Tuesday, China devalued its currency following a series of poor economic data in the yuan's biggest fall since 1994. Some said this could signal a long-term slide in the exchange rate.
China has been a frequent theme for Trump since he entered the 2016 presidential campaign, promising to be a tougher negotiator with Beijing in order to bolster the U.S. economy.

"We have so much power over China," he told CNN. "China has gotten rich off of us. China has rebuilt itself with the money it's sucked out of the United States and the jobs that it's sucked out of the United States"

It's time for the media to become responsible, and instead of blindingly rant and rave over Trump to take on board the real and present dangers facing the American economy and judge him, and his opponents both in the GOP and the Democratic party on the merits of their experience and prescriptions not trivial pursuits.

If this crisis deepens today may well mark the reality of President Trump 2016 as there is nobody else with the gravitas and capability to deal with it.

 I would confidently predict that if anything like this current crisis hits a week or so before the presidential election and Trump was the nominee he would win in a Reagan type landslide

I've addressed the importance of Trump to the GOP and to the economy and the American people in two articles which further expand on the need for his capabilities in Government.   LINK  and LINK

President Trump;A New "The Business of America Is Business" Coolidge?



GOP Ran A Businessman Like Trump Before To Greatest Vote Success





Fair use notice: This website contains copyrighted material, the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Excerpts of such material is made available for educational purposes, and as such this constitutes ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Act. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this website is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Original material published on this website may be excerpted and the excerpt reproduced for the purpose of critical reviews. However, such original material may not be reproduced in full on another website or in any manner without prior approval from this website’s owner. In all cases when material from this website is reproduced in full or in part, the author and website must be credited by name and a hyperlink provided to this website.

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Two Words For Joan Walsh's "The Hypocritical Sexist Right"

Poor wilting flower Joan Walsh at Salon admits to feeling  "a little ill" at seeing the word "menstruating" bandied about so freely in the media following  Donald Trump's supposed reference to it,  which he denied she forgets to admit, at the GOP debate. "On Sunday, Trump said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that he meant her ears or nose. “Only a deviant would have thought otherwise,” he said." 
If the stiletto fits.

Walsh needs to "man up"  (NB Those are not the two words for Walsh )

before I get to be called a misogynist rightist woman hater I picked up the above quotation from an article at 'The New York Post' by  Andrea Peyser  who sees things differently from Walsh:

"Trump’s haters need to man up and deal"

Ears, nose or wherever — are women so in need of male protection that we can’t take a remark that may (or may not) rip into our delicate sensibilities?Please. Don’t worry about women. We can take anything Trump dishes out. When judging Trump, I would suggest we all man up. Look at his record of hiring, and firing, females. I’ve not heard of him called out for underpaying, overworking, failing to promote or laying hands on women in his employ."


The rest of Walsh rant, for that is what it is, a rather unhinged one at that in my opinion with sad references to her personal life, as if that had any bearing on anything and which, for all anyone knows may be true, again not it that matters.


I’ve had righties bray I’m not marriageable and that it’s my “time of the month."


 If any one is interested they can, if they can wade through the rubbish, find it  at Salon 

The statement about "rightist sexist hypocrisy" is the one that needs addressing not Walsh's possible marital attractiveness or lack of. The short reply can be made, in utter finality, in two words; 
"Sarah Palin." How any woman, even a far left ranter, can deny that Palin has been the subject of the most gross, violent, idiotic, destructive, hateful, lying filthy misogyny is beyond comprehension.

What the left has thrown at Palin, in near utter silence from "feminists" and women's groups like 'NOW ' since 2008, is beyond comprehension and rational understanding. Any leftist woman who states that it is the right which is hypocritical on women is either a blind partisan or an abject liar.

Now I have had the response to this statement from leftist women who advised that "both are wrong" when, in response to their "right misogynists" I mention Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy and the hate on Palin. 

Yes of course both types of misogyny are wrong but there is a difference. It is the left who are the utter hypocrites by not only commencing the Palin hate but for doing it in the certain knowledge they will get away with it because leftist women will, by and large, allow it to pass uncondemned (unremarked on is too weak and an easy out.)

If Walsh can produce an article where she condemned Andrew Sullivan for his relentless "Trig Trutherism"
where she can show that Hillary has been subjected to having her daughter called not her own and the result of incest. When a rightist reporter rents a house next to hers to write a hatchet-job scandal book whilst the media chortles. If Walsh can produce the equivalent of those examples, and literally hundreds of others as bad or worse, then she can complain of "rightist sexist misogyny"

With what the left have done to Palin in relentless hate to a woman, unparalleled in American history, has forever disbarred them from calling anyone else "sexist" If Walsh is not convinced she might consider how she would react if these T-shirts bore the name "Megyn Kelly' or Joan Walsh:


WOW Staffers Also Wear Sarah Palin C*nt T-Shirts


Obama Supporters Call Sarah Palin A C*nt- Where Is The Media?





Monday, August 10, 2015

Donald Trump: His Jewish family And Support For Israel


Republican presidential candidates Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (left) and Donald Trump participate in the first prime-time presidential debate in Cleveland, Ohio, August 6, 2015. (Scott Olson/Getty Images/AFP)
NEW YORK (JTA) — Among the expansive field of Republican presidential candidates on display in the party’s first debates Thursday night, Donald Trump may be the most closely connected to the Jewish people.
Trump is from New York, works in professions saturated with Jews and long has been a vocal supporter of Israel. His daughter and two grandchildren are Jewish, the executive vice president of his organization is Jewish — and Trump certainly has chutzpah.
As the main attraction of the Republican debate,Trump’s trademark chutzpah was on sharp display. When asked about past references to women he dislikes as “fat pigs,” “slobs” and “disgusting animals,” Trump said he has no time for political correctness. He bragged about how Hillary Clinton dared not miss his most recent wedding because he donated to her campaign. And he refused to rule out running as a third-party candidate should someone else win the Republican nomination.
‘I have many Jewish friends that support Obama and I say, Why? and they can’t explain why. They support him, they give him money, they give him campaign contributions,’ Trump told radio host Michael Savage in February. ‘This is the worst enemy of Israel’
Given his myriad Jewish associations
Trump is not an unfamiliar face in Jewish circles. He has served as a grand marshal at New York’s annual Salute to Israel Parade. After Hurricane Katrina, he was among a group of celebrities who decorated Jewish federation tzedakah boxes to be auctioned off to support hurricane disaster relief. And in February, he was honored with an award at the annual gala for the Algemeiner, a right-wing Jewish news organization.
“I have a Jewish daughter. This wasn’t in the plan, but I’m very glad it happened,” Trump said at the event, held in Manhattan. On Israel, he said, “We love Israel. We will fight for Israel 100 percent, 1,000 percent. It will be there forever.”
Before the 2013 Israeli election, Trump recorded a video message endorsing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

You truly have a great prime minister in Benjamin Netanyahu. He’s a winner, he’s highly respected, he’s highly thought of by all,” Trump said in the 30-second spot. “Vote for Benjamin — terrific guy, terrific leader, great for Israel.”
By the same token, Trump has made clear he believes President Barack Obama is bad for Israel and has questioned how American Jews could support the president.
“I have many Jewish friends that support Obama and I say, ‘Why?’ and they can’t explain why. They support him, they give him money, they give him campaign contributions,” Trump told radio host Michael Savage in February. “This is the worst enemy of Israel.”
Trump at times has dabbled in Israeli real estate. About a decade ago, he bought a site in the Tel Aviv metropolitan area with plans to build Israel’s tallest building, to be called Trump Plaza Tower. He later sold the Ramat Gan property to an Israeli firm before its development. In 2012, Trump met with Israel’s tourism minister to discuss possible investments in real estate and tourism, according to the Israeli news website Ynet.
Former model turned businesswoman Ivanka Trump. (screen capture:  YouTube/CBS This Morning)
Former model turned businesswoman Ivanka Trump. (screen capture: YouTube/CBS This Morning)
Trump’s closest Jewish association is with his daughter Ivanka’s family. Ivanka Trump, a fashion designer and celebrity in her own right,converted to Judaism before marrying Jared Kushner, the son of New York Jewish real estate mogul Charles Kushner.
She studied for her Orthodox conversion with Rabbi Haskel Lookstein of Manhattan’s Kehilath Jeshurun synagogue and the Ramaz School, and Lookstein officiated at her wedding. Trump and Kushner are members of Lookstein’s Orthodox synagogue and are Shabbat observant. They have two children.
Donald Trump is Presbyterian. He has said he goes to church on Christmas, Easter and special occasions.
When it comes to The Trump Organization, Trump’s right-hand man is a Jewish lawyer, Michael Cohen, who also serves as a top campaign aide. Cohen ignited controversy last week by suggesting that spousal rape doesn’t count as rape. He later apologized, saying his remarks were “inarticulate.”
Trump, of course, doesn’t shy away from controversy himself. Just since announcing his candidacy in June, he has called illegal Mexican immigrants rapists, disparaged Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), for getting captured in the Vietnam War and publicly disclosed Sen. Lindsey Graham’s private mobile phone number at a campaign rally.
On Israel, he said, ‘We love Israel. We will fight for Israel 100 percent, 1,000 percent. It will be there forever’
Then there was Thursday night’s Republican debate. Following his verbal fireworks on stage, he doubled down on Twitter, saying, “I really enjoyed the debate tonight even though the @FoxNews trio, especially @megynkelly, was not very good or professional!” He was apparently referring to Kelly’s question about Trump’s comments on women.
Trump’s record suggests he’s far from a Republican ideologue. He has given money both to Democratic and Republican candidates, including Republican primary rivals and Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee for president. Trump at varying times has supported liberal policies like abortion rights as well as Tea Party causes like strict immigration restrictions. In the debate, he stood by his past support for single-payer health care, saying that he thought it worked well in Canada and could have worked in the past in the United States.
Overall, Trump doesn’t appear to have very many fixed policy positions. Unlike the other Republican candidates, he has no policy section on his campaign website.
When Ivanka Trump introduced her father at the Algemeiner dinner six months ago, she said, “He has used his voice often and loudly in support of Israel, in support of developments within Israel, in support of security for Israel and in support of the idea of the Israeli democracy.”
One thing is certain of Donald Trump: As long as he stays in this campaign, he will continue to use his voice often and loudly.