Tuesday, 25 July 2017


So you have an Alabama senator who gets this awful rare chance to meet up with a Russian ambassador.  If you lined up the last five Alabama Senators....I doubt if any of them had ever met the ambassador.

Weeks pass, and you get offered some job, and the Senate folks want to ask about meeting any foreigners of influence, and you say 'no'.....you never did.

You get confirmed, and then a month later.....it's obvious that you told a fib.  What's the deal?

(A) You are pretty Alabama-stupid.  (B) You are growing old and forgetful.  (C) You are told to get past point A by your chief supporter, and then are able to hand off the special prosecutor situation to someone that your chief supporter tells you is the 'right' guy.

It can only be one of the three answers.  Two of them make you look like a loser.  The third makes you look like some guy with an agenda designed by your chief supporter....whoever he is.

At this point, I think Sessons has demonstrated he's out of his league, and that he might be compromised because of his incompetence.  In other words, he needs to retire back to Alabama.

Mueller? Well....he's got this problem in that his old law firm (before the special prosecutor job) donated a fair sum of money to Hillary Clinton.  Mueller himself didn't donate....but his firm did.

Most of Mueller's big-lawyer team?  They either donated money to Hillary or were members of legal firms that donated money to Hillary.

At this point, Trump needs to find some legal wiz.....Cruz probably....ensure he's never ever met a Russian, and hire him as the Attorney General.  Cruz would then run the investigation business himself because of a lack of Russians in his background.

The Polling That Matters

I'm often amazed at the fake news agenda and the attempt to portray a national poll, which would lead you to certain false beliefs.

If you go back to the 2016 Presidential election....just over 52-percent of the general public showed up to vote (that in itself says a lot).  But here's the real substance to look upon....thirty states came to vote for Trump....only 20 states for Hillary Clinton.

If you go and do polling of the 30 states, I'm willing to guess that virtually all of them are still in some positive trend for Trump today, and will likely be that way in 2020.

So, only the thoughts of 30 states matter?  Yes, that's basically the whole story.  It doesn't matter if 90-percent of California or New York go another direction....those thirty states hold the electoral power over the remaining twenty.

What also falls into the 2020 election?  There's this odd 2018 senate race going on in Michigan....with 'Kid Rock' now announced as a GOP candidate.  He'll have to run against a Democratic senator who has been there three times now and won.  The influence of 'Kid Rock'?  He'll draw the youth vote and some of the Detroit votes, along with the GOP.  For 2020, Senator Kid Rock (assuming he wins in 2018) will be a major cog in getting Michigan again in the win-column.

If the GOP wins another three Senate seats in 2018?  It puts the polling back into the thirty-state equation, and you can basically discount whatever the Hillary states of 2016 say or think.  You could easily have another case where one or two million votes do appear for the Democratic challenger to Trump, but not enough to affect the thirty-state count.

On the Subject of Meetings

This morning, I read through a political news piece talking Jared Kushner (Trump's son-in-law) and his meeting business with the 'Russians'.  At some point, Jared realized that the meeting was a total waste of time, and sent a 'chat' to some associate to call him at the meeting and 'get him out' of the meeting.  The news journalists hyping up all this stuff....seemed amazed at people trying to get out of meetings.

At some point in the early-1990s....I moved from a play-mode to a manager-mode, and then came the realization that you had to go and attend meetings.  Some were a mere fifteen minutes long and drilled quickly down into the issue, and were worthwhile as a meeting.  Some were 90 minutes long, and basically accomplished next to nothing.  I came to value most meetings as worthless.

At some point around 2002 to 2004....I probably was wasting four hours a week in meetings.  In 2010 to 2013.....as a manager within the Pentagon empire, I was lucky to get myself down to 180 minutes per week.  The only enjoyable meeting each week in that last year was the building custodian meeting where all kinds of building renovation or history came out from the chief of the Pentagon building.

I brought this up years ago with a older guy who could remember the 1970s era, and how there were rarely meetings.  In his mind, when the internet and computer era arrived....meetings increased.  As he pointed out.....more people wanted 'stock' ownership in decisions made, and success from meeting decisions rarely paid dividends.

At some point about fifteen years ago....I worked with a female who had a husband who had a degree in business management (the master's degree), and he had weekly meetings with his staff (the wife, and the two kids).  One of the kids was a teenager and had become anti-meeting....thus causing friction in the household.  The wife tried to explain to the husband that these meetings were not of much value, and instead got lectured on the necessity of a 'focused-team'.  I asked the co-worker how would this all end, and she felt the kid would be out the door as soon as she graduated from high-school.

Jared in my humble opinion....has realized the value of meetings.  If you don't reach the necessary chat-topic in five minutes, and reach some solution in fifteen minutes....there's something wrong.  The sad thing is that we probably need thousands of Jareds in the US government, to stop worthless meeting-garbage.