I sat and watched a piece today on YouTube where two guys were talking over President Trump and they came to this rare moment where they said....you know....he's the first thug-President we ever had, and they were proud of that belief.
I paused over that. To be honest, other than Andrew Jackson....I don't think anyone could match up with thug-potential to President Trump. Jackson....was probably twice the thug of Trump (probably Jackson would have pulled a pistol on more than one or two folks in his life, and wouldn't hesitate to get into a fist-fight).
The thing here is that if you lined up all the folks who voted for Trump....at least a quarter of them will tell you that they wanted a thug for President. And they'd swear some allegiance to him today, in some weird way.
This Kanye West episode? In this weird way, I think Kanye also sees this thug factor, and respects Trump because of it. The fact that some blacks are moving toward Kanye's view of Trump? Yeah....that's something that would not have happen with Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II. In fact, if I were a Democratic plans guy.....looking at a 8-year period from Trump, I might have some fear that one-third of all Blacks might be charmed by the thug-view, and vote GOP by the end.
So as you lay there tonight, and just looking over this whole weird experience.....just pause to think of Hillary sitting there, instead of Trump. How big of a thug could Hillary have been?
Thursday, 3 May 2018
The Ten Problems with the Democrats
I tend to see the Democratic Party in the US.....as being a 8-cylinder vehicle....with three cylinders misfiring....no tune-up in a decade....and a limited amount of fuel in the car in the car anyway, so it's not going far. So this is my list of problems facing them:
1. No real plan over immigration. If anything....some kind of Dream-Act I, which would lead onto Dream-Act II, which would lead onto Dream-Act III, and so on. Even some Democratic voters have figured out this game.
2. No real mid-term path. It's basically an effort to get enough House seats to force impeachment. To be honest, it doesn't sell well in red states or red districts. I would take a wild guess and say that even 20-percent of Democrats are laughing over the lack of a mid-term path.
3. Pelosi. Maybe in the 1990s....she had a brand-name. Today? Less so. They need to move on. Go ask a hundred Democrats in the south, and at least half will say that she's not a positive part of their sales pitch in southern states.
4. Hillary remaining. She's still there and part of the lack of a healing process since 2016.
5. Bernie Sanders remains. Among the far-radical elements of the Democratic voter crowd.....probably one-third of their base.....he's the ballistic missile of the party and carrying their future. But to the other two-thirds....they mostly shake their heads and would prefer to find some Bill Clinton-style guy.
6. The gun control topic. When you go to urban areas like Memphis, Atlanta, and Houston....locals (even Democrats) will tell you that they will only sign up to some marginal solution or repair. The hardline ideas? No. The rest of the nation? It's hard to get any of the red districts to go on this path.
7. Blacks taking the red-pill. Between November 2016 and November 2020....I expect 10-percent of the blacks who voted against Trump to cross the line and either refuse to vote Democrat, or refuse to vote at all. Some are asking questions and the Democratic Party can't really resolve the problems. Is a ten-percent loss of black votes a big deal? No....but it's a bad indicator of a trend over the next decade.
8. Sales package with CNN. Bluntly....the Democrats are hinged to both MSNBC and CNN selling their pitch. As far as I can see....CNN has reached a stage where their prime-time message is marginal. I think CNN still matters with crisis events, but no one really cares to watch an hour-long show each night on evil-Trump matters.
9. The comedians, actors and prominent folks on their anti-Trump agenda. It have been well focused in 2016, but now is laughed off by a majority of people. Go try and imagine this gimmick for eight straight years.
10. Finally, as soon as the election wrapped up....some focus team with the party should have met....discussed their weak points and wrote the theme for 2017/2018. A clear path should have been on everyone's minds. Where is that solutions for the middle-class Democrat? Non-existent? This sole group....working-class Democrats in the rural regions of the nation....almost forgotten for two decades now.
1. No real plan over immigration. If anything....some kind of Dream-Act I, which would lead onto Dream-Act II, which would lead onto Dream-Act III, and so on. Even some Democratic voters have figured out this game.
2. No real mid-term path. It's basically an effort to get enough House seats to force impeachment. To be honest, it doesn't sell well in red states or red districts. I would take a wild guess and say that even 20-percent of Democrats are laughing over the lack of a mid-term path.
3. Pelosi. Maybe in the 1990s....she had a brand-name. Today? Less so. They need to move on. Go ask a hundred Democrats in the south, and at least half will say that she's not a positive part of their sales pitch in southern states.
4. Hillary remaining. She's still there and part of the lack of a healing process since 2016.
5. Bernie Sanders remains. Among the far-radical elements of the Democratic voter crowd.....probably one-third of their base.....he's the ballistic missile of the party and carrying their future. But to the other two-thirds....they mostly shake their heads and would prefer to find some Bill Clinton-style guy.
6. The gun control topic. When you go to urban areas like Memphis, Atlanta, and Houston....locals (even Democrats) will tell you that they will only sign up to some marginal solution or repair. The hardline ideas? No. The rest of the nation? It's hard to get any of the red districts to go on this path.
7. Blacks taking the red-pill. Between November 2016 and November 2020....I expect 10-percent of the blacks who voted against Trump to cross the line and either refuse to vote Democrat, or refuse to vote at all. Some are asking questions and the Democratic Party can't really resolve the problems. Is a ten-percent loss of black votes a big deal? No....but it's a bad indicator of a trend over the next decade.
8. Sales package with CNN. Bluntly....the Democrats are hinged to both MSNBC and CNN selling their pitch. As far as I can see....CNN has reached a stage where their prime-time message is marginal. I think CNN still matters with crisis events, but no one really cares to watch an hour-long show each night on evil-Trump matters.
9. The comedians, actors and prominent folks on their anti-Trump agenda. It have been well focused in 2016, but now is laughed off by a majority of people. Go try and imagine this gimmick for eight straight years.
10. Finally, as soon as the election wrapped up....some focus team with the party should have met....discussed their weak points and wrote the theme for 2017/2018. A clear path should have been on everyone's minds. Where is that solutions for the middle-class Democrat? Non-existent? This sole group....working-class Democrats in the rural regions of the nation....almost forgotten for two decades now.
Tuesday, 1 May 2018
Larry Summers and the Lack of History
Larry Summers talking today about an 'unsustainable' period of growth (GDP) for the rest of the Trump era:
“Yes, we are growing at a reasonably rapid rate, but it’s taking unsustainable fiscal deficits to drive us to that point. It’s taking unsustainable increases in credit to drive us to that point. It’s taking unsustainable increases in asset prices. You can always generate a sugar high. The real problem for us is not achieving growth, but achieving sustained, healthy growth with a financial environment that’s sustainable.”
Here's the thing....the US has a history when GDP growth existed....well over 30 years:
Year, CD-rate, GDP-rate
1965, 4.88-percent, 6.5-percent
1966, 6.14-percent, 6.6-percent
1967, 5.95-percent, 2.7-percent
1968, 6.39-percent, 4.9-percent
1969, 8.95-percent, 3.1-percent
1970, 9.06-percent, .2-percent
1971, 6.06-percent, 3.3-percent
1972, 5.65-percent, 5.2-percent
1973, 10.71-percent, 5.6-percent
1974, 12.06-percent, minus .5-percent
1975, 7.89-percent, minus .2-percent
1976, 6.31-percent, 5.4-percent
1977, 6.96-percent, 4.6-percent
1978, 11.28-percent, 5.6-percent
1979, 13.97-percent, 3.2-percent
1980, 17.74-percent, minus .2-percent
1981, 17.98-percent, 2.6-percent
1982, 15.12-percent, minus 1.9 percent
1983, 10.17-percent, 4.6-percent
1984, 12.08-percent, 7.3-percent
1985, 9.6-percent, 4.2-percent
1986, 7.83-percent, 3.5-percent
1987, 8.19-percent, 3.5-percent (Black Friday Year)
1988, 9.28-percent, 4.2-percent
1989, 10.40-percent, 3.7-percent
1990, 8.57-percent, 1.9-percent
1991, 7.17-percent, minus .1-percent
1992, 4.42-percent, 3.6-percent
1993, 3.39-percent, 2.7-percent
1994, 6.78-percent, 4.0-percent
1995, 6.71-percent, 2.7-percent
1996, 5.75-percent, 3.8-percent,
1997, 5.90-percent, 4.5-percent
1998, 5.67-percent, 4.5-percent
1999, 6.07-percent, 4.7-percent
2000, 6.94-percent, 4.1-percent
2001, 5.45-percent, 1.0-percent
2002, 2.16-percent, 1.8-percent
2003, 1.30-percent, 2.8-percent
2004, 2.66-percent, 3.8-percent
2005, 4.62-percent, 3.3-percent
As you can tell....the Bush era was the point where numbers were starting to decline, and continued on into the Obama era.
Not that I really cast doubts on Larry Summers....but he has not real concept of what the US did prior to the Bush era. Part of this blame? Going naturally back to CD rates and all the 'free' money of the Fed.
“Yes, we are growing at a reasonably rapid rate, but it’s taking unsustainable fiscal deficits to drive us to that point. It’s taking unsustainable increases in credit to drive us to that point. It’s taking unsustainable increases in asset prices. You can always generate a sugar high. The real problem for us is not achieving growth, but achieving sustained, healthy growth with a financial environment that’s sustainable.”
Here's the thing....the US has a history when GDP growth existed....well over 30 years:
Year, CD-rate, GDP-rate
1965, 4.88-percent, 6.5-percent
1966, 6.14-percent, 6.6-percent
1967, 5.95-percent, 2.7-percent
1968, 6.39-percent, 4.9-percent
1969, 8.95-percent, 3.1-percent
1970, 9.06-percent, .2-percent
1971, 6.06-percent, 3.3-percent
1972, 5.65-percent, 5.2-percent
1973, 10.71-percent, 5.6-percent
1974, 12.06-percent, minus .5-percent
1975, 7.89-percent, minus .2-percent
1976, 6.31-percent, 5.4-percent
1977, 6.96-percent, 4.6-percent
1978, 11.28-percent, 5.6-percent
1979, 13.97-percent, 3.2-percent
1980, 17.74-percent, minus .2-percent
1981, 17.98-percent, 2.6-percent
1982, 15.12-percent, minus 1.9 percent
1983, 10.17-percent, 4.6-percent
1984, 12.08-percent, 7.3-percent
1985, 9.6-percent, 4.2-percent
1986, 7.83-percent, 3.5-percent
1987, 8.19-percent, 3.5-percent (Black Friday Year)
1988, 9.28-percent, 4.2-percent
1989, 10.40-percent, 3.7-percent
1990, 8.57-percent, 1.9-percent
1991, 7.17-percent, minus .1-percent
1992, 4.42-percent, 3.6-percent
1993, 3.39-percent, 2.7-percent
1994, 6.78-percent, 4.0-percent
1995, 6.71-percent, 2.7-percent
1996, 5.75-percent, 3.8-percent,
1997, 5.90-percent, 4.5-percent
1998, 5.67-percent, 4.5-percent
1999, 6.07-percent, 4.7-percent
2000, 6.94-percent, 4.1-percent
2001, 5.45-percent, 1.0-percent
2002, 2.16-percent, 1.8-percent
2003, 1.30-percent, 2.8-percent
2004, 2.66-percent, 3.8-percent
2005, 4.62-percent, 3.3-percent
As you can tell....the Bush era was the point where numbers were starting to decline, and continued on into the Obama era.
Not that I really cast doubts on Larry Summers....but he has not real concept of what the US did prior to the Bush era. Part of this blame? Going naturally back to CD rates and all the 'free' money of the Fed.
Monday, 30 April 2018
Lack of Trust
If you look at the chart....there's some point around 1998 where the bulk (at least 50-percent) of the nation was trusting the media.
Along about 2004, that shift occurs. Republicans go south (30-percent still trust the media). Independents go south (45-percent still trust the media).
By 2012, it's gotten pretty bad. Less than a third of Republicans still trust the media. Even from the Democrats, they've dropped down to around 58-percent.
By 2016, the election year....Republicans reached the depth of 14-percent, and barely one-third of Independents can still find trust. Even half of the Democrats lack trust.
For two-hundred years.....some form of the media....newspapers, radio, television, magazines, or the internet....was able to convey a brand-name message and convince people that they could trust their message. That doesn't exist anymore.
I went looking for comparable numbers in Europe. The latest trend? Radio is about the only media left where 59-percent of the public has a trust in the message. The written-media? They dip down to 46-percent.
What happens in 2020 and the next election? If this trends holds on, then the brand-name news and slant that would usually affect an election....will be in serious trouble. Added to this 'misery'....the fake shock that the news media has to project when their message isn't bought by the public.
All of this would bring me to question how things will work in 2024 (likely the end of the Trump era), and how both political parties can survive in this new era.
Wolf
After looking at about three minutes of the White House Press Association from the weekend, and the insult-comedy laid out by Michelle Wolf....I'd generally say that it was gutter-humor where 50-percent of an audience would typically walk out.
The problem is that a fair number of people from beyond the urbanized areas of the nation....will sit and watch the piece, then start shaking their heads. It's mostly insults. In terms of humor....it's lacking.
An affect on the 2019 association dinner? I'll go and take a humble guess that they have some problems in selling tickets next year, and roughly 25-percent of those who showed up this year.....won't be there next year.
Journalists who go and defend Wolf? Well...it's another reason why people don't watch your brand of news anymore.
The problem is that a fair number of people from beyond the urbanized areas of the nation....will sit and watch the piece, then start shaking their heads. It's mostly insults. In terms of humor....it's lacking.
An affect on the 2019 association dinner? I'll go and take a humble guess that they have some problems in selling tickets next year, and roughly 25-percent of those who showed up this year.....won't be there next year.
Journalists who go and defend Wolf? Well...it's another reason why people don't watch your brand of news anymore.
Sunday, 29 April 2018
Psychological Counseling Trend?
Over the weekend, this Marvel movie.....the Infinity War....was released, and in the middle of it....Peter Parker (aka....Spiderman) dies. It's a nobel moment.
Across the nation, because of the blunt way that the movie ends...unfinished, with a dozen-odd character gone or dead, I suspect this week that a number of snowflake folks will be calling up their psychological counselor and asking for a 45-minute session.
You can imagine this scene....you asked for a special meeting over a grief situation. The doc is sitting there...you got a tissue or two....a tear forming up. The doctor asks you about which friend or relative who died, and you start jabbering away about Peter Parker or Spiderman. He lets you talk for maybe three minutes, then he leans forward and says...."You know that Spiderman is not real....right?"
Then you go on about Nick Fury being gone, and Doctor Strange. Around the 40th minute of this session, the doc suggests that maybe you ought to take a vacation, and just get away for a while. But you say it's so hard, and you just can't accept Spiderman dying like this. It's so unfair.
Normally, if you grew up in Alabama, you'd be fairly grief-stricken over a relative or neighbor passing. You'd probably shed even a tear over a former governor passing away. You'd be upset over most of co-workers who passed on. In fact, you'd be grief-stricken over your dog passing, or even some of your more friendly cows who might have gotten struck by lightning. Most Alabama folks however....just don't get very grief-stricken over imaginary people having passed on.
My brother in this case....if some snowflake had hyped up this whole chatter and their great grief.....would suggest to the guy that he's bailing hay this Saturday, and a whole eight hours of hauling hay would help to get the grief out of your system. I'd tend to agree. And at least with hay-hauling, you wouldn't have to pay some psychological counselor ninety dollars.
Across the nation, because of the blunt way that the movie ends...unfinished, with a dozen-odd character gone or dead, I suspect this week that a number of snowflake folks will be calling up their psychological counselor and asking for a 45-minute session.
You can imagine this scene....you asked for a special meeting over a grief situation. The doc is sitting there...you got a tissue or two....a tear forming up. The doctor asks you about which friend or relative who died, and you start jabbering away about Peter Parker or Spiderman. He lets you talk for maybe three minutes, then he leans forward and says...."You know that Spiderman is not real....right?"
Then you go on about Nick Fury being gone, and Doctor Strange. Around the 40th minute of this session, the doc suggests that maybe you ought to take a vacation, and just get away for a while. But you say it's so hard, and you just can't accept Spiderman dying like this. It's so unfair.
Normally, if you grew up in Alabama, you'd be fairly grief-stricken over a relative or neighbor passing. You'd probably shed even a tear over a former governor passing away. You'd be upset over most of co-workers who passed on. In fact, you'd be grief-stricken over your dog passing, or even some of your more friendly cows who might have gotten struck by lightning. Most Alabama folks however....just don't get very grief-stricken over imaginary people having passed on.
My brother in this case....if some snowflake had hyped up this whole chatter and their great grief.....would suggest to the guy that he's bailing hay this Saturday, and a whole eight hours of hauling hay would help to get the grief out of your system. I'd tend to agree. And at least with hay-hauling, you wouldn't have to pay some psychological counselor ninety dollars.
The Scooter Story
Lately, I've been following various stories out of San Francisco, and this odd story popped up over the weekend.
Folks there have decided that things with the electric scooter trend have reached a stage where 'control' needs to be established by the city.
Last week, I was reading 'rants' by locals, and one guy got onto this topic.....describing city as now having a Ho Chi Minh City appearance with all the motor scooters that rumble across the city day and night.
So the Municipal Transportation Agency says they want to fix this electric scooter issue....with a two-year permit test program that would limit the city to five e-scooter permits, and no more than 500 scooters for each permit.
There would be an absolute max of 2,500 scooters in San Francisco. If the company could not manage their program.....the license would be yanked.
Adding to the rules....scooters would only be allowed into certain areas of the city.
Then the fee would fall into place (a company paying $5k per year to the city. Later, they suggest it'd go to $25,000).
A maintenance fee? Well, that got thrown into the mess as well....the rental company would have to pay $10k a year into some public fund.
Then the cherry on this whole idea would be that the five companies would have to come up with a plan on their own to help the 'poor' (low-income folks) pay for their scooter.
I sat there looking at the fees involved, the necessity of funding low income users of scooters, and profit-margin for each of the five companies. It'd mean that you as a 'renter' would have to pay in the range of $100 to $150 a month once they got to the higher $25k a year fee for the companies involved.
The odds that people would cooperate? That's the thing about this. I can't see how a user would sign up for some lease program....they'd just bypass this, and buy the scooter on their own.
The city? It's mostly creating a law and pretending that the public will obey it when it's built as a 'joke'.
It's simply another small reason to leave California.
Folks there have decided that things with the electric scooter trend have reached a stage where 'control' needs to be established by the city.
Last week, I was reading 'rants' by locals, and one guy got onto this topic.....describing city as now having a Ho Chi Minh City appearance with all the motor scooters that rumble across the city day and night.
So the Municipal Transportation Agency says they want to fix this electric scooter issue....with a two-year permit test program that would limit the city to five e-scooter permits, and no more than 500 scooters for each permit.
There would be an absolute max of 2,500 scooters in San Francisco. If the company could not manage their program.....the license would be yanked.
Adding to the rules....scooters would only be allowed into certain areas of the city.
Then the fee would fall into place (a company paying $5k per year to the city. Later, they suggest it'd go to $25,000).
A maintenance fee? Well, that got thrown into the mess as well....the rental company would have to pay $10k a year into some public fund.
Then the cherry on this whole idea would be that the five companies would have to come up with a plan on their own to help the 'poor' (low-income folks) pay for their scooter.
I sat there looking at the fees involved, the necessity of funding low income users of scooters, and profit-margin for each of the five companies. It'd mean that you as a 'renter' would have to pay in the range of $100 to $150 a month once they got to the higher $25k a year fee for the companies involved.
The odds that people would cooperate? That's the thing about this. I can't see how a user would sign up for some lease program....they'd just bypass this, and buy the scooter on their own.
The city? It's mostly creating a law and pretending that the public will obey it when it's built as a 'joke'.
It's simply another small reason to leave California.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)