Lion of the Blogosphere

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Mueller Report!

with 10 comments

I have downloaded part I, but I don’t see anything worth blogging about. I am sure the fakestream media will find tidbits in it that they can spin go make Trump look bad.

The Starr Report was a way better report. It had a great narrative and was fun to read. Starr proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Clinton lied when he said, in a sworn deposition, that he didn’t have sex with Monica Lewinsky.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

April 18, 2019 at EDT pm

Posted in Politics

This anti-Buttigieg op-ed shows why he’s such a strong candidate

with 90 comments

The op-ed writer complains that he doesn’t stand for anything, and that’s exactly it. He’s not a crazed extreme-leftist. He’s a Bill Clinton type of Democrat, minus his extreme lust for women.

In a pack of potential candidates who are angry women and minorities, crazed extreme-leftists, there stands only one sane moderate white male who is not about to drop dead from old age, and that’s our gay mayor of South Bend, Indiana, whose gayness protects him from #metoo.

Picking a fight with Mike Pence shows how Buttigieg has learned from the Trump playbook. It gets his name in the news, and rallies the Pence-haters in the party (and especially in the fakestream media) who otherwise wouldn’t have thought much about Buttigieg.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

April 17, 2019 at EDT am

Posted in Politics

Predictions for Mueller Report

with 11 comments

My thoughts haven’t changed.

I am sure that Barr knew the whole report would eventually be seen, and therefore his letter does not lie about the report.

But I still believe that the report will contain innuendo that will allow Democrats to who hate Trump to claim that Trump “obstructed justice.”

The mystery, however, is whether anything will be revealed about what was really going on. For example, will we find out more about the mysterious Joseph Mifsud whom George Papadopoulos claims was an Italian intelligence asset who was helping the British and the Australians to set up the Trump campaign so that the FBI could bring him down.

* * *

Unfortunately, I think that Papa is wrong and that only 2% of Americans are woke to this.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

April 17, 2019 at EDT am

Posted in Politics

New national Emerson poll

with 52 comments

Fluke or the shape of things to come? Sanders with a 5-point lead over Biden, and the gay mayor of South Bend, Indiana in third place.

* * *

Answer: just a fluke. New poll shows Biden back in first, the gay mayor of South Bend Indiana in 5th.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

April 15, 2019 at EDT pm

Posted in Politics

The latest polls

with 31 comments

Biden’s popularity hasn’t been hurt at all by the #metoo stuff, and Buttigieg is now definitively in third place. I have to admit that I’m surprised by both of these outcomes.

I think that Buttigieg benefited from the free publicity he got from attacking Mike Pence, and that has made leftist-SJW types (who dominate the fakestream media) suddenly like him.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

April 11, 2019 at EDT pm

Posted in Politics

Emerson Massachusetts poll

with 44 comments

This is Elizabeth Warren’s home state, so if she’s only in third place in her home state, she has no chance of winning the nomination. We can write her off.

Sanders pulls ahead of Biden. Reminder, Massachusetts went for Hillary in the 2016 primary, so Biden’s bad week of being #metooed has hurt him and made Sanders the front-runner. I predict that Biden will eventually announce that he’s not running, but probably not until May.

Maybe the biggest story is Buttigieg at 11%. Has Buttigieg peaked, or is this the beginning of a surge for the white male Christian centrist candidate? (Gay, but still a white male Christian.)

Can Buttigieg really go all the way? Won’t some people who voted for Hillary in 2016 just be weirded out by the idea of a First Husband in the White House who’s “married” to a male President?

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

April 8, 2019 at EDT am

Posted in Politics

Will Jews continue to vote Democratic when the Democratic Party becomes anti-Israel?

with 107 comments

The Democratic Party is swinging hard left, and the hard left sees the world as a hierarchy of victimhood. Under this hierarchy, Jews are only victimized when compared to gentile whites, but they have more privilege than just about everyone else, especially Muslims who are considered the world’s most-victimized religion.

The left is blind to the destruction that their ideology would cause. Giving Palestinians want they want, the right to be Israeli citizens, means that Israel becomes a majority-Muslim country (because there are more than 5 million Palestinians waiting to return), and then like all majority-Muslim countries it becomes a sh*thole instead of a safe place for Jews to live. Jews will, over time, be forced out of their own country. So implicitly, the left denies that Israel has the right to exist.

Going forward, the Republican Party will always be a lot more friendly to Israel, because conservatives don’t like Muslims very much, so it’s easy for them to get onboard with being friends of Israel. Whereas leftists are psychologically unable to side with Israel because they are seen as too privileged compared to their enemies. Old guard pro-Israel Democrats like Chuck Schumer will be marginalized. Republicans, therefore, are smart to push this issue in Congress.

Does it even matter if Jews abandon the Democrats for Republicans? Jews are only a small percent of the electorate.

The answer, yes, it would matter a lot. In swing states like Pennsylvania (2.3% Jewish) or Florida (3.0% Jewish) where elections are won by less than a percent, if the Jews switch from being 80% Democratic to let’s say 60% Republican 40% Democratic, that can definitely swing a statewide election.

It also matters for donations. Where do Democrats get their money from? Certainly not from blacks and immigrants. Because Jews are very civic-minded, they donate a lot of money to their favored political party.

However, I remain pessimistic about Jews switching their political-party allegiance over Israel. The opposite is more likely to happen, secular Jews in the United States become anti-Israel in order to align with their real tribe, which is liberalism and not Judaism. Benjamin Netanyahu understands this, which is why he is trying to become friends with evangelical Christians, Victor Orban in Hungary, and all other non-leftists who are willing to be pro-Israel. He is rightfully worried that liberal Jews in the United States will soon abandon Israel.

U.S. Jews abandoning Israel is going to be really bad for Israel’s continuing existence, but at least it will prove that anti-Semitic slurs, that Jews are liberal as part of a secret plot to elevate Israel above the concerns of the United States, are totally false.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

April 5, 2019 at EDT am

Posted in International, Politics

It’s Trump, not Kushner

with 30 comments

This article at Politico, about how Kusnher is “quietly” working on a plan to “expand some forms of legal immigration,” has gotten some right-wing people into a tizzy of Kushner hate.

I feel that this hate is tinged with some anti-Semitism, because Trump has brought a whole bunch of Wall Street/big corporation types into his administration who haven’t bought into Trump’s populism (like Wilbur Ross, Jr. and Steven Mnuchin), and his signature legislative achievement was a massive tax cut for big corporations and the top 1%, but they blame Kushner for everything.

I am certain that it is Trump who has asked Kushner to do this, and not the other way around. And not just because the article explicitly says that “Trump personally tasked Kushner … with the priority of legal immigration.”

Trump has never been anti-legal immigration, if you have paid attention. Has anyone else but me been paying attention? In March of 2016, after watching a debate between Trump and Ted Cruz, I wrote this:

We’ve suspected for a while that Trump doesn’t really know what’s in his position papers on his website, and he outsources them to TrueCon types who ignore what he says in his campaign speeches. It has finally been proven today. The diatribe in his immigration plan against H-1B visas is apparently not something he’s actually going to do if he becomes president.

It seems to me that Trump’s actual beef with immigration is that our laws are being violated. Trump believes in law and order.

But today we see that Trump actually buys into the standard big-corporation lies on immigration.

* There aren’t enough qualified Americans
* We lose “talented” people if they graduate college and then aren’t allowed to stay here and work
* We need foreigners to do jobs Americans won’t do

When asked about his hotels’ use of H-2B visas, he could have said “I’m a businessman, I take advantage of the laws to make as much money as possible. But when I’m president, we are going to reform the H-2B program to create more jobs for Americans.” Instead, he just agrees with the standard corporate position that these are jobs Americans won’t do.

Trump has said all along that his wall is going to have a big beautiful door in the middle of it for people to come here legally. I now think that he means it, and that he has no interest in reducing the amount of legal immigration and may actually increase it.

I told you so three years ago.

And since then, Trump hasn’t changed how he talks about the immigration problem. He always talks about the law and order angle, how illegal immigrants are breaking our laws to come into this country, and then committing crimes after they get here. He rarely if ever talks about immigration in economic or cultural terms.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

April 4, 2019 at EDT pm

Posted in Immigration, Politics

Will Trump win or lose in 2020?

with 69 comments

The only four states that matter are:

  • Pennsylvania
  • Michigan
  • Wisconsin
  • Florida

Democrats have to flip more than one of those states in order for Trump to lose (assuming that Democrats don’t also flip other states besides those four). So, for example, Trump could lose Florida but still win a majority of the Electoral College. And that’s important, because Florida has different demographics than the other three, so it’s a realistic possibility that Florida flips but Trump still gets reelected by holding on to his other states.

Another key point is that if Trump does win Florida, then he gets reelected unless all three Rustbelt states flip.

So the Democratic path to victory is either:

1. Win Florida plus one Rustbelt state
2. Win all three Rustbelt states.

Much has been made about the nation’s demographic changes, and yes they are very important, but the Rustbelt states remain stubbornly non-Hispanic white. Immigrants move to where the jobs are, and there are no jobs in the Rustbelt.

Florida is a different story. There are lots of immigrants moving there, but Florida is also the place where old white people move to retire, and old white people love Trump. Republicans were able to win both statewide elections in 2019 (the governorship and one U.S. Senate seat), but they were very close elections.

How exactly do Democrats change the results from 2016? There are four ways this happens:

1. Demographic changes favor Democrats (fewer old whites, more non-whites).
2. People who voted for Trump are less enthusiastic than in 2016 and stay home.
3. People who would have voted for Clinton in 2016 but stayed home for lack of enthusiasm are more enthusiastic in 2020.
4. People who voted for Trump in 2016 flip and vote for Clinton. And people who voted for Clinton in 2016 don’t flip and vote for Trump.

One thing we can be sure of is that in 2020, whoever is running against Trump won’t ignore the Rustbelt states the way that Clinton did. I’m not the only person smart enough to figure out that Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania are the key swing states. You can be sure that whoever is running in 2020 will be focusing their campaigning on those three states. Plus Florida.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

April 4, 2019 at EDT am

Posted in Politics

About Joe Biden

with 62 comments

Piers Morgan says that “most of the liberals now defending him would be ripping him to pieces if he were a Republican.” And that’s 100% true.

Does being so touch-feely that it’s borderline-creepy prevent an otherwise capable man from being a good President. No. Clinton was a good president despite being a serial sexual harasser, possibly a rapist, a liar under oath, and received blow jobs in the Oval Office from Monica Lewinski.

But I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Joe Biden is all that capable. He would be the first President since Reagan not to have graduate from an Ivy League school. And it’s not like he excelled academically at non-Ivy schools. He graduated near the bottom of the class from the University of Delaware, and then flunked a class at the Syracuse University College of Law (a very bottom-tier law school) for plagiarism. I have to conclude that Biden would be the least intelligent president we’ve had in the long time, even less intelligent than Reagan. You’d have to go back to Johnson or Truman to find a dumber President.

Biden is a salesman type, who no doubt would have made a lot of money in sales if that’s what he went into instead of politics. But apparently his dream was always to be a politician, and that’s the reason why he went to law school. He has admitted that he found law school to be “the biggest bore in the world.”

Biden is a slimy politician who says whatever the thinks he needs to say to get elected, but often messes up, thus is infamous for his gaffes. Although the silver lining there is that he doesn’t actually believe in a lot of nonsense that other Democrats believe in. Deep down, he has a lot of politically incorrect beliefs. It’s for this reason that he’s so dangerous to Trump. He’s the only Democrat who doesn’t turn off prole whites in the Rust Belt.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

April 3, 2019 at EDT am

Posted in Politics

%d bloggers like this: