donald-trump

The Debate Presents Big Questions

Dave Davis Commentary, Uncategorized , , , ,

The debate unfolded as I had foreseen but with even more dramatic results. As anticipated, Biden’s performance that night revealed his vulnerabilities, leading to a swift abandonment by many of the party’s leaders and media supporters the following day. The critical difference is that Biden’s unsuitability was starkly exposed, prompting an immediate exodus. This outcome aligns with our suspicion of a plan to replace Joe with a candidate perceived as more competent at the top of the ticket. Nearly a year ago, in my post, ‘Why Republicans Lose,’ I outlined how, once Trump secured the Republican nomination, the Democrats would discard the weak old Joe and his baggage and nominate a fresh, younger candidate.

While some still resist the idea of a new ticket, their numbers are

thinning faster than those on Ozempic. The Democrats are not about to concede any election. As I’ve stated, for Democrats, politics is a blood sport, while for Republicans, it’s a pastime. Most Democrats rely on their ties to the state, whether directly or indirectly. They will seize any opportunity to win. With Biden, the best they can hope for is a lame duck for four years, and only if he manages to win.

A new ticket significantly enhances their chances of victory, and this triumph could pave the way for eight years of unchallenged dominance. Try convincing us again that the Democrats are standing by Joe. It’s only a matter of time before everyone realizes that replacing Biden was always part of the plan.

Continue reading →

Short Time Till We Find Out Who Is Running In ’24

Dave Davis Commentary, Uncategorized , , , ,

As we approach the First Presidential Debate, a pivotal event less than two weeks away, we find ourselves in the middle of June with a nation in disarray. This condition is primarily a result of an administration on its last legs, leaving behind a legacy of significant failures. The abrupt Afgan pullout has emboldened our adversaries, leading to ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, all due to our reluctance to confront the wrongdoers.

Overspending has resulted in the highest inflation in forty years. Illegal entrants overrun our borders, and shipping them across the nation is bankrupting many communities. No one feels safe in many of our greatest cities, and antisemitism runs rampant in Universities and on city streets.

When Joe Biden steps into the debate room, it will be his swan song. Even if he tries to project energy and vigor to dispel the notion that he’s a political corpse, it won’t hide that his record is one that only our worst president, James Buchanan, would applaud. The responsibility for these failures is clear, and it’s a burden he carries with him, like a second skin.

Confirmation of Biden’s political demise will come right after the Debate. Typically, even if a Democratic candidate has a horrible night, the legacy media will loudly applaud the performance while in unison declaring the Republican sucked. This time, they’ll be highly critical and concerned. Joe did his best, but he didn’t have it. If he’s this bad now, he’ll only get worse.

Chances are high Joe is in for a stormy debate night. Defending his record of failures is bad enough, but his DOJ handed Trump a club to beat him. By entering Hunter Biden’s laptop into evidence in the gun trial, they verified its contents for all to see.

Continue reading →

The Roadmap To Conviction

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

We now have a roadmap for convicting your political opposition in court. First, locate a state under the control of your party. Then, find the counties where nine out of ten voted your way. Choose the one where the county attorney is determined to get the other side. Charge your opponent with a felony. If t you can’t readily find a crme, put some stuff together that appears it might add up to a felony. Top it off by assigning the case to a judge on record of supporting your side and against the opposition.

With the judge in the prosecutor’s corner, there is no need for the niceties of due process, such as informing the defendant of the nature of the charges. If you can get some unrelated salacious details to embarrass the defendant, so much the better. Make sure you have some lawyers on the jury. The other jurors will look to them for guidance—people who make their living before judges with our party label aren’t about chance an acquittal. Everyone, including judges, will know how they voted. The rest of the jury may feel similar pressure from friends, family, and employers. Bingo, you have your conviction.

Overturning the conviction may eventually occur, but that will probably be well after we win the election. Remember the Ted Stevens case. Vindicated after finding breathtaking prosecutorial misconduct, unfortunately, as a convicted felon, he lost re-election. With his loss, the Democrats had a Senate majority and passed Obamacare. Wiping his record clean occurred only after the release of the Schuelke report but only after damage. The lesson is that even if we lose on appeal, we’ll already win the prize.  

The problem with this unethical recipe is both sides can use it. A county prosecutor in a Red state gets a grand jury to indict a state resident who is one of the fifty-one retired intelligence officials signing the letter claiming the Hunter Biden Laptop was likely Russian disinformation—the charge of conspiring with others to deny the state’s voters vital information fraudulently.

The other signers, Anthony Blinkin, who originated the plot, and his boss, Joe Biden, are also indicted as co-conspirators. While state election law may or may not be a felony, linking it to a fraudulent conspiracy will do the job. Indict anybody else found having a hand in the fraud, too, including government agents, such as the FBI, who pressured the media to suppress the story.

Including underlings, this large cast may contain some willing to turn state’s evidence to save themselves or their money. This case keeps getting better.

Continue reading →

Who You Gonna Call-Not the Democrats or Republicans

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy , , , ,

Amidst the fervor of extreme loyalists on both sides, it’s easy to get lost in the fog of political rhetoric. Few people truly understand what either side plans to do to tackle our most pressing issues—inflation, Abortion, hot and potential wars, and debt. This confusion is not accidental but a result of both sides’ contradictory positions. They present their plan with conviction, only to undermine it in the next breath.

There is little doubt inflation underlies our economic discontent. No matter how hard we work, even receiving pay raises, we have less at the end of the month. That new house or auto keeps getting further out of reach. The little extras, an evening out or a quick vacation that makes life enjoyable, are outside the budget. The Great Inflation of the 1970s ended when double-digit interest rates ended in a deep recession. What are our two parties proposing to avoid a repeat?

The simple definition of inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods. One gains control over inflation by cutting down on excess dollars, increasing the amount of goods, or both. So, what do the two major parties propose to improve in these areas?

The Democrats gave us the “Inflaton Reduction Act,” with its likely trillion-dollar price tag, it’s putting more dollars out there. Enormous subsidies for expensive electric vehicles (EVs) require materials such as lithium batteries, which are not readily available here. Most come from China, allowing that nation to produce cheaper EVs. Denying Chinese producers subsidies through local content rules and high tariffs will protect our high-cost auto companies. Favoring unionized plants will further increase prices. These problems extend to solar panels and windmills, which are also subsidized by this act, guaranteeing their high costs.

Continue reading →

Three Story Lines Revisited

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, The Future Party, The Middle East, Uncategorized , , , ,

It was a busy week with significant developments. Three of them fall in areas I’ve commented on in the past. It’s crucial to compare where we are with what I wrote on the third parties, the Gaza war, and abortion, as these past commentaries hold significant relevance to our current situation.

In my series, ‘The Future Party” (On this Site), I stressed the pressing need for a more competitive political landscape. We must enhance our choices at all levels. Recent presidential elections have presented us with candidates most Americans didn’t want to vote for. The current election, featuring two widely unpopular candidates, is a stark reminder of this issue. The ‘No Labels Party,’ which pledged to offer more options, should’ve thrived in this climate. While it has made progress in securing spots on state ballots, they’re facing a lot of work getting candidates. 

In my series, ‘The Future Party,” I concluded that you can’t defeat someone without one and must stand for something. I based my brief involvement with the emerging Howard Shultz third-party campaign on crafting a platform for the Starbucks founder to champion. However, no such platform materialized, and Shultz withdrew when it appeared he could potentially harm the Democrats, thereby inadvertently supporting the re-election of the Republican incumbent. This excuse is a stark reminder that new voices must have substance and conviction to make a lasting impact.

Continue reading →