Friends, the exit polls we've seen so far are flawed -- for one thing, they seem to indicate that Harris won the popular vote, which she didn't -- but they're still instructive. Amongst the biggest surprises for Democrats is Trump's massive gains with Hispanics. He won Hispanic men and got 46% of the Hispanic vote overall, an all-time record for a Republican. As this article suggests, this is inexplicable from a MSM perspective, because so much of what Trump says is "racist". Well, I guess that's in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? Clearly, Democrats and progressives have made some racist assumptions about Hispanics (and others) that have turned out to be untrue. And thank heavens for that!
https://www.axios.com/2024/11/07/trump-new-record-latino-voters-exit-poll?
How much is DJT's win a repudiation of lawfare, and, if it is, will lawfare actually die, or will it simply morph into something different? We don't know. My guess is we haven't seen the last of it, because the law is a powerful weapon, or it can be in the hands of people who aren't bumblers.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4976533-trump-prosecutions-lawfare-end/
The shape of the Trump administration will come down to the nature of the people who Donald Trump chooses to surround himself with. In his first term, let's face it: he made a lot of bad choices in this regard. In 2024, he ran a disciplined, effective campaign, or rather Susan Wiles ran it for him. Running the federal government, on the other hand, is a very different challenge. Men like Elon Musk and RFK, Jr., who are full of great ideas, have nonetheless never tackled an enemy as formidable as the federal bureaucracy. Anyway, it's fun to speculate on who will be whispering in Trump's ear, no?
https://nypost.com/2024/11/06/us-news/donald-trump-expected-to-be-in-meetings-after-victory/
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Did you see NY AG James' stirring declaration of r her intent to use her August authority to make renewed war on DJT? Why, you'd think it was Dec. 7! Her success or probable lack thereof may be a measure of the future efficacy of lawfare. How very much she disgraces our occupied state before the nation.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: I hope DJT will not give RFK Jr. an executive position. I still think he is a crank; our health system may need some changing but it must be done without damaging the many great benefits it affords us. I don't think he's the guy to trust with that.
ReplyDeleteSusan Wiles has garnered much favorable evaluation in the recent past and appears to be a very good choice for Chief of Staff. (OH I forgot myself; we are all misogynist deplorable trash , so I shouldn't have said that , yes?)This is going to be a formidable administration.
Re our rampaging NY state AG: I'm going to urge our area state legislators to sponsor impeachment charges against her for her blatant, openly intended, declared misuse of her elected office for partisan political vendetta and persistance in the now discredited tactic of lawfare against ANYONE.
RAY TO JACK
ReplyDeleteI would like to hear, and would appreciate, your reasons as to why you believe Trump should not give RFK Jr. an executive position. Why do you think RFK Jr. is a "crank"? This is not a "I am challenging you to a Duel" question. Thanks.
Ray from Jack: No objection at all. I should always be ready to defend a position or to admit its error, when it is courteously questioned as you do.
ReplyDeleteHe takes seemingly contradictory positions ; for example, he is apparently a forceful "human responsibility for global warming " advocate. This may well be the antiamerican left's flagship issue; having been discredited in economics, politics and morality ,they see it as their latest vehicle for establishing institutions of command and control which would give them the comprehensive power to dictate everything as per their incidental, unimpeachable whim. They expect that success in this would afford them the means to take over other vital sectors of our national life, eg. health care.
Also, though our health care system does need some reform, I still consider it fundamentally sound and a very redeeming feature of the unparalleled well being we enjoy in our country. I think his apparent evaluation of it as fundamentally flawed is not warranted and it makes me wary that he might go overboard were he to have the power to reform it. I would hope he would be employed in an advisory role only.
Also, I have a gut feeling (only) about him that he's somewhat unstable. I cannot recall them (to my discredit) but I think he has been quoted expressing some fairly bizarre positions.
I admire his courage in enduring the surely painful rejection given him by his family for supporting DJT and for "shaming" the "tradition "exemplified by his father and his uncles. He has done the country an unselfish, signal service in this. That popular vote majority for DJT had many sources and his advocacy no doubt played a part in it. His willingness to exemplify , at great personal cost, the frustration felt by so many erstwhile Dems with their party's far left surrender, is very much to his credit. He could perhaps be most beneficial in continued public assertion of this.
RAY TO JACK
DeleteYour answer is certainly thought provoking, to say the least, and motivates me to read up on him a bit more. I know he wrote a book about Big Pharma, which I have not read. Your statement that he is a global warming advocate also motivates me to do a rethink Thanks for taking the time to explain your position to me. Much appreciated. Have a good weekend. (Also, and as you know, RFK Jr. seems to zig zag between left and right in some of his beliefs).
Dear Jack of NeveRFK Jr,
DeleteA little tongue-in-cheek with your moniker, Mr. Jack! I hope you don't mind! I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on RFK Jr.
First, your apprehension regarding RFK Jr.'s environmental views, particularly climate change, is well-founded. His initial outspokenness, later moderated during his presidential campaign, does raise questions about the consistency of his positions. This moderation might suggest a strategic pivot, possibly to broaden his appeal or align more closely with prevailing scientific consensus, which could be interpreted in various ways.
However, focusing on RFK Jr.'s crusade against the pharmaceutical industry and the broader wellness sector presents an intriguing case. His choice to target these giants could be considered a calculated move, given the widespread, albeit often under-discussed, concerns about corporate influence in healthcare. If RFK Jr. substantiates his claims with reasoned critique, he could carve out a significant legacy. The potential exposure of systemic abuses by Big Pharma and Big Food, entities long criticized for their impact on public health and policy, would validate his efforts and potentially revolutionize how we approach health and wellness in this country.
That brings me to a pivotal question, which I pose with genuine curiosity:
In whom do you place more trust? The pharmaceutical industry, with its undeniable influence over legislative and institutional frameworks, or an individual like RFK Jr., who risks becoming an outcast among his peers to challenge these very powers in the name of public wellness?
Wait... if you'll allow me to ask that without RFK Jr. in the frame: Who do you place more trust in? The pharmaceutical industry and/or big food, with their undeniable influence and a growing chorus of scientists and practitioners who challenge these powers in the name of public wellness?
Your thoughts on this matter would be genuinely appreciated, as they offer a valuable perspective on navigating the complex interplay between what we both believe to be Trump's goal of making MAGA - and- HA.
Richie from Jack: Your well taken criticism and questions have given me pause and a good reason to reconsider my views on those two industries.
ReplyDeleteI'd still rather see someone other than RFK Jr. in charge of answering the concerns you have cited as being advanced by scientists and practitioners. But perhaps a post as an HHS Undersecretary with this specific task would be the right place for him. Some of what I see as his more eccentric tendencies might then be manageable.
My views on many issues having to do with our physical and material well being in this country are probably prejudiced by my knowledge of how people lived , say 200 years ago. As a flintlock hunter, a woodsman and a raiser of poultry I have experienced a very little of what they faced. My wife and I lived in a log cabin without modern utilities for eight years and I'm a Civil War reenactor. I read a lot of history. Plus , I have seen third world poverty first hand. These experiences foster in me continuing amazement at how good we have it.
But these perceptions are understandably not shared by most people today; the concerns you have cited are very germane. I don't know enough about the pharmaceutical and big food industries to have an informed opinion as to which I would trust. Given my biases, again my initial reaction is that we have enough food and modern drugs are miraculous (I take about a zillion pills every AM and its a pretty easy way to control serious disorders like hypertension and diabetes). But you have convinced me: there is much more to it. I'll continue this reply tonite or tomorrow ; right now I'm off to a gun show to celebrate with my fellow 2nd Amendment guys. Thanks again. Later!
Jack, I completely respect your life experiences. They differ from mine, though I did hunt (center and rimfire cartridges only!), and raised poultry as a teenager.
DeleteIt is evident that your appreciation for our system of care is based and well thought out. Thank you for sharing. If you care to reveal more, I'd welcome the benefit of reading.
Regardless, it may be that RFK Jr wouldn't get past the Senate. A role such as you describe might be the answer, though I doubt he would relish the idea of being "under" anyone.
I wish you well at the gun show and enjoy your time with our friends! :)
Jack, I didn't hear Letitia James say anything that I wouldn't expect her, as a Dem and a Trump hater, to say. Actions speak louder than words. Will she and her creatures back off on their campaign of lawfare or not? Time will tell.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion is that RFK is portrayed as a crank, but is more of an eccentric, but in any case he may well be poorly suited for a cabinet position. I'm honestly not sure what I would do with him if I was DJT. I might be tempted to deploy him as Ukraine Czar or Free Speech Czar, but he's essentially been promised a role in promoting "wellness", so I suppose he's got to be given a chance.
Ray, for what it's worth, I agree with RFK that money permeates not only our politics but also health care, journalism, "science", food, and pretty much everything else. He's right to ask challenging questions about how the government is run and whose interests it serves. Sometimes he may descend down the wrong rabbit holes. Unfortunately, that's a common sin nowadays.
Richie, you may be right that the Senate would refuse to approve an RFK appointment, but, politically, I'd say his job title is virtually irrelevant, because the media will be focusing on him relentlessly as the "insane" personification of Trumpian health policy, whether or not he has a formal role in crafting it. The narrative on RFK is already set, whether it is fair or unfair, and it would be extremely hard to change it. I suppose RFK could pick some very specific and broadly popular fights -- say, against lead paint or for green salads -- but then he would sacrifice his transformational potential. I guess I'm not at all clear on what RFK wants to change in American health care and food policy, except insofar as he wants it to be set based on maximizing health rather than profits...but how on earth would you get the profit motive out of it, and how would you cleanse Congress of lobbying and special interests? If he's got some ideas on that, I'll be happy to listen to them.
Richie from Jack: To continue in response to your comments: MAGA is personified and inspired by the first businessman to go directly from that setting into the Presidency. As such, I trust he brings a professional understanding of the bottom line to the office. I think that would make him temper any creditable reform effort of such massive industries as pharmaceuticals and big food with close attention to that principle, among others. The bottom line is both a measure of efficiency but also a test of a business's attractiveness, frivolous or vital, to free consumers. One of the true dangers historically and presently posed by radicals is their insouciant willingness to destroy institutions which render great benefit simply to satisfy their often untested theories of justice and worth, for which they consider empirical evidence "irrelevant" (to use a prototypical New Left automatic dismissal from the '60s). Depending on how closely and faithfully his intent is followed by his subordinates, I would think that a key element of MAGA would be caution in that regard. Though RFK Jr. is "brash", I do not in this suggest that he is the kind of radical who has so ravaged western civilization since 1789. He simply bears some oversight, I think.
ReplyDeleteThe latter 19th century and early 20th century provide us telling examples both of the destructive greedful excess of which largely unfettered free enterprise was capable and of both the pitfalls and benefits of reining it in. For example: over time it established the principle that in a just civilization both capital and labor had unique , though not necessarily equal prerogatives. The resulting painfully worked out balance helped to lead us to prosperity unimagined even in times within the living memory of people still with us today!
I think the almost universal, prolific availability of highly nourishing food, confirmed by a visit to any modern supermarket , renders to most individuals in our free society a responsibility to use these foods and a choice, with consequences too,
not to use them. Tempered by that is the cost , both monetary and social, of willful relative malnourishment (I mean, if necessary, we could physically survive on Mickey D fare; consider what Leningraders consumed during the siege).
Hope this is an adequate answer to your legitimate concern over my views. You have made me reconsider them. Please let me know if I have neglected to answer them or have raised new concerns.
Dr. Waddy from Jack : In my opinion , money is often a legitimate measure of the substance or lack thereof and the benefit or the worthlessness of an effort . The exception it when it is directed with regard only to unproven principles. Money, I think, is the currency, both in its utility and proven efficacy, of life redeeming prosperity.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Should our Ukraine policy be directed after 1/25 by anyone either than DJT I think it absolutely vital that it be one very well informed in Ukrainian , Russian and their longtime mutual matters. Though Putin is beginning to signal some flexibility I cannot but imagine that his chief concern, as long as he intends to remain in power, is to prevent Ukrainian membership in Nato.
ReplyDeleteIt has been suggested that DJT might advocate a 20 year long promise from Ukraine not to seek membership in an obviously antiRussian alliance. Perhaps that can work but sight of Russia's fundamental national security concern over such a , to Russia, unendurable affront and threat must never be minimized. Terribly serious negotiation must commence, led by a gravely responsible person.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I watched NY AG James declaration of renewed and more intensive civil war on DJT and MAGA. Her demeanor was grim, vindictive and demonstrative of profound contempt and hostility toward anyone who supported DJT, including all NYers who did so.It was chilling to watch and highly presumptuous on the part of a N Y public servant. She has in the past publicly and frankly expressed her intention to use her office to politically oppose and personally ruin DJT. She is completely out of line to reprise this tack ; she has enthusiastically violated the standards expected of those in her office and should be removed from it. She has taken the "resistance" already declared by such as NY Gov. Hochul and Illinois's thuggish Governor, to a much more intense level and in it insouciantly manifests profound hostility and dismissiveness to the views of common sense America. Some say she is a Presidential prospect; let this misconduct be her testament against such an effort.
ReplyDelete"Anyway, it's fun to speculate on who will be whispering in Trump's ear, no?"
ReplyDeleteYes, sir... it is! And first indications are that Trump is not messing around. He seems to appoint those who are NonNeo-Cons (I just coined that phrase.. I think) or Rhinos in his inner circle. Reminds me of the "Fool me once.." proverb.
That said, where does this leave the Democratic Party? It seems they are without an Heir Apparent! What other high profile Progressive Leftists (Newsome, Shapiro, Buttigieg, etc) do you see emerging in the dark shadow left by Harris? (One can only hope Newsome raises to the top of the pile!)
Jack, I tend to agree with you that less than ever do we want federal bureaucrats telling us what to eat -- and when, and how, and at what cost. It would be nice, however, for people to be more informed about what they're eating so that they can make rational choices. That's asking a lot, of course. Nutritional minutiae can be overwhelming.
ReplyDeleteJack, I should think Trump would be happy to dispense with any notion that Ukraine would join NATO, since, after all, Trump barely tolerates U.S. membership in the alliance!
Jack, there are few dastardly Dems more deserving of Trump's vengeance than James, for sure. I hope she gets her just desserts.
Richie, I actually regard Newsom as among the most formidable of the Dems' potential standard-bearers. Yeah, in some ways California is an albatross around his neck, but he's a very intelligent guy and he looks and sounds the part, which goes a long way.
Newsom is undoubtedly intelligent. It takes a certain kind of smarts to deliver his slippery speeches with such a smug grin. He's got the appearance and delivery down pat, which could make him a formidable candidate for those who still buy that message and can't see through the veneer.
DeleteHowever, this election might be revealing something: Is the era of the 'Empty Suit' politician, who champions economic policies that haven't panned out and pushes troubling cultural shifts, waning?
Trump, with ALL his baggage, blew up the electorate in part because he represents a 180 for the country's direction, both economically and culturally. And he represents the anti-politician.
Granted, every step Trump makes over the next four years will be scrutinized and potentially vilified. The results, yet to be determined, will set the stage for who's next.
Newsom, the Painted Pot, has become a symbol of the opposite. To your point, California's results will be his albatross, with the added heft of a luxury liner's anchor.
Hmm. Do the voters now demand substance over mere rhetoric? I wouldn't go that far. Ha ha. I'd say you can still fool most of the people most of the time!
ReplyDelete