Trump vs. Biden: Round 1

 So my thoughts on the first Trump/Biden debate are these:

I don't think either candidate did themselves any favors last night. It didn't appear either of them really had a debate strategy, but rather were content to enter the ring and slug it out come what may.

Fortunately, the election, much like the election in 2016, is less about the candidate and more about the ideology. Which, in my opinion, should be the case for most elections. Biden has been a face in the Democratic party for decades, but he really hasn't done anything meaningful that has shifted the party platform, and he wouldn't as President. He's a figurehead at best. A yes man, if you give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not a complete moron and sadly really losing his faculties with age.

As for Trump, he has most certainly shifted the Republican Party probably more than any President since Lincoln, but even then, still espouses mostly what the party stands for, even if he doesn't do it with much tact. The campaign promises he has kept from 2016 should make any Republican (and Christian) proud: Appoint Conservative judges to the courts -- especially the Supreme Court, which was worth his election in and of itself -- lower taxes, lower unemployment, boost the economy, defeat ISIS, defend gun rights, defend freedom of religion, and prop up Israel. Those accomplishments alone should make Republicans vote for him again, and they will.

But even a man as powerful as Donald Trump is still speaking for a greater movement at large. We're not voting for Donald Trump: We're voting for what Trump promised, and so far, he's delivered.

As such, I doubt last night's performance swayed any voters one way or the other, and I suspect the subsequent debates won't do so either. If you're a Biden fan, you probably thought he did well, and stood up well to the Trump bully. Showed a little hutzpah even, gettin' a little down and dirty. If you're a Trump fan, you probably thought he did well, which is to say, he did what he's done all along, which is be bombastic and fight. All in all, it really went about how I thought it would go.

Clearly, Biden lost his way a few times. His opening salvo on the Supreme Court issue that devolved into a relatively incoherent rambling about healthcare literally made me look at my wife and say, "Wow, that didn't take long." He's clearly a man that is too advanced in years to do the job, but otherwise he held up OK I suppose. I think anybody who watched him last night has to know he's starting to lose his capacities. To what extent at this point is hard to say, but does anybody really believe he can hold it together for four more years?

As for Trump, there's no question that the constant, daily barrage from the media and the Left has jaded him. He's fed up with it, and it shows. He should be, by the way, as he's taken a beating in the job the likes of which we've never seen in our history. His detractors might say, well, you know, it's a tough job and it comes with the territory. But not this. This is unprecedented and unfair, period, no matter how you feel about the man personally. I mean, he's been nominated for 3 Nobel Peace Prizes so far, but our American press portrays him as the Devil himself.

Which is why most of the country doesn't trust the media anymore. We see through the nonsense and the lies. And I can't blame Trump for lashing out the way he did last night. He's tired, for instance, of the media totally ignoring the absurdity of the Hunter Biden mess. There's clearly some shady stuff that went on there, with millions of dollars being passed around, and the media is literally ignoring it. They have to. Because they know if they cover any of it, even if any of it ultimately proves to be untrue, the mere mention of it will sink Biden. So Trump is tired of that kind of hypocrisy, and he should be. I know I am.

I could go on and speak on the various points, but I don't think it's necessary. Neither candidate said anything last night that was earth shattering to their base -- outside of Biden claiming he doesn't support the Green New Deal. That's going to hurt him with his base. Otherwise, we didn't learn anything last night we didn't already know.

So I'd say things remain as they were. Through everything in the past four years, the only people the Left has alarmed with their incessant attacks on Trump are their own constituents who already hate him. They haven't swayed nary an iota of Trump voters away. Mostly, they've emboldened them. And if anything, some of the nastiness has swayed away some minority voters. They're tired of being used as pawns, and are smart enough to see through the muck. Plus, Trump has done more economically and job-wise for minorities so far in his term than Dems have done in well over 50 years. If just a few percentage points of minority voters move to Trump -- and that's highly likely -- its curtains for the Democrats.

Speaking as a Trump voter, he's done, so far, exactly what I elected him to do. So I'm good, and so is the vast majority of his base.

So my prediction remains: Don't believe the polls. They're all lies, just as they were in 2016. (Remember, the polls still showed Hillary winning the day of the election.) It'll be Trump in a landslide in November.

P.S. We'll talk about the ramifications of mail-in voting and the complete chaos it's going to create in this election in another upcoming blog.

Liberalism: Stop Getting So Offended

Over the years, I have often referred to the "Left" or to "Liberals" in posts and blogs I've written. When I do, I often get messages and replies complaining about me "labeling" people in such a manner. More often than not, those replies usually fall into one of two categories:

1) Either they consider themselves a Liberal but don't like being lumped into the kind of lunacy the Left often engages in, or...

2) They pretend they AREN'T a Liberal, but still believe in most of the Liberal ideology.

In either case, they REALLY don't like being labeled. I like to joke that nobody hates being called a Liberal more than a Liberal.

That being said, I want to clarify what I mean when I mention the "Left" or "Liberals."

First of all, let me be clear about a couple things:

1) I understand that referencing a particular group, good or bad, does not encompass the thoughts of every single person in that group. While that should go without saying, it is fascinating how quickly left-leaning thinkers will message me to point out that I shouldn't lump everybody in to one big group. I completely understand that many people can lean one way or the other and not espouse to believe every single tenet of a particular ideology. But boy, the left doesn't like that mentality at all. I don't get messages from Conservatives when I say something about conservative ideals, or thoughts, or behaviors. If I say something like, "Conservatives sure did love Ronald Reagan and his economic programs," I don't get nasty messages from Conservatives, screaming, "HEY, not ALL Conservatives loved Reagan!" But if I say, "Boy, Liberals sure do love Obama and his health care program," I get messages within minutes from my Liberal friends who say, "HEY, not ALL Liberals love Obama." It's really kinda fascinating.

2) "Progressive" is a made up term to make Liberals feel better about themselves. There is nothing at all progressive about Leftist ideology, especially in today's culture. Leftist ideology is as old and outdated as covered wagons. I mean, socialism (and it's failures) has been around much longer than democracy, so pretending that trending that direction is somehow progressive is nothing more than wishful-thinking. Somehow, they've conjured the idea that "Progressive" is a good thing and "Liberal" is bad. Don't fall for it. I refuse to refer to anything as "Progressive" that isn't.

3) I have absolutely no problem whatsoever being labeled a "Conservative." Lump me into that all you want. I believe in that ideology, will promote it unapologetically, and will stand by it until I die. I'm not the least bit bothered by "labels" -- so long as they're accurate. I'm a proud Conservative.

So with that said, let me get to the heart of the matter. When I mention the "Left" or "Liberals," or when I mention the "Right" or "Conservatives," I'm not talking about a person individually. I'm talking about an "ideology."

It's an important distinction. Because the idea of political "Left" or "Right" is just that: An idea. It's an ideology. It's a way of thinking that is driven by a certain set of beliefs on how things should generally operate, and how people should generally be governed. The lines between those ideas can get blurry at times, but they're still pretty defined. And that ideology gets defined further when they get applied to a political party. Because political parties usually arise and form as a group of like-minded individuals bound together to espouse a certain set of ideals. And they want people governing them who believe in those same set of ideals. You can look up the Democrat and the Republican platform on their websites, and it will outline their ideals pretty clearly. A set of belief guidelines that outlines the overall ideology of the Party.

Some time ago, I made a post on my social media account that stated the following:

"Biden’s supporters go out and riot and loot and burn down cities. They beat up and kill innocent bystanders. They ruin people’s lives. They tear down statues, and try to change history. Trump’s supporters go boating."

Now, notwithstanding the clear tongue-in-cheek vibe of the post which I would have hoped would have been obvious, you'll notice I did not specifically label Liberals or Conservatives. However, this post highlights my point. Within a few days, I had heard from several Liberal friends claiming to be offended who essentially said to me, "I support Biden, but I didn't go out and riot and loot," or, "I'm a Biden supporter, but I don't support the violence."

OK. I get that, but that doesn't make my statement any less true. When I said Biden supporters, obviously I don't mean ALL Biden supporters, as if that even needs to be said. But it is also true that those who are out rioting and looting and causing the violence in our city streets are most likely Joe Biden -- i.e., Liberal -- supporters. And while I understand they may not ALL be Biden supporters, they clearly ain't Trump supporters.

And even THEN, I understand that Trump supporters have been increasingly making their way into the streets to oppose the violence, and do themselves sometimes ending up engaging in violent activity, albeit in opposition to those who started the whole mess in the first place.

So while I clearly am not referencing ALL Biden supporters, my statement is true nevertheless, whether that offends you or not.

And that's the point. First and foremost, people need to stop getting butt-hurt so quickly. If you don't like being labeled a Liberal, stop supporting Liberal activity, or those who support Liberal activity. If you are that put out with the criminals who are currently burning our cities down, then why not switch sides? Otherwise, we have little left to believe other than you support those who engage in such activity. If you don't outright denounce it, what do you want me to believe? Regardless, I understand that not ALL Biden supporters ascribe to the type of lunacy we're seeing on TV every night.

Understand this: I know many people, and are friends with several, who identify as either a Liberal, or a Democrat, or both, and I know for a fact they don't support many of the actions of radical leftists. And while I still question why they continue to identify with such organizations, most of them know I'm not referencing them when I make a comment about Liberals, or Democrats, or even "Biden supporters."

More often than not, I'm referencing the Democrat leaders, in Washington, but also across the country. And make no mistake: I believe many of the Democrat leaders, especially in D.C., to be absolute evil snakes who will stop at nothing to destroy America for their own personal gain. While there might be some decent Dems in office, they are the ones who put the likes of Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler, etc., at the head of their table. They're the ones who refuse to denounce the violence. They're the ones who've propped up and supported the likes of the Squad and that wretched AOC. Joe Biden is worthless. Hillary was worse. And for most of those boneheads, Liberals and Democrats at large do hold a responsibility for voting them into, and keeping them in, office. But even I know it is unrealistic to believe that every voter agrees with every single tenet and principle put forth by a representative. I mean, c'mon, I've disagreed with many things Donald Trump has done.

So the moral of the story is this: Leftism is an ideology. Democrats mostly ascribe to an ideology. If you vote for a Democrat, you are essentially voting for leftist ideology. It's just that simple. But understand that when I make a reference to Liberals, or Democrats, I'm talking more about the ideology and less about the individual. If I think you're dumb, or misguided, or should be ashamed of supporting such things, I'll say so. But otherwise, you shouldn't feel as though it's some personal attack.

There are times, I think, when we should all just grow up a little bit and stop being so touchy.

I realize none of this, as an explanation, is going to appease some of those who get regularly offended by my posts. Not much I can do about that. That's their hangup, not mine. While I continue to try to be sure my message goes out in a way that is positive so it will be heard, I am not going to be silenced into speaking what I believe to be the truth just because some people can't figure out why they shouldn't be personally offended.

By the way, after the aforementioned post, I have not had one single Trump supporter message me and say, "I'm offended. I'm a Trump supporter and I don't like boating."

2020 Continued... the Supreme Court Nominee.

You know, it is irrelevant what the Senate did or didn't do in 2016, and irrelevant what they will or won't do now. Constitutionally, the President has the responsibility to put forth a nominee for the Supreme Court. If you can't get past that, you have serious problems. Obama put forth a candidate in 2016, and Trump has a responsibility to do so now. Just because it is an election year has absolutely no bearing on it whatsoever. It's just that simple.

The Senate, on the other hand, has Constitutional authority to basically do what they wish with that nominee. They can refuse to accept it and force the President to put forth another. They can hold hearings, or not, and they can vote, or not. They are not "bound" to do anything. And again, an election year has nothing to do with it.

If you -- you -- believed the Senate was wrong to refuse to accept President Obama's nominee in 2016, but believe they should now refuse Trump's nominee, then you are a hypocrite, plain and simple. If you believed they were right in 2016, but believe they should hold hearings now, then you are a hypocrite, plain and simple. You may not like what the President and the Senate does, but you cannot have it both ways, in either scenario.

If you must know, I believe the two situations are different. The Senate's "reasoning" for not holding hearings in 2016 was logical -- Obama was a lame duck President. There was going to be a new President that year no matter what. It was reasonable to allow the vote to take place so the new administration could make the nominee. This election does not involve a lame duck president. In fact, there's every likelihood Trump will be reelected. Therefore, the same "reasoning" does not necessarily exist. Trump's election WAS the people speaking. And they expect him -- and the Senate -- to do their jobs. He's not a lame duck.

While the logic was reasonable, I still believed the Senate should have held hearings on Merrick Garland in 2016, and held a vote. He was not going to be confirmed, but they should have at least done their jobs. I did NOT believe they were right in refusing to hear the nominee, even if he had no chance of being confirmed.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg herself commented on the situation in 2016. Of the President and the Senate, she said, "That's their job. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year."

I wholeheartedly agree. President Trump and the Senate should do their jobs. If the nominee Trump puts forth doesn't pass muster and isn't confirmed, so be it. That's how the process plays out. He -- or whoever wins in November -- can then put forth another candidate. And I'll abide by the process.

If you want anything else, then you do not wish to abide by the Constitution. And that is really sad.