Trump Needs To Force House GOP To Count The Money
House Republicans are squeezing Trump in negotiations over the reconciliation budget package. Some have even suggested that tax increases might be necessary to pay for his budget requests.
But Trump has proposed more than enough new revenue to offset any needed reductions and obviate the need for any new taxes. It’s just that the sources of revenue aren’t being counted as the House grapples with the budget. Why not? Likely because they are new and creative and the bureaucrats at the Congressional Budget Office — that scores the revenue proposals — are unused to such novel approaches.
Trump is proposing a uniform, base tariff of ten percent on all countries that want to export to America. Such a tariff would bring in $400 billion in new revenue. (Total American imports run about $4 trillion a year.) With that money, the rest of the budget would balance easily but the bean counters haven’t taken notice and don’t include it in their budget projections.
House Republicans have also approved a plan to let Trump sell massive amounts of federal land in Utah and Nevada, but the bean counters haven’t factored that revenue into their budget projections.
Nor have the bean counters in the Congressional Budget Office even begun to come to grips with Trump’s drug pricing reforms that specify that Medicare and Medicaid can pay no more for a drug than the lowest amount charged in any of the ten major western economies of the world.
The impact of Trump’s “most favored nation” drug pricing reform on health care costs the government must pay is certain to be huge, but no allowance for it is included in the scoring that lays the basis for negotiations on the budget.
It’s time for the folks at the Congressional Budget Office to wake up and pay attention to what the president says. There is no way income taxes need to be raised when these new revenue streams are included. And there is no way the House Republicans need to cut Medicaid benefits beyond eliminating waste and fraud.
Let’s get real, people!
Purchase CORRUPT: The Inside Story of Biden’s Dark Money — CLICK HERE NOW!
Get Your FREE, Gold And Silver Precious Metals Investment Material. No Fee For Life IRA Program Now Available — CLICK HERE NOW!
SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE DICK’S VIDEOS & COLUMNS FOR FREE — CLICK HERE!
View Dick’s most recent videos in case you missed them!
New Revenues Can Shape Budget Talks – Lunch Alert!
China Is Taking Over Africa And Latin America – Lunch Alert!
Kennedy Act Aggressively On Food Health – Lunch Alert!
U.S. To Offer $1.000 To Illegal Immigrants Who Go Home – Lunch Alert!
The Recent History Of U.S. – China Relations: World War II – History Video!
I’m Opening My Political Strategy Academy — Enrollment Now Open
Dear Friend,
For the first time ever, I’ve decided to launch a personal political training program — and I want to invite you to be part of it.
The Dick Morris Academy is a new initiative for political professionals, candidates, campaigners, and advisors who want to understand how real campaigns are won.
Over the course of 12 live sessions, I’ll be sharing the same strategies I’ve used throughout my career advising two U.S. presidents — Bill Clinton and Donald Trump — as well as political leaders across Latin America, Eastern Europe, and beyond.
Six of the classes will be taught by me directly. The other six will be led by a world-class team of consultants and campaign experts from the region.
Click Here to learn more and reserve your seat!
- Starts: JUNE 12, 2025
- Format: Live Zoom sessions every two weeks (recordings included)
- Fee: $1,000 USD
- Limited enrollment to ensure real interaction
Click Here to learn more and reserve your seat!
Review the course calendar below or Click Here!
If you’re serious about winning — or preparing to run — this course is for you.
Click Here to learn more and reserve your seat!
Let’s train together. It’s time to build smarter campaigns — and better leaders.
Review the course calendar below or — Click Here!
For further information or any questions, please contact us at [email protected].
Purchase CORRUPT: The Inside Story of Biden’s Dark Money — CLICK HERE NOW!
Get Your FREE, Gold And Silver Precious Metals Investment Material. No Fee For Life IRA Program Now Available — CLICK HERE NOW!
SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE DICK’S VIDEOS & COLUMNS FOR FREE — CLICK HERE!
View Dick’s most recent videos in case you missed them!
U.S. To Offer $1.000 To Illegal Immigrants Who Go Home – Lunch Alert!
The Recent History Of U.S. – China Relations: World War II – History Video!
Trump Winning On Inflation – Lunch Alert!
Trump’s Plan: Cut Income Taxes By Third, Funded By Tariff Revenue – Lunch Alert!
Trump’s Plan To End Marxist Faculties – Lunch Alert
The Coming Collapse Of Xi Jinping
It’s coming.
No leader, no matter how autocratic and dictatorial, can survive having made the plethora of mistakes that Xi has made:
- He neglected selling his products to his own people, opting instead to export them to the United States. About 20 percent of China’s exports end up in the US and only about one-third of its production of goods and services is consumed domestically!
- He picked a trade war with the US, ignoring China’s incredibly greater vulnerability. The fact is that Washington only sells less than $200 billion to China while we buy $500 billion from them. Losing the American market is a catastrophe for China but losing the Chinese market is only an inconvenience to the US. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
- He bet that the US would tolerate a huge trade deficit with China indefinitely, oblivious to the political calculus of Donald Trump.
- He has turned the clock back on all of the capitalist reforms of Deng Xiaoping that made the Chinese economy work and replaced them with Maoist statist solutions that have, as they always do, failed to bring growth. China’s economy had no growth in the first quarter and likely wont rebound this quarter.
- He has done nothing to counter the rapid decline in China’s working age population, condemning it to a drop in population to the point where the US will be larger by the century’s end. China is becoming a nursing home.
- Denied the legitimacy of Marxist doctrine, Xi depends on materialism and economic growth to stay in power. Now he has neither one.
- His foreign policy is a throwback to the days when the West imposed debt slavery on the third world. Just as Britain, France, Germany and Portugal did. In order to get his hands on food, raw materials and rare earth minerals, he has enticed dictators to borrow money they can’t repay that ends up in their Swiss bank accounts so he can seize their resources as repayment.
Dictators, unlike Puff’s magic dragon, do not live forever. The Chinese communist system may or may not fall but Xi’s time is limited.
The likelihood is a coup like the one in Moscow in 1964 that toppled the reformist and mercurial Nikita Khrushchev and replaced him with the more reliable and stolid Leonid Breshnev.
But, of course, without the fundamental reforms that are needed, there will be no economic progress and the new leadership will just go the way of the ancien regime.
Xi’s predicament can best be solved by waging war to unite and motivate his people and stave off his ouster.
To deter him, Trump must make clear that an invasion of Taiwan would quickly lead to a total embargo on all American trade with China, an existential threat to Beijng.
Trump called Xi’s bluff and now his back is against the wall — the great wall of China.
Purchase CORRUPT: The Inside Story of Biden’s Dark Money — CLICK HERE NOW!
Get Your FREE, Gold And Silver Precious Metals Investment Material. No Fee For Life IRA Program Now Available — CLICK HERE NOW!
SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE DICK’S VIDEOS & COLUMNS FOR FREE — CLICK HERE!
View Dick’s most recent videos in case you missed them!
U.S. To Offer $1.000 To Illegal Immigrants Who Go Home – Lunch Alert!
The Recent History Of U.S. – China Relations: World War II – History Video!
Trump Winning On Inflation – Lunch Alert!
Trump’s Plan: Cut Income Taxes By Third, Funded By Tariff Revenue – Lunch Alert!
Trump’s Plan To End Marxist Faculties – Lunch Alert
Dueling Populisms
Dear Friend,
Sharing this interesting essay reprinted from the Hoover Institution that Puts Trumpian populism into its historical context.
Enjoy,
Dick Morris
Dueling Populisms
By Victor Davis Hanson
Trump has revived the ancient tension between urban radicals who seek equality, and rural conservatives who seek liberty.
Populism is seen as both bad and good because people disagree about what it represents and intends. In the present age, there are two different sorts of populism. Both strains originated in classical times and persist today.
In antiquity, one type was known by elite writers of that time to be the “bad” populism. It appealed to the volatile, landless urban “mob,” or what the Athenians dubbed pejoratively the ochlos and the Romans disparagingly called the turba. Their popular unrest was spearheaded by the so-called demagogoi (“leaders of the people”) or, in Roman times, the popular tribunes. These largely urban protest movements focused on the redistribution of property, higher liturgies or taxes on the wealthy, the cancellation of debts, support for greater public employment and entitlements, and sometimes imperialism abroad. Centuries later, the French Revolution and many of the European upheavals of 1848 reflected some of these same ancient tensions. Those modern mobs wanted government-mandated equality of result rather than that of opportunity, and they believed egalitarianism should encompass nearly all facets of life.
This populism operated via redistribution and it was the antecedent of today’s progressive movement. Contemporary progressive populists favor higher taxes on the rich, more entitlements for the poor, identity politics reparations, and relief from debts such as the cancellation of student loans. Various grassroots movements like Occupy Wall Street, Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and the Bernie Sanders phenomenon have all promoted such policies.
But there was always another populism—and in the ancient world, it was considered a “good” form of grassroots activism even though its contemporary version is disparaged by the liberal press: this political movement stemmed from the conservative and often rural quarters of the middle classes. The agrarian agendas of the Gracchi brothers, Roman politicians from the second century BC, were quite different from that of the later bread-and-circus urban underclass, in the same way that the American revolutionaries emphasized liberty while their French counterparts championed egalitarianism. More recently, the populism of the Tea Party is antithetical to that of Occupy Wall Street.
In ancient Greece, these agrarian populists were known as “mesoi” or “middle guys”—those who were mostly responsible for the rise of the Greek city-state and constitutional government. Their signature ideas were preserving ownership of a family plot, seeing property as the nexus of all civic, political, and military life, and passing on farms through codified inheritance laws and property rights. The mesoi felt their approach offered stability to the otherwise volatile political order.
Similarly, the complaints of the later Roman agrarians against latifundia—the emergence of vast estates—today seems like a proto-Trumpian rant that rural Romans fought endless wars abroad for imperial expansion throughout the Mediterranean world without personally benefitting from these campaigns. Yet the benefits were, in a Roman context, an endless supply of cheap foreign slave laborers, influxes of disruptive global wealth, and corporate consolation of property at home. These profits went mostly to a Roman deep state of well-connected senators, imperial functionaries, magistrates, legates, provincial governors, and a permanent and expeditionary military force.
The rise of Donald Trump and those like him reflect some of these same age-old trends. Among contemporary conservatives, there was a growing complaint that the Republican Party had often forgotten the reminders of Edmund Burke and Alexis de Tocqueville that small property-owners were the stewards of conservatism, and of traditional norms and customs. They were seen as essential in stabilizing Western consensual systems, due to the pragmatism of their own lives and the stability of rural communities. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, such centrism in the American context set these agrarian property owners against both the absolutism of British monarchy and the recklessness of mass revolutionary movements like those in France.
Obviously America is no longer, a nation largely of yeomen farmers. But the ownership of a house, or a business, or a retirement savings plan, along with static populations centered around small businesses and well-paying manufacturing jobs, is perhaps the modern equivalent—as are traditional and hereditary rural communities in between the two coasts. Yet the trajectory of modern Republicanism had been to largely ignore such communities of small property owners and the effects that globalization and deindustrialization has had upon small them—a neglect that led to startling political repercussions in 2016.
Before 2016, both Republican and Democratic political elites and establishmentarians in the media, Wall Street, the universities, and entertainment largely agreed, albeit for different reasons, on a number of issues that had combined to enervate the middle class of the interior.
In the context of ancient and modern parallels, recent complaints about misspent time, money, and lives in wars abroad recall the lamentations of an Everyman character who appears in Livy’s Roman history, Spurius Ligustinus. Ligustinus was an impoverished small farmer in the Italian countryside who in his fifties recites in anguish to the Roman senate his 22-year career of overseas military service as a legionary and centurion. The battle-scarred Spurius’s personal tenure was a roadmap of overseas expansion—and a window into both the winners and losers of Roman globalization.
Illegal immigration and open borders have also been accepted as an almost natural expression of global labor and consumer markets—with largely positive results for both left and right. Liberals and ethnic activists championed those arriving, often illegally and unvetted, from Latin America and Mexico, in expectation of their permanent political support. Identity politics has transformed the Democratic Party, and, in theory, empowered its electoral opportunities in the American Southwest. Republicans, for their part, welcomed the cheap labor and/or deluded themselves into thinking that amnestied impoverished illegal immigrants would vote for family-values conservatives.
Neither party worried so much about the insidious erosion of immigration law, much less how laws that were otherwise applicable to most Americans could be arbitrarily ignored by a select few. That illegal immigration led to overburdened social services and schools, and drove down the wages of entry-level American workers was written off as the whines of those who did not understand the rules of free-market capitalism and the obsolescence of physical borders. In truth, open borders were unstable and did not promote the interests of the American middle classes. Illegal immigration reflected more the aristocratic/revolutionary binaries of the French Revolution, as immigration was paradoxically seen as a boon to the economic interests of the elite Right and the social justice agendas of the Left.
There was a similar consensus across party lines to embrace, without much reservation, globalization. It was seen not just as a reflection of Western cultural influence and technological revolution, but also as something morally and culturally enriching. Nationalism and borders would give way to a worldwide homogeneity—even as it left millions of Americans between the coasts with stagnant wages, lost jobs, or a sense of alienation from the centers of power in America.
Writing off large swaths of the American interior as the country of losers has been among the most radical developments in American history. For those who missed out on the advantages of one-world commerce, it was sometimes seen mostly, in Darwinian terms, as their own fault, either because they did not, for example, pack up and head to the fracking fields of Texas or North Dakota, or because their self-inflicted pathologies excluded them from acquiring the skills and education necessary to succeed in the knowledge-based “information” economy.
Closely connected in 2016 to populist issues of trade and globalization was deindustrialization. Another notion took currency: that the age of the smoke stack and assembly line was over. America, the idea went, had moved beyond an economy fueled by muscular labor and those who provided it. This was a strange mindset. The winners of globalization were materialists par excellence—eager consumers of costly appurtenances that relied on hard labor, such as smart phones, luxury cars, wood floors, organic fruits and vegetables, and expansive homes.
A few obvious disconnects arose. How exactly could millions of Americans out of work be deemed to have had the wrong skills and trades when what they used to do well—build, fabricate, mine, log, and farm—was ever more essential to the enjoyment of the good American life? Did it make sense to fuel an international commercial system in which many of the most successful parties warped the rules of engagement to ensure advantages in trade and employment? Was it really accurate that manufacturing was irrelevant in the United States, given the country’s cheaper power rates, skilled work force, sometimes lower taxes, and less intrusive government?
At best, Democrats talked about transitioning factory workers or coal miners to wind and solar industries; at worst, they saw the white working classes of the Midwest as experiencing the same lack of opportunities that minorities had suffered, evidenced by their spiraling suicide rates and opioid addictions. Republicans believed that the market would sort things out; a community’s lost aluminum smelters and fertilizer plants proved that they should be lost. “Creative destruction” was simply how the market worked, and it always favored the most efficient outcome—efficiency defined in terms of lowest financial outlay, without regard to the social and cultural costs exacted.
We are still in the midst of a populist pushback against the two political parties. The nature and themes are ancient—on the one hand, an urban and radical effort to redistribute wealth and use government to enforce equality, and, on the other, a counter-revolutionary pushback of the middle classes determined to restore liberty, limited government, sovereign borders, and traditional values.
Trump has revived the ancient tension between urban radicals who seek equality, and rural conservatives who seek liberty.
Populism is seen as both bad and good because people disagree about what it represents and intends. In the present age, there are two different sorts of populism. Both strains originated in classical times and persist today.
In antiquity, one type was known by elite writers of that time to be the “bad” populism. It appealed to the volatile, landless urban “mob,” or what the Athenians dubbed pejoratively the ochlos and the Romans disparagingly called the turba. Their popular unrest was spearheaded by the so-called demagogoi (“leaders of the people”) or, in Roman times, the popular tribunes. These largely urban protest movements focused on the redistribution of property, higher liturgies or taxes on the wealthy, the cancellation of debts, support for greater public employment and entitlements, and sometimes imperialism abroad. Centuries later, the French Revolution and many of the European upheavals of 1848 reflected some of these same ancient tensions. Those modern mobs wanted government-mandated equality of result rather than that of opportunity, and they believed egalitarianism should encompass nearly all facets of life.
This populism operated via redistribution and it was the antecedent of today’s progressive movement. Contemporary progressive populists favor higher taxes on the rich, more entitlements for the poor, identity politics reparations, and relief from debts such as the cancellation of student loans. Various grassroots movements like Occupy Wall Street, Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and the Bernie Sanders phenomenon have all promoted such policies.
But there was always another populism—and in the ancient world, it was considered a “good” form of grassroots activism even though its contemporary version is disparaged by the liberal press: this political movement stemmed from the conservative and often rural quarters of the middle classes. The agrarian agendas of the Gracchi brothers, Roman politicians from the second century BC, were quite different from that of the later bread-and-circus urban underclass, in the same way that the American revolutionaries emphasized liberty while their French counterparts championed egalitarianism. More recently, the populism of the Tea Party is antithetical to that of Occupy Wall Street.
In ancient Greece, these agrarian populists were known as “mesoi” or “middle guys”—those who were mostly responsible for the rise of the Greek city-state and constitutional government. Their signature ideas were preserving ownership of a family plot, seeing property as the nexus of all civic, political, and military life, and passing on farms through codified inheritance laws and property rights. The mesoi felt their approach offered stability to the otherwise volatile political order.
Similarly, the complaints of the later Roman agrarians against latifundia—the emergence of vast estates—today seems like a proto-Trumpian rant that rural Romans fought endless wars abroad for imperial expansion throughout the Mediterranean world without personally benefitting from these campaigns. Yet the benefits were, in a Roman context, an endless supply of cheap foreign slave laborers, influxes of disruptive global wealth, and corporate consolation of property at home. These profits went mostly to a Roman deep state of well-connected senators, imperial functionaries, magistrates, legates, provincial governors, and a permanent and expeditionary military force.
The rise of Donald Trump and those like him reflect some of these same age-old trends. Among contemporary conservatives, there was a growing complaint that the Republican Party had often forgotten the reminders of Edmund Burke and Alexis de Tocqueville that small property-owners were the stewards of conservatism, and of traditional norms and customs. They were seen as essential in stabilizing Western consensual systems, due to the pragmatism of their own lives and the stability of rural communities. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, such centrism in the American context set these agrarian property owners against both the absolutism of British monarchy and the recklessness of mass revolutionary movements like those in France.
Obviously America is no longer, a nation largely of yeomen farmers. But the ownership of a house, or a business, or a retirement savings plan, along with static populations centered around small businesses and well-paying manufacturing jobs, is perhaps the modern equivalent—as are traditional and hereditary rural communities in between the two coasts. Yet the trajectory of modern Republicanism had been to largely ignore such communities of small property owners and the effects that globalization and deindustrialization has had upon small them—a neglect that led to startling political repercussions in 2016.
Before 2016, both Republican and Democratic political elites and establishmentarians in the media, Wall Street, the universities, and entertainment largely agreed, albeit for different reasons, on a number of issues that had combined to enervate the middle class of the interior.
In the context of ancient and modern parallels, recent complaints about misspent time, money, and lives in wars abroad recall the lamentations of an Everyman character who appears in Livy’s Roman history, Spurius Ligustinus. Ligustinus was an impoverished small farmer in the Italian countryside who in his fifties recites in anguish to the Roman senate his 22-year career of overseas military service as a legionary and centurion. The battle-scarred Spurius’s personal tenure was a roadmap of overseas expansion—and a window into both the winners and losers of Roman globalization.
Illegal immigration and open borders have also been accepted as an almost natural expression of global labor and consumer markets—with largely positive results for both left and right. Liberals and ethnic activists championed those arriving, often illegally and unvetted, from Latin America and Mexico, in expectation of their permanent political support. Identity politics has transformed the Democratic Party, and, in theory, empowered its electoral opportunities in the American Southwest. Republicans, for their part, welcomed the cheap labor and/or deluded themselves into thinking that amnestied impoverished illegal immigrants would vote for family-values conservatives.
Neither party worried so much about the insidious erosion of immigration law, much less how laws that were otherwise applicable to most Americans could be arbitrarily ignored by a select few. That illegal immigration led to overburdened social services and schools, and drove down the wages of entry-level American workers was written off as the whines of those who did not understand the rules of free-market capitalism and the obsolescence of physical borders. In truth, open borders were unstable and did not promote the interests of the American middle classes. Illegal immigration reflected more the aristocratic/revolutionary binaries of the French Revolution, as immigration was paradoxically seen as a boon to the economic interests of the elite Right and the social justice agendas of the Left.
There was a similar consensus across party lines to embrace, without much reservation, globalization. It was seen not just as a reflection of Western cultural influence and technological revolution, but also as something morally and culturally enriching. Nationalism and borders would give way to a worldwide homogeneity—even as it left millions of Americans between the coasts with stagnant wages, lost jobs, or a sense of alienation from the centers of power in America.
Writing off large swaths of the American interior as the country of losers has been among the most radical developments in American history. For those who missed out on the advantages of one-world commerce, it was sometimes seen mostly, in Darwinian terms, as their own fault, either because they did not, for example, pack up and head to the fracking fields of Texas or North Dakota, or because their self-inflicted pathologies excluded them from acquiring the skills and education necessary to succeed in the knowledge-based “information” economy.
Closely connected in 2016 to populist issues of trade and globalization was deindustrialization. Another notion took currency: that the age of the smoke stack and assembly line was over. America, the idea went, had moved beyond an economy fueled by muscular labor and those who provided it. This was a strange mindset. The winners of globalization were materialists par excellence—eager consumers of costly appurtenances that relied on hard labor, such as smart phones, luxury cars, wood floors, organic fruits and vegetables, and expansive homes.
A few obvious disconnects arose. How exactly could millions of Americans out of work be deemed to have had the wrong skills and trades when what they used to do well—build, fabricate, mine, log, and farm—was ever more essential to the enjoyment of the good American life? Did it make sense to fuel an international commercial system in which many of the most successful parties warped the rules of engagement to ensure advantages in trade and employment? Was it really accurate that manufacturing was irrelevant in the United States, given the country’s cheaper power rates, skilled work force, sometimes lower taxes, and less intrusive government?
At best, Democrats talked about transitioning factory workers or coal miners to wind and solar industries; at worst, they saw the white working classes of the Midwest as experiencing the same lack of opportunities that minorities had suffered, evidenced by their spiraling suicide rates and opioid addictions. Republicans believed that the market would sort things out; a community’s lost aluminum smelters and fertilizer plants proved that they should be lost. “Creative destruction” was simply how the market worked, and it always favored the most efficient outcome—efficiency defined in terms of lowest financial outlay, without regard to the social and cultural costs exacted.
We are still in the midst of a populist pushback against the two political parties. The nature and themes are ancient—on the one hand, an urban and radical effort to redistribute wealth and use government to enforce equality, and, on the other, a counter-revolutionary pushback of the middle classes determined to restore liberty, limited government, sovereign borders, and traditional values.
Purchase CORRUPT: The Inside Story of Biden’s Dark Money — CLICK HERE NOW!
Get Your FREE, Gold And Silver Precious Metals Investment Material. No Fee For Life IRA Program Now Available — CLICK HERE NOW!
SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE DICK’S VIDEOS & COLUMNS FOR FREE — CLICK HERE!
View Dick’s most recent videos in case you missed them!
Texas About To Pass Important School Choice Bill: Teachers Union Scared – Lunch Alert!
Corporations Flee Delaware In Droves – Lunch Alert!
The Recent History Of U.S. – China Relations – History Video!
Leftist Propaganda Jams Trump’s Reality – Lunch Alert!
Trump’s Brilliant Negotiating Strategy On Tariffs – Lunch Alert!
Jack Smith Moves To Dismiss Case Against Trump; Shows How Phony It All Was – Lunch Alert!
This Dick Morris Lunch Alert! is sponsored by Patriot Gold Group.
Click Here to give me your thoughts and continue the discussion.
Please forward this email to any friends or family who may be interested in viewing my video.
Thanks for watching,
Dick
Purchase CORRUPT: The Inside Story of Biden’s Dark Money — CLICK HERE NOW!
Get Your FREE, Gold And Silver Precious Metals Investment Material. No Fee For Life IRA Program Now Available — CLICK HERE NOW!
SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE DICK’S VIDEOS & COLUMNS FOR FREE — CLICK HERE!
View Dick’s most recent videos in case you missed them!
What If Germany Had Won WW1 – History Video!
Gaetz Should Have Been Confirmed – Lunch Alert!
Another Qualified Person Falls Under The Sword – Lunch Alert!
Trump’s Justice Department Gambit – Lunch Alert!
Trump’s Threat Diplomacy Is Working Well – Lunch Alert!
Poll: Trump Neutralizes Abortion Among White Men And Women
A survey by NPR of 2300 young voters (18-40) shows that, despite Harris’ focus on the abortion issue, Trump has erased the gender gap among white men and women.
Gender gap, which has defined American politics for fifty years — ever since Roe — is fading away among young white voters.
The survey, conducted Sept 26-Oct 6, showed only a one point gender gap among whites. Harris got 43% of white men and 44% of white women.
So Harris’ campaign, with its efforts to break through with white women, using the abortion issue, is making no progress among whites.
There remains a gender gap among young blacks and Latinos.
Harris draws 56% of young Hispanic women and 44% of young Hispanic men — a gap of 12 points But the gender gap among young blacks is much narrower.
Harris wins young black women by 63% but wins young black men with only 58% of the vote — a gap of only 5 points.
Since Trump has only recently scored huge gains among Hispanic men, and their conversion is relatively new, the gender gap, though still there, seems to have affected more young Latino men than women.
But among black voters, where there has been less overall movement to Trump, the gap between men and women is narrower.
Purchase CORRUPT: The Inside Story of Biden’s Dark Money — CLICK HERE NOW!
Get Your FREE, Gold And Silver Precious Metals Investment Material. No Fee For Life IRA Program Now Available — CLICK HERE NOW!
SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE DICK’S VIDEOS & COLUMNS FOR FREE — CLICK HERE!
View Dick’s most recent videos in case you missed them!
Big Gains For Republicans In Senate Races – Lunch Alert!
Trump Triangulates On Abortion – Lunch Alert!
Trump Landslide Building – Lunch Alert!
How Europe Became Socialist – History Video!
Why Harris Agreed To The Fox Interview – Lunch Alert!
America Moves Toward Consensus… Even On Abortion
You don’t hear the word consensus very often in American politics these days. But as the polls show Donald Trump moving up in these final weeks of the race, a consensus is indeed forming that he should be re-elected, perhaps the first consensus we have seen in a decade.
His upward momentum in the past two weeks is so broad and he is moving up among so many voters that consensus is the only word that describes what is going on.
But what is most interesting is how he has achieved this consensus. In our polarized politics, he is winning not so much because he is battering the Democrats into submission, finally winning the partisan debate that has sundered our country.
No, he is achieving consensus by triangulating on the thorniest issue in our politics: abortion.
We learned in the Clinton era that the candidate who can articulate the consensus that most voters feel, stepping over party lines, can prevail where partisan warfare fails.
In the 1990s, Democrats saw that saying “yes” to Republican proposals like welfare reform and a balanced budget without cutting entitlements, worked where saying “no” had not succeeded.
And so, this fall, Trump has found that triangulation on abortion is working where combat has failed. Politicians are good at handling “no” but when their political opponents start saying “yes”, they are dumbfounded.
As the autumn approached, Biden pulled out, and Harris was nominated, Republicans had grown concerned. Despite their advantage on the economy, immigration and crime, they could not put Kamala Harris away. She remained nipping at their heels, and the race seemed to settle into a nail biter.
Then, over the opposition of most of his own party, Trump triangulated. He pledged to veto a ban on abortion, backed in vitro fertilization, rejected a six week deadline for legal abortion and carved out exceptions to any abortion ban where the life of the mother was threatened or rape or incest was involved. And he deployed Melania to advocate women’s control of their own bodies.
His bright red posture on the issue began to look more like purple.
And the American people are responding. Trump began to seize leads in the popular vote and in most of the swing states. Democrats, totally invested in the abortion issue, felt the ground eroding under their feet.
Lamely, they fell back to saying Trump was lying and that, as soon as he won, the virulent pro-lifer Democrats feared would emerge and “turn the clock back.” But as Trump persisted in triangulating the issue, Harris lost ground and the momentum swung to Trump.
In the process,Trump looks like he has solved the biggest conundrum in our politics — how to find a center-right middle ground on abortion.
As this consensus gains ground, it looks like our most divisive issue has begun to moderate, creating a consensus on abortion.
Purchase CORRUPT: The Inside Story of Biden’s Dark Money — CLICK HERE NOW!
Get Your FREE, Gold And Silver Precious Metals Investment Material. No Fee For Life IRA Program Now Available — CLICK HERE NOW!
SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE DICK’S VIDEOS & COLUMNS FOR FREE — CLICK HERE!
View Dick’s most recent videos in case you missed them!
Trump Landslide Building – Lunch Alert!
How Europe Became Socialist – History Video!
Why Harris Agreed To The Fox Interview – Lunch Alert!
Harris Says She’s Open To Reparations For Slavery – Lunch Alert!
Dems Objectify Women: Abortion Is The Only Issue – Lunch Alert!
Dems Lead By 250K Votes In Early Penn Voting
Despite polls indicating that Trump has the momentum behind him with three weeks to go in the election, the Democrats have racked up a 250,000 lead in early voting in Pennsylvania.
628,785 voters in the state have voted early as of October 15th including 415, 248 Democrats but only 157,857 Republicans.
We can’t, of course, find out who the early votes were for until they are tallied on or after election day, but the fact that a quarter of a million more Democrats than Republicans have voted is bad news for the Trump campaign.
In the 2022 Senate race in Pennsylvania, the Republican candidate Dr. Oz entered election day trailing Democrat John Fetterman by more than 600,000 votes, making it almost impossible for Oz to catch up. Is history repeating itself?
While the Rasmussen Reports poll ofOctober 15th, has Trump winning Pennsylvania by 50-47, the Harris lead in early voting should set off alarm bells in the Trump HQ,
Republicans have been traumatized by the 2020 election where charges of fraud permeated the voting. Reluctant to trust their ballots to the mail or drop boxes, they appear to be waiting for election day to vote in person — or the polls are wrong and Harris is really winning.
Elsewhere, Republicans are holding their own — or better — in early voting. The GOP, for example, leads in Arizona by 10,000 votes and is ahead in Nevada by 1500 ballots.
In North Carolina, we do not know the party affiliation of a third of the early voters but Democrats lead by 10,000 votes among the early ballots but their lead has dwindled lately as more early votes come in.
But the Democratic margin among early Pennsylvania voters has not narrowed as more votes have come in. While the early voter lead does not necessarily foreshadow a Harris victory there, her early vote lead is ominous.
Pennsylvania Republicans need to get off their duffs and send in their ballots for Trump!
Purchase CORRUPT: The Inside Story of Biden’s Dark Money — CLICK HERE NOW!
Get Your FREE, Gold And Silver Precious Metals Investment Material. No Fee For Life IRA Program Now Available — CLICK HERE NOW!
SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE DICK’S VIDEOS & COLUMNS FOR FREE — CLICK HERE!
View Dick’s most recent videos in case you missed them!
Harris Says She’s Open To Reparations For Slavery – Lunch Alert!
Dems Objectify Women: Abortion Is The Only Issue – Lunch Alert!
How The DOJ Is Suing Virginia To Stop It From Cleaning Its Voter Rolls – Lunch Alert!
Mail-In Voting Drops Sharply: Good News For Trump – Lunch Alert!
U.S. Interference In Foreign Elections – History Video!
Trump Vs. Bloomberg News On Tariffs
This week, Donald Trump had a revealing interview with Bloomberg’s editor-in-chief John Micklethwait.
They clashed over tariffs and their dialogue speaks volumes about how Trump’s views differ from the conventional economic wisdom.
Micklethwait argued that Trump’s planned new tariffs would “essentially halt trade with China” and blasted the former President’s plan to impose ten percent universal tariffs on Europe and Japan while raising them 100% on China.
Micklethwait said that Trump’s tariffs would force higher prices domestically, provoke sharp retaliation from Beijing, and alienate our closest allies.
Trump responded that the tariffs he imposed on China during his presidency did not kindle inflation and that US industries easily weathered the retaliatory tariffs China imposed.
Now the establishment, as personified by Micklethwait, now warns again of inflation and severe economic damage should Trump proceed to impose such big tariffs.
Like Yankee catcher Yogi Berra said “it’s deja vu all over again.”
But Trump is right.
American businesses are nimble enough to go outside China to feed their supply chains. China needs the U.S. too much to cripple our economy or even to make a dent.
Americans can easily cut back on their imports from China while Europeans and the Japanese can easily absorb a ten percent increase in tariffs.
Thinking of international trade as a zero sum game is outdated and flies in the face of the global response to Trump’s tariffs during his first term.
Morally, Trump rightly justifies the tariffs by noting that the rest of the world has been taking advantage of our generosity in racking up a $773 billion trade surplus with us last year and that it’s time now to even the score.
Purchase CORRUPT: The Inside Story of Biden’s Dark Money — CLICK HERE NOW!
Get Your FREE, Gold And Silver Precious Metals Investment Material. No Fee For Life IRA Program Now Available — CLICK HERE NOW!
SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE DICK’S VIDEOS & COLUMNS FOR FREE — CLICK HERE!
View Dick’s most recent videos in case you missed them!
How The DOJ Is Suing Virginia To Stop It From Cleaning Its Voter Rolls – Lunch Alert!
Mail-In Voting Drops Sharply: Good News For Trump – Lunch Alert!
U.S. Interference In Foreign Elections – History Video!
Trump’s Excellent Answer To Harris’s Charge Of Tax Cuts Only For Billionaires – Lunch Alert!
More And More, Trump Has The Momentum – Lunch Alert!
TV Show: Trump’s Three New Cannons
As he enters the final month of the campaign, Trump has unveiled three new cannons to add to his artillery: Elon Musk, Robert Kennedy and Melania Trump.
Each has his or her own field of fire and all are well stocked with ammo that Trump can use to devastating effect.
Musk’s cannon are aimed at the free speech issue, a focus forced on both him and Trump by government censorship directed against them.
Musk, whose company has been banned from operating in Brazil, knows, well, the effect of government censorship, and repression. He campaigns for Trump, volubly and insistently, raising the banner of free speech, online and in person. In doing so, he makes a special appeal to Gen X voters who must overcome government and peer group censorship in their own lives.
It’s a new front in Trump’s war on the establishment. From the days, when the election of 2020 was effectively rigged by the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop to the days when he was banned from Twitter, even while serving as President of the United States, Donald Trump has felt the heavy boot of censorship.
As he and Musk battle the deep state, they will make common cause for free speech.
Trump’s adversaries are used to fighting him over immigration, crime, and taxes, but free speech is a new issue, appealing to a new constituency,
Helpful as always, Hillary Clinton warns that repealing Section 230 of the Federal Communications Law would cause the government to “lose control” over social media. Exactly.
Robert Kennedy’s field of fire concerns health issues like overuse of fertilizers and pesticides and the perils of genetic engineering. These issues rightly obsess Gen Xers and have the potential to create the equivalent of the climate change issue for the Trump-Kennedy campaign. Particularly among young mothers, this cluster of issues lends a new dimension to the campaign against the deep state and its many manifestations.
Melania’s espousal of the “individual freedom and rights” of women to control of their own bodies, combined with her husband’s pledge to veto any abortion ban, is a third field of fire for the Trump campaign. The ambiguity of the Supreme Court’s decision replacing Roe v Wade leaves open many possible interpretations of the new law.
Melania affirmation of the basic right of women to sovereignty over their own bodies, gives a clear indication of Donald Trump’s personal priorities.
In every campaign, the question looms large: What are you going to do differently in the last two weeks.
This trio of Musk, Kennedy, and Melania provides a clear path for the end of the Trump campaign. Each brings his or her own constituency to the battle, and opens up a new front for Trump’s ubiquitous war on the deep state.
And Kamala Harris will have no answer.
Purchase CORRUPT: The Inside Story of Biden’s Dark Money — CLICK HERE NOW!
Get Your FREE, Gold And Silver Precious Metals Investment Material. No Fee For Life IRA Program Now Available — CLICK HERE NOW!
SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE DICK’S VIDEOS & COLUMNS FOR FREE — CLICK HERE!
View Dick’s most recent videos in case you missed them!
Thomas Jefferson’s Commitment To Peace – History Video!
FEMA Can’t Afford Aid To Helene Victims But Gives Illegals $1 Billion In Aid – Lunch Alert!
Triple Disadvantage For Harris – Lunch Alert!
Harris Is At A Disadvantage As War Fears Grow – Lunch Alert!
Iran Missile Attack Opens Door For Trump Attack On Harris – Lunch Alert!