Tuesday Bullet Points


NOTE: There is no podcast for today’s chapter. I am dealing with lung issues that turned my voice into Fat Albert’s! I hope it’s temporary. (Maybe you wish it was permanent!)

In today’s “Bullet Points,” we are simply going to ask questions that are very applicable to the current state in which we find our nation. After each question, we’ll provide at least one possible/probable answer. Be patient. There are so many appropriate questions about the state of the Union, we cannot touch on each in just one session. We’ll play by ear how to proceed with this Q&A process over the next few days and weeks. We’ll call today’s “Bullet Point” selection: “56 Days.” Of course, that is the number of days remaining before the midterm elections. Let’s get going!

Day 56

  • Are the polls that say Democrats probably going to gain seats in the House of Representatives and maybe win enough to take control of the House?
  • Nobody but the pollsters know that for sure. There are many variables in polling that determine results: the size of the sample taken, the political mix of those respondents, the questions asked by pollsters and even the way they pose their questions, the wording of the asked questions, demographics of respondents, all play into the actual results. Remember this: only one poll of dozens of national reputable polls were accurate in predictions of the outcome of the 2016 elections. There are quite a number of factors that play into polls. But the number one election factor that determines results of every election is voter turnout. And polls can determine turnout. Polling companies that hold one political slant can use political agenda in developing questions but can also manipulate results that when released will often impact voter turnout. To help candidates of one party, polling can be skewed to discourage voters on the other side from even voting — “your vote doesn’t matter. Don’t waste your time. Our candidate is so far in front your vote doesn’t matter.
  • President Obama has proclaimed that today’s economic numbers are the exact same numbers we saw during his administration in 2015. Is that true?
  • In the fall of 2015, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was 2.1%; the latest 2018 GDP number from June was 4.2%. Federal Reserve estimates are for this quarter’s GDP to be slightly higher. 2015 Poverty rate: 14.8%; 2018: 12.7%; food stamp recipients: 2015: 46 million (when Obama took office that number was 38 million); 2018: 3rd quarter numbers pending, but 4 million left the food stamp program in 2017 and went to work;  2015 employed Americans: 123.76 million; 2018: 130.64 million. 2015 median household income: $56,515; 2018: $62,175. Federal total revenue in 2015: $3.2 trillion; 2018: $3.4 trillion; And finally, the 2015 unemployment rate. 5.1%; 2018: as of June 30th, 2018: 3.9%
  • Why do we not see national television and hear national radio ads by Republicans putting these numbers out for the public? We see and hear Democrat attacking current economic results all the time?
  • The G.O.P. has always struggled with clear, consistent, and factual messaging on the same level and in a similar manner as Democrats. I really don’t have a single answer for it, but I think it is due primarily to two factors: one is that Establishment Republicans are almost as likely as Democrats to not want “Trump” economic numbers to mark the dramatic success that they are today; the second is that I am certain the G.O.P. is going to ramp up this information nationally in the next 57 days to get this message out to all Americans. (Let’s hope so!)
  • Do those Republicans that are part of the Establishment really want to see President Trump out of office and the Congress returned to Democrat control?
  • Sadly there are quite a few Republicans that feel that exact way. We have here reported several times to our partners that which party controls Congress is immaterial to these Establishment members. Why? They only care to keep the balance of power consistent, knowing that whichever House is in control will certainly at some point cede control to their counterparts. And when that happens, they want THAT party to “play fair” with them in committee appointments, perks of Congress, and go soft on possible retribution for the losing party’s members. In Congress, it is about power and control….period. It’s not about voting constituents’ legislative desires. I had one freshman Republican member of Congress tell me that the expectation was a group of 200+ conservatives pushing the Republican agenda. According to this member of Congress, there are barely 2 dozen “real” conservatives in the House.
  • If Democrats take control of the House, will they attempt to impeach President Trump?
  • No one but Democrat Party leaders — especially Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) know that for sure. When pondering this, ponder this: the Democrat Party as of today has NO real agenda to attract votes in November other than to “Dump Trump” and destroy all policies implemented on his watch. 60 House members have already voted to impeach the President in total disregard of Constitutional provisions that qualify for a president’s removal. Maxine Waters (D-CA) is riding the impeachment horse really hard and has a group of followers that always take her approach. However, “if” the House turns Democrat and “if” Pelosi could marshal enough support to vote articles of impeachment, it is unlikely the Senate would remove him. It would take a 2/3 rds majority to do so.


There are dozens and dozens of other questions that beg for answers. Instead of continuing today, let’s reconvene tomorrow to do “Bullet Points Day 55.” Tomorrow we will take the entire time to discuss the Mueller Investigation with questions and answers about every part of it from its inception. As of this writing, more extremely incriminating information of the almost innumerable fallacies of this “witch hunt” — as President Trump calls it — that boggle the minds of reasoning and intelligent Americans. We have many, many questions and some answers for contributing elements of this investigation that implicate the Department of Justice, the FBI, and even members of the Executive Branch of the Obama Administration.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.