Donald Trump said he would enlist Elon Musk to run a “government efficiency commission” if he wins a second term as US president. Speaking to the Economic Club of New York on Thursday, Trump said the X owner had agreed to head a task force to conduct a “complete financial and performance audit of the entire federal government” and make “recommendations for drastic reforms.”
Could it be?
Or, if we’re going to be more traditional about it:
I genuinely do not know the answer to this question.
Much play has been given to the fact that a Muzzie mayor in Michigan has endorsed Trump for President in 2024 and not, as one would expect, Her Junior Filthiness. Also the Teamsters, for so long a Democrat lock:
Perhaps even more noteworthy is the non-endorsement that the International Brotherhood of Teamsters issued last week. The union’s internal polling showed that its members strongly favor Trump over Harris, but leadership issued a statement saying that it was declining to endorse either. The statement also shared the polling data, which prompted me to write that it was tantamount to a “soft endorsement” of Trump when I first reported it. Matt wrote last Friday that the move by the Teamsters is causing some agita among the Dems.
Does this matter? I mean, in terms of actual votes? I mean, yeah, symbolism etc. But does his endorsement mean that x number of these constituents are going to suddenly vote for Trump instead of Harris?
I know that if, say, the mayor of Plano decided to endorse a specific candidate or party, that would have absolutely no bearing on how I’d cast my vote. But then I take my political cues from nobody else, so maybe I’m not representative of the average voter.
I’m still interested when, for example, the head honcho of the Fraternal Order of Police announces his endorsement — will rank-and-file cops follow his lead, or make up their own minds? One might hope that the latter would be the case, but perhaps this is giving too much respect to the average cop.
Or maybe an endorsement simply sways the “undecideds” — although how any voter in these United States can still be uncommitted at this stage is quite beyond me.
After the second assassination attempt on Donald Trump, I’m led to ask a few questions.
If this was a serious attempt, why use an AK-47 (or SKS –there seems to be some confusion here*)? I’m a huge fan of the old Commie rifles, but it’s common knowledge that even scoped, neither is a serious “sniper” rifle. Hell, I wouldn’t use it past 200 yards, and I’m what could charitably called a “practiced” shooter with both the AK and SKS.
Which leads me to the next question.
Was this Routh guy just some deranged asswipe who wanted to kill Trump in principle, but like many nutcases, had little idea of how to accomplish such a thing? (I’m kinda leaning towards this scenario, by the way, because serious shooters never let their gun barrel poke out into plain view.)
Also in my mind: at what point, if ever, is the Secret Service going to get serious about protecting Trump? Supposedly, some eagle-eyed agent spotted Routh’s rifle barrel sticking through the fence, and the SS agent then opened fire on his position (but not hitting him surprise surprise). (Hell, at least this time, unlike in the previous attempt, they didn’t wait for the dickhead to start shooting before trying to suppress him.) Frankly, I’m starting to have serious doubts about their capability to protect Trump — which leads to the final, and most disturbing question.
Is there actually a conspiracy to assassinate Trump? I’m not going to get involved in who might be part of a conspiracy because I don’t know enough about the situation or the people who might be part of it.
Here’s what I do know: if there’s a third assassination attempt on Donald Trump, then it will take a great deal to persuade me, in the words of Auric Goldfinger, that this is not an enemy action. Once again, as to who the enemy is, I have no idea but many suspicions.
Right now, however, I have absolutely no doubt as to what is causing these deranged assholes like Ryan Routh and the late Thomas Crooks to act the way they are, and it can be found in the words of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris along with all their lickspittle colleagues in Congress and the media, words which describe Trump as being “a danger to democracy”, a “dictator”, and so on. (And I’m not the only one who believes this.)
If you keep on watering the ground, in other words, it’s an absolute certainty that some shoots [sic] are going to spring up.
*In terms of details about this business, the “fog of war” is a clear blue sky by comparison. See here for a series of contradictory statements.
After wading through all sorts of stuff explaining the concept of “the power of association”, Scott Pinsker says the following:
By joining the MAGA train, RFK Jr. is helping Trump craft a narrative where The Donald is open-minded and forgiving of his former rivals. It shows he’s capable of attracting independents, moderates, liberals, practically anyone — hell, even a Kennedy joined Trump!
Yeah. I’ll believe that about Trump when he offers Ron DeSantis a Cabinet position — and I mean a serious post like State or Commerce.
The biggest mistake Trump made — in both election campaigns — was his dismissive attitude towards the best state governor in the United States. Regardless of his personal feelings, though, there’s no denying that in his own state, DeSantis has achieved more MAGA-type reform than anyone else. Perhaps more even than Trump himself at the national level.
And by leaving DeSantis out of his future Administration plans, Trump will be doing the country, and himself, a grave disservice.
Trump is good for only four more years; DeSantis will be good for more than a decade after that, if not longer.
From Jon Levine, talking about Harris’s refusal to debate Trump on Fox News:
“If Harris can’t handle Bret and Martha — how on earth will she handle Xi and Putin?”
Fortunately, we’re never going to find that out.
I see that some Republican tart ran for office earlier in the year:
Of course, she ran as a conservative “independent” (“Republican” is the kiss of death up there in Minneapolis). That didn’t fool anyone, so she duly lost 46-54% to some liberal “independent”. Yeah, her background is kinda shady too, so that may have had something to do with it.
Too bad, because:
Rather toothsome, wot? We need to see more of that kind of representation, methinks.