How Trump Won

Donald Trump won the Presidential Election. And this was despite the media implying for months that he would lose. How did Trump win? Donald Trump won because of his appeal of being a non-politician, voter enthusiasm, a good platform, a solid V.P. pick, and his popularity among voters in the upper Mid-West.

Donald Trump has enjoyed a tremendous appeal of being known as a non-politician. Many Americans are tired of politicians in both parties. The economy seems to have stagnated for a while and so Americans wanted something different. They were ready to embrace a wild card. One of Trump’s best arguments in the debates was that Hillary had been in politics for thirty years and gotten nothing good done. Trump on the other hand, while his resume lacked experience in elected office, had visible proof of success, from Trump Tower to nice golf courses and hotels. Americans respect Trump’s career as a businessman.

Voter enthusiasm was a huge factor in this presidential race. Trump drew large crowds to his rallies. People know he is different from regular politicians and his policies are quite popular. Also, “Make America Great Again” was a great campaign slogan. Trump gave Americans something to believe in, and his slogan symbolized that. In contrast to Trump, Hillary didn’t generate near the enthusiasm that Trump did. She had poor attendance at her rallies and she didn’t have as many of them as Trump did. Hillary isn’t as likeable as Barack Obama. Her voice is annoying to listen to. Also, many people don’t trust her. She has a reputation for dishonesty and was under investigation by the F.B.I. at times during the race. Also, she is old news. People have been hearing about her for a long time. And what did she run on? Her campaign commercials during the World Series were all negativity ads and they didn’t promote stances on issues. Meanwhile the Trump commercials started out negative but then pivoted towards being positive by saying that Trump will bring change to make America a better country. Trumps commercials generated enthusiasm for Trump by having positive aspects and giving Americans something to believe in.

Trump had a good platform. He addressed issues that people care about. Trumps proposal to build a wall along the Mexican border is a very popular idea. Many Americans are tired of current and past Presidents not deterring illegal immigration. The American people finally have a guy who is going to fight back against illegal immigration, unlike recent Presidents who, regardless of what party they’re in, seem more interested in the well being of illegal immigrants than of American workers. People want the issue addressed, and Trump is a guy who will do it. Trade deficits and the closing of American factories as a result is a major issue that has been ignored by Presidential Nominees of both parties for a long time. Many Americans, even those that aren’t interested in working in a factory, want to see stuff made in America. Trump’s criticism of trade deals made during Bill Clinton’s Presidency and onward was a major theme of his campaign. Trump is willing to renegotiate NAFTA, a deal that he called a disaster and that has resulted in many American factories closing. Also Trump wants to stay out of Middle East wars. Americans aren’t interested in deposing dictators because Americans now view the Iraq War as a disaster. They don’t care whether or not Bashar al-Assad is a dictator. Americans are okay with the United States getting along well with Russia. Russia is not the bad guy, the terrorists are, and it’s the terrorists that Trump said he will bomb. And of course getting rid of Obamacare is another good part of Trump’s platform. Health insurance prices have started to rise, and so Obama’s healthcare law has become even more unpopular.

Donald’s selection of Mike Pence as his running mate also helped his chances. Both the Republican Establishment and some grass roots activists that supported Ted Cruz worked to tarnish Trump’s image among Republican voters. Mike Pence helped reverse this damage by appealing to both moderate voters who were weary of Trump and socially conservative voters who were skeptical of Trumps stances on issues. Pence also did a great job during the Vice Presidential debate by looking more Presidential than his opponent. Mike Pence was a nice compliment to Trump during the campaign.

Donald Trump was more appealing to voters in the upper Mid-Western states and Pennsylvania than recent Republican Presidential Nominees. These are the states that have great histories but have become the worst affected by the United States losing its manufacturing base. Trump’s criticism of NAFTA and his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement led to him being very popular among voters in those states. This popularity even extended to blue-collar workers, a demographic that is thought to usually support Democrats. These workers sensed that their futures were at stake, and they want a President who cares about them. White blue-collar workers are often ignored by Presidential candidates nowadays. Recent Presidents and candidates don’t seem to care that thousands of factories have closed and millions of jobs have been lost to other countries. Trump’s candidacy gave these people a voice that they have long deserved. Trump is also seen as a supporter of the coal industry, and this helped him in Pennsylvania. “Make America Great Again” has an especially strong appeal in these states because those states have been great in the past but have gone through rough times in recent decades. The states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania voted for Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016. Trump’s emphasis on bad trade deals helped him win those states and I believe he had a better shot of winning those states than any of the other Republican candidates that were in the primaries against him.

Donald Trump was a popular candidate. Trump’s appeal of being a non-politician, his ability to generate voter enthusiasm, a good platform, having Mike Pence as his running mate, and his popularity among voters in the upper Mid-West led to him winning the Presidency.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trying Out a New Site

I am trying out weebly.com for making a blog. The web address is http://texanendeavor.weebly.com

I wrote an article about how Trump won the Election.

Trump Must Win

Donald Trump gave up his billionaire lifestyle to run for President of the United States. He has gone from being a well-liked celebrity to a controversial political figure. He has been traveling the country for over a year now and has gained millions of supporters and exposed the establishment for the collective of fraudsters that it is. Today is Election Day and Donald Trump has to win. His policies on trade, immigration, and foreign policy are vastly superior to the suicidal policies of his opposition.

Trade is one of the most important political issues of today though until Donald Trump ran for President it was also one of the most ignored. Donald Trump is the first Republican Presidential Nominee to oppose NAFTA since it was enacted. The previous nominees silently de-facto sided with the leaders of the Democratic Party on the issue and so the issue was ignored. Many factories have closed because production was outsourced to Mexico. Without the import taxes that existed before NAFTA, Mexican made consumer products are much cheaper on average than American made products, because the minimum wage and wages in general are much lower in Mexico than in the United States. A similar situation is going on with China, except that China doesn’t need a so called free-trade agreement to undercut American manufacturers. The People’s Republic of China has mastered what to me seems like high-tech slavery. The best example of this is a factory company called Foxconn. Workers there are paid even less than workers in Mexico and basically are without a choice but to live in high-rise dormitories with many roommates. The dormitory buildings are surrounded with suicide nets to prevent workers from killing themselves. China went from a once mostly rural and almost-failed communist state to one of the top manufacturers in the world. This is due largely to the extremely high trade deficits with the United States. China has used this new wealth to build up a large military. While Mexico and China were building new factories, Americans were losing jobs and being ignored by politicians from both parties. While some trolls in the media write that without the current trade policies, goods would be more expensive, I don’t believe the goods would be noticeably more expensive. For one, the profits go to multinational companies, so very little of it translates into lower prices, And two, The United States made its own stuff up until the 1990s, when Presidents Bush 1 and Clinton enacted NAFTA and other globalist trade policies. Did Americans prior to 1988 have any more trouble affording stuff than Americans do now? No, they don’t. But average wages have stagnated for thirty years and many parts of the upper Mid-West that were once thriving are now rotting away due to the loss of factories. Hillary Clinton supports globalist trade policies like NAFTA, and Donald Trump doesn’t. He actually wants to do something to lessen the trade deficit with China and he calls NAFTA the disaster that it is.

Immigration is perhaps the signature issue of Trump’s Presidential Campaign, largely because of the media’s biased coverage of his announcement that he is running for President. A wall is necessary because a wall stands up 24 hours a day and every day of the year and so would be a great hindrance to illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants take jobs that could go to Americans. While trolls argue that these are jobs Americans don’t want, these are often jobs that can go to kids looking to gain work experience or adults who are going through transitionary times in their life who need some income. These jobs would also be more appealing if they paid more, but illegal immigrants drive the wages down because they are pretty much willing to work for anything and have lifestyles of people in third world hell-holes. Another issue with illegal immigrants, and immigrants in general, is that they are coming to the country in too large of numbers to be assimilated. As a result, large parts of many cities now resemble the ghettos of other countries rather than the United States. There are now more linguistic and cultural barriers that before didn’t really exist. There are possibly as many as 20 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. If there were just a few, I wouldn’t care. But there are millions and they drive down wages and change the culture of many parts of the country. Trump wants a wall built and illegal immigrants deported. Past Republican nominees have either ignored the issue or sided with Democrats against regular Americans. Trump values Americans first and that is what the President of the United States should do.

Foreign Policy is another one of many areas that Trump’s policies are superior. The current establishment has the policy of arming terrorist to oppose dictators that aren’t loyal to the globalist establishment, while ignoring the atrocities of other dictators. The establishment politicians like John McCain and Hillary Clinton support policies that remove the leaders of middle-eastern countries. Then those countries basically become Hell on Earth because anarchy results and Islamic terrorist take over. ISIS wasn’t even heard of by ordinary Americans until the U.S. government started arming terrorist to oppose Bashar Assad, the long-time President of Syria. Obama and Clinton use the term “rebels” but who are these rebels? The same policy was done in Libya in 2011 but this time NATO bombed the Libyan military. Now Libya is a hell hole. Luckily the American public isn’t interested in getting into another war in the Middle East, so Obama and Congress decided not to bomb the Syrian military. Assad may be bad, but the people his military is fighting are about as straight out of hell as you can get. Assad fights ISIS and other Islamic terrorist. Trump acknowledges this, and wants are foreign policy to actually be based on protecting the United States from terrorism, not removing so called dictators. Trump also wants to get along well with Russia. What’s wrong with that? This could be beneficial both economically and in the fight against terrorism.

Trump has to win. He is fighting against the establishment that is wrong on so many issues. Trumps opposition, Hillary Clinton, also supports the terrible Affordable Care Act, in addition to being on the opposite side of Trump on the issues mentioned in this article. Plus there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Trump has already released a list of who he would nominate. Every current justice who was put on the Supreme Court by a Democrat is a horrible justice. We need a Republican President simply for the issue of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is especially important in the abortion issue. The Democratic justices support abortion, while the Republican-appointed justices support a states right either to ban or restrict it.

Donald Trump is a great man for what he is doing. I support Donald Trump and hope and believe he will be the next President of The United States.

Evidence that Trump will Win

I have believed for a while now that Donald Trump will be the next President of The United States. I think Hillary doesn’t generate much enthusiasm for voters to go vote for her. With a CNN article titled “Early voting update: Black vote declining with 24.4 million ballots cast” [1], I now have evidence that Trump will win the Presidential Election.

Observers of American political news have heard and read over and over again that a Republican Presidential Candidate has to win Ohio in order to win the Presidency. The winner of Ohio has won every Presidential Election after 1960 in which Ohio voters voted for Nixon over Kennedy. Right now Trump is leading in the polls in Ohio and more Republican voters have voted in Ohio than Democrats. In 2008 the Democrats had a slight lead in early voting and Barack Obama went on to win Ohio. Now Republicans have a lead in early voting, and its more than the Democrats lead was in 2008, in which Democrats did well in congressional elections and went on to win the Presidency. Donald Trump is on pace to win Ohio.

Another indicator of Trump’s coming victory is his internet popularity. Donald Trump has more Likes on Facebook than Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama has more Likes on Facebook than Mitt Romney and Obama won the 2012 Election. Trump’s name has been Google searched more than Hillary’s. In both 2008 and in 2012, the candidate whose name was Google searched more during the months leading up to the election ended up winning the election.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign’s problem is that Hillary Clinton doesn’t generate much enthusiasm among voters. This could be for a variety of reasons. Maybe a factor could be that she is old news. We have been hearing about her Presidential prospects for over nine years. But I think other reasons are more of a factor. I was watching the World Series and both candidates aired commercials. All of Hillary’s commercials were negativity ads against Trump. Trump’s commercials portrayed a Hillary Presidency as either stagnating the economy or serving special interests while Americans were losing jobs; and then the Trump commercials pivoted towards Trump bringing change to build America into a better country. He wants to “Make America Great Again”. Hillary doesn’t run on the issues, and people don’t like to look at her or hear her voice. She lacks the likeability of Barack Obama. Trump, while controversial with many people who love him and many people who hate him, generates a lot of enthusiasm with his voters. Thousands of people attend Trump rallies while hardly anyone goes to a Hillary Clinton rally.

Donald Trump is on track to become the next President of the United States. He is more popular and he is winning in the state of Ohio, a key battleground state that has voted on the winning side of every Presidential Election since 1964.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

1. Bradner, Eric, and Marshall Cohen. “Early Voting Update: Black Vote Declining with 24.4 Million Ballots Cast.” CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 04 Nov. 2016.

The Wii U has a Terrible Name and a Disappointing Concept

I like Nintendo. There have been a lot of good games for Nintendo systems, just not many in recent years. Shortly before the Wii U came out, I wanted to buy the next Nintendo system. The Wii U has been out for over a year and a half, and I still have not bought it. Nintendo has made my two favorite game systems and the Wii U is not one of them. I may buy one in the future, but not now. The Wii U has two main problems besides lack of popular games, the name and the concept.

Wii U is a terrible name for a game console that came out while the Wii is still for sale in retail stores. While people who follow video game news knew it was a good console, many other people did not. It could have seemed like another version of the Wii. There was the PS2 slim and the Xbox 360 Elite. The PS2 slim was still a PS2 and the Xbox 360 Elite was still a Xbox 360. Nintendo should have dropped “Wii” from the name or named it the Wii 2. I would prefer they come up with a new name, not Wii something.

I am disappointed with the concept of the Wii U. If they had just released a Gamecube with HD graphics and display, I would have bought it. Instead of releasing an improved Gamecube, they doubled down on the Wii and made a controller that is supposed to look like an Ipad. This was probably because of the Wii’s high sales numbers. But many people bought a Wii, got bored with Wii Sports, and just bought a few games, maybe Smash bros Brawl or Mario Kart. I play the Wii, but I don’t want a sequel to the Wii. I want a sequel to the Gamecube. The Gamecube was a great console despite the sales numbers. Many of the games had both great single players and multiplayer modes. People still play Super Smash Bros Melee, even thought it came out over ten years ago. I also like the Gamecube controller. It was comfortable and not too simple or too complex. The Wii was a fluke. A lot of people bought one, but they are not played as much as Xbox 360s and PS3s. I wish Nintendo had just released a new Gamecube.

I am still considering purchasing a Wii U, but I am waiting for another price drop. Nintendo has some great video game series, and the Wii U will have some good games for it. I don’t like the name, and I don’t like the concept. I wanted a new Gamecube not a new Wii. There is a good chance I will still get a Wii U, just not this year.

The Real Bad Guys

             For the past two years we have been hearing on the news about people rebelling against the dictator Bashar Assad in Syria, and a debate started about arming the rebels and even bombing Syria. I was skeptical of these “rebels” from the beginning. The real bad guys are not Assad and his forces, they’re the rebels.

            We frequently hear about possible human rights abuses in Syria by the Assad regime. Buy a closer look indicates that factions of the rebels are far worse. A month ago Obama talked about chemical weapons and some sort of “red line”. Then he got pretty silent about chemical weapons once word got around that the rebels were more likely the users of chemical weapons.

            The problem with the rebel coalition is that there is too much of a jihadist presence with them. Some rebels probably are just wanting a regime change because they are tired of the Assad dictatorship. But they are in a de facto alliance with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda supports Jihad and wants the world to be ruled under their interpretation of Sharia law. They were also behind the 9/11 terrorist attack. They want control of Syria. A problem is that Assad is not the same denomination of Islam as them are. He also wants to stay in power himself rather than give control to some Islamist theocracy. So, he is in Al Qaeda’s way. If Assad loses, then Al Qaeda wins.

            Now Assad’s not much of good guy himself, I just think it is better for the U.S. and the Christian minority in Syria for him to be in power instead of Islamist. As the Coptics in Egypt have seen, Islamists aren’t real nice to non-Muslim minorities. Because neither Assad nor the Islamists are friends of the U.S. and Israel, the U.S. should stay out of the civil war. There should be no aid to either side.

            Hopefully the U.S. stays out of the Syrian civil war. The rebels are the real bad guys.

My Response to the State of the Union

President Obama recently gave a State of the Union Address. He talked about many different issues. I had three main problems with the agenda. The three problems are his support for raising the minimum wage, comprehensive immigration reform, and mandatory background checks for buying guns.

Obama’s plan to raise the minimum wage to nine dollars caught me by surprise. I had not heard him talking about this issue before. I strongly disagree with the idea of raising the minimum wage because I want the minimum wage lowered. I think the present minimum wage is too high. I think it should be back at its previous amount of $5.75. Minimum wage jobs are not meant to be used to support a family by just working 40 hours a week. If a person’s plan is to depend on a minimum wage job for their career, then they are an idiot. President Obama said that raising the minimum wage would help the middle class. That is ridiculous. Raising the minimum wage hurts the middle class by causing price increases, hurting companies’ profitability, and making it more expensive for small business owners to hire cheap labor. A family who relies on minimum wage as their primary source of income is not middle class. They are lower class. Raising the minimum wage hurts teenagers who are looking for work. The percentage of teenagers without jobs increases when the minimum wage is increased.

President Obama’s promotion of “comprehensive immigration reform” is also something I disagree with. Comprehensive immigration reform, as it existed in 2007 and in McCain’s, Rubio’s, Schumer’s, and Obama’s proposals, is essentially amnesty for illegal immigrants and an increase in legal immigration in exchange for promises of more border security and immigration enforcement in the future. The 2007 comprehensive immigration bill was a terrible idea. This year’s bill will be terrible too, regardless of whether or not it has bipartisan support. The immigration enforcement will be a waste of time once the illegals are given legal status. People won’t come across many illegals because they would now be legal. Rather than there being 11+ million of them, there would only be thousands of them for the first year after the bill would be passed. These would be new arrivals and a few who missed the memo about getting legalized. Eventually, these new arrivals would add up to another several million. And then several million more would come after that, and there would be another 11+ million illegal immigrants in this country. I don’t trust the federal government to secure the border or enforce immigration law. Bush and Obama both neglected those important tasks, and Obama sued the States who tried to enforce immigration laws themselves. Besides the amnesty, I don’t like the increase in legal immigration. We have relatively high unemployment. At the time of typing this, I myself am without a job. It is unfair to our unemployed to import even more workers into this country. Rubio and the other traitors say that these are for immigrants with degrees in science. We don’t need them. Many college graduates are out of work. This would just suppress wages for white collar jobs. Because of his support for this, I no longer like Marco Rubio politically. He is a nice guy, but I hope he doesn’t become our next Republican nominee for President.

The third issue I had with the 2013 State of the Union Address was the call for universal background checks. The problem I have with this is that it would make it a hassle for a parent to give a gun to their child. Right now, a parent can give a gun to their child as if it were just a regular gift. Mandatory background checks would make the parent have to fill out paper work and send in information to the government.

I did not like the agenda presented by President Obama at the 2013 State of the Union Address. In my opinion, the real state of the union is in decline. I supported Mitt Romney for President because I disagree with much of Obama’s agenda. Obama supports raising the minimum wage, comprehensive immigration reform, and mandatory background checks for buying guns. I don’t support his policies on those three issues.

Women and the Military

A few weeks ago Leon Panetta announced that the military will open up combat roles to women. There is a lot of public support for this. But, there is also a lot of controversy and over looked stuff as well. I am skeptical of this decision and I don’t like where the military is going. This is another example of the liberal war on traditionalism and the military is being turned into a jobs program.

This goes against traditionalism. Men have been the soldiers for the history of mankind. I’ll admit that there are some bad ass women out there. But on average men meet the standards for combat units more so than women. I am open to having some sort of experimental unit that is all female. But having segregated combat units is not in Panetta’s plan. Segregation in general is almost always negatively regarded, even though not all segregation is racial segregation. The combat units will be integrated. Gender integration for combat units is a terrible idea, simply because it will hurt unit cohesion. There could be inappropriate relationship drama. Another problem is that it is easier for men to be friends with other men than women. Like a boys football team, a male military unit, whether combat or not, isn’t a good place for women.

I am more concerned that the military is becoming more of a jobs program than a military. The military runs many ads on television and in magazines to recruit people. Trying to raise the number of military members is a stupid idea. The Iraq war is over, and the Obama administration plans to decrease the number of troops in Afghanistan next year. Why is the military recruiting more people if it doesn’t need them? Another concern I have is that someone can be in the military for just several years, never serve in combat in an actual war, and then receive a lifetime of vet benefits. These vet benefits could almost be like some sort of welfare. But almost no one dares to cut vet benefits. The government can hire more people for the military to artificially lower the unemployment percentage, just like hiring people for other government jobs. I’ve noticed that in recent military ads, the ads often show non-white women. The typical military member is not a woman. Most people in the military are men. I fear that the military will take affirmative action to favor recruiting non-white women over everyone else. The goal of any military should be to be a formidable defense force for its country, not some diversity program or some massive jobs program.

I like the military. I have a lot of respect for the military and its members. I will consider joining a Reserve someday. Liberal support for women in gender-integrated combat units is a war on traditionalism and the military is being turned into a giant jobs program.

A partial change of opinion

I recently wrote an essay that defended Chuck Hagel’s nomination for Secretary of Defense. After watching some highlights of today’s hearing, I have changed my opinion on Chuck Hagel. I still would like  to be appointed, yet not as much as I used to.

The moment that most stood out to me was when Lindsey Graham asked Hagel who is intimidated by the Israeli lobby, referencing Hagel saying that the Jewish and Israeli lobby intimidates a lot of members of congress. Hagel responded with “I don’t know.”. This was a gothcha moment. Although Lindsey Graham is not one of my favorite senators, I think he did a good job in the hearing.

Another thing that concerns me is that I heard on Hannity that Hagel has wanted nuclear disarmament of the United States. I think the U.S. should still have a small number of nuclear weapons, just to deter others from using nuclear weapons on us.

I said in an essay that Hagel would be a shoe in. John Kerry was a shoe in. I don’t think Hagel will be confirmed as easily as John Kerry was, therefore I no longer think Hagel will be a shoe in. I still think he will be confirmed though, simply because the Democrats control the Senate.

Hagel

I was reading articles on humanevents.com this morning when I noticed that most of the Editor’s Choice articles were about Chuck Hagel. David Limbaugh, Michael Barone, and Charles Krauthammer wrote articles that negatively describe Obama’s cabinet appointment, while Patrick Buchanan wrote an article that describes Hagel as a good pick. Hagel’s unpopularity among Republicans is largely because of his non-interventionism. In a reference to magazines, his views are more like that of The American Conservative than the interventionist, neocon Weekly Standard. I don’t see why Hagel is getting so much attention. Chuck Hagel’s Secretary of Defense nomination is a shoe in.

One, the Democrats have a majority in the Senate. The Senate confirms cabinet appointments. The House does not vote on appointments.

A second reason is that some Senators let the President have his choice on Cabinet appointments. Here is an example. I was watching a Sunday morning talk show and the newly elected Senator Angus King was on the show as a guest. He basically said that he would seriously review a Supreme Court nominee because they are appointed for life, but he would mostly let the President appoint his own Cabinet members since they leave office when the President’s presidency ends. I have also heard someone else say something similar, but I forgot who they were.

A third reason is that Hagel’s views really aren’t as “extreme” as some conservatives say they are. Hagel is more of a non-interventionist than the typical Republican. Although he initially voted for the Iraq War, he is now opposed to it. Non-interventionism is actually a mainstream political view. Non-interventionists oppose an increase in the U.S.’s involvement in other countries conflicts. They (myself included) support decreasing the number of troops in Afghanistan. I believe that Barack Obama being seen as more of a non-interventionist than George Bush and John McCain is why he won the election. John McCain is a war monger. He supported the Iraq war more than Bush did. He supports U.S. military involvement in the current Syrian civil war. What happened to John McCain’s 2008 presidential run? He lost. The Iraq war was widely unpopular since 2005 or 2006. The war’s unpopularity caused Republicans to lose control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections. Keep in mind that this was before the 2008 recession, so Republicans can’t truthfully blame the 2006 defeats on the economy. While non-interventionism may not be popular among some Republicans, it is popular among Americans in general.

Unless he is withdrawn from the nomination, Chuck Hagel will become Secretary of Defense. This will happen despite criticism from some self-described conservatives.