Bernard Goldberg: Voters Will Tolerate a Lot -- Until They Start Losing Money

"Voters Will Tolerate a Lot -- Until They Start Losing Money

Let’s begin with a question now that President Trump has crossed that traditional marker of 100 days in office: How much chaos are Americans willing to tolerate if their money is in the crosshairs?

Yes, the MAGA faithful — the ones who would jump off a cliff if the president told them to take a flying leap — are unshakable. Maybe they make up 25% of his base.

But the real story lies with the broader coalition that put Trump in office — folks who weren’t obsessed with him, just tired of being ignored. They didn’t show up for the circus; they showed up because they liked the promise: secure the border, shrink government, stop the woke madness, and put America first again.

Give Trump credit. He pretty much shut down the southern border — illegal immigration went from a flood under Joe Biden to a trickle now. And DEI is on the run. But Trump has problems: Americans have lost faith in his ability to handle the economy — and maybe more important, they’ve lost faith in Donald Trump himself...

Source:Bernard Goldberg talking about money, money, money!!!

If you are a paid subscriber of Bernard Goldberg, you can see his full column.

From Joe Walsh: Dear leader says the people only need 3 or 4 dolls. He says they only need 5 pencils. Dear leader is a communist. Way to go MAGA.

Aaron Rupar: Trump: "I don't think a beautiful baby girl that's 11 years old needs to have 30 dolls. I think they can have three dolls or four dolls ... they don't need to have 250 pencils. They can have five."

From Joe Walsh

Today, I had a choice as far as best available stories to talk about. And since unlike with my colleague Erik Schneider, I haven't seen any films recently that interest me, (ha, ha) it came down to a political satire piece about socialism, (1 of The New Democrat's favorite verbal punching bags) or President Donald J. Trump (MAGA, Florida) trying to make the case for communism... the extreme version of socialism. So I'm sort of going with socialist humor and The Communist Don in the same post. I hope it works out.

Before some whacked-out leftist try's to tell me that Communists don't believe in "paying more for less"... fine. I'm not actually saying that they believe that. More like that tends to happen when Communists are in power: empty store shelves and whatever is left, is too expensive for the average consumer in that country. 

As Bernard of Clairvaux so accurately said: the road to Hell was paved with good intentions. Meaning that you shouldn't just look at the intent of any policy, especially government policy, but the consequences of that policy as well. 

Communists might not want their people to spend more money for less, but in an actual Communist State, (take North Korea) that's exactly what tends to happen. Because the national government is the only source in town for the basic necessities and there's no one there pushing them to be as efficient and productive as possible. And 1 of those reasons, is the people there can't even complain to their government, (without risk of going to jail) when state-run-businesses aren't producing enough affordable goods. 

So when MAGA's Dear Leader President Donald J. Trump, tells Meet The Press Anchor Kristen Welker: 

"I don't think a beautiful baby girl that's 11 years old needs to have 30 dolls. I think they can have three dolls or four dolls ... they don't need to have 250 pencils. They can have five."

The President doesn't even sound like a Republican. He sounds more like a Communist, because he's telling everyone what he personally thinks, every American needs to live well... at least on this issue. And that's what Joe Walsh was congratulating (I'm sure sarcastically) MAGA and I'm sure everyone else who voted for Donald Trump last year: "Congratulations! You voted for a Communist for President!"

If Americans wanted to spend more money for less, tax hikes would not just be popular in this country, but all the Socialists in America would be emptied out of their closets... all the Socialist closets would be emptied, because leftists would no longer fear about being outed as Socialists.

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

William Graham: Thief (1971) Starring Richard Crenna

"A professional thief tries to break with his past but has to pull off one last job to pay off a gambling debt." 

Source:IMDB with a look at Angie Dickinson & Richard Crenna. Perhaps you can tell for yourself who is who.

From IMDB

"Here Is A Promo For The Movie Of The Weekend Presentation Of Thief.

Starring: Richard Crenna, Angie Dickinson And Cameron Mitchell.

Voiceover By Dick Tufeld." 

Source:MRGIOSB with a look at Hollywood Goddess Angie Dickinson. She plays Jeanne Melville.

From MRGIOSB

"Neal Wilkinson (Richard Crenna) would appear to be living a great life.  He has a nice house in the suburbs.  He has a beautiful girlfriend named Jean Melville (Angie Dickinson).  As he heads into middle-age, he is still fit and handsome and charming.  He dresses well, or at least well by the standards of the early 70s.  (By the standards of today, a few of his ties are a bit too wide.)  Everyone believes that Neal has a nice and comfortable job as an insurance agent.

Of course, the truth is far different.

Neal is a veteran con man and a thief.  He’s just recently been released from prison and his deceptively friendly parole officer (played by the great character actor, Michael Lerner) is convinced that Neal will screw up again eventually.  And, of course, Neal has screwed up.  A gambling addict, he is $30,000 in debt.  Can Neal steal enough jewelry from enough suburban homes to pay off his debt?  Can a man like Neal change his ways?

This is a surprisingly somber made-for-TV movie.  Just from the plot description and the film’s first few minutes, you might expect Thief to be a light-hearted caper film in which Neal and Jean work together to pull off one last heist so that Neal can retire.  Instead, Neal spends almost the entire film lying to Jean and there’s hardly a light moment to be found.  Neal says that he wants to retire from his life of crime but, as the film makes clear, that’s a lie that he’s telling himself.  Neal cannot stop stealing and gambling because he’s as much of an addict as the wild-haired junkie (Michael C. Gwynne) who briefly confronts Neal at the parole office.  At one point, Jean tells Neal, “The more I know you, the less I know you,” but the truth of the matter is that Neal is so deep in denial about the futility of his life that he doesn’t even know himself.

It’s not a particularly happy film.  Richard Crenna is ideally cast as Neal, playing him with enough charm that the viewer can buy that he could talk his way out of being caught in a stranger’s backyard but with also with vulnerability that the viewer can see his fate, even if he can’t.  Thief also provides a rare opportunity to see Cameron Mitchell playing a sympathetic role.  Mitchell is cast as Neal’s attorney, who continually tries to get Neal to stop messing up but who ultimately knows that his attempts to reform Neal are just as futile as Neal’s attempts to go straight.

The movie ends on a surprisingly fatalistic note, one that suggests that there’s only one way to truly escape from a life of crime.  I can only imagine how viewers responded in 1971, when they turned on their television and found themselves watching not a light-hearted caper film but instead a bleak examination of criminal ennui.  It’s not a happy film but it is more than worth watching for Richard Crenna’s lead performance." 

From Lisa Marie Bowman

I guess I could've talked about President Trump's interview with Meet The Press anchor Kristen Welker from Sunday morning. And I think she actually did a good job here, but all we got out of that was that he still takes no blame for anything that ever goes wrong on his watch and demands all the credit for anything good that happens... including things that didn't happen on his watch, like the infrastructure law that was signed by President Biden and passed by Congress back in 2021. Americans must have thought they were voting for 7th Grade Class President when they went to the voting booths in 2024. 

And there's just too much Donald right now, especially for a Marylander like myself, who lives 30 minutes from The White House. So onto talking about a fictional thief (played by Richard Crenna) and enough about the career thief who is Donald J. Trump... for now. 

So I was looking on YouTube and my homepage a couple years ago and the movie Thief (1971) was in my recommendations. And it said "with Richard Crenna". So I checked out either that night, or a few days later. 

If you are a Gen-Xer like myself who grew up in the 1970s and 80s, broadcast network TV films were everywhere, especially if your family didn't have cable TV yet. I was 12 years old in 1988 when my family got a cable box. So the movies and TV back then were better (at least from my perspective) back then because they had to be. Because people had fewer options. 

So ABC, CBS, NBC, maybe even PBS, and FOX in the late 1980s and early 90s, all had their own movie productions as part as their entertainment divisions and they would make and produce their own films, as well as show hit films from the big screens that came out a few years ago, as well as older films that are still very popular. 

And the broadcast networks would show these films generally on Sunday or Monday night, or even do mini-series. ABC, CBS, and NBC, stopped producing and showing other films like 20 years ago. But CW is bringing that back with their network and showing weekend films again, and they also have their own sports division as well now. 

Thief (1971) is an ABC network produced, TV film. It was 1 of their weekend films back in October, or November of 1971. Richard Crenna plays Neal Wilkinson, who is a professional thief, who has been sent to prison twice for that, who has lost custody of his son because of that. The mother of his son is an alcoholic and the boy is currently in a foster home. 

I think there's part of Neal that wants to go straight (as they say) but when you go to Reno, Nevada (not to play in the sand) but to gamble and you are not just a two-time convicted felon, but you not just lose $9,000 (which is $71,000 in 2025) but you cover those losses with bad checks and then you use your straight (and I don't mean that in a sexual way) lawyer as a reference for your bad checks, I think that begs the question of whether a two-time felon, who is a professional thief, is ready to go straight or not. Or simply just trying to get other people to cover his losses for him. 

On the surface, Neal Wilkinson (played by Richard Crenna) has an excellent support system as well as motivation to get his life together: 

Neal just bought a house in Los Angeles in a neighborhood that looks like Brentwood. But I'm not an LA expert. 

Neal has a straight job as an insurance salesman, earning $13,000 a year. (Which is $102,000 in 2025) 

Neal has a gorgeous, successful, highly intelligent girlfriend, Jeanne Melville (played by Angie Dickinson) who knows within the first 5 minutes of the film that her boyfriend has not been straight, or even honest with her. But she thinks she's in love with him and wants to help him out. She doesn't even know he's a two-time convicted felon. 

And of course there's Charlie Harris (played by the great character actor Cameron Mitchell) who is Neal's lawyer, who serves more like an older brother, or stepfather, who'll do what he can to keep his client from going back to prison and out of trouble... but as long as Neal is making that same effort for himself. And the reason why they split in this film because as Charlie told Neal on the phone: 

"You don't want somebody to help you. You want a pallbearer". Neal wants someone to be around him to pick up the pieces for him, when he screws up. He doesn't want an advisor or mentor around to show him the way and be able to stay out of trouble, by not getting into trouble in the first place. 

Again, 1970s TV film, so you are talking about a great cast here of great, professional character actors to go along with the people I just mentioned: 

Robert Webber as Reno casino boss Jim Calendar. Mr Calendar literally gives Neal a lecture on what it means to be a real father in the scene where they're talking about the debt that Neal has to pay back and how much time he might get to make good on that debt, before Mr. Calendar turns Neal's bad checks over to the Reno Police.

Ed Peck has a cameo role where he hits on Jeanne at the restaurant when she's waiting for Neal

Bruce Kirby (the father of actor Bruno Kirby) plays the guy who talks too much in the Reno casino bathroom. Neal tries to jack Beffy's wallet from his coat pocket and gets caught before by Beffy before he can even leave the bathroom. 

Hurd Hatfield plays Neal's fence in the film. Hurd is very impressed with the merchandise that Neal brings to him. But very reluctant to pay him for it. And has a "take it, or leave it" policy with Neal. 

We're only talking about an 75 minute (give or take) film here. And I really like the first 73 minutes. (Which might explain why I've seen this film like 10 times in the last 2 years) It's the ending that doesn't make sense and I think even unfair to the Neal Wilkinson character. 

Sure, I could easily see Neal being arrested after this film, after he just made 2 scores that night alone to pay off his $9,000 (again, $71,000) in today's money. But to have him shot in his own, damn, house, by and underweight, punk-junkie, (played by Michael Gwynne) who looks and acts like he could be a meth-head, who barely has the physical strength to even walk on his own 2 feet... seems out of place.

If a character like Neal Wilkinson, who is played by 1 of the great TV leading men (at least) from his generation (Richard Crenna) is taken down by anyone at the end of the film and it doesn't end in a good way for him... it's got to be by the Los Angeles Police, or the Feds. Not by 140 pound half-weight, who only just met Neal at the parole officer's office, who probably had to hitch a ride, or take several buses from his Skid Row boarding room, just to get to Neal's house in Brentwood. 

I think Michael Gwynne is an excellent character actor. But having Neal Wilkinson taken out by this character, doesn't even seem believable, let alone right. But the other 70 plus minutes of this film are really good, goes by very quickly and definitely worth seeing again. 

You can follow me on Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Roy Royland: Slander (1957) Starring Van Johnson & Steve Cochran

"For Entertainment Purposes Only. A successful smooth talking mogul (Steve Cochran) who makes his living publishing a "muckraking" magazine tries to blackmail an "up and coming" performer to get smut about another famous entertainer. Bad goes to beyond worse while Van Johnson and Ann Blyth struggle as victims. The story is as relevant today as ever. Really about libel (not slander)...

Source:Susie Robinson with a look at Slander (1957)

From Susie Robinson

From IMDB: 

"In an effort to improve the circulation of his notorious scandal magazine, unscrupulous owner, editor and publisher H. R. Manley spares nobody." 

Source:IMDB with a look at Van Johnson Ann Blyth & Steve Cochran.

From IMDB

So, you know it's a slow news day anytime you are seeing The New Democrat talk about a classic film, instead of President Trump's latest unconstitutional executive order, or who he threatened to lock up, if that person kept saying and reporting negative things about him. But it's Friday, the 2nd day of May, which feels like a summer day in Washington, D.C., which is pretty common for this time of year. And there just isn't much going on today. Besides, as it says on our home page, TND is about current affairs, sports, and entertainment... not just current affairs. 

So the more I see Van Johnson, the more I like him. He's the sort of classic, Classic Hollywood leading man and great supportive actor: 

Tall 

Good looking

Well built

Excellent sense of humor and comedic timing.

Van Johnson was the perfect actor for soap operas both in film and on TV in the 1950s and 60s, but go to the 1970s... even the 1980s as well. Even in his 60s, he would've been great on shows like Dynasty. He would've been a great late night talk show guest for the reasons I just gave as well. 

So Slander is not really what you would call a classic soap opera, but it has those elements: 

A big shot star (played by Van Johnson) that a tabloid reporter (played by Steve Cochran) wants to take down... or at least seriously hurt, because he can and it would sell a lot of paper for his publication. 

What I'm about to say, is not a newsflash for anyone who has a solid grasp of American history, or even Hollywood history. But well before what's called reality TV, the internet, blogging, or even the tabloid news magazine shows from the 1980s and 90s... this is how Americans got a lot of their news about their favorite stars... tabloid print publications. 

And like today with serious news organizations, or even 70 years ago, it was up to the individual reader to be able to figure out what was trash, what was incomplete, and what was real when it came to their news diet. 

And Slander is sort of about how people got their news back in the 1950s,  where you have a tabloid print reporter trying to take down a star, because he can and it will sell a lot of pint for him. And doing that with trash, or at best half-truths.  I'm going to watch it tonight and I might have more about on The New Democrat next week. 

You can follow me on Threads.

Jesse Dollemore: Scott Jennings GOT OWNED SO HARD – No Choice but to SHUT HIS MOUTH!!!

"Jesse talks about a humiliating moment for Scott Jennings. He was asked a fundamental Constitutional question about who possesses the authority to declare war, and he unsurprisingly got the answer wrong." 

Source:Jesse Dollemore actually does watch "cable news". That might be a newsflash for some.

From Jesse Dollemore

From Mediate: 

"On Thursday night’s edition of CNN NewsNight, Phillip and a panel comprised of Jennings, Xochitl Hinojosa, Batya Ungar-Sargon, Donte Mills, and Van Lathan discussed Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act.

When Jennings asserted that “we are at war” with suspected gang members, Phillip popped a Schoolhouse Rock-style quiz on him:

JENNINGS: These individual judges are overstepping. If what you’re essentially saying is that the president, who is the commander-in- chief, cannot determine when we are being invaded, an individual district court judge is going to decide that? No, thank you.

PHILLIP: Can I just ask a simple question? Who gets to decide whether the United States is at war or not?

JENNINGS: The president, in my opinion.

PHILLIP: No.

JENNINGS: If we’re being invaded, I want the commander-in-chief in that —

PHILLIP: Scott, no. It’s actually the Congress.

JENNINGS: You’re asking if we’re being invaded.

PHILLIP: I’m asking —

JENNINGS: You want to call Congress and see if we’re being invaded?

PHILLIP: I’m asking a basic constitutional question.

JENNINGS: We’ll be taken over before they ever get to the committee.

PHILLIP: (INAUDIBLE) will decide whether the United States is at war, the answer is Congress.

JENNINGS: I’m talking about if we’re being invaded.

PHILLIP: When the president says we’re at war, he has to show proof —

JENNINGS: Show we’re actively at war, not —

PHILLIP: And what he needs to do is go to Congress and —

(CROSSTALKS)

LATHAN: Wait a second, though. I thought the genius of our system was that we weren’t beholden to one guy’s opinion, that the genius of the American system of government was that we had three co-equal branches, and in those co-equal branches decisions, were made about how we go about doing things.

Now, we want to tear that to shreds so that we can kowtow to one guy’s opinion, then we are in a monarchy. We’re being ruled." 

From Mediate

So even though Jesse Dollemore says he doesn't watch these prime cable talk shows... somebody watches them for him? I guess he could be more frank and say: "I watch them so you don't have to". 

Which is sort of what some reporters who cover Donald Trump say: "I listen to the President's speeches so you don't have to". 

I gave up "cable news" at night, which was the only time that I ever had to watch it anyway, right after 2024 General Elections. That election night was so depressing, I just gave it up. But I get so much news during the day anyway from people doing their own reporting and videos online, all the newsletters, etc, I'm much happier this way anyway. And it frees up my nights to do things that make me happy and that I actually enjoy, instead of: 

Should grown men be allowed to compete in women's sports?

Do reporters have a constitutional right to question the President of the United States? 

Do judges have a right to rule against the President of the United States? 

Do students have a constitutional right to wear t-shirts that might offend other students? 

I mean that's the level of discussion and programming that we now get from the so-called news networks during prime-time now. And not just from MSNBC, or FNC, or Newsmax, but CNN as well.. it's basically just political, tabloid, culture war, gossip.

From what I've read about Scott Jennings background, the only Congressional experience that he has was working for Senator Mitch McConnell's 2002, 2014 reelection campaigns. But you don't need to be a Congressional expert to know that only Congress (House & Senate) gets to officially declare war in America: 

"The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war. This power is explicitly stated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11. While the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military, only Congress can formally declare war." 

From Senate.GOV. 

So when CNN anchor Abby Phillip told Scott Jennings last night: 

"Who will decide whether the United States is at war, the answer is Congress." 

Al she was doing was giving Mr. Jennings a 10th grade social studies lesson, to a guy with a college degree. So when Mr. Jennings says: 

"These individual judges are overstepping. If what you’re essentially saying is that the president, who is the commander-in- chief, cannot determine when we are being invaded, an individual district court judge is going to decide that? No, thank you.

We’ll be taken over before they ever get to the committee." 

According to MAGA, we only have a Constitution, when there's a Democratic President... especially a Democratic President, with a Democratic Congress, But when MAGA is in charge, the Constitution is just basically just a manual that comes with a brand new TV or DVR: something there to use when you feel like you need some assistance. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Jim Cramer's Full Interview of Peter Navarro On 1st Quarter GDP Report

"Peter Navarro, White House senior counselor for trade and manufacturing, joins CNBC’s ‘Squawk on the Street’ to discuss the most recent GDP print, whether new trade deals are imminent, tariffs on semiconductors, and more... 

Source:CNBC talking to the man with the longest job title in Washington.

From CNBC

From Newsweek: 

"Peter Navarro, Donald Trump's chief trade adviser, has claimed the economic data that showed the U.S. economy had contracted by 0.3 percent actually showed positive news.

Speaking to CNBC, Navarro said that, if the negative effect of the surge in imports because of Trump's tariffs is removed, "you have three percent growth."

Navarro said, "I got to say just one thing about today's news, that's the best negative print I have ever seen in my life. And the markets need to look beneath the surface of that.

"We had a 22 percent increase in domestic investment. That is off the charts. When you strip our inventories and the negative effects of the surge in imports because of the tariffs you have three percent growth, so we really like where we are at now," he added... 

From Newsweek

Earlier today on The New Democrat: 

"When Americans spend less money because: 

A. they don't have it to spend

B. the costs of what they want to buy is now too expensive 

C. is probably the right reason here: what they want to buy is not currently available because people stocked up on while they could still afford it and the prices went up on it because of tariffs. 

The American economy (whether you like it, or not) is a consumer driven economy. It's dependent on innovation and consumer spending to drive economic growth. So when you unilaterally make products that Americans want to buy more expensive, they buy less of them and that weakens economic growth. 

And because of Donald Trump's economic protectionism, America not just lost the $600 billion that it gained from the last quarter of 2024, but it lost an additional $100 billion during the 1st quarter of 2025. 

So we can either blame President Trump's tariffs for the lost of economic growth because his policy is driving it, or we could blame The Invisible Man. But since no one has ever seen or met The Invisible Man before, (ha, ha) the safe bet is President Donald J. Trump. " 

From The New Democrat

In case there's any doubt left in the world about how little respect The New Democrat has for Peter Navarro... you obviously don't read The New Democrat: 

"If you think about it, Elon Musk could've been harder on Peter Navarro than he was and I'll give you a few examples: 

"What does a convicted felon know about economic policy anyway: 

What does he know about prices in this country, other than what food and clothing costs at his prison commissary? 

If Peter Navarro is so smart, how come he got caught, convicted, and landed in prison? Good thing for him, the 2024 RNC started the day he got out of prison, otherwise he would've had to watch it in the prison day room and wonder if he would even survived the experience. 

When has Peter Navarro ever had a job in his life where he wasn't working for Donald Trump? The President probably only hired him because he feels sorry for the poor schmuck, who can't get a good job anywhere else, because he's a convicted felon. And he didn't want to embarrass Navarro by having him take his next order for a Diet Coke, quarter pounder, with fries,  at a local McDonald's." 

(Mr. President, you want fries with that? Yes, Peter. And please keep your voice down so no one here figures out that we know each other.)

Just for the record: I'm not saying that Elon Musk said any of these things about Peter Navarro... publicly... 

From The New Democrat

"So I guess the answer to Senator Tom Tillis's question: "Whose Throat Do I Get To Choke If Tariff Approach Fails?" would be: Peter Navarro. I guess you say Wall Street investor Ron Vara as well. But Peter Nevarro would be easier for Senator Tillis to find right now. Unless Mr. Navarro found some White House tunnel that not even the Secret Service knows about and is now hiding there. Sort of how he came up with his tariff policy that almost no one seems to believe in. The man seems to be able to find things that no one else can... 

From The New Democrat

So there are a couple of things that really stand out about this interview: 

1. "Peter Navarro, Donald Trump's chief trade adviser, has claimed the economic data that showed the U.S. economy had contracted by 0.3 percent actually showed positive news.

Speaking to CNBC, Navarro said that, if the negative effect of the surge in imports because of Trump's tariffs is removed, "you have three percent growth...

So President Trump's "Assistant to the President, Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, and national Defense Production Act policy coordinator" (they would've gave him a longer job title. But the English language only has so many words) admitting that: 

"If the negative effect of the surge in imports because of Trump's tariffs is removed, "you have three percent growth... 

Mr. Navarro is admitting that President's Trump's tariffs, are the reason for the negative GDP growth report yesterday. So he's admitting that his own tariff policy (and this is the economic policy that he gave to the President, that the President adopted) sent the American economy into retraction during the 1st quarter of 2025. 

If you watched the CNBC interview, you might have thought Jim Cramer gave Mr. Navarro a softball, or home run derby interview. But the fact that Mr. Navarro admitted on live, national TV, that President Trump's tariff policy is responsible for the negative economic growth that we had in the 1st quarter, Cramer might have thought: 

"He just admitted what I wanted to hear, but wasn't expecting. I can play nice now". 

2. Peter Navarro saying: "I got to say just one thing about today's news, that's the best negative print I have ever seen in my life. And the markets need to look beneath the surface of that... 

The 2nd Navarro quote takes me back to Donald Trump on the campaign trail both in 2016 and 2024 when he said: "I only hire the best and the brightest." Really? Does that mean: 

Mr. Trump only hires the "best and the brightest" who just got out of prison? 

Perhaps Mr. Trump only hires white-collar felons and not violent felons, when it comes to his felon employment staff. 

Wait, I got it: "the best and the brightest" is not available right now, because Donald Trump is currently President. So "the best and the brightest" is really just another way of saying "the best of what's currently available". 

I mean saying: 

"That's the best negative print I have ever seen in my life... would be like saying: 

A head coach (name the sport) saying: "That's the best losing team I've ever had". 

Or a businessman saying: "That's the least amount of money that my company has ever lost". 

Or a full-time political candidate (but only because they've never actually won an election) saying: "That's the closest I've ever come to winning an election". 

And you are saying all of these things, or just 1 of those things, perhaps somewhere in-between... as if you are trying to impress someone. The Trump Administration right now looks like a full-time daycare facility, where the parents are thinking they can just leave their kids (meaning the Trump Economic Council) there indefinitely. With the staff at the facility thinking when will the adults come back and take back their damn kids.

You can follow me on Threads  and Twitter. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

David Pakman: Donald Trump FLEES, Blames The Whole Thing On JOE BIDEN!

"Donald Trump publicly abandons any responsibility for economic policy and blames Joe Biden for the Q1 2025 GDP contraction" 

Source:The David Pakman Show with a look at how Dictator Don responds to real questions.

From David Pakman

From the President of the United States: 

"This is Biden’s Stock Market, not Trump’s. I didn’t take over until January 20th. Tariffs will soon start kicking in, and companies are starting to move into the USA in record numbers. Our Country will boom, but we have to get rid of the Biden “Overhang.” This will take a while, has NOTHING TO DO WITH TARIFFS, only that he left us with bad numbers, but when the boom begins, it will be like no other. BE PATIENT!!!" 

From Donald J. Trump

From The New Democrat on Wednesday: 

"So when the U.S. Government passes tariffs on another country, (like the People's Republic of China) 2 things happen: 

their products become more expensive in America because it's not Chinese companies, or the PRC Government that's going to eat those costs. It will be the American consumer. 

And then 2nd, China starts sending fewer of their products to America, because now they're too expensive because of the tariffs for most Americans and they take their business somewhere else, which weakens the supply chain in America. 

What I'm giving you is really an economics 101 lesson that Mr. Hassett probably got in college 40 years ago. But he's either forgotten that (because to work for Donald Trump, you have to lose your brain, first) or, (and this is my guess) he's simply lying for his boss on national TV." 

From The New Democrat

I really don't have anything to what Fred Schneider said about President Trump's economic policy. I think he put it all out there as far as what people need to know about these tariffs on TND. I do have 1 response to what David Pakman said here and I'm probably in complete agreement here with him. And I'm going to drop a few facts (as the young people say. Or is that drop some knowledge?) about the state of President Biden's economy, versus President Trump's long, but just 1st quarter. 

To sum up what David Pakman said: when things are great, it's Donald Trump's credit. But when they go bad., it's everyone else in the world, first and never Donald Trump's fault. 

President Harry Truman who was about as honest and direct a politician that we've ever had in this country, had a famous expression: the buck stops here. Meaning the buck stops with the President. Whatever happens on the current President's watch, the President gets the responsibility for what happened, because it happened on his watch. Whether that's fair or not... not the issue. That's just a real-life fact that every American President has had to live with, at least in the mass communications age. 

Donald Trump obviously has created his own personal standard for himself, that apparently not even all of his supporters agree with him on: 

"This will take a while, has NOTHING TO DO WITH TARIFFS, only that he left us with bad numbers, but when the boom begins, it will be like no other. BE PATIENT!!!" 

I think is a pretty good clue there that when things go bad on his watch, he's not even politically immune from his own base for that responsibility. How else to use explain a 42% approval rating? Which is about a 15% drop in his share in the popular vote in 2024. So he's dropped 15% in approval from Election Night 2024, but 22% from where he started out on January, when he was at 54, But the personal standard that he's set for himself is: 

"I'm responsible for anything that goes well in America. And it's always someone's else's fault." 

To put it more simply: The luxury items stop with DJT. The junk stops with anyone who is not Donald J. Trump. 

In case facts still mean anything to anyone else in America: (perhaps not a safe bet at this point) I'm going to share some facts with you about President Biden's economy versus President Trump's. 

In 2024, the American economy grew at 2.4%. 

Last quarter under President Biden, the economy grew at 2.8%. 

President Trump's 1st quarter of 2025, the economy shrank at 0.3%. 

The last full day of Joe Biden's presidency the Stock Market closed at 43,487.83. 

Yesterday under President Trump, the Stock Market closed at 40,669.36. Think about that last 1: the Stock Market hast lost almost 3,000 points. That's not points in a sports sense. That's trillions of dollars, net, that the American economy has lost under President Trump. $11 trillion to be exact. And we know why too and as Fred Schneider said on Wednesday: 

"So when the U.S. Government passes tariffs on another country, (like the People's Republic of China) 2 things happen: 

their products become more expensive in America because it's not Chinese companies, or the PRC Government that's going to eat those costs. It will be the American consumer. 

And then 2nd, China starts sending fewer of their products to America, because now they're too expensive because of the tariffs for most Americans and they take their business somewhere else, which weakens the supply chain in America." 

When Americans spend less money because: 

A. they don't have it to spend

B. the costs of what they want to buy is now too expensive 

C. is probably the right reason here: what they want to buy is not currently available because people stocked up on while they could still afford it and the prices went up on it because of tariffs. 

The American economy (whether you like it, or not) is a consumer driven economy. It's dependent on innovation and consumer spending to drive economic growth. So when you unilaterally make products that Americans want to buy more expensive, they buy less of them and that weakens economic growth. 

And because of Donald Trump's economic protectionism, America not just lost the $600 billion that it gained from the last quarter of 2024, but it lost an additional $100 billion during the 1st quarter of 2025. 

So we can either blame President Trump's tariffs for the lost of economic growth because his policy is driving it, or we could blame The Invisible Man. But since no one has ever seen or met The Invisible Man before, (ha, ha) the safe bet is President Donald J. Trump. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Matt Lewis: The Cringe Campaign: Why Democrats Can't Manufacture Cool

"Spring is in the air, and Democrats are rummaging through the political closet and trying on different looks. When just a little more than a quarter of registered voters have positive views about you, a makeover sounds appealing. But manufactured cool is cringe — and gimmicks won’t save a party that’s forgotten how to be real.

Rebranding advice is plentiful, if conflicting. James Carville thinks Democrats should just get out of the way and let Trump self-destruct (a strategy that might work for the midterms, but eventually a party has to stand for something). Meanwhile, David Hogg, the new vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, wants to spend millions purging the party’s incumbent geriatrics — a bold move that could sabotage a promising election night.

At least Hogg (who wants to replace the domesticated oldsters with more combative young progressives) is tapping into the zeitgeist. His scheme channels the inevitable “appeal to the youth” phase of an identity crisis — for the same reasons divorced dads buy convertibles. Americans, in general, tend to prioritize style over substance, especially when we’re spiraling.

The latest fad — which overlaps with some of Hogg’s goals — is the “dark woke” aesthetic (a fancy term for progressive politics dressed up in an edgy, confrontational style). The problem? Anyone who remembers that cringe TikTok video Dems put out back in March is aware that nothing screams “desperation” like an over-the-top attempt at relevance.

Because yes, the Democratic brand is cooked. Worse: It’s lame. People used to think the party was cool (or at least cool-adjacent). They had Barack Obama, George Clooney and a monopoly on cultural capital. Now they have the burden of being the “adult” party (and not the naughty kind). Adults pay taxes and send follow-up emails.

Democrats, amazingly, have become the hall monitors of American politics. And what do they have to show for taking on this responsibility?

Meanwhile, the GOP — formerly the domain of Dockers dads, pious prudes and Young Republicans — pulled off the unthinkable. They became the chaos agents. The punk rockers. The party of middle fingers. The reversal has been astonishing.

It’s no surprise that Democrats want to reclaim this low ground. They didn’t get into politics to be the spreadsheet managers of the republic. They wanted to wear sunglasses indoors and quote Aaron Sorkin dialogue in real life. They imagined themselves as the effortlessly cool John F. Kennedy, with that tousled movie-star hair, poolside tanned skin and those classic Ray-Bans that always made him look like he just walked out of a GQ shoot.

The problem? Cool doesn’t work when it’s forced. Ask any middle schooler (I’ve got two). When today’s Democrats lean too far into their edgy side, it doesn’t look like an organic vibe shift — it looks like panic in skinny jeans. “We’re raw now! We clap back! We vibe with Gen Z!” Yeah, sure. Right after the PAC luncheon and before the panel discussion on infrastructure reform.

Which brings us back to Hogg and his crusade to boot the boomers. In theory, replacing career politicians with meme-fluent progressives sounds refreshing. In practice, dumping millions of dollars to primary your own team is a) unlikely to actually happen and b) colossally stupid.

Let me be clear: Democrats should resist the temptation to attack their own incumbents and avoid cheap gimmicks overtly designed to be perceived as young or cool.

So what should Democrats do?

First, recognize that the top of the ticket is everything, and that choice won’t be made until 2028. The next Democratic presidential nominee will define the party’s brand. In the meantime, no one knows or cares if the assistant deputy whip is chic or if the ranking Democratic representative on the Armed Services Committee has a great social media presence.

What is more, while parties can try to select a certain type of standard bearer, the track record ain’t great. If the GOP establishment had their way in 2016, we’d have seen a ticket pairing a 45-year-old Cuban American male with a 44-year-old Indian American female. But there’s a reason you never saw any “Rubio/Haley” bumper stickers. GOP primary voters had other ideas about that “brand” identity, and — putting aside the chaos and authoritarianism — it sort of worked (at least, electorally).

Second — something you can control — prioritize doing your job and helping everyday people. Demonstrate authenticity and passion.

Talk like you mean it. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) does that. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) does too. Not because they’re trying to be cool — but because they aren’t. They show up, say what they believe, and don’t fake it.

Do stuff that matters. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) just provided an example of that. Not exactly the hippest guy in the room — but he recently flew to El Salvador to meet with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man wrongfully deported under Trump and detained in a Salvadoran prison.

Van Hollen didn’t just show up for the cameras. He showed up because it mattered (for Garcia and for anyone who cares about due process and the rule of law). And honestly? That’s kind of cool.

Because when chips are down, authenticity, passion and substance are the only things that really matter. Get those right, and people might think: “Huh. They’re not trying to be cool. Maybe that means they are.”

And if not? At least you’re not the guy rapping about climate change through a TikTok filter while democracy collapses behind you." 

Source:NBC News with a look at DNC Vice Chairman David Hogg. Someone needs to remind Mr. Hogg that that the DNC is not a high school & he's not the Vice Chairman of DNC High Student Senate.

From Matt Lewis

I think Matt Lewis made his point here when he said: "Meanwhile, the GOP — formerly the domain of Dockers dads, pious prudes and Young Republicans — pulled off the unthinkable. They became the chaos agents. The punk rockers. The party of middle fingers. The reversal has been astonishing." 

Whoever your "hipster hero" is, whether it's George Clooney, (if you are a Gen-Xer like myself and Matt Lewis) perhaps Brad Pitt for my generation... maybe Bruce Willis or Sam Jackson for the Boomers.. or whoever that person might be and from whatever generation, people who are "cool"... are just that. They don't have to tell people that, they don't have to act that way, because they just are. They're genuine articles when it comes to "coolness". 

I think especially in politics and government when someone tries to look or seem "cool'... to "go viral" on social media, they look like the 45-50 year old dad, who has 3 kids, who is bored with himself and his life, so he decides the way to "fix his life" is to:

grow a goatee, 

wear their heir back with an entire bottle of gel, everyday  

speaks exclusively in pop culture references and catch phrases

is always seen staring at his phone and with a coffee cup, etc... they don't look real. They look like someone who is suffering through a middle age, pop culture crisis. They look like they're trying to be something that they're not. 

As Matt Lewis also said as well: "Rebranding advice is plentiful, if conflicting. James Carville thinks Democrats should just get out of the way and let Trump self-destruct (a strategy that might work for the midterms, but eventually a party has to stand for something)." 

The next Democratic leader, will be their 2028 presidential nominee, or even presumptive nominee, whether they're headed to the nomination, but don't have enough delegates to make that official, or already have the nomination And if that person is a successful politician, running a good campaign, etc, that campaign will go a long way in deciding what the Democratic Party is going to look like politically and culturally 3 years from now. 

Until 2028, whether it's considered "cool" or not, (especially by the Millennials and Gen-Zers) the job of the Democratic Party is to be the adults in the room. Not to become the issue themselves and remind voters why they didn't like them in 2024. They didn't like them in 2024, because Democrats were seen as out-of-touch, with everyday, hardworking Americans. And if anything were seen as too friendly with pop culture and let pop culture do their political work for them, instead of the politicians themselves.  The Kamala Harris campaign is the perfect example of my last point.

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.