It's the Low Information Voter and Idiots Who Are Scared

There are what we like to call low information voters and then there are idiots, and some people are a little combination of both.

Hey, I am not trying to be mean. I am just trying to keep it real.

I am referring to a recent post I saw on Facebook following the very real realization that our 47th president would be Donald J. Trump. The post simply read, "We are fucked," followed by "the economy is about to be messed up."

First of all, what economy are you referring to? The one where median income has been whittled down to nothing due to 40-year high inflation? That economy? The economy littered with myriad retail and fast-food jobs because someone decided we didn't need good manufacturing ones, or oil and pipeline jobs that pay at minimum $70,000-$120,000 a year? The economy where housing is practically unaffordable at any income level and people have racked up credit card debt in record trillions of dollars just to pay bills and buy groceries? 

Look, the reality is that there are two people who have not really been touched all that much in this economy. The rich who have the money to deal with it, and the poor who are given the money to deal with it.

And that's not to disparage the rich or the poor. It's simply to make a point. Some people won't feel the economy in the way that say, the blue-collar middle-class working families will, who bear the full brunt of everything.

If you are living on rental assistance and food stamps, not only are you less impacted by the economy, but you are also insulated from it as well because, of course, it's not your money.

The post had other comments of course, as well, citing a wide range of things. But come on, how it is a bad thing that we will once again have a secure border? What's so bad about declaring energy independence and using our natural resources as a source for fueling a better economy that we can all benefit from?

We can't kill inflation. It already happened. But we can stall it dramatically if we can bring the cost of things down by bringing down the cost of energy which is baked into higher prices in a very big way. Trump's going to do that. Harris had no interest in it. They wanted more solar and more windmills, while at the same time denying adding to grids to produce all the power we need to fuel the electric everything technology they want to curb fake climate change initiatives.

Look, I could comment all day on all the benefits of a Trump administration. But I know my audience. I'd just be preaching to the choir. We know what they are. All I will say is that people who think we would have been better off with Kamala Harris in office clearly have their heads buried deeply in the sand and either are beneficiaries of government subsidy in one form or another, or like I alluded to before, are simply stupid.

Open borders. High crime and looting. Appointment of soft on crime prosecutors and judges. 40-year high inflation. Gas and energy prices straddling hardworking Americans. Poverty at all-time highs. Men competing in women's sports. Boys in girl's locker rooms, bathrooms and showers. Median income decimated. Businesses struggling to survive due to ridiculous minimum wage laws.

I could go on and on.

That is what we voted against. That's why Harris lost. Because nobody wants any of those things. We are not fucked. That already happened over the past four years. If Harris had won is when we'd have really been fucked.

As for people now wanting to say they want to move to Canada, I say pack your bags and go. Canada is already there when it comes to liberal policy. They are way ahead of us. If that's what you wanted, they have already done it. If you need an Amazon link for some nice luggage, let me know. I'd be happy to provide it.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

What Are The Pitfalls of Being A Conservative Blogger?

I hope what I am going to say doesn't disappoint. It's not about the lack of money. It's there. It's not about the lack of an audience. It's definitely there. It's not even about getting hate mail or being lambasted and ridiculed in other places by people who disagree with me all over the Internet.

It is that politics is a constantly moving thing, and the news cycle is fast and furious. 

-

Just as soon as you digest the news of the day, analyze it, and then spit out your commentary and observations about it, it's pretty much old news already and very quickly people have moved on to the next thing.

At best, your posts will have a life cycle of about a week. But most begin to die off rather swiftly after a day or two.

It just means you really have to love what you do and be okay with having to do it constantly. It's a lot of material. It's a lot of time spent. And it's of course a lot of writing that has to happen. How much of the stuff that gets written is evergreen?

Hardly any of it.

It does surprise me how often older posts do still get reads though on subject matter that when you look at it, should no longer be of interest to anyone. Yet, someone searched for it and ultimately someone found their way to it.

Maybe it's to research something? Or perhaps some people just enjoy the history of it?

Take Herman Cain as an example. Not only is he long out of politics, but he is also dead. Yet time and time again I see reads on posts about Herman Cain and his presidential campaign efforts from years ago.

Remember his 9-9-9 plan?

The point is that it's just an ongoing effort that sometimes you do find exhausting, and some days you do scratch your head a bit and wonder, "Is it all worth it? Wouldn't it just be better to write something that has no time stamp on it and let that just earn for you forever?"

Even going back and rereading certain older material to see if you can rehash some of it and make it new again can be a fruitless effort, because it's all directly tied to the news of that day when it was written. There's not a lot that can be recycled. Even funny lines or phrases often don't have any lasting value.

At the same time, I do feel like it is still an important thing to do. That is, to write about these things anyway and be able to share my thoughts and perspectives. People do read them, and hopefully they also walk away from some of it with a different take on things that maybe they wouldn't have otherwise considered.

Being a conservative blogger certainly presents its challenges. All of it is worth it in the end though. Besides, when one is a writer, I guess it doesn't matter what you write about or the work that goes into it, or even who it reaches or for how long. You're going to do it anyway.

There may be some days when conservative blogging can seem aimless. But it does still have a purpose. And even if I am only fulfilling that purpose for a day or two after I run my mouse over that publish button, I know that each post may be but a small ripple in a vast ocean of discourse, sparking thought, debate, and perhaps even change.

However short lived that happens to be. I'll take it.

THE WRITER'S LIFE

"Like that elderly man in that tiny studio apartment, one never stops doing it. Because writing is more of a thing a writer must do to exist than to eat. The words within them are as much a part of their being and as vital to their survival as the next beat of their heart. When the words come, they must find their way onto an empty page."

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

What Are Your Thoughts on Trump Media?

I am a Trump supporter, but as an investor, I simply find the Trump Media stock to be weird. Not in a strange way like, "This is a really weird thing." But more in the way that it moves.

I have been investing for several decades and the stock makes little sense to me, at least as an investment.

To me it's acting more like a gauge of voter sentiment than a stock—or moreover a gauge of voter sentiment when it comes to Trump supporters. How many democrats do you think own the stock? I'd guess very few, if any.

Take the most recent dip following the debate. It's not like anything has changed with regard to the company itself. Profitability hasn't changed, there's nothing moving the stock up or down except what shareholders, who are no doubt tied to Trump politically, feel are Trump's chances of winning.

I think it is also a way for shareholders to indicate in a very direct way whether they like what Trump is doing or not.

"We sold our shares," they say. "Because we thought you did not perform well enough during the debate and we want you to step up your game, sir."

I won't begrudge the company or its shareholders. They can do what they want with their shares and their investment. But it is not supposed to have anything to do with the valuation of the underlying business, and by all measures, the company is grossly overvalued, with the stock moving for reasons that are not tied at all to the business.

Whether or not Truth Social or Trump Media has a future, even, is debatable. I guess it would depend on what happens in November and how much interest anyone would have in Trump's social media page after the fact, especially if he loses to Kamala Harris. So, for that reason, to even call it an investment seems like a bit of a stretch.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Does Anheuser-Bush CEO REALLY Get the Boycott?

Throughout this whole Dylan Mulvaney, Bud Light boycott debacle the one impression I have constantly been left with is that they just don't get it. On the surface it may appear they are trying to appease the customer base they've pissed off, no doubt. Why wouldn't you want to? This whole issue has cost the company billions of dollars and sales continue to plummet. But are they really?

Meanwhile, conservatives are standing their ground and don't seem to want to relent. At least not yet.

I have even suggested perhaps the boycott should contine despite what the company does since I feel it would have more of an impact to warn other companies that forcing woke culture on its customers is not going to be a good business plan. It is something, I feel, needs to be understood and clearly.

In other words, if companies feel there will be an easy out and only some short-term pain there will be nothing to stop them from considering doing it anyway despite what their customers want or think. They'll just price in the losses.

The latest earnings call with shareholders lead by Anheuser-Busch CEO Michel Doukeris only confirms to me that they continue to not get it. In his comments he didn't really do much to really address how they made their customers feel. In fact, in a way, his comments actually only continued to scold customers. From the first response spokespeople offered that in so many words suggested customers need to just suck it up and be inclusive, to now suggesting customers are hurting "our people and especially our front-line workers."

The latter is true, of course. However, it's not up to the customers to make sure that employee's go home happy with paychecks to feed their families. And that's not to say I have no sympathy for employees or anyone else who may be impacted negatively by the boycott. But ultimately, no one is to blame for any impact but the company itself who made the decision to ignore their customers or to assume their customers would just toe-the-line and not care what kind of marketing the company wanted to do.

In his commentary, the CEO also sort of distanced himself a bit from any responsibility saying essentially, "This was the result of one camp—it was one post, not a formal campaign or advertisements."

Regardless of any of that, when it comes to CEO's, the buck really does stop at their desk and they are ultimately responsible for all things that the company does, including marketing. And let's not forget that no one was ultimately fired for anything. In their words, it was simply a matter of leaves of absense and a little reorganizing of marketing teams. Frankly, and many people caught on to this, that was just a way to make the appearance they were taking things seriously and doing something about it.

But of course, the way it felt was that they did it in a kinda sorta way that seemed to be more of an attempt to "test the customers" and see if it might be enough to backtrack than actually coming out having to admit directly they did anything wrong.

What it feels like to anyone who is following this whole affair, and to anyone who continues to ban Anheuser-Bush drinks from their shopping lists, is that they just want to skirt the issue rather than to actually address customer concerns.

I think that will continue to hurt them. The problem is, and everyone knows it, is that they are still wanting to appease the one group that doesn't really actually matter. The LGBTQ community. Because they only represent about 1% of the population. And they are an even smaller base of their core customers. Because if one thing is true, it's that advocacy groups don't care about companies. They don't care about jobs. They don't care who buys the products. The bottom line is they only care about their cause and the rest of us be damned or pay the consequences if we don't fall in line with what their demands are. And they continue to place heavy pressure on companies like Anheuser-Busch to not back down from their demands and simply ignore their customers and continue to have them force-feed their woke culture come hell or high water.

Doukeris ended his call by saying, "We will continue to learn, meet the moment, and come out stronger, and work tirelessly to do what we do best: Bring people together over a beer and creating a future of more cheers."

In other words, they didn't learn anything because they haven't really signaled they have. They are not meeting the moment, because as of this moment customers have made it clear we are not interested in woke marketing of any kind. And they are not working tirelessly to do anything but try to save their brand while at the same time forcing upon customers "inclusivity" when they say "bring people together."

I grant they are wanting to be careful. But at the same time, what customers are demanding right now is that they (Anheuser-Busch) simply admit that marketing to a 1% group of people forcing down a nation's throat a culture very few people agree with is not being inclusive at all but is rather alienating an entire majority segment of the population and making them out to be the bad guy.

Like what I have to say or the way I write? Follow me on my Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/jimbauerwrites to find all the places where I write.

What Do You Think About the J.K. Rowling Controversy?

I have said for a very long time that I don't like it when celebrities get up onto their podiums and blabber their mouths. I will even admit that most of the time that's because most celebrities are liberals and the things they say, I find, are just off the wall.

Liberal commentary, let's just be real here, is often quite abusive and extremely derogatory.

I will grant you that I am a conservative and I have some obvious bias—but not without reason. Of course liberalism makes no sense to me. Part of that is because most liberal ideologies simply cannot be explained in great detail. It's typically resigned to slogans and bumper sticker length quips.

But my opinion is not about my politics, or anyone else's for that matter. Including the politics of the Harry Potter series author, J.K. Rowling, who has taken quite a bit of heat for her stance against transgenderism, which is of course a hotly debated topic these days.

The left wants to punish her just as much as often times the right wants to punish liberals. Fair enough. Like liberal celebrities, J.K. Rowling is entitled to her opinion, and I guess if they (anyone, right or left) wants to voice them, so be it. It's a free country.

But there is still a stark contrast between liberal speech and the reaction to it and conservative speech and the reaction to it. There is a stark contrast between the "punishment." In other words, when it comes to liberals, if you speak from a conservative viewpoint, they not only want to vehemently disagree with you, but they also literally want to destroy you. And I mean everything about you. They want you erased from existence and completely abandoned. They want you poor and destitute and sent to the streets. 

No, seriously. That's what they want. 

The issue I have with the J.K. Rowling controversy is that. We live in a world right now where liberals are free to say whatever they want and often without consequence. Conservatives will still punish the liberals to some extent. But conservatives also aren't as violent about their dislike over some of the things liberal celebrities espouse as liberals are.

Of course, it depends on what the "issue" happens to be of course. Sometimes things go too far, and everyone notices it on both sides. Take the Kathy Griffin Trump severed head thing. That did not go over well for liberals as well as conservatives. And rightly so.

Kathy Griffin's career imploded, and I am sure it is safe to say it has never fully recovered and likely never will. Roseanne Barr suffered a similar fate when she shrieked the National Anthem, grabbed her crotch and spat in 1990. Something that today might be more acceptable to the left considering all the kneeling thing that happened, but she's still on the naughty list with liberals because she turned sides and became a Trump supporter. 

Barr's getting newfound love from conservatives, for whatever that's worth. And let's face it, having friends on the conservative side is a much more lucrative enterprise. It just is. I think it will work out well for her actually.

Just look at Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A.

Conservatives speak on the extremes while liberals clash with the norms, and that's part of the difference. Whether or not you happen to be conservative or liberal, the fact is that conservatism is more mainstream while liberalism is more fringe.

And by the way, I should point out that J.K. Rowling is not a conservative. She is simply not toeing the "party line" when it comes to issues of transgenderism, and the liberals will not have any of that. You either conform to the entire platform or you are ousted—in their minds—and must be destroyed.

In essence, according to the left, you are not permitted to have an opinion of any kind unless your opinion matches their side's opinion. Pretty plain and simple. If you're not onboard; cancel, silence, abolish and destroy!

It sounds like an extreme thing to say. But look around and it all makes sense. It's what they do.

The thing is, I'd like to Rowling to keep quiet just like anyone I suppose. Even if her stance on this particular issue makes sense to me. I am not against liberal speech in the sense that I am for freedom of speech even if I don't like the words.

For me it comes down to a similar stance I have with businesses espousing their politics or certain social concerns publicly. Take the Bud Light controversy. It ruins the brand. It ruins the business. It alienates the customers on both sides when this happens. 

Celebrities are a brand and a business just like any other business, and customers are more interested in the product than really the person. And so, when the celebrity injects into their brand something other than what they are ultimately selling, it taints the entire thing. It hurts the business. 

At the same time, the tenacity by which the left goes after conservatives is much more pronounced. Conservatives may not like what Robert DeNiro has to say on political issues, but if they like his acting they'll still go and see his movies. 

On the left it's very different. Ultimately, I say let people say what they want, on both sides, and let's get back to a place where we can simply disagree with the stance but not have to have the desire to completely cancel the person over it.

We can simply disagree and move on and not destroy everyone and everything simply because we disagree.

Do you like the way I write or things I write about? Follow all of my writings from all of the places I write at https://www.facebook.com/jimbauerwrites

Springboard asks YOU, would you be willing to pay more for a Made in the USA choice for an identical product?

If I had two identical pairs of shoes in front of me, one pair made in China, and the other made in the USA, and the pair made in the USA were $2 more, would I pay the extra $2 simply because they were made here? The answer for me would be an immediate yes. What I am taking into account with this question is the basic premise that as Americans we readily accept premiums for certain choices every day based on our personal preferences, and beliefs. For example, if we consider our health to be important, we may choose an organic food item over one that is not, and we choose as well to pay a premium price for it. We may feel that a free-range chicken is treated better before he winds up on our plate than one that is couped, and so we are willing to pay more for the free-range chicken. Fair trade coffee offers more money to coffee growers for their crops, and if we feel that fair trade is important we are willing to pay more for fair trade coffee. If you are a liberal politically, you may be inclined to pay more taxes to help those less fortunate via social programs. If a company chose to put two identical products on the shelf, one made in China and one made in the USA, would you be willing to pay more for the made in USA item based on the same principles we would apply to paying the premium on the other items in the example?