Welcome to this week’s Premium Q&A session for Premium Interactive members. I appreciate you all signing up and joining me. Thank you.
Editor’s note: If you enjoy these sessions (along with the weekly columns and audio commentaries), please use the Facebook and Twitter buttons to share this page with your friends and family. Thank you!
Now, let’s get to your questions (and my answers):
I would appreciate your brief views on the contrast between the values of the left and that of conservatives (staying away from the radical fringe of both). A third category would be values in the middle that might be agreed upon by both centrist Democrats and Republicans, assuming there are enough left in the middle to matter. Please also address your thoughts on whether we might see a legitimate third party emerge after the years elections and what such a party might look like and which current politicians if any might be persuaded to take a chance and show real leadership. — Michael F.
Generally speaking, Michael, liberals on the left sees a bigger role for government than do conservatives on the right. Liberals, again generally speaking, often see root causes as a reason for failure; conservatives tend to believe in personal responsibility to avoid failure. Liberals are more likely to see racism as a major American problem; conservatives less so. These are just a few examples contrasting the values of the left and the right. Centrists are less ideological, I think, and take values from each side depending on circumstances. As for a third party: There will always be minor third parties but I don’t see a major third party on the horizon.
With the unpalatable candidates offered up by the two major parties, do you feel this is the year we could finally see significant voter support for a third party? — DeAndre
I don’t, DeAndre. But that said, I’ve spoken to several people recently who volunteered they don’t like either major party candidate and would vote Libertarian. I’m sure there are some who feel the same way and may vote Green this year. But I don’t think third party candidates will influence the outcome.
Bernie, a number of us have given the President much thought. We came to the conclusion that the unforced errors are inseparable from the man; and he would not have had the same success knocking heads of the many America-haters, the rogue and intellectually corrupt newspaper editors and the denizens of the Deep State. To tell a long story by an observation, if we made Trump more delicate, erudite and more anxious to please – we might end up with another Mitt Romney. Think about that. — Oliver H.
I heard this very argument from a friend, Oliver, just the other day. So you’re not alone thinking as you do. But why do we think that Donald Trump has to be dishonest, petty, and all the other things he is to deal with the villains you ask about? Do you really think a decent person couldn’t deal with them? You seem to be suggesting that being combative is a sign of strength and being empathetic and conciliatory a sign of weakness. Sometimes that’s true, but it doesn’t have to be. As for Mitt Romney, as a friend points out … he ran against a much better candidate (and an incumbent) that Trump did …and he won a larger portion of the vote than Trump did. Think about that.
While you do not like President Trump for the reasons you stated, many of us love him for exactly those same reasons. He states it fully and correctly, just Like Harry Truman. You and the left do not like the fact that he fights back and will not roll over and hide from attacks. More power to him. You seem to adore O’Reilly but O’Reilly has same qualities you despise in Mr. Trump. Explain that. –Bob T.
I’m more convinced than ever that Donald Trump’s most loyal supporters share the same traits as he displays. That’s why you like him and I don’t. (And yet, I still want him to win.) As for your comment that I “adore” Bill O’Reilly: Really, Bob? In fact, I’m not too happy with Bill these days, given that he’s written about everything under the sun … except the bad habits of his pal, Donald J. Trump.
It looks like Bill O’Reilly is about to land a new radio show in New York. Any chance you’ll come on as a guest to set him straight on the long list of things he’s wrong about? Ha ha. — Ben G.
Bill has asked me to be on his podcast more than a few times. I did a couple of shows early on but have said no to all his recent requests. The last time he asked I said, “Your audience doesn’t want to hear what I have to say.” I’ll consider any radio invitations that may come my way. Stay tuned as they say on the radio.
Any thoughts on the Ellen DeGeneres controversy? While I’ve long known (and seen) that the “woke” crowd isn’t above turning on fellow progressives, I’m surprised by how badly Ellen is being hammered. There’s even a story out right now about her fat-shaming some classmate BACK IN THE 1970s! Good grief. Do you think any of this stems from her befriending people like George W. Bush, and standing up for some others on the right (though she herself is a liberal)? — Andy D.
I think a lot of it does have to do with her befriending W. Beyond that, you make an excellent point — about how the woke crowd isn’t above turning on fellow progressives. That’s very important. The woke crowd won’t be satisfied until they figuratively kill off every adversary, real or imagined. Watch how this revolution ends, Andy. Progressives who are cheering it on, won’t be happy when they’re in the crosshairs.
How will the Biden Campaign keep Kamala Harris from easily overshadowing Basement Joe? Or will they…? — ScottyG
It won’t be easy, Scotty. The more energetic an articulate she is, the more voters will realize that he’s neither. That won’t matter to Democrats, but it might to swing voters in battleground states. And they’re the ones who may decide this election.
I will not be voting for Biden/Harris in November; I prefer Trump and like you, I hope the Dems get crushed by a landslide by conservative Republicans in the popular vote and the Electoral College. However, should the Dems be complete victors in the next election, I wonder something, especially considering the fact that Biden considers himself a transitional president and wants his VP prepared to take over for him, that is—-would VP Kamala Harris be more likely to crush anarchist rebellions in Democrat controlled cities than say, Barbara Lee or Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren? I know that Kamala Harris is a left winger, but she’s also a former prosecutor. Do ya think she would tolerate BLM and/or ANTIFA causing violence and destruction in cities the way Wheeler and Durkin and Lightfoot have? Since my crystal ball is in the shop this week getting repairs, what do you speculate Harris (and Biden for that matter) would do to solve the problem of the ongoing riots? And considering that she barely stopped short of calling Biden a racist during the debates, Why do ya think Sleepy Joe chose her as his running mate anyway? — Vice Presidential Regards From The Emperor
My crystal ball broke in 2016. It’s way beyond repair. That said, I do not think she would move to crush anarchists. She and Joe are now beholden to the hard left. And if they go after rioters, etc, that hard left might turn on them. And that wouldn’t help her in 2024. As for why Biden picked her: All his possibles had “issues.” She probably was the safest.
What is your opinion of Biden’s VP pick of Kamala Harris? What is your opinion of the MSM’s characterization of her as a moderate Democrat? — Steve R.
I loathe the woman. The way she treated Kavanaugh was despicable. She’s an opportunist who will say anything to get ahead. Regarding the media’s description of her as a moderate Democrat: One more piece of evidence that they’re rooting for the Biden/Harris ticket. They embarrass themselves daily and don’t seem to care.
Below are the 2017 death statistics (reported in 2019) from the CDC. Total deaths that year: 2,813,503:
Cause of Deaths – Heart Disease -647,457, Cancer – 599,108, Unintentional Injuries – 169,936, /chronic Lower Respriatory Disease -160,201, Stroke – 146,483, Alzheimers’s Disease – 121,404, Diabetes – Influenza and Pneumonia – 55,672 – Nephritis – 50,633, Suicide – 47,173
The current death total for Covid-19 (as of Monday; 223rd day of the year) is 161,842. If you extrapolate this number out, the death total reported from Covid-19 would be 263,715 deaths or 9.37% of the death total from 2017. This represents roughly half of the deaths recorded in 2017 from heart disease or slightly above the total of deaths from diabetes, influenza and pneumonia and chronic lower respiratory disease. This begs the question, how many of the deaths that will be recorded this year from Covid-19 would have died (at least statistically) under one of the above criteria anyway? I would surmise that we are not being appraised of the full statistical information, probably for political reasons (not necessarily republican/democrat politics, but internal governmental politics. Your thoughts? — Douglas C.
You’re definitely on to something Douglas. Yes, some of those people officially listed as COVID-19 deaths would have died from something else anyway. Maybe those deaths from other causes were imminent. But for whatever reason — political or otherwise — if you have the virus and die there’s a good chance they’re going to put you in the COVID category. But you make a good point.
Do you agree Kamala Harris as VP signals the Democrats are confident her leftist leanings not only won’t hurt her but will garner significant votes from Leftists plus guarantee foot soldier support in abundance for the campaign? — John D.P.
Not sure, John. I’m hearing, as I’m sure you are, that progressives may not be happy with her despite her liberal voting record. She was — gasp!!! — a prosecutor. That said, the leftists hate Trump so they may hold their noses and get on board.
[On Tuesday] a very small group of mostly white, wealthy, privileged individuals decided to deprive a large group of young, mostly African American males of their right to pursue their dreams of making millions of dollars in one of their chosen professions. No one in the MSM raised an issue about this and most of the journalists who covered it agreed that this small privileged group did the right thing by taking this opportunity away.
I’m talking about what the college presidents in the Big 10 and Pac 12 did when they voted to cancel their fall sports seasons. If everything in America is plagued with institutional and systemic racism, then how come no one thinks it is racist when a group of mostly white university presidents take away African American males’ right to play? I am pretty sure that if this did not involve sports, the Left would have gone ballistic, but instead they are silent and not standing up for young African American males who had a once in a life time opportunity taken away without due process. Where is LeBron and the leftists in the NFL and NBA? Why are they not standing up for these young men and saying they are adults, they know the risks, and they deserve to play? Why do all of these so called social justice warriors in the media and sports stay silent about every issue that does not impact their personal bottom lines? They are treating these young men like children, not adults who understand the risk they face. — Joe M.
I get your point, Joe, but your argument is a bridge too far for me. Pro athletes get paid. They can play or sit out the season. If a college kid said, “Coach, I’m not playing because of the virus,” he’d be in the doghouse and might even lose his scholarship. And what about the argument that these black athletes you talk about are like gladiators, putting themselves at risk for the amusement of mostly white college kids and alums? As I say, I get your point, but not with you on this one, my friend.
Do you think there’s any chance, if the polls continue to show Trump lagging behind with important voter demos, that Trump will trade out Mike Pence for a woman running mate? — Ben G.
I used to think that was a possibility, Ben, but that was a while back. No, I don’t think that’ll happen. That ship has sailed. Pence is in.
So, when Kamala Harris was involved in the Democratic Presidential Nomination process, she had to drop out because of the bakers-dozen or so candidates, you needed a magnifying glass to find her position in the process. She was polling at roughly 2% nationally. And now, because she’s been named Biden’s VP running mate, should he win, this person, would be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. All because of her skin color and gender. Now that’s affirmative action people!!! Talk about moving on up!! FYI, she also was determined to be the most Liberal Senator in Congress during 2019, more Left than Sanders and Warren. Let that sink in. — John M.
It has sunk in, John. That’s why I’m worried.
I have a friend who hardly pays any attention to politics. He’s usually oblivious to whatever the clowns in DC and in the media are saying, and is he just focuses on his own life, work, and family. But recently, a political fire has been lit under him. You see, he’s a longtime postal carrier, and he’s incensed by the way that Trump:
- awarded the position of Postmaster General to a HUGE Trump donor who knew absolutely nothing about the U.S. Post Office
- THEN trashed the U.S. Post Office as being too corrupt and incompetent to deal with mail-in voting.
- THEN refused increased funding for the Post Office (the money would’ve helped them better prepare for the increased volume of mail-in ballots)
- THEN reversed his position for Florida (and only Florida), saying that mail-in balloting is secure there (because the state GOP explained to Trump that mail-in voting would actually give Republicans a political advantage over the Democrats in the election)
It’s like all the dishonesty and political b.s. were just background noise until things hit too close to home. Do you think my friend is the rule or the exception, when it comes to how most people look at politics? — Steve S.
I think he’s the rule, Steve, in this sense: When “things hit too close to home” that’s when people (voters) wake up. And that’s why those suburban educated white women who likely will vote for Biden may regret it when “things hit too close to home” — and by “things” I mean the anarchy we’ve seen in cities like Portland and Seattle.
I see by the insanity in your comment section that your Monday column got a ton of attention, with roughly 90% of those people angry at you. Something a BUNCH of them said confuses me: that it’s cowardly not to vote for Trump (who you said you would prefer beat Biden). What’s “cowardly” about not voting for someone (who in this case you think is unfit for office)? And for that matter, what’s “brave” about deciding that you have to vote for a major-party candidate? I don’t get it. It seems to me that if “bravery” were to be associated at all with someone’s voting position, it would better apply to those whose publicly stated position is sure to p*ss off people on both sides of the aisle. Ha! — Alex D.
I have absolutely no problem with critics who said, “Hold you nose Bernie and vote for Trump.” I understand that argument. I think it has merit. But the bozos who called me a coward and a traitor for not voting for their messiah can take a hike.
Thanks, everyone! You can send me questions for next week using the form below! You can also read previous Q&A sessions by clicking here.