In recent months the Federal Reserve (the Fed) started a marketing (if not real) campaign to raise interest rate levels to more “normal” levels, ostensibly because the US and global economy has shown meaningful signs of “recovery and stability.” The real reason is more likely to bail out the global financial system, including banks, insurance companies and pension funds that need higher rates to insure their continuing solvency and stability. Another more plausible reason is to give the Fed breathing room to lower rates again when the economy starts rolling into a long-overdue recession.
The most compelling evidence for an economic recovery has been the meteoric rise of the US stock market since 2009, and that, for most realistic observers, is the direct result of a relentless campaign of historically low interest rates and unprecedented money printing by global central banks including the Fed. Going forward, many experts believe that the continued rise of the stock market will require leadership from financial sector equities, which need higher interest rates to propel their profitability. Therein lies the problem: the real economy and the broader financial markets need low interest rates for stability and improvement, but the financial sector needs higher rates.
Even the financial sector itself is caught in a love-hate relationship with low/high interest rates. Its profitability requires strong and steady loan growth, which requires strong economic growth, which requires low interest rates. Loan profitability, however, requires, greater profit margins, i.e., a greater difference between long and short interest rates (aka spreads), which require a steeper yield curve resulting from higher interest rates.
As if that situation isn’t bad enough, the Fed has been walking an interest rate tightrope for years because of their effect on the US dollar. Higher interest rates and a stronger dollar have the potential to throw us into a recession as it makes our exports less price competitive in the global market, has the potential to crash commodity prices (which are already near all time lows), and could cause a debt debacle in the emerging markets that loaded up on $9 Trillion in dollar-denominated debt after the financial crisis! A stronger dollar makes that debt more expensive to repay.
On the other hand, keeping interest rates low poses an existential threat to the Fed and global central banks (i.e., the keepers of global fiat/paper currencies) and low interest rates could cause them to lose control of the financial markets as participants begin to favor gold and other precious metals (for which they have minimal control) over paper currencies (which is their exclusive domain).
Three large banks, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo, recently reported decent Q2 financial results, but it would seem the market was disappointed and unimpressed and responded with a modest sell-off in financial equities.
What’s the correct next step? Does the Fed continue its charade of talking up interest rates in the hope of propelling the financial sector even at the risk of tanking the global economy? What to do? What to do? Clearly no one, least of all the Fed, seems to have a clue!
Saturday, July 15, 2017
Saturday, February 4, 2017
Silicon Valley Should Practice What It Preaches
Does anybody else see the irony in the great technologists of Silicon Valley railing against the Trump Administration for hampering the economic prosperity of our youth, restricting immigration and diversity, and fostering income inequality. Their own companies employ sophisticated technologies to ensure that they can employ as few as possible, which allows them to pay their employees outlandish sums of money. The products and services they sell allow other companies to do the same. Over the decades those companies have done their best to reduce or even eliminate the world’s “blue collar jobs” and are now with their so-called Artificial Intelligence attempting to do the same to global “white collar” jobs. In fact, it is likely that the Trump administration will be unable to keep its promise to return the millions of manufacturing jobs that have moved offshore during the past 40 years, because many of those jobs have been replaced by computer operated machines.
How does any of that help today’s youth make their economic way in the world, or help middle class incomes keep pace with inflation or help immigrants assimilate into American culture? Additionally, if Silicon Valley gets it way, all jobs paying a living wage will require employees to possess sophisticated skills in some aspect of building and/or operating computer systems. That also hampers economic diversity if not ethnic diversity in today’s workforce. That may be progress, but it is not very “progressive.”
No one is arguing that improving technology is not a boon for the global economy or humanity at large; a favorite example is how Microsoft Windows transformed tasks that took me weeks to perform down to days and sometimes mere hours. And companies like Google, Amazon and many others continue to enhance and improve our lives daily. But many of the recent additions, like the Facebooks and Twitters of the world, one can easily argue have not only made our lives less productive and less secure, but have in some ways contributed to the “dumbing down” and social ineptitude, if not delinquency, of our children and young adults. The constant preoccupation with the internet, mobile gadgets, and “virtual reality” is leading many among us to opt out of “real world” reality. This “ear bud generation” seems less interested and aware of the mounting challenges of the increasingly dangerous world in which we live.
Today’s technologists would be well advised to reflect on their own complicity with what’s wrong with our world and think about “high tech” solutions for addressing those problems before opting for “low brow” criticism and cheap shots for those currently charged with meeting and overcoming the challenges that await us.
How does any of that help today’s youth make their economic way in the world, or help middle class incomes keep pace with inflation or help immigrants assimilate into American culture? Additionally, if Silicon Valley gets it way, all jobs paying a living wage will require employees to possess sophisticated skills in some aspect of building and/or operating computer systems. That also hampers economic diversity if not ethnic diversity in today’s workforce. That may be progress, but it is not very “progressive.”
No one is arguing that improving technology is not a boon for the global economy or humanity at large; a favorite example is how Microsoft Windows transformed tasks that took me weeks to perform down to days and sometimes mere hours. And companies like Google, Amazon and many others continue to enhance and improve our lives daily. But many of the recent additions, like the Facebooks and Twitters of the world, one can easily argue have not only made our lives less productive and less secure, but have in some ways contributed to the “dumbing down” and social ineptitude, if not delinquency, of our children and young adults. The constant preoccupation with the internet, mobile gadgets, and “virtual reality” is leading many among us to opt out of “real world” reality. This “ear bud generation” seems less interested and aware of the mounting challenges of the increasingly dangerous world in which we live.
Today’s technologists would be well advised to reflect on their own complicity with what’s wrong with our world and think about “high tech” solutions for addressing those problems before opting for “low brow” criticism and cheap shots for those currently charged with meeting and overcoming the challenges that await us.
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
The Cleansing Effect of a Donald Trump Presidency
Last night’s election was a referendum on the leadership of our government for the past 25 years. All of our democrat and republican leaders during that period, George H W Bush, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, and Barack Obama, supported Donald Trump’s opponent in this race. Many other prominent GOP leaders currently serving in Congress, as well as many 2016 GOP presidential contenders who pledged support for the GOP nominee did not ultimately support him. The vast majority of the newspapers and media outlets in our country supported Donald Trump’s opponent. The vast majority of money spent in this campaign supported his opponent. The vast majority of the supposedly empirical predictive models predicted he would lose, and some predicted a landslide loss. In fact, the vast majority of all the experts predicted he would lose. Thank heaven the electorate showed the good sense to filter out all of that nonsense and voted for a new path, one with tremendous potential to save America.
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
FBI Unwillingness to Charge Hillary in Email Case is Dubious at Best
The FBI’s major reason for not bringing charges against Mrs. Clinton is that it could not prove she “intended” to violate the laws she swore to uphold, even though it found a ton of evidence that in fact she had been “extremely careless” in her handling of State Department classified information. A second reason was that there was no precedent for bringing charges on similar cases in the past without proving “intent.”
Most of America is wondering why “intent” is so important when the statute clearly indicates that “gross negligence” is another equally important standard that could have been used to bring charges, and, for that matter, how such a repeated and according to the FBI “extremely careless” pattern of behavior doesn’t meet the test of “intended” behavior.
Even a cursory review of the facts has many Americans wondering why either standard required by the statute, intent or gross negligence, could not be “reasonably” proved. For example:
1. Mrs. Clinton is a Yale-trained attorney, most likely with above average intelligence, a basic understanding of right and wrong, and a working-knowledge of the laws governing the State Department, which she directed.
2. Mrs. Clinton worked on Nixon’s impeachment case back in the 1970s, which charged President Nixon with “an abuse of power and obstruction of justice.” Consequently, it would not seem to be much of a stretch to assume she would have learned first-hand how one is expected to behave as an executive in the Federal Government. But that was a long time ago and apparently didn’t leave a lasting impression on her.
3. As Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton was charged with the responsibility of securing all State Department intelligence, including her own and from all personnel in her charge. How can violating one of the main responsibilities of her job not be viewed as gross negligence and intentional?
4. As Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton signed documents requiring her to return all State Department-related documentation when she departed. She not only didn’t return them, she denied having them and subsequently destroyed thousands of work related emails. Isn’t that the quintessence of gross negligence and intent?
6. If all of the foregoing wasn’t enough, Mrs. Clinton completely circumvented standard security measures by using her own unauthorized internet server. That means that all of her work product was unsecured during her entire tenure as Secretary of State. Is that not an intentional dereliction of her duty and responsibility to secure classified information?
7. Over the course of years, Mrs. Clinton has denied ever being in possession of any classified information. Should we assume she didn’t know what she was doing, or that she intentionally destroyed evidence? By the way, doesn’t destroying evidence constitute obstruction of justice?
Adding to the cloud of doubt is the timing of this resolution. Why now and why did it take so long for the FBI to arrive at such a half-baked conclusion? Such questions may never be answered. One thing is for sure: If you or I had done half of what Mrs. Clinton did, we’d already be in jail!
Most of America is wondering why “intent” is so important when the statute clearly indicates that “gross negligence” is another equally important standard that could have been used to bring charges, and, for that matter, how such a repeated and according to the FBI “extremely careless” pattern of behavior doesn’t meet the test of “intended” behavior.
Even a cursory review of the facts has many Americans wondering why either standard required by the statute, intent or gross negligence, could not be “reasonably” proved. For example:
1. Mrs. Clinton is a Yale-trained attorney, most likely with above average intelligence, a basic understanding of right and wrong, and a working-knowledge of the laws governing the State Department, which she directed.
2. Mrs. Clinton worked on Nixon’s impeachment case back in the 1970s, which charged President Nixon with “an abuse of power and obstruction of justice.” Consequently, it would not seem to be much of a stretch to assume she would have learned first-hand how one is expected to behave as an executive in the Federal Government. But that was a long time ago and apparently didn’t leave a lasting impression on her.
3. As Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton was charged with the responsibility of securing all State Department intelligence, including her own and from all personnel in her charge. How can violating one of the main responsibilities of her job not be viewed as gross negligence and intentional?
4. As Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton signed documents requiring her to return all State Department-related documentation when she departed. She not only didn’t return them, she denied having them and subsequently destroyed thousands of work related emails. Isn’t that the quintessence of gross negligence and intent?
6. If all of the foregoing wasn’t enough, Mrs. Clinton completely circumvented standard security measures by using her own unauthorized internet server. That means that all of her work product was unsecured during her entire tenure as Secretary of State. Is that not an intentional dereliction of her duty and responsibility to secure classified information?
7. Over the course of years, Mrs. Clinton has denied ever being in possession of any classified information. Should we assume she didn’t know what she was doing, or that she intentionally destroyed evidence? By the way, doesn’t destroying evidence constitute obstruction of justice?
Adding to the cloud of doubt is the timing of this resolution. Why now and why did it take so long for the FBI to arrive at such a half-baked conclusion? Such questions may never be answered. One thing is for sure: If you or I had done half of what Mrs. Clinton did, we’d already be in jail!
Monday, July 4, 2016
Trump or Clinton? This Thought Experiment Might Help Voters Choose
Can’t decide who should be the next President? Most Americans are approaching this year’s election feeling they have been given Sophie’s choice, a choice between two bad candidates. Many Americans believe it’s worse than that, in fact Hobson’s choice: the freedom to choose with no real choice, i.e., there’s only one candidate. Answering the following three hypothetical questions might lead you to the same conclusion:
1. Who would you rather be: Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton? For example, would you prefer to be someone who speaks their mind or someone with a proven history of political expediency? Someone comfortable in their own skin enough to meet constituents in all sorts of friendly and hostile settings, planned or spontaneous, or someone who avoids most public forums because they invoke feelings of nervousness and anxiety? Someone whose life is an open book with nothing to hide, or someone who arguably breaks the law to keep secrets? Someone with a long track record of success and accomplishment and a reputation for getting things done, or someone with no meaningful accomplishments after supposedly a lifetime of dedication to public service? Someone who amassed great wealth working within the same capitalist system that made our country great, or someone whose entire fortune is the result of peddling government influence and the public’s trust for personal gain? Which attributes are closest to those you would want to possess?
2. What would you seek to accomplish if you were elected President? Would you seek to continue along the same path that has brought our country to the brink of disaster, or would you seek to change that political inertia by changing the way our government gets things done? Would your priorities include the elimination of illegal immigration, confronting global terrorism with immediacy and alacrity, and defending American economic interests in the global economy? Or, would they instead focus on gun control, domestic racial, ethnic, and gender issues, and on curbing environmental pollution? Part of being the chief executive of our country is deciding where your time is best spent to serve the most people.
3. If you were stranded on a desert island and given a choice of permanently relocating to two identical, if unknown, places, one headed by Trump, the other by Clinton, which would you choose? This is not as far-fetched an idea as it appears, considering America’s present is increasingly precarious and its future is necessarily unknown, and one or the other is going to be our President. Put yourself in the moment, and be honest with yourself. Remember, once you choose your decision is irrevocable for you and your family.
Your answers to these questions (and acknowledging which candidate’s traits and positions are most consistent with yours) should clarify your selection of a President.
1. Who would you rather be: Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton? For example, would you prefer to be someone who speaks their mind or someone with a proven history of political expediency? Someone comfortable in their own skin enough to meet constituents in all sorts of friendly and hostile settings, planned or spontaneous, or someone who avoids most public forums because they invoke feelings of nervousness and anxiety? Someone whose life is an open book with nothing to hide, or someone who arguably breaks the law to keep secrets? Someone with a long track record of success and accomplishment and a reputation for getting things done, or someone with no meaningful accomplishments after supposedly a lifetime of dedication to public service? Someone who amassed great wealth working within the same capitalist system that made our country great, or someone whose entire fortune is the result of peddling government influence and the public’s trust for personal gain? Which attributes are closest to those you would want to possess?
2. What would you seek to accomplish if you were elected President? Would you seek to continue along the same path that has brought our country to the brink of disaster, or would you seek to change that political inertia by changing the way our government gets things done? Would your priorities include the elimination of illegal immigration, confronting global terrorism with immediacy and alacrity, and defending American economic interests in the global economy? Or, would they instead focus on gun control, domestic racial, ethnic, and gender issues, and on curbing environmental pollution? Part of being the chief executive of our country is deciding where your time is best spent to serve the most people.
3. If you were stranded on a desert island and given a choice of permanently relocating to two identical, if unknown, places, one headed by Trump, the other by Clinton, which would you choose? This is not as far-fetched an idea as it appears, considering America’s present is increasingly precarious and its future is necessarily unknown, and one or the other is going to be our President. Put yourself in the moment, and be honest with yourself. Remember, once you choose your decision is irrevocable for you and your family.
Your answers to these questions (and acknowledging which candidate’s traits and positions are most consistent with yours) should clarify your selection of a President.
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
2016 NBA Finals Gives Credence to Hoax Theory
Did the Cleveland Cavaliers win this year’s NBA Championship fair and square, or was it a hoax? Some believe the outcome of NBA Finals have been rigged for quite some time to maximize audience ratings. I must say that I have never been one to abide conspiracy theories, but this latest contest had me scratching my head wondering.
This isn’t about being a sore loser or favoring one team or another. In fact, I was not rooting for either and actually like both teams, and am glad LeBron James has finally redeemed himself with Cleveland fans, a group that unfairly vilified him for leaving them for greener pastures years ago. For LeBron’s sake and given the questionable nature of this series win, I’m glad he punctuated his terrific personal performance and that game 7 win with one of the most spectacular defensive plays (blocked shot) ever seen in the sport, a feat whose authenticity can never be questioned.
It’s not just the fact that the Cavaliers pulled off the statistically improbable by winning the series after trailing 3 games to 1 (which had never been done before), or the improbability of a road team winning a game 7 (road teams lose 80% of the time), or even the fact that these unlikely events took place against the team with the most season wins in NBA history (Golden State Warriors broke the record by winning 73 this season).
It’s actually the way it was done that makes one question its authenticity, and the fact that Golden State had to nearly collapse for Cleveland to win. The Warriors blew away the Cavaliers at home in games 1 and 2, and then stumbled badly in game 3 by scoring only 16 pts in the fourth quarter. Giving Cleveland the benefit of doubt, Cleveland had home court advantage and it was a must-win game for them. In Game 4 the Warriors beat Cleveland handily again, reasserting their series dominance. The balance of the series then turned really incredible: the Warriors’ game 5 fourth quarter amounted to 13 measly points before a cheering home crowd; game 6 in Cleveland continued the scoring drought, with the Warriors scoring a season low 11 pts in the first quarter; game 7, with the championship on the line, the Warriors again choked in the fourth quarter and scored a paltry 13 pts. THE WARRIORS AVERAGED 28 PTS PER QUARTER LAST SEASON!
It’s not just the numbers, it’s the attitude. The team’s star and regular season MVP, Stephen Curry, fouled out of game 6 (itself a rare event) and because of personal antics was almost barred from game 7. In game 7, no one, including its star, seemed to demonstrate the urgency of their pending historic loss, right to the end. For his part, in the closing minutes of the series, Curry made an errant, if not reckless, behind-the-back pass out of bounds, and minutes later launched a 35 ft shot that missed the rim entirely. Is that what a star does when his team is about to lose the most important game of the season?
It’s not just Stephen Curry’s behavior that was lacking. Where was Coach Steve Kerr while this helter-skelter play was taking place? Where was he during the closing minutes of the game, when a coach typically slows down the opposing team’s momentum and offers some last minute strategy? Nowhere. Apparently, this coach had no advice for his team at this all important moment. Making matters worse, the team seemed to take in stride its imminent defeat and ignominious place in NBA history as the only team to ever blow a 3 game lead in the Finals.
Was it all a hoax designed to give Cleveland its first sports championship in more than 50 years or just the worst time for the most successful team in NBA history to go into a fatal slump? One indisputable fact is that this game 7 drew the highest television rating for an NBA Finals game since Michael Jordan’s last championship game. Interesting…
This isn’t about being a sore loser or favoring one team or another. In fact, I was not rooting for either and actually like both teams, and am glad LeBron James has finally redeemed himself with Cleveland fans, a group that unfairly vilified him for leaving them for greener pastures years ago. For LeBron’s sake and given the questionable nature of this series win, I’m glad he punctuated his terrific personal performance and that game 7 win with one of the most spectacular defensive plays (blocked shot) ever seen in the sport, a feat whose authenticity can never be questioned.
It’s not just the fact that the Cavaliers pulled off the statistically improbable by winning the series after trailing 3 games to 1 (which had never been done before), or the improbability of a road team winning a game 7 (road teams lose 80% of the time), or even the fact that these unlikely events took place against the team with the most season wins in NBA history (Golden State Warriors broke the record by winning 73 this season).
It’s actually the way it was done that makes one question its authenticity, and the fact that Golden State had to nearly collapse for Cleveland to win. The Warriors blew away the Cavaliers at home in games 1 and 2, and then stumbled badly in game 3 by scoring only 16 pts in the fourth quarter. Giving Cleveland the benefit of doubt, Cleveland had home court advantage and it was a must-win game for them. In Game 4 the Warriors beat Cleveland handily again, reasserting their series dominance. The balance of the series then turned really incredible: the Warriors’ game 5 fourth quarter amounted to 13 measly points before a cheering home crowd; game 6 in Cleveland continued the scoring drought, with the Warriors scoring a season low 11 pts in the first quarter; game 7, with the championship on the line, the Warriors again choked in the fourth quarter and scored a paltry 13 pts. THE WARRIORS AVERAGED 28 PTS PER QUARTER LAST SEASON!
It’s not just the numbers, it’s the attitude. The team’s star and regular season MVP, Stephen Curry, fouled out of game 6 (itself a rare event) and because of personal antics was almost barred from game 7. In game 7, no one, including its star, seemed to demonstrate the urgency of their pending historic loss, right to the end. For his part, in the closing minutes of the series, Curry made an errant, if not reckless, behind-the-back pass out of bounds, and minutes later launched a 35 ft shot that missed the rim entirely. Is that what a star does when his team is about to lose the most important game of the season?
It’s not just Stephen Curry’s behavior that was lacking. Where was Coach Steve Kerr while this helter-skelter play was taking place? Where was he during the closing minutes of the game, when a coach typically slows down the opposing team’s momentum and offers some last minute strategy? Nowhere. Apparently, this coach had no advice for his team at this all important moment. Making matters worse, the team seemed to take in stride its imminent defeat and ignominious place in NBA history as the only team to ever blow a 3 game lead in the Finals.
Was it all a hoax designed to give Cleveland its first sports championship in more than 50 years or just the worst time for the most successful team in NBA history to go into a fatal slump? One indisputable fact is that this game 7 drew the highest television rating for an NBA Finals game since Michael Jordan’s last championship game. Interesting…
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Ted Cruz, GOP vs. Trump: Is the Pot Calling the Kettle Black?
Donald Trump is depicted by many in the GOP and its de facto chief spokesman, Ted Cruz, as an inveterate “dealmaker” who will compromise conservative principles by “cutting deals” with Congress if elected President.
Let’s put aside the fact that “making deals” is actually viewed positively by many Americans fed up with a Congress and President that have been unable for the past seven years to address the many urgent domestic and foreign challenges facing our country. Someone should inform Ted Cruz that standing up for principles and not accomplishing anything does little to help the plights of struggling Americans.
Instead, let’s focus on the fact that Ted Cruz, who lost to Trump in the Louisiana primary, has been busy “working behind closed doors” to win more delegates from party bosses in that state. The “anti-Trump” faction spins the story that Cruz is displaying his shrewd political savvy in seizing an opportunity to win delegates he actually hasn’t earned from Louisiana voters. One can only wonder how Trump would have been portrayed had he seized that same opportunity. Why isn’t anyone asking what kind of “deal” Cruz is making with the Louisiana powers that be in order to secure their support?
Moreover, what is Cruz offering all his new supporters who until very recently publicly expressed disdain for him? Why are Lindsey Graham, Carly Fiorina and many others suddenly supporting him? Perhaps they view Cruz as the lesser of two evils, but one really must wonder why such strong-minded, “principled” individuals would roll over so easily.
We will probably never know what “horse trading” is occurring at this very moment among GOP bigwigs at all levels of government to undermine Trump’s candidacy in upcoming primaries and ultimately at the convention this summer.
As if the blatant hypocrisy of the foregoing isn’t shameful enough, Trump’s critics suggest that maybe the self-proclaimed “world’s greatest dealmaker” isn’t as great as he thinks precisely because he has avoided those sneaky and underhanded tactics to acquire more delegates, concentrating instead on garnering the support of “we the people” to propel his campaign forward.
The hypocrisy goes well beyond those examples. Donald Trump has been accused of feeding off fear and negative sentiment to win voters, but Ted Cruz’ most compelling plea so far has been to persuade Americans that the prospect of Trump or Clinton becoming President would be a disaster for our country.
Trump’s critics also say he changes his views on a whim to conform to prevailing public sentiment. Is that any more egregious than the GOP establishment contemplating changing their rules for nominating their candidate in order to load the odds in favor their choice?
Time will tell whether the aggressive, politically incorrect iconic businessman can be trumped by the self-indulgent, ruthless tactics of professional politicians.
Let’s put aside the fact that “making deals” is actually viewed positively by many Americans fed up with a Congress and President that have been unable for the past seven years to address the many urgent domestic and foreign challenges facing our country. Someone should inform Ted Cruz that standing up for principles and not accomplishing anything does little to help the plights of struggling Americans.
Instead, let’s focus on the fact that Ted Cruz, who lost to Trump in the Louisiana primary, has been busy “working behind closed doors” to win more delegates from party bosses in that state. The “anti-Trump” faction spins the story that Cruz is displaying his shrewd political savvy in seizing an opportunity to win delegates he actually hasn’t earned from Louisiana voters. One can only wonder how Trump would have been portrayed had he seized that same opportunity. Why isn’t anyone asking what kind of “deal” Cruz is making with the Louisiana powers that be in order to secure their support?
Moreover, what is Cruz offering all his new supporters who until very recently publicly expressed disdain for him? Why are Lindsey Graham, Carly Fiorina and many others suddenly supporting him? Perhaps they view Cruz as the lesser of two evils, but one really must wonder why such strong-minded, “principled” individuals would roll over so easily.
We will probably never know what “horse trading” is occurring at this very moment among GOP bigwigs at all levels of government to undermine Trump’s candidacy in upcoming primaries and ultimately at the convention this summer.
As if the blatant hypocrisy of the foregoing isn’t shameful enough, Trump’s critics suggest that maybe the self-proclaimed “world’s greatest dealmaker” isn’t as great as he thinks precisely because he has avoided those sneaky and underhanded tactics to acquire more delegates, concentrating instead on garnering the support of “we the people” to propel his campaign forward.
The hypocrisy goes well beyond those examples. Donald Trump has been accused of feeding off fear and negative sentiment to win voters, but Ted Cruz’ most compelling plea so far has been to persuade Americans that the prospect of Trump or Clinton becoming President would be a disaster for our country.
Trump’s critics also say he changes his views on a whim to conform to prevailing public sentiment. Is that any more egregious than the GOP establishment contemplating changing their rules for nominating their candidate in order to load the odds in favor their choice?
Time will tell whether the aggressive, politically incorrect iconic businessman can be trumped by the self-indulgent, ruthless tactics of professional politicians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)