HOME   //   PROFILE   //   RSS

How Devastating Trump's Comment Are And Trump's Going From Business Man To President

by John Jazwiec

Calling former "Miss Universe" Alicia Machado a pig and having a "weight problem" not only negatively affects women voters, but it negatively affects fathers and husbands. Also calling a Latino American a "domestic servant" isn't going to help him with American Latino voters. 

The juxtaposition of Miss Universe/models causes women to have body image problems they suffer from not measuring up. POTUS is supposed to be a president for all Americans. Trump appeal seems to be capped by working class white male voters.

You can also see, after the debates the stock market rallying, because the stock market doesn't like uncertainty. The uncertainty of Trump is well earned. Whether it is his facilitation on economic policies, his firm views on anti-trade, national debt (recapitalizing it like a third world country and a tax plan that would add to the national debt.

But due to confirmation bias and HRC being a weak candidate, what would happen to Trump if her were elected president?

Putting aside his misogynistic, ethic and racial statements, the day he walks into the oval office - like all new presidents - means that domestic programs (the ones he declares while campaigning and debating) must go though the checks-and-balances of getting a House committee to agree, getting the House to vote in favor, getting enough Senate votes that are filibuster-proof and stand up in court. 

Trump and all presidents, quickly realize that autonomous authority comes from foreign policy and the military. Trump will migrate to the latter quicker than other presidents because no businessman wants to go through the checks-and-balance meat grinder of changing domestic policy.

So that means, that Trump will spend his presidency on foreign policy and military matters. And that is his weakest subject matter expertise. Does the reader believe that Trump will not rush to judgment. Does the reader not understand that friend and foe alike will bait him like HRC did and he will want to punish them?

So it all goes back to the ideals we need from the President for everyone. He is not going to live up to those ideals. And if that is not disqualifying enough, who wants Trump to get up every morning and make decisions of war and peace?

I can't vote for someone like that. And I will not waste my vote on a third party candidate. So I will go into the polling booth and do what I thought was the unthinkable. I will punch HRC. Only because it is the best option for the country amongst worse options.


Scoring The Debates

by John Jazwiec

I haven't read anything on the media. All I did was watch the debate on YouTube.

  1. I don't think either of them lost their support groups. 
  2. I don't think either of them were very detailed about anything.
  3. HRC had her chance on ISIS to contrast her subject matter knowledge as a contrast to Trump. Instead she said "go to my website"? 
  4. As for Trump, after the initial pleasantries, I could see he was ready to blow. It was like he had a governor on his valve and was try to exceed its threshold. It had to blow. And it blew up enough, with enough interruptions, to make a sane swing voter pause. 
  5. Trump lied about 5 times. 

Score - I don't think it changed anything. Change with lies by someone who lacks the temperament = status quo with past lies who has the temperament.


Third Party Candidates And More

by John Jazwiec

I haven't been posting as much as I would like.

Sometimes my day job creeps into my off-hours and the job comes first.

But I had a number of thoughts that I never translated into posts this week -

  1. I understand this is a democracy. And third party candidates have as much right as anyone to run for president. And yes, I do understand that third party candidates have to get enough signatures in each state to be on the ballot. While I wouldn't hesitate to vote for a third party candidate that I liked AND thought would win; I don't get why Gary Johnson and Jill Stein continue to campaign and stay in the race. During the primaries, candidates with no chance, drop out. The only rational reason for both Johnson and Stein to continue running through the election, is their ego and only thinking about themselves. 
  2. I thought it was a parody when I read an article titled "Trump calls for 'stop and frisk" in a "town hall meeting on black issues' with Sean Hannity on Fox News" . Black? That term hasn't been used for ... I don't know ... about 25 years. Stop and frisk based on race? Besides being a horrible insult to African Americans, it doesn't work. Unless you are some white person in a white neighborhood that doesn't want any chance of seeing a person of color. African American issues on Fox News with Sean Hannity? Considering their audience, I highly doubt African Americans were glued to their TVs.
  3. I think it is impossible to keep up with everything Trump says or has done that is bad. Using campaign money to pay off business loans? Using public secret service money - the government paying for their flight expenses - to pay yourself for your own air plane? One of Trump's five foreign policy experts who is based in Moscow, who works within Russia's energy sector and is being investigated by the US government for conflicts of interest? It all gets mashed up and starts to become the new normal. Or sensory overload.
  4. I remember Obama was "itching" to campaign for HRC. He hasn't since the Democratic Convention. So I think if you start to see Obama campaigning after the debates, you can assume the Clintons have hit the panic button. 
  5. Speaking of leading indicators, start watching the stock market at home. If it begins to fall, you can be sure the market is factoring in a greater possibility of a Trump victory. Every economist agrees that Trump's policies - immigration, retrenchment on world trade and that he would try to mess with the national debt (like it was some kind of corporate restructuring) - would lead to a recession/depression. 

I will be writing my thoughts after the first debates.


Trump Vs. Robert Gates - Don't Criticize A Dictator

by John Jazwiec

Screen Shot 2016-09-19 at 8.58.59 AM

Screen Shot 2016-09-19 at 9.00.33 AM

CNN anchors - the network that hired Trump supporter Corey Lewandowski - finally have had enough of Trump. So they got Dear Leader's wrath - 

Screen Shot 2016-09-19 at 9.09.07 AM

Then Robert Gates dared to write negative things about both candidates. Robert Gates served in the Reagan and Bush 43 administrations. And served in the Obama administration. 

Gates called Trump "beyond repair". Dear Leader on cue lashed out - 

"He's a mess, okay, he's a mess," Trump said of Gates. "Look what he gave us, look at the mess of all these people that have been there for so many years. Look what we have, look at the Middle East.

"We're in worse shape than we were 15 years ago by a factor of 10," Trump said. "Much more importantly, the lives that we lost, because we're dealing with incompetent people, we're dealing with stupid people. We're dealing with people like Robert Gates that don't have a clue and then when they leave office, they criticize everybody.

"I don't like critics, I like people that get it done and get it done right," Trump said.

Trump doesn't like critics? That's all he does. 

The message is clear. Don't criticize a dictator.

Forget that every foreign country - friend or foe will get the Kim Jong-un treatment - but so will every Democrat, every Republican, every member of the press and every ordinary American that dares to say something that his ego/insecurities can't handle. 


Remembering It's All About The Electoral College

by John Jazwiec

Screen Shot 2016-09-17 at 9.56.34 AM

A presidential race isn't a continuum, it is a series of historical milestones. Namely primaries, post primaries, conventions and debates. The chart above shows (a) that voters had dismissed Trump this spring, (b) voters were split after both candidates had won their primaries, (c) a return to HRC before the convention when Trump was under old management, (d) both candidates receiving a convention bump and (e) a return to tightening before the debates with Trump under new management.

They also show that HRC's polling has a floor of 44% and a ceiling of 50%. While Trump has a floor of -40% and a ceiling of 46%. The last chance to see new floors and ceilings is after each debate. 

Screen Shot 2016-09-17 at 9.51.58 AM

The next chart is the RCP's electoral college without swing states. Not including swing states - essentially an educated guess - Clinton has 293 electoral votes. I think some reds might swing blue and some blues might swing red; but the only state that is blue that is likely to turn red is North Carolina (Obama won it in 2008 and Romney won it in 2012).

That would reduce HRC to 278 (293 minus 15). It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. So it seems to me that this race - if held today - will be won or lost in Colorado. 

But the race isn't today. It is in the next 40 some days.

The debates will be the last time to gauge the predictability of the race. And it doesn't look like the third party candidates will have the necessary polling (they need 15%) to compete. Meaning you would expect their polling to drop.

Trump needs to win the debates to win the election. He has to equal or raise his ceiling. While Clinton has to equal or not lower her floor. That and the realities of the electoral college are the two moving parts to consider.


The Cognitive Dissonance Of Both Party's Tax Plans

by John Jazwiec

Taxes are in a word - contextual. 

Ronald Reagan's tax cuts did kickstart the economy in the 1980's. But they also increased the national debt. To his credit, Reagan agreed to many tax increases over his presidency to manage the increase of national debt. Either way, without Volker's monetary policy to tame hyperinflation, and Reagan's tax cuts, we wouldn't be having this conversation. 

Under Bush 41, taxes were increased for the same reasons as Reagan. But Bush paid a high political price.

Clinton 42, really didn't do anything. The deficits turned into surpluses for the same reason the high tax rates under Eisenhower didn't impact some of the greatest economic growth ever.

The latter was due to the GI bill (which increased the amount of educated workers), the interstate highway, a wave of house building (FHA/VA)/new appliances, and the population growth from the baby boom. The former came from the largest productivity gains in the century from the internet, supply chain optimization, world-wide trade, better distribution of investment and the ubiquity of best-in-class computer software that could be run in any country. 

In both cases, regardless of the tax rate, tax revenues rose and there was tremendous economic growth. 

Bush 43 had two tax cuts. They didn't increase economic growth. And thus - along with two wars - led to large increases in the national debt from the surpluses of the 1990s. 

For the last 16 years, productivity and educated workers, haven't increased. Under a Democratic president and a Republican Congress, the national debt growth rate has slowed. For the last 8 years, all that has happened in Washington, is a debt tourniquet was applied. 

Liberals point to tax increases in California and other high tech states to try and prove that higher taxes lead to balanced budgets/surpluses. As Warren Buffett has said "no one ever didn't invest in American companies because of tax rates". California and other high tech states continue to receive the lion share of investment, and resulting profits. So it is no wonder that raising state taxes - in high tech/high investment states - leads to better state balance sheets.

Republicans, on the other hand, are still stuck on the advocacy of tax reduction from Reagan. Except Reagan's cuts were as relative to the times as Obama's policies. These kind of one-time moves are needed in difficult times under the limitations of capitalism.

Republicans know lowering taxes will increase deficits. But the problem is they say they are for reducing the deficit. Lowering taxes and lowering the national deficit are mutually exclusive unless military spending is drastically reduced. And no politician is going to say that. 

Liberals make their arguments from looking too narrow. And conservatives make their arguments from un-contextualizing the 1980s.

Both parties plans fail due to cognitive dissonance and cherry picking their arguments.

In the meantime, without productivity gains that don't seem on the horizon, only infrastructure spending, can increase economic growth. Not higher or lower taxes. And an admission that we need a "debt bridge" - at 1.7% of this writing - to pay for it.


HRC - Your New Campaign

by John Jazwiec

Image result for obama hrc

It might not be enough that Hillary Clinton is a vote against the dangers of Donald Trump. 

Having her husband Bill - who might help with the older vote - doesn't resonate with voters under 35 years old, which is HRC's biggest problem. Younger voters are more apt to vote for the two third party candidates. Or more likely to not vote at all. 

Here is the immutable fact: Bill Clinton is no longer the leader of the Democratic Party. It is Barack Obama.

Not just because he has a 58% approval rating. Not just because medium wages are rising. But Obama is the 55-year old version of Bernie Sanders. Not only has my generation and demographics - been pro-Obama - so are our children. 

Said another way, the Obama coalition is critical. While HRC has educated whites, African Americans, Mexican and Muslim Americans; Obama won both elections by mobilizing the young vote. 

HRC you have no choice now. The picture above is your campaign picture. You are the hand picked successor of the current President.

This picture shows not only the linkage, but it also shows (a) the best traits of Obama (intellect combined with a man who is devoted to love; his wife. family and every American he has comforted over the last 8 years), (b) an anti-partisan meme of political foes becoming united and (c) your humility being embraced by someone who is better than you. 

Caption - "Not with her, but her with him".

Embrace it or our country is screwed. This is not about you nor your husband. It is about you being a weak candidate needing all the help you need, so you can beat a dangerous candidate.


Why "Deplorable" Makes Strategy Sense

by John Jazwiec

A few things to get out of the way first. 

Hillary Clinton's Health. I am not a fan of the Clintons. Although I will be voting for HRC as the only meaningful anti-Trump candidate. But I have developed a key ear for racism and sexism. Say what you want about HRC, but you can't outwork her; whether that is campaigning or knowing policy in-and-out. As someone who tends to overwork, I can tell you that I have often put business before sickness. The mainstream video coverage - on 9/11 no less - was irresponsible. This is where I see sexism. Frail older lady vs fat old man. Somehow getting dehydrated with walking pneumonia, is more risky than a 70 year old man with a 50 inch gut who still eats fast food???

Good information from one of my favorite writers. David Brooks sees the two parties splitting between college graduates and non-college graduates. The Democrats winning the former and the GOP the latter. So everything in the future of the GOP comes down to this - forming a coalition of non-college graduates of every race and color. 

Obama's approval rating. It now stands at 58%. Part of that is Obama himself. And part of that - what I have been blogging about for a year, given the 2016 presidential candidates available - is more Americans are now appreciating our 44th president and he would win a hypothetical 3rd-term landslide election victory. 

Now to "Deplorable-Gate". I think it makes more sense as a strategy than the media thinks. For two reasons.

  1. Getting Democrats to the polls. "Deplorable" doesn't hurt HRC with Trump's voters. They already hate her. But "deplorable" is a clarion call to African, Mexican and Muslim American voters. It is also a way to appeal to a common denominator of the Sanders-wing of the party. 
  2. Using a Trump Tactic. "Deplorable" was a provocative statement that drove the media for the last two days instead of Trump driving the media. Of course Trump would have to and did denounce Clinton's words. But Mike Pence - Trump's manure clean upper - wouldn't say that KKK leader David Duke, its grand wizard, was "deplorable. And he got pummeled by the press and the GOP. 

The % of Trump voters being deplorable maybe or maybe not exactly 50%. But 65% of Trump's voters think Obama is a Muslim. With similar percentages stating Mexican Americans are bad and essentially wanting Muslim Americans to wear an Islamic "Star of David". 

Anyways I think the strategy makes a lot of sense. 


Trump's NBC Commander-in-Chief Forum - Wave Vs. Particle

by John Jazwiec

During NBC's Commander-in-Chief Forum, Donald Trump said things that would disqualify other presidential candidates. 

  1. Putin Is A Better Leader Than Obama. Trump cited two basic data points to support that notion. Putin likes Trump and calls him a "brilliant man" (when in fact the translation of Putin's saying "brilliant" is "shiny", as in "you can't miss him in a room"). And Putin has a 82% approval rating. The former suggests an insecure egomaniac who is swayed by people that like him vs. people that don't like him. Or worse that Putin is working on behalf of Trump - national security has said that the DNC hacks have a high probability of coming from Putin (which means if Putin was a terrorist he would be killed by us bombing him) - and Trump is accepting such help (appearing on Russia's English speaking propaganda network the following day). If you call a leader that assassinates journalists, controls the media/polling and it authoritarian, than Putin is a better leader than Obama. But the US constitution by definition reduces the power of a democratic president who is accountable to the freedom of the press.
  2. Sexual Assault Against Women In The Military. Trump has stuck by his 2013 tweet that says "what do you expect when you put woman and men together in the military"? When asked by Matt Lauer if that meant the "only fix is to take women out of the military," Trump said: "No, not to kick them out." Women are not supposed to work with men in the work place? The question of "kicking them out", sounds exactly like he has reduced our brave women in uniform as if they are illegal immigrants. Trump's entire history has been using women for his financial gain (his "modeling agency" has been reported to be perhaps a high-end brothel) or putting women in their place (Trump: "putting a wife to work is a very dangerous thing"). Trump is an established misogynist. 
  3. The Current Military Leadership Has Been Reduced To Rubble. I don't know if Trump is smart enough to understand that three star and four star generals have to be approved by Congress. A Republican Congress. While a president is in fact the commander-in-chief, the military governs itself apart from the political process. Saying you are going to fire them all and get new ones is both stupid and dangerous. The latter suggests a coming reverse-military coup. And the former assumes that Congress is going to allow Trump to nominate new generals on his first day in office. 
  4. Using His Right To Intelligence Briefings To Damn Obama. He implied - some kind of body English B.S. - that there is intelligence that Obama is not acting on. Two big problems with that. First the courtesy of informing presidential candidates with intelligence briefings comes with a quid pro quo of not using the information for political gain. And the second is - intelligence briefings are not a law but a courtesy - they put our intelligence community in a difficult spot. Do they withhold information for national security?

I am probably missing other crazy stuff he said.

But Trump's saturation of daily crazy statements reminds me of quantum physics. In quantum physics, particles are really waves until they are observed. Or more technically observation is known as "collapsing the wave"

But what happens when there are an ocean of particles? You don't see any particles. All you see is an overwhelming wave.

By using such terminology, there is no time to collapse Trump's wave into particles. There is no time to dwell on each crazy statement because the next crazy statement hits the rocks, and simply erases the vestiges of yesterday's wave. 

The media can't collapse Trump's wave particles. And either can I. 

But I do know this. If you can't remember every crazy statement, that is completely human and natural. But if, on the other hand, you can't see Trump's words from this campaign and from his whole life experience, you are not seeing the dangers of a Trump ocean. 


The Opposite Of Tempermant

by John Jazwiec

President Obama called out the Philippines for its extrajudicial killings during his Asian trip this week. Even though the US and the Philippines have a strategic relationship, it has been a long-standing practice for US presidents to speak out about human rights abuses nonetheless.

The president of the Philippines, in turn made a remark that was so ugly about Obama, I can't repeat it.

How did Obama handle it? He said the president of the Philippines "is a colorful guy". And then cancelled his visit there. Again showing Obama speaks softly and carries a big stick. Immediately afterwards the Philippine political and military elite denounced its president's remarks. In the big picture, status quo was maintained to the benefit of both nations. 

You have to ask yourself how Trump would react in the same situation?


Next »
From athletic scholar and satirist to computer programmer to CEO success, John Jazwiec brings a unique and often eccentric perspective to business and supply chain challenges. Exploring how they can be solved through the leadership and communication insights found in untraditional sources. This CEO blog demonstrates how business insights from books on history to the music of Linkin Park can help challenge and redefine “successful leadership.” Read Jazwiec’s Profile >>

Hierarchy of corporate success

What does it take for businesses to break out of bad habits and succeed?
Download John’s free white paper >>