Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
RSR ROBBINS July 14, 2019 - Profile State of Nevada - Trump support and what's most Important to Voters in Nevada
Featuring IRobbins v Cambridge Mortgage - Canada's largest Civil fraud involving high Office  Jul 14, 2019

Question #1
As you see things now in American presidential politics – and looking to 2020 that will come sooner than you think – would you say that you support U.S. President Donald Trump's re election in 2020?
Yes    55.54 %
No    40.78 %
Question #2
From the Issues provided only which is most important to you right now?
A good stable economy with many high paying jobs    22.67 %
Good Affordable Health Care    18.27 %
A solution on Border Security Keeping America Safe    14.78 %
*Showcasing International presence    7.88 %
Keep America Great    13.31 %
Fairer Distribution of Wealth – Social Justice    9.36 %
Solving Global Warming – Climate Change    13.49 %
Profile State of Nevada – featuring Strategic Environment Clark County (Las Vegas):
Some History (State of Nevada):
In1960 the commencement year of our RSR ROBBINS Study and Poll – Profile of the State of Nevada - Kennedy (D) wins the national vote challenger Nixon (R) by 2.32% - 51.16% to 48.84%.
On average -- in the 14 subsequent elections the Democrat Vote Outcome average declines 7% - while the Republican average declines 3%.
In the 2016 US Election the winner President Donald Trump obtained a Vote Outcome 2% below Republican average since 1960 and 5% below Nixon's totals in a losing cause in 1960.
On the other hand Democrat Hillary Clinton obtained a Vote Outcome equivalent to Democrat averages since 1960 – and 7% below Kennedy's Vote Outcome.
Longtime Republican (but part time Reformer with Ross Perot 1992) was on Fox News speaking about the Perot era following his death this week.
Mr. Rollins says that the fact George HW Bush got 37.5% Vote Outcome in 1992 (following a better than 50% Vote Outcome in 1988 - ten full percent below Republican historical average - had nothing to do with Ross Perot and in fact – it was not his candidate Perot, who acquired nearly 20% of the vote in that Election who was responsible but Herbert Walker's fault – losing 4 million Republican Votes (of 108 million total Vote Outcomes in 1992) – to former President Bill Clinton.
Given the historical averages claim 5% for some 'other' – we can assert for theoretical purposes that Ross Perot took that 5% - leaving 14-15% from 1992 to yet be explained. If we halved that apportioning 7 deduction to both Clinton and Bush – our theoretical vote outcome would have both Democrats and Republicans at 40.5%.
So Rollins asserts that Clinton raided 4 million Republican voters or about 3.7% of the Vote. This would presume from theory averaging that Bush would obtain 37%. We know Bush obtained 37% of the Vote. Clinton's score would thus be 44% if Rollins assertions are pressed against averages. Clinton received 43% of the Vote Outcome in that US Election.
It appears that Monsieur Rollins assertion fits the theoretical baseline.
In that interview on Fox News Rollins asserts a poll conducted prior to the 1992 Election suggesting Perot had 39% public support running as an Independent Reformer.
In 2000 Donald Trump accepts being branded a Reformer – his base is declared in all places media to be about 38 or 39% (I have said I believe his base to be the Vote he achieved in 2016) – similar to the polling cited by Rollins.
As a Reformer since 1996 – Glen P. Robbins knows one when he sees one. Donald Trump is a Reformer – and the evidence of his actions as President bear this out.
I would suggest the same assertion made by Ed Rollins can now be applied in reverse with Democrats heading to Trump as they did with Reagan in the 1980's.
Well that was 1992 and this is 2019 with 2020 in sight. The Reformer turned Republican Donald Trump is hot as a pistol (recently used one would think) and polling well into the 50 percent in most of State Profile polls including: Wisconsin, Florida, New Mexico, South Carolina, Ohio and here in the State of Nevada. He is polling in the mid 40's in arguably his 'weakest' States – New York and California.
I have Donald Trump well over 50% nationally consistently -
On June 16, 2019 RSR ROBBINS produced a poll suggesting “President Trump/Republican” had 51.08% (net support) and (54%) decided support versus (46%) for “Joe Biden/Democrat” “if an Election (2020) were held today”.
In January 2019 RSR ROBBINS produced a poll suggesting that nationally Trump/Pence/Republican 2020 was (55%) to Biden/Gabbard/Democrat at (45%).
On July 11, 2019 a mainstream polling firm The Hill/HarrisX suggested Trump approval at {47%} (source:
On July 10, 2019 mainstream polling firm Economist/You Gov suggested Trump's approval was {44%}.
On July 7, 2019 mainstream polling firm ABC News/Wash Post suggested Trump approval at {48.5%} Decided.
On June 23, 2019 RSR ROBBINS suggested “Donald Trump/Republican” would defeat Joe Biden,Democrat” (51.9% to 44.1%).
On June 2, 2019 RSR ROBBINS published a poll on the basis of which leader attracted more confidence from Voters - “President Trump,Republican” (56.79%) to (40.70%) for “Former Vice President Joe Biden”.
One mainstream pollster at has Biden {9%} ahead of Trump. Generally speaking there is a difference of nearly 20% between RSR ROBBINS and (at least) one mainstream outlier.
More specifically RSR ROBBINS suggests the American Voter supports President Trump for re election – supports him easily versus the top Democrat polled (Joe Biden), has more confidence in (Trump) than (Biden) to a point of (5-10% higher than mainstream news and polling ascribes to him
At the end of October 2016 – just a week prior to the US Election – RSR ROBBINS produced a poll that came within one tenth of one percent of the total achieved by President (elect) Donald Trump.
It is well published that mainstream pollsters Ipsos/Reuters had Donald Trump/Republican at {39%} (nearly 8 percent off Donald Trump's winning Vote Outcome).
You Gov/The Economist was off nearly {4-5%} (depending on source of information), IBD/TIPP off nearly {3%}.
What affect would there be on economic forecasts, activity in the stock market if Interest Rate disclosure was off to the extent mainstream polling is?
In an Online article at newspaper 'insauga' covering news for the City of Mississauga in the Province of Ontario under title “Here's How the Controversial USMCA Will Affect Your Chances of Owning a Home in Mississauga”.
“....(I)t looks like the new USMCA trade agreement between Canada, the US and Mexico could (sic) complicate matters” (relating to home ownership).
“Ratehub suggests that now that a deal has been struck, however, mortgage rates will further increase.”
“(T)he Bank of Canada (BoC) has announced that is plans to hold its trend setting rate at 1.75 percent (sluggish oil prices and a slower housing market)” (however) “(T)he BoC supports a neutral range between 2.5 to keep inflation in check.”
The USMCA free trade agreement will play a factor in Donald Trump's economy. Interest Rates remain a pressing issue with the President in his public spats with the Federal Reserve. What if Interest Rates – specifically mortgage rates – relative to the money the BoC hands to Chartered Banks in Canada are much higher than advertised – as a consequence of unregulated and unchecked non bank lender's in Canada involving criminal or unconscionable mortgages.
What affect might Canada's Interest Rate issues including the element of a US 2008 style sub prime Interest Rate problem in Canada have on the USMCA. Which is worse – Canada's Interest Rate scam or China's currency manipulation?
Higher Interest Rates cause an appreciation in Canadian currency. If the opportunity to realize higher interest rates (criminal or not) than more capital is attracted to a region.
We already know that Canada has scammed tens of thousands of people on Canadian disability (Globe and Mail 2015) in order for the Pension Secretariat attract an inflated return on investments in other countries like China.
This from Better Dwelling Online magazine published June 17, 2018 entitled “Canada Has a Subprime Real Estate Problem, You Just Don't Know It.”:
“The government (Canada) doesn't collect information on private mortgages.”
“Nearly 1 in 5 Toronto condo (purchases) were made with private (higher) private loans (sic).”
“There's a good chance Canada is seeing investors using subprime/lenders, repeating the setup in the US" (circa 2008).
The article goes on to say that while subprime mortgages are increasing year over year dollar values in other areas of investment are decreasing.
The undocumented sub prime – criminal and unconscionable loans in Canada's housing market are invading Canada's economy like undocumented are hitting the American southern border.
The Trump Economy:
There can be no doubt that a fabulous economy is currently working for Trump – and with that increased consumer confidence. We believe it is the economy that will win re election for Trump in a big way. Historically I like Reagan's decade best – nice GDP around 6% with Unemployment at 6%. A Trump economy humming along at better than 3 percent with Unemployment at 4% arguably may be better – but GDP growth at 4 percent with Unemployment at 4% would be better.
Bloomberg reports that the US Federal Reserve see a “so called natural rate of Unemployment at 4.1 to 4.6%. Remember President Reagan had to get Interest Rates down from 20% to 10%. It is the matter of Interest Rates that most differs between Reagan and Trump.
The swing in Interest Rates through previous decades was dramatic – neither the American economy nor the Canadian economy can afford the luxury of such histrionic swings in Interest Rates now – (perhaps that is why Canada appears willing to use high office to cover up Interest Rate fraud including particularly in the real estate market).
An increase in wages for lowest earners is helping Trump – particularly among minorities – however Trump knows that an economy needs more trained workers at higher pay added to the good work to be truly successful.
The Democrats will need to burrow themselves like a tick in a campers skin – on the economy to divide Trump from his ownership of the US public on the Economy as evidenced by our question 2 which suggests that the Economy stands alone as most important while Health Care and Border Security compete with one another for 2nd and 3rd most important. The Democrats recent policy proposal of free health care for undocumented persons not citizens provides a thick healthy thread to wrap around the Border Security question – more tied to the humanity factor of those issues – and separate from how the Economy is perceived – which Trump owns.
As much of a surprise as it may be – the way in on the Economy for the Democrats may be through Liberal Canada – on Interest Rates – proper public interest disclosure – complaints about State malfeasance – commercial corruption - - rampant in Canada – and locked and loaded within the residential real estate structure in that country – using social democrat and the USMCA to make its own way on the Economy. It has long been known that the Harper Conservatives provided subsidy to Canadian Chartered Banks during the 2008 subprime problem – the latter actually reported to the public widely – while the Canadians kept the Bank subsidy mostly a secret. Now the Liberal government wants to subsidize Canadian media to the tune of another $650 million (with CBC receiving $1.2 Billion every year {and permitted to sell advertising as well}). Democrats running for President could say 'Our social democracy would not look like Canada's for this and this and that reason – less insulting American Voters – including their own and using Canada as an appropriate foil” and platform for their own Economic vision.
Ensuring criminal and unconscionable – as well as subprime Interest Rates are not inserted into the countries real estate market is likely a good place to start from (consumer activism approach). Interest Rates like GDP (and Interest Rates affect GDP) and Unemployment Rates are an important factor in projecting future economic performance – but how good is the information provided that produces that projected economic performance. One would hope it is more accurate than mainstream news and polling.
*According to Online site “the balance” “U.S. GDP by Year Compared to Recession and Events” and author Kimberley Amadeo June 25, 2019, the Kennedy Johnson White Houses produced some wildly fabulous GDP numbers (upwards of 6% GDP) (assuming for this presentation that on its face higher GDP numbers are always good {though Mademoiselle Amadeo notes 1972 (Nixon) at 5.3% GDP – very nice – but “stagflation” occurs}. {stagflation as every 'red blooded' man woman and child must know off by heart is “recession-inflation – where the inflation rate is high – the economic growth slows – and unemployment remains high.”} In 1973 according to *“the Balance” article, Nixon followed in 1973 with 5.6% which would was then followed by a fall of the economic cliff in 1974 (.5%) (also “Watergate”). They must have seen it coming
Nixon had instituted wage and price controls in 1971 following the 1970 recession, preceded in 1969 with GDP at 3.1% and 4.9% the year before.
In terms of Interest Rates in the 1960's they are connected to the beginning of the George W. Bush era as evidenced in an article by Canada's Globe & Mail as at November 28, 2001 which had this to say about early1960's Interest rates: “The Bank of Canada cut its benchmark interest rate yesterday by half a percentage point to 2.25 per cent, the lowest level since September, 1960...” “Since the beginning of the year, the Bank of Canada has cut rates by 3.5 percentage points, dropping the key overnight rate by 5.75%.” “The previous reduction on Oct. 23 matched the previous low of 4.5% per cent; which the banks charged their most creditworthy customers in March, 1956.”
According to Statistics Canada - Canadian Bank Interest Rates averaged better than 4 per cent trending upward in the latter part of the decade. Through the 1970's this ascended toward 8% (double).
According to “Forecast Chart” “Historical Fed Funds Rate” in the 1960's was – the Bank Rate was under 4% - and this percent grew to anywhere from “4.5% to near 14%” (1979) in the 1970's. Reagan (Republican) was in office from 1980 to 1988 first managing high interest rates upwards to 20% when he first took office and dampening them down to 10% by the time he left. The Canadian dollar reached an all time low of 69 cents to US dollar in early 1986.
In another research article written by Ms. Amadeo entitled “Unemployment Rate by Year Since 1929 Compared to Inflation and GDP” (updated June 25, 2019): “The highest rate of unemployment was 24.9% in 1933 during the Great Depression”. “Unemployment was more than 14% from 1931 to 1940.” “Unemployment remained in single digits until 1982 when it reached 10.8%.” “The annual unemployment rate reached 9.9% in 2009 the Great Recession.” “The lowest unemployment rate was 1.2% in 1944.” although “Even when the unemployment rate is 4%, its difficult for companies to expand because they have a hard time finding good workers.” 'Unemployment through the 1960's ranged from near 7% to lowest 3% in the latter part of that decade.' 'Through the 1970's Unemployment rose to between 5-8%.' The Reagan presidency confronted unemployment as high as 11% but managed it downward to 6% at the end of that decade.' 'The 1990's saw Unemployment between 4 and 5% and 4% to 10% through George W Bush's 'war' presidency – followed by Unemployment of 5-10%.'
President Trump is running an economy with unemployment around or below 4% in 2018 to this assessment by Business Insider of July 11, 2019: “The US unemployment rate fell to 3.8 percent..below market expectations of 3.9 percent.”
Profile Outcomes of (further) U.S. Presidential Elections in the Modern Era 1960- State of Nevada.
In 1964 Johnson (D) wins 58.6% to 41.4% over Goldwater (R). In 1968 Nixon (R) beats Humphrey (D) 47.5% to 39.3%. In 1972 Nixon beats McGovern (D) in Nevada 63.8% to 39.3%, and in 1976 Ford (R) beats Carter (D) 50.2% to 45.8%, however Carter wins the national vote. In 1980 in Nevada Ronald Reagan (R) trounces Jimmy Carter (D) 62.5% to 26.9%. In 1984 Reagan again eviscerates his Democrat Walter Mondale 65.85% to 31.91%. In 1988 Bush Sr. (R) pounds out Michael Dukakis (D) 58.86% to 37.92% in the State of Nevada. In 1992 & 1996 Clinton (D) averages 41% to Republicans 40% narrowly taking Nevada both times. In 2000 and 2004 “W” (R) averages 50% to Democrat opponents Gore/Kerry (D) at 47%. In 2008 and 2012 Obama (D) average 53% to 43% for McCain/Romney (R). In 2016 Clinton (D) wins Nevada narrowly over Trump (R) 47.92% to 45.50%.
When Americans choose Presidents in blow out wins – Nevada is happy to pile on the loser. Overall, the RSR Modern Era of U.S. Presidential politics (“MEUSP”) 1960-2016 I give the Republicans a (3 point) advantage over Democrats in that Nevada.
Over the last twenty eight years commencing 1990 (a couple years of Bush Sr. Included) until 2018 the Democrats have held the Office of the President – 16 of those years or 57% of that shorter time period. The vote percentage in Nevada commencing 1992 gives the Democrats a 2% advantage in Nevada overall with much of that coming as a consequence of Barack Obama's big wins in 2008 and 2012. As I noted in our recent New Hampshire Profile – to suggest that (New Hampshire) historically tilted Democrat as some news reports suggest is not a fair evaluation. Similarly – the case can be made that Nevada is also not a 'Democrat State' in context of a review of a larger history of more presidential elections (1960).
It is important to underscore this point based on the joint claims from social media against mainstream media and mainstream media as to which one which produces more fake news – that debate may be expected to persist for some time (until the money works out)--particularly as I pursue claims that Donald Trump is more likely looking at 60% in public support for his re election than heading toward solid 50% as the mainstream is (reluctantly) doling out to him. By comparison of other Republican winners Nixon got a big bump in re election in 1972 to early 60's percent Vote Outcome (“VO”). Reagan started his first term well over 50% and was near 60% (nationally) at re election. Nixon`s economy was rather volatile – and what with Watergate and impeachment coinciding in conjunction with only one half a percent in GDP in 1974 and nearly zero growth in 1975 His end came. Nixon ran GDP average at just under 3% while Reagan delivered GDP at mid 3 percent to as high as 7% in conjunction with with Unemployment Rate at 6%.
President Trump and his senior Cabinet on matters of the Economy make steady and truthful pronouncements regarding historical low Unemployment across all sectors of ethnic background in the United States. How do these pronouncements make out when Interest Rate malfeasance is considered – in light of the anticipated USMCA deal ratification? Is good old Canada a massive cheater like China? Have US housing markets – loans and other been impacted similarly.
For Trump to sweep the College as I predicting he may do (unfortunately analytical deduction suggests that one day in politics is a lifetime has been rendered meaningless) – the die is cast – if Trump's economy in 2019 is 3 percent or above while unemployment is low he will be unstoppable in making my (very) early predictions of his sweep historical (against mainstream polling efforts to promote a contest, fundraising for their own benefit as much of the public interest). Only GDP well under 2.5 percent with associated under performance of some type might bring the economy into some more intense and less favourable focus to Donald Trump. Interest Rates are a deadly important factor involved in assessing economic success (or lack thereof). (Trump has no chance of being inflicted with a Nixon type impeachment despite wishful thinking of some with more money than political sense).
The ratification of USMCA Free Trade Agreement juices the economy and even if its built into existing Stock Exchange performance or not – when its done then that aspect of baking is done – to wit: good for economy – following NAFTA (1994) which saw (4%) GDP that year (draft was “1992”). GDP following NAFTA according to Ms. Amadeo is (2.7% 1995), (3.8% 1996), (4.4% 1997), (4.5% 1998), (4.8% 1999), (4.1% 2000). ...and a deal with China – (following Nixon's historic foot in the door )– will bring Trump into the next level of positive public perception for 'single handedly' reorganizing the planet economically into a smoother more efficient growth machine – and will as Trump has suggested, bring GDP numbers of 3.5 and 4%. I have predicted a quarter at 7-10% previously.
A reporter on subsidized Canadian Media CBC (which followed in “lockstep” (Nazi inference to be sure) with CNN and MSNBC during the US Media gate period 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019) says “Tariffs are never any good.”
According to a Spectator Online article and authors Daniel McCarthy and Matt Ridley June 2018: “Trumps tariffs are a good idea.” “Trump's tariffs, far from being the end of the liberal economic order, may be the only that saves it.” “The present broken world economic system will continue to empower China relative to the US for as long as China lets it run. President Jinping would be happy to see it run forever – or at least until it reveals that America is no longer strong enough to be plausible even as a nostalgic hegemon. At that point China would have won a world war without firing a shot.” “Trump's instincts are correct. No major country on earth can successfully retaliate against America in a trade war, for the simple reason that American has trade deficits with them all.” “Steel is a good place to start because it shows how the entire global scam works.”
Based on Question 2, I place Donald Trump's most obvious initiatives – and slogans actual and other (*showcasing) “International presence..” at (50% ) as between Republicans and (46%) Democrats with the rest of the bump to the premium exclusive to Trump (including diminishing Democrat totals) or a further 6-7% advantage in Nevada for US President Donald Trump and His Republican Party - conservatively estimated. Any positive adjustment upward that might be presumed for Democrats in this RSR Poll (from ``No``), would not impact on Trump's totals we ascribe to him herein, but rather serve to (only) keep him from hitting 60% in 2020.
In this RSR ROBBINS Profile Nevada State ``A good stable economy with many high paying jobs`` attracts nearly (23%) Nevada Voters (intend to vote in 2020 and are eligible to vote today). This response choice is (4.4%) more important than ``Good Affordable Health Care`` to Nevada Voters. ``A solution on Border Security Keeping America Safe`` is 3.5% more important than “solving Global Warming – Climate Change.`` If we give the economy and border security to Trump is comes to (37.45%) or 31% above Random. If Random is 50% than economy and border security total (65%) ``support`` as more important. If Good Affordable Health Care and Solving Global Warming are theorized as Democratic issues than their `support` from these is 49%.
The further problem for the Democrats however is that there is Trump support in question 1 who also choose affordable health care, and global warming.
Trump requires more competitive Interest Rates, steady higher GDP, low unemployment (avoid Nixon's stagflation) to secure his massive win. Like the vote itself and those Interest Rates it comes down to basis points. Interest Rates – fraud in USMCA deal while US President Trump fights with Fed over lowering Rates by basis points? How is it possible that the Ita Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage financial mortgage fraud (SCC 35772), court fraud in Vancouver Canada (BCSC H130330) including participating federally appointed judges 98.7% criminal interest rate (A.P.R.) on first mortgage – could continue to prevail? Court lawyers and a Cabal of BC justices (all appointed – by political friends upon job application -- public has no idea about them) have ignored that Judicial Orders for stay of execution were contemptuously ignored - they have seen the court transcript – are aware of the tape of court proceedings – and participated in a collective fraud against Canada's most senior courts – all desperate efforts to assist with criminal lending and cover the type of devastation to the economy if Robbins v Cambridge circumstances were widely known by the public. The Robbins v Cambridge matter is ironically (eerily) similar in context to the Clinton - Department of Justice attempted overthrow of Trump presidency.
The first exposes connected corruption within the entire Canadian justice system its court rules, processes and procedures – justice(s) participation in ignoring other justice's orders on a whim – as worthless – an incompetent Institution in order to cover up State sanctioned malfeasance – while the latter exposes a similar appointed Institutional Cabal intending to cover up its own malfeasance. Both involve ordinary citizens crossing the respective Cabals. If the details of this massive Institutional fraud were widely published tomorrow would Canada's phony real estate and commercial interest rate fraud be exposed causing a collapse in real estate and the economy overall? Wouldn't settling the matter privately have been the correct thing to do?
What will US President Trump, the Federal Reserve – Stock Exchanges – the Chinese government and other governments negotiating trade think about a country like Canada with no actual control over its mortgage interests rates or Interest Rates governed by that countries Constitution? Eighteen percent of home mortgages occurring between 2015 to date in Vancouver alone were made by non bank lenders – a way Glen P. Robbins asserts made it possible for private lenders to secure higher interest rates for shareholders and donors and make a profit for themselves. Loans like the predatory Cambridge Mortgage (Peet and Cowan) loan made to Ita Robbins (98.7% A.P.R.) ON PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA LETTERHEAD - and registered fraudulently by a British Columbia lawyer at Land Title a 9% meant essentially that on a $325,000 (Canadian) mortgage into one near $400,000 with one stroke of a British Columbia lawyer's crooked pen. Looks like near 20% 'regular' Interest Rate – or thereabouts on a first mortgage. The old adage that follows – if there is 1 there may be 1 million.
That lawyer was paid $3,000 from the borrower – no wonder former lawyers now judges rushed to help out fellow lawyers – being paid exorbitant fees under these criminal agreements – sub prime agreements piling the money high for that profession in Canada. Like lawyer's unregulated personal injury percentages of upwards of 30% - big pay for little work – the former involving in some cases fraud and breach of Criminal Code of Canada – the latter unconscionable but lawful. Beyond the criminal Annual Percentage Rate (actuarial) – it appears that Cambridge Mortgage was seeking high charge card interest as a mortgage loan (and this occurred on a first mortgage with hundreds of thousands in equity) predicated on an initial representation of a punishing 5% first mortgage (others paying half that). (75 year old CKNW (Vancouver BC – Global) had a woman on the radio who owned her own home in Vancouver with arguably a few million $$ in equity who could not get a convention mortgage or other because she did not have the income to support it).
Canada's phony Interest Rate scam supported apparently by all levels of State actor in British Columbia and Canada – involves $100 Billion of real estate in BC alone. Simple deduction asserts that $10 to $15 Billion of real estate equity has found its way out of BC homeowners pockets and into the pockets of non bank lenders all assisted by Canadian banks, lawyers and courts. (National media waits for another $650 million handout to keep their mouths shut).
According to (another) Global News (Canada) article by Jesse Ferreras Dec 18, 2018 entitled: “76% of Canada's national wealth is wrapped up in real estate...” “Real estate as a share of national wealth is 6-10% higher in Canada than in the United States”. According to “Data” collected from Statistics Canada and the US Federal Reserve real estate “wealth” in Canada “has trended upward to 26% in Quarter 3 2018 from 16% in Q3 2010 to Q3 2012.” “Over the same period charted (2007-2018) US home ownership wealth has gone from 4.2% to 8.2%.” In a bona fide real estate market (BC doesn't have sufficient sale of homes to be a bona fide market – more a manipulated and controlled market) with corrections in the market of at least 30-40% would produce about $30 Billion in BC residential real estate being under water. Most experts assert a 10-15% decline would put many homes under water. The elephant in the room in Canada's economy is the fact that a sub prime mortgage problem exists now in that more Social Democratic country - as it did in the United States in 2008 at the end of George Bush's two terms. What relationship might there be between Institutional cover ups – and the USMCA deal? Will Democrats let Trump fly through with this victory good for most Americans – or will they seek for the opportunity to poke holes in its deficiencies.
Will this relationship between Canadian and US liberals – help or hurt the Democrat approach to ratifying the Free Trade Agreement and ratifying Trump's lordship over the economy by doing so – or will Democrats look to the Canadian model the Institutional Financial Services scam – long waits for surgery under socialized medicine – as a basis for criticism and for a sell of their US vision for Social Democracy better than Canadians have done. To get at Trump's economy Democrats will now have to bludgeon Canada including the USMCA. The problem in the USMCA deal – predicated in part on the concept that US Donald Trump used Tariffs to deal with deficits and imbalances, and the further fact that information used to debate and make determinations from this data involves separate consideration for financial services – would in light of the Ita Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage Institutional State sponsored fraud – tend to suggest that the information provided by the Canadian government particularly as it relates to the subject of Interest Rates – was completely false. It also renders the Statistics Canada numbers virtually meaningless because the real estate market is bigger contributor to GDP than Oil and Gas – and we have no idea how many 1st, 2nd 3rd and 4th mortgages are criminal or unconscionable but it is likely in the tens of thousands. Surely given the need to be accurate to basis points on economic matters is paramount – the US and other countries have to consider the Robbins v Cambridge Mortgage matter.
One wonders if Canada is permitting Interest Rates to be manipulated through these usury loans and other types of fraudulent mortgages – in an unregulated economy ultimately determined to produce to a false economy through a false real estate market AND in so doing to secure a Free Trade Agreement with other countries on the basis of obviously false information. Canada may literally pulling a fast one over other countries in their dealings – when don't Interest Rates matter? Canada's Bank Rate is historically slightly higher than the US's – but given the affect that a Bank Rate increase of mere basis points can have on an entire country – one must ask how much of an increase should be ascribed to the real Interest Rate in Canada relative to the US – with Donald Trump wanting a decrease? Isn't Canada simply operating with Interest Rates as President Donald Trump asserts China is doing with currency. Is Canada hoping for a higher dollar using phony Interest Rates? If Ita Robbins v Cambridge in Canada is the signal to the financial world that Canada is producing economic results based not insignificantly on fraud (of its own citizens) and fraudulent reporting to other countries – one wonders what impact this might have on actual GDP numbers if even only 5 percent of mortgages are like this.
One wonders if Canada`s real estate market and mortgage loans are in U.S. 2008 sub prime mode. One wonders what this means for the US real estate market or for the nature of viability of lenders. Its a significant cover up. Is Robbins v Cambridge the tip of the Iceberg to take down Canada's false economy? Can Canada run positive GDP – with the fraud Interest Rates – likely amount to a full half point honestly factored back in? After failing to obtain a winning decision from the US Supreme Court on the matter of the Census question will US Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross consider Tariffs against Canada on the basis of problems with Canada cheating on Interest Rates including distorted financial services numbers – to offset more conventional measurements of trade imbalances utilized in trade negotiations?
There are 15 months until the next US Election for President. Our RSR ROBBINS polling in Wisconsin, Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, California, South Carolina, New York and here in New Mexico reveals Donald Trump's popularity is trending upward everywhere (including California and New York which Fox News says Trump has no chance in). Interest Rates and GDP – both important elements of economic discourse are analyzed and discussed more than just about anything else – they are integral to economic planning and necessary for economic success. President Trump's popularity is clearly linked to a strong economy and low Interest Rates. Interest Rates are important – the record shows that a poorly considered rate hike of basis points can be a major point of contention – between the President and the Federal Reserve. Why aren't questions being asked about Canada's Interest Rate fraud in residential mortgage fraud prior to the ratification of USMCA?
President Trump does not want to see the USMCA Free Trade Agreement delayed or even stalled because consumer advocates for Democrat nominee to be President recognize the consumer alert coming out of Canada on Interest Rates. What affect will Canada's 'known Institutional malfeasance' have upon US consumers?
These are the (only) type of economic landmines that could explode under foot of Donald Trump when it first appears that he might have engineered the perfect economy – one which on balance of probabilities re elects him in a massive College win.
In my professional opinion the Democratic desperation and past conduct suggests to me – that the only thing that Donald Trump cannot control – a trading partners dishonesty in reporting – may be the opening Democrats use to get inside the economic debate and put some resistance on Trump 2020 just 'chooglin' along to victory.
Margin of Error Against totals 1.5% - conducted one week ago from publishing date.

Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US and the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Site Map
Copyright Robbins SCE Research Inc. ©2021