RE: Hillary's Book And Her Petty Attitude And Delusion

I never much liked Trump, but I am kicking myself for ever having voted for Hillary, who comes across in this article about her book as being arrogant, petty, and entitled. She first attributes her loss to the FBI Director's October 28 statement about reopening the E-mail case, but as I recall, almost every poll - the ones reported on, anyway - indicated that she would win right up to the evening of November 8. These calls for the end of the electoral college seem to pop up every so often, as well - usually after a political upset and by the loser. Ironically, the demographics of Clinton's popular vote win demonstrates why we NEED the electoral college to make sure that votes count in EVERY state, not just some of the states Hillary won, such as California and New York - both of which have some of the biggest cities and populations of people that not only vote on a regular basis and sometimes even lead political trends, it seems, but tend to be or be seen as somehow being more politically motivated and reliably DEMOCRAT, all for a number of reasons.

Her attacks of Bernie Sanders are really baseless and shameful. It was bad enough that the hierarchy in his own party is alleged to have tried to undermine and dismiss Sander's candidacy - which has actually generated a little sympathy from the right and from Trump, himself - but it is downright deceitful to suggest that Sanders didn't support her or didn't support her enough. For one thing, it was first and foremost HER responsibility as the nominee to "unify the party," not Sanders.' This goes to perhaps the biggest and only substantial criticism of her by pundits everywhere but Fox News, which was her allegedly excessive dependence on political surrogates.

Sanders was always a COMPETITOR that had no obligation whatsoever to drop out of the primary race earlier than he did. The fact that he got so far, allegedly without the typically big donations from big business and political PACS, validates his decision to keep fighting. It suggests to me, anyway, that had the DNC primary rules been different, he might have been nominated and given Trump a bigger fight on similar ground free of baggage. If anything, Hillary had it easy with only 2 other contenders for the nomination to begin with, and after the third one dropped out before January 2016, I think, Sanders was the only one left with whom she had to compete. And, again, what should have made it even easier on Clinton was the fact that Sanders was a candidate which even their own party saw as too "radical" and in which it had little if any faith.

What she needs to be asking herself is why she, as an arguably seasoned and experienced politician and former First Lady, did or could not "understand with the anger..." (as is erroneously written in the article) that really drove BOTH Trump's and Sander's popularity. The 2016 election was driven from top to bottom by a growing anti-incumbent and anti-establishment mentality. While Trump embodies and speaks to that attitude more literally, effectively, and with arguably more credibility as someone with zero past political and legislative experience, Sanders had been the longest serving independent representative in the House. As an almost unabashed Socialist, I think his supporters felt and probably still feel that he better understood the frustration of many Democrats when he was fearlessly criticizing the party and other candidates for always drifting to the center of the aisle during elections. He seemed to recognize and characterize this drifting towards a more moderate stance while campaigning as a sort of betrayal because, as his candidacy bore out, most of the party's younger and more engaged constituency has planted itself on the left and is waving at their party and waiting for it to finally accept them and itself as what they really are. After all, Democrats can surely see how the Republican Party has moved further right WITH its constituency and, in so doing, has managed to prolong its six or seven year winning streak despite historically LOW approval ratings even from within its voting ranks.

The worst part of this in my opinion, at least, is her audacity in saying that the damage done to her campaign by Comey and others "forever changed history," which is like saying that she was somehow preordained to win and would have had Sanders and others not dared to oppose her or say anything critical or unflattering in public. It's like her saying that she lost, in part, because she didn't "understand" the anger of the voters - as if it wasn't reflected on the news and in newspapers every day in living color. That's akin to someone saying they lost a board game that they had been playing for most of their life because they didn't know or understand the new rules and the other players. Well, duh... If that was the case, then she probably had no business running again in the first place. If Trump's administration were not as predictably chaotic as it is, I'd argue that she's the one that forever DAMAGED the Democrat Party.

Grown Men's Overreaction to All-Female WONDER WOMAN Screenings Nevertheless Highlights Potential Issue Surrounding "selective equality"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/grown-men-upset-movie-theater-180710371.html

I think it's fairly obvious that these guys' objections are much ado about nothing. Even if this is a case of "selective equality," it's hardly the most significant one. Besides, the Alamo is a PRIVATE BUSINESS with the same right to these kinds of events as the golf courses and clubhouses that sought to defend their all-men status in years' past. The only caveat may be that since it is for-profit and not associated with a specific religion or cause, the law might apply the same as it does to these Christian business owners wanting to deny service to homosexuals. Frankly, though, I think the law nowadays just does whatever it wants, especially with all of the activist mayors, governors, and judges we've seen lately on both sides of the political aisle.

That said, even if more good than bad comes of this, anyone who says this alleged example of equality is not "selective" is deluding themselves, regardless of whether or not people think it favors a sector of society that may be owed such favors. I think that with the law having basically done all or almost everything it Constitutionally can to at least try to ensure, protect, and defend equal rights and access (at least on a federal level), we're seeing people frustrated that their most "progressive" ideas are not yet fully embraced and are thus settling for opportunities to turn the tables... then, when confronted, perhaps, say, "Damn straight!" Though I'm a huge DC fan that cannot wait to see the WONDER WOMAN movie, myself, I worry that it might be a situation similar to that of a child that has no interest in something until he or she sees that one or more other kids have it. Then, that kid has to have it, too. While this might be changing or being allowed to change for any number of reasons, women and young girls have never really been the primary or most reliable audience for ANY superhero movie. Just from a business and marketing perspective, I don't think "girl power" is going to guarantee these films' long-term profitability. If they are profitable, it will be for the same reasons as movies with male superheroes, namely that they're just plain good. Period (no pun intended). The bigger danger is that Hollywood will get even more preachy and overindulge its obsession with rebelling against Trump and his so-called populist movement by putting political and social considerations over everything else, mismatching material with female and minority talent BECAUSE they are females and minorities and because there are such few in supply and hiring a man is suddenly out of the question. Shortly before the Oscars, I heard a film commentator on public radio say that he hoped a certain movie won Best Picture or something solely because he favored the message it might send.

Granting that there will always be a real subjectivity to the accepted quality of movies, if something like that happens, I suspect there will be a point at which audiences begin taking those considerations for granted and stop giving the otherwise bad or mediocre movies passes for those reasons. The eventual backlash could make women-made and women-centered movies look less profitable and potentially unfeasible to studios best equipped to make and promote them, particularly in genres previously dominated by male characters appealing to male audiences. It could defeat the original social and political purposes NOT because these were female-centered movies made by women, but because they simply put the wrong material with the wrong talent for the wrong reasons.
Thankfully, I don't see that as happening right this minute. Also, there has been more precedent of late, with women successfully directing movies in traditionally male-targeted genres ranging from the more recent ZERO DARK THIRTY back to the one-and-only PUNISHER sequel/reboot, which wasn't a huge hit but got a good deal of credit for being better than the man-directed original. One thing that I think activists pushing for more women in film tend to forget is that, in the industry's early, silent days, women were not only making the dialogue cards for silent films, but often writing the screenplays and serving as production managers. This, after all, is how Alfred Hitchcock met his beloved wife Alma.

WITH TRUMP'S WALL ON-HOLD, IMMIGRATION ISSUE A NO-WIN SCENARIO

Who else sees the immigration issue as I do - as a no-win scenario? Right now, funding for President Trump's wall has just been removed, albeit temporarily according to Trump, in hopes of increasing the chances of a budget agreement so as to avoid a potential government shut-down. I'm no expert on the matter, obviously, but from what little I do know, I can't help but play devil's advocate here. Unlike much of the populist GOP, I'm not convinced that most of these "undocumented" immigrants from Mexico and South America, anyway, are threats either to Americans' personal safety or their jobs, especially since (unfortunately) they tend to work jobs that many naturally-born Americans won't. For me, the problem is that everyone wants to judge based on morality, but that morality only ever seems to take the side of the American citizens or the undocumented immigrants, never really representing or serving the common good.

I never believed in Trump's wall or that Mexico would pay for it. The President talks about it stemming the flow of drugs, but those that don't get detected by border security are generally smuggled in via underground tunnels or via drops in the desert from low-flying airplanes, which cartel members in the States will at least try to retrieve in the middle of the night even as law enforcement tries to prevent it. At the same time, a judge has blocked President Trump's executive order to decrease funding for sanctuary cities and that just makes no sense to me. I'm against this being done by executive order instead of with Congress, but good or bad, is not the undocumented crossing back and forth across any national border a violation of existing law - "criminal" or not, and regardless of who does or does not enforce it? This seems to me to be a judge preventing the President from enforcing or, at the very least, strengthening a law or set of laws that BOTH are sworn to uphold unless and until it/they are amended or repealed! And, to be clear, we're not talking about an executive order that actually drives these immigrants away. All it does is decrease federal funding going to areas of the country whose local governments INTENTIONALLY ignore people's citizenship status or even go out of their way to protect these "undocumented" people. 

My opinion is that we do not need to be aggressively seeking out and rounding up undocumented immigrants for deportation, especially not from Mexico. That said, American society is increasingly dependent upon the federal government. Does that not require the government to have data which is as accurate as possible about how many people there are within its borders? If you know you're going to have to provide food for guests, do you not need to know roughly how many there will be? It's really quite simple, yet the same Democrats who seem to want what would inevitably a tightly controlled and super-standardized socialized healthcare system, employers to pay a higher minimum wage, and the rich to pay more in taxes - presumably to help pay for the increasing number of entitlements and social programs - do not seem to see the dangers inherent in the uncontrolled or, at the very least, unacknowledged growth and rate thereof of a population of people who not only pay ZERO taxes, but also BENEFIT from jobs offered by unscrupulously low-wage employers (who also don't pay taxes on those employees) and have been known to receive unemployment and other benefits traditionally reserved for legal citizens with or without forged documentation or refugee status. How does it benefit these people to let this situation go unchecked? 

Yes, with the proposed amnesty they get to stay in America... if they want to... but the reality is that many do not! Many cross back and forth, over and over again, and prefer it that way. This makes the suggestion of amnesty a proverbial TRAP and potential DETERRENT! Why? Because, unless I misunderstand, it might force these immigrants to pay taxes out of what wold likely be already low wages (particularly for the unskilled that only speak Spanish) from employers forced to offer legal and, thus, higher wages and pay taxes on those wages, which could impact the overall number of jobs available. The only real upside for these immigrants might be that they qualify for more government assistance, but that "upside" would almost certainly be short-lived as it would naturally and understandably spawn an even greater, so-called "anti-immigrant" resentment and put such amnesty measures at imminent political risk that would be difficult to defend against. Worse, it risks becoming an excuse for governments like Mexico's to quit trying harder to address the problems that drive their citizens out, in the first place. Ironically, Mexico allegedly has even stricter measures in place to keep people from South America out, but if only one side is expected to take responsibility for the problem of Mexican citizens feeling like they have to leave and get to America any way they can, regardless of laws or why they exist, then no would-be solution is ever really going to work.

Even after all of that, I do not believe in complaining about an issue without at least offering some semblance and/or part of a potential solution. As with other issues such as industrial pollution affecting climate change, I think the government should use more incentives than sticks to deal with immigration. If we don't want these people coming back and forth or staying without the same responsibilities, such as paying taxes, as American citizens, then we need to find ways of making the "path to citizenship" a little quicker and easier. I also think that the way in which we are guarding the border and trying to keep people out is making the task of crossing so harrowing and dangerous that it is backfiring by turning those that try and succeed into heroes, which has to be a factor in the number of Americans that sympathize and the number of sanctuary cities we see popping up or making themselves known since Trump took office. It also turns illegal immigration into an illicit, yet profitable underground business, with Mexicans that save money for years just to be "smuggled" across the border like so much product. Then, their chances of making it alive are too often no better than 50/50, creating even more work for law enforcement on both sides and an untold number of senseless tragedies which stir emotions and make this issue even harder to objectively address. At the end of the day, however, I am against letting these things convince us that, because these people aren't imminent threats, we should just bide our time and turn a blind eye until someone comes up with a compassionate AND effective solution.

In conclusion, I don't think such a solution exists. There will always be downsides and sacrifices. The goal should be deciding upon which downsides and sacrifices we're willing to live with, whether they come with amnesty or with increased (if not stricter or harsher) enforcement of current immigration laws. I tend to favor the latter, but unfortunately, I do not believe anyone has presented an effective way of better enforcing immigration laws with, as it is, acceptable and hopefully mitigated downsides and risks, etc. Until then, that is why this remains (IMO) a no-win scenario.

London Is Attacked Today, But CNN Is Obsessing On NON-EXISTING Evidence of Trump Collusion With Russia

Today, we've had a would-be Supreme Court Judge being grilled on Capitol Hill, as he should be, and yet another supposedly lone wolf terrorist attack with several fatalities and even more injuries perpetrated on Great Britain, our ally, and what is CNN doing? It's behaving like Fox by beating up on the ONE dumpy-looking Republican/Trump-supporter in every panel over the Russia scandal.

Yes, Russia's hacking of the DNC and any contact its government has had with Trump campaign and/or cabinet officials should be investigated IF they are people proven to have had significant influence on the campaign and/or Trump's overall agenda and form thereof (which is not Paul Manafort). That's just good, precautionary sense in my opinion. But contrary to the assertions of almost all of CNN's guests AND hosts, there is still no solid proof of Russia or Putin having played a serious, if any role in Trump's campaign or his actual election.

This started way back in the earliest of primary debates, when Trump made the idiotic mistake of complimenting Putin on his popularity and supposed success as a leader in Russia. Trump was already being treated like a joke, even by many Republicans, and one moderator, I think from CNN, actually opened a debate by asking point-blank if Trump, himself, thought he was a comic book villain! Naturally, it was construed as complimentary of Putin and his policies when it was meant to say that even potential enemies apparently have leaders more effectively representing their nation's interests than America's leaders have been representing America's. However, the way this thing about alleged collusion with Russia is being treated by networks and news outlets like CNN could prove every bit as harmful to the "integrity" of our democracy because - like Trump does, allegedly and ironically - it treats barely-incidental bits of information as fact while VINDICATING Trump by putting their bias on full display without there being one good thing to come of it. Suppose solid evidence were found and Trump was forced to leave office. Who takes his place? Traditionally, it's the VP or the Speaker of the House, and not only would both Pence and Ryan be motivated to continue pushing Trump's agenda, but because of his record as an evangelical and his stance on things like abortion, Pence is supposedly a bigger ideological threat to the left than Trump ever was! Even if Pence doesn't take Trump's place, what's to stop the same people that voted for Trump from electing someone just like him? By continuing to try to de-legitimize and/or oust Trump in this manner, they risk making him a political martyr and his "basket of deplorables" into victims of a political establishment that has just proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it doesn't give a damn about their votes unless its anointed person winds up in office.

I recall nobody on CNN or even Fox, for that matter, calling for an investigation into how or why Obama could suddenly negotiate with the Castros as leaders of a nation that probably wanted to help nuke us in the sixties and has a human rights record so bad that many of its people are STILL risking death in the Atlantic just to get to America. And yet, all the sudden, the interests of big business and Wall Street MATTERED to Obama and his liberals so long as it meant being buddies again with a former Communist enemy. Granted, the embargo on Cuba never amounted to significant changes in the way Castro's regime governed. Still, am I really to believe that America, as a whole, is going to benefit SO MUCH from restored economic ties with a tiny nation whose people still drive cars from the 1950's? And don't tell me Cuba's economic stagnation has been just because of the American embargo. What has been stopping China or even some other nation like North Korea (or Russia, for that matter, though it's technically not Communist anymore) from coming in and doing for their fellow Marxists what America wouldn't?

WHY OUSTING TRUMP COULD MAKE EVERYTHING WORSE

A Fox News report on allegedly serious contemplation of the ousting of President Trump by Democrat lawmakers per the 25th Amendment to the Constitution says of Democrat Congressman Earl Bluemenauer, "Blumenauer said a bipartisan panel of lawmakers and former presidents should determine if the current president is fit to serve." Not that I'd ever defend Trump or the ways in which he is executing his agenda, but... THIS IS BULL!

Assuming such a committee could even be formed, what would be their criteria? Anyone of a certain age that was born in the United States can run for president and, by extension, win! Such a LACK of criteria for candidates was probably necessary up until the late 19th and early 20th century when more of the country was agrarian and even lawyers like Lincoln were often self-educated because access to college/higher education was severely limited, but if anything, that's what should be re-evaluated first before any impeachment or coups if for no other reason than to take steps to hopefully avoid this happening AGAIN!

Maybe Trump is mentally and emotionally unstable. I don't like it any more than Blumenauer and many others, but depending upon your definition, we've had a number of "unstable" Presidents. Andrew Jackson was a murderer and most likely a racist - far more erratic than Trump - and Abraham Lincoln was a manic-depressive that contemplated suicide and frequently compared to baboons in newspaper cartoons as well as blamed in one way or another for Union losses and a Civil War that everyone thought would be over in a year, at most. And while not necessarily unstable, a number of the latter 19th century presidents seem to have been all but totally expendable, interchangeable, and probably corrupt, having gained power after arguably corrupted elections in which party bosses had way too much power. As far as Trump's tweeting and him not being presidential, well... for better or worse, this is just another in a growing list of examples of how and why the Democratic Party, in particular, and even according to some Democrats, themselves, fail to truly understand what drove the 2016 election and its outcome beyond and outside of the Russian hacks.

Had Trump been more presidential, it's likely he would have LOST the election if he were even nominated at all! The anti-incumbent sentiment among voters that I believe had almost as much to do with the rise of Berie Sanders as of Trump meant that pretty much any candidate whose personality and policy looked too familiar was deemed untrustworthy and, as they say, "part of the problem." I heard Trump supporters call in to radio shows and say, outright, that even they weren't sure that Trump would be able to do half of what he proposed, but were so frustrated not only with Democrats - who appeared to them (and to me, by the way) to care more about the environment and the interests of minority groups and the rest of the world than those of the American voter majority whose job it would ultimately be to elect them - but with moderate and incumbent Republicans that nothing made more sense than to go with someone and something totally different. At the time, the only candidate that met those admittedly dubious qualifications was and remains Donald J. Trump. Per his tweeting, I'm not a fan of that, either, but this goes to the voters' distrust of the majority of the mainstream media, particularly the news media on television and in print. Even in comparably apolitical surveys, overall approval ratings for "the media," in general, hovered at or below 50% for most or all of the election, and Blumenauer's jab about poor spelling and grammar are laughably hypocritical given how many, even in the professional world, send out thousands of poorly-written texts, tweets, and E-mails every day. Of most importance, though, is that past and present Trump supporters now see his Tweeting as an extension of his own personal disliking of the media (for whatever reasons, founded or unfounded) and, more importantly, as a fairly unprecedented but important way for the President to supposedly talk directly to those that voted for him as opposed to through the filter of any number of reporters and news agencies that actively and overtly hate him and even mounted efforts to topple his candidacy and discredit his win and present administration. Even if one can make the argument that Trump is just seeking perpetual adulation to feed his own perversely overblown self-image, the results and reactions are the same.

The bottom line for me is that too much of the reasoning behind sentiments and statements like Blumenauer's is still tied LESS to any direct or lasting impact of Trump and his policies on the nation, at large and to this point, and FAR MORE to lingering reactions people had to Trump's offensive campaign rhetoric and the combination of shock and disappointment on the part of those that never once believed he would win. Ousting President Trump in any way that does not come with formal, substantive legal charges and/or a clearly bi-partisan mandate from American voters would likely do more harm than good. Even if you're someone that genuinely believes that Russia was directly responsible for Trump's win (despite there having been more votes for Hillary, overall, anyway), Trump won by uncomfortably narrow margins, but still fairly based upon existing, tangible evidence and the way Presidential elections have been conducted for much of the nation's history. And again, up to now, all we've really had have been Trump's executive orders, and as we saw with a number President Obama's such as the one dealing with illegal immigration in, I think, 2013, such orders seem to rarely survive immediate legal or political scrutiny... intact if at all. We've already seen a potent example in the form of his first travel ban. Thus, to realize and implement substantial and lasting policy, Trump MUST work with the House and Senate on legislation that passes legal and Constitutional muster on a number of levels. 

If Trump were successfully ousted and American law and tradition were honored, VP Mike Pence would probably succeed him, and while he's definitely more "presidential," I've seen a number of liberals online admit that because of Pence's religious fundamentalism, his potential presidency scares or scared them more than Trump's. To avoid this, you could not stop with ousting Trump, himself. In whatever form or condition, Trump's entire administration would have to be ousted, including those that have different opinions because ultimately, Trump hates to be contradicted or overruled and whatever their stated differences of opinion, pretty much everyone that Trump has chosen to be part of his administration has said that they would advise Trump honestly, but respect and bend to his will and decisions. If Trump were succeeded by Pence, we would be faced with someone who - because he seems to have startlingly little real ambition or sophisticated policies of his own - would likely feel and be honor-bound to carry out Trump's agenda in his own way. Because he would come across as a softer, more tolerable presence that is easier to work with, odds are that he would actually be more successful than Trump at doing the same or similar things... becoming, essentially, a wolf in sheep's clothing for the very people that ousted Trump to begin with.

The worst possible consequence of an ousting, however, is the way in which it would probably embolden the alt-right and the "movement" that elected Trump in the first place. If these people are as many Democrats have characterized them, then they are already fundamentalists and fundamentally anti-government at their core as well as extremely well-armed. It's an unfortunate fact that a lot of them are more than willing and potentially able to launch a paramilitary "movement" with consequences that go beyond a lot of hurt feelings and cancelled visas. The only way to defeat Trump is to let Trump defeat himself. Arguably, Mitt Romney lost to Obama in 2012, in part, because the Republicans had blocked so much of what Obama wanted to do that, with the ACA still not in effect, they couldn't really point to a lot of examples of actual failed policy. More importantly and more realistically, I believe, allowing Trump to defeat himself with the help of the existing and LEGAL opposition on the Supreme Court and in the House and Senate might also go further towards defeating the movement that elected him by destroying the most important pretense upon which many cast their votes for Trump: The notion that Trump, more than any other politician, could "get things done."

Why Some Republicans Are And More Should Oppose and Check President Trump

Wouldn't it be ironic, given the controversies over General Flynn and Russia, etc., if Donald Trump's presidency wound up bringing Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate closer together in mutual cooperation on certain issues than they've been in a long time? And in opposition to Trump, himself, no less!

Even if you think Flynn is innocent or that there really was some sort of voter fraud, as Trump claims (sans conclusive evidence, as usual)... Even if you think, as I do knowing their joint-history since at least the 40's and 50's, that a majority of the print and electronic press and general media establishment is inherently liberal, how can anyone defend Trump as he either picks or continues these sorts of petty fights and squabbles in the face of a LOT of more important issues that he has not only promised to address, but which can only be effectively addressed, long term, with the cooperation of some of the very people with whom he continues to fight? Flynn has been gone for almost two days now and, legally, Trump won the very election that he is now saying was rigged, anyway! Even if Trump could somehow win these battles and sway most of the rest of the country to his side, though it seems highly unlikely right now, he's not going to be the President forever. In my opinion, he'll be lucky to make it four years. The point, though, is that these news outlets and a lot of these people in the press are going to be out there, doing their jobs, long after Trump is out of the White House and maybe even after his life on Earth has ended. And lest anyone think that Trump's call is for more fairness in the press, in general... IT ISN'T! Most if not all of the time, what Trump is demanding is more fairness towards HIM and HIS people - neither in general or even towards his own party (for now), the Republican Party.

I'm a Republican. In my personal life and the way I believe I should live, I'm very conservative - even more than I let on nowadays much of the time. Superficially, at least, or just in general, I share or agree with most if not all of Trump's political desires and goals whether I agree with the way he goes about addressing and accomplishing them or not (up to now). However, to those that still support and/or like Trump, exactly what do you think he stands to accomplish in all of this except, maybe, to undermine and handicap his own administration and agenda and, worse, to seriously threaten or even destroy what little is left of the USA's supposedly free and objective press (because so many outlets are run by for-profit companies with commercial and political agendas of their own or of their leaders)? For crying out loud, there are even people on Fox News now that are coming about as close as I've ever heard them come to questioning or seriously criticizing a Republican President in the way they talk sometimes about Donald Trump and his administration... if "administration" is even the right word for what Trump has up there.

And by the way, for those that dislike Trump even more than I do, here's another battle that I think should be fought: The fact that at least three, maybe four or more MAJOR news anchors as well as commentators on Fox News have long-standing and openly personal relationships with President Trump going back to before the campaign. While Bill O'Reilly at least tries a little nowadays to be fair and appropriately critical (whether he succeeds or not), Sean Hannity, in particular, has had what seem to be frequent, one-on-one interviews with Trump going back long before election day and continuing now. Since Trump started gaining serious momentum in the primaries, Hannity and others suddenly started talking like Trump and using terms like "the establishment," even in regards to fellow Republicans, that they had rarely if ever used before on a regular basis. So what's my problem with this?

My problem is that it seems to not only represent bias and favoritism, but unusual and (as far as I know) unrivaled ACCESS to the President of the United States and, by extension, a significant outlet to be used by this highly controversial president to promote and spin his agenda and actions in a way that I can't recall being the case for Obama or G.W. Bush or any other President, at least in my lifetime! It's particularly concerning given the fact that this President clearly hates and openly antagonizes pretty much every other news and media outlet to one degree or another - which, I think, only feeds and even VALIDATES both the press' anti-Trump and/or anti-conservative bias as well as what, to this degree, is Trump's anti-press or "fake news" paranoia. Even if much of the press adored President Obama and treated him and his administration with kid gloves sometimes or even most of the time, I don't recall Obama appearing as often in such a short span of time on only ONE news network or with only only one or two, maybe three anchors and/or interviewers.

The relationship that Trump seems to have with Fox, in particular, scares me in that it reminds me of the Third Reich, which many reference without much if any mention of the fact that it came to be solely led by a former art student who, for whatever nefarious purposes, personally designed the most commonly referenced red, white, and black Nazi flag as well as demonstrated and basically pioneered new, arguably unseen levels of national/military pageantry and propaganda since, to my knowledge, at least the heyday of the imperial Roman Empire. As I understand it, in Fascism and Nazism, otherwise privately owned and, for the most part, privately operated companies were nevertheless required to work for and on behalf of the State with, at times, State assistance. That Trump doesn't actually own or run Fox News, personally, is the only silver lining that I can see, but he surely knows Rupert Murdoch and, for all we know, probably has or did have stock in Fox's parent company.

Now, maybe - just maybe - I am or will ultimately be proven wrong about some or even all of this, particularly when it comes to Fox and Trump's relationship and/or fight with the press. I sincerely hope that I am... or will be. At the end of the day, though, what disturbs me even more than all of this is the fact that it is actually what a lot of people voted for. This, very likely, is making Trump's more loyal supporters during the campaign VERY happy because, in their twisted and overly simplistic world view and sense of priorities, turning the tables and getting some kind of petty revenge upon the liberal media and anyone in government that disappointed or now opposes them or their ideas and agenda is at least as or more important than just about anything else right now - on par, I think, with their desire for more jobs and national security.

A lot of people seem to want to just impeach or oust Donald Trump from the White House and even think that something like that could be done, but even if that last part were true (whatever the odds of it actually happening), it would not be an effective solution and might actually make things worse. Why? Because given the fact that we do not decide national elections by popular vote - likely to ensure that hundreds of thousands or more votes in more rural, less populated areas are not wasted by what would be a candidate's ability to win with just a small handful of the largest and most densely populated states and districts - it would not only enrage, but arguably validate the rage of the sorts of people that voted for Trump who would then be able to come back and say that they were or have been singularly disrespected and shut-out of the American political process despite their ability to lawfully, if narrowly, elect someone like Trump to high office. Only if Trump's mistakes, now and in the future, are and appear to be his and his, alone - only if something like that serves to disappoint or change the minds of his supporters, perhaps discrediting their underlying ideology and/or version of what I believe to be FAKE Republican conservatism in the process - would such an ousting and change likely be more meaningful and lasting.

Believe me when I say, again, that I would rather be wrong and see Trump and his people do an about-face, get their acts together, and become more reasonable and mature in their pursuit of what I still think is or could be a basically sound and valuable agenda. Unless or until that happens, however, I stand my ground, not as a traitor to my Republican Party, but as a partisan patriot that wishes with all my heart to have it preserved as it officially came into being and into legitimacy with Lincoln in 1860 and as it was in the seventies and eighties and could be yet again.