ANALYSIS: Could CAPTAIN MARVEL Be Doomed By Its Own Sense Of Social and Political Responsibility?

The headline for Peter Travers' review of the latest female-led superhero movie CAPTAIN MARVEL in Rolling Stone reads, "‘Captain Marvel’ Review: Brie Larson Takes on Cosmic Villains, Sexist Trolls — and Wins" Right away, the declaration of victory is ridiculously premature as the movie hasn't even completed its first weekend in theaters (I saw it last night and the theater wasn't even half-full). Travers follows up the headline with the review-opener, "As the first first woman-led superhero epic from the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Captain Marvel touches down at the multiplex with a lot of sexist monkeys on its back," then pulls what he might refer to as a Trump-ism by reminding us that the review site Rotten Tomatoes had to, "...ban trolls... who were hellbent on review-bombing the movie before it even opened."

Besides the fact that they would be fraudulent, anyway, Rotten Tomatoes never allowed actual reviews from audiences before a movie opens and instead disabled the "Want To See" rating, a feature gauging viewer interest in seeing movies at all. While my opinion is that CAPTAIN MARVEL is neither great, nor as bad, boring, or sanctimoniously preachy as the hype has made many believe going in, Travers' review - like the fact that this movie exists at all in the form that it does - is entirely political and politically driven. He gives 4 out of 5 stars to the movie despite having a current average rating of 79% from critics and an abysmal 41% approval rating from audiences that have seen it last night and today - the source of this being none other than ROTTEN TOMATOES!(https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/captain_marvel)

Here are some non-partisan facts from the most reliable sources I know of online illustrating just how shamelessly political and politically biased this entire situation really is: One of the least known of the publisher's superhero characters despite sharing the publisher's name, this Captain Marvel debuted in comics in 1967 as an alien male called Mar-Vell with the human alias Dr. Walter Lawson (changed to "Wendy Lawson" in the movie) and was frequently confused with Shazam, which went by the name Captain Marvel in DC Comics for 20+ years prior. Mar-Vell was more or less replaced in the title by the female African American character Monica Rambeau in 1982. Carol Danvers, the version played by Oscar Winner Brie Larson, has been around since 1968, but didn't inherit the title of Captain Marvel in comics until 2012, when the Marvel Cinematic Universe of which her movie is supposedly such an important part had already been around 4 years and was releasing the first AVENGERS film. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Marvel_(Marvel_Comics)#Carol_Danvers)

Larson's casting was always met with skepticism for other reasons, but the most recent controversy stems from remarks she made alluding to her desire to have fewer white male journalists as part of the press junket for CAPTAIN MARVEL, which had already been declared by the studio and its two directors as being a partly "feminist" movie. Combined with her insistence that she didn't need 40 year-old white men telling her the problems with the movie A WRINKLE IN TIME because it wasn't "made for them," her wording was construed as representing a grudge against white males, in general, despite the fact that she had already denied it. 

The most current and otherwise laudable efforts to diversify movies goes back at least to 2015, particularly when it comes to action, science fiction, superhero, and other traditionally male-oriented genres. Since the 2016 election of President Trump, however, a sort of convenient amnesia has had celebrities and media pundits alike pretending or at least sounding as if they believe that women have been totally missing from such films despite decades of female-led movies and franchises such as SUPERGIRL, ALIEN(S), TOMB RAIDER, RESIDENT EVIL, and UNDERWORLD, and the most recent WONDER WOMAN - not to mention starring turns by actresses like Jamie Lee Curtis and Zoe Saldana in horror, action, and science ficton movies like HALLOWEEN, TRUE LIES, AVATAR, STAR TREK, and GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY. I believe it's worth mentioning that if the making of CAPTAIN MARVEL and the choice to feature a female version of that character was politically and socially motivated, the version that would have best filled their bill in terms of all-around representation would have been the Monica Rambeau version of Captain Marvel. Instead, this supposedly feminist movie that embraces diversity and equality depicts Monica as a young teenager that idolizes a superhero who is so white, blonde, smart, and physically attractive that she could easily be featured prominently on a propaganda poster for the Third Reich's campaign for procreation and purity within the Aryan race.


While there have been some that have unfairly twisted Larson's words and milked this partly manufactured controversy for all it's worth, particularly online, the underlying frustration was not only real, but mostly justified and rooted in far more than just frustration with political agendas being more frequently and overtly inserted into escapist entertainment. Despite being hyped as a prequel about the "origins" of the last ten years of interconnected Marvel superhero movies, with what Producer Kevin Feige has described as the most powerful of their heroes yet, the trailers had never been met with much enthusiasm for this movie, which - again - is trying to capitalize heavily on a fairly new and/or obscure superhero character. This is culturally significant because a LOT of people have been heavily invested in what are called the first 3 phases of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which have unfurled over the last 11 years and is being brought to a rousing conclusion by last year's AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR and this year's AVENGERS: ENDGAME, which will feature Captain Marvel, herself, with the other Avengers. The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), itself, is significant as both an unprecedentedly successful gamble within the movie business as well as the sort of loosely, yet cleverly interwoven series of solo and ensemble superhero movies that had never been achieved before. Though the franchise can easily withstand the blow, the failure of CAPTAIN MARVEL to at least be profitable would come at a terrible time and be a blow compounded in its signficicance and severity by the fact that it would be undeniably rooted in what can only be described as the arrogance of Marvel Studios to suddenly start taking a side in any currently hot political debate, particularly one surrounding social issues.

Yesterday, I saw anchors and pundits on CNN describing Fox News as essentially doing the bidding of the state because of its inherently conservative, right-wing stance and frequent support of President Trump and rumors that it will not air Democrat primary debates in the 2020 election. No matter which side one is on or how obvious Fox News' right-wing bias is, it should be equally obvious how hypocritical such statements are coming from one in a sea of news outlets and TV networks that, for about as long as TV news has existed, either perpetuated some pretense of political neutrality or becomen increasingly favorable to Democrat and left-wing politicians. And yet, having tragically tainted the CAPTAIN MARVEL movie and arguably the MCU as a monumentally successful and beloved part of our entertainment history, this is just a small part of the unfortunate, fear and jealousy driven phenomenon in America rooted in people's hatred of President Trump, particularly in its mainstream media right. Regardless of whether or not any of the underlying hatred and distrust of Trump is valid or earned, it has embittered a lot of otherwise good people and twisted their long-standing quests for fairness and equality into angry and desperate attempts to supposedly fight hatred and exclusivity with entitlement. Worse, that entitlement has morphed into another form of hatred and exclusivity that is said to be justified by history and by Donald Trump's allegedly sexist and bigoted presidency. 

Though I did not vote for Trump, I don't hide the fact that I am decidedly right-leaning in my politics. While I am NOT immune to personal bias, though, I do at least try to acknowledge that fact and deal with it appropriately and with an honest attempt to at least see and represent both sides even if I'm unable to represent them both with equal vigor and accuracy. The bottom line, however, is that NONE of this should be tied to the CAPTAIN MARVEL movie at all! There's nothing particularly new about heroic female leads in movies just as there is nothing new about Captain Marvel him or herself. Regardless of the underlying cause or its validity, anger and hatred ultimately blinds everyone, and what the hatred of Trump and the modern Republican Party has done to people like Larson and others in the media is blind them to the fact that at this point, and at this level, it won't be Trump and the Republicans that suffer the most at the end of the day. Instead, it will be people like the audience for movies like CAPTAIN MARVEL, regardless of their political leanings, who are expressing genuine frustration in greater numbers over the fact that the entertainment they go to for escape is being infiltrated and infected by the same real world nonsense and hostility that they use it as an escape FROM! That is what was reflected in Rotten Tomatoes' "Want To See" rating and that's what is currently being reflected in the currently and almost abysmally low 41% audience approval rating for CAPTAIN MARVEL.

Unfortunately, members of the media's self-righteous Trump Resistance and alleged social justice warriors such as Rolling Stone's Peter Travers are too blind to see it. As a result, they are effectively guilty of doing precisely what they accuse President Trump of doing all the time in things like Travers' review: SPREADING LIES, HALF-TRUTHS, AND OVER SIMPLIFICATIONS.

The Danger In Today's Excessive Focus On Representing Women & Racial Minorities In Entertainment To Build Self Esteem

I watch a lot of entertainment and entertainment industry video blogs nowadays, and I've been wondering if it may be possible to get at least one report in which someone isn't either praised or chastised for their decisions based solely on how many or few female and non-white characters and talent are created and hiredhired. I'm not opposed to diversity in and of itself, but the intensity of this whole issue of representation, if not the actual issue, is getting a bit ridiculous and looks like it could easily backfire and cause even more of the dreaded "divisiveness" everyone talks about... Because I guess it's a tragedy when people disagree nowadays, but I digress. Maybe nobody cares because I'm still a white male, but I've lived all of my life so far with noticeable joint dislocations and deformities as well as a tracheotomy in my neck (though I've met brave souls enduring far worse things), yet not once while growing up or for a majority of my adulthood did I ever think something like, "You know, I might have more self esteem and more easily relate to and empathize with these characters if they looked more and were visibly disabled or handicapped like me... especially the humans and aliens with superpowers that actually don't fully or accurately represent ANYONE on this Earth and in this reality."

Blatant discrimination is one thing and should NEVER be tolerated when and where it obviously exists.  Though not yet in the form of enforceable law, however, this subversive trend of what I can only describe for now as artistic and creative affirmative action is not only imposing and restrictive to and of creators, but I think that - in the case of young people, particularly - it's teaching them to tie too much of their self esteem and how much they may have to something that is otherwise of superficial value and is not only out of their control, but often presenting unrealistic representations, anyway! Furthermore, it risks making representation in Hollywood movies and television shows an unofficial replacement or substitute for the more meaningful and valuable love and encouragement that builds self esteem that is not so vulnerable to outside forces... Not unlike the way that television and video games have been alleged to have replaced parents and/or babysitters just to keep kids occupied and relatively quiet and safe. It's too easy and maybe even manipulative to come back and say something like, "But too many kids in minority, non-white communities lack that kind of support by no fault of their own because of poverty and broken families and communitiescommunities." Yet, even if true for now, simply accepting this and even exploiting it as a perpetually divisive political weapon instead of offering more encouragement as well as possible incentive and accountability is, I think, devious as well as hypocritical.

Wonder Woman was created to be something of a feminist icon and, given the times surrounding the character's creation, it's understandable how even her fictitious existence might have inspired great confidence and even some much needed social change. The same could be said for great characters like Black Panther and the John Stewart Green Lantern. In today's world, however, diversity, tolerance, and equality of rights is not only encouraged, but mandated by law while ideas and the promotion of multiculturalism and globalism are (as far as I know) even baked into a good deal of at least public school curriculums from start to finish. Thus, when I read that the existence and emphasis upon fictional characters like the immortal goddess Wonder Woman, who is raised on a hidden island of only women, and a lot of the more powerful and extraterrestrial characters in the STAR WARS universe are so socially important, I worry that the goal is no longer EQUAL treatment, but perhaps what some seem to believe is and see as a statistically and historically justified policy of special treatment and even privilege. If so, then how is that NOT ultimately divisive and even just a little vindictive? It's as if the underlying problem has become more valuable to certain groups than a solution that truly, literally levels the proverbial playing ground even while the latter is still what is most often, yet perhaps disingenuously called for and demanded.

Timing And Treatment of Kavenaugh Accusations Purely Political - Liberals Should Be Concerned About Precedents Potentially Set By This & Me-Too Movement

Even if everything that Professor Ford has said about current SCOTUS candidate Judge Brett Kavenaugh is true about what he supposedly did to her and even about his alleged preference for female employees/assistants, etc. looking a certain way, should it really be enough to derail the confirmation of a guy who's been vetted over and over and over again for other jobs as a judge? And, to be fair, Kavenaugh didn't nominate himself and he certainly didn't declare Donald Trump President... and yet, that's what this is really about to a large degree.  It's punishing Judge Brett Kavenaugh for the election and the misdeeds of President Donald J. Trump and anyone unfortunate enough to be declared guilty by association just because they happen to work in his cabinet or something. For the record, though, I'd like to think this would be my stance if the nominee were that of a Democrat President's because none of this seems fair.

Even if you accept that it occurred and that there are sound psychological reasons behind Ms. Ford's delay in talking about it publicly or otherwise, there's still the fact that - as far as I know - Diane Feinstein and maybe some others have been sitting on this since July, which I think should have been more than enough time to not only bring it up, but investigate it as much as is possible... which, at best, is only going to result in an even bigger he-said/she-said scenario because it's not as if there's a rape kit to process or fresh wounds to photograph. Also, this supposedly happened when BOTH of these people were teenagers. Never mind that teenagers do dumb things all the time, especially when it comes to exploring their sexuality - regardless of whether or not the actual acts are more or less harmful. Hypothetically speaking, could Kavenaugh be prosecuted as an adult for something he did as a teenager? And if so, is that what we've been reduced to? Prosecuting SUCCESSFUL and probably MODERATELY WEALTHY, MIDDLE-AGED WHITE MEN - like pretty much all but one of the men that have been publicly taken down since the Me-Too Movement began... because I guess younger, more attractive, less wealthy men with jobs in the spotlight never do anything wrong unless their name happens to be Brett Kavenaugh - with or, as seems to be the case more often than not, WITHOUT proof or even the existence of it in some cases?

This isn't feminism or fairness or equality. This is entitlement of the worst kind, and it could potentially set a terrible legal precedent in which a member of one sex can accuse someone of the opposite sex of everything from sexual assault to "inappropriate behavior," under any circumstances and at any time, and not only see the accused lose their livelihoods and their reputations, but possibly their freedoms and status as an officially innocent and law-abiding member of society. In other words, it's saying that because women have supposedly been so oppressed and mistreated by men in the workplace for so long, a court of law should now elevate THEIR words and reputations over men's on the basis of gender not only believing any and all accusations of sexual misconduct against any and all men, but essentially being willing to prosecute and punish them without what would otherwise be considered sufficient or credible evidence and/or corroborating testimony. If people think this is going to improve male-female relationships in the workplace, theyr'e liable to be in for a rude awakening.

As for Kavenaugh, I don't believe for a second that this is about anything other than politics. Again, even if it happened as Ford claims and it's understandable that she didn't speak about it immediately, the fact that she not only waited over 35 years, but chose to speak up when Kavenaugh just happened to not only be a nominee for a position on the Supreme Court, but THE nominee that could decidedly tip the court to the political right for DECADES to come, is far more compelling than any commentator's psychobabble on the Chris Cuomo Show. If it weren't for Trump's horrendous personal history, I don't think the Republicans would even be allowing a hearing on this, and the fact that someone like Finestein sat on this for so long suggests to me that even most Democrats - whether they believe Ford or not - do not believe this is great ammo to use against Judge Kavenaugh.  In any case, it's hypocrisy of the highest order.  Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Bill Clinton... all Democrat Presidents AND philandering womanizers.  Ted Kennedy left a woman to die at the bottom of a lake or some other body of water after crashing the car they were in and wound up becoming the Lion of the Senate! When Democrats are in power or accused, this kind of thing is unfortunate, but ultimately irrelevant - the fodder of right-wing conspirators like the kind Hillary spoke of during the Ken Starr investigation.  In some instances, it's even turned out to be construed as almost endearing! When it's happening on the Republican side, though, it's more apocalyptic evidence of the male dominated society's "systematic" oppression of women everywhere.

Frankly, I don't want perfect judges that have never made mistakes and neither should anyone else. Why? Because they would probably be more inclined to see things as black and white. Of all people, liberal progressives - who have supposedly always defended the rights of the accused - should understand and take this into at least some consideration.

Today's Panicky Fight Over Instances Of Alleged "Hate","Bigotry," And "Fascism" In Trump's America Is Becoming Almost As Dangerous As Its Target(s)

I'm just going to dive right into the pool of hypocrisy here and say that I'm tired of hearing people complain about "hate" and "divisiveness."

On a recent segment, CNN's Chris Cuomo got mad at Hispanic conservative Chris Cortes because Cortes accused him of defending Antifa in an earlier episode. Cuomo snidely denied it and accused the guy of not reading what Cuomo actually said, which - according to Cuomo - was simply that some violence is morally justified if it is against hatred and bigotry. "...In the eyes of good and evil," Cumo said on the earlier show, "here’s the argument: ...when someone comes to call out bigots and it gets hot, even physical, are they equally wrong as the bigot they are fighting? I argue, no. Fighting against hate matters.” Later in the segment and then on Twitter, he cited World War 2 and violent episodes in the Civil Rights Movement as examples of morally justified violence against hatred, even going so far as to Tweet a photo of the Normandy landing with the caption, "Anti-Fascists disrupting a large gathering of white supremacists."

Actually, the second world war and America's role, in particular, was more about defending sovereign nations from invasion by a common enemy than it was fighting white supremacy, and the gathering of Nazis where the landing took place wasn't large enough because the Allies had tricked them into believing the landing would take place somewhere else.  At any rate, so what if he didn't say the word Antifa while defending violence against bigots? He didn't have to because the whole thing was in the context of him expressing his opinion on a matter concerning... ANTIFA! The whole monologue was commentary on and/or spurred by a story about a gathering which Cuomo described as, "peppered in a crowd were members of Antifa, or Anti-Fascists..." In that context, if he's not defending Antifa, then who is he defending? Because I don't recall the names of any other groups that fight hatred and bigotry relevant to his segment.

Now, I'm not sure I totally disagree with Cuomo. Antifa often seems to incite its own violent episodes, but for better or worse, violence has long been an effective agent of good and necessary change in human history at both a national and local level. One could make the argument that the American Revolution was first incited by localized violence. What I disagree with is comparing what's going on today with the landing at Normandy or the Civil Rights Movement.

The Nazis VIOLENTLY invaded their neighbors in the name of Lebensraum and, eventually, enacted a very obvious and very horrendous plan to exterminate as many Jews and other undesirables (to the Nazis) as they could. At the height of the Civil Rights Movement, police were hosing down and beating black people simply for standing around where they weren't welcome. You could turn a corner in an otherwise nice little neighborhood and see a black man with a broken neck hanging from a tree. Children were being burned to death in church fires by white men that may or may not even stand trial and were just as likely to be exonerated by a "jury of their peers" because their peers were white. THAT is hate. THAT is justification for violence, in spite of another fact that Cuomo neglected to mention, which is that Martin Luther King - arguably the most celebrated and effective Civil Rights leader in American history - followed the example of Ghandi and others and insisted that there be NO  VIOLENCE in his marches and protests... even when it drew the ire of other civil rights groups and leaders like Malcolm X.

What we have today started as and, for the most part, still is a war of words that gets out of hand because at least TWO generations of people currently alive seem to equate hurt feelings with real, 100% unadulterated hate. Now, does that mean people should go around yelling racial epithets and other hateful slurs, etc? ABSOLUTELY NOT! But the European Jews in World War 2 and the blacks in 1960's Detroit, Birmingham, Chicago, and other cities across America were literally dreaming of a day in which the only things they had to put up with 99% of the time were the words of a few idiots and, yes, bigots, because humans are imperfect and will probably never fully purge some form of discrimination and hatred from their psyches. People like Cuomo and the Antifa punks think they're standing up for people's rights and nobly fighting to keep REAL Fascism from once again gaining a foothold, but by complaining so much about "divisiveness" and equating the Allies' fight at Normandy against the army of the violently racist Nazi Germanny with Antifa punks' attack on people in the street because they happen to be Republicans or Trump supporters is every bit as dangerous to our civil liberties as anything that President Trump and his supporters has said or ever will say outside of stated and enacted policy. Why?

Because it's setting a pattern AND PRECEDENT in which certain members of our society cannot say certain things or otherwise disagree with certain other members of our society without being guilty of "racism" and "hate," which - in some instances - the law already recognizes as criminal. In America, laws are meant to be made and unmade based upon the demands of the people. If enough people have decided that something should be illegal, then it becomes possible for government to make it so. That's why lobbyists exist. At this rate, within the next decade, people will or won't be allowed to say certain things to certain people based on things like their race and income while others will be forcefully protected and defended for the same reason. There are mild forms of this already on the books. THAT IS NOT EQUALITY. AT ALL.

And while I will always criticize Trump and others for dividing the GOP as a party into quarreling factions and bemoan the fact that members of different political parties no longer even have the same fundamental goals, the current complaints about divisiveness - which now come from both sides - are equally petty and dangerously myopic. We are a democratic republic. Being democratic means we can CHOOSE who we want to lead and how we want to be led, but if our choices are not sufficiently distinct and representative of people with distinctly different ideas and viewpoints, then why bother? If what I want is jelly and someone comes up and says, "Good news! You can choose between creamy and crunchy peanut butter," what's the point in giving me the choice? EITHER WAY, I'M EATING PEANUT BUTTER!

I was under the impression that we're supposed to value diversity, but there's no diversity in a group of weak-kneed sycophants that panic and compare others to Nazis and warmongers any time someone disagrees with them on a topic of some personal importance. There's no equality OR tolerance in a society in which distasteful, yet otherwise innocuous and incidental behavior is moderated, restricted, and punished by law based upon things like the race and income of the supposedly guilty parties and whether or not the behavior is directed at people of a different race and income level. And yet, that's where we're headed. I'm not defending a single thing that President Trump has said or done to date just by saying that the reaction to him and his mistakes and occasional idiocy have become or are quickly becoming every bit as consequential BECAUSE instead of it just being the acts and words of one man, no matter how powerful or how many he represents, it's the acts and words of the national community... the "mob," if you will... that ultimately has and was always meant to have the most power at the end of every day here in America.

Dear Fellow Republicans, Trump Supporters, And Patriots On Both Sides,

I'm a fairly loyal Republican, but if the president's assertion, "Mission accomplished," means that nothing was accomplished except to make Russia and Iran angrier and maybe set the next chemical weapons attack back, say... a few weeks, then sadly, I agree. Mission accomplished... I get why the attack wasn't more comprehensive and didn't hit specifically Russian or Iranian targets in the region (assuming there are any worth hitting), and if nothing else, Syria is of interest to the U.S. because it borders Israel, our most reliable Middle Eastern ally. However, Israel is no pushover and, as we've actually seen recently, is pretty capable of defending itself as it has more or less been fending off its more aggressive Muslim neighbors for decades - both with and without help. Furthermore, based on what I and most of us armchair pundits THINK we know, nothing is likely to change for the better in Syria or with Russian and Iranian relations short of a total Syrian regime change, which Obama officially helped make all but impossible short of Assad's death and which we probably can't seriously initiate now without blatantly breaking international law (and our own, probably), risking yet another violent and - this time - more globally consequential war.

Of even greater concern is this action's potential effects on our situation with North Korea, with whose own murderous dictator I think Trump too quickly agreed to meet next month. Shortly after that acceptance, Kim Jong Un made an unexpected trip (and very rare for Kim) to China to meet with its General Secretary and President Xi Jinping, whose limited cooperation in putting pressure on North Korea over its nuclear weapons program was then arguably put into jeopardy by Trump's ill timed and uneven application of trade tariffs. China, by the way, is not only a neighbor bordering Russia (and a pretty powerful one, too), but one that is known to vote with and/or in solidarity with Russia. While Russia's military might may be a little exaggerated, as I've heard some say, a military partnership with China would be greatly significant and not unexpected if keeps acting so provocatively without a solid, long term plan. Given his direct involvement in its planning and care taken to limit or avoid collateral damage and civilian casualties, I even find it difficult to believe that a man of General Mattis' experience and reputation would've even agreed to do this if SOME kind of response wasn't warranted and if he thought he could get Trump to wait or consider an alternative. Like all the others, I'd bet good money, if I had it, that the year won't be much more than half over before we hear something like this along with rumors that Mattis plans to leave... just like all the rest.

A few minutes ago, I watched a report on Barbara Bush, who appears to be dying even though that wasn't specifically said, and it reminded me of the raw deal that Former President George H.W. Bush got in 1992 for cooperating with the U.N. and, in that case, wisely choosing not to try to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein - later done by his son and, in hindsight, at great long term cost, which too few of us predicted at the time... myself included. Many say that Trump's election and policies are a threat to our democracy, but I disagree. If anything, it's a symptom of the REAL threat, which I think started growing slowly after Vietnam and matured suddenly as of 9/11. That threat is US - the voters - and the stance most of us have taken on both sides of the aisle from which we are demanding purer and purer versions of our parties' general policies and refusing to accept imperfect, yet comparably solid solutions to problems and issues simply because they may come from the other side. The Affordable Care Act is a mistake that was all but totally unsustainable unless the Democrats stayed in charge of at least one branch of government after Obama and could influence more states with regards to their Medicare and Medicaid programs. Neither side wanted it except as a potential political tool that Republicans could fight with and Democrats could use as leverage and credibility if it failed to finally force through socialized medicine as the only option left. However, it was based on an idea by the conservative Heritage Foundation and probably not the total disaster it was described as on the campaign trails. It could have easily and more successfully been fixed or modified... even with minimal Democrat participation and approval... but that's not what our party promised voters, and so, in the end, its "repeal and replace" wound up being a massive embarrassment. All that was accomplished was the repeal of the mandate forcing people to buy insurance or pay a "tax" that would, unless I'm too much mistaken, conceivably go towards some of the government subsidies of still private insurers on the exchange. Now, if too much of the ACA stays in place without suitable funding, the situation could actually get worse without.

It may seem like I'm inadvertently slamming political competition and therefore contradicting myself, but when competitions such as our elections really depend as much or more on how many vote in what places as on the way those people vote, the integrity of that competition is in trouble. Just as Democrats probably did when pushing the ACA through unilaterally, too few of us on the right thought about those potential consequences. Instead of putting more thought into them and taking some responsibility for the potential impacts of our goals and how we try to accomplish them, we ALL are way too beholden to our parties and increasingly simplistic and inflexible ideologies. If (on both sides) we're not instinctively making too many broad demands of and blaming government for failing to give us what we want while we're lazily "waiting on the world to change," we're taking more and more of our frustrations out on our parties' more knowledgeable and experienced incumbents and replacing them with dogmatic and BLINDLY patriotic morons who probably can't even spell the word compromise, let alone fathom why - without it - our democracy is USELESS.  But as often as Democrats and Republicans, alike, claim to love America and superficially strengthen their arguments by trying to claim that the other side's agenda immediately puts democracy, itself, at stake, we voters are hacking away at it faster than anyone else could with our own extremism. We may as well choose which side we want our new benign American dictatorship to come from now because, judging by the behavior and rhetoric I too often see from others and have occasionally been guilty of, myself, all we ever do is vote the same way for the same things, over and over. Instead of acknowledge all the changes around us and look for ways to adapt, we look for people to blame for that change while looking for others we think can put things back the way they were.

Politics is like history. It's cyclical, so something like this has happened before. Unlike something like the formation of the Bull Moose Party, for example, I think it's been a longer time coming, the specifics are different, it seems to be succeeding, and with social media comes what seems like its never-ending perpetuation because absolutely NOBODY can truly be silenced or denied a larger-than-ever bullhorn. The reason Trump is a consequence of this is that, like the popularity of Bernie Sanders, in some ways (some of whose Midwestern supporters voted for Trump), his election represents the fact that having felt let down by our own parties, we're just doubling down and turning to more extreme candidates offering more extreme and less nuanced versions of the same general "solutions" we expect our parties to offer and implement in reaction to each and every issue. It didn't even matter in 2016 that, if you really listened to Trump, he wasn't and still isn't all that conservative. Ultra-liberal Elizabeth Warren, herself, got on Fox News recently to PRAISE Trump's tariffs and say only that they didn't go far enough and were not evenly applied. Even where Trump seems to be ultra-conservative on issues like immigration and deregulation, it doesn't seem to have dawned on anyone that - because he prides himself on being a deal maker - Trump may ultimately care more about bringing home "a deal" than whether it's really what he promised everyone, which certainly seems to be the case with this latest budget agreement. This is also relevant to my opinion that, were he not so egotistical, he'd realize that while the press IS biased and waging an unusually intense war on him, personally as well as politically, it's not one he can truly win. His reactions only fan the flames and his expectations of holding them more accountable are every bit as or more unconstitutional as any new gun regulation.

What mattered then and seems to matter most even now to Trump's base (which, in some cases, don't even call themselves Republicans anymore) is that he's a tough businessman with no prior political experience, so to them, that equates to near-total transparency when it comes to his intent, a different way of taking action because he's supposedly not bound to the Beltway's rules, and an all-but-ironclad guarantee that he will, in fact, DO something. Shortly before the election, I listened to a few supporters on the radio admit that while they had no idea if Trump would really succeed as a president or accomplish what he claimed, they were voting for him, anyway, largely based upon the fact that he wasn't the sort of entrenched "politician" that had talked down to them for years while never making anything significantly better AND wasn't afraid to say that, as President, he would represent the interests of America and of those that voted for him first and foremost. I became concerned because Trump's platform didn't really seem to go deeper or feature more than the broad strokes of a nationalist conservative agenda - a concern that I think the GOP's failure under Trump to repeal and replace, among other things, has since validated. Yet as far as I can tell, not only does it NOT matter to most of Trump's ardent supporters, but they are now prone to labeling anyone to whom it does matter a traitorous, intellectual "elitist," "RINO," or - most bizarrely - a "swamp" creature. 

As I see it, the bottom line is just that we're wasting a lot of time and money trying to discover and prevent further Russian "meddling" in our elections on behalf of our democracy because, in the end, I think we will have issued the final coup de gras all by ourselves!

Why Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions' & DOJ's Lawsuit Against California Over Sanctuary Cities Is Potentially DISASTROUS

Well, hell... Pardon my French, but apparently, Attorney General Jeff Sessions had a nightmare that convinced him that he had to, you know... DO his job as attorney general... and what does he start with? Suing California over sanctuary cities.

Now, I'm going to be very clear in saying that I want more secure borders and that there should be at least some consequences for California and the mayors and other officials therein which have not only sheltered undocumented and illegal immigrants, but warned those guilty of crimes when the feds were about to come after them and legally threatened employers with punishment should they cooperate in any way with the federal government under the Trump administration's efforts to detain and deport illegal immigrants, even those that have committed other crimes. With that said, I think those consequences should be doled out very carefully and only on a case-by-case basis .I disagree with what I'm hearing from pundits at Fox News in that I think this has the potential to turn into both a political and economic disaster, and here's why.

1. Whatever one's opinions on the matter, illegal immigration is not America's most pressing problem right now. At the very least, there other equally or more important matters on which the government could more effectively successfully act. As important an issue as immigration is or will be in the near future, it is one that needs comprehensive reform - bipartisan cooperation in the passing of legislation, not a lawsuit pitting the federal government against one of its biggest states and the fifth-largest-economy in the world. Even with gangs like MS13 and the shootings at the border that keep getting referenced, these problems are arguably as or more relevant to issues like gun and drug trafficking as to immigration, and as for the immigrants, themselves - on the whole - I just don't they present enough of a clear and urgent threat to warrant what Sessions is doing. At the very least, I don't think the GOP is going to be as successful at presenting them as great threats as it thinks it will and, in my opinion, should not be gambling in this way.

2. Again, California is the third largest state in the union with a massive economic footprint and has actually been threatening and/or asking to secede from the U.S. since before Donald Trump ever decided to run for office. Right or wrong, we've also long-since seen proof that judges and other state and court officials can successfully turn their activism into enforceable law regardless of the stances and desires of the Federal government. Besides the resources this state could bring to bear to fight the feds all on its own, it has a number of other, sometimes comparably wealthy and powerful states such as Illinois and New York that have stood in solidarity with each other on this issue - galvanized in large part, I think, by their mutual hatred of Trump and everything for which they believe he and his election stands. Were they to come to California's aid, I think Governor Brown is right when he says that it could potentially outlive the Trump administration, itself, even if Trump were to somehow get reelected. Like me, my fellow GOP voters are already upset about the time and energy that is arguably being wasted on the ongoing Mueller investigation, which has managed to hit just about everyone but its biggest intended target: President Donald J. Trump. At the moment, that's a fact whether you think Trump is guilty or innocent or that he will more clearly be incriminated sooner or later or not. We're already on the verge of seeing some of the perceived good of the administration's recent tax bill potentially undone by Trump's proposed tariffs, which are arguably being fought more more vigorously by Republicans (like outgoing economic adviser Gary Cohn, I think) than by Democrats, which is something that shouldn't be taken lightly by any Republican simply because they think the House Majority Leader and others are RINOs, "elites," or residents of the "swamp" that Trump is supposedly in the process of draining. However much we think is being "wasted" by the ongoing Mueller investigation could become nothing compared with what Sessions' lawsuit has the potential to become and to cost.

3. Politically, this suit could be even worse for coming right before the first midterm election since Trump's inauguration. Historically speaking, parties that hold the White House generally see a few losses during the first midterms, but as potent as Trump's unpopularity can be among conservatives and liberals, alike, we could wind up seeing a repeat of 2006, which was actually the second round of midterm elections during the Bush presidency. Essentially, this lawsuit isn't just going to be fighting a large state, but will in essence be fighting a very large group of people that probably represent more money and power in terms of the productivity of their labor contributions and, as Hispanics in general (since many legal Hispanic residents side with their undocumented brethren), their political weight as probably the fastest growing "minority" group in the country. The overall power that Democrats wield in this nation is still historically low, yet the party has recently seen some unexpected success in states like Alabama and is seeing significantly increased voter participation and fundraising right now in the large and often impenetrably conservative state of Texas. Even more of a threat to the GOP could be the number of Republicans retiring or refusing to run again dwarfing that of Democrats - a number that could go even higher before the Midterms in November if Trump has his way with the tariffs and the result is a trade war on top of continued losses in the market. That could mean that some of the blue collar jobs and increased bonuses in manufacturing and so forth that we've allegedly gained recently, particularly since passage of the GOP's tax bill, could be lost again. That's something that I don't think Trump or the party can easily withstand given that Trump won with fewer votes that Romney had when he lost in 2012 and did so in large part, I think, due to the absence of Bernie Sanders, whose supporters in the Midwest and Rust Belt were left with only Trump in terms of a candidate that seemed to care about their kind of American jobs.

More directly tied to the lawsuit and the issue of immigration, though, is the fact that the Democrat Party - which is already seeing small gains - relies largely on the support of minority voters, and of the various minority groups in America, Hispanics have arguably had the best relationship with the Republican Party given the support they got from the Bush family in Texas and the Cuban immigrants in Miami that have been opposed to any warming of America's relationship with the regime of the late Fidel Castro and his brother. However significant or insignificant it was to begin with, the GOP's relationship with Hispanic voters is one they will likely need in this year's and future elections, yet has already been damaged by Trump's and other's rhetoric on this issue. Given the number of other states that have been doing roughly the same things as California, this lawsuit could be the very thing the Democrat Party needs to rally its comeback in a big way, arguing that besides the moral implications, it could be construed as an attack on states' rights by the party that has championed them the most and a hypocritical one given Republicans' JUSTIFIED opposition to President Obama when his Justice Department decided to take action against Governor Brewer of Arizona and her treatment of Hispanic illegal and undocumented immigrants.

When Trump was first elected, about the closest thing he got to a compliment from most of the mainstream press was that he seemed to be the least ideological president in American history. Given that his election was largely about rejecting the status quo in terms of the way the federal government has been run by more experienced and "mainstream" politicians up to now, that perceived LACK of ideological attachment is something that Trump, who fancies himself a deal-maker able to bring both sides to the table, should be going to great lengths to continually validate and expand upon. This lawsuit being brought by Attorney General Sessions, who many in the Republican Party seem to feel should have been replaced months ago when he first recused himself from the Russia investigation, is about as partisan and IDEOLOGICAL as anything the administration could do. Like what many Republicans think the Mueller investigation to be, it has the potential to be yet another long, drawn-out, and even more costly attempt to solve what is, in terms of confirmed detrimental effects, a problem of exaggerated proportions, at best.

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.  

Democrats' Post-Election Self-Analysis Missing Some Basic Facts & Political Realities

Democrats are talking about how their party has to make changes based on the reasons they believe they lost in this year's election (popular vote notwithstanding), but what's interesting to me is that while this is basically what was said about the Republicans in 2008 and 2012, the Democrats need realize that the GOP DID NOT CHANGE AT ALL! What changed was was what the voters wanted, but while the GOP leadership was grudgingly willing to let the favorite candidate be the nominee, the DNC seems to have launched a mild smear campaign against Bernie Sanders that even seems to have gotten the attention of Julian Assange, the CRIMINAL that I remember being loved by Democrats when he was exposing the follies of the Bush administration. That probably didn't cost Sanders the nomination, by itself, but not only did Sanders last far longer than almost any top party official expected, he probably would have fared even better had the rules governing how the party awards delegates state-to-state been different - an issue that pushed Sanders supporters to yell insults at Clinton rallies and send threats to the Clinton camp and to DNC headquarters about alleged unfair party practices (a hilarious irony given the Democrats are supposed to be THE party of "fairness").

Based on what I've seen and heard, I think Trump's electorate victory is attributable to at least two or three things: The first, is probably lower-than-expected (or slower-than-expected) voter turnout on election day, particularly in terms of minorities and other reliably Democrat voters in the places they needed to turn up. The other is that I think the Democrats were so focused on the Trump Show and how the Republicans were so allegedly out-of-control in their swerve to the far-right that they all but totally ignored how much of their own party was doing the exact same thing in terms of swerving to the far-left AND being almost as dissatisfied with the government as their anti-government Republican counterparts.

Relative to that second reason is the fact that despite having most of the mainstream press on TV and in print in blatant opposition to Trump, Hillary was just not a good candidate. While Hillary had a lot of knowledge and displayed it spectacularly in debates, voters tend to have very short memories and respond with their hearts more than their heads. When she said she was happy to take on Trump and defend her record, most of it (that I can recall) had to do with her work in the legal field in support of children and so forth in the seventies and eighties. That was a stupid thing to rely upon because a BIG piece of the Democrat vote was expected to come from millennials that weren't even born back then! Unlike Trump, whose normal, day-to-day status was one of conflict with almost everyone, she seems never to have been able to shake her personal controversies by making people believe strongly enough that she understood them and their frustrations to get out there and vote for her, anyway. If you think they did because she won the popular vote, then it comes down to saying that the race to an electoral victory is more about geography, speed, and/or timing than the sheer quantity of votes. But even that's not a good excuse because there was a near-record amount of early voting going on prior to November 8. Why were more not for Hillary Clinton?

Frankly, I think it comes down to the reason that I remain a Republican despite some major problems in the party and its proposed policies, which is that while the Democrat platform is almost wholly predicated upon voter DEPENDENCE upon government, requiring an almost blind trust, the Republican platform is all about voter INDEPENDENCE and what voter's can do for themselves far better than the government, which Republicans use mostly for defense purposes. Even if you strongly disagree with that element of the Republican platform and believe it to be naive, at best, the notion or even the pretense of independence has been potent and central to the American experience and "experiment" since at least the days of the Boston Tea Party. I don't think the Democrats are going to fare much better politically or be more successful pushing their agenda unless they act like they have more trust in the Americans that vote for them AND make those Americans more of a priority than, say, illegal immigrants or whether or not a few words offend people halfway around the world.

The Carrier deal is a great example. While I don't think Trump will be able to always act as the President to make deals like this to supposedly save specific jobs - a deal whose specifics and ultimate consequences are still fairly unknown - it's still a brilliantly grand gesture that will probably make not only Republicans, but also some Democrats in Congress more willing to cooperate because they want to be on the side of voters that love Trump for keeping a specific promise before ever even being inaugurated! In terms of image manipulation, it's something that should have been done by Democrats and is actually a move which is more in line with the Democrat message of protecting the working-class FROM large, outsourcing corporations.

Trump's Election Called A "White-Lash" By Van Jones, CNN Commentator & Former Obama Administration Official

I heard Van Jones' "white-lash" comment on election night when he said it live on the air. In some respects, I don't doubt that there is truth to that statement or to these in this video, nor have I changed my mind about disliking Trump on-the-whole, but as Limbaugh said this afternoon, when blacks, Hispanics, gays, or any minority group INCLUDING women (who aren't even minorities in the numerical sense) vote based on THEIR self-interests, it is celebrated and applauded. When whites even appear to do the same thing, it's condemned as racist, sexist, bigoted, and representative of an alleged desire for segregation, isolationism, and so-called "traditional" values meant to oppress and abuse women. When those groups say or stand up for something that scares or offends whites and/or Christian conservatives, the latter's reaction(s) are attributed to ignorance and bigotry, laughed and joked about when people like Obama hold power by almost ALL of the sarcastic pricks on late night television and cable programs like The Daily Show and Colbert, etc. When something scares THEM, though, it suddenly becomes the responsibility of not just white, but SPECIFICALLY male, straight, and Christian Americans to "hear the fear" and pain and shoulder the responsibility of having to understand and help heal divides. And while statements like the ones made by a Muslim guest on CNN today about words having consequences may be true, what about actions?

Beyond some hearings and some bad press, what were the consequences for what was basically confirmed to be Hillary Clinton's dangerous negligence, at the very least, in handling confidential and classified information while using her private E-mail server as Secretary of State? Where were the consequences when Former Secretary Clinton and/or members of her staff LIED about what really motivated the protests in Benghazi that left Americans dead, then callously and arrogantly asked a panel of government representatives why the reason even mattered? What were the consequences when Clinton called "half" of Trump's supporters people that should be put in a "basket of deplorables?" I would love to see what would happen if Sean Hannity were asked why so many white cops seem to shoot black, unarmed suspects, and he replied by asking why it maters. The difference between those scenarios is one of degrees and proximity to everyday life.

I don't condone the way Trump worded a lot of his viewpoints during the campaign, but wanting to enforce immigration law and expect other nations to respect our borders is NOT racist towards Hispanics or Muslims or anyone else. There would be instant, harsh, and maybe legal and military condemnation from other countries if 2,000 or more white people suddenly moved to some small nation in Africa, for example, and started demanding that the culture and the economy there adapt to THEM and not the other way around. Yet that's exactly what is expected of America when it comes to illegals from Mexico or refugees from Syria despite the FACT that America has a system in place for immigrants, which I believe helps everyone by teaching them about the country and its people and ENABLING them to demand, as integrated citizens, fair wages and government protection paid for by tax payers like them, as legal citizens. Where is the same sort of outcry from Van Jones over the consequences of Obama's disastrous ultimatum over Syrias chemical weapons that was never followed-up, thus allowing a major power like Russia to not only protect Assad's murderous dictatorship, but now help him bomb his own people and towns like Aleppo almost out of existence?

To me, the fundamental roadblock on the path to more social progress is the inability or refusal to understand that while we're all created equal and that equality in the form of equal rights can be bestowed by government, true tolerance has to be earned or achieved through education, experience, and the kind of HONEST discourse that is currently impossible to have between whites - mainly male Christians and conservatives - and the other races and creeds in America because as soon as something is said that just makes a minority group uncomfortable, anything else said by the white and/or majority group is usually dismissed as either dishonest or bigoted. Last night, Don Lemon confronted a guest about this issue, hypothetically asking what the difference is between what Trump says and basic honesty as to one's perhaps politically incorrect or even bigoted perspectives. The guest's answer was, "civility." If that's true, though, then it's incumbent upon EVERYONE - regardless of race, creed, heritage or history - to not only practice that civility, but come to some kind of consensus as to what that specifically means in terms of wording that is both acceptable AND honest.

I realize that non-white and non-Christian minority groups have had some traumatic history and experiences here in America, but if things like marriage or any other forms of equality are truly to matter and have staying power, that history needs to be set aside - not forgotten, mind you, but also not used to negatively generalize, accuse, provoke, and/or to guilt people and government into giving them what they want.

I'm Voting For Clinton BECAUSE I Am A Republican!

Forgive me for once again "going long," as they say in football, but I feel it important and necessary to explain why I am strongly considering a vote for Hillary Clinton - not in spite of being a Republican, but BECAUSE I am a Republican. I don't totally agree with everything and am genuinely frightened by what I see as the left's defeatist and historically deaf notion that the social and economic injustices of the private sector can be ended by further consolidating money and power within a federal government which claims to protect freedom while macro-managing as much of society as its escalating tax rates and intrusive information-gathering tools will allow. However, I see Donald Trump as the kind of candidate that will likely self-destruct and take the party and maybe the country with them. To me, he embodies every negative stereotype used to describe us for decades.

I believe that this is what happens when we become so rigidly partisan that we no longer respect basic public service. Both parties are somewhat divided nowadays, but with so many choices and chances to show just how diverse and politically thoughtful we can be, more Republicans than in any other primary season "went low" and fell prey to the very divisiveness they identified in the Obama administration's alleged class warfare and identity politics. They allowed themselves to be put on the defensive and politically alienated to the point of desperation and paranoia, now mistaking needed flexibility and compromise for political duality and betrayal. In tone, it is not unlike the way post World War 1 Russia AND Germany viewed and treated the governments of its czar and chancellor, respectively. At least they had better reasons, yet look how that turned out.

Even if news networks' obsession with Trump's indiscretions makes it easier to distract with accusations of media bias, two or more wrongs do not make a right. The relevance of Friday's video and ensuing accusations stems from Trump's lack of experience and legislative record, leaving only his character and largely hollow, cliche'd and unrealistic platform with which to judge his candidacy. This week's revelations confirm what many have seen and suspected since last year, when Trump even insulted and demeaned Megyn Kelly, an anchor at the politically sympathetic Fox News Network. That he makes light of such horrendous behavior (after a disingenuous apology) and now denies DOING just what he claimed suggests a man trapped in his own arrogance and delusion, offering nothing but fuel for his supporters' unreasoning hatred. Of all people, surely GOP Christians like myself see that a vote for Trump represents a serious lack of faith which, as a friend recently pointed out, is akin to worshiping an idol because it promises lower taxes, easier gun ownership, and religious liberty.

Even more consequential is Trump's internecine warfare, which uses words like "elite" and "establishment" to demean and accuse much-needed, would-be Republican allies like Speaker Paul Ryan, John McCain, etc. Whether due to ignorance or indifference to the way America's government was designed to operate, his accusations of inefficiency and being "bought" by "special interests" BECAUSE of elected officials' legislative experience are hypocritical so long as Trump is focused on not only saving, but expanding the coal and GOP-friendly oil industry. Furthermore, many of the Republican representatives that Trump supporters demonize began as the same kind of businessmen and political "outsiders" that Trump is now, swept into office to keep President Obama from doing his job, forcing him to resort to the executive orders for which he is criticized.

If elected, Donald Trump could find himself issuing some executive orders if Democrats retake the House and/or Senate and Republican lawmakers refuse to work with him. Republicans need to realize that he is sabotaging his own potential presidency before it begins by antagonizing and threatening the re-election chances of other Republicans in the House and Senate, without whom Trump will not be able to make all of his "great deals," let alone build walls or make anyone's tax rate as low as the absurd 15% he promises. Pardon the flowery pompousness, but I think that if it elects Donald Trump President, the party of Lincoln and Reagan will officially reject the principled optimism and personal compassion that made both presidents shine in dark times. If it were to unfold as many predict, a Trump Presidency could hurt or cripple the GOP for a generation... or even destroy it. Trump's loss, however, would hopefully stimulate much-needed reform within the party. That is why I see my choice as one that favors my party.