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very least, strengthening a law or set of laws that BOTH are sworn to uphold unless and until it/they are amended or repealed!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.
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
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?
Thursday, February 23, 2017
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.
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.
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."
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."
Wednesday, February 15, 2017
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, December 3, 2016
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.
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.
Thursday, November 10, 2016
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.
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.
Friday, October 14, 2016
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)