The Grand Illusion
The latest news on President Trump is that he threatened Ukraine by withholding aid unless the country started investigating the Bidens, then when that threat became public, mysteriously the aid was released. Rather than acknowledge that, of course, now Trump is attacking former Vice President Biden, accusing Biden of the very tactics that news reports have revealed that Trump used when trying to force the Ukrainian President to investigate Biden’s son.
After respected news reporter Cokie Roberts died last week, President Trump’s comments were that he’d never met her and that she never treated him nicely – except she had interviewed him previously in Trump Tower on a nationwide television broadcast.
He doesn’t like California; so he’s decided to try to force the state to have more air pollution, despite the fact that all the major auto manufacturers prefer the higher fuel economy requirements, both for environmental and economic reasons.
He’s fired the highest number of senior staff and political appointees on record, generally because they disagree or tell him that they can’t or shouldn’t do things. He’s pushed the Department of Justice to prosecute career officials who spoken against his acts or contradicted what he said. Either he or the Secretary of Commerce threatened NOAA officials [even though this has subsequently been denied] who tried to point out that Trump erroneously changed NOAA broadcast weather maps with his sharpie.
He cozies up to dictators who praise him, and criticizes and bad-mouths leaders of other nations who don’t suck up to him. He’s even turned on Fox News when it aired factual news reports about him and his administration that he didn’t like.
He’s attacked the Federal Reserve Board for failing to lower interest rates the way he wanted, despite the fact that they’re not that far from all-time lows and unemployment is low, and that even lower rates risk real estate and stock market bubbles. He attacked the Prime Minister of Denmark when she told him that Greenland was not for sale. He attacked the Mayor of London, and various other officials.
He’s also attacked environmental protection regulations, not only on the global warming issue, but on a range of regulations where he’s attempted to roll back clean air and clean water regulations, among others and turned national monuments with fragile ecosystems and ancient archaeological ruins into open energy and mining areas, while attacking native Americans and others who wanted to preserve such areas.
And yet Trump’s supporters ignore it all, presumably because they hate liberals and Democrats so much that they’ll accept lying, bribery, corruption, and illegal acts rather than admit any fault in Trump.
It was once said, “The modern GOP will eat crap, so long as a liberal would be forced to smell their breath.”
I’m pretty sure this is the embodiment of that.
All I wannna know right now is where R.Hamilton’s at?
It’s his boy tRump we’re talkin’ about here.
Most of the policies of Democrats are unconstitutional.
Compared to them, almost every monster both historical and mythical (aside from the commies and Adolf, Benito, and Tojo, of course – they’re all totally evil) looks like a defender of liberty.
I don’t actually like Trump; he’s rude, crude, socially unacceptable, at least historically misogynist, and as unstatesmanlike as it gets, and those are his strengths. Still, his policies are a near infinite improvement on the socialist psychos of the left. And being disruptive, offensive, obnoxious, etc (even deceptive bordering on outright lies, for all that it matters) are actually useful from time to time; they cause the complacent and entitled to have aneurysms, or at least identify themselves by their opposition.
There, feel better now? 🙂
Under our government, the court, particularly the Supreme Court, is the one who decides what is Constitutional, not you, not me. You’re entitled to your beliefs, of course, but since many of the things that you declare unconstitutional have been found within the scope of that document, it strikes me that you’re the one who’s opposed to liberty. Your policies would effectively prohibit a significant percentage of the population from having any chance of effectively pursuing happiness because they don’t have your advantages. That’s not freedom; it’s tyranny of, by, and for whoever has the advantages.
You describe the legalities as practiced quite correctly; but the basic remains that the entire purpose of the Constitution is to structure and limit the federal government, and not to meet every need or solve every sufficiently massive problem. The attempt to meet needs or solve problems on such a scale is an open invitation to both corruption and the abuse of power .
The lack of advantages is not tyranny. People have come here with nothing and done very well for themselves. Not everyone does, but the liberty is in the opportunity, not the outcome.
I’m with Jefferson’s warnings on Marbury v Madison, as well as on most other matters, esp. the activism needed to periodically restrain the accumulation of power by government.
Aside from their naiveté from the borders outward, Rand Paul and the like should be the norm, not the exception.
“even deceptive bordering on outright lies”….
What would you consider an ‘outright lie?’ Trump saying that the sun rises in the south? MOre than 10,000 documented lies. Some he didn’t even have to speak: he just used a sharpie.
What would make me feel better is you not being an apologist for someone who wants to rule as God and King (a la Kal Torak, of the Belgariad), not govern like a president should.
Trump has repealed (or attempted to repeal) a ton of Obama’s executive orders (at least a questionable as to the legitimacy of their authority, I think). About the only thing he’s throwing his weight heavily around on is a border wall, and as far as I’m concerned, his job obligates him to push the limits on every loophole he can find to secure the border.
Trump’s ego may be on the scale you suggest, but his actions aren’t.
Address the veracity issue, please. Your reply has nothing to do with his forked tongue.
Unless he’s making sworn testimony, he can lie at least as much as most other politicians; if it’s not outright perjury, it’s fair game. I don’t like it, but I won’t hold him to standards his opponents fail to meet.
I would love squeaky clean, scrupulously honest (but even the ones that never utter a falsehood HAVE to lie by omission or misdirection, to do their duty, sometimes; listen to Gen. Schwartzkopf’s press conferences during Gulf I, and then closely to some of Bush #1’s statements), polite, non-tweeting, statesmanlike, etc. But not as long as a toxic left exists; so long as they’re around, descending to their level may be unavoidable.
All I am hearing right now are good reasons to say “A plague on both your houses.” We really do need a viable 3rd party in this country.
Have a care what you wish for! Look at the majority of European countries where coalitions (which please none of those parties who join) are the norm.
Well no. We need to destroy the left, and then have the two legitimate choices remain for limited government: conservatives and libertarians.
Whether that could be accomplished by a generation of genuine civics education, or whether it would take more direct measures, it needs to happen, unless we want to become Venezuela’s bigger brother.
I know exactly what I’m saying, thank you very much. I recall Ross Perot and his Reform Party (not that I cared for him or it) and I’ve lived overseas. Right now, moderates like me are being ground under and there is no one to speak for us.
I can’t even vote in primaries in California because I have chosen ‘No party affiliation’ rather than declaring DNC/RNC. Plus, California has a system where only the two highest vote attainers get put on the final ballot: we ended up having to choose between two nearly identical democrats for the seat won by K. Harris.
I say it again: viable 3rd party please.
“Well no. We need to destroy the left, and then have the two legitimate choices remain for limited government: conservatives and libertarians”.
Hate much? Tribalism at its finest.
They may be lovely people, but their policies are despicable.
Is that hate? If it is, I’m ok with being a hater.
“Well no. We need to destroy the left…”
Nope, its the modern republican party (esp. the alt-righters at its core for a start) that needs to crushed swiftly, scorched earth-like and salt mixed in the ashes.
Truly the most repugnant & divisive bunch ever encountered in modern times.
“Is that hate? If it is, I’m ok with being a hater.”
True enough. Y’all already doing ‘(MA)great(A)’ at w(h)inning and giving the word “hateRED” an even nastier name.
You must live in an alternate universe.
The left constantly spews lies and distortions; everything they say resembles North Korean propaganda more than anything else, totally over the top. And everything they say or do is for more power for them. The accumulation of power they desire is worse than all the need, violence, and purported crises they panic-monger with. They are at best dangerously misguided, and at worst willfully malignant. Their policies and politics must be challenged at every turn, discredited, and crushed, even if it means sometimes descending to their level. Not the individuals, give or take those that can be convicted, but their policies, must end or we will all become slaves.
RH:
I’m not sure that real communication is happening, here. I believe the issue has moved from the political theory of Right vs. Left to the manner of argument and delivery.
I have agreed with you, at times, because on certain points I thought your expressed views had merit. I don’t have to agree with you overall, I don’t have to be a conservative or a libertarian to agree with some of their views. To speak in terms of “crushing” those that you disagree with and to espouse that your opinion of the way things should be is the only choice worthy of existing is past extreme, it is the perfect example of what’s wrong with our current political “system,” if we can even call it that.
Somewhere we lost our civility. We forgot that the “other side” should be “the loyal opposition,” a term most don’t even remember at this point. The most persuasive sign of strength is to be calm enough and polite enough to let the other guy have his say, try to look for common ground, or something close that can be worked on to become common ground, and then build a (small) bridge of understanding that can be built upon to become a workable compromise. That, Sir, IMO is what democracy needs. And it really doesn’t matter if I’m talking to an extreme Conservative or Liberal; the advice is the same.
We can’t fix all these complex problems with simple sound-bite answers, no matter how slick they sound or how scared they make people.
I still have some faith…in people, but only if we can find our way back to civilized discourse that shows some respect for “the other guy,” and in doing so becomes worthy of respect.
Shorter: a seven-year-old is President.