Finally, after nearly four long years of having the most unqualified, self interested, crooked, divisive, and unpatriotic individual in office; we are just a few months from being rid of Donald J. Trump.
In an election that was shockingly close, Trump and his allies are crying foul. He and his base would have you believe that the Democrats rigged an election where the master plan included barely win an election, keeping Mitch McConnell in office, and have a runoff election in Georgia to determine the Senate majority.
Meanwhile, Trump, his base, and the GOP did everything they could to undermine our constitutional right to elect our representatives and leaders. For example:
He has created a cult-like following, with supporters praying outside election office doors for a victory. (Source) He has followers that use intimidation and threats of violence against opponents such as a police captain writing on social media about Biden supporters to “put a bullet in their skull” (Source) or his supporters in Philadelphia making death threats to the Republican official responsible for vote counting (Source). His pundits like Steve Bannon call for violence such as when Bannon said that Anthony Fauci and Christopher Wray should be beheaded (Source). And, Alex Jones trying to instigate a riot outside an election office in Arizona (Source). Meanwhile there are Trump supporters shouting “Stop the count” in Detroit and “Count the votes” in Phoenix. (Source)
In closing, it’s shocking that the election was so close despite the countless follies of the 45th president. Now, however; hopefully this nation in turmoil can finally breath a sigh of relief.
How are people not outraged at this president? How are there still people that support him despite the overwhelming and ongoing display of ineptitude from him and his administration on the handling of this pandemic?
At the time of this writing, April 19, 2020, there are 763,597 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the United States. As well, there are a reported 40,566 deaths and 70,123 recoveries at this time. The United States has more confirmed cases than any country in the world right now. Currently, the country with the next highest number of cases is Spain with 198,674.
It didn’t have to be this way. There were contingency plans for this very situation. However, because of the hubris of this president, the whole country is suffering. According to an article from Business Insider Trump ignored multiple warnings about the threat of a pandemic. The article reports that officials from the Obama administration briefed Trump on how to respond to a pandemic, just days before Trump’s inauguration. Then, in 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services conducted a training exercise that was remarkably close to what is currently going on. And, as early as January 2020, US intelligence officials warned Trump of a pandemic. By the end of January through the beginning of February warnings of the pandemic were included in Trump’s daily briefings. However, if you believe Trump no one could have known how bad things could be.
Trump has not missed the opportunity to use this global crisis to further erode our democratic republic. He has continued his rhetoric that he has “total authority” as president. On April 14, 2020 Trump claimed that he had “total authority” over states decisions on opening up and relaxing their social distancing guidelines. Surprisingly, Bret Baier from Fox News pointed out the hypocrisy from conservatives stating that “conservatives’ heads would have exploded if Obama had claimed total authority.” During that same program: “Fox News’ chief political anchor replied. “Constitutional scholars will say that this is not the president flicking on the switch, it’s the governors and the local authorities that have that going forward.” [Daily Beast]
On April 15, 2020 Trump has threatened to adjourn the US Congress over his appointees of federal judges and other political offices. [Reuters]
Right now, March 2020, the entire planet and its human inhabitants is in some form or fashion affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
As recently as a little over a month ago the notion of something like this disrupting every aspect of our (U.S. citizens) lives seemed preposterous. Something like that didn’t happen in America. That kind of devastation is something we see in movies. The very notion of something like that happening would be met with dissonance. But, here we are.
So, how did we get here?
Dismantling of National Security Council in May 2018
Public health and national security experts shake their heads when President Donald Trump says the coronavirus “came out of nowhere” and “blindsided the world.”
They’ve been warning about the next pandemic for years and criticized the Trump administration’s decision in 2018 to dismantle a National Security Council directorate at the White House charged with preparing for when, not if, another pandemic would hit the nation
She said [Beth Cameron] that shortly before Trump took office, the unit was watching a rising number of cases in China of a deadly strain of the flu and a yellow fever outbreak in Angola.
A study published in March indicated that if Chinese authorities had acted three weeks earlier than they did, the number of coronavirus cases could have been reduced by 95% and its geographic spread limited.
This timeline, compiled from information reported by the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the South China Morning Post and other sources, shows that China’s cover-up and the delay in serious measures to contain the virus lasted about three weeks.
Dec. 10: Wei Guixian, one of the earliest known coronavirus patients, starts feeling ill.
Dec. 16: Patient admitted to Wuhan Central Hospital with infection in both lungs but resistant to anti-flu drugs. Staff later learned he worked at a wildlife market connected to the outbreak.
Dec. 27: Wuhan health officials are told that a new coronavirus is causing the illness.
Dec. 30:Ai Fen, a top director at Wuhan Central Hospital, posts information on WeChat about the new virus. She was reprimanded for doing so and told not to spread information about it.Wuhan doctor Li Wenliang also shares information on WeChat about the new SARS-like virus. He is called in for questioning shortly afterward. Wuhan health commission notifies hospitals of a “pneumonia of unclear cause” and orders them to report any related information.
Dec. 31:Wuhan health officials confirm 27 cases of illness and close a market they think is related to the virus’ spread. China tells the World Health Organization’s China office about the cases of an unknown illness.
Jan. 1: Wuhan Public Security Bureau brings in for questioning eight doctors who had posted information about the illness on WeChat. An official at the Hubei Provincial Health Commission orders labs, which had already determined that the novel virus was similar to SARS, to stop testing samples and to destroy existing samples.
Jan. 2: Chinese researchers map the new coronavirus’ complete genetic information. This information is not made public until Jan. 9.
Jan. 7: Xi Jinping becomes involved in the response.
Jan. 9: China announces it has mapped the coronavirus genome.
Jan. 11–17: Important prescheduled CCP meeting held in Wuhan. During that time, the Wuhan Health Commission insists there are no new cases.
Jan. 13: First coronavirus case reported in Thailand, the first known case outside China.
Jan. 14: WHO announces Chinese authorities have seen “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus.”
Jan. 15: The patient who becomes the first confirmed U.S. case leaves Wuhan and arrives in the U.S., carrying the coronavirus.
Jan. 18: The Wuhan Health Commission announces four new cases. Annual Wuhan Lunar New Year banquet. Tens of thousands of people gathered for a potluck.
Jan. 19: Beijing sends epidemiologists to Wuhan.
Jan. 20: The first case announced in South Korea. Zhong Nanshan, a top Chinese doctor who is helping to coordinate the coronavirus response, announces the virus can be passed between people.
Jan. 21: The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirms the first coronavirus case in the United States.
President Trump made his first public comments about the coronavirus on Jan. 22, in a television interview from Davos with CNBC’s Joe Kernen. The first American case had been announced the day before, and Kernen asked Trump, “Are there worries about a pandemic at this point?”
The president responded: “No. Not at all. And we have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.”
January 31, 2020: Trump went on Fox News and exaggerated the impact in an interview with Sean Hannity.
“Coronavirus,” Hannity said. “How concerned are you?”
Trump replied: “Well, we pretty much shut it down coming in from China. We have a tremendous relationship with China, which is a very positive thing. Getting along with China, getting along with Russia, getting along with these countries.”
[Trump] suggested on multiple occasions that the virus was less serious than the flu. “We’re talking about a much smaller range” of deaths than from the flu, he said on March 2. “It’s very mild,” he told Hannity on March 4. On March 7, he said, “I’m not concerned at all.” On March 10, he promised: “It will go away. Just stay calm. It will go away.”
March 11, 2020: President Trump addresses the nation, making a series of untrue statements that lead to confusion and panic.
Coverage of his hastily arranged Oval Office address to the nation on Wednesday night immediately captured a number of untrue statements. While the president’s mission was to reassure a nation reeling from fear and uncertainty, his message was muddled in confusing and false statements. The next day the markets responded in kind. Responding to the president and to announcements that some large corporations would halt business as usual, the Dow Jones industrial average plummeted by 10 percent — the biggest drop since 1987
Thursday really highlighted the conflicting narrative between the president and pretty much everyone else on COVID-19 testing. On the same day the president claimed “testing has been going very smooth,” his top public health official called the national response “a failing.” Even loyal Republicans lawmakers told ABC News the president’s messaging is off
President Donald Trump on Friday deflected blame for his administration’s lagging ability to test Americans for the coronavirus outbreak, insisting instead — without offering evidence — that fault lies with his predecessor, Barack Obama.
“I don’t take responsibility at all,” Trump said defiantly, pointing to an unspecified “set of circumstances” and “rules, regulations and specifications from a different time.”
The remarks from the president came in response to questions at a Friday press conference about the lack of widespread access to testing, an aspect of his administration’s coronavirus response that has been the subject of widespread, steady criticism. Administration officials told lawmakers yesterday that the U.S. tested about 11,000 people during the first seven weeks of the outbreak — roughly as many as South Korea is testing each day.
During the last two weeks of the impeachment hearings of President Donald Trump eight individuals testified before Congress on the President’s efforts to extort Ukraine for the political benefit of Donald Trump. Each individual’s testimony corroborated the other’s. These individuals consisted of Trump appointed ambassadors, a Purple Heart recipient, an advisor to Vice President, Mike Pence, and a Russian expert on national security.
§ 110.20 Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510).
b.Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
Public impeachment hearings from 11/13/2019 – 11/21/2019
11/13/19: Bill Taylor & George Kent
11/15/19: Former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch
11/19/19: Alex Vindman, National Security Council (NSC) director for European Affairs, and Jennifer Williams, Vice President Mike Pence’s special adviser for European and Russian affairs.
11/20/19: Gordon Sondland, President Donald Trump’s ambassador to the European Union and a point person on his Ukraine policy
11/21/19: Dr. Fiona Hill, a former Russia expert on the National Security Council, and David Holmes, a political counselor at U.S. embassy in Ukraine
First and foremost, the opinions expressed herein are my own. Each individual has the right to think and believe as he or she so chooses. Equally, I believe it to be imperative that differing view points be expressed for the betterment of society. It took a group of individuals, many years ago, who had the point of view that a democratic republic was a better option than a monarchy. If not for that differing viewpoint of those individuals, we would not have privilege of being able to openly express our own opinions today. My only request for those who wish to give a rebuttal is that it be well researched, well thought out, and provide sources, with credible evidence, from more than one or two places.
We, as a free nation, claim that our soldiers fight and die for the continuation of our freedom. At what point do we lose the right to make that claim when the leader of this free nation openly invites foreign governments to take part in some form or fashion in our elections? How is openly inviting a foreign government to play a role in influencing the outcome for the election of the officials meant to represent us, the citizens of this country, a means to uphold the continuation of our freedom?
If one makes the argument that any politician would take assistance from a foreign government or entity, so it doesn’t matter or it is just discounted as a standard practice, so to say.
This argument is plausible. However, I would ask for sources to back up this claim. Provide any sort of credible evidence that another (specific) politician has taken part in this kind of action. I do not claim that no other politician has not participated in such actions. If anyone is able to provide credible evidence of any other politician being involved in similar matters, please do provide sources for this information. I am strictly saying that we have many instances of credible evidence that this president is guilty of soliciting a foreign government for aid in personal political gain.
Trump says “I think I’d take foreign help for 2020 (MSNBC)
Trump rushes into damage control after saying he’d accept foreign help in 2020 (Politico)
Trump publicly asks China to investigate Biden (NBC)
Trump and White House claim there was no quid pro quo in regards to withholding military aid to Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine to investigate Biden (New York Times)
Diplomat says he was told U.S. aid for Ukraine tied to request for probes: Washington Post (Reuters)
Judge Napolitano Schools ‘Fox & Friends’ on Impeachment: Schiff Just ‘Following the Rules’ Written by GOP (Daily Beast)
Impeachment reversal: Diplomat now acknowledges quid pro quo (AP)
Even if credible evidence were to be provided of another politician requesting assistance or taking assistance from a foreign government; it does not excuse the action. It is still wrong. Regardless if the politician is Republican or Democrat, a politician who utilizes foreign assistance must be held accountable for their actions.
Claim: government officials use quid pro quo all the time in negotiations with foreign governments. There is nothing wrong with it.
That statement is correct. However, there is a key difference in using such strategies for the benefit of our nation vs. using the strategy for the sole benefit of political gain. The latter is both illegal and unethical.
If one is ok with the current president taking such actions, would the same individual be ok with a future president utilizing the same strategy?
There is an Emoluments clause in the Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8 and Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 7)
For those who view themselves as individuals who believe that the Constitution must be upheld; what is a reasonable justification for excusing a politician who clearly has no regard for the laws set forth in the Constitution?
The current president, while being recorded on video, made the statement that the Emoluments clause is “phony.” (Business Insider, 10/21/2019)
There are multiple instances of the president using his office for personal gain.
Vice President stayed at a Trump hotel in Ireland, which was 180 miles away from from his meetings (Vox, 9/3/19)
From Mar-A-Lago to Trump Hotels, Reporter Says Trump Profits as President (NPR, 9/5/19)
President Trump promotes his son, Donald Trump Jr’s, book on Twitter while simultaneously accusing Biden of self dealing (AP)
October 26, 2019: Company linked to Trump’s brother awarded $33 million government contract (Washington Examiner 10/26/19)
Article I: generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. (Encyclopedia Britannica)
Article II: generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. (Encyclopedia Britannica)
Claim: this president has bolstered our economy. That the economy has never been this good.
Yes, the economy is currently doing well. With that being said, I pose the following questions to you, the reader:
Are you personally better off financially now than you have ever been? Are you paying less taxes than you have ever paid? Has it been easier now than ever to find gainful employment?
However, contrary to the claims of this administration, this economy is not the best it has ever been due solely to the current president. The economy has been growing steadily since 2008. Sources for my claim:
Ever since the last presidential election in November 2016, it seems there isn’t much of a middle ground regarding how Americans or even the world feels about the subsequent years. Given all that has been reported through the years, there still seems to be no shortage on moments that give one pause to consider what lies ahead.
On Wednesday May 1, 2019 Attorney General, William Barr, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. When answering a question from Senator Dianne Feinstein regarding how the President’s instruction to former White House Counsel, Don McGahn, to end the Mueller probe was not obstruction of justice; Barr stated the following:
If the president is being falsely accused, which the evidence now suggests that the accusations against him were false, and he knew they were false, and he felt that this investigation was unfair, propelled by his political opponents and was hampering his ability to govern, that is not a corrupt motive for replacing an independent counsel. (Slate)
That is to say, that if any President merely feels that an investigation is unfair, false, or initiated by political opponents; the President can order the removal of an independent counsel. Meaning the President can stop any investigation into the possibility of wrongdoing by the President. Or, another way of looking at it, the office of the President is above the law.
That means that if Nixon had so desired, he could have cancelled the investigation that led to his eventual resignation and there would have been zero consequences. It means that if Bill Clinton felt the investigation that led to his impeachment was unfair, he could have cancelled it with no repercussions. It also means that should any future President find him or herself in legal jeopardy, that President can just order the investigation to be stopped. That ideology is the opposite of a system of checks and balances. That ideology is the groundwork to the end of a nation of laws and the beginning of a nation of tyranny.
During that same testimony, when Senator Christopher Coons asked Barr if a future campaign was offered dirt on a rival from a foreign adversarial power, North Korea in this example, should the campaign report to the FBI. After a pause, Barr finally answered yes.
For those who stand on the side of the President and claim that the investigation was a waste of time, a witch hunt, an attempt at coup, or some nefarious plan by any other name; please consider the following:
Over the course of two years the Special Counsel has indicted, convicted or gotten guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies as it related to interference from the Russians in the 2016 election. (TIME) If you are up for some reading, you can read a searchable version of the Mueller report: Read the Mueller Report: Searchable Document and Index Volume 2 which starts on page 200 begins the report on the Obstruction Inquiry.
Where we go from here may be one of the most pivotal points in our Nation’s most recent history. If all of these actions are waved off without consequence, then we are essentially saying that laws don’t matter. A system of checks and balances doesn’t matter. A government by the people and for the people doesn’t matter. If a person who is on the side of Trump and the Republicans who are protecting him are ok with Trump proceeding as he has, then the same person should have zero problem if some day a democrat President follows the same precedent.
Consider these “What If” scenarios.
During the 2020 election a democratic candidate makes the statement “China, if you are watching, maybe you can help produce Trump’s tax records.” (Example)
A democrat is elected President then shuts down the government if funds are not provided to combat climate change (Example)
A democrat President meets with an adversarial leader with only the adversarial leader’s translator present (Example) or the President orders the concealment of any records with a foreign leader (Example)
A democratic President refuses to condemn or speak out against terrorist attacks conducted by any non-white hate group (Example)
A democratic President using social media to attack, threaten, belittle, spread false information on anyone that oppose him/her. (Example)
A democratic President chooses to believe foreign adversarial leaders or his/her own gut instinct rather than that of Intelligence Community (Example)
A democratic President made remarks about “President for life.” (Example) (Example) (Example)
Many times in the past there those who said that Clinton would not give up the presidency, that Bush would not give up the presidency, or that Obama wouldn’t give it up. This, however, is the first time a president has made a comment about not giving up the presidency.
Right now we have a White House that claims to be the most transparent administration in the history of the United States. This despite the administration vowing to fight, ignore, and block all subpoenas from Congress concerning any of the multitude of investigations (Wired) into Trump and his administration. (New York Times)
Perhaps we should heed the words of one of the 2016 presidential candidates:
Having a sitting president under criminal investigation would result in a ‘constitutional crisis.’She’s likely to be under investigation for criminality for a very, very long time to come. We’re going to be tied up in court for the rest of our lives with this deal…If Hillary is elected, she will be under protracted criminal investigation likely followed by the trial of a sitting president. This is just what we need. (TIME)
Most people have probably heard the old adage “Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.” More commonly known as Murphy’s Law. There is a more scientific name for this phenomenon: Entropy.
What is entropy? Here’s a simple way to think about it:
Imagine that you take a box of puzzle pieces and dump them out on a table. In theory, it is possible for the pieces to fall perfectly into place and create a completed puzzle when you dump them out of the box. But in reality, that never happens.
Why?
Quite simply, because the odds are overwhelmingly against it. Every piece would have to fall in just the right spot to create a completed puzzle. There is only one possible state where every piece is in order, but there are a nearly infinite number of states where the pieces are in disorder. Mathematically speaking, an orderly outcome is incredibly unlikely to happen at random.
These simple examples capture the essence of entropy. Entropy is a measure of disorder. And there are always far more disorderly variations than orderly ones.
Here’s the crucial thing about entropy: it always increases over time.
It is the natural tendency of things to lose order. Left to its own devices, life will always become less structured. Sand castles get washed away. Weeds overtake gardens. Ancient ruins crumble. Cars begin to rust. People gradually age. With enough time, even mountains erode and their precise edges become rounded. The inevitable trend is that things become less organized.
This is known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is one of the foundational concepts of chemistry and it is one of the fundamental laws of our universe. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of a closed system will never decrease.
Aside from how entropy affects the physical world around us, it also plays a fundamental part in our interactions with each other. Consider all the various relationships you have in your life. How many of them would be sustainable if the individuals involved did not make an effort to keep the relationship going? For instance, if at least one person didn’t try and contact the other person. Or, if the relationship had a disproportionate benefit of one person over the other person. Meaning that one or more individuals are more interested in his or her own gain from the relationship than the overall gain of the group.
Perhaps some of you have heard of the Prisoner’s Dilemma (Wikipedia), which goes as follows:
Two members of a criminal gang are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of communicating with the other. The prosecutors lack sufficient evidence to convict the pair on the principal charge, but they have enough to convict both on a lesser charge. Simultaneously, the prosecutors offer each prisoner a bargain. Each prisoner is given the opportunity either to betray the other by testifying that the other committed the crime, or to cooperate with the other by remaining silent. The offer is:
If A and B each betray the other, each of them serves two years in prison
If A betrays B but B remains silent, A will be set free and B will serve three years in prison (and vice versa)
If A and B both remain silent, both of them will only serve one year in prison (on the lesser charge).
If both prisoners do what is best for the group, they each face a better outcome than if each betrays the other. Or, one person stands to gain at the loss of the other. The natural inclination for most people is individual gain.
If most people are inclined to be motivated by their own personal interest, and a fundamental force of nature is for things to be in a state of disorder; what does it take for any human relationship to be successful? Effort. A conscious effort is needed for the sustainability of a relationship. This doesn’t just mean a romantic relationship. This also includes friendships, professional, and family relationships. Additionally, while it is important to look out for your own best interest, if one is not careful, doing so exclusively could lead to more adverse consequences for the group of people that he or she cares about.
I write a lot about my opinions of the Right and the issues I have with some of their stances, ideologies and the like. This time, I’d like to share some of the issues I have with the extreme Left. That being safe spaces and Social Justice Warriors (SJW).
For those not familiar with the concept of a safe space, it is essentially an ideological place where people are free from hearing ideas and opinions that they may find offensive. Universities tend to be one such venue where these individuals claim sanctuary from anyone’s use of free speech that doesn’t align with their point of view. The very idea of a safe space removes any possibility of a dialogue to better understand one another. Just because a person has a viewpoint that is different than another person, does not mean that person is wrong. A safe space just creates an echo chamber where like minded individuals get a feedback loop that reinforces their thoughts and opinions. With that being said, I do believe there is a difference between free speech and hate speech. The line that divides the two, I believe, is when one starts calling to action for the harm of others.
Social Justice Warriors, and this is strictly my opinion, are the Left’s version of Alex Jones, Sean Hannity and the like. While most SJW’s are not famous nor have a regular massive platform such as Hannity, they make their voice so loud and obnoxious that it becomes hard to ignore. What most Social Justice Warriors contribute to society is taking some inconsequential item and turning it into a a huge ordeal. A good example of this is ShirtGate or ShirtStorm. On November 13, 2014 Matt Taylor, a British physicist with the European Space Agency, who just landed a probe on a comet, gave an interview. During this interview Taylor was wearing a Hawaiian style shirt that featured drawn pin-up girls in various stages of undress. While perhaps not the most appropriate shirt for giving an interview, a group of critics took to their online platform of choice and started lambasting Taylor. An article on The Verge “I don’t care if you landed a spacecraft on a comet, your shirt is sexist and ostracizing.”
In my opinion such mindsets prevent any chance of individuals being able to find common ground. One cannot go through life, not truly, without hearing, experiencing, and feeling things that are contrary and foreign to their paradigm. If one is to be a responsible member of society one must be able to make an effort to look past the things that make us different and seek to find the commonality that all humans share. That is to the fullest extent possible within reason.
After 35 days of the longest government shutdown in the history of the United States, the 45th President finally agreed to reopen the government. During those 35 days funding was cut for Homeland Security, the Coastguard, Federal Aviation Administration, Veterans Administration, FBI, the National Weather Service, TSA, and many more. As almost everyone reading this has previously heard, over 800,000 people went without pay for one month.
I’ve been mulling over what thoughts I wanted to share on this situation and others that have been in the headlines in recent weeks. That changed earlier today, however. Rather than just being another voice criticizing the President and his administration; I would instead prefer to try and gain understanding. What are the thoughts and opinions of those who support this President and what are they seeing that I’m not?
In my perspective I see a President who habitually lies, shows no sign of moral or ethical principles, encourages behavior and viewpoints that adversely impact minorities and those outside his base. There are currently seventeen separate investigations being conducted on Trump, his campaign, and organizations. In regards to collusion with Russia the story has changed numerous times over the course of the past two years. On Twitter, this President lambasts any and all that question or defy him. Even going so far as to mock those individuals. In regards to the border wall; during the campaign Donald Trump promised numerous times that the wall would be paid for by Mexico. Then from 2017 through 2018, while the GOP held the House and the Senate, no funding was ever approved for the border wall. In the middle of December 2018, during a televised meeting with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, Trump stated that he would be proud to shut down the government if funding for the border wall was not approved. Thirty five days later, after holding the citizens of the United States hostage, the President conceded to temporarily reopen the government until February 15. After that, Trump stated that he would once again shut down the government if funding for the wall was not approved. Absolutely nothing was gained for the President during the shutdown. President Trump has even stated that he may invoke emergency powers to pull funds from government organizations to pay for the wall. If this ends up being the case, it leaves a slippery slope for future Presidents to use the same tactic. For example, a President declaring climate change a national emergency. Using this tactic, if successful, will set a precedent. There is no scenario for funding this border wall that does not involve using taxpayer dollars to pay for it. The claim that Mexico will inadvertently pay for it through NAFTA is a farce. Even if there should be any savings on trade with Mexico, the government is not going to redistribute that money back to the taxpayers.
For those who may wish to see a list of sources for any claims thus far and henceforth, please view an ongoing post I’ve made: See for Yourself
Those are some of my thoughts on recent events. Now onto the insights I would be eager to hear from those in the other camp.
Witch Hunt
Given every new revelation that has been brought to the public in regards to collusion with Russia; what items have not been satisfied to give one cause for maintaining innocence of President Trump?
By my estimations there are only two possibilities. 1) That Trump is guilty and is doing everything he can to cast doubt on every piece of information that states otherwise. 2) There is a massive conspiracy involving hundreds, if not thousands of individuals working to frame Trump of cooperating with a foreign power. All of whom that are far better at keeping a secret than anyone currently or previously in Trumps circle.
Border Wall
During the campaign Donald Trump promised voters that a wall would be built to keep out illegal immigrants on the southern border. And, that Mexico would pay for the wall.
Is there any concern that taxpayer dollars would be used to pay for the wall?
If during the campaign Trump stated that he would spend tax revenue on the wall, would that have garnered the same support as claiming that Mexico would pay for it?
If a national emergency is declared and passes in court, to pull funding from military spending, or hurricane relief, or something else, is that something that supports would be ok with? What if a future President uses the same plan of action to declare a national emergency for climate change?
Morality & Ethics
How can supporters make statements such as “Trump was appointed by god.” Or, “God bless our President.”
This is a person who was heard bragging about grabbing women by their genitals.
Cheated on his wife.
Made the remark that he preferred war heroes that weren’t captured (speaking of John McCain).
Mocked a gold star family.
Said there were “good people on both sides” during a white supremacist march.
Support Roy Moore who was accused of several counts of sexual misconduct.
To anyone who can help me understand your viewpoints in a constructive way, I look forward to hearing from you.
Time: in the simplest definition, it is a measurement of the progression of events. We use it to count our trips around the sun to denote how long we have been in this world. We use time to figure out when to be somewhere, when something starts, when it ends, and a good deal more. What we don’t typically anticipate with time is what can change during the progression of the events of our life.
In youth, people generally have a larger set of friends and people to occupy each other’s time. As life goes on, we each take on new responsibilities and life roles. People find a significant other, start a family, start a new career, move farther away, and so forth. As well, our ideals, priorities and beliefs can change. Given the culmination of all these factors, the ability to maintain and sustain the base of friends that we had becomes much more difficult. Some relationships maintain the test of time. Some drift away.
In a piece I wrote around the middle of this year, Investing in Happiness, I stated that the best and worst parts in life are the people we have in our life and the relationships we have with those people. Note the use of the word “relationships.” Ask any random person what a relationship is and that person would most likely describe it as something shared between a person and that person’s significant other. People typically classify things like friends, family, the people they work with and any other social interaction in a different mindset than a relationship. Possibly due to a belief that things like friendships, family, and so on don’t require the kind of effort and commitment that comes with that of having a significant other. The reality, I believe, is that anything involving consistent or semi-consistent interactions with any person is a relationship.
While it may be true that some relationships require more effort and work than others; effort and work are still necessary. As well, that effort and work must be put in by each person involved. Otherwise,a relationship that is a one way street is destined to dissolve over the course of time. We must appreciate the people in our lives. The ones who care about us. The ones who are there for us. The ones who never consistently claim that they are always too busy to reach out. Do right by each other. And tell those you hold closest that you love them. Put in the effort to be able to cherish memories with someone rather than a memory about someone.
A Voice to Listen 