HOW DOES COMPROMISE WORK?

Doug (FPS/DougLite.com) has an interesting post, Do Trumpsters Think This Is Their Civil War? opposes President Donald Trump. Why? Here are his reasons: WHY I DISLIKE THIS GUY AS MY PRESIDENT.

Since we can have a civil conversation with , I guess it would be an exaggeration to say he has gone off the deep end, but most of his posts express his dislike for Trump, and he keeps himself busy writing posts about his dislike for Trump.

‘s posts can actually be interesting. Do Trumpsters Think This Is Their Civil War? provides ‘s assessment of the difficulty of compromise. He seems to be most concerned about the fanaticism of “Trumpian conservatives”.

These Trumpian conservatives literally worship Trump, yet none will admit to that.  To them, whatever Trump is as a person, what he has done to create chaos, whatever he spouts in his tweets, whatever lies he tells, matters not because his agenda (what little of it he’s managed to get passed) is making their lives wonderful.  In other words, to conservatives, the end justifies the means. (from here)

What are we to make of that? Apparently,  has trouble grasping why anyone would support Trump, and the Conservative ideology is foreign to him. So I suppose that is why thinks compromise is impossible and assigns motives to Conservatives we would not assign to ourselves.

Why would someone be a Conservative? Each Conservative has his own reasons. Mine? I am a Christian first, then a Conservative. I am a Conservative because I put my faith in God, not government or a man. I don’t want to be pressured to render unto Caesar what belongs to God. Hence, I want the power of government as limited as possible.

It has been my experience that most Liberal Democrats see government as a powerful tool for good. Therefore, they think that pragmatism justifies using government as a tool to do whatever they happen to think is good. What they fail to grasp is the sinfulness of man, that power corrupts.  What they fail to understand is that just because one group might like an idea, that does not mean others won’t rightfully oppose it. What they fail to accept is the fact that individual rights are sacred, that we belong to God, not our government. We have a republic, not a democracy, because an unrestrained majority can be tyrannical.

Does it make any difference whether it is one man or a majority of the People who have their foot on your neck? If we can imagine the difficulty of throwing off a tyranny of the majority, then perhaps we can understand the plight of the black men and women who were once enslaved in this nation. As long as the majority of the people actively denied them their rights, they had no where to turn except in prayer to God.

What does a republic require? Self restraint. Unless we respect our Constitution and keep our republic intact, we will descend into tyranny. Unless we love our neighbors and respect their God-given rights, why should we restrain ourselves? That is why I left a comment at ‘s post. Here it is.

In politics compromise involves at least four things.

  1. A deal that requires compromise. Donald Trump is our president. The election process we used to elect him is a compromise.
  2. A portion of the deal where compromise is possible. We don’t compromise our values. We compromise on procedures and material things.
  3. A process that both formalizes the compromise and enforces it. The Constitution provides those processes.
  4. Deal makers who will honor the compromise. This requires us to be honorable enough to elect honorable men and women to lead us. This requires us to be trustworthy and our opponents to trust us.

Why are we having a cold civil war? We are not electing honorable men and women. We are electing people who want power. Instead of electing people who understand that their job is to protect our God-given rights, we are electing people who think their job is to run our lives and spend our money. Because we cannot compromise, we are borrowing huge sums and spending that money, growing our nation’s debt for no good reason.

Consider the American Civil War. Decades before the war smart men assessed the situation and saw conflict as inevitable. Why? The slave masters would not give up their slaves. Instead, they insisted upon spreading that peculiar institution into the territories and beyond. Even the whites in the South who did not own slaves supported slavery.

Look at what it took to end slavery. That war ended 1865 and we are still suffering social repercussions. Was any compromise possible on slavery? Abraham Lincoln tried to find one, but South wanted their own way.

What is the fight about now? What is Trump doing that causes so much controversy? What are we fighting about that is so disruptive of our values that we cannot live and let live? Did you mention a specific issue? No.

The American Civil War began when Abraham Lincoln won the election, and the South would not accept the results. (from here)

What calls our cold civil war began in earnest with the election of President Donald Trump. Think about this, how the governor of California refers to his conflict with the Federal Government over illegal immigration.

Brown called the attorney general’s trip to California a political stunt and his description of California’s laws a lie.

“Like so many in the Trump administration, this attorney general has no regard for the truth,” Brown told reporters, adding that the laws were crafted with input and support from California police chiefs. “This is basically going to war against the state of California.” (from California governor says Trump administration waging war against state (yahoo.com))

The Federal Government establishes immigration policy. The Constitution clearly gives that power to Congress, but the state of California, under Governor Brown, insists upon making its own rules. When leaders insist upon having their own way and won’t compromise, how is compromise possible?

Here is the speech Attorney General Jeff Sessions made to law enforcement officers in Sacramento, CA. What did Sessions say that justifies what the leaders in California are doing?

123 thoughts on “HOW DOES COMPROMISE WORK?

  1. Despite the disagreement, I didn’t want to let it end without saying how much I enjoyed the discussion. Tom, you should be proud of the fact that your blog has elicited such a vibrant discussion with so many participants and included some opposing points of view. There is so little time in the day to take in information and perspectives. I really appreciate the opportunity to come here and get, what I have come to believe may be the core ideological perspective of the Republican Party right now.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. A compromise by definition is a mutual concession. I often hear it said by both sides that they are willing to compromise on anything but principle. And then, quite pragmatically when it suits the furtherance of their agenda, they proceed to compromise on principle. For example, lying, cheating, womanizing Donald Trump is the ultimate compromise of supposed conservative moral principles for the sake of partisan expediency. As I said before, whether this is hypocrisy or not depends mostly on how well the conservative Trumpist can rationalize away his or her supposedly uncompromising principles with false equivalencies. Before anyone responds with another avalanche of “I know you are but what I? criticisms, let me say that Democrats in some ways are worse because, rather than compromising their principles, they just have very fluid princples that lack the mooring of any religious philosophical foundation.

    In my humble opinion, however, the real inability to compromise is a misunderstanding of what it means to be “principled”. If to be principled means to seek virtue, then to compromise is inherently a part of seeking virtue.

    For example, courage is an objective, universal virtue. However, courage is also a relative and precarious situational balance between being foolhardy and being cowardly. Courage, like the other virtues, is therefore often an imperfect “compromise” that is very relative to the situation and also subjective to the what that person feels and perceives. To try to be virtuous in principle, by the very nature of virtue, very often means to find compromise between extremes. Virtue cannot therefore be the dogmatically ideological schemes that either side often presents.

    What does this have to do with Trump? None of us are perfectly virtuous. Even when we try to be virtuous, nature of our finite world presents us with moral dilemmas and intractable problems that only have imperfect virtuous solutions, solutions often fraught with unintended consequences. The problem with Trump is that he doesn’t even try to be virtuously principled, but instead openly and unabashedly promotes vice. If ones believes in the pursuit of virtue, it’s really hard to find compromise with that.

    Like

      1. Thanks Doug. It’s Tony if you’re referring to me.

        The above was just a thought that you inspired when you said it wasn’t necessarily Trump’s policies but how he he says things and how he behaves that you don’t approve of.

        Trump brilliantly plays to our worst emotions: selfishness, greed, victimization, fear and hatred. Trump has no strategy and no real policies, just ethocentered jingoisms lacking any of the basic unselfish virtues. Trump screams America first, demonizes desperate immigrants and refugees, starts thoughtless trade wars that hurt our allies and trade partners more than our enemies, and on and on. People can have thoughtful, practical disagreements in all of these areas, but Trump is all hate and fear filled rhetoric and emotional impulse without thoughtfulness, expertise or any real strategy. Trump is worse than a bull in a China shop – the bill is just affraid and retaliating, not purposely promoting malevolence and fear to get other bulls to join in the wreckfest.

        Like

    1. @tsalmon

      Remember this point.

      A deal that requires compromise. Donald Trump is our president. The election process we used to elect him is a compromise.

      You won’t accept the results of the election. You can’t talk about anything except Trump.

      You are voting for people who are willing to do almost anything to get their own way. You just admitted they are virtually unprincipled. They want illegal immigration so they can get cheap labor. They want amnesty for illegal immigrants so that they can buy votes cheaply and encourage more illegal immigration.

      When I harp on God-given rights, I do so for a reason. If what we want requires infringing upon someone else’s God-given rights, we don’t have the right to use the government for take what we want. Democrats don’t respect the Constitution. How anyone respect a document if the twist it to mean whatever they want it to mean?

      Like

      1. Oh, c’mon, Tom… democrats don’t respect the Constitution? How many democrat veterans might take issue with that statement, you think? See, that’s my whole point… it’s this blanket assumptions and polarizing opinions that just don’t go anywhere. You see, I’m willing to live in a world where republicans and democrats can exist together. You should remember that world.. the one created by the Founding Fathers? If you’re not happy here, Tom.. why stress out so much.. find another country.

        Like

        1. @Doug

          I think it is fair to look at the decisions of the judges Democrats appoint and approve. I can read the Constitution. I can read their decisions.

          I can happily respect the military service of Democrat veterans without respecting the wisdom of the people they vote for. Nobody is perfect. We all make mistakes. That is why we need to calmly discuss things.

          I have no problem debating either religion or politics. Neither did the Founding Fathers. It is American as apple pie. At least, it was before some people insisted that other people had to stop offending snowflakes.

          Like

          1. I understand what you meant because we’ve had some discourse for some time now, but making blanket statements like that is part of the problem with all this divisiveness hence I had to challenge you on it. But I still don’t agree with you.

            Like

          2. Democrats voted for the politicians who don’t respect the Constitution. So while it may sound a little harsh to say Democrats don’t respect the Constitution, it is a logical conclusion.

            Presumably, you don’t agree Democrats don’t respect the Constitution. Well, here is a challenge for you. Most of the Federal Budget now goes to health, education, and welfare programs. Where does the Constitution empower Congress to set up such programs?

            Like

          3. From the Constitution itself! And if any citizen wishes to challenge that then it’s up to the Supreme Court. Now.. if you want to assign all three branches of the government somehow violating your perception of how the Constitution should be I suppose that’s your thing as I know you think government has run amok, although I have no idea what time in U.S. history you would have felt better about it all.

            Like

      2. “You won’t accept the results of the election.”

        I’m not sure that I understand your point. Had Clinton been elected, you would have then determined that she was fit to be president, and never disagreed with her again? Lol.

        As for the Constitution, you clearly don’t understand how it works. The Constitution is mostly a process document. If you don’t believe in the process, you don’t believe in the Constitution.

        You obviously don’t know the process. You don’t know the case law. Instead, you just throw out broad assertions based on little more than what you, in your grand ideological scheme think the Constitution ought to mean. It makes for wonderful grand
        standing heat but very little of the light of knowledge.

        But that is another well worn topic. Let’s get back to the topic at hand – why Trump is morally unfit to be president.😊

        Like

        1. “But that is another well worn topic. Let’s get back to the topic at hand – why Trump is morally unfit to be president”

          I think you will have a hard time making a legal case that he should be impeached for having sex with a porn star ten years ago. One can’t really say that is exploitive.
          As a side note, Harvey Weinstein is in great jeopardy of going bankrupt from the civil suits. It would be interesting if Lewinsky and others went this route.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. “I think you will have a hard time making a legal case that he should be impeached for having sex with a porn star ten years ago.”

            Not so sure. You must admit that it does say something about his character that he has cheated on every wife, including the FLOTUS. However, the real news is that he paid hush money to, it appears now several women, during his election, and that, as a sitting President, he is currently suing them to stay quiet. If, because of disreputable behavior, Trump can be blackmailed by more than one porn star, one can only wonder what much more nefarious characters might also have on Trump. I guess we’ll find out, and I would guess that that will be the source of Trump’s impeachment.

            Seriously, given just what you already know about Trump’s business dealings, and given that Trump unrepentantly cheated on the person(s) that should be able to trust him most, do you really think that Trump isn’t dirty in any number of worse ways. Character is indeed destiny.

            I’m curious. What exactly would have to be uncovered before you would think that Trump lacks the character and temperament to be president? Money laundering? Penis picks? Shady loans from sanctioned banks? Conspiracy with foriegn powers to win the election?

            Like

          2. ”However, the real news is that he paid hush money to, it appears now several women, during his election, and that, as a sitting President, he is currently suing them to stay quiet.”
            As a lawyer, do you typically refer to legally binding non-disclosure agreements as “hush money” and suing for violations as “suing them to stay quiet”?

            ”If, because of disreputable behavior, Trump can be blackmailed by more than one porn star, one can only wonder what much more nefarious characters might also have on Trump. I guess we’ll find out, and I would guess that that will be the source of Trump’s impeachment.”
            Time will tell.

            ”I’m curious. What exactly would have to be uncovered before you would think that Trump lacks the character and temperament to be president? Money laundering?”
            Yes, using military engagements/contracts/ect or foreign policy directives for purposes of money laundering would do it.

            ”Penis picks?”
            No. You’ll remember I’m a nurse? I couldn’t care less about penis photos.

            ”Shady loans from sanctioned banks?”
            Yes. Though I guess I’d have to know the context there.

            ”Conspiracy with foriegn powers to win the election?”
            Yes, but see above about context…I don’t think campaign advertising and using social media as a platform is “conspiracy” any more than any other corporation. See the Facebook COO e mail above. We live in a global economy and just about any large company has some connection or another with some “foreign power”.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. @anon

            Fair enough as to the rest of what you answered, but as to this:

            “As a lawyer, do you typically refer to legally binding non-disclosure agreements as “hush money” and suing for violations as “suing them to stay quiet”?”

            Oh, the legal aspects of this are quite facinating, and it would appear that Trump’s lawyers are getting their rear ends handed to them legally. However, if Trump was not the POTUS, this would be just another tawdry little scandal on page three of the gossip column.

            I’m not claiming any sympathy for the women here. The women who had consensual affairs with Trump certainly knew what they were doing and it would appear now that they just want to trade on the new bonanza of reality-TV-like notoriety Trump’s notorious presidency is fostering constantly, and they appear to be winning in this regard as well.

            Seriously anon. You don’t find it disconcerting that Trump had to go around paying off all his old mistresses just to get elected? You don’t find it degrading to the office of the POTUS that Trump is now suing (and apparently losing) in court to keep these illicit affairs from exposure? You don’t find this to be an embarrassment to the country, a blow to Trump’s already weak credibility and to the standing of the office of the presidency at home and around the world?

            I’m mean, it may just be one of those reoccurring coincidences with the Trump presidency, but don’t you think the sudden announcement of the firing Trump’s NSC Chairman was awfully well timed to distract from a CNN interview with Trump’s Playboy Bunny girl friend?Do you even wonder what Trump might do to distract from Mueller’s potentially far more damaging ultimate pronouncements – WWIII?

            Trump’s presidency is an increasingly chaotic dumpster fire that could potentially ignite the whole world.

            Like

          4. Look at what are you calling an increasingly chaotic dumpster fire. It has nothing to do with with Trump is doing in office. Even Doug only complains about Trump’s style.

            What you are doing is engaging in an unrelenting, smug, self-satisfied ad hominem. Given who you have voted for, it is the purest hypocrisy. You candidates has no problem with consensual sex of any kind.

            Are Christians happy with Trump’s playboy past? No, but the alternative was voting for a woman who thinks paying for abortions and the harvesting the organs of the unborn is a civic duty of some sort.

            Like

          5. “Conspiracy with foriegn powers to win the election?”
            Yes, but see above about context…I don’t think campaign advertising and using social media as a platform is “conspiracy” any more than any other corporation.”

            The recent Facebook scandal isn’t even the most disconcerting evidence of Trump campaign conspiracy? Have you forgotten that we already have two guilty pleas from Trump campaign officials essentially based upon their Russia connections. There’s like dozens of others. Between strange meetings on Indian Ocean islands and Trump’s asking for Russia business deals during the campaign and Trump real estate purchases by Putin’s Russian oligarchs and Trump associates’ efforts with Wikileaks to expose Democratic emails stolen by Russian operatives, and on and on. It’s hard to keep up. If you’re trying to play WAC-A-Mole with evidence of Trump’s Russia complicity anon, you’re losing “bigly”.

            Like

          6. “Seriously anon. You don’t find it disconcerting that Trump had to go around paying off all his old mistresses just to get elected?”

            Way back (and I don’t have the link…almost a couple of decades ago now, after Marla) I remember reading that Trump made all of his dates sign non-disclosure agreements even before he would “date” them. I thought it was sort of strange…but also smart (candidly) at the time.
            So none of this surprises me.
            Is this optimal/my dream for a POTUS? No.

            “don’t you think the sudden announcement of the firing Trump’s NSC Chairman was awfully well timed to distract from a CNN interview with Trump’s Playboy Bunny girl friend?”

            Not really. You might notice he has fired quite a few people? I don’t think the timing was planned. I’d wager a good deal of money one had absolutely nothing to do with the other.

            “Do you even wonder what Trump might do to distract from Mueller’s potentially far more damaging ultimate pronouncements – WWIII?”

            Well, if precedent is any measure he should’ve already bombed a pharmaceutical factory, right? We’ll see…I might eat my words. But if Mueller’s “pronouncements” come to pass and you’re proven wrong will you eat yours?

            Liked by 1 person

          7. “You might notice he has fired quite a few people? I don’t think the timing was planned. I’d wager a good deal of money one had absolutely nothing to do with the other.”

            I think you might lose that bet. It was announced earlier that the head of the NSC was leaving in several days and who Trump had appointed. Quite suddenly, literally right before the Bunny interview was to air, Trump announced the firing was to take place immediately. Neither the current nor the new NSC Advisor saw this coming. In fact the new guy heard he was the head of the NSC effective immediately while he was still on air as a Fox New contributor. Basically, he was being paid by Fox News and the taxpayer at the same time.

            What was the rush that both the outgoing and incoming NCS heads had to be surprised by it if it wasn’t to distract? The answer is that Trump is either (A) conniving or (B) incompetent or (C) all the above. I bet (C).

            Like

          8. @anon

            We are talking about people who think the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean. Look at the Mueller investigation. It is a witch hunt. The Democrats know Trump did not collude with the Russians, and they have no trouble ignoring with H. Clinton did.

            Like

          9. “I think you might lose that bet. It was announced earlier that the head of the NSC was leaving in several days and who Trump had appointed. Quite suddenly, literally right before the Bunny interview was to air, Trump announced the firing was to take place immediately.”

            What percentage of the US population has/had any idea whatsoever who McMaster is?
            I’d guess about 2 percent…5 percent would astound me, but it might be that high. Still not enough to distract from some random playboy bunny/porm star testimony.
            I wouldn’t lose that bet.
            I must agree 100 percent with what Citizen Tom said.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. Just looking further, McMaster wrote his resignation:
            “After thirty-four years of service to our nation, I am requesting retirement from the U.S. Army effective this summer after which I will leave public service. Throughout my career it has been my greatest privilege to serve alongside extraordinary servicemembers and dedicated civilians,” McMaster said in a statement adding. “I am thankful to President Donald J. Trump for the opportunity to serve him and our nation as national security advisor.”

            So I suppose your argument is the above was strong-armed out of him, to meet the timing of the “bunny’s” televised piece?
            I seriously doubt it.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. @anon

            So you’re betting that Trump is just incompetent in how he fires his NSC head rather than conniving because it should have been obvious that the distraction didn’t work and because it was so transparently a distraction. Good one.

            The whole constitutionality argument with Tom is a very old one the rehashing again is unlikely to resolve. It is apropo to the topic of compromise however.

            The Constitution is all about a compromise between competing powers. Part of that compromise is that SCOTUS decides constitiomality,, whether we like that decision or not. We make that compromise or else we don’t follow the Constitution. . To say that something that SCOTUS has determined is constitutional is not constitutional means that you are no longer willing to play by the rules that are set forth in the Constitution. You are saying that because you don’t like the way a certain call was made, you don’t want to play the game anymore.

            Like

          12. Tom wrote:

            I asked a specific question. Nothing complicated about it, if it made any sense.
            Remember this verse.
            Ecclesiastes 7:29 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
            29 See, this alone I found, that God made human beings straightforward, but they have devised many schemes.”

            Probably no two groups are more scheming in defense of their mission than lawyers and military men, and I’ve been both.😈

            Why do I have to defend laws and rulings that happened either before I was born or when I was a child? If you want to argue with mostly dead lawyers about what long dead lawyers intended, look up the cases yourself, and argue with them. I’m not even sure I would always agree with their legal reasoning either even when I might or might not agree with the result. I do, however, strongly believe in the Rule of Law.

            Part of concept that is The Rule of Law are terms like “precedent” and “res adjudicata”. If something can never be really decided, then we cannot make plans and move forward. Confidence in the system is lost and governments collapse. Up to a point, the tyranny of what we might believe is a bad call is not near as bad as the tyranny and chaos of having no umpires and no rules. At some point even a bad call may lead to a good result (I’m thinking of Brown vs. Board which very arguably SCOTUS made up out of thin air).

            I’m not saying that we can’t criticize the call, or try to get new umpires that make better calls, or even lobby the rule makers to change the rules. But we do so within the system with the idea that the law should change methodically and incrementally if we we are to preserve confidence, predictability and stability of the system, if we are, in other words, to maintain The Rule of Law. That’s all this scheming lawyer and sailor is trying to say, and if you don’t find that to be truthful and sincere enough, I’m sure you’ll hit me over the head with some more Bible quotes.😉

            Like

          13. @tsalmon

            Why do I have to defend laws and rulings that happened either before I was born or when I was a child? If you want to argue with mostly dead lawyers about what long dead lawyers intended, look up the cases yourself, and argue with them. I’m not even sure I would always agree with their legal reasoning either even when I might or might not agree with the result. I do, however, strongly believe in the Rule of Law.

            This is from a guy who voted for a man whose slogan was “Change we can believe in”.
            😆

            If everything that happened before we were born does not require any defense, that why did you vote for that clown?

            When the precedent that is established is blatantly in contradiction with the Constitution, what good is it? Isn’t the point of following precedent predictably. If the application of a law is somewhat ambiguous (often the case), then the judge who makes the first decision can provide a reasonable interpretation and establish a precedent for those who follow.

            On the other hand, what if a political party is just packing the Supreme Court so it can get its own way? Is that not just an abuse of power? Because such behavior is not honorable, the precedent is worse than useless. What it says is that the law is whatever the majority wants at a particular time. That is a recipe for chaos.

            You are familiar with Dred Scott v. Sandford, Roe v. Wade, Korematsu v. United States, and many other decisions. Do you really think that for the sake of precedent those decisions should be or should have been allowed to stand?

            We spend absurd amounts of money on health, education, and welfare programs. We are loading our children down with debt and diverting huge sums that could be better used by the private economy. Burdening our children with debt is highly unethical. Redistributing the wealth is unconstitutional and unethical because it invites us to use the government to steal from each other.

            For all practical purposes, we are now raiding the public treasury and pretending otherwise. We are doing it for the old, the poor, the disabled, and even, ironically, for the children.

            You want Bible quotes? Okay. => https://citizentom.com/2010/10/04/blessings-for-obedience/

            Like

          14. “Look at what are you calling an increasingly chaotic dumpster fire. It has nothing to do with with Trump is doing in office. Even Doug only complains about Trump’s style.”

            Tom, if you set aside your strange emotional outrage for a minute then I think you would have to see the comedy in this. Believe me when I say that the irony is not lost on me that I am usually the one asking for tolerance and empathy, and that you are usually condemning others for not following strict moral codes.

            Once again, my problem with Trump isn’t that he ain’t no alter boy; it’s that he preaches for selfishness and against selflessness. That is Trump’s “style” and it permeates his actions and words. Trump doesn’t really have any “policies”.

            Like

          15. Trump doesn’t really have any “policies”.

            How would you know? If you do, I have yet to see any evidence of it whatsoever. That statement is just pure ignorance.

            Trump’s supporters think he is keeping is promises. That’s is the problem with that spending bill. Lot of his supporters are angry he did not veto it, and it is obvious that he knew that would be so. If he did not have any policies, then why would anyone be upset?

            Like

          16. “Trump’s supporters think he is keeping is promises. That’s is the problem with that spending bill. Lot of his supporters are angry he did not veto it, and it is obvious that he knew that would be so. If he did not have any policies, then why would anyone be upset?”

            That’s a fair question (despite the senseless invective that preceded it).

            You have “policies” Tom. You have an ideology and specific goals that you would like to attain in furtherance of that ideology. Those goals would be policies. If you were a policy maker, particularly a leader of policy makers, then one would expect you to have a strategy and tactics for the enactment of your policies.

            Trump has no actual ideology. He has jingoistic slogans. He’ll tell anyone what he thinks they want to hear. Without any ideology Trump can’t have goals to further that ideology. Trump also appears incapable of stretegic thinking. Without ideology, without goals, without strategy, Trump can’t have any policies.

            You act as if Trump is not the leader of a political party that controls all three branches of government. Agree with him or not, in a similar situation, Obama was passing Obamacare, had passed a massive stimulus package and Dodd Frank, among other things. So far Trump’s Congress has passed the mother of all crony capitalism tax cut plans adding trillions to the debt our grandkids will pay, and this omnibus bill that you hate. Yep, Trump is keeping his promises … how exactly?

            If Trump is so feckless now, imagine what it will be like if Democrats control one or both Houses next year?

            Like

          17. @tsalmon

            Every time Trump screws up I just imagine the alternative. Whatever you want to say about Trump I know H. Clinton would have been far worse.

            I also know only God knows the future. The only thing I can do is what I think God wants me to do, what would glorify Him most. When I looked at the alternative between voting for Trump or Clinton, I did think Trump would glorify God, but I knew Clinton had promised shameful things. Anyway, the unexpected happened.

            Like

          18. @Doug

            Everyone is unique. Even you. Even I. Our children look like us, may even remind us of ourselves, but they are also different. Nevertheless, we are all made in God’s image.

            Still, because of the difference, each of knows but little of the burdens others bear.

            There but for the grace of God, go I. — John Bradford (1510–1555) (from http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/there-but-for-the-grace-of-god.html)

            Legend has it that Bradford spoke those words as he watch another man being taken to the scaffold. In time, Bradford became martyr. He was executed, burned at the stake.

            In time, we will know.

            Like

          19. @Doug

            I was just being weakly humorous too by rubbing it in.

            Except for the grace of God, you too could be president, and some guy just like you could be writing a blog about you. As it is, we have been spared that “privilege”. Thank God!

            Like

          20. “When the precedent that is established is blatantly in contradiction with the Constitution, what good is it? Isn’t the point of following precedent predictably. If the application of a law is somewhat ambiguous (often the case), then the judge who makes the first decision can provide a reasonable interpretation and establish a precedent for those who follow.
            On the other hand, what if a political party is just packing the Supreme Court so it can get its own way? Is that not just an abuse of power? Because such behavior is not honorable, the precedent is worse than useless. What it says is that the law is whatever the majority wants at a particular time. That is a recipe for chaos.”

            I’m not defending the ethics of Roosevelt’s Court packing scheme (which never happened by the way though the threat was enough), however, the concept does not violate the Constitution. What about the honor of holding up a President’s SCOTUS appointee for over a year until he’s out of office? Will it still be honorable if a Democratic Senate does it to Trump (or Pence if he gets impeached) for two years?

            You act as if, because we can’t have a perfect system according to your ideology, then we should just give up. Well, to paraphrase Claud Rains, “I’m shocked, shocked to find out that politics is going on here.” And from the dealer, “Here’s your winnings sir.”

            This system is messy and imperfect at times. Dred Scott was overturned by a Civil War. Rowe vs Wade has essentially been overturned by decades of limiting decisions by the Court. If the Court completely reversed Rowe vs Wade tomorrow, in practical terms, we would hardly notice the change, it would still be hard to get an abortion in Mississippi and easy to get one in New York.

            Like democracy, the rule of law is the worst system in the world, except all the others. Given all the opportunities that pubic goods and services have made possible to us in our lives, maybe we ought to see that cup as at least half full every now and then, or maybe even brimming. 😘

            Like

          21. What about the honor of holding up a President’s SCOTUS appointee for over a year until he’s out of office? Will it still be honorable if a Democratic Senate does it to Trump (or Pence if he gets impeached) for two years?

            Most of the people we are electing are not honorable people. Obama was not appointing honorable judges. His appointees were almost guaranteed to bend the law to suit their political ends. When what the law says is not respected — when the intent and spirit of a law is twisted and/or ignored — that is not the rule of law. That is the rule of conniving men, and there is nothing just about it.

            Not that long ago the appointment of judges did not create much controversy. When people expect a judge to interpret the law as best he can, instead of legislating from the bench, all they want to know is that the man is worthy of the trust that has been given him. Now they want to know his politics.

            Anyway, if you are willing to use the court to further you political ends, then there is no reason you should be surprised when your opponents cry foul and oppose you. What other choice do we have?

            Like

          22. Did y’all know that some unsung hero actually hid new Russia sanctions in this omnibus bill? I was just musing – given this is how it’s going for Trump, if the Senate flips Democrat next year, then Mr. “Art of the Deal” will probably being mowing Chuck Schumer’s yard every week.

            Like

          23. tsalmon

            Unsung hero? What ugly foolishness! Do you hate Trump so much you think that is good thing? We are supposed to believe hiding stuff in a bill is now a good thing?

            When Congress crafts bills, they now write them up in secret, cook up a phony emergency, and demand passage before anyone has a chance to read the bill, which is typically a couple of thousand pages long.

            When bills are crafted by a few, never seriously debated, and no amendments are allowed, we don’t have a democracy. We have an oligarchy.

            You want to make fun of Trump? Well, he is not responsible for this mockery of our onetime republic, a land we once proudly held up as the land of the free and the home of the brave.

            Like

          24. “Did y’all know that some unsung hero actually hid new Russia sanctions in this omnibus bill?”

            “Hid” it?
            They write it in invisible ink?

            Like

          25. Just perusing the internet news (always a mistake) about Russian sanctions and the omnibus bill. Titles like, “Congress snuck new Russian sanctions in omnibus bill!” (with picture of Trump and Putin sitting next to each other having a conversation….obviously in cahoots!)
            “Bill includes new measures to punish Russia” (image of Trump and Putin both frowning….obviously in cahoots!)
            How wonderful that Trump is unable to read (and so, apparently, are his minions! Score for Democracy!)
            Ah, what unsung heroes…..
            How lucky we are the media knows what’s up!

            Liked by 1 person

          26. @anon

            CNN had a report on this before Trump signed the bill. If CNN had a report on it before the signing, it is a cinch Trump knew about it. He obviously watches CNN.

            My guess is the only reason CNN knew about it is that the “clever” people who drafted that part of the bill told them.

            What is shameful is that these new sanctions were included without debate and apparently in an attempt to embarrass our own leadership, not Russia. Putin is happy about this, not upset, but he will of course, appear otherwise.

            Because there is no honor among thieves — because we have forgotten to love God and each other — we are slowly rendering our nation ungovernable.

            Why did the Roman Empire collapse? We need only look about. We can see it happening here.

            When did the Roman Empire begin to collapse, That started when the people began to regard their government as a prize to be seized at the first opportunity. Instead looking upon their government as a necessary protector of their rights and their people from foreign conquest, they looked upon it covetously, as a source of power and wealth. So it is that each new Caesar found himself horridly constrained. He could go to the frontiers and lead his legions against the barbarians that threatened the Empire, or he could stay in Rome and protect his throne, but he could not do both. In fact, he could not even trust his commanders to lead his legions against the barbarians. As the first Caesar had demonstrated, when one of those commanders returned to Rome, that commander could use the legions whose loyalties he now commanded against the emperor.

            So the emperors tended to stay in Rome, they kept their potential competitors close, and the frontier lands commanded by the Roman legions shrank away.

            Like

          27. One thing that is truly refreshing (I mean this sincerely) is the Democratic party’s very recent interest in internet security. Maybe they’ll care next time a Secretary of State uses a home cooked server for official State Department business!
            Conservatives have been screaming about security for years….remember when Assange was a hero? Even bradass87 has lost much of his/her/its following.
            Now the media cares too…which (apparently) makes the concern “real” now.
            (likely only until conservatives are the target again though)

            Liked by 1 person

          28. This “unsung hero” obviously hit a nerve. Dirty trick? With regard to withholding a SCOTUS appointee, Tom tells me essentially that all is fair in love and war, including dirty politics.

            I have not read the news so I don’t know if it was a Democrat who did the “hiding”. Russia sanctions seems to be a pretty bipartisan issue, and it’s only Trump that one needs to hide this from – wonder why? Either way, a Republican Congress lead by a Republican President controls legislation, so it is them that should be the object of your animosity. They are the ones who are either dishonest or feckless. 🙄

            Like

          29. Why do you constantly insist that Trump is against sanctions when he has approved sanctions? Yeah, this meme gets pretty old.
            This is the quality of dialogue here:
            Trump approves sanctions—->
            “why, Trump won’t approve sanctions! He must be a Russian Shill!”

            Trump approves more sanctions—–>
            “Why oh why won’t Trump approve sanctions?!? Because he’s a Russian shill!”

            Trump signs a bill with more sanctions—->
            “Lookit that! Trump was fooled by some unsung hero!”
            ..,.”Oh, wait…you don’t like that “unsung hero” bit? I obviously struck a nerve, Tee hee!!”

            Liked by 1 person

          30. Tom, I believe there is a LOT going on behind the scenes in international politics.

            I say this because….there is a history of a lot going on behind the scenes in international politics. There are often tacit agreements that work until the media becomes aware of them. One example that comes to mind was our UAV program in Pakistan. Everyone knew, although the US would neither confirm nor deny it, that Predator UAVs were killing militants in Pakistan for years. Pakistan issued press releases against the strikes, but it was clear from their behavior and the lack of any formal protest (for years) that they acquiesced and were even complicit in the attacks. Once the media got wind that the drones were actually placed in a military base in Pakistan, that was the beginning of the end.
            The public doesn’t need to know everything.
            Another example:
            The destruction of the entire world was averted by the agreement that ended the Cuban Missile crisis. The key item that saved the peace was the informal agreement that the US would remove its obsolete missiles from Turkey provided that nobody ever had to admit that this was part of the deal. If it had been necessary to formally acknowledge every element of every agreement, well I guess we would have had to go to nuclear war and then we would all be dead.

            I know it makes some heads spin to imagine Trump might possibly be smart enough to negotiate anything…even his way out of a paper bag. But….we did move that embassy to Jerusalem, and somehow the world didn’t end. And now there are talks of negotiations with the DPRK…ISIS is gone…gee….

            Liked by 1 person

          31. ..and I am one of apparently many who’s head is constantly spinning regarding Trump.
            Moving the embassy came up simply because someone told him it was time to sign the routine waiver. Efforts were always in the works waiting for a signature. Not an overly great international diplomatic accomplishment. It does say that Trump cares not for that elusive peace agreement with the Palestinians.. which is the reason past presidents have avoiding the embassy move. Kushner matters not.

            Isis? The caliphate nonsense appears to be over as well as their military effectiveness in the Middle East. I hesitate to think we forget about the ideology fostering world terrorism still out there. I don’t care how much Trump is your superhero.. he ain’t THAT good. The Greatest Generation kicked fascist ass but they still live in spirit to this day in right wing redoubts here and in Europe.

            DPRK? http://www.findingpoliticalsanity.com/has-north-korea-just-blinked-or-is-trump-just-blind-or-both/

            Like

          32. @anon

            Just a few comments up you appeared to be upset that someone snuck these sanctions into a Bill that the near illiterate Trump never read. Now you think it’s all part of Trump’s master plan and no one appreciates what a Russia Hawk Trump is.

            You know that there is a reason that even Republicans are amazed and critical of Trump’s strange love affair with a man who tries to disrupt democracy in the US and around the world. Trump has drug his feet on the sanctions that Congress has already passed. From before he took office Trump and members of his new administration were assuring the Russians that already imposed sanctions would be lifted (See Flynn guilty plea).

            And you jump back and forth between blaming Democrats for hurting Trump’s Russia lovefest and blaming the press for the optics that Trump is having a Russia lovefest. At some point you know that defending this orange clown of a “conman” gets a little comical.

            Like

          33. “But….we did move that embassy to Jerusalem, and somehow the world didn’t end. And now there are talks of negotiations with the DPRK…ISIS is gone…gee….”

            Ya, Trump assigned his son-in-law, that brilliant new Churchill of American politics, Jered Kushner, (you know, the one who’s so shady he can’t hold a security clearance and that our own allies brag is easy to manipulate) to secretly negotiate it all.😂

            Like

          34. “Can you name one foreign policy success worthy of note from eight years of Obama?”

            We of course can disagree over the word “success” , but two huge strategic deals were the TPP and the Iran nuclear arms agreement. Let’s throw in the death of Bin Laden, as well as the deaths of terrorist leaders to numerous to list here. I’m sure that I could go on for quite a while if you want.

            Meanwhile Trump’s fired-by-tweet Secretary of State has decimated the State Department (we don’t even have an Ambassador to North Korea), and Trump just fired a, by all accounts, brilliant NSC head reportedly because he didn’t like to be lectured to.

            If anything more than foriegn policy byimpulsive tweet is going on in the Trump administration, one wonders what brilliant mind is actually coordinating that strategy. Jered?

            Like

          35. Killing Bin Laden is about the best you can do. I think it is fairly obvious a good share of the troubles Trump is dealing with comes from the mess Obama left behind.

            Like

          36. “…it is fairly obvious a good share of the troubles Trump is dealing with comes from the mess Obama left behind.”

            Fairly obvious to whom? Im no foriegn policy expert and I have not studied any of these complex agreements (oh, and I left out the international climate change agreement). Have you? Like me, you have probably just gotten your opinions second hand from pundits who may or may not know anything about which they are pontificating on as “obvious”.

            I doubt seriously that Trump has read them either, and seems to disdain the advice of experts, preferring instead his gut instincts, God help us. Trump’s foreign policy is the demagoguery of someone who proclaims the worthlessness of complex, hard negotiated agreements and says its “obvious” when he knows little or nothing about the subject. If the Obama administration had crafted world peace, Trump would have run against it and would wreck it from the presidency just to spite Obama. Am I wrong? Isn’t it “obvious” I’m right?😌

            Anyway, speaking of peace, have a blessed Palm Sunday. Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again in love and glory. On that we find our agreement and our greatest hope for compromise.

            Like

          37. @tsalmon

            You will just have to defer to my expertise. Trust me! It is obviously much to complicated for you.

            Seriously. What do you think distinguishes a foreign policy expert from anyone else?The best live in country and learn the language, but that doesn’t make them experts. I one thing to understand a culture. It is an entirely different matter to understand the political leadership of a nation, their goals, their assets, and how they intend to use those assets to obtain their foreign policy objectives.

            Consider how we define “expert”. We have a bunch of people running around trying to ban guns. Who are their experts? It is some high school kids whose school mates a nut shot and killed. If those kids are experts, then all an expert is is somebody people will listen to and take seriously.

            Who are you listening to? Experts? I am sure you are.
            😆

            What matters in the world of realpolitik? Leadership does make a difference. Who knows what Obama was trying to accomplish? He was too busy apologizing. At least Trump says he will put the interests of the USA first. I just hope he does and a bunch of people in this country stop trying to knife him in the back.

            Like

          38. “Just a few comments up you appeared to be upset that someone snuck these sanctions into a Bill that the near illiterate Trump never read.”

            Not sure where you go that from?
            I’m under the impression he read it (aided by his staff I’m sure).
            YOU are under the impression he didn’t and this was all sneaked by him and he was just too stupid to notice.
            After that statement, it does make sense to call foul,
            “So…you’re good with that? Underhandedly sneaking items into the budget?”
            A good point….But Tom noted this, not I.

            Liked by 1 person

          39. “Anyway, speaking of peace, have a blessed Palm Sunday. Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again in love and glory. On that we find our agreement and our greatest hope for compromise.”

            Amen, and a blessed Palm Sunday back at ya.

            Liked by 1 person

          40. “From before he took office Trump and members of his new administration were assuring the Russians that already imposed sanctions would be lifted (See Flynn guilty plea).”

            From that Trump-lovin’-NPR-
            “The intelligence official who has personally seen the transcripts told Mary Louise they contained “no evidence” of criminal wrongdoing, although the official said it can’t be definitively ruled out.
            The official also said there was “absolutely nothing” in the transcripts that suggests Flynn was acting under instructions “or that the trail leads higher.”
            “I don’t think [Flynn] knew he was doing anything wrong,” the official said. “Flynn talked about sanctions, but no specific promises were made. Flynn was speaking more in general ‘maybe we’ll take a look at this going forward’ terms.

            “And you jump back and forth between blaming Democrats for hurting Trump’s Russia lovefest and blaming the press for the optics that Trump is having a Russia lovefest. At some point you know that defending this orange clown of a “conman” gets a little comical.”

            Good grief. There is no Trump Russia lovefest. I do blame liberals and the media (but I repeat myself) for making a situation of any compromise or possibility of tacit understanding with Russia in negotiations politically untenable.
            Which is actually dangerous and bad for this country.
            Anything positive that might happen in our relationship with Russia will be construed as “Trump in bed with Russian!”

            Liked by 1 person

          41. “Moving the embassy came up simply because someone told him it was time to sign the routine waiver. Efforts were always in the works waiting for a signature. Not an overly great international diplomatic accomplishment.”

            Doug….I’m unsure of what you mean about the above. Could you offer a link or something? I hadn’t heard our embassy was slated to move to Jerusalem.

            Like

          42. Yeah I was not aware of this until Trump started all the talk about it either.

            “The policy change stems from a 1995 law mandating the embassy be moved to Jerusalem by 1999. However, out of worry that the move would destabilize peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians, presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama have signed waivers to suspend the move.”

            The entire article.. which is well worth reading.. is here..
            http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1377/move-us-embassy-tel-aviv-jerusalem/

            Like

          43. Thanks for the link, Tom…but I didn’t see any mention of previous plans to move the embassy there (before Trump) as Doug’s post seems to claim?
            This portion:
            “Efforts were always in the works waiting for a signature.”
            I think that’s unlikely, but if true I’d like to see the evidence.

            Per the DPRK, that’s a long post. Kim Jong-Un (and KJI before him) will not visit Seoul because it makes him look weak…the reason all inter-Korean summits are held in Pyongyang. It serves as a propaganda coup for his regime. However, if KJU is willing to leave Pyongyang and meet elsewhere….that would be a serious achievement for us. We’ll see.

            Liked by 1 person

          44. Got it, thanks Doug. Now I’ll bow out of this thread…probably to be continued elsewhere. It’s getting long and difficult to follow!

            Like

          45. Tom,

            On expertise, Thomas Nichols, a professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College blames the recent phenomenon of downgrading of experience and expertise partly on the internet because it lets users “assemble their own information and affords the delusion of omniscience.” It’s a form of narcissism where your “feelings” on any given complex subject equals actual “facts” and subject matter knowledge.

            What we get with this is the age of crackpotism where every college dropout, amateur conspiracy theorist simply shouts down the professionals. The loudest, most emotionally appealing demagogue guides our public policy.

            Trump during the campaign: “They say Trump doesn’t have experts. The experts are terrible.” Trump complained then that people wanted him to get s foriegn policy advisor. “But supposing I didn’t have one, would it be worse than we are doing now?”

            Well yes, it would be and it has been. Instead what we have in Trump World is government where looks, telegenics, and a willingness to flatter Trump is what substitutes for actual credentials. And you’re happy with that? And you call that kind of inflated regard for one’s own ignorant voice “wisdom”? Yea, right….

            Like

          46. You are not talking about foreign policy. Everything you say is always about Trump, and you don’t even say what he is doing that is wrong. It is all about style.

            Does that mean you are an “Internet Expert” on Trump?

            We elect people to do certain jobs. If We the People do not have the expertise to judge their performance, then democratic elections are pointless.

            Like

        2. @tsalmon

          Look at my blog. Obama was in office for eight years? Is every post a stream of insults against Obama?

          When he was running for office, I made a point of talking about the man. I did the same with respect to Trump. However, after the election I talked about the issues, and I talked about what Obama was doing. If, to the extent I bothered, what I said about Obama was insulting, THAT IS BECAUSE OF WHAT HE WAS DOING!.

          With respect to the Constitution, I will give you the same challenge you have flubbed up already. Most Federal spending goes to health, education, and welfare programs. Where does the Constitution give Congress the authority to spend money on health, education, and welfare programs?

          BTW — This is my post and my blog. I chose the topic. You won’t address the topic, but I have no problem defending my vote for Donald Trump. I understand I am not suppose to render unto government what I should be rendering unto God. I voted for a mere man, not a demigod.

          Like

          1. “Where does the Constitution give Congress the authority to spend money on health, education, and welfare programs?”

            Read the cases to find that out.

            “BTW — This is my post and my blog. I chose the topic. “

            If course, and I appreciate your letting me participate. Forgive the snark – it was only meant to lighten things up a little.

            Like

          2. I asked a specific question. Nothing complicated about it, if it made any sense.

            Remember this verse.

            Ecclesiastes 7:29 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

            29 See, this alone I found, that God made human beings straightforward, but they have devised many schemes.

            Since you are a lawyer and we are talking about half of government spending, if you don’t want to answer, it is because you are not satisfied with the truthfulness answer any more than I am. You may like the results, but we both know that the founders never chartered a welfare state.

            Like

        3. “So you’re betting that Trump is just incompetent in how he fires his NSC head rather than conniving because it should have been obvious that the distraction didn’t work and because it was so transparently a distraction. Good one.”

          This response is odd (to say the least).
          I didn’t suggest the firing (or resignation, apparently in this case?) is incompetent. YOU are the one who suggested that. Why is this a sign of “incompetence”?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Maybe I messed up the thread and responded to the wrong post…at any rate, hopefully it isn’t too confusing for readers.
            If McMaster is resigning it makes sense to replace him quickly. There’s nothing “incompetent” about it considering the recent talks of a summit with the DPRK.
            The appointments of Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Bolton are placing pressure on the Kim regime.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. Insanitybytes22

    I can attest to your concerns about China steel quality after being responsible for purchase steel from all over the world in an amount exceeding the weight of two USA aircraft carriers.

    One example was the continued failure of bolts supplied by China.

    The firm I worked for had to setup their own quality control plant in China to test everything they purchased before shipment to the USA.

    Regards and goodwill blogging.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’m amazed that businesses involved with China never presumed to check quality control prior to accepting shipment; “It’s cheap and we;re making money!”. Well, there’s a reason it’s so cheap.. and it’s not ONLY because of cheap labor. Honestly.. I find it poor business practice that your firm had to discover the bad bolts here in the States (actually in use?) and never tested at time of manufacture. If I ordered fidget spinners from China I would test each shipment before selling them. I thought everyone knows you can’t trust Chinese quality control.

      Back in 1968/69 I worked for a power tool company that sold to the government. Prior to me loading a shipment into a truck a government inspector had to inspect the shipment. The government required a certain carton size and shape. For example, a jig saw could be in the manufacturer’s inner box as you would purchase it in a store. But for the government, three were packed into a plain, brown outer shipping carton, with the only markings being the government’s stenciled contract numbers and identifying nomenclature. Now…. that stencil, as required by the government, could only be placed on that cardboard outer box in a certain way, as it related to staples and tape placement from the box manufacturer. When I first got the job they assigned me to apply the stencil to the brown outer cartons “on the side”. I picked a side and applied the stencil. I mean, a brown box has four sides all looking the same.. who knew. The government inspector found four cartons on the pallet of 50 with the stencil in the wrong place… or more specifically, on the wrong side… (“there’s a wrong side???”, I asked) and rejected the whole shipment.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Bit of a discussion above about the steel industry and tariffs. I just want to mention that not only has it cost a lot of American jobs, but we have compromised on quality, too. High quality steel is kind of important to our infrastructure. In my neck of the woods, we’ve just had two major infrastructure tragedies, completely preventable because people were blowing the whistle long before they happened.

    So, put me in the “it’s about time” category and approving of President Trump’s actions there, too.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. “When are you going to challenge the honesty of the people you vote for, the people who selected those judges?”

    LOL Tom. What was it that the guy that you wanted elected called by the guy you ultimately elected? Oh ya, it was “lying Ted”. For Trump, dishonesty is an art form. I don’t think any politician can match him.

    Compromise requires seeing issues from all sides. If you want to practice law without a license, you need to know that a good lawyer doesn’t go to trial without thoroughly knowing all the law, especially the law and the conflicts of law (a legal term you might look up if your going to be a constitutional scholar) from the opposition’s perspective. 😏

    Like

    1. Yeah! Seeing all sides of the issue is a great idea. When I see some guy robbing a bank, I understand he feels entitled to the money, but I still want him thrown in jail. I don’t agree with his side of the issue, and I don’t see any reason why I should.

      Like

  6. In my opinion, Doug should spend more time writing posts with proposals to help Democrats win the next election.

    I frankly do not see any Democratic proposals at all. All they seem to live for every moment in their present lives, including Doug, is plot schemes to get rid of Trump because they are not satisfied with the results of the last election.

    If they could win the next election, they can overturn everything Trump does in his term, same as what Trump did to Obama’s policies.

    Personally, they are acting like mean spirited juveniles. In my opinion.

    Regards and goodwill blogging.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Well, I personally am not a plot schemer.. sadly Trump makes up his own problems so there’s no reason to try and contrive schemes to assign negatives to him. Besides, for me the issue is Trump himself more than his political agenda so I’d be of little value trying to “help” the democrats with some sort of election platform to defeat Trump. Events are seemingly in motion that will take care of Trump’s political future as President, if not before the next election then certainly after.
      I realize Trump supporters languish within the Trump world that he has done so much for the country.. most certainly to their cause… and that ALL Americans should be pleased with that… as if the messiah has come to deliver us all from political evils. Let’s assume for the moment that Trump actually did something that was a true universal benefit to the nation; it has universal appeal.. and Trump is lauded for having actually improved the economy (assuming it needed improvement.. but let’s assume for our example here it does) and everyone has extra money in their pockets beyond their wildest dreams. I ask myself…. was that really worth Trump being President with all his lies, behaviors, and chaotic baggage? Not to me. Again.. whatever Trump does (in our current world events) will never justify his having been president… simply because he knows not what he does.

      Like

      1. @Doug

        I have given up trying to defend Trump. The news media can make up and “expose” scandals faster than I can investigate them.

        I care about is Trump’s job performance. All you want to talk about is his supposedly scandalous style. Our last president was supposedly stylish, but it is next to impossible to point anything that he did that worked as promised. On the other hand, in spite of the Democrat resistance, Trump is doing quite a bit of good, and he has not made anything worse. If the price for Trump’s substance is H. Clinton’s style, that sound sounds like a great deal to me.

        Like

      2. Doug, Since I’m no psychologist, I really have trouble trying to understand your “hatred” for Trump. I say “hatred “because that is my read on your remarks about him.

        Perhaps you might want to consider the Godfathers advice.

        “Never hate your enemies, it affects your judgement, Michael Corione.

        I hope you do not take this as an affront but as a friend might offer another friend, friendly advice.

        Regards and goodwill blogging.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I appreciate your friendly advice. I have stated this so much lately.. as recently as yesterday, somewhere around here. I DO hate the guy being MY President. I do NOT hate Trump the man. Never have. In fact, before he was president I thought he was kinda interesting in his being able to brand his name and have a novel TV show that played on his fame as a rich real estate guy. I thought his Pizza Hut commercials back in the day were funny.

          And I certainly have not the hate for him as conservatives have for Obama and Clinton.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. @Doug

            I can only speak for myself. I do not hate the Clinton’s or the Obama’s. I despised what the Democrats are doing to the country. When Trump gave up the notion of prosecuting Hillary Clinton, was I disappointed? Not really. I understood he did not want to waste time with it. People are so biased any jury would most likely be deadlocked, anyway. Then Jeff Sessions recused himself and the deep state got Mueller appointed.

            Trump did not have a vendetta, but some people sure did. Typically, the Democrats keep trying to prove Trump did what they themselves have done. Colluding with the Russians, for example. The Democrats bought the Steele Dossier which uses “evidence” obtained from the Russians.

            You brought up Trump’s supposed psychological problems. Looks to me like Democrats are accusing Trump of sins they themselves have committed. That is, they are projecting their own misdeeds on Trump.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. I hate Clinton and Obama’s policies, but do not hate them personally.

            If you hate Trump being your President, but do not hate his policies, frankly it is beyond my comprehension.

            I frankly believe it is Christian to pray for everyone, including people we consider as enemies.

            Do you consider Trump as your enemy?

            Perhaps you might want to consider praying for Trump, it may help calm your personal hatred of him as your President?

            I guess I’m not a very good phycologist, or a good hater either.
            friendly
            Oh well, I won’t offer any more advice to you on this issue because it is beyond my comprehension.

            Regards and goodwill blogging.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Rudy.. I dislike they way he’s decided on his policies; the haphazard reasoning behind them simply because he has some personal bias toward something.. not in the least thought our using some level of understanding the problem.
            Example… yep.. put a tariff on metal.. get those rust belt steel mills cranking away (and the pollution!)! Put all those $50/hr union people back to work! In exchange for trade wars and higher priced products at home. So.. the rust belt is being bailed out by all Americans paying higher prices.
            Sorry. Not my thing.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Doug,

            I strongly support tariffs Trump is placing on our trade partiers who have rebuilt their countries with the dollars they obtained from trade imbalances in their favor.

            I have written numerous posts explaining my personal experiences in manufacturing of witnessing the total destruction of USA manufacturing because basically two reasons.

            The USA can never compete with countries that pay their workers $200 a month vs Americans laborers who have to pay up to $2000 a month for rent.

            The WTO has stated that trade deficits harm trade partners. The only way to correct is for reciprocity trade agreements to balance trade. Clinton was inept in his China and NAFTA trade agreements.

            Check out my post if interested in all the nitty gritty details by linking on TRADE in my post Categories.

            Frankly, most people who defend trade deficits do not understand the harm they effect on the USA.

            Obama promised in his first campaign promise to renegotiate all trade agreements but listened to his global economists instead convince him of their failed economic theories.

            Regards and goodwill blogging.

            Like

          5. It’s the WAY he’s doing it. Some crazy zap it to the world tariff everyone kinda thing (with very few exceptions). Because economies are all different tariffs should be levied as a joint agreement. Not this across-the-board vindictive crap he’s doing. Admittedly it’s fast.. individual negotiations would take far longer. But far less amicable to all parties. Again.. he knows not what he does. Way too impulsive. His way you risk trade wars.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. Doug your stated,

            “Some crazy zap it to the world tariff everyone kinda thing (with very few exceptions).”

            Where have you been since Trump was elected in Jan 2017?

            He campaigned saying he would renegotiate trade agreements and won the election mainly because of the people who also experienced first hand the destruction of USA manufacturing.

            It took six months for Congress to approve his appointee for trade negotiator.
            China’s trade balance increased this year. Mainly because, all the money taxpayers benefited from the tax reductions by workers have no choice but to use their money to buy more imports because sit takes years to rebuild a manufacturing again in the USA an just about everything they want to buy is an imported product. Take a walk into any retail store and read the labels.

            Why he is issuing tariffs now should be no surprise to anyone in my opinion.
            Keep in mind, he is no smooth talking empty suit politician who makes campaign promises and forgets what he promised in minutes after being elected.

            He is a businessman who makes decisions to obtain results. Something that most government employees have never experienced in their entire lives working in government entities.

            Perhaps that is why voters elected him, maybe?
            Take my advice and move back to Illinois to escape that brain destructive bacteria I warned you about.

            Regards and goodwill blogging.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. Doug
            Come on down and clear out your head from the California brain destructive bacteria..

            If you do, perhaps yyour blog comments will make you a Trump Lover when you read up on Illinois news from fellow Trump haters that resulted in making Illinois 49th ranking in all USA States.

            http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jun/22/antonio-villaraigosa/does-california-have-6th-largest-economy-world-and/

            Regards and goodwill blogging.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. Doug,

            I sure am glad North Dakota is on alert.

            There are a lot of comatose State leaders, including California and Illinois in my opinion.

            PS, I noticed California although 6th largest economy in the world is not on the top 10 on this rating.

            https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings

            Also ever State on the to ten experiences below freezing temperatures that kill that
            .brain destructive bacteria I keep bring up to you.

            Better get out quick, in my opinion.

            Regards and goodwill blogging.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. I think the Clintons are clearly evil and Hillary incompetently ran the State Department much like a personal booster club to launder money indirectly via the Clinton Foundation (and also directly…via million dollar speeches). And a lot of good people died due to her incompetence. I don’t see much point in hating them….I have no doubt their lives right now are their own reward.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. “I think the Clintons are clearly evil and Hillary incompetently ran the State Department much like a personal booster club to launder money indirectly via the Clinton Foundation (and also directly…via million dollar speeches). And a lot of good people died due to her incompetence. I don’t see much point in hating them….I have no doubt their lives right now are their own reward.”

            Ok.. here’s an idea.. just for our own kicks & grins here… convince me that anything you have just stated, anon, is backed up by any actual fact/evidence, because I am guessing it is all just conservative supposition and conjecture.

            Let’s break this down.
            1. “I think the Clintons are clearly evil …..” (opinion)
            2. “….and Hillary incompetently ran the State Department….” (opinion)
            3. “….much like a personal booster club to launder money indirectly via the Clinton Foundation (and also directly…via million dollar speeches). ” (This is the crux of the debate.; convince me with fact/evidence.. essentially convince me that the government’s report is not accurate)
            4. “And a lot of good people died due to her incompetence.” (perhaps define ‘a lot’; Benghazi there were four. More Americans have died under Trump’s watch so far.

            There have been eight investigations into Benghazi. I also prefer to accept the following as an explanation as I respect this source (sorry, I know it’s not FOX)…..

            http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/may/16/fact-checking-benghazi-our-most-recent-round-/

            Now, I have NO deep love for Hillary, but like you and the others picking Trump to avoid Hillary, I picked Hillary to avoid Trump.

            Like

          11. Doug…I could but wouldn’t it just be a waste of my time to try to convince you? You already know she was the original classification authority who deleted thousands of e mails after subpoena and have explained that away with a shrug.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. “(perhaps define ‘a lot’; Benghazi there were four. More Americans have died under Trump’s watch so far.
            She ran the State Department (during a time when our forces are deployed in combat zones around the world) using a home cooked server to disseminate official use only material. We will never know how many lives she endangered (we do know about a dozen of our informants were killed in China in only a two year period).

            There have been eight investigations into Benghazi. I also prefer to accept the following as an explanation as I respect this source (sorry, I know it’s not FOX)…..

            The story of Benghazi doesn’t start with the attack…the real story is the question of why the State Department set up that consulate in a hot combat zone in the first place.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. I hated high school. Mean spirited juveniles that made quite unpleasant.

      The Puritans get a bum rap for supposedly ruining everyone’s fun. Where they erred is that it took awhile in New England for religious freedom to take hold. They insisted that everyone adopt their sect’s Christian beliefs.

      Mean spirited juveniles insist upon conformity in every detail, not just Christian beliefs. When someone is different, they take it as a personal offense. In response to their feelings, they then give offense. They torment those they perceive as different. Curiously, this looks an awful lot like the Liberal Democrat’s intolerance of the “intolerant”.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. The President of the United States and the former Vice President of the United States are now challenging each other to a school yard brawl. I guess Doug’s “Cold Civil War” is over and the real Civil War has begun with a trial by combat. May the best septuagenarian win! 😆

    Like

      1. Ya, but Trump’s got the weight advantage, and also, I bet Trump fights dirty. I’m sure that both men will wait in breathless (literally) anticipation of battle while the fate of the free world hangs in the balance.

        Ya just couldn’t make this stuff up.

        Like

  8. Thanks for the occasional kind words, Tom.

    You said…
    “The Federal Government establishes immigration policy. The Constitution clearly gives that power to Congress, but the state of California, under Governor Brown, insists upon making its own rules. When leaders insist upon having their own way and won’t compromise, how is compromise possible?”

    Not sure you understand the process of dissent. Many times in our history states have flipped the middle finger to something Congress has passed. But just because Congress passes something does not make it Constitutional. Hence the California challenge. CA is not making it’s own rules.. it’s challenging the Constitutionality of the law Congress passed… a normal process of democracy in this country.
    Now.. if you recall, George Wallace, governor of Alabama, defied an already established Supreme Court ruling to desegregate the schools. President Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard and forced Wallace to comply. Huge news back in the day… and given it was the 1960’s era it didn’t take much to imagine retro feelings of the Civil War 100 years earlier in the South.

    Like

    1. @Doug

      The Constitution is unambiguous about Congress controlling immigration. There is no practical way for fifty states to do it.

      California cannot annul Federal laws. If each state can individually decide which Federal laws it finds acceptable, we may as well give up on the USA.

      What are the Democrats in CA doing? The have used the influx of immigrants to buy votes and establish a majority.

      Like

      1. There was an interesting NYT article today on how Republican State Attorneys General often successfully used the federal courts to oppose Obama’s executive actions, including on immigration. Now in the Trump era Democratic Attorneys General are doing the same.

        Like

          1. No offense Tom, but what expertise do you have to preach on the law?

            ICE and local law enforcement have very different jobs. If you believe that the federal government has sole jurisdiction on immigration, then can the federal government force the state and local governments to do ICE’s job, especially if those state and local governments feel that doing ICE’s job hurts their own jurisdictional efforts at Law crime solving and crime prevention? If you believe so, then why can’t Trump force each individual border state to pay for and build his great big beautiful wall?

            I tickles me how each side only raises the federalism issue when they feel that the federal government is overreaching in a way that they don’t like. And we wonder why we can’t seem to compromise? 🙃

            Like

          2. @tsalmon

            In order to stop Trump from undoing some of the things Obama did with executive orders, have Liberal Democrat judges been making some wild interpretations of the Constitution? Of course, they have. Yet you are challenging my expertise. When are you going to challenge the honesty of the people you vote for, the people who selected those judges?

            This is one of the clauses in Article 1, Section 8.

            To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

            If establishing sanctuaries and interfering with ICE operations is not an unconstitutional abuse of state and local government powers, what is? Why don’t you listen to what Sessions said and take up your issue with him?

            Like

      2. Uh.. Tom.. did you totally ignore my point? CA is simply challenging the law as passed by Congress. I suppose you can assign whatever meanings to it all if you want, political or otherwise… but it all seems part of the Constitutional process to me.

        Like

  9. Ha! Now here’s a political post, aka,a can of worms.

    Kind of interesting, I recently wrote about appeasement, the idea of meeting people’s needs. In Gov we would call that our “right to petition for a redress of grievances.” That’s actually in our Constitution and Gov’s job is address our concerns without threat of punishment. To appease people is to actually to listen to them. Well, that started not happening. Not only were people not being heard, there were some threats going on, some retaliation, some intimidation. So,when your elected leaders won’t listen to you, or worse begin to retaliate against you, you vote them out of office. President Trump represents the voices of whole lot of people who were not being heard. Not being appeased.

    I was not being heard about how Obamacare left our family uninsured, heavily fined,and facing financial disaster. I was not heard about how Mexican drug cartels where bringing in tons of meth and heroin and destroying our communities. Worse, to even try to speak of these things brought quick retaliation.

    I’m a big fan of compromise,of appeasement, but not with abuse, not with bullying. In my mind,once you reach that point, it’s time to fight back because the only one who needs to compromise at that point is the abuser. Fortunately we live in a democracy and somewhat honor the rule of law,so these transitions can usually happen peacefully.

    And those still complaining and whining about how a whole bunch of people rebelled and refused to just quietly get punched in the face all the time, are invited to compromise, to do some soul searching, and get themselves woke as to why that might be.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. There is a difference between appeasing people’s wants and needs. Right now we are wasting huge sums and abusing lots of people’s rights because so many are using our government (and others as slaves) to satisfy their wants.

      Like

      1. Perhaps Tom, but the fact is a lot of people’s basic needs were not being met in this country. Life, and some of our Gov policies left a lot of people out in the cold. The church did not hold up it’s end either, and so what you wind up with is the same thing, people needing to be appeased. The danger with conservatism is that we so often have this attitude of how everyone should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and that too tends to create rebellion.

        Like

        1. “The danger with conservatism is that we so often have this attitude of how everyone should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and that too tends to create rebellion.”

          Yes.. absolutely (you sure you’re not a closet liberal?).

          Like

        2. Government is not a solution for charity. Government is force, not love. Trying to force people to be charitable just gives our leaders power they will abuse.

          Like

Comments are closed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

Fr. Pietraszko's Corner

Discovering Truth and Love

Victory Girls Blog

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Through Ink & Image

...Pursuing a God Inspired Life

Oh Lord, It's Monday!

Understanding The Bible In A Way That Transforms You And Your World

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

The Way Online

Christian Insight Through God's Word

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

John Branyan

something funny is occurring

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

Christians in Motion

Why be stagnant?

SGM

Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren

Communio

"Behold, I have come to do your will, O God." Heb. 10:7

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

The Sheriff of Nottingham in Prince William County

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Bull Elephant

Conservative and libertarian news, analysis, and entertainment

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Family Foundation Blog - The Family Foundation

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. I Kings 20:11

Dr. Luis C. Almeida

Professor Of Communication

praythroughhistory

Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.

Dr. Lloyd Stebbins

Deliberate Joy

Lillie-Put

The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

partneringwitheagles

WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS (LIFE,LIBERTY,AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS) IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE A NEW GOVERNMENT...

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.

nebraskaenergyobserver

The view from the Anglosphere

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

The Isaiah 53:5 Project

Life: the time God gives you to determine how you spend eternity

THE RIVER WALK

Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

My Daily Musing

With God we will gain the victory, and he will trample our enemies. Psalms 109:13

atimetoshare.me

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

TLP

Finding Clear and Simple Faith

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3

cookiecrumbstoliveby

Life through the eyes of "cookie"

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture." ColorStorm

%d bloggers like this: