Is it possible to make a distinction between what Trump says he'll do, and has done from a policy sense, and Trump himself?
Trump certainly talks like a conservative, and absolutely did some things that conservatives can and should support. Of course trump also did some things that conservatives cannot support, especially when it comes to his handling of the budget/deficit and his handling of COVID (although COVID is helped by hindsight). While I know that this will be controversial, Trump's first term was a mixed bag when it came to conservative policy. He was very good on some things (SCOTUS, pro life), good on others (immigration), and not so good on others.
The pro Trump argument is that his "experience" puts him head and shoulders above everyone else. Which is strange because his status as an outsider without experience was one reason why people liked him.
So, the question is, whether or not it's better to support Trump with the positives as well as some significant negatives or someone who espouses the same conservative policies as Trump without the negatives?
I personally would love to vote for the majority of Trump's policies, without voting for Trump. I also think that Trump's relative success as a president with no experience, should stop people whining about experience being such a great thing.
Hell, Biden has tons of experience, look how well that's going.
As I've made clear, I do not support Trump for president in 2024. I have absolutely zero intention of voting for him if he's the candidate. I think that he has absolutely no chance of getting the congressional support to accomplish anything significant, and that I'm tired of old guys.
But, I saw something today that made me wonder.
First, an unintended consequence of the DFL insisting on prosecuting Trump could very well result in Trump attaining martyr status. It is entirely possible that lots of people will see him as a victim and end up voting for him because of that. I'll admit it'd be absolutely hilarious if the DFL actually gave Trump everything he needs to get elected. I can also see people voting for Trump just to flip the bird to the DFL and the swamp. Again, pretty hilarious
Second, I can only imagine the absolute chaos that would result if Trump won the general, and decided that he was looking for revenge. Holy buckets, it would be as entertaining as anything we've seen politically since the 1800's. As a lame duck I can see Trump going scorched earth on those who've gone after him starting on day one. I seriously doubt he'd accomplish anything else, but it'd be amazing to watch, full bore banana republic stuff.
The best part of all of this is that the DFL would have no one but themselves to blame. In the first option, it's their fault they couldn't actually accomplish anything. In the second, well the precedent of using the power of the DOJ against your political rivals has been established as an acceptable practice.
I'm afraid the DFL has given Trump everything he needs in 2024.
For years we've been told that two things that seem contradictory.
1. That all politicians lie, and that it's simply an accepted part of political discourse in the US.
2. That some lies are disqualifying.
It's been said that "stupid lies" are disqualifying in some politicians. If this is actually the case, then wouldn't telling a "stupid lie" once, having the "stupid lie" exposed for the "stupid lie" that it is, then continuing to tell the same "stupid" debunked lie over and over again for years be extremely disqualifying?
I could be wrong, but at least telling a bunch of different "stupid" lies and coming up with new material occasionally at least shows some degree of self awareness and creativity. While recycling the same "stupid lie"s that have been debunked for years seems to demonstrate a lack of self awareness and a sense of arrogance that seem problematic. It could be argued that for some, that they don't have the mental capacity to accurately remember things that happened in the past and that repeating these same old "stupid lies", is actually a sign of "forgetfulness" (read dementia?). But wouldn't the inability to be unable to control your repeated telling of the same old debunked "stupid lie"s be disqualifying in and of itself?
Perhaps there is a bit of log/splinter or pot/kettle in our political discourse.
I went to see Sound of Freedom last night and it was definitely a compelling story of a brave man willing to put himself at great risk in order to save innocent children.
I'm going to start by simply saying that I, personally, would find it difficult to arrest one of these vile, evil people without some level of physical harm occurring. These animals deserve any and every horrible thing that might happen to them in prison.
Beyond that, I left with two thoughts.
1. There are a lot of people (rich by global standards, free, while, generally left wing) who invest huge amounts of time and energy bemoaning the fact that slavery was something that happened in the US. Now, they don't bemoan ALL of the slavery that happened on the landmass that became the US, they only focus on some of the slavery. They further focus primarily on one slave economy (I know this is an inadequate descriptor) which ended with a horrible war. Meanwhile we know that slavery is more prevalent than ever in 2023 than it's ever been and we know that slavery has existed in virtually every society in the history of the world. I sometimes wonder if we put even a percentage of the effort into actually stopping current slavery, that we do in focusing on past slavery, if we'd be better off.
In no way am I suggesting that slavery in the US not be taught, or that it be taught inaccurately.
2. As I watched the story of a man who was apparently successful at his job of tracking and arresting pedophiles and who chose to try to rescues some of the victims at great cost and risk to himself and his family, I couldn't help but wonder...
Is there something that I feel so strongly about that I would put myself at risk of death to pursue? Would I engage in actions of great risk solely to benefit people I didn't know, and who I had no responsibility for?
I'm pretty confident that I would put myself at great risk for my family, and close friends. I'm not so sure I would do so for complete strangers. I can't help but wonder whether or not the folks who get so incredibly worked up over some past slavery, would risk their lives and livelihoods to stop present day slavery.
On second thought, I probably do know the answer. The answer is that if people were willing to engage in dangerous cations to save modern day slaves, they'd likely already be doing it.
https://pspruett.blogspot.com/2006/08/plutonian-morality.html
https://pspruett.blogspot.com/2007/01/coin-toss-morality.html
https://pspruett.blogspot.com/2007/06/imagine-no-religion.html
https://pspruett.wordpress.com/2021/01/25/santa-claus-morality/
https://pspruett.blogspot.com/2007/07/moral-atheists-good-by-what-measure.html
I'm linking to a series of articles that talk about morality from an atheistic view. I'm doing so because the rationale offered by atheists and the rationale offed by some progressive christians often sound very similar. The notion that it is possible to ground a moral system that can be applied universally by appealing to evolution, naturalism, reason, or consensus is a hard one to swallow. Yet, there are many versions of this version of morality floating around.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/drugs-crime-nancy-pelosi-federal-building-18292237.php
https://www.ktvu.com/news/report-workers-at-sf-federal-building-told-to-work-from-home-due-to-crime-concerns
https://www.newsnationnow.com/crime/some-san-francisco-employees-asked-to-work-from-home-due-to-crime/
It's been said that CA offers a preview of where the rest of the country is headed. If that's the case, then the rest of the country is in big trouble if San Francisco is any indication. As the above news reports document, downtown San Francisco is in such a lawless state that the Feds have told their employees not to come to their offices. We've also seen Nordstrom, Whole Foods, T-Mobile, Saks, and Athropologie announce that they were leaving downtown San Francisco. We've also seen multiple instances of various stores being looted there. I've spent a little time in Port au Prince, and I've never seen anyone there defecate on the public sidewalks.streets nor have I ever seen anyone shooting IV drugs in public. But in San Francisco, we get all of that and more. Just one more example of a city run by those on the left, in a state run bu those on the left, ending up as a shit hole where ordinary citizens are best to steer clear of. Chicago, Baltimore, San Francisco, LA, Detroit, and more are all examples of what happens when the left is in charge.
Over the past few years, "Follow the Science" has been a phrase that has been used to try to get people to do various things or behave certain ways. But, is that really a great plan.
Just remember that following the science resulted in eugenics, and lobotomies.
Billy Porter, an actor I've never heard of, seems shocked that his choice to go on strike has resulted in negative consequences for him. Since he's chosen not to work for an extended period of time, and therefore hasn't gotten paid, he now has to sell his house.
A quick check of IMDB would seem to indicate that his career has multiple streams of income as both an actor, musician, producer, and director. But apparently none of those things pays enough to fund his lifestyle.
It's almost like he doesn't understand that fighting for something important sometimes carries costs and requires sacrifices.
The founders of the US pledged their "lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" to the cause of liberty. I guess asking an actor to make a relatively minor sacrifice for his cause is just a bit too much.
https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/governor-healey-asks-residents-house-migrant-families-amid-growing-shelter-crisis/LMTB7EWHEFF3XERMMANHYSZCBQ/
https://nypost.com/2023/08/10/mayor-adams-says-bidens-inaction-on-migrants-will-decimate-nyc/
If I'm not mistake NYC designated itself a "sanctuary city" a while back, now they're bitching about people talking them up on their offer.
While the MA governor and Lt Governor are trying to convince people to take immigrants into their homes. First, I'm sure that the Obamas will gladly share their massive mansion with some of these immigrants, as a way to set a good example for the rest of us.
It's strange that the folx who advocate for virtually unlimited immigration don't seem prepared to deal with the results of the policies they advocate for. Strangely enough, when it was just states along the southern border that were dealing with this problem, these folx didn't see it as a problem. I can't help but wonder if this is a NIMBY situation.
I am quite sure that Dan stands ready and willing to house as many migrant families as possible in his home. He probably already does so, but just hasn't mentioned it.
Trump has said that he will not commit to supporting the eventual GOP nominee for president if he loses in the primaries. It seems reasonable to conclude that this will likely influence a number of Trump's followers to follow his example.
Strangely enough, those of us who support other candidates in the primaries are told that if we don't support Trump (if he's the nominee) are regularly told that not voting for Trump means that we are responsible for Biden winning.
So, if Trump isn't the nominee and if Biden wins, wouldn't that mean that Trump and those who follow his example have responsibility for Biden's win?
I think that we all knew that Biden's victory in the 2020 election would result in exactly the kind of obsessive persecution of Trump that has wasted so much time and money over the past couple of years. But let us consider a hypothetical situation that could have eliminated all of this.
What if Trump had resigned from office at 5:00 PM on January 19th 2021, and allowed Pence to take over as president for the 18 hours before Biden was inaugurated? What if, during that period of time, Pence pardoned Trump for any acts he'd engaged in prior to the pardon?
Clearly the above scenario would be legal, as presidential pardon authority is broad and has minimal restriction.
Just as clearly, it would have left a bad taste in the mouths of most of us.
I'm a little surprised that someone allegedly as smart as Trump is, didn't think of this.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/ex-fbi-agent-accused-working-russian-oligarch-may-change-plea-2023-08-07/
Disclaimer: I am not, nor have I ever held out Trump as a model of honesty, virtue, or probity. I have been clear from at least 2015 that I have major issues with Trump in regards to his character.
It's now pretty common knowledge that the entire Trump/Russia collusion story and all of it's offshoots have been proven to be false. It's also common knowledge that this entire "story" was concocted by people who were attached to the Clinton campaign.
Now we find out that the FBI agent who played a major role in investigating the Trump/Russia collusion hoax, actually was involved in some sort of collusion with powerful people in Russia. Will this story get as much play as the Trump/Russia hoax did? Unlikely. Just like we'll almost never see the true extent of the DFL/Clinton corruption around the 2016 election.
It's not so much that I'm rooting for Trump to be vindicate, as that I'm hoping that people will see the corruption involved in the raising of these false allegations against him, and the use of federal government assets to engage in false accusations against a political rival.
I saw a celebrity advocating for the politicians in TN to pass gun laws that are "pragmatic and evidence based". While that sure sounds reasonable as all get out, I wonder what those specific laws are. Obviously, there were no details that I saw on what these magical laws might be, nor on the "evidence" that underlies them. But I wanted to make a few general observations.
Pragmatic. For a politician, what might be pragmatic might not necessarily good law. It'd be pragmatic for a Tennessee DFL politician to vote for anything labeled as a gun law, because it would benefit them electorally. It might also be pragmatic for a politician to support a gun law because they know that the enforcement would hurt their opponents more than it would hurt them. I know were kind of spitballing here, but the point remains that pragmatic for a politician isn't always good for their constituents. It was clearly pragmatic for Biden to support and Harris to enforce the '95 crime bill, they rode that shit a long way. But it turned out pretty shitty for lots of folks who are still in jail because of it.
Evidence based. I've wondered for a while why the gun control folks can't come up with a simple law that will do exactly what they say, and then look back 10 years later and see that it worked. The simple fact is that it's insane to claim you can produce evidence of how an unpassed law will affect people, or how they'll behave. So, let's look at the evidence for other laws and see how that looks. We know that is already against TN state law to shoot people to death with a gun (with obvious exceptions), yet we see that 500 people die from homicide (by gun) yearly. 8th highest in the US. I haven't been able to find statewide numbers for non fatal shootings, but in Nashville there were 87 in the last year. Finally there were another 4100 and change (in Nashville) other firearms crimes. Yet, I'm pretty sure that there already laws against shooting people, robbing or threatening people with a gun, or killing people with a gun, aren't there? If so, then what is the magic of these unpassed gun laws that has evidence to support that they'll be more effective than current laws?
The person who posted this (I suspect) lives in several houses which all potentially contain guns. I'd be shocked if this person or their family don't employ armed security from time to time. So, one has to wonder why. Why post this sort of nonsense? I suspect #1 on the list is to get praise and support from the "right" people. Beyond that, who knows. No matter what, the "pragmatic, evidenced based" magic bullet gun law simply doesn't exist.
In my world, the terms AIF, POA, and the like are pretty common. Many of us have filled these roles. Essentially, these represent a legal right to allow someone else to act in your place when you can't.
Back in the 40's, I don't think anyone really knew to what extent Eleanor acted on behalf of Franklin in running the government. I've heard some things since that indicate that it was significant. Back in the 80's everyone from political foes to rock bands loved to portray Reagan as a doddering old fool with Nancy's hands on the puppet strings.
Cue to 2023. We've got 80 year old guys as the front runners for the presidency, McConnell apparently blacking out during a presser, Biden mumbling and stumbling across the media, and Feinstein having to be told how to vote. Oh, and Feinstein just gave her daughter POA over her personal life. But they'll just keep wheeling her emaciated, corpse like, body around the capitol as long as they can. Seriously, in what world is Feinstein's personal financial life more valuable than legislating?
This shouldn't be a partisan issue, it should be a no brainer that there should be an age limit on federal officeholders. Hell, if nothing else it would get some new blood into the system on a regular basis and break the incumbency stranglehold. Not to mention save us from Biden insulting a foreign dignitary because he pronounces their name "Bushwalantonenineno" or whatever gibberish he spews at any given moment.
I know that the MAGA types will say, "But Trump...". To which I say, we've never let an exception define the rule.
I'll say that, while our founders were incredibly wise and established as system that covered almost all possibilities, I suspect that they'd be appalled at these 80 year old dudes who've been sucking at the public teat for their entire adult lives, and getting rich doing so.
