Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
Search This Blog
Useful Links
YOU CAN HELP NOW !!!
Tell friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, politicians, etc to google give2attain or send them this address now !!!http://give2attain.blogspot.com/ Then I promise to keep posting unique and/or helpful thoughts, and hosting open polite dialogue. Thank You !!!
Trying for Balance
G2A Email and Rules
email: give2get@live.com
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2017
(304)
-
▼
May
(32)
- Selfish Old Women Getting Pregnant
- MN State Police Community Task Force
- MN Legal Battle Pending
- Some of Us are Complicit in Racism
- Biden Has Advice for DEMs
- If Kushner Goes to Jail, That Would be Funny
- Conservative Minds are Diseased
- Almost Anyone Can Teach?
- AHCA Scoring and ACA Options
- Trump's Budget Field of Dreams
- Trump Approval Numbers and Amateur Judges
- The G2A Nolan Diagram Rev 00
- Trump Gets a Medal
- Kasich for President
- Not in Impeachment Territory Yet
- When World is Run by a Child
- Did Trump Commit Treason
- Dayton Digs in on Budget
- Hillary's Resistance Group
- Senate Struggles with ACA Replacement
- Which is More Caring / Moral?
- Trump Comey Soap Opera
- MN Budget Battle
- One of ACA's Benefits
- Life Expectancy Varies
- AHCA is Inadequate
- Sanction of the Victim
- A Guilty Liberals Prayer
- ACHA Passes: Now What
- Who Should Pay More for Sick People?
- GOP Trying So Hard: Healthcare
- Trump Ramblings
-
▼
May
(32)
About Me
- John
- I am married and we have 3 adult daughters and a dog. We live in Plymouth MN. My interests are learning, communicating, home improvement projects, motorcycling, boating, and other outside activities. Thank you for reading my blog and have a great day !!!
64 comments:
People are looking for an easy way out, and there just isn't one. No, Trump will not be declared unfit for office. No, he will not be removed from office through impeachment. Given the current state of the Democratic Party, it is unlikely that he will lose the 2020 presidential election.
--Hiram
So here is a question which I expect you to ignore, John. What if you could go back in time and cast the deciding vote in the pres election. Knowing what you know now would you vote for Trump over Hillary? What if she had a dem congress? What are your thoughts these days on how dangerous Trump is for the country?
some interesting insights in the piece by D. Frum:
What Does the President Owe, and to Whom Does He Owe It?
Laurie,
I don't think I ever ignore you... Though sometimes you do not like my answers...
If I knew the Congress would have been GOP, I would have voted for Hillary.
If I knew the Congress was going to be DEM, I would have voted for Trump.
I hope in 2020, both sides offer better candidates.
Personally I don't think Trump is "dangerous for the country"... Most of the issues are over blown, just like the Benghazi and server issues...
The man seems to mean well for the USA, he just has little ability to think before he talks...
But you should be happy because he is making the GOP look like some really idiots which should bode well for the DEMs in 2018... :-)
its interesting that you don't view trump as dangerous for the country/world. The words I could come up to rate the level of danger he presents are minor, moderate, significant and extreme. I rate him as between significant and extreme, like a 3.5 on a 4 point scale. I think he will be in office long enough to badly mishandle or create some kind of major crisis.
while we wait for the major Trump crisis, he is busy making bad deals for the country with long lasting impact;
President Trump, desperate dealmaker
It is interesting that after 8 years of Obama, Liberals can already be critical of Trump's deals. I am not sure Obama accomplished any "good deals"... And so many things got worse... (ie ISIS, North Korea Technology, Chinese man made islands, Syria, etc)
I just think of two groups of people who live in glass houses throwing rocks at each other...
Obama never bragged on being a dealmaker, though I give him much credit for the climate agreement. Drezner is not a liberal. and you seem to have not read or else missed the main idea of his opinion piece. Also, you seem to have forgotten about what a bad deal maker Trump has been as a business man.
Laurie,
As I just reminded Jerry, he spent 8 years complaining about Obama.
I assume the Liberals and the yourself will be complaining about Trump as long as he stays in office.
It just seems to be the way it is.
I assume the Liberals and the yourself will be complaining about Trump as long as he stays in office.
I assume that's true. The other day, Rev. Falwell criticized us for being intolerant of Donald Trump. I thought that was an interesting proposition. Should we be more tolerant of Trump? Is that the kind of relationship we should have with our elected officials? What does that mean, exactly? When Trump messes up, should we just let it go? What specific instances of misfeasance to Rev. Falwell have in mind as candidates for tolerance?
--Hiram
If you had an employee who was messing up on the job a lot, what role would tolerance play in your relationship with him? Typically, in corporate America, that thing Republicans want to run government like, there would be an effort to deal with the problem, one that could be fairly characterized as tolerance. There might be counselling. A drug or substance treatment program might be offered. Certainly, the employee would be notified of the issues, given some chance to respond, and a program for improvement would be laid out for him. But the actual missing up of the job wouldn't be tolerated. An employee who simply refused the tasks assigned him would be fired in pretty short order.
Is this what we should do with Trump? As a federal employee, should we, his bosses, give him a plan for improvement? Should we offer counselling? Is there some treatment program we can offer him? Is this what tolerance means in this context? Can tolerance mean, for a president, acceptance of inadequate performance, or a failure to perform altogether?
I wished someone had asked Rev. Falwell these questions.
--Hiram
I think these words present the challenge...
"employee who was messing up on the job a lot"
The Conservative saw Obama and Hillary as messing up on the job...
The Liberals see Trump as messing up on the job...
It would be terrible to have vocal overseers who had 2 totally different expectations for your performance... Especially if none of them had done the job themselves before.
Now I may dislike Trump's personality, methods, etc... But I really can not think of anything he has screwed up beyond normal Presidential prerogative. Though maybe the investigations will show differently at sometime in the future.
The Liberals see Trump as messing up on the job...
We do. Apart from the self inflicted wounds, we have also noted both Trump's laziness, and his almost complete failure to take advantage of the historical opportunity given him by the American people.
No president in American history has ever owed less to the traditional power structure that dominates both parties. No president has ever been freer to innovate, to bust up the hidebound thinking too many of us have engaged in for too long. And he has utterly blown it.
In terms of not messing things up, is that what the American people thought they were getting when they elected Donald Trump? A caretaker president dedicated to not making things worse? Or is that what Hillary represented, the candidate they rejected? What is most striking about Trump's days in office is his vast passivity. Despite heading up the largest governmental bureaucracy known to man, he was totally unable to put together a health care proposal. He left it to Congress, the branch of government least able to lead on that issue. And pretty much everything else has been a non starter. His tax reform proposal literally consisted of a single page of talking points, one if enacted would mainly had the effect of makings himself and his children richer. And in foreign policy, he has done little more than hang out with dictators whose names he mostly mispronounces.
--Hiram
If that were the case, I am pretty sure the Liberals would not be so fearful of him and his cabinet. (ie the sky is falling, the sky is falling...) They sound like the Conservatives back when Obama was President.
And with the Democrats fully taking on the role of the obstructionist party it will be hard to make big changes, just like it was for Obama...
I am pretty sure the Liberals would not be so fearful of him and his cabinet.
We are terrified of Trump and his cabinet, obviously, but rightly or wrongly that's due to our assessment that Trump, and much of his cabinet are completely incompetent.
We don't really do obstructionism. We would very much like to come to the table, and we very vulnerable to being put on the spot. But Trump hasn't reached out to us in the slightest degree, so obstructionism hasn't really been an issue.
Health care has been the big issue so far. The bill fashioned by Trump and Republicans takes 24 million Americans off health insurance with a tax savings of a trillion dollars to be given to Republican donors. Why should that appeal at all to Democrats? Why wouldn't the status quo be preferable to us?
--Hiram
VOX Democrats are Falling for Fake News
And of course Democrats do obstructionism... Look at the Gorsuch vote.
Hot Air Dems want Obstructionism
This Week DEMs learn wrong lessons from GOP
"And of course Democrats do obstructionism... Look at the Gorsuch vote."
Last time I checked Neil Gorsuch was on the Supreme Court. Can you point to anything Democratic "obstruction" has actually prevented?
I would say that an improved healthcare system lands squarely in that arena.
Their obstructionism is making the moderate GOP folks give in on many things to get the votes from the far right folks.
Odds are tax reform will follow this trend.
Remember that obtructionist's goal, stop all progress that one can. (ie all or nothing)
"I would say that an improved healthcare system lands squarely in that arena.
Their obstructionism is making the moderate GOP folks give in on many things to get the votes from the far right folks."
Democrats did nothing to obstruct the health care bill other than not vote for it.
And of course Democrats do obstructionism... Look at the Gorsuch vote.
Did Democrats refuse Gorsuch a hearing? Did they boycott the proceedings which resulted in his confirmation? Did they deny him entry to their offices. We were taught in very real and visible terms how to obstruct a nomination. I don't think Democrats used any of the tactics of obstructionism, so recently and so successfully employed by Republicans.
--Hiram
Sean,
Yes... Just like the GOP did not vote for budgets at times and were accused of obstructing and trying to ruin the country. The only difference is that it is your party who is doing it.
If the GOP and DEMs shutdown the government later this year during negotiations... Who do you think you will blame? The DEMs? I don't think so...
Hiram,
I agree that what the GOP did was unacceptable to me. They should have at least voted him down. That does not make what the DEMs are doing any more acceptable.
"Yes... Just like the GOP did not vote for budgets at times and were accused of obstructing and trying to ruin the country. The only difference is that it is your party who is doing it."
The GOP did far more than just not vote for stuff -- they prevented votes on issues and nominees, they refused a "keep the lights on bill" that caused the 2013 government shutdown. On and on and on and on...
Can you point to me to one concrete action taken by Democrats so far that match any of those actions from Republicans?
"If the GOP and DEMs shutdown the government later this year during negotiations... Who do you think you will blame? The DEMs? I don't think so..."
Democrats have very little power to shut down the government if Congressional Republicans are united.
No matter what examples I provide, you will disagree. You see the DEMs as heroes and the GOP as villains where as I just see them both as political parties striving for control. So we will need to agree to disagree.
Of course the DEMs have a lot of power... If they fail to vote for Moderate GOP proposals, then they force the GOP solutions to the Right...
But like the GOP did... The DEMs are likely okay with causing problems in the USA if it gives them a political advantage in 2018...
It is strange /interesting John how all your comments imply that Trump is a normal president, like the GOP equivalent to Obama, whereas I see him as a total abomination. I thought I hated Reagan and G.W., but what word does that leave to describe my feelings for Trump who is 10 times worse.
Also, it is odd that you think the dems should acquiesce and go along with moderate republican policies they disagree with for the good of the country, while the no one in the GOP went along with anything the dems were trying to do. The GOP has the majority let them compromise with each other to govern. If the government shuts down sometime the GOP will own it.
Please sign your comment with a name...
And the reality is that Trump is not a "normal President"... That is why many people voted for him.
As for "abomination"... As I said above... "Now I may dislike Trump's personality, methods, etc... But I really can not think of anything he has screwed up beyond normal Presidential prerogative. Though maybe the investigations will show differently at sometime in the future."
My view is that he is innocent until proven guilty... The same view I had with regard Benghazi and Hillary's email...
With regard to "dems should acquiesce"...
I personally don't care if they acquiesce or not. My point is that if they continue to be obstructionists then they are the same as the GOP was for the last 6 years. That is a choice they need to make.
I just find it amusing that the Liberals who said it was terrible that the GOP:
- were blocking the proper function of gov't
- were sacrificing the people of America for political reasons
- were risking shutting down the gov't
- etc
are now supporting the new "party of NO"... And justifying it by saying "this is different"...
Why Opposing Trump Isn't Like the GOP Obstructing Obama
Excellent link.
"These comparisons are exercises in false equivalence. Yes, Trump and Obama have both faced concerted opposition from their opponents. Both have inspired not only loathing, but also a deep sense of anxiety among their opposing parties' respective bases. The legitimacy of both administrations has been regularly called into questioned. But what inspired that fear? On what basis did people dismiss the two presidents' respective legitimacy? That's where the fundamental differences emerge, and virtually all comparisons of their presidencies fall apart."
I agree strongly with the bolded portion and somewhat with the rest.
However I still think the DEMs and media are making a bigger issue of Trump's eccentricities than is needed or warranted.
I kind of hope Trump gets removed and Pence takes the job. He may be more effective at cutting taxes and government bloat. Then we would really hear the Liberal minded moan.
As I am noting... The DEMs are playing a dangerous game.
Their choices and actions will either block reform or it will force the reforms farther to the Right.
Choices choices...
Their choices and actions will either block reform or it will force the reforms farther to the Right.
I don't see a reform plan out there for much of anything. With respect to health care, what Republicans propose is mostly Obamacare lite, a plan that reflects the GOP penchant for wanting things but not wanting to pay for them. There isn't much we can do to reform that. Republicans, they tell us, want to reform taxes but they never show any sign at all of addressing those issues so many of the critics of our current tax structure see as in most need of reform.
Trump, a 70 year old man, is peculiarly lacking in energy and drive. His last major initiative in his business career took place decades ago and ended in a financial failure of a magnitude beyond the ability of most of us to imagine. He is what Disraeli might have called, an exhausted volcano, capable now of only every once in a while, issuing smoke.
--Hiram
And yet the natives (Liberals) walk around quaking in fear of that exhausted volcano...
"No matter what examples I provide, you will disagree. You see the DEMs as heroes and the GOP as villains where as I just see them both as political parties striving for control. So we will need to agree to disagree."
I'm more than willing to admit Democratic obstruction, were it to exist, because that's exactly what they should be doing. The problem is they aren't doing anything meaningful.
"If they fail to vote for Moderate GOP proposals, then they force the GOP solutions to the Right..."
What "moderate" GOP proposal have they failed to vote for?
Blogger John said...
And yet the natives (Liberals) walk around quaking in fear of that exhausted volcano..
We are afraid of what Trump might do, obviously, but no one is afraid of Trump. He is unrespected and the target of open and continuous ridicule. This isn't necessarily wise on his part, his supporters are taught to think of that attitude as condescension, but there it is. Trump presents what I think of as the Kael problem to liberals. We simply don't know anyone who supported him.
--Hiram
Sean,
That is true, moderate is in the eye of the beholder...
But I see moderate now days as something both the DEMs and GOP dislike because they both get something from it. Maybe GOP gets rid of all those highly progressive taxes and DEMs get to keep expanded Medicare via a more evenly distributed funding stream...
Hiram,
Fearing what someone may do, approve, incite, etc because they have the authority to do it is fearing them for all practical purposes.
I think of an abused person fearing their abuser... Fearing the abuser is hard to distinguish from fearing the abuser hitting them.
"But I see moderate now days as something both the DEMs and GOP dislike because they both get something from it. Maybe GOP gets rid of all those highly progressive taxes and DEMs get to keep expanded Medicare via a more evenly distributed funding stream..."
But that isn't what was proposed.
So, I take it, then that you have no examples of obstruction?
Sean,
Obstructionism: deliberate interference with the progress or business especially of a legislative body.
As I said... We will not agree on this. Whatever example I give... You claim that it is nothing compared to what those evil GOP people did back when...
Let's just watch and see if the Democrats help Paul Ryan to get anything passed... Or if they keep fighting his efforts tooth and nail. I am betting on the latter.
Then in 2018 the people in the country will get to evaluate who should be held accountable for what happens or does not happen. I love our system...
Check the vote on the "keep the government running bill" last month, and get back to me with your "Democrats are obstructing" nonsense.
what someone may do, approve, incite, etc because they have the authority to do it is fearing them for all practical purposes.
Fair enough. I don't think I have ever disputed the notion that Trump scares the bejeebers out of me. Trump, prior to the presidency, wasn't someone widely taken seriously. He was a comic figure whose obliviousness was part of the fun. To some unfortunate extent, the laughter directed at Trump had an element of cruelty toward it, because it was a form of bullying. I think his supporters are just as bad in this regard. They knew they were electing a man to the presidency who they knew was not capable of doing the job. That also was a very cruel thing to do. In the world of Citizen Kane, Donald Trump is the Susan Alexander figure, forced to sing to audience that just doesn't like her.
--
Thanks, Sean, for rationally refuting John's nonsense that the dem level of obstruction is equivalent to the GOP obstruction during the Obama presidency.
on topic link:
The Trump presidency doesn’t seem sustainable
it will take some very strong evidence of high crimes for the GOP congress to impeach Trump. If the dems win the house in 2018 we will likely still have a GOP senate.
Apparently we are to refer to our new anon as --
Well --,
Knowing quite a few of the true Trump supporters, they would definitely disagree with this statement... "They knew they were electing a man to the presidency who they knew was not capable of doing the job."
And me being on the fence, other than his big mouth and questionable character I guess I would not say he is doing bad.
Gorsuch seems like a good pick and firing Comey seems fine other than the timing / method.
Directing his cabinet to take an axe to the Federal Regulatory power structure seems good.
He agreed to arm the Kurds even though the Turks disagreed.
He helped to get AHCA passed through the House.
Blowing up Syrian planes and defending the Syrian de-escalation zones is more than Obama dared do.
I guess I am an eternal optimist, between Pence, Ryan, McConnell and the other qualified people surrounding him. I think that this may turn out okay.
Well unless one of these investigations actually find him personally guilty of something.
Hi Sean,
Trump and the GOP pretty much rolled over to get it done... We will see how next Fall goes.
Hi Laurie / Sean,
This term is young and we will see. But the good news is that I can always count on you two to blame the GOP for any problems. You are like Harry Potter's parents. Whatever goes wrong it will always be Harry's fault. :-)
Hi Laurie,
And yes it is very unlikely that the President will be impeached unless he is actually found guilty of anything. Remember that old saying... "Innocent until proven guilty"
But as I note above... If there is smoke... Harry must have done something wrong. :-)
Harry Potter's parents died when he was born. Clinton was impeached for a minor lie to a question that should have never been asked.
I think is is likely evidence of high crimes will be found. Perjury seems like a good bet is well. To me the question is will the GOP act on the evidence found.
Good point... Your are like Harry's Aunt and Uncle. (ie Harry's guardians)
As for will the House take action... Like the Clinton fiasco, it will probably go down party lines.
"The trial in the United States Senate began right after the seating of the 106th Congress, in which the Republican Party began with 55 senators. A two-thirds vote (67 senators) was required to remove Clinton from office. Fifty senators voted to remove Clinton on the obstruction of justice charge and 45 voted to remove him on the perjury charge; no member of his own Democratic Party voted guilty on either charge. Clinton, like Johnson a century earlier, was acquitted on all charges."
It seems unlikely that Clinton would have been impeached if the DEMs had been in charge.
Do you agree or disagree?
there is zero chance clinton would have been impeached if the dems were in charge because to say his lie amounted to high crimes was ridiculous.
and back to Trump and possible impeachment by the GOP;
There's No Way Republicans Will Truly Confront Trump on His Scandals. It Would Destroy Their Party.
The man had an affair with a young intern in the oval office and lied about it to the whole country... Sorry I think his crime was pretty bad.
The man had an affair with a young intern in the oval office and lied about it to the whole country..
I have to ask, who was the president who had an affair with an intern? Was Monica Lewinsky an intern?
--Hiram
And Obama was scandal-free for 8 years, and Republicans hate him more than Clinton. Now, why could that possibly be?
Moose
Hiram, From Wiki...
"Monica Samille Lewinsky (born July 23, 1973) is an American activist, television personality, fashion designer, and former White House intern with whom President Bill Clinton admitted to having had what he called an "inappropriate relationship" while she worked at the White House, in 1995 and 1996. The affair and its repercussions, which included Clinton's impeachment, became known as the Lewinsky scandal."
Moose, I am with you on this one. I have no idea why Conservatives dislike Obama so much. I personally thought he was pretty much just there, nothing great or terrible.
So she was a former intern?
--Hiram
She is a "former intern" now... Back then she was apparently an intern...
You are claiming that Clinton had his affair with an intern?
--Hiram
That is what http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/bill-clinton-history-2016-election/">I understood and this seems to support it.
"Monica Lewinsky -- The White House intern's affair during Clinton's first term in the President's private rooms in the West Wing is the most famous Clinton sex scandal of all, and eventually leading to Clinton's impeachment by the House. He was acquitted by the Senate. Clinton has admitted the relationship, telling the nation in a televised address that, "Indeed I did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate."
Why does this puzzle you?
It's puzzling because Monica Lewinsky wasn't an intern.
--Hiram
Please provide a source... Everything I have presented says she was.
Maybe this will help. Apparently she was when their relationship started.
Well, she wasn't. Reports otherwise are just careless journalism. It's not a point made much, because pointing out she wasn't an intern doesn't help much.
I gave up Clinton protection duties on January 20, 2001. I don't have to defend him and I won't. There is the hypocrisy issue of course. I try not to do hypocrisy all that much, but the reality is that many of his accusers were just as morally flawed as he was. Gingrich was fooling around with a woman not his wife, who is now up for an appointment as ambassador to the Vatican, at the same time he was moralizing about Clinton. Livingstone, Gingrich's immediate replacement, had to give up the job in a matter of hours because he had issues too. Finally Republicans gave us Denny Hastert who they thought was safe and we all know how that turned out. Now as I said, I don't want to make hypocrisy the issue, but it is worth noting that people are flawed. What we know now was that a lot of opposition to Clinton was a cynical exploitation of personal issues to thwart his substantive policy objectives. That was unwise then, and it's unwise now. On my side, we really have to take care not to let our concerns with Trump, a man whose moral failings are at least comparable to Clinton's, divert our attention from substantive issues.
--Hiram
Good... Let's hope the Liberal and Mainstream press start focusing more air time on things other than Russia, etc...
I am not that inclined to focus on Trump's personal issues. The American people knew what he was when they elected and they didn't care, and I am prepared to give him a break, exercise tolerance in Rev. Falwell's words, in those matters. But it's hard to see the justification for the exercise of tolerance when issues of national security and national sovereignty are involved.
--Hiram
Post a Comment