Trump Presidential Fantasy
from the article:
"Deal making. Respect. These are what Trump proposes above all else, not just in this interview, but in other comments and interviews he has done in the past.
But deal making is a tactic and a skill; it’s not a principle of leadership. Deal making is a good skill to have, but the question remains: What deals will you be trying to make? What ideas will you be trying to put into practice when you propose a deal, and why?"
and:
"The beautiful and timeless thing about the United States of America is that it was founded on ideas. You can read those ideas for yourself in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Those ideas are timeless, and they respect the facts of human nature — our identity as thinking, sovereign, self-responsible and individual human beings who require liberty to survive and flourish."
well said Dr. Hurd
"Deal making. Respect. These are what Trump proposes above all else, not just in this interview, but in other comments and interviews he has done in the past.
But deal making is a tactic and a skill; it’s not a principle of leadership. Deal making is a good skill to have, but the question remains: What deals will you be trying to make? What ideas will you be trying to put into practice when you propose a deal, and why?"
and:
"The beautiful and timeless thing about the United States of America is that it was founded on ideas. You can read those ideas for yourself in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Those ideas are timeless, and they respect the facts of human nature — our identity as thinking, sovereign, self-responsible and individual human beings who require liberty to survive and flourish."
well said Dr. Hurd
But Hurd makes the same statement that irritates me every time I hear or read it--"We need an assertive leader to get the government..."
We don't need to be led, we don't need a President to 'free' us.
We need to assert and lead ourselves.
He's a statist Pragmatist who in typical Republican fashion like the Bushes thinks his job would be to "manage" statism more effectively, this time with an obsessive explicit emphasis on "deals", i.e. compromising our rights away, to get whatever it is he is after at the moment. His Pragmatism of "making deals" is his philosophy -- in a self-caricature of the domination of Pragmatism replacing principle since William James in the late 19th century.
His thinking is oblivious to both principle and knowledge of facts and background as he shoots his mouth off making dramatic pronouncements, like the pompous blowhard Christy, without knowing what he is talking about, for example his trashing of Pamela Geller.
This is frightening and dangerous. We don't need a fascist demagogue claiming to be riding in on a 'white horse' to 'save' us.
His reasoning was that nothing could be done to us in the meantime.
I'm sure Rush Limbaugh understood that and didn't intend to contradict it while musing about potential benefits arising from the government not doing so much of what it usually does.
Good article. Yes, Trump is all about rhetoric. I have yet to see a specific solution. Still he is quite entertaining.
"Democrats, on the other hand, have very clear-cut ideas... " Almost all bad ones.
Regards,
O.A.
"It's a great honor to be here. I love the NRA. I love the Second Amendment. And it's really something, having a room like this, and having so many great Americans, great taxpayers, wonderful people and hard workers." OMG. Grammar police!!!
I would expect Jefferson to have hard time with omnipresent dishonesty in the media discourse. I think he probably would not receive a majority of the votes.
This is because they define "Idea" as a proposed government program. Therefore, if you don't have any programs to expand the government you plan to implement, you have no ideas.
More often than not I just wish they would stop doing stuff for us, It usually ends up feeling like they are doing stuff to us. :(
Regards,
O.A.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4V-g_OV...
:)
Donald Trump is also very well educated not only via “Brick and Mortar” but also through vase experience in business both in success and in failure. Like Trump of not, he is VERY successful in business, and has raised two exceptionally successful children.
I think Trump should have used the phrase. “Politicians are ALL talk and NO PRODUCTIVE action when it comes to benefitting the American People.” This is what I believe he meant, although he did not say it.
Leadership and “The Deal” is one in the same to the TRUE leader. Donald Trump has many outstanding quotes that are based on Leadership and a Personal Philosophy and Ideology. One such quote is, “Sometimes your best investments are the ones you don’t make.”
Trump says you ALWAYS negotiate from a position of power (strength) not weakness.
Some of the items in his books, are that while he may not like someone at all, and they may not like him, he has forged some of his best business deals with people who do not like each other. THAT is leadership.
Leadership is being able to negotiate with people and convince them into a course of action they may not be initially amicable to do. I personally do this all the time as Project Manager in matrixed organizations. THAT requires Leadership, and Referent Power. Something NONE of the current politicians I see have. Ronald Regan had it.
Donald Trump said he does not need donors. This is true. He does not HAVE to bend over and kiss some ass to get a donation check he is worth close to 9 billion dollars.
Warren Bennis said “Leadership is the capacity to translate vision into reality.” Based on that Trump is the ONLY person who is a leader in the GOP field.
John Maxwell said “Leadership is influence – nothing more, nothing less.” Politicians are not the ones with the influence their donors are. Politicians are the puppets being manipulated by the REAL leaders.
Obama is not a leader he is a bully, and tyrant. Just because you can force someone to do something does not make one a leader. Leading required the ability to use the forms of power, those being listed as:
1)Expert Power
2)Reward Power
3)Personal or Referent Power
4)Information Power
These forms of power must be exercised within Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs to be a truly successful leader.
Like Trump of not, he leads from the front. Leading from behind is called RETREAT.
He has a vision and translates that into reality. He negotiates usually to the benefit of both parties not generally leaving himself on the short end.
The more I listen to Trump the more I like him for President. I can see Donald Trump telling Lois Lerner, Hillary Clinton, Obama, and other unscrupulous unethical wonks, YOU’RE FIRED!!!
THAT is what we need in the Whitehouse in my opinion.
If Trump would surround himself with excellent problem solving people and just be a big picture guy he could certainly do better than what we have had.
Sometimes a good leader is one that does not micromanage but only steers the direction. So your argument and support is not without merit. Unfortunately I believe he hasn't the temperament to be electable. He has already alienated a good number of the electorate and the media will of course portray him as a clown and Circus act.
If it were possible for him to be elected it sure would be fun to see him cut the politicos down to size. His support in the polls so far is not promising and probably for those reasons.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Ad far as not having the temperment. I am of the opinion that the American people are about ready for a REAL straight talking no nonsense, call it like it is with no apologies person to lead this country. I think "We the People" are sick of the two faced double talking, double dealing, yo-y0's who like to think of themselves as leaders, but have never really built anything.
But if it came down to Jeb Bush or Hillary I will just chuck it all and vote Democrat down the line and say screw it lets drive it all off the cliff and pick up the pieces when it crashes.
Mario Andretti = 200+mph
Marathon Runner = about 6 mph.
Hillary = Mario to our country and its destruction
Jeb Bush = Marathon Runner.
To me the sooner we run this bus off the cliff the sooner we can as Jefferson said, "Fertilize the tree of liberty with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants."
The sooner the better, we need to rip it off like the proverbial band-aid.
Unless we get a REAL leader in office who dismantles all these useless Government Agencies and restored the Constitution, the only real alternative is crash and burn then rise from the ashes.
You stated the problem do you have the solution? Who?
Otherwise you are just setting us up or trying to in a lame attempt to get your real candidate in office.
Sorry I'm not buying suicide for any member of the Government Party left or right they are nothing more than the left and right wing of the left.
All the borrowed rhetoric aside.
Who?
right - citizens over government as employees
left - government over citizens as vassels
center The Constitution
Easy as that and it suddenly all makes sense.
the big lie exposed
and the rest is just trickery based on creating a concentration camp of words not wire and deceit not ovens and the slogans of James Carville not gas. Lot of hot air though. With the Republicans straight up gassing their fair share of socialist whoppers lock step goose step in league with the Democrats
Some people you can fool all of the time . The rest of us can now safely ignore them and go back to the business of running our country.
No votes, no donations, no support the secular devil has been put behind us.
and I smell political blood...
Behavioral choices are the forces that move a people up, down, or hold them in stasis (actually, stasis turns out to be stagnation, which in the long run is a down). What choices to make in our time are clearly documented in the historical record, should a people be bothered to know it.
OK, this is off topic so feel free to delete. I purchased "Trails of Injustice" in Kindle format to read on my train ride home from Florida to New York and truly enjoyed the read! Couldn't put it down! You did a wonderful job creating an exciting tale using current events. I can see as our government becomes more totalitarian with its plethora of armed alphabet soup agencies, so perfectly illustrated by the Fish and Wildlife raid (gave me a chilly cringe the same as when a certain guitar company was raided) Hank Rangar will have plenty to do in future encounters and, hopefully, there will be future encounters. At least until your books are banned. Thanks for writing it.
I noticed an "anomaly" you may want to fix in future revisions. That is when Hank and Abigail ducked out of the cafe the to get away from Jesus and his henchmen, they left their BOBs in the Suzuki. Then when they were outside the library where Hank needed to use the Internet, he reached into his BOB and pulled out one of his prepaid cell phones. Later they went back and got the Suzuki and their BOBs (recall the email ruse). Therefore, Hank couldn't have gotten the cell phone from his BOB, which was in the Suzuki. Made me go "Hmmm" with a smile.
I actually agree with something a psychotherapist said. There is (at least) one psychotherapist in the world who can apply his knowledge and rationally analyze a public figure's words and actions without name calling.
Thanks, Dr. Hurd.
Thanks, kh.
I have a different view of the political parties. Democrats' philosophy isn't statism. Statism may be the result of their offering govt solutions for a long list of little problems, but their philosophy is "Something's bothering you? Ooh, ooh, govt could do something about that. And that will improve liberty bc you how can you be free with that problem hanging over you?" Republicans OTOH hardly even pretend to support liberty. Even if we spend as much on war as all other countries it wouldn't be enough. Govt can never be big or intrusive enough for them. At home they can tell you why you should fear or hate your neighbors for petty or imagined reasons. Respecting their rights is supporting criminals and terrorists, they say. We're for law and order, okay actually just order but it sounds better to say we're for law too.
Then a goofy caricature of Republicans appears. I actually wonder if it's an intentional parody on Trump's part. We get articles like this one that seem surprised. It points out telling people "there are enemies everywhere to fear or hate, but don't worry; I'll show 'em who's boss," isn't conducive to law and liberty. No kidding. I agree completely.
Really? Let’s look at this a bit shall we? Today’s Democrats believe in democracy. The root of their party name is what? Democracy is mob rule. A majority votes to grant the government more power. That is statism. Hillary, the democratic candidates and democrats generally are campaigning for more federal gun control, federal taxation, government controls on business ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0BdKkEK... ), income redistribution, education mandates, federal mandates of lenient immigration policies and more environmental regulation, etc. all from up on high Mt. Olympus. As you suggested they hear you have a problem and automatically think they can solve it at a governmental level. That is the epitome of statism and with every executive order from our POTUS you see prime examples. Some problems are best left to the individual if liberty is to be preserved. Federalism was meant to be a federation of states. Each, would, with their sovereign powers, handle the individual state problems and those not enumerated in the state constitutions would be relegated to the communities and to the individuals. They were all off limits to the Federal government since they were not enumerated in the Constitution. The Republic was not founded as a democracy just for that reason. The Constitution never mentions the word democracy, but guarantees us a constitutionally limited Republican form of government. A republican form of government that respects the constitution is one that is anti-statist to the degree that is practicable. That is the reason the framers created and enumerated the limited powers of the federal government with the constitution and the bill of rights. That is republicanism… A limited government with representatives as apposed to simple democracy and mob rule. The very essence of this institution was to limit expanding central control… the antithesis of statism. It is true that some republicans do not adhere strictly to these principles,thus the term RINO, but the magnitude/contrast is apparent. The democrats never speak of the Republic and continuously tell us we have a democracy. This is a purposeful ruse knowing true democracy always devolves into more statism. We do hear many republicans talking about the problems of common core, the over-reach of the EPA, the abuse of the IRS, central control of healthcare, FDA mandates on our food supply (sugar, salt intake, restaurant restrictions, food labeling, etc) more attacks on the second amendment. What do you think these things are if not examples of statism? Neither party is truly respecting our constitution, but one party is unabashedly promoting a more statist philosophy. Bernie Sanders is drawing significant crowds of democrats. He is a self proclaimed socialist. For Galt’s sake you can’t get more blatantly statist than that! Democracy and Socialism are inherently more statist philosophies of governance.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Colloquially democracy can mean a democratic republic. It truly believe most people who use the word positively think a constitutional framework to prevent tyranny of the majority goes without saying. Both parties believe in “democracy” and use the word to mean a constitutional democratic republic.
“As you suggested they hear you have a problem and automatically think they can solve it at a governmental level. That is the epitome of statism and with every executive order from our POTUS you see prime examples.”
Statism is the result. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. This is how it is with career politicians.
“Some problems are best left to the individual if liberty is to be preserved. Federalism was meant to be a federation of states. Each, would, with their sovereign powers, handle the individual state problems and those not enumerated in the state constitutions would be relegated to the communities and to the individuals. They were all off limits to the Federal government since they were not enumerated in the Constitution. The Republic was not founded as a democracy just for that reason. The Constitution never mentions the word democracy, but guarantees us a constitutionally limited Republican form of government. A republican form of government that respects the constitution is one that is anti-statist to the degree that is practicable. That is the reason the framers created and enumerated the limited powers of the federal government with the constitution and the bill of rights.”
Yes!! Yes, to every bit of it.
“It is true that some republicans do not adhere strictly to these principles, thus the term RINO, but the magnitude/contrast is apparent.”
My claim is they generally don't even pretend do. They should get a different name, so they wouldn't all have to be in name only. They start with a model that accepts a large and intrusive federal gov't because of a list of philistine bogymen.
“We do hear many republicans talking about the problems of common core”
It blows my mind that they politicize something so mundane, esp with the over-the-top rhetoric. One Republican in the WI legislature rightly said something to the effect of I can't believe we've gone down this path with Common Core”.
“the over-reach of the EPA”
There may be some ideological desire to protect the environment in a different way, but the main reason is polluters fund their campaigns.
“Neither party is truly respecting our constitution, but one party is unabashedly promoting a more statist philosophy.”
I agree, but I think it's the Republicans. It's sort of a moot point, though, because the result is in the same whether you get there via Democrats' laundry list of problems gov't could “help” with or the Republicans' list of fears requiring more gov't spending and power.
The fact is that Democrats voted in O'care without one single vote from republicans and it is the largest bit of statism that has occurred in generations, though it is but one example of such a proclivity. Of the two major parties republicans are the only ones ever willing to talk about cutting or ending any federal agencies, or enacting and maintaining sequestration, while the only solutions offered by democrats aside from cutting military (which is the most important and legitimate function of the federal government), are more taxes and expanding government programs. Does this escape you? Are you hearing them? All one has to do is listen to campaign speeches of the different parties to see the differences (not that the republicans actually deliver as much as they promise). You did not acknowledge or address several key points in my previous comment. Though I recognize republicans are far from acceptable due to their own lesser tendencies of statism, I believe you are overlooking a great deal. "Republicans' list of fears" have been realized. The Democrats' attempts to fix everything by government actions and spending since at least FDR's New deal, have given us a national debt that has put us on the same path as Greece. http://www.usdebtclock.org/ All of the burden has, of basic economic laws, been necessarily placed on the backs of those that still work while encouraging more sloth, resulting in massive debt, economic stagnation, flat wages and the worst job participation rate in 60 years. Yes, voting for the party that most revels in buying votes for political one-upsmanship with government largess has encouraged/forced all parties into a competition of ultimate destruction. If enough people voted for advocates of small government and austerity as our founding principles dictated and constitution authorized we would not be ruining the future for our posterity. Unfortunately if one party embraces buying votes with other peoples' money, those with prudent economics are at a disadvantage politically. The majority of short term thinking voters naturally want theirs and contemplate not of the future. Nobody wants to see their own benefits cut or see the downtrodden without help, but there is only so much burden that can be placed upon the productive before they say "enough is enough" and go no strike as they did in AS. Then many more will have nothing. How will that help? We should recognize the problem confronting us and vote for the candidates most likely to stop the runaway train regardless of party. When Democrats speak of repealing O'care, eliminating federal agencies, reducing taxes, or simplifying the tax code and eliminating the IRS, which is the most powerful and oppressive agent of statism, which republicans are doing, then the comparison might be more evenly balanced.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I do not see the PPACA as the worst statism in generations, but it is a good example of gov't trying to solve citizens' little problems that should be outside the purview of gov't.
“Of the two major parties republicans are the only ones ever willing to talk about cutting or ending any federal agencies, or enacting and maintaining sequestration, while the only solutions offered by democrats aside from cutting military (which is the most important and legitimate function of the federal government), are more taxes and expanding government programs.”
You wrote that Republicans are the only ones willing to talk about cutting gov't, In the very same sentence you say Democrats offer to cut military spending, which is far and away the largest area of spending (esp if you count Social Security / Medicare as separate from other gov't spending) and an area that the Founders would have been opposed to on principle b/c they didn't want a large standing army. None of this matters, though, because as you say neither the Republicans nor Democrats execute on this rhetoric. Cutting military spending to be equal to the sum of spending by the top three other countries is beyond the pale for Democrats. It's all talk.
“"Republicans' list of fears" have been realized.”
Does this mean statism is okay if it's for programs the Republicans support? If we turn over large amounts of wealth and power to the gov't, it doesn't matter whether we did it because of a list of fears or a list of hopes.
“The Democrats' attempts to fix everything by government actions and spending since at least FDR's New deal, have given us a national debt that has put us on the same path as Greece.”
We had a balanced budget at the end of the Clinton administration, until Republicans hit their trifecta of excuses to borrow money. It's not just Republicans fault. It's gotten worse during President Obama. Democrats have proposed budgets with more borrowing, so they are definitely part of the problem.
“If enough people voted for advocates of small government and austerity as our founding principles dictated and constitution authorized we would not be ruining the future for our posterity.”
Many people run their personal finances irresponsibly, and Congress does a good job of representing them by running the gov't in the same way. We won't stop the borrowing until we hit a crisis, which is really unfortunate.
“Unfortunately if one party embraces buying votes with other peoples' money, those with prudent economics are at a disadvantage politically.”
I agree, but I think Republicans are the worst offenders. I do not think Democrats started it because of Republicans or the other way around. The same factors lead them both to support large/intrusive gov't.
It's similar to the planning difficulties caused by EGTRA expiration.
"Forcing people to buy something they do not want under the force of a gun to their head is certainly more evil than voting for how existing resources are allocated?"
What does this mean?
"welfare/medicaid is the same as military spending and social security/medicare are not voluntary btw."
Yes. That's why I said "esp if you count them as separate from other spending". You're right that they're not voluntary and maybe should not be counted as separate.
You prepare because if you don't the Government Party is going to stick to you every time without fail. 'History teaches us that. See anything that says the opposite this time around?
History teaches that and Moral Philosophy teaches us to paid heed when someone shouts BOHICA! Bend over here they come again.
Next lesson check the vaseline for sand. Once before and once after you vote for them again.
Remember assistance from the Government is a form of Aids.
That's true, but that's not what I mean as a list of fears. I'm saying Republicans have a list of reasons why gov't needs more money and power. The need to live within our means isn't a Republican or Democratic concept; it's just a fact, one people are ignoring at the moment.
“Social security and medicare are all going broke.”
I completely reject this and almost the entire contents of the article you linked to. Social Security and Medicare take tax dollars from workers and spend them on retirement and insurance benefits. Unlike an ordinary retirement account or insurance contract, they don't take premiums and invest them. They're just are all spent out except for a small trust fund invested in Treasuries. I completely understand why this is a bad idea. It's broke by nature. It's disingenuous to point out with indignation that the system can only pay out what workers of the current time pay into it. That how it was designed, i.e. badly IMHO. I also completely reject the accounting gimmick argument for the same reasons.
I disagree too with the part about Clinton boom being caused by Reagan and Bush 41. This eight-year delay narrative works for Republicans because in recent decades we've had economic expansion during Democratic presidents and recessions during Republican presidents. The Democrats' narrative is they're responsible for the expansions. I don't believe either one. The economic cycle swings back and forth randomly. If I could predict them based on political developments or anything else, I would be rich from trading options and futures.
I do agree with the part about Republicans being a huge part of the balanced budget in the late 90s. It would not have happened with Democrats alone.
The article tries to this this to the recession of 08-09 by saying Democrats urged the GSEs to underwrite risky loans. Reading the article, you'd think that President Bush would have used his eight years to rein them in, but in reality President Bush said just b/c you're poor doesn't mean you shouldn't own a nice house. He say that! It was part of his ownership society idea and supporting the real estate and finance industries.
I don't have time to hit every point I think is wrong in that article, but going back to the start about the need to get the federal budget under control--- that's an elephant in the room that people are just ignoring until it becomes a crisis.
Here are some more facts to consider. The statist program and premise that government backed lenders like Freddie and Fannie would back loans to people that were not highly creditworthy and more risky was foolhardy. The recent recession and slowest recovery since WWII was precipitated because of an housing bubble that burst, “too big to fail” banks collapsing and needing bailouts (It was not started because of a military spending collapse.) The reason all of these events occurred can be traced back to the community re-investment act started by Carter (D), doubled down on by Clinton (D) and continued by Bush (R) who questioned the program, yet continued it after multiple reassurances by banking committee members Dodd (D) and Frank (D) that the program and the primary lenders Fannie and Freddie were sound and solvent. Then after the inevitable collapse we got Dodd-Frank regulation that strangled many small time lenders/community banks with onerous regulations though the small banks were not the problem. This has exacerbated the poor economic outlook, potential for growth and prolonged recovery. Statism is government control and these are the results.
To the Democrats’ credit, there was JFK (D) who said “ask not what your country can do for you…” there was also Clinton (D) signing welfare reform put forth by Newt Gingrich (R) and Bob Dole (R)… after vetoing it twice. Too bad Obama (D) has completely gutted that program, by rolling back the work requirements. To show that I am an equal opportunity critic and objective: Bush 41(R) went back on his word when he said, “Read my lips, no new taxes.” And Bush 43 (R) took us into Iraq. These actions also produced unacceptable economic burdens placed on the citizens, but they pale in comparison to the long term, mounting welfare state burdens.
I do not support any party blindly or ignore unfavorable facts. The facts are all there if you google them and are willing to analyze them objectively without dismissing them out of hand because they are uncomfortable to one’s loyalty to party. Here is another exhaustive analysis for you to dispute, though I doubt you can convincingly dispute the direct quotes that tell the story. https://tjhancock.wordpress.com/housi...
1: This rings true since speculative mania are usually started by a real trend. Manias usually start with a real change in supply or demand that eventually takes on an irrational life of its own.
I don't like the gov't artificially shifting the demand curve using the GSEs, but I blame the mania on people who took it an ran with it-- basically anyone who made those crazy loans and anyone who took them out. The gov't was not the worst offender in those areas.
They should have done less bailing out IMHO, letting people who did those bad deals face the consequences.
2) I read some of the news articles at the time, and contrary to what the TJ Hancock article says, I did not get the impression it was partisan. It seemed like once the mania got started, all politicians were on board. It seems like a lot of people did stupid stuff, and in the aftermath politicians are masters of telling you just whom to blame it on.
The USA tended toward a soft touch approach having an armed population and used incrementalism a great deal. The others were more liberal and less conservative in their fast paced approach to the ultimate goal. The all vied with each for the top spot. But it was still a socialist oriented country by the time WWII rolled around
The use of statist corporatist, and union leaders in the USA like the others puts the union leaders as the kick stand more than as one of the wheels and more under control of the Democrats than not. Republicans tend to represent and deal with the corporate entities. Democrats tend to cling to the 240 or so year old idea of representing the people but ended in the same mold as the Marxist-Leninists We work tirelessly for the people so deserve more..
The difference is the Russians used no union but the party itself claiming no need they already owned the means of production. That was true if the meaning was the party owned the workers. That from a royalty and serf society which had never known anything else. The Democrats are even more than the Republicans control freaks and aspire to the party line more diligently. Anything done that supports the party is the truth no matter if it's different tomorrow. Yet they also have a rigid caste system and a privileged class with perhaps more millionaires and billionaires than the Republicans that believes and practices control by any means.
Under the facade all three branches support each other and follow the main philosophy.For different reasons. Some see it as a return to a new form of feudalism.where the Barons and royalty owned everything including the workers. Some probably live in a dream world of this and that future outcome for everyone IF ONLY they are given enough time and enough power. Only real difference is the methodology. AND all of them are moving incrementally the last step being establishment of the protective echelon to eventually supplant if not take over the military.
I would expect a new military oath of office with something about loyalty to the President and a downplay on loyalty to the Constitution. So no they aren't statist in the sense of Russia, China, Germany, Italy but they are none the less statist because that is the one branch that invariably rules the roost.Penny Farthing Bicycle. Kick stand, little wheel and big wheel. They are also corporatist as their wealth shows they just don't like it talked about.
The common factor is all three of the triumverate believe unreservedly in government control of the citizens and that over the last two hundred and some years has- become the position of the left. Joined by many of the citizens true.
The right - the old space for the King who ruled by divine right or ultimate source of power now belongs - only in the USA to those who believe in citizens, constitution, country, and their employees the government in that order.
Fact Check. What they say and what they do is the proof in the pudding. They are not hard to understand at all if you use the correct definitions
they are for law - their law and their order.
Not ours.
Which leaves a small minority holding down the source of supreme power - the people and the true center of political discourse the Constitution. Not the center of the left but the center of the nation.
Sleep well your Directorate of Internal State Security is on the alert.
And for the really old timers. Neither one are the party of Abraham Lincoln or FDR any more so how grandpa voted is not germane
I worked for HP at the time, and she was horrid. She treated HP assets like Obama treats Air Force One. I will NEVER support any candidate that has her as part of his/her run for office.
I like Ben Carson, and if I needed brain surgery would let him operate, however, I am not convinced he is not a Democrat in Republicans clothing and not sure I would like him as Chief Executive. Being a Doctor, his "emotions" and sense of being a do-gooder would tend to overpower his common sense.