Pragmatist Trump

Posted by $ TomB666 9 years, 1 month ago to Politics
154 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

This article gives a little different take to Donald Trump.

Mychal S. Massie is an ordained minister who spent 13 years in full-time Christian Ministry. Today he serves as founder and Chairman of the Racial Policy Center (RPC), a think tank he officially founded in September 2015.

RPC advocates for a colorblind society. He was founder and president of the non-profit “In His Name Ministries”. He is the former National Chairman of the conservative black think tank, Project 21-The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives and a former member of its parent think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Trump is not a liberal or conservative, he’s a Pragmatist.

We recently enjoyed a belated holiday dinner with friends at the home of other friends. The dinner conversation was jocund, ranging from discussions about antique glass and china to theology and politics.

At one point reference was made to Donald Trump being a conservative, to which I responded that Trump is not a conservative.

I said that I neither view nor do I believe Trump views himself as a conservative. I stated it was my opinion that Trump is a pragmatist. He sees a problem and understands it must be fixed. He doesn't see the problem as liberal or conservative; he sees it only as a problem. That is a quality that should be admired and applauded, not condemned. But I get ahead of myself.

Viewing problems from a liberal perspective has resulted in the creation of more problems, more entitlement programs, more victims, more government, more political correctness, and more attacks on the working class in all economic strata.

Viewing things according to the so-called Republican conservative perspective has brought continued spending, globalism to the detriment of American interests and well being, denial of what the real problems are, weak, ineffective, milquetoast, leadership that amounts to Barney Fife Deputy Sheriff, appeasement oriented and afraid of its own shadow. In brief, it has brought liberal ideology with a pachyderm as a mascot juxtaposed to the ass of the Democrat Party.

Immigration isn't a Republican problem – it isn't a liberal problem – it is a problem that threatens the very fabric and infrastructure of America. It demands a pragmatic approach not an approach that is intended to appease one group or another.

The impending collapse of the economy isn't a liberal or conservative problem, it is an American problem. That said, until it is viewed as a problem that demands a common sense approach to resolution, it will never be fixed because the Democrats and Republicans know only one way to fix things and the longevity of their impracticality has proven to have no lasting effect.

A Successful businessmen like Donald Trump find ways to make things work, they do not promise to accommodate.

Trump uniquely understands that China’s manipulation of currency is not a Republican problem or a Democrat problem. It is a problem that threatens our financial stability and he understands the proper balance needed to fix it. Here again successful businessmen like Trump who have weathered the changing tides of economic reality understand what is necessary to make business work and they, unlike both sides of the political aisle, know that if something doesn't work, you don't continue trying to make it work hoping that at some point it will.

As a pragmatist Donald Trump hasn't made wild pie-in-the-sky promises of a cell phone in every pocket, free college tuition, and a $15 hour minimum wage for working the drive-through a Carl’s Hamburgers. I argue that America needs pragmatists because pragmatists see a problem and find ways to fix them. They do not see a problem and compound it by creating more problems.

You may not like Donald Trump, but I suspect that the reason people do not like him is because: (1) he is antithetical to the “good old boy” method of brokering backroom deals that fatten the coffers of politicians; (2) they are unaccustomed to hearing a candidate speak who is unencumbered by the financial shackles of those who own them vis-a-vis donations; (3) he is someone who is free of idiomatic political ideology; and (4) he is someone who understands that it takes more than hollow promises and political correctness to make America great again.

Listening to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders talk about fixing America is like listening to two lunatics trying to “out crazy” one another. Jeb Bush, John Kasik [sic] and Marco Rubio are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the bankers, corporations, and big dollar donors funding their campaigns. Bush can deny it but common sense tells anyone willing to face facts is that people don't give tens of millions without expecting something in return.

We have had Democrats and Republican ideologues and what has it brought us? Are we better off today or worse off? Has it happened overnight or has it been a steady decline brought on by both parties?

I submit that a pragmatist might be just what America needs right now.

And as I said earlier, a pragmatist sees a problem and understands that the solution to fix same is not about a party, but a willingness and boldness to get it done.

People are quick to confuse and despise confidence as arrogance, but that is common amongst those who have never accomplished anything in their lives (or politicians who never really solve a problem, because its better to still have an "issue(s) to be solved" so re-elect me to solve it, which never happens) and those who have always played it safe (again, all politicians) not willing to risk failure, to try and achieve success.

Donald Trump has his total financial empire at risk in running for president - that says it all. Success for the US!


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 5.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Added up, down and sideways that is worthy of the Goebbels Propagandist Award of the Bi-Century and the Seig Heil Comrade We Don't Serve The Party Award as well. Spin is just another word for deceit.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Now you can mark me down and demand a down time twice. I'm still going to be out here LMFAO. you talk first amendment I live it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes I know , over the line - for a philosophical discussion but steel on target for a war strike.Go ahead and add Waffles into that last sentence. No wonder Billyum is such a famous philanderer.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Highly doubtful as a member of the left he would give a second thought to reinstating the Constitution. Why give up all that power when the main platform plank of the left is government over citizens using any and all means possible.His whole background steers him straight into the dogma of the left wing socialist corporatist/statist camp and nothing he has said or not said or evaded has indicated other wise. Even the statist/corporatist or the pure statist camp of the left would, however, prefer a Trump loose cannon than an Wwotl waddling barrage from a Clintonite artillery battalion. God is not on the side of the big battalions but the those who can direct their 'at home' big guns' in a direction of their choosing. Sorry dear.. nothing for you tonight. Though in some cased that might prove a blessing. Can you imagine going home to a Miss Lube Job 1955? A clear 8th amendment violation.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by JohnConnor352 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I think more damage can be done by a government run entirely by either of the two parties. I want a split government. If they fight, then nothing gets done, and at least we can learn to adapt to the current relations and live.
    I'll vote third party and let the democrats win the presidency before I give in to support a shit candidate. I refuse to say "yes" to such authoritarians
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by JohnConnor352 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    What about laws that are bad but are still on the books? Like drug laws?
    You present a false dichotomy. We cannot simply "remove" such a law until there is enough popular support. However does that make your actions of consuming illegal drugs unethical?
    I say no. Law does not determine ethics, philosophy does. Ideals.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 1 month ago
    solving problems is the right thing to do ... but it's all
    about how they are solved. . if the three primary
    functions of government are security, law generation
    and justice -- instead of security, healthcare and
    education, well, we might solve 'em better. . don't you
    think? -- john

    p.s. I would prefer the R who will beat Hillary and
    obey the constitution. . DT might do both.
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    wasn't there a brief story about a youngster piloting
    a boat in AS? . survival of the fittest! -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Exactly! "Illegal" has a very specific meaning and is completely unambiguous. A law prohibiting an act also includes a description of punishment in the event it is violated. We must decide if we are a nation of laws. Selective enforcement leads to chaos. If a law is bad remove it from the books, if it is good enforce it. The problem is that Trump may not know how to make that argument.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Cruz,,,love em or hate em...he lives and breaths the constitution...also Rand Paul...but even though he is still on the ballot in most states, how could we get everyone to vote/write him in?
    That still leaves us with Cruz and he does have a shot at taking the convention.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by starznbarz 9 years, 1 month ago
    Call him, or the others what you will, their "label" simply does`nt matter. If the goal is to begin to correct what we have allowed, a proven Constitutional fighter is the only choice. With that as your baseline, there is only one choice - like them or not. Country First.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 9 years, 1 month ago
    As I understand it, a "Pragmatist" is one who acts
    on the expediency of the moment, without refer-
    ence to basic principles; it is not the same as a
    Practical person.--And, in the long run, Pragmatism
    does not work.

    Trum is no free enterprise man. He does
    not really care about the Rights of Man. He has
    praised eminent domain and bragged about his
    lack of principle. I have contempt for him. That
    is why my vote went to Cruz in the Virginia pri-
    mary. He is not ideal, but I consider him the
    best alternative available.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jsw225 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Better? No.

    I could conduct a 20 page essay about who Trump is, who Hitler was, and how any connections between the two are anecdotal and meaningless. That would open up an entire other discussion about that essay full of arguments and counter arguments, but it would all stem back to the original point which was ludicrous, laughable to anyone who has studied history, and childish to boot.

    So it was neither below the belt, nor out of place. It is the perfect response to such a statement.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by blackswan 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    ALL of the arguments about the superiority of collectivism vs. capitalism revolve around efficacy, not morality. In fact, morality is on the back burner. Maybe it's time to put morality where it belongs, but we'll need to also show that it's the most efficacious approach.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Absolutely but even Ayn rand accepts the idea of accepting small steps away from statism rather than no steps or steps towards statism
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by blackswan 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    You keep talking about the Constitution, but there's no one who can or will deliver. The real question is, among all the candidates still standing, who will come closest to delivering solutions that will take us the closest to a constitutional system. That's all that's available, unless you know someone who can win the election, and deliver constitutional solutions.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Maritimus 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello jsw225,
    This is below the belt! That stuff does nor belong here. You can do much better!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Maritimus 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    From what I know the question to Mr. Trump was: "Would you punish women for having ILLEGAL abortions?" He answered yes. Hillary supporting media, in their usual manner, dropped the crucial qualifier to smear their opponent and spread their smear everywhere. They are already working beyond primaries.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    But Floyd Ferris concerned himself only with power. He didn't give a fig whether the trains ran on time, or at all, unless he was aboard one of them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree - both that Congress has set standards and that it is a Constitutional duty both for Congress to set the standards and for the President to enforce them.

    What concerns me is that Trump has stated on numerous occasions that he would side-step Congress and resort to Executive Actions to carry out his agenda. I don't have a problem with the President using the bully pulpit to call on Congress to put forward legislation in order to address a need (provided that such a call isn't condescending and blatantly partisan). I DO have a problem with a President who goes it alone (as this one has) - regardless of ideology. The media were quick to criticize President Bush for being a maverick and warmonger to go after Saddam, but I will give him credit that he didn't do it by himself. He presented the case to both the American People and to the rest of the World. I don't trust "The Donald" to try to do anything such.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by JohnConnor352 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I disagree.

    "In the context of her terrifying tale of a nation and an economy brought to practical and moral ruin by an overpowerful government driven by a veneer of phony altruism, her character Dr. Floyd Ferris tells metal magnate Henry Rearden:

    The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws....just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers..."

    And a nation of law-breakers' freedom depends entirely on when or whether the government decides to crack down. No decent person wants a system like that at all. But one might think someone with Trump's demonstrated sense of raw id would be especially alarming. It's an important argument against Trump, and alas we'll have plenty of need to bring it up over and over again as this election year crawls toward its terrifying climax."

    http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/02/ayn...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by zzdragon 9 years, 1 month ago
    First let me say. I'm from TEXAS and voted for Cruz. Do I like Trump. Yes. That being said let's look at the alternatives. Hilary the crook? Sanders the give away artist?
    Remember Ronny was treated just like Trump is being now. The GOP went so far as to back a 3rd party candidate against him.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I take your last point. And I remember how John Galt shot Mr. Thompson down in a few sentences: "Start by abolishing all income taxes...Fire your government employees."

    But I say again: Rand never imagined anyone who really believed such a system could work, and had a way to do it, or at least an idea he wanted to try out.

    That's the kind of person I think Trump might be...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by JohnConnor352 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    It does not matter who is in government. The departments need eviscerated, not made "more efficient." That will only improve their ability to hamper our lives. The majority of the freedoms we have nowadays are those that government has been to busy to enforce the restrictions against.

    And without a profit motive, how do you get such competent people into government work? It is an impossible goal.

    Our "trade negotiations" should be "free Trade." That is it! That is the only answer if you support liberty.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo