Pragmatist Trump
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!
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!
I think a German oompah waltz background with satirical melody. Muted trumpet, oboe, clarinet and gypsy violin orchestrated for the melody and chords in the treble clef.
Isn't the treble clef now beyond the frequency range of your hearing?
Trump may be a pragmatist when it comes to dealing in real estate development, but politics is entirely a different game. He has to learn on the job and as a result is bound to make mistakes. Lots of them. Now say the second guy on the boat takes a pill, feels better and takes over. Should the third guy be resentful?
Jeez, I love analogies.
a boat in AS? . survival of the fittest! -- j
.
On the other hand, the cat is out of the bag as to keeping the federal government small. Maybe it would be nice to have someone with a track record of delivering on time and on budget!
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.
I don't see trumps approach to problems as pragmatic, I see it more like asthmatic...gasping for solutions regardless of principles, reason or consequences. He thinks a "Crony" approach is just as good as any.
That still leaves us with Cruz and he does have a shot at taking the convention.
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
Splits in government do not mean nothing gets done. The government continues to operate under existing laws interpreted by whoever is the president, and agencies continue to make new rules under existing law granting ambiguous powers to the executive branch -- with more rules added in accordance with the political appointees of the president and the entrenched bureaucracy.
Party is everything from extremist secular progressives to Republicans in name only.
"Government Over People "
It should be Citizens Over Government.
I watched AS 2 again on Wednesday. Remember the sign by the homeless guy that said: America. Born July 4, 1776. Died yesterday. RIP.
"Died yesterday" a that stage of AS means murdered. A large portion of the society didn't approve it but didn't have the understanding to know an alternative or what to do about it.
As any businessman knows, solving problems it the name of the game. Politicians are problem creators. Trump is not a politician.
I tried 'his web site.' Nothing came up. Since i don't have the time nor inclination to wade through the number of site choices that google presented I'll leave the mysterious 'his' to his own devices and go by what's been quoted and a sourced.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/
if you can bring your self to do so....
At least when in hot water he thinks before he says "I misspoke."
Doubt he lost any impassioned supporters but you don't win over new voters when you say deadhead stuff like you're going to punish women for having abortions.
That does not strike old dino as being at all "pragmatic."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictio...
For example, this is hardly the only link~
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmat...
Does the Progressive Movement relate to Pragmatism? Seriously, could you please explain how this philosophy does not work?
Admittedly kinda clueless here.
This has been discussed on the forum here https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Ekirch was a classical liberal, not Objectivist, and has some dubious interpretations. But by "liberal" he means the original American liberalism of Jefferson and Madison, etc., not the anti-liberal statist variety, and his history is excellent.
Yesterday I out the word "pragmatism" and "progressivism" together in my search engine. The following is just the first I found to read~
http://education.seattlepi.com/relati...
Anyway, the Ekrich book and the Peikoff book will be in my mail.
The best general search engine for used books at low prices is http://www.bookfinder.com/ It has broader coverage than amazon and usually includes the amazon offerings. Frequently you will find new or essentially new books at significantly lower prices, too.
Appears I have a blind side in ignorance that requires corrective lenses.
And why wouldn't he want to punish them? If he thinks abortion violates a "right to life", then in his screwy mind it is murder and women should therefore be imprisoned for life or executed.
His campaign backed off with a claim that his position is that the doctor is the murderer, ignoring and despite what Trump had just emphatically said -- which is typical of his Pragmatist campaign of shifting positions appealing to whomever he is trying to 'deal' at the time.
Cruz responded with a crude evasion: "Of course we shouldn’t be talking about punishing women; we should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world,”
So are all murderers and their accessories now to be exempt from punishment: "we should affirm their dignity"?
Are the doctor's to be executed instead of the women, or also have their "dignity affirmed"?
The circus continues.
I really don't know what Mr.Trump wants, other than presidency and ego satisfaction.
I was just narrowly pointing out at the charade that is called reporting and journalism in our times. Strictly speaking,the question that was asked and the answer that was reported were both distorted virtually instantly.
By the way, many millions of Americans would like to go back to banning abortions. I hope that we do not.
Neither Mr. Trump nor Mr. Cruz inspire in me any confidence whatsoever. I am first and foremost interested not to allow Mrs. Clinton and her party any power whatsoever. Any alternative at this time seems to me to have a good chance of being significantly better than she. Perhaps I should say lesser evil, since the federal government has so much evil inbred that it will surely take more than a couple presidency cycles to generate significant improvements. E.g. after Carter it seemed that Reagan turned things around and improved them substantially.
As others have observed and I tend to agree, virtually all that he achieved has been reversed. I conclude that great numbers in the electorate do not have even a most basic skill of dispassionate thinking. As many have sad and I deeply believe, peoples get the governments they deserve.
I recently read, in a unrelated context, the definitions of hope and optimism which appealed to me:
Hope is the belief that the future will be better than the present and that you have some power to make it so.
Optimism is the belief that things will work out no matter what you do.
I confess to having lost hope and not being optimistic at all.
EDIT: corrected spelling and reversed paragraphs
The alternative between Trump and Clinton, if it comes to that without either or both self-destructing before the election, is Trump as an intolerable bad risk for what Clinton makes a certainty.
That assessment corresponds very much with mine. Thank you.
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.
"[The Pragmatists] declared that philosophy must be practical and that practicality consists of dispensing with all absolute principles and standards—that there is no such thing as objective reality or permanent truth—that truth is that which works, and its validity can be judged only by its consequences—that no facts can be known with certainty in advance, and anything may be tried by rule-of-thumb—that reality is not firm, but fluid and “indeterminate,” that there is no such thing as a distinction between an external world and a consciousness (between the perceived and the perceiver), there is only an undifferentiated package-deal labeled “experience,” and whatever one wishes to be true, is true, whatever one wishes to exist, does exist, provided it works or makes one feel better."
The standard of selecting a president is whether or not he will advance freedom and the rights of the individual or accelerate their demise. We need a president who recognizes the American principles of the rights of the individual and the role of the Constitution in limiting the power of government, not a Conservative or a Liberal -- or a Pragmatist who tries to be both depending on what is expedient at the moment.
Pragmatism does not mean 'practical', it is the philosophy of William James, John Dewey and their followers, beginning in the late 19th century and first centered at Harvard under the influence of the European counter-Enlightenment.
Pragmatism is opposed to principle on principle. It holds that truth is whatever 'works'. In politics it is the philosophy of Progressivism and has swept the country for a century. Obama appeals to it, too, and so do the conservatives. It is so ingrained that people follow it as a matter of psychology without ever questioning what it is, where it came from and how it contradicts the Enlightenment principles of individualism and reason on which the country was founded.
'Works' for what, for whose goals by what standard? Pragmatism is a parasitical philosophy that requires unacknowledged principles to decide on whose goals for what, what are acceptable means, and the criteria for whether or not something "works" at all. Collectivism-statism with an altruist base have remained the premises of the Pragmatists, "left" or "right", including Donald Trump. The Progressive implementation of whatever "tools" of government power can be made available to address anything in any "Deal" is Pragmatism. The standard of "whatever works" is built in statism.
We do not need and cannot tolerate a Pragmatist president who evades principles and treats everything as a "Deal", including his own campaign.
This is a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason, egoism and freedom -- on principle. No one who has the least understanding of Atlas Shrugged can rationally ignore it in favor of anti-principle Pragmatism acting on underlying altruism, collectivism and statism, let alone in the name of "full-time Christian Ministry" and “In His Name Ministries”. Proper principles "work", Pragmatism does not.
It is a downward slope the US rides with the philosophy of progressivism that is permeating and has been fooling the masses. Telling them that they are not responsible---they deserve
----that A=A is not relevant
----that it's better to label then discuss.
Endorsing the collectivist altruism that steals our liberty . It gives a pass on principles and allows for riots to occur when felons are being apprehended for serious crimes and are shot for their continued threatening behavior.
Principals promoting rugged individualism have been the adversary of the large nonprofit's like the Carnegie foundation, the Guggenheim , standard oil , Ford Foundation. All included in the minutes of the board meetings dating back to 1908. Their stated strategy has three basic prongs
1. control the diplomatic corp
2. Control education
3.Control the media
Unfortunately the plan is working.
A full discussion of Pragmatism is in Leonard Peikoff's lecture series on the history of philosophy. He discusses its impact on American in his book The Ominous Parallels.
I do think that the problems of today are not conservative or liberal problems, but just problems needing to be solved. And we then need to move on. If taxation is 40% and really should be 0%, isnt it better to settle on 20% and move on. When the philosophy of the country is in better shape, it can and would be revisited to get it to 0%.
The power brokers on either side want to keep the status quo, and no wonder they hate Trump (and sanders for that matter). A lot of people now are angry at a system that manipulates them and they like that Trump is anti-establishment.
Hillary is the poster child of the manipulative establishment, and I would NEVER vote for her.
Cruz has been anti establishment and I really doubt the power brokers would go for him, unless he "says he is sorry" and promises to do their bidding in the future (gone would be the bible thumping constitutionalist- being traded for the nomination for president)
We don't need another Adolf. The ultimate pragmatist out side of Stalin in the 20th century.
Trump is the guy who will make the trains run on time, because he genuinely cares about making the trains run on time. What Trump will not do is ask himself whether, as chief executive, he has any business running trains or even hiring someone to run taxpayer-funded trains.
Rand never imagined anyone like Trump. Her villains were all politicians, all out to make either a fast buck or a fast power grab, and none of them knew beans about how to make things run. Trump, for instance, would never have tolerated the stupidities and favoritisms that set up the Taggart Tunnel disaster. Nor, if you made him Director of Railroad Unification (Cuffy Meigs' job), would he have stolen and sold off everything in the way of railroad supplies he could get his hands on. And if you were to appoint him to run Rearden Steel, after its nationalization, and gave him carte blanche, he could make it run.
In fact--and some might think this the worst problem--if you offered him the post of Economic Dictator, or Top Coordinator of Economic Planning and National Resources (Wesley Mouch's job), he would actually be smart enough to make it work.
And John Galt and his crew would have had to wait a generation for the Great Collapse. Wait for Donald J. Trump to die and for the whole thing to crash down like a house of cards. Because Donald Trump builds the house of cards and, while he lives and is on the job, keeps it standing. But the minute he's gone, look out below! And he never once questions the fundamental principle.
Or would he? I wonder whether he would simply conclude that socialism can never be made practical. As William Bradford, the second Governor of the Plymouth Colony, realized after that first disastrous winter.
We do not fight collectivism because "it does not work." We fight it because it is unethical, anti-human, and evil.
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...
"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...
The nation in Atlas Shrugged was not driven to ruin by a veneer of phony altruism; it was driven by a real appeal to real altruism. So is this one.
This is below the belt! That stuff does nor belong here. You can do much better!
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.
Don't bark like a big dog when all you have is a putting iron.
If he sees he is not getting what HE wants he stammers and pouts and yells and insults. Wow that works. He is a master marketer and knows how to manipulate the emotions of the "mob". He is not a pragmatist by any means.
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.
.
of the first amendment!!! -- j
.
I'll vote third party this year.
we will miss your vote! -- j
.
Trump believes the answer to all problems are to get the government involved to strong-arm people into acting the correct way. From tariffs on Chinese goods, to a stricter immigration policy, to including education and healthcare as basic duties of the government.
He is an authoritarian, and he seems to be an equal opportunity one at that.
You know competence would be refreshing.
I mean we could have "conservatives" like George Bush who expanded the federal education system with "no child left behind", add ed an expensive drug program to Medicare had a couple of decent wars and totally mishandled the post war process and then handed a fortune over to the banking system so that they could keep funding political campaigns.
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.
nothing except a school of over aged, over ripe and over smelly red herrings or should they be red smelt. about George this and who ever that.
But no evidence of competency comes to light. Until finally the single most important argument is stated. "Well.....ahem...uhhhh... it's better than Hillary."
That's all you have to say? The best you can do? Hilary smells like last month's garbage so that qualifies Trump? If that's the best you can do go back to RINOland with the left of the left wingers.
Where is that stamp. BANG. Rejected As Incompetent..
1. Immigration. He says we need to build a wall and restrict immigration. That's fine and good, but Congress is legally responsible for setting immigration standards - not the President (see Obama).
2. Trade with China. Yes, China's currency manipulation is a problem. But their economy right now is imploding because it was based on false consumption. I would also point out that before Trump does something to cut off most of the manufacturing needs of America, he probably should work with Congress to do something to improve the business climate here in the US. That brings me to ...
3. Taxes. Trump has argued that we need to lower corporate income tax rates. I agree. But then he also turns around and says he wants to force businesses to repatriate all their oversees earnings and pay taxes on those. So he wants to help business just as he turns around to hurt them. He's also said he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. Didn't we just decide that we were going to lower the taxes?
Here are some of the problems Trump has identified and how he would solve them I outright object to:
1. Obamacare. He doesn't like it, he just wants to replace it. The problem is that his position is all over the map. In one speech he says he's all for single-payer. The next he says that healthcare is a government responsibility, but it should be handled privately. WHAT???
2. Free Speech. He doesn't like it when people say things about him he doesn't like, so he wants to be able to sue and or prosecute them.
3. Private land development. If there is a wealthy developer who wants to build a shopping mall, hotel, or golf course, where some private residents have homes, he just exercises eminent domain to take the land.
4. Executive Orders. If he sees that Congress isn't going to do what he wants, he is going to use an Executive Order to get it done.
So what I see is that being a "pragmatist" is all about getting to a solution - any solution - as long as there is one. I want solutions, but I want to take a more thorough approach to identifying the real problem and designing a solution where neither the implementation nor the end goal are end-runs around the Constitution. This is where I feel Trump is very suspect.
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.
Sanders - Cows Fart and kill the ozone layer but if we turn them all in to hamburger they can be re-distributed equally at no charge and the income earned used to buy powdered milk for everyone.
Hillary - All cows and dairy farmers into a collective with no profit allowed and norms set to provide each citizen with one glass of milk per day paid for by the equal distribution laws.
Trump. The best dairy farmers get control over their neighbors herds. who will be come employees tied to their herds by executive order
Students for a Safe Spot America. Cows should not exist as they kill the environment but one glass of milk per day provided to all students daily at no charge.
RINOS - whatever you say Debbie.
1) torture;
2) large tariffs on foreign goods;
3) severe punishment of US companies that do any offshore manufacturing;
4) building a literal wall around parts of the US
??
This is "pragmatic"? WTF?
I'm at the point of being more blunt about it. Those who vote for Sanders, Clinton or Trump are anti-Constitutionalists and traitors to the USA.
However as good little Citizen X's of the USSA they do quite well.
Remember Ronny was treated just like Trump is being now. The GOP went so far as to back a 3rd party candidate against him.