Doug:
I've learned a lot from this election cycle from Donald Trump. I appreciate thinking outside the box, and Trump did that. Partly because I don't think he knew where the box was, but partly because he was clever and knows how to read a room. I think we need to change many things to make sure we don't end up where we were ever again. In the past we respected and understood the difference between the "spirit" and the "letter" of the law. Trump made clear that there is no spirit, there is only the law. There is no "law" about not mentioning your penis in a debate, or blatant lying on the campaign trail. There used to be a respect for civilized discourse. But that is not the law. Nor, of course, should it be. But we had a spirit of campaigns and debates. That spirit is gone.
We, the people, need to enforce the spirit on those that reject it. We need to hold candidates to a higher standard for all of us. Moderators, reporters, media owners, and the populace need to make sure that we focus on the policy differences, not the carnival barker.
I think we all learned a lot from the electorate, too. Most people believed that there was much more consistency in the Republican voting bloc. There was an assumption, for example, that social conservatism was tightly wound up with fiscal conservatism. Trump showed that not to be the case. Trump couldn't recognize one Corinthian from another. This is great news! That suggests that this bloc is not a bloc. That is, these people might be lured away based on one issue, or another. Preventing government waste is something we could all rally around.
David:
I agree with your last sentence. But as you yourself have said in past blogs, government waste is just something we have to live with when the government gets to be as big as it is. So, if you are recommending smaller, cost-effective, less intrusive and efficient government, then I think we're on the same page.
Doug:
Cost-effective? Yes! Efficient? Yes! Smaller? Depends on what you mean! I think we need to invest in infrastructure. We need to expand Obamacare to make sure that everyone is covered, and that costs are contained. That will probably mean a single-payer option. We do need to keep the government out of our homes, communications, and out of our pants. We need to make sure that everyone has their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
David:
I looked out my front door this morning and our American flag was still waving. The sun came up, and squirrels are still storing acorns for the winter. Autumn leaves continue to fall.
And, all of the shovel-ready infrastructure that Obama was going to spend a trillion dollars on never materialized, yet the spirit of big-government spending lives on. And I'm dismayed that you feel the need for government to enforce the spirit of whatever you're enforcing on those that reject it. So much for the spirit of free speech. I guess we don't agree after all.
No matter the victor, Trump and Clinton were destined to move towards the center on some issues. Clinton is a hawk, and our military interventions are likely to become more involved in the next 4 years with her as president. A President Trump is likely to expand some social programs. Since neither of the candidates had ever made a push to decrease the size of government, I expect that the size of government will be expanding, despite our call for restraint and elimination of waste. What we have seen, and will continue to see, is candidates making the standard stump speech to offer more services and things for Americans, without Americans having to pay for any of it.
Doug:
Some of us do pay for it. It's called taxes.
David:
....for the 1%. Everyone else should get free stuff: college education, healthcare, i-phones, you name it.
Doug:
Is Trump one the top 1%? I thought smart people don't pay taxes? I know lots of people (undocumented and otherwise) that are proud to pay their taxes so that everyone can have the same rights.
David:
But I think you totally misunderstand, or misinterpret the lessons to be learned. Both red and blue states became more purple this time around. Both Clinton and Trump began as centrists, but moved towards the political extremes to secure the bases; Trump to outlast 16 other candidates, and Clinton to survive Bernie Sanders. Clinton was able make inroads with certain demographics that would normally vote Republican, and Trump gained momentum with union members and parents who support school choice. Demographics are changing, and both parties may need to compromise on what had been core policies before.
Doug:
More purple? You crazy. The States are more divided than they have for quite some time. If Trump called for a succession, he'd probably get some states to join him.
David:
And yet traditionally red states and traditionally blue states became "in-play" during this season. Arizona and Michigan as swing states? Nevada and Georgia? What we saw was voters realizing that the message matters as much as the candidate. Perhaps that's because both candidates were terribly flawed, and despised in some cases.
You also don't know your American history. During the elections of 1861 and 1865, Americans were literally killing each other on a massive scale. The elections of 1824 and 1828 between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams were particularly bitter and nasty. 1968 saw the assassination of candidates and major political leaders. The spirit of campaigns has always been brutal. And survival of the last-man-standing is the only law that counts.
Doug:
When I said that the spirit of civilized discourse was gone, I should have mentioned that it wasn't as bad as 1861 and 1865, and almost as bad as 1824 and 1828. This one, 2016, was an election where one candidate had no experience, but kept talking about non-policies and other vulgarities. The other candidate has been in politics most of her life. And will be the first woman President in the history of our country. The one with the most electoral votes is the only law that counts.
David:
So, one candidate is terrible, and the other is a gifted politician, and yet the polls have them tied. You're highly politicized and polarized statements show a misunderstanding of the populace, and where we're headed next.
Doug:
We will soon see where we are headed next.
David:
But let's talk some specifics.
Obamacare will not get "fixed" for one very important reason. It damages Democrats. Republicans in the House have no incentive to try to repair all of the inherent structural flaws that this democrat-only legislation has created. The more painful Obamacare becomes, and the more the promises of Obama and Democratic lawmakers get broken just makes Republican's jobs of defeating Democrats in the mid-terms that much easier. Perhaps that's a cynical view, but it is also true, and reflective of Washington politics.
Doug:
That is a disgusting view of politics.
David:
Even Bill Clinton knows the bill is a disaster, not just for Democrats but also for Americans. If the shoe were on the other foot, Democrats would be doing the same. A good example of this is Tim Kaine's promise to change the rules in the Senate (if Democrats have a majority) to eliminate filibuster rules so they can put anyone they want into the Supreme Court without having to get any Republican support at all. Not very bipartisan of them. They apparently did not learn their lesson with Obamacare.
Doug:
Gee, David, why would the Senate need to change the rules to replace a Supreme Court Justice? We have had a nominee Judge waiting for the longest amount of time, ever. And still counting. What does the Constitution say about how Congress is involved in the process? Article 2 states: "[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court." Congress must advise. Changing the rules will allow that to happen. Democrats need to meet the Republicans head on. No respect for the spirit of the law? Ok, then. We will actually change the rules.
David:
Right. The precident that move sets is whenever one party gets a simple Senate majority, they can work their will without any need to even consider the other side's views. That is exactly what the founders and over 200 years of history argued against. I watched Mr. Smith Goes to Washington the other night. The filibuster is what the entire movie was based on. A single man, with integrity can stand against a corrupt system and emerge victorious. You apparently support mob rule instead. The President should find nominees to the Supreme Court that 2/3 majority of the Senate can support. The Democrats used this very rule to keep Bork off of the bench, but now don't want to follow the same rules. If Democrats enact this policy, compromise in Congress is truly dead, because it becomes unnecessary. Mr. Smith would be sent packing without a peep.
Doug:
Yes, allowing 51/100 votes in the Senate in order just to get a 60/100 up/down vote on a Supreme Court Justice is mob rule. And Bork was crazy.
David:
He's proposing a simple majority to select the nominee.
Doug:
Kaine isn't even VP yet. All he wants is for the Senate to be able to consider a replacement.
David:
Moving on.
Transparency is dead. The Obama administration was to be the most-transparent ever, yet created a roadmap that would make Nixon proud. Whether we're talking about Fast and Furious or the IRS and Lois Lerner (where is Lois Lerner these days? Ah yes, retired and collecting her government pension after taking the 5th and escaping a Congressional Contempt of Congress when the Obama Justice Department refused to intervene.), the strategy of delay and refuse to produce documents unless ordered by the courts won the day. With all of the scandals that this election season produced, I see more obfuscation on the horizon. We, the little people, just don't need to know what's going on in the elite halls of Washington, where the Yale and Harvard grads jockey around between agencies for better jobs.
Doug:
I suspect that there will be a great many people claiming the death of a great many things today. "Compromise is dead. Transparency is dead."
What will the lessons be learned from this year's election? Remember the Republican postmortem and how Trump specifically ignored it? Will Republicans continue to follow the path laid out by Trump into the weeds of the angry, past-loving, shrinking electorate? Or will he follow those plans laid out in the autopsy report (also called the Growth and Opportunity Project)?
David:
Again, Trump and Sanders spoke to a large number of people in this country who felt they had been left behind. Both parties will need to find a path forward which includes these Americans. The middle class will continue to feel the pain of Obamacare and closing factories. The Veteran affairs mess continues to shine a light on the failings of government run programs. The rich and powerful continue to pull the strings of politicians. Democrats blindly followed Clinton, even though both Sanders and Obama (in prior campaigns) argued against her ambition and corporate big-money ties. Democrats are now in danger of becoming the party of big-money, big donors, and the elite and wealthy. The title they have tried for years to saddle the Republicans with.
But what we all really wanted was someone with a positive vision for America, someone who was honest and trustworthy, and had a grasp of what needs to be done with a clear path forward. We didn't get that.
Doug:
We don't know the election results yet. Perhaps we did get that. We'll see shortly.
David:
Unless someone else has suddenly jumped in to the race, I stand by my comment.
Also, I feel that our criminal justice system is in tatters. I, for one, have no faith in the Federal Justice Department. There was Fast and Furious, the failure of any prosecutions in the IRS scandal, and the entire e-mail scandal, in which 51% think she did something illegal and got away with it thanks to the FBI and Justice Departments. I think there is enough evidence to suggest that the rich and powerful get treated to a different standard than the rest, and that justice is not blind. I think you'd find the Black-Lives-Matter folks would agree with me. The American justice system holds us together. The idea that we are all equal under the law grants us security. This system was damaged during this election, all because Clinton wanted to control access to her emails and avoid Freedom of Information access, and Obama wanted to use the Justice Department for social policies. A distrust of our justice system may be the most lasting result of the 2016 election.
Doug:
You probably could get widespread agreement on failures in law enforcement agencies at all levels. But not if you think that Clinton's email server is the poster child. Wouldn't it be amazing if you acknowledged even a single innocent death at the hands of the police? Do that, and you might get some of us that believe that #BlackLivesMatter to agree that we need to do something about difference between how the privileged and nonprivileged are treated. But let's not just end on "distrust"... let's build that trust up again over the next 4 years, and continue to make our country better.
David:
While I see no chance for Trump to get enough Electoral College votes to win this election, I hope he does, just to ask you over the next four years how you and your smug liberal friends are getting behind President Trump to bring unity and trust to the country.
Doug:
Oh, they will be supporting their leader, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Doug:
Well, few would have guessed that we would find ourselves here. I, like a lot of people, will have to take some time to process this. But a couple of brief points:
Van Jones' comments early this morning seemed to capture the essence of the disappointment for me: "You tell your kids don't be a bully, you tell your kids don't be a bigot... and then you have this outcome... You have people putting children to bed tonight and they are afraid of breakfast. They're afraid of 'How do I explain this to my children?" I teach class today to a very diverse group of students. Van Jones expresses how I feel, and I wonder how the students will feel.
But you are wrong about my "smug liberal friends." I hope that we will try to bring unity and trust to the country. I hope that they do not do what the Republicans did 6 years ago: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." I hope that they do give President Trump a chance. But I also hope that we all hold him to the high level that this job demands. And we should not give up on our ideals.
David:
No, you're wrong. While earlier the liberals were all saying that we must pull the country back together, and after the election we can all heal the rift in our collective psyche, that was when they assumed they would win. Today they are melting down on Facebook. "The country hates women!" "I'm moving to another country!" "The world has ended!" They won't be getting behind President Trump. They are already on the attack. Yet they can't understand why people who hated Clinton wouldn't just get behind her and vote for her. Obama should have followed his own advice, and you might not be in this position. “Our politics are dysfunctional, and something that I said earlier serves as a warning to us: and that is, societies don’t work when political factions take maximalist positions. And the more diverse the country is, the less it can afford to take maximalist positions.”
Like I said before, you missed the message. While the progressive agenda has moved towards a globalization economy and open borders, there were a large number of middle-class Americans that got left in the dust. The average salary across America today is less than it was in 1999. Half of America makes less than it did 19 years ago, and yet everything else costs more. People are tired of big corporations, working with paid-for politicians, creating havoc in their lives, and decreasing their standards of living. Men and women, college educated and not, all voted for change. And this time, they really want change.
Van Jones is an idiot, but that's beside the point. He should tell his kids not to bully or be bigots. I tell my kids the same thing. Forcing your will on the people through executive commands rather than through Congress is a form of bullying. Using the Department of Education to force gender views on the people, despite their own state laws, is a form of bullying. Using the courts to try to force Catholics to support and pay for contraceptives, and mocking them, is both bullying and intolerant.
But I hope everyone does give Trump a fair chance. Greater than 70% of Americans felt we were on the wrong track. It shouldn't surprise anyone that they finally voted like they meant it.
I've learned a lot from this election cycle from Donald Trump. I appreciate thinking outside the box, and Trump did that. Partly because I don't think he knew where the box was, but partly because he was clever and knows how to read a room. I think we need to change many things to make sure we don't end up where we were ever again. In the past we respected and understood the difference between the "spirit" and the "letter" of the law. Trump made clear that there is no spirit, there is only the law. There is no "law" about not mentioning your penis in a debate, or blatant lying on the campaign trail. There used to be a respect for civilized discourse. But that is not the law. Nor, of course, should it be. But we had a spirit of campaigns and debates. That spirit is gone.
We, the people, need to enforce the spirit on those that reject it. We need to hold candidates to a higher standard for all of us. Moderators, reporters, media owners, and the populace need to make sure that we focus on the policy differences, not the carnival barker.
I think we all learned a lot from the electorate, too. Most people believed that there was much more consistency in the Republican voting bloc. There was an assumption, for example, that social conservatism was tightly wound up with fiscal conservatism. Trump showed that not to be the case. Trump couldn't recognize one Corinthian from another. This is great news! That suggests that this bloc is not a bloc. That is, these people might be lured away based on one issue, or another. Preventing government waste is something we could all rally around.
David:
I agree with your last sentence. But as you yourself have said in past blogs, government waste is just something we have to live with when the government gets to be as big as it is. So, if you are recommending smaller, cost-effective, less intrusive and efficient government, then I think we're on the same page.
Doug:
Cost-effective? Yes! Efficient? Yes! Smaller? Depends on what you mean! I think we need to invest in infrastructure. We need to expand Obamacare to make sure that everyone is covered, and that costs are contained. That will probably mean a single-payer option. We do need to keep the government out of our homes, communications, and out of our pants. We need to make sure that everyone has their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
David:
I looked out my front door this morning and our American flag was still waving. The sun came up, and squirrels are still storing acorns for the winter. Autumn leaves continue to fall.
And, all of the shovel-ready infrastructure that Obama was going to spend a trillion dollars on never materialized, yet the spirit of big-government spending lives on. And I'm dismayed that you feel the need for government to enforce the spirit of whatever you're enforcing on those that reject it. So much for the spirit of free speech. I guess we don't agree after all.
No matter the victor, Trump and Clinton were destined to move towards the center on some issues. Clinton is a hawk, and our military interventions are likely to become more involved in the next 4 years with her as president. A President Trump is likely to expand some social programs. Since neither of the candidates had ever made a push to decrease the size of government, I expect that the size of government will be expanding, despite our call for restraint and elimination of waste. What we have seen, and will continue to see, is candidates making the standard stump speech to offer more services and things for Americans, without Americans having to pay for any of it.
Doug:
Some of us do pay for it. It's called taxes.
David:
....for the 1%. Everyone else should get free stuff: college education, healthcare, i-phones, you name it.
Doug:
Is Trump one the top 1%? I thought smart people don't pay taxes? I know lots of people (undocumented and otherwise) that are proud to pay their taxes so that everyone can have the same rights.
David:
But I think you totally misunderstand, or misinterpret the lessons to be learned. Both red and blue states became more purple this time around. Both Clinton and Trump began as centrists, but moved towards the political extremes to secure the bases; Trump to outlast 16 other candidates, and Clinton to survive Bernie Sanders. Clinton was able make inroads with certain demographics that would normally vote Republican, and Trump gained momentum with union members and parents who support school choice. Demographics are changing, and both parties may need to compromise on what had been core policies before.
Doug:
More purple? You crazy. The States are more divided than they have for quite some time. If Trump called for a succession, he'd probably get some states to join him.
David:
And yet traditionally red states and traditionally blue states became "in-play" during this season. Arizona and Michigan as swing states? Nevada and Georgia? What we saw was voters realizing that the message matters as much as the candidate. Perhaps that's because both candidates were terribly flawed, and despised in some cases.
You also don't know your American history. During the elections of 1861 and 1865, Americans were literally killing each other on a massive scale. The elections of 1824 and 1828 between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams were particularly bitter and nasty. 1968 saw the assassination of candidates and major political leaders. The spirit of campaigns has always been brutal. And survival of the last-man-standing is the only law that counts.
Doug:
When I said that the spirit of civilized discourse was gone, I should have mentioned that it wasn't as bad as 1861 and 1865, and almost as bad as 1824 and 1828. This one, 2016, was an election where one candidate had no experience, but kept talking about non-policies and other vulgarities. The other candidate has been in politics most of her life. And will be the first woman President in the history of our country. The one with the most electoral votes is the only law that counts.
David:
So, one candidate is terrible, and the other is a gifted politician, and yet the polls have them tied. You're highly politicized and polarized statements show a misunderstanding of the populace, and where we're headed next.
Doug:
We will soon see where we are headed next.
David:
But let's talk some specifics.
Obamacare will not get "fixed" for one very important reason. It damages Democrats. Republicans in the House have no incentive to try to repair all of the inherent structural flaws that this democrat-only legislation has created. The more painful Obamacare becomes, and the more the promises of Obama and Democratic lawmakers get broken just makes Republican's jobs of defeating Democrats in the mid-terms that much easier. Perhaps that's a cynical view, but it is also true, and reflective of Washington politics.
Doug:
That is a disgusting view of politics.
David:
Even Bill Clinton knows the bill is a disaster, not just for Democrats but also for Americans. If the shoe were on the other foot, Democrats would be doing the same. A good example of this is Tim Kaine's promise to change the rules in the Senate (if Democrats have a majority) to eliminate filibuster rules so they can put anyone they want into the Supreme Court without having to get any Republican support at all. Not very bipartisan of them. They apparently did not learn their lesson with Obamacare.
Doug:
Gee, David, why would the Senate need to change the rules to replace a Supreme Court Justice? We have had a nominee Judge waiting for the longest amount of time, ever. And still counting. What does the Constitution say about how Congress is involved in the process? Article 2 states: "[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court." Congress must advise. Changing the rules will allow that to happen. Democrats need to meet the Republicans head on. No respect for the spirit of the law? Ok, then. We will actually change the rules.
David:
Right. The precident that move sets is whenever one party gets a simple Senate majority, they can work their will without any need to even consider the other side's views. That is exactly what the founders and over 200 years of history argued against. I watched Mr. Smith Goes to Washington the other night. The filibuster is what the entire movie was based on. A single man, with integrity can stand against a corrupt system and emerge victorious. You apparently support mob rule instead. The President should find nominees to the Supreme Court that 2/3 majority of the Senate can support. The Democrats used this very rule to keep Bork off of the bench, but now don't want to follow the same rules. If Democrats enact this policy, compromise in Congress is truly dead, because it becomes unnecessary. Mr. Smith would be sent packing without a peep.
Doug:
Yes, allowing 51/100 votes in the Senate in order just to get a 60/100 up/down vote on a Supreme Court Justice is mob rule. And Bork was crazy.
David:
He's proposing a simple majority to select the nominee.
Doug:
Kaine isn't even VP yet. All he wants is for the Senate to be able to consider a replacement.
David:
Moving on.
Transparency is dead. The Obama administration was to be the most-transparent ever, yet created a roadmap that would make Nixon proud. Whether we're talking about Fast and Furious or the IRS and Lois Lerner (where is Lois Lerner these days? Ah yes, retired and collecting her government pension after taking the 5th and escaping a Congressional Contempt of Congress when the Obama Justice Department refused to intervene.), the strategy of delay and refuse to produce documents unless ordered by the courts won the day. With all of the scandals that this election season produced, I see more obfuscation on the horizon. We, the little people, just don't need to know what's going on in the elite halls of Washington, where the Yale and Harvard grads jockey around between agencies for better jobs.
Doug:
I suspect that there will be a great many people claiming the death of a great many things today. "Compromise is dead. Transparency is dead."
What will the lessons be learned from this year's election? Remember the Republican postmortem and how Trump specifically ignored it? Will Republicans continue to follow the path laid out by Trump into the weeds of the angry, past-loving, shrinking electorate? Or will he follow those plans laid out in the autopsy report (also called the Growth and Opportunity Project)?
David:
Again, Trump and Sanders spoke to a large number of people in this country who felt they had been left behind. Both parties will need to find a path forward which includes these Americans. The middle class will continue to feel the pain of Obamacare and closing factories. The Veteran affairs mess continues to shine a light on the failings of government run programs. The rich and powerful continue to pull the strings of politicians. Democrats blindly followed Clinton, even though both Sanders and Obama (in prior campaigns) argued against her ambition and corporate big-money ties. Democrats are now in danger of becoming the party of big-money, big donors, and the elite and wealthy. The title they have tried for years to saddle the Republicans with.
But what we all really wanted was someone with a positive vision for America, someone who was honest and trustworthy, and had a grasp of what needs to be done with a clear path forward. We didn't get that.
Doug:
We don't know the election results yet. Perhaps we did get that. We'll see shortly.
David:
Unless someone else has suddenly jumped in to the race, I stand by my comment.
Also, I feel that our criminal justice system is in tatters. I, for one, have no faith in the Federal Justice Department. There was Fast and Furious, the failure of any prosecutions in the IRS scandal, and the entire e-mail scandal, in which 51% think she did something illegal and got away with it thanks to the FBI and Justice Departments. I think there is enough evidence to suggest that the rich and powerful get treated to a different standard than the rest, and that justice is not blind. I think you'd find the Black-Lives-Matter folks would agree with me. The American justice system holds us together. The idea that we are all equal under the law grants us security. This system was damaged during this election, all because Clinton wanted to control access to her emails and avoid Freedom of Information access, and Obama wanted to use the Justice Department for social policies. A distrust of our justice system may be the most lasting result of the 2016 election.
Doug:
You probably could get widespread agreement on failures in law enforcement agencies at all levels. But not if you think that Clinton's email server is the poster child. Wouldn't it be amazing if you acknowledged even a single innocent death at the hands of the police? Do that, and you might get some of us that believe that #BlackLivesMatter to agree that we need to do something about difference between how the privileged and nonprivileged are treated. But let's not just end on "distrust"... let's build that trust up again over the next 4 years, and continue to make our country better.
David:
While I see no chance for Trump to get enough Electoral College votes to win this election, I hope he does, just to ask you over the next four years how you and your smug liberal friends are getting behind President Trump to bring unity and trust to the country.
Doug:
Oh, they will be supporting their leader, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
====================== Election Results are In ======================
Doug:
Well, few would have guessed that we would find ourselves here. I, like a lot of people, will have to take some time to process this. But a couple of brief points:
Van Jones' comments early this morning seemed to capture the essence of the disappointment for me: "You tell your kids don't be a bully, you tell your kids don't be a bigot... and then you have this outcome... You have people putting children to bed tonight and they are afraid of breakfast. They're afraid of 'How do I explain this to my children?" I teach class today to a very diverse group of students. Van Jones expresses how I feel, and I wonder how the students will feel.
But you are wrong about my "smug liberal friends." I hope that we will try to bring unity and trust to the country. I hope that they do not do what the Republicans did 6 years ago: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." I hope that they do give President Trump a chance. But I also hope that we all hold him to the high level that this job demands. And we should not give up on our ideals.
David:
No, you're wrong. While earlier the liberals were all saying that we must pull the country back together, and after the election we can all heal the rift in our collective psyche, that was when they assumed they would win. Today they are melting down on Facebook. "The country hates women!" "I'm moving to another country!" "The world has ended!" They won't be getting behind President Trump. They are already on the attack. Yet they can't understand why people who hated Clinton wouldn't just get behind her and vote for her. Obama should have followed his own advice, and you might not be in this position. “Our politics are dysfunctional, and something that I said earlier serves as a warning to us: and that is, societies don’t work when political factions take maximalist positions. And the more diverse the country is, the less it can afford to take maximalist positions.”
Like I said before, you missed the message. While the progressive agenda has moved towards a globalization economy and open borders, there were a large number of middle-class Americans that got left in the dust. The average salary across America today is less than it was in 1999. Half of America makes less than it did 19 years ago, and yet everything else costs more. People are tired of big corporations, working with paid-for politicians, creating havoc in their lives, and decreasing their standards of living. Men and women, college educated and not, all voted for change. And this time, they really want change.
Van Jones is an idiot, but that's beside the point. He should tell his kids not to bully or be bigots. I tell my kids the same thing. Forcing your will on the people through executive commands rather than through Congress is a form of bullying. Using the Department of Education to force gender views on the people, despite their own state laws, is a form of bullying. Using the courts to try to force Catholics to support and pay for contraceptives, and mocking them, is both bullying and intolerant.
But I hope everyone does give Trump a fair chance. Greater than 70% of Americans felt we were on the wrong track. It shouldn't surprise anyone that they finally voted like they meant it.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!