The New NASA

David:
Growing up in the late sixties and early seventies, we were surrounded with the NASA space programs. It was an exciting time, and at least for me, inspired my love of science. Like many kids our age, we grew up with all sorts of space-related toys. And, we dreamed of space exploration and the future.

NASA's acting administrator, Robert Lightfoot, just released a letter to NASA employees letting them know he's exploring the possibility of adding human astronauts to the new Space Launch System (SLS) rocket to their flight in late 2018, a mission known as EM-1.  The capsule would orbit the moon and return to Earth, splashing down in the ocean. Originally, no astronauts were to be aboard. This is the first flight to test the new system to land astronauts on the Moon, and then Mars.

Lightfoot's tone represents a return to NASA's early days, when ideas were put forth that challenged the imaginations of America's youth. I find this to be very exciting news!

Doug:
You mean you find this announcement as exciting as all of the other projects that NASA has been doing since the 1960s?

David:
Yes, absolutely, but with the added urgency that has been supplanted by the glacial movement of projects brought about by the bureaucratization of NASA. The letter illustrates a new (or return to the old) mission of boldly moving forward. The moves they are contemplating advances their timeline for these projects by decades.

Doug:
Mixing politics and science is a bad move---for science. I'm tempted to support this move by Trump, because any support of science is, you know, a support of science. Maybe the Trump Administration is finally taking science seriously and supporting it? Let's take a look at your linked article: "NASA, heeding Trump, may add astronauts to a test flight moon mission." The new "excitement" is based on Trump wanting to get a human into space during his tenure:

“What I hear being discussed is the potential for sometime within the first Trump term being able to go and do an Apollo 8 mission" -- meaning a lunar orbit mission like the one performed by Apollo 8 in December 1968.

“This would be another precursor to ultimately landing. And I think sometime within a second Trump term, you could think about putting a landing vehicle on the moon,” Walker said.

 Ah, yes: scheduling the missions according to the 4-year presidential elections cycle. That makes complete sense. This didn't work when George W. Bush proposed a wild, exciting space program. It looked like what it was: a distraction. Walker (Trump's advisor) admits this.

David:
Yet the letter from NASA's acting director doesn't mention Trump as the impetus for his strategic plan. And while this article does mention Trump, it's really Congress who holds the purse strings for NASA's success.

Doug:
This is perhaps the best point that you have ever made: Trump cannot do any of his plans without the funding of Congress. Change Congress and you block the purse strings.

David:
This letter however, making promises for bold steps and a speedier timeline is what will entice Congress to fund these efforts. Trump can excite the public, and voters can then press their Congressmen, but ultimately, Congress needs to see it as a worthwhile expenditure.

Doug:
Egads, no! There is no way that the Republican-led congress will understand space exploration in terms of science. "Worthwhile expenditure" translates into: "what is in it for me?" That can only mean boondoggles for companies in their states, or re-election commercials.

David:
You're doing it again. You're making this into a partisan issue when it isn't. But since you've brought it up, let me remind you that it was Democrats that pulled the funding and ended the Apollo Program in 1975, and Democrats who have controlled Congress for 32 of the past 50 years. Democrats are the ones who have not provided funding for NASA and all of the science that goes with it. Yet now you claim they are the party of science, and it's greedy, stupid Republicans that are withholding the cash. Sometimes your partisanship is rediculous.

NASA has been wrapped up in politics since it's basic inception. Where would NASA be today without JFK's May 25, 1961 Speech before a Joint Session of Congress? That speech set in motion a frenetic space race through the 1960s that captured the imagination of Americans, Russians, and the rest of the world.

Doug:
Where would NASA be without politics? Probably in a much better position. They have been doing good science since 1968, but their budget ebbs and flows with political whim.

David:
Without politics, NASA would have no money, and therefore, would not exist. Why does it not surprise me that you feel a government agency, completely funded by taxpayer dollars, should not be supervised in any way by officials duly elected by the taxpayers. Oh, if only executive branch agencies could just be left alone to do whatever they want, and spend as much as they want, without Congress always badgering them or restricting them....

Doug:
Science directed by the hands of politicians is not science. And could be dangerous.

David:
Glad to hear you say that, as most climate science is government funded, both here at home and at the United Nations. It doesn't get any more politician-directed than that.

Doug:
The Republican Administration's "Sexy Space Projects" is dangerous for two reasons. First, this can be dangerous to the lives of the astronauts. But also, the politicalization of science hurts science. Ask Gore about how well his involvement in science has gone. Perhaps one can dismiss climate change, but that doesn't mean one should dismiss all of climate science. We need good, honest science done on all topics. Space science, like all science, shouldn't be a political football.

David:
But space science is funded by taxpayers. It needs to be timely to have an impact on the psyche of the public. If you set a goal, but then schedule the fulfillment of that goal to be decades away, you lose the public's interest. From a purely scientific model, that is fine. Sometimes science moves slowly. But to inspire (and to ensure funding) you need to have results that people can see.

Doug:
No! That is not how science should be treated. Science is not there for your entertainment. Science is not a TV show (even though I love "Mythbusters").

David:
But NASA is a government agency. It is funded and supervised by the government. It's goals and projects need to meet criteria that should be funded by taxpayers. This is not the same for all science. You need to separate the different sciences in this debate. Space exploration has always been too expensive for private funding, but that is changing.

Space travel is dangerous. As we've seen, more astronauts have died during the over-cautious period of the shuttles, than died during the exciting drive of the Mercury / Gemini / Apollo time frame.

Doug:
Wait... what lessons have you learned watching scientists and engineers develop space travel? Over-cautiousness kills?!

David:
Being overly cautious without improving your results kills your funding. Sometimes being overly cautious just slows everything down for no benefit (although that is the bureaucratic way). NASA (or Space-X) should not be haphazard and needlessly risky, but they need to make progress.

Doug:
A modest proposal: we need to sell the Republican Administration on the idea of sexy, exciting, bold projects that highlight other sciences. Perhaps we can turn supporting science into a reality-based TV show hosted by that bold President Trump? You know, that bold visionary that isn't afraid to risk human life, and isn't afraid to say that science takes money. Lots of money. Your tax dollars. It is tempting to support this...

David:
Perhaps you don't realize that NASA stands for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. They do space stuff. It's not their job to highlight other sciences. And it isn't the job of the Federal Government to highlight other sciences. That's the job of scientists.

Doug:
You missed my point. We need to make other sciences as sexy as NASA in order for the Republicans to think that they are worth the money. But you make a good point: why is Trump involved at all in highlighting this science?

David:
Again? How are we supposed to keep science from being politicized, when you keep politicizing it? And, I note that science took some great strides when Democrats had control of all of Congress and the White House during the first two Obama years. Or in the decades since Apollo 11.

Doug:
Sometimes Kellyanne Conway injects a non-sequitur to distract. Why would you even bring up Democrats science record from more than 6 years ago? But if you do want to talk about the accomplishments of US scientists during 2009-2011, I'd be glad to. But we're talking about Trump's use of NASA right now and how much money it will cost.

David:
Except that you've introduced criticisms of Republicans multiple times already during this blog like they are the sole obstruction to science in this country. Republicans should do this, Republican's are dangerous, Republicans have politicized science. And yet Democrats have exactly the same record of politicization and manipulation of NASA.

Doug:
Focus, Kellyanne! We are talking about exactly one thing: funding a NASA project based on Trump's campaign cycle. It isn't that complicated. Republicans are in control and they must own their decisions. They have to take responsibility for the dangers and the costs. And saying that "Democrats did it too!" is not even true. Obama never proposed a Sexy Space Program based on his election cycle.

David:
You're ranting all over the place about Republicans, and then tell me to stay focused on NASA. You're like a little puppy with a Trump tennis ball. We're not talking about campaign cycles. We're talking about NASA making some bold moves that should create great interest in space science, aeronautics, and astronomy.

But you're right, it will take a lot of money. Which brings us to more excitement in the world of space exploration: Space-X. The privately-funded program is also making great strides, and the partnership between NASA and Space-X could bring about more innovation in a much timelier fashion than if left solely to the folks at NASA. The funding is more secure.

Doug:
I am skeptical as to whether a joint NASA/commercial partnership will work. But if it fails, we'll still have NASA to pick up the pieces and continue with the science that they do even when they aren't in the political spotlight.

David:
Announcing a manned-Mars mission, and being able to complete a manned-Mars within a decade or two (rather than 50 or 60 years) would certainly keep the general public's imagination stoked, as well as the imagination of millions of children. If you really want kids to become interested in science, it helps to provide them with big, inspirational goals that can be accomplished while they're still kids. Putting astronauts back into space, both on the Moon  and Mars, would be a great way to accomplish this. And, it would likely generate large amounts of new science and products all along the way, just as NASA did in it's early years. I think we're looking at the dawn of a new breakout period of space science, at a faster pace than we've seen for awhile. That's good news in many ways, for lots of science, and for many kids around the globe.

Looking Back, Looking Forward

David:
Since the election, I've noticed a change in my blogging style, and a change in our tones. I thought I'd reflect for a moment, and get your thoughts as well.

Before the election, when Obama was in office, and it looked like a sure thing that Hillary Clinton would follow behind him, I felt an urgency to keep talking politics. No matter what subject we'd introduce, I always felt either a conscious, or unconscious desire to direct the debate back to the flaws of the left, and what I considered the virtues of conservatism. Perhaps it was the defense of the minority to get a message out. In some cases during our blog, I felt almost driven to try to make my points.

In many cases, as I look back through our past blogs, my tone seems a bit edgy. Not in the hip, cool, edgy type of way, but more of the sharp, pointed, angry sort. More so than I intended at the time.

Now that the election is over, I feel much more relaxed, and don't feel the need to really focus so much on politics at all. I certainly don't feel the need to prove my points so vigerously. Perhaps it's easier to be magnanimous when you are the victor. Trump has only been in office a short while, and has certainly done quite a bit more than I think anyone anticipated. And, as expected for someone who is not a politician, some of the things have been done in a ragged, messy fashion, without the polished press-briefings we have come to expect. I've recently introduced some blogs that touch on current events, but are out of the political sphere. These were subjects I thought might be a little bit lighter fair compared to what we had done for awhile. I think I've been taking an emotional breather.

I find that since the election, you seem to be much more focused on politics than we were before. During the recent "hat" blog, you steered the direction to politics without any hesitation. I'm curious if you feel as I did when I was on the presumed losing side of the election? I felt as though I needed to get the message out how wrong the President was. Is this just me, or do you think this thinking drives a great many people? Am I making any sense at all?

Doug:
It is refreshing to hear you talk in a more honest, unreserved way. That is why I blog with you; I want to actually know what is going on in your head, and why you think the way you do.

David:
Which insinuates you think I am dishonest for the most part. Why? Because I don't see things as you do? Nice.

Doug:
Is that that cool/hip/edgy or sharp/pointed/angry? I don't know what you intend this time. Do you really ask me a question and then assume I answer in a particular way? Not nice.

David:
Neither. I'm simply taking you at your words. You can answer any way you choose, and you chose these words: "It is refreshing to hear you talk in a more honest, unreserved way." That means you think it is a pleasant change for me to be honest. Not sure how else I should take that. Which brings me back to my hypothesis...

Doug:
But to hear you admit that you "feel much more relaxed" makes me both feel hopeful and terrified at the same time. I feel hopeful because I suspect many people like you feel that "it is over", and you don't need to worry or think about politics for at least four more years. That is great! That means that you will be completely blindsided by the growing backlash against the current agenda.

On the other hand, by not paying much attention (or dismissing the growing resistance in the manner that Trump has) makes me worried for the sake of the country. Some of Trump's mistakes in his first two weeks are really frightening. I think that they are understandable mistakes given that he has no political background, doesn't know much about how our government works, and has surrounded himself by similar people. If those that voted for Trump don't pay attention (or do not get access to authentic news) then we are in a terrible crisis. Without an informed electorate, all bets are off.

David:
Wow. Apparently you didn't get any message at all from the last election.

Doug:
You are right: I did not get the message that progressive politics lost. I got the message that we need to explain our message better to 53,667 people.

David:
Not exactly. Even President Obama recognized that progressive policies were on the ballot. He said so himself: "I’m not on the ballot this fall. Michelle’s pretty happy about that," Obama said. "But make no mistake: These policies are on the ballot, every single one of them." The policies, along with Hillary Clinton, who promised more of the same, lost.

Doug:
Now you start taking Obama at his word? I don't disagree with you on the facts. I'm merely saying that we need to do a better job of describing the message of these progressive policies to those 53,667 people and to all of those people that didn't vote.

David:
But see, you just can't help yourself. This is what I'm saying. We're doing a blog about our changing tones based on whose party controls the White House, and you're attacking Trump and everyone on his team as people who don't know much about our government. Republicans are ignorant and uninformed. And your tone is just what I'm talking about. When Hillary was about to be elected, we were all going to sit around and sing Kum By Yah. But now that Trump is President, we're in for a terrible crisis, and everything is frightening. You insinuate that you and Hillary supporters are informed, while people who disagree with you are obviously uninformed. I'm proposing that if Clinton had won, I'd still be railing against her illegalities (and probably against her pardoning herself...). Perhaps you should take a deep breath and accept that half of the voters in this country are both informed, and yet disagree completely with your analysis of what we, as a country, need to do.

On a side note, you may recall that President Obama, and every president throughout our history (excepting perhaps Lincoln with his cabinet of enemies) surrounded himself with like-minded people while in office (and they were all approved quite rapidly). Why is it a fault of Trump to do what every other POTUS has done?

Doug:
Did I mention his temperament? I find it hard to talk about hats when our new president is scaring the pants (and hats) off of everyone. Trump has started off with the lowest approval ratings in modern times, and this does not compare well with past presidents:

Perhaps you can dismiss all of this to "sour grapes" (as you usually do) and you think that all of the discontent would be present even with a President Jeb!. But as I have repeatedly said, for me this is largely about Trump's temperament. But I think Democrats are starting to smell blood in the water, and are gaining in confidence. It may be too late for reasonable and normal politics (which elected Democrats are always too willing to do). The resistance is forcing their hand.

David:
Hillary would also have started with the lowest approval ratings of any president in modern history, yet you would have had a much more optimistic view of where things are headed, because she was on your team, and shared your vision. You would have discounted the same chart you're posting right now, and I'd be the one posting it, and comparing her to past presidents.

Doug:
You might have guessed low approval rates about Obama's first, and his second term. But that wasn't true then either. But in your mind, you can imagine a terrifying Hillary Presidency and all of the terrible things I would say. Hard to argue with your imagination. But I will try. I think your biggest misunderstanding of me is that you think that I do things for the same reasons that you do. I don't think I do. For example, if Trump were a normal Republican president, most people (including me) would act like we did during the Bush years: we wouldn't be in the streets protesting, but mildly taking the policy changes that would be inevitable. But Trump is not normal. If the Republicans had a fundraiser "Help Republicans Stop Trump!" I would donate, and there would be no backlash in 2018. But taking back control is the only way that we see out of this mess.

David:
The point of this blog was for us to understand why we see things as they do. Now, you're making assumptions about my perceived assumptions. That's actually pretty funny, but we're not getting anywhere.

But you're wrong, and the facts prove it. Organizing for Action, President Obama's political organization has been gearing up for the past two years for a Republican win in 2016. Their website has training information on how to disrupt Republican town halls, and how to organize protests. You say this is all spontaneous because of Trump's demeanor, but the timeline tells a different story. Any Republican would be facing these types of protests, and Obama was making plans to stay very active in the game for a while, which is unprecedented for a former president. I also find it interesting (from the words-have-meaning analysis) that Organizing for Action was originally Organizing for America. It's not for America anymore, just for action.)

Doug:
Well, that doesn't make too much sense. After all, we all thought that Hillary Clinton would be president. Why would they be gearing up? So it is this group that is responsible for getting me and all progressives into the streets to protest, calling our representatives? Huh. I thought it was for exactly the reasons I stated: Trump's 3-week (so far) Executive Order attacks on democracy.

David:
Then why were protests ongoing before he was ever sworn into office?

Doug:
When he started proving that he is as unstable as President-Elect as he was as a campaigner? Gee, I don't know why people would protest. But maybe he will change when he gets to the oval office. Nope. After few weeks, time to protest! I predict more and more groups will join the protests as time goes on. And it has nothing to do with a conspiracy starting two years ago.

David:
I think you and I are probably representative of the base of each of our political parties. I get most of my news from the internet, but I listen to FoxNews on SiriusXM in the car. You watch MSNBC for the opinion shows in the evening. I was continually agitated by President Obama in much the same way you are upset with President Trump. But the tones we are taking in the blog are very different now than they were when the political tables were turned. I'm just theorizing that one can take a more even tone and relaxed take on things when his party controls things, and the political winds are blowing his way. I think that may be a truism for many Americans.

Look at your Democratic leaders. They've slowed the confirmation process down to a crawl, and the process is moving slower than for any president since George Washington. You call that reasonable and normal politics? It is neither.

Doug:
I disagree... I never wanted to talk about hats during the Obama years. Look back over the topics over the last 100 posts. I am always willing to discuss what I perceive to be wrong, and what could be better. I read a lot of news; chances are if it really happened, I have read about it.

David:
I'm going to introduce a brief defense of the Symbolism of Hats blog. It's clear that you just didn't get it. I was discussing the explosion of tribalism, expressed through the new uniforms of the political parties. We have not seen that type of demarcation in the political tribes in some time, and I find it worrisome. I might also add that the hats blog has received much more blog traffic than some of our other topics. It is number 11 on our all-time blog list, and still gets more hits daily than any other.  So, some people are interested in symbolism in our society and how that relates to politics.

Doug:
If you had expressed worry about people wearing Trump Hats and what that symbolized, that would have been interesting. I would even go further about symbolism relating to politics: symbolism has replaced politics. For some, politics is no longer about policy, but rather about symbolic actions. And Trump uses the symbolic action much better than others use actual policy.

Our most-read articles over the past 100 posts. The Cartoon post was picked up in Reddit which made it about 4 times more popular than our next most popular. Older posts have an advantage with pageviews because they accumulate over time. Which makes Right to Fight's 4th place even more impressive.

David:
See! If you had participated in the Hats blog, it would have been a more worthwhile and interesting post. But you steered it to a discussion on the emollients clause because (back to my original hypothesis) you just couldn't let go of the politics (and apparently still can't).

Doug:
I didn't realize I had so much power to steer you. Too bad you didn't even get a chance to mention your hypothesis. That is Kellyanne Conway power!

David:
I understand how that feels. I just lived through eight years of it. It's difficult to talk about anything else when you feel the country is being pushed in the wrong direction. Perhaps we are just two pages from the same book, or maybe we're one of those books that has one title on one cover, but when you turn the book over, it has a competing title.

Doug:
No! You are wrong. I am not the opposite of you. There are things we could agree with if you let go of that idea. I am not in distress that Trump is a Republican. I am in distress because I believe that Trump doesn't understand our democracy and that he is tearing it apart.

David:
Perhaps we'll have to do a blog about how you feel Trump is tearing democracy apart. So far, he's written legal executive orders that, for the most part, reverse executive orders written by Obama.

Trump is unlike other politicians, which is what drew people to him.  Donald Trump, like many Americans, doesn't ask everyone in Washington what they think before he changes things. He just changes things. That's how a CEO would do it. Why wait? But that's a lot of change for a short time in the slow-moving pace of Washington politics. People are more comfortable with the status quo.

Doug:
Your idea of what a CEO would do is weird. CEO's do not want to piss-off customers (nor employees for that matter). People do indeed like stability. Can you imagine yourself complimenting Obama on a rash decision to change things without involving congress or even people in his own administration? I bet you would compliment him. I make myself laugh over your totally consistent views.

David:
I had some Diet Mountain Dew come out of my nose when I read your last comment. That's hilarious! Have you already forgotten all of Obama's executive orders and presidential memorandums? He totally bypassed Congress on a multitude of issues, many of which are continuing to be struck down as unconstitutional by the courts. No, I certainly wouldn't compliment him.

Doug:
That's my point! You compliment Trump for doing exactly what you complain about Obama. Forget about what I believe for a moment, and just consider your own views. Do you see the inconsistency? If you believe that I have inconsistent views (that is a different issue that I will argue with) you are agreeing that you, too, have inconsistent views, and laughing about it so hard that you make liquid come out your nose.

Is there a actual difference between the two Presidents already, even though Trump has only been president for three weeks? Yes! Trump has already signed more Executive Orders than Obama did in his first 6 years. Trump hasn't worked with congress at all yet. And yet you casually compliment him as "he just changes things." Just trying to be that dissonant would make my head explode.

David:
Don't bury your head in the sand, brother. Obama had more unilateral orders than any other president in history, bar none. He called them by different names, which was creative, but doesn't change the facts. What's the difference between an executive order and a presidential memorandum? Nothing. Undoing Obama's executive orders with executive orders makes sense. It didn't require Congress to do it, and it doesn't require Congress to make it disappear. That isn't dissonant.

Doug:
Obama did not have more "unilateral orders" no matter if you count memoranda or Executive Orders. There are differences between them, but even you count up the totals, there is a vast difference:

Estimates of from the National Archives and Office of Federal Register show Obama signed 38 memoranda in 2009; 42 in 2010; 19 in 2011; 32 in 2012 and 2013; 25 in 2013 and 31 in 2015. Obama signed only one memorandum during the first seven days of his first term - freezing the pay for White House employees - and none in the first week of his second term.

Trump's use of presidential memorandum has been more prolific. 

And that is just "so far." And as for "he is just undoing Obama" that is crazy. Muslim ban? No. Build a wall? No. Overturn Obamacare? That is law. I don't see anything that comes close to "undoing" Obama.

David:
Again, you fail to acknowledge Trump won the presidency, and won based on certain promises. He's fulfilling the wishes of those that put him in office. They would be upset if he did not fulfill these pledges.

Doug:
Trump is indeed trying to do what he promised. He promised a "Muslim Ban" and he is trying as hard as he can (without actually talking to congress) to make it come true. Of course, that is unconstitutional. And the idea that "so-called judges" can nix his promise has made Trump use ALL CAPS! Unconstitutional orders and threats against the judiciary branch is why people are protesting. The protest isn't about the promise, it is about trying to implement the promise.

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2017

David:
Last time I looked, there wasn't a Muslim ban, or even a proposed Muslim ban. There is a temporary ban on all people coming from seven countries Obama labeled as threats, (which Obama also held up for immigration). And if you're holding out your hope that the Ninth Circuit Court decision will stand, remember, they've been wrong 81% of the time.

Doug:
If that is true, then the Supreme Court will side with you. But guess what? It isn't going to the Supreme Court. Trump has given up on this Executive Order. I'm sure he will draft more, but the Supreme Court will continue to see these for exactly what Trump promised: a Muslim Ban. It will be difficult to argue that it isn't a Muslim Ban, because that is what he promised. You can't have it both ways.

David:
A Muslim ban would be a ban against Muslims. The executive order doesn't say that, in form or in reality.

While the far left lashes out, most of the country is going about their normal lives. When the tea party was protesting Big-Government spending during the past administration, most of America was going on about their lives as well. There are a lot of Americans in the middle who are not as invested in the nitty-gritty. They just want more jobs, a better economy, and a better future for their kids. They don't care so much about who delivers, as long as it gets delivered. Right now, I feel pretty confident that Trump will deliver. You probably thought the same of Obama 8 years ago. Time will tell.

Doug:
Why are you always telling me what I thought? But please, do go back to your life. Relax! Pay no attention to the protests, nor today's Executive Order. But I might not have time to talk about hats. I might be busy organizing a party...

David:
Or, you might continue proving my point. To paraphrase Yoda, "Much anger, you have".  Hillary Clinton did not win the election. And now, the tones we take with the blog are reversed. My hypothesis is that when you have leaders in charge of the government that generally believe as you do, you feel more calm. When the other party is in power, it generates fear and loathing. For the Left, this is particularly disheartening, as they preached diversity for the past 8 years, yet now, they're opposed to any idea they disagree with, and want to shut the debate down.

Doug:
Again, it isn't about policy: it is about the loss of democratic principles, such as separation of powers. I do not want to shut down any idea I disagree with. Why else would I be blogging here? I enjoy discussion and problem solving. I do not enjoy sweating over what fresh hell will be tweeted tomorrow morning.

David:
Fresh hell? See, you just can't stop yourself.

Doug:
Stop myself from what? I haven't even really started.

David:
But opposing everything just to oppose everything is not a good message. It is likely to alienate voters rather than build some imagined momentum. (Where is the Occupy Wall Street movement today?) I agree totally that "The Resistance" is forcing the hands of Democratic lawmakers. But those are the far-left base. Be careful, or you'll become the party of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and lose the Senators who are currently sitting in states that Donald Trump won handily. Eight more blue-dog Senators eliminated will give Republicans a super-majority in the Senate. And Eight Senators up for re-election in 2018 reside in red states won by Trump.

Doug:
Which do you think is more likely: (A) Republicans gain a supermajority, or (B) we see the biggest backlash in American history leading to a Democratic Congress and Senate, followed by an impeached President? But, aww, that's cute... giving the resistance some helpful hints about how to fight the power. Perhaps you too can join the resistance! Now there is a nice hat:

David:
Impeachment? For what? Using all caps on a tweet? I think I've made the case that it's easier to have a more reasoned tone when you are winning. When one is in the losing party and powerless, one uses words like impeachment, fear, and blood-in-the-water, and uses Smokey the Bear on fire as prefered imagery.  It makes one's tone angrier.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe your little pink hat is just too tight.

Doug:
You started out this blog looking back and lamenting that you came across a little too much like a bitter old man. I don't see that you will be any different over the next 100 blog posts, judging from this one. You write condescendingly.  You think of yourself as "winning." You think of me as being a member of the "losing party." I don't think that way. I wasn't on the "winning side" for the past 8 years. I am not on any team. I think about what is happening to our country. But I see some hope for our future as we look forward. 

Is this what you wanted?

Doug:
Is this what you wanted?

David:
You'll have to be a little more precise in what you're asking. At least give me a hint...

Doug:
Are the actions that Trump made in his first week what you wanted?

David:
The actions of President Trump in his first week are exactly what he promised during the campaign. He's reigning back executive over-reach at the EPA and pursuing energy policies that will improve our economy and provide for lower costs for average Americans. He's building the wall to secure our borders which was a promise he made from day one. He's put restrictions in place to make sure immigrants from the places that breed terrorists are vetted before they arrive here to join us in the great melting pot of America. Most of what he's done so far is already written into laws that are on the books. His orders are just putting into action what Obama had refused to enforce.

I'm sure you're unhappy that the great utopia that former President Obama was force-feeding us through executive order is being undone so easily. When you live by the pen, your ideas also die by the pen. Or perhaps you're expressing surprise that a politician would actually fulfill campaign promises.

President Trump working in the Oval Office

Doug:
You did not answer my question: is this what you want? Is this what you imagined? Are you happy about these outcomes?

The Man in Charge with his two colleagues, President Trump and Mike Flynn. "President Donald Trump speaks on the phone with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on Jan. 28, 2017, with national security adviser Mike Flynn, center, and Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, at right." - from Huffington Post.

David:
A President who follows through on all of his campaign promises? A President who does exactly what he was elected to do? A President who promises to actually follow and enforce our laws? I certainly am happy with the direction we're headed. It's exactly what I imagined, because it's what he said he was going to do during the entire campaign. And the business world, the investment world, and Americans in general are all happier with the prospects of the upcoming Trump presidency.

Doug:
Please don't reinterpret the question into something else. I'm not asking about following laws, nor the direction we are heading in the future. I am asking if what Trump did in his first week is what you want. It is really a simple question that can be answered with "yes" or "no."

David:
He said he was going to do these things, and across the country, a majority of people in a majority of states and communities voted for him based on those promises. I believe I've made it very clear where I stand. And apparently you truly are not interested in the president following the law. No wonder you still think Obama was the best POTUS who ever walked on water.

Doug:
Well, it isn't clear to me where you stand. It seems that you want to stand for "law and order" (who doesn't?) and you like a vague direction that we are heading "in the future", wherever and whenever that might be. I think that you are running for office again, and want to walk that politically ambiguous line without explicitly stating what you are unhappy with. I'd rather discuss specifics, and wonder where any of the past week's activities are not what you wanted. But if you feel that you have made it clear, then I think we are done. This is our 100th blog post. If you are happy with all of Trump's positions, then we don't need to discuss that here... I can simply tweet to Trump directly.

David:
You say you'd like to discuss specifics? Go ahead. Let's discuss specifics. So far, you have not discussed anything at all. Or, you can go back to your safe space and yearn for the Obama years, which are not coming back.

The big reason most Americans voted for President Trump, even though he was not their preferred candidate, was for the Supreme Court. The way things played out after Scalia's death made this election a referendum on the SCOTUS. Now that President Trump has followed through with a candidate in Scalia's mold, we'll see how the Democrats respond. So far, they have promised to obstruct pretty much anything that happens. They want to block all of the cabinet picks, they want to hold up all legislation, and they promised to fight against any SCOTUS picks from our new President. The are the party of NO! (With accessory fake tears from Senator Schumer.) From our earlier blogs, I thought you had predicted that the whole country would come together after this election. Is this what you expected? Is this what you want from your party?

Doug:
Yes, this is what I want. Actually, this is what I am actively constructing. I'm not sure our elected Democrats would have the courage to do it if people were not marching, calling, and generally making their voices heard. See how easy that was to be definitive? I didn't say that I believe in the "rule of law", but of course I do. I said that I exactly agree with what the democratic party is doing. And this is also exactly what I predicted:

"I think there will be increased public protests. That can draw us together as a society."
Doug in New Year's Predictions, Blank vs. Blank.

You can attempt to characterize the opposition to Trump any way you wish. I'm not going to change your mind, nor perhaps anyone that voted for Trump. That is not my goal.

David:
Actually, I was talking about your prediction you made before you realized Trump had won the election, the prediction you made when you were certain that Hillary would be our next President:

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. 

====================== 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 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.

So much for those false sentiments. Glad to see you and your smug liberal friends following through on your own advice....

Doug:
After the election, I was indeed hopeful. But that hope was dashed by the beginning of the New Year (and thus my prediction that protests can bring us together). It was clear by then, and now even more so: this President is tearing down our country. I thought his temperament was really an act, a faux persona that he put on in front of the camera. But alas no... this is who he is.

David:
As the economy improves, and more people enter into the job market (after years of sitting on the sidelines during the Obama job drought), I hope the Democrats continue to throw their little tantrums. Because they eliminated the filibuster in the Senate, they'll now sit by and watch as the Trump cabinet fills up without their input. They'll weep and gnash their teeth as the Supreme Court gets filled for the next generation. If they keep it up, we'll get to see even more Republicans in the Senate in two years.

Yes, the more I think about it, we should all encourage the Democrats in Congress to skip their meetings and hearings, filibuster and obstruct everything that moves in Congress, and protest everything that Trump does. I especially hope they continue to voice their opposition to school choice for urban kids, and creation of jobs for union workers and average Americans. Then, you can protest the Republican super-majority you will have helped to create.

Doug:
Finally, we are in complete agreement: boycott, filibuster, and protest!

Right to Fight!

Stephanie:
Hi Uncle David, I thought it would be fun to blog with you again! Just this past weekend, as you may have noticed, 3 million women across the world marched for themselves, their families, their friends, or their enemies. I, along with many of my friends, made the trip down to D.C. to walk alongside some 500,000+ people. The women's march for me was a way to reclaim some harmful rhetoric that sprang up during the campaign season. I think different women were there for different reasons, but it was an overall very supportive environment to be a part of. It was really wonderful to see and hear inspiring women let us know that there are people out there supporting women and standing up for them. I wanted to know what your thoughts were on the women's march and maybe protests regarding the election or other events in general.

David:
Hi Steph. It's good to have my favorite niece (named Stephanie) to blog with! Welcome once again.

I was wondering if you had participated in the march.

When you say "inspiring women", are you talking about Madonna and her expletive-laced rant threatening to blow up the White house? Or perhaps you are talking about Ashley Judd's expletive-laced attack on how Donald Trump looks, and insinuating he has an incestuous relationship with his daughter (who is herself a successful woman). Or perhaps you're talking about the women wearing vaginas on their heads. Yes, they are all very classy and inspiring.

Stephanie:
Yes and no. I believe that women have a right to be angry. Sexually assaulted women and rape survivors had to see a man who used expletive-laced and harmful rhetoric towards women become their president. Of course I didn't agree with every single thing that every woman said, but I don't think you agree with every single thing Trump has said or done (I hope). And yes the cat hats were fun. Don't diminish a whole march, a whole movement, just because there are curse words in it.

No pictures of Madonna showed up when googling "women's march. "

David:
You may be too young to remember, but the media seized on a few loony folks dressed as minutemen and labeled the entire tea party movement based on those individuals. You may not like it, but that's just the way it is. Madonna is now the face of the women's march for a large swath of America. If you googled "women's march" for several days after the march, her picture showed up most frequently.

In the interest of equality, should we equate a woman wearing a vagina hat with a man wearing a giant penis on his head? That's actually how a great many people I know are viewing your great fun. Again, very classy.

It's also interesting to note that they excluded pro-life women who wished to join them in their march. Rather than a march for all women, it appears it's only a march for women who follow a very rigid ideology. If you stray from that ideology even on one issue, you are excluded. Apparently those inspiring women in charge of the march are not for diversity of thought. Unfortunately, that move, coupled with many of the speakers just listing Democratic talking points, gives the appearance that this was a Democrat women's march. This makes it somewhat easy for anyone from the conservative side of the spectrum to dismiss the march outright as just partisan sour-grapes.

Stephanie:
The term "rigid ideology" is just downright wrong. It's also funny that you use the term "diversity." Trump's rallies were filled to the brim with straight white (older) men. There was so little diversity at Trump's rallies that he singled out a black person in the crowd and said "look at my African-American." Point is, I think the women's march was beyond diverse. Women and men of every race, religion, ethnicity, and background showed up to add their thoughts (via signs and chants) on immigration, sexism, race relations, our government, etc. To call it a march for rigid ideology is wrong. I don't particularly agree with excluding pro-life women. It's hard for women who might want/need abortions in their future to have those rights taken away and then happily embrace women who are anti-choice and contribute to the anti-roe v. wade movement. I understand it, but I don't agree with it. As for the supposed Democrat women's march... I don't know what you mean considering you were not at the march nor did you watch the livestream of the speakers as my own mother did. Confused as to how you got the idea that it was only for democrats. The march was for women of fluid ideology and diversity. Again, don't dismiss the march, that's the easy thing to do if you're lazy. If a whole gender is marching against the harmful rhetoric of one man, maybe you should start paying attention.

David:
Again, the media portrays a very different picture. And since I doubt you were at any Trump rallies, you too are using media reports and images to form your opinions. Does the dismissal of Trump's supporters like these women below make you "lazy"?

Which brings us to the second march for women this week, also know as the March for Life. In 2013 this annual march brought out 650,000 men and women, and current estimates are that there was a bigger crowd this year. Many of these women were also appalled at the comments Trump made a decade ago. Too bad they were not allowed to make the other women's march a bit bigger. You might take note that this march also included a huge number of women who feel much differently about things than the march you attended. Many in the crowd were young women. The March for Life also had men and women who represent every race, religion, ethnicity, and background. Their views were refused a place in your women's march. I think that negates your claim that the women's march was "beyond diverse".

I note you've titled this blog "Right to Fight!" While you describe the march as an uplifting and supportive group for women, the real agenda seems to be seeping through. When you listen to the speakers that the media highlighted, this was another liberal, celebrity rally for the left, to oppose and obstruct anything the Republican-elected majority proposes. They're girding themselves to fight against anything and everything this administration attempts, even before they know what's on the agenda.

Stephanie:
Which media are you referring to? I titled this "Right to Fight!" because every man, woman, and child has a right to stand up for what they believe in. The first amendment allows this.

Do you think we'll see the pro-life marchers at the anti-muslim ban protests springing up at airports nationwide to support the lives of refugees?

David:
You have framed the supportive and inspiring women's march under the banner of "fighting". Standing up for principles and protesting is certainly everyone's right. Free speech is a right. But fighting against something is different from supporting something. As I said, your initial comments describe a very inspiring movement for supporting women's issues, yet you're really looking for a fight.  Bombing the White House doesn't seem to be either peaceful or supportive of anything.

Stephanie:
I do not agree with all of the speaker's statements as I previously mentioned. A fight does not have to be a violent movement. It can be a simple act of resisting what you believe to be wrong. If you thought something a president did was wrong, would you not resist?

David:
I think the pro-life marchers were marching for the life of unborn children. Why do you feel the need to bash them if they don't protest against American security?

Stephanie:
I did not bash pro-life marchers.

David:
You asked if we'll see them marching for Syrians, and asked it in a way to question why they wouldn't. You made it sound as though they are not really pro-life, if they were not marching for the  displacement of Syrians.

Stephanie:
I asked: "Do you think we'll see the pro-life marchers at the anti-muslim ban protests springing up at airports nationwide to support the lives of refugees?" No blame. Just a question.

David:
You have either misread or purposely manipulated the President's executive order into saying things it does not. If you are a Christian in a country that is exporting terrorists, you are going to be vetted before you come into America. If you are an atheist from Syria, you will be vetted before you can come here. There is no Muslim ban. As we've seen across Europe, the refugees from Syria are at great risk trying to get out of Syria. Many have died making that trek. But they can't stay in their homes with things as they now stand. But, if we create safe zones for them in Syria. They would be much safer there than trying to flee. And most of them want to stay in their homeland. We don't need to re-litigate this as you and I actually discussed exactly this issue in our prior blog.

Stephanie:
Honestly, it sounds like border patrol was told to give Christians and Trump supporters priority evidenced by these tweets and also given that the only people held in the airports were Muslim.

David:
I believe your father would describe your last comment as false equivalency. I don't know who Trita Parsi is, but he isn't the POTUS.

So, by bring up the refugees, are you now saying that the women's march was for Syria? Are the women's marchers all going to airports to support Syrians? Or are they just protesting something else this administration is doing? Because now your argument sounds strangely similar to my comment  that this seems to be a group of Democrats  protesting anything and everything this President does. Is there anything you'll support from President Trump?

Stephanie:
As I said earlier, people in this country have the right to fight for what they believe in. If those who are protesting believe that this administration is doing something wrong (wrongness that looks eerily similar to Nazi Germany days --U.S. did not accept Anne Frank as a refugee back then-- I mean seriously take a look around), then they will fight to stand up for that belief. I will support any president if they do not threaten the lives of my fellow Americans. My friend at school may never be able to see her family in Iran. If that seems okay to you, I seriously question what your breaking point will be. So I ask you, is there anything you won't support from President Trump? Where do we draw the line? Golden M's on all Muslims? Criminalizing all immigrants? Concentration camps?

David:
You started out that last comment strong. But Nazis? Concentration camps? Golden M's? (Do they have to be gold?) You've really gone completely over the rhetorical line. Perhaps you've been reading fake news from guys like Trita Parsi?

You may want to review history a bit more before you play the Nazi card. Perhaps your liberal upbringing left out some very important concepts. Your father and I did an entire blog debunking Trump as Hitler. In that blog, your dad indicated a study showed conservatives are authoritarian, and Trump can be compared to Hitler. After that blog was posted, the study's authors released a disclaimer that they evaluated the results wrongly, and it was actually liberals who are authoritarian. If any party can be claimed to be Nazi-esque, it turns out to be the Democrats, according to the research.

You say you will not support President Trump because he is threatening the lives of your fellow Americans? Whose lives has he threatened? As far as I can tell, the only lives he's threatened are ISIS terrorists. To say he's threatened Americans is just not true.

Stephanie:
I said: "I will support any president if they do not threaten the lives of my fellow Americans."

David:
So, you support President Donald Trump. Glad to hear it.

Does your friend's Iranian family consist of terrorists? If not, then she will certainly be able to see them again. And very soon if she wishes. Why wouldn't she be able to do that? There is nothing in President Trump' executive order that would preclude that. (You do realize that it was the Obama administration that targeted those seven countries? There are over 50 Muslim-majority countries in the world. Only seven are on the Obama list that Trump is following. This is not a Muslim ban.)

Stephanie:
People from countries on the list are not allowed into the country at this moment. Do you not realize that there is no way to tell if someone is a terrorist or not? What's the test for that? (Obama's vetting was not similar to Trump's.)

David:
"At this moment" is the key phrase. Earlier you said, "never". She will be able to see her family and friends. The argument is moot.

There are certainly ways to tell if someone is a terrorist. Many use social media to communicate their thoughts and actions. If they draw up plans to kill people, I'd say they're a terrorist. If they are communicating with similar-minded folks, I'd say they are terrorists. That's why the FBI is searching social media sites for tips.

I'd advise you to tell your friends to do exactly what you would have requested of Republicans if Hillary Clinton had won the White House. DOn't just go crazy and protest everything just because you don't like her. If you protest everything, the people you want to convince will dismiss you. Focus your protesting (or fight, if you prefer) on the issues you feel need to be protested. Again, is there anything you will support from President Trump? Anything at all? Making America the world leader for democracy? Anything?

Since you are my favorite niece (named Stephanie), I'll give you the last word.

Stephanie:
Protest the issues that need to be protested... What do you think has been going on? That's what the airport protests are doing. How would you make America the world leader for democracy? Get rid of the electoral college and truly put the vote in the people's hands? Again, I will support any president that does not threaten the livelihood of my friends, neighbors, etc. Again, is there anything that you will not support from President Trump?