For me it's an easy choice

70% of Democrats did not attend his inauguration, was it then he "divided" us? 19 minutes after his inauguration WashingtonPost (IIRC) announced an impeachment probe was beginning, was it then he "divided" us? Pelosi rips up his STOU speech on national TV showing utter contempt for the office, was it then he "divided" us? They are feeding this animosity you speak of.

And thank you, you as well.

 

NONE of which occurred on Trump's watch UNTIL the Dems began approaching their national convention and then -- WHAMMO! -- every hate-filled and violent radical leftists who knew HOW to riot, loot, burn, mug, and murder, hit the streets in Dem Party controlled cities -- who's mayors deliberately stood down their police departments and who's governors prevented Trump from restoring peace -- in order to practice their unique brand of politics. You think people didn't notice the timing and nor that for three and a half years under Trump there was none of that going on?

 

Where did I say Trump or the Democratic Party? Everyone has a role to play in this but as a parent I set the tone for those I am responsible for.

 

The old saw is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The real problem at the heart of the issue is that since 1933 the shift of power from cities and states to the federal government has accelerated at breakneck speed, much of that handled through unconstitutional unfunded mandates made upon the states by the federal government. The Washington establishment now sees itself not as public servants but as entitled Mandarins who must be obeyed and all this election crap is meaningless showman they don't mind venal and corrupt politicians they're really easy to control. Guys that actually give a damn about America and the American people scare the crap out if them, hence the obvious fear and loathing of DJ Trump. That's why I keep saying the first thing Trump ought to do after he's reelected is fire everyone above GS 13 in DC he legally can.

 

Try sending them in a more intellectually honest manner. I find it hard to believe you're stymied by the word "inflation."

 

I'm stymied by how your 35% tariffs turned into 8% price hikes. Inflation is the process of reducing the value of money. Tariffs affect cost of goods regardless of the value of money.

 

Perhaps it's just pattern logic, and this is a chat bot that doesn't have very sophisticated heuristics.. On the other hand, it could just be a demonstration of how poor public education is these days.... Lots of possibilities here.

 

Here's a quotation from an article by April Stillmunkes. It's commentary on the original Tytler quote, and how it applies today.

"Life Cycle of a Democracy
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tytler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.

A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the people will always vote for those who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:


1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage.

With the country moving in the direction of every career politician wanting to give away everything for nothing, please realize what is at stake. I ask you not to tire, but fight on and believe that we can stop and reverse the cycle. Most of all, please remember that apathy is the greatest threat to our democracy. Freedom and Liberty are virtues that are to be protected at all cost. Once you surrender Liberty or Freedom for Dependence you have enslaved yourself and your children to a life of hardship and fear that leads to tyranny. Choose this day what is most important to you and your children. Your vote for City Council, State Representative, US Congress, Judge, and President matters more than ever."

I would add-
Note that "Free" or the equivalents like deserve, entitled, etc are now perhaps the most common words in marketing. They used to raise immediate skepticism in the public, but that level of self-awareness and confidence is fading, being replaced by gullibility. Recent generations have been raised with increasing perceptions that they are entitled, things should be free- and government should provide for them, make things fair for them, give them things. It is the philosophy liberal politicians spread like they were sowing oats. It is the bait that entices people to replace the perception of opportunity with entitlement, at the cost of- everything. It is to the point that far too many think violence is justifiable to enforce what has become their demands of entitlement.

Government will never be better than the least we will settle for. The bureaucrats become embedded because we have settled for it; because we have failed to elect the kind of leadership that demands performance and remembers what the real job is. Some politicians think the public is ready to surrender all their personal power, and become fully dependent on government. They are eager to take that power from you- in order to use it to control you. Once you surrender it, you will play hell getting it back. That's what this election is about.



We are past the lifespan Tytler projected. It's clear that we are moving to dependence, and that the liberals rich and poor are promoting that for different reasons- but promoting it. They both expect to gain either in benefits or power and control... but there is no hope for freedom, independence and opportunity under such a condition.

 

If this was Star Trek, he'd be the beta in Dr. Soong's lab.

 

Stymied? Consider this.
Goods made in America cost more to make- because we pay our people more than China and others.
China goods are imported and sell cheap, but costs us jobs. When you buy goods made there, you insure they won't get made here- and the jobs that would create here are gone.
There is very little in the way of clothing or shoes for example that is actually American made. The vast majority of the electronics that are all around us- are not made here either.

Tariffs raise the price of the goods imported. They also make it harder for China and others to take business away from American industry; American goods become more competitive in our market. It also forces them to negotiate things like balance of trade agreements, where they must buy from us in some proportion to what they sell to us. That benefits American industry- and all the workers they employ.
It's kind of a round about thing, but it's the option that works. Tariffs aren't about saving money today, they are about shaping the trade relations that determine if we will be a self-sufficient nation or a totally dependent one in the long term.

 

That's why Marx' utopian sound from each according to his means to each according to his needs always fails. By the time you grow a bureacracy large enough and intrusive enough to fully assess those means and needs, the line between needs and desires has long since disappeared and no one any longer has a sufficiency of either.
I always found the left's failure at basic math odd. Why is it that the supposedly brightest people in the room can't seem to understand that money isn't wealth. Money is simply a convenient and altogether too elastic means of measuring wealth. Wealth is cars house computers office buildings etc, etc, etc. At best money is potential wealth.

It is strange is it not? The richest men in America make on the order of 2 billion a year there likely isn't more than a dozen people earning that much a year. That is well less than three days of government spending at ten billion a day. And they think they can raise 4 trillion more just by taxing the rich?