Time to put pressure on the GOP. . .

[Foxfyre]

The debt is worrying but the only President who ever balanced the America budget was Andrew Jackson back in the 1840's.

As long as we have a Congress that spends money like it grows on a tree no one will balance the budget.

Another good reason for those term limits.
Get the career elites out. All of them.

I can't really say that I can support term limits because so often we get rid of the devil we know and wind up with one far worse. I look at the amazing knowledge of people like Lindsay Graham, Jim Jordan, et al, how much their experience helps us in understanding what is going on, and how unwise it might be in putting inexperienced rookies in charge of issues most critical to the security and well being of the country. (And yes, I have had my issues with Lindsay in the past too, but I'll have to say he has been exemplary the last couple of years.)

I would far rather see us have a constitutional amendment that maybe allows more annual income for our elected representatives, but that would require them to pass no legislation of any kind that benefits any group or entity that does not benefit all, that would not allow them to dispense charity or grants of any kind. And all contracts would be put out for bids. Further they should pay into their own 401ks or IRAs and health plans--the same plans they force on the rest of us--and take those with them when they leave office with no government retirement after that.

Do that and it removes all incentive for dishonorable lobbying, or for anybody who is in office to benefit himself/herself to stay there or run for office at all. That would leave us with public servants who love America and work for the people again and I don't care how long they stick around.

Something has to be done. They voted themselves half the keys to the country during Carter..then they voted themselves the second half during Reagan's second Congress.

They've been living high on our money and making us poorer ever since.

Lobbying needs to be outlawed period. It is bribery.

There is honorable lobbying. There is nothing wrong with an industry or an entity sending representatives to the State House or Washington to explain why this or that legislation would, could, does, doesn't make things better or creates serious problems. It can be a significant and necessary component to educate legislators who have to make those decisions.

Dishonorable lobbying is that which seeks to bribe, extort, coerce, manipulate advantages from the government. Advantages others probably won't have. The proposals I made to restrict anyone in the federal government from responding to that would eliminate it. And it also prevents those in government from extorting money from groups, industries, unions, entities, etc.

I recommend everybody read this short book for a real education on how that works and why a permanent political class in Washington needs to be broken up.

He has an even better one, and solid information on why Mitch McConnel needs to go.

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Empires-American-Political-Corruption-ebook/dp/B07RC557SQ/?tag=usmb-20

I haven't read that one and probably won't until it is cheaper on Kindle. But thanks for the heads up.

I think McConnell is basically a decent human being overall despite being a poster child for the permanent political class. I have no wish to harm him or Schumer or Pelosi et al who are all important members of that same group. If McConnell is ousted, the permanent political class will simply elect somebody else who is proficient at raising money for their campaign coffers, super PACs, the RNC etc.

We need reform of the system to eliminate the permanent political class altogether which means eliminating their ability to so greatly personally profit from their positions that it becomes their Number One priority. Then they will term limit themselves out leaving mostly true public servants in government.

I think it will allow a constitutional amendment to accomplish though which they will never allow. We the people just need to do better in electing true public servants to government positions until they become the majority there.

For all his failings, shortcomings, flaws as a human being and the stumbles along the way, I honestly believe President Trump is a true public servant who is working for us and not for the interests of the permanent political class. Which of course is why the permanent political class and those who admire them in all political parties hate him so much.

 

[Claudette]

The people who are blaming TDS for criticism of Trump were themselves OBS sufferers. Maybe we ought to consider the novel idea that there is legitinate criticosm.

For example, no one claimed Trump is dismantling all environmental regulations. He has however, without thought, attempted to with as many Obama era rules as he can with no study, no careful pro and con consideration of the effects but solely because Obama did it. Many of the people he put in charge are energy industry people who will directly benefit from these actions. Add to that he has had a number of ethically challenged if not downright corrupt people in charge.


His behavior regarding healthcare is similar. No replacement but doing all he can to wreck it. How will that effect people? Now I am willing to give him a positive if he tackles drug prices.

Your evidence that the rolled back regulations were done with no study or careful pro and con consideration for the effects? Or are you simply reciting the propaganda/talking points the left puts out about that? Those rolled back regulations have been an important part of the current economic boom as is the stability in a much more business and prosperity friendly tax code.

My husband and I losing our primary care doctors and him losing his trusted cancer doctor as a direct result of Obamacare was enough for me to want to dump the whole thing that President Trump has not done. Nor is he trying to get rid of coverage for pre-existing conditions. He has removed some of the most damning and ridiculous aspects of it which is one of several reasons the economy is now booming and couldn't before.

Obama went before the cameras time and again to assure us that if like our doctor we can keep our doctor, period. If we like our healthcare plan we can keep our healthcare plan, period. Both turned out to be bald faced lies. Doctors and healthcare plans had to comply with Obamacare rules or they were not allowed to be in business.

Obama assured us our taxes would not go up one penny due to Obamacare. Then his lawyers went before the Supreme Court arguing that the mandates were a tax and therefore legal for Congress to enact.

Though they haven't done it, there wasn't anything in place before Obamacare other than Medicare and Medicaid and the VA. So requiring the government to REPLACE any part of Obamacare with something is pretty short sighted. When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?

Obama claimed millions who were insured who did not have insurance before. But his rules required such enormous deductibles, copays, and coverage holes for so many people and/or lack of access to healthcare that they were far worse off than they were before. Which has been the case with us in addition to premiums for non government subsidized insurance increasing far more rapidly than it had before.

Partisan talking points are not convincing for those dealing with onerous and unnecessary government taxes, regulation, mandates in the real world. I have run a business that dealt with hundreds of businesses dealing with issues in the real world. So I know first hand, up close and personal why Trump's policies beat most of Obama's hands down.

Great post.

The ONLY people who thought Obamacare was great were the people the rest of us were paying for.

My benefit costs went up 30% every year to cover that cost.

It was a POS that never should have been passed.

If Renquist had still been alive and the Chief Justice of the SC instead of Roberts The SC would have said No to Obamacare.

 

[Foxfyre]

The people who are blaming TDS for criticism of Trump were themselves OBS sufferers. Maybe we ought to consider the novel idea that there is legitinate criticosm.

For example, no one claimed Trump is dismantling all environmental regulations. He has however, without thought, attempted to with as many Obama era rules as he can with no study, no careful pro and con consideration of the effects but solely because Obama did it. Many of the people he put in charge are energy industry people who will directly benefit from these actions. Add to that he has had a number of ethically challenged if not downright corrupt people in charge.


His behavior regarding healthcare is similar. No replacement but doing all he can to wreck it. How will that effect people? Now I am willing to give him a positive if he tackles drug prices.

Your evidence that the rolled back regulations were done with no study or careful pro and con consideration for the effects? Or are you simply reciting the propaganda/talking points the left puts out about that? Those rolled back regulations have been an important part of the current economic boom as is the stability in a much more business and prosperity friendly tax code.

My husband and I losing our primary care doctors and him losing his trusted cancer doctor as a direct result of Obamacare was enough for me to want to dump the whole thing that President Trump has not done. Nor is he trying to get rid of coverage for pre-existing conditions. He has removed some of the most damning and ridiculous aspects of it which is one of several reasons the economy is now booming and couldn't before.

Obama went before the cameras time and again to assure us that if like our doctor we can keep our doctor, period. If we like our healthcare plan we can keep our healthcare plan, period. Both turned out to be bald faced lies. Doctors and healthcare plans had to comply with Obamacare rules or they were not allowed to be in business.

Obama assured us our taxes would not go up one penny due to Obamacare. Then his lawyers went before the Supreme Court arguing that the mandates were a tax and therefore legal for Congress to enact.

Though they haven't done it, there wasn't anything in place before Obamacare other than Medicare and Medicaid and the VA. So requiring the government to REPLACE any part of Obamacare with something is pretty short sighted. When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?

Obama claimed millions who were insured who did not have insurance before. But his rules required such enormous deductibles, copays, and coverage holes for so many people and/or lack of access to healthcare that they were far worse off than they were before. Which has been the case with us in addition to premiums for non government subsidized insurance increasing far more rapidly than it had before.

Partisan talking points are not convincing for those dealing with onerous and unnecessary government taxes, regulation, mandates in the real world. I have run a business that dealt with hundreds of businesses dealing with issues in the real world. So I know first hand, up close and personal why Trump's policies beat most of Obama's hands down.

Great post.

The ONLY people who thought Obamacare was great were the people the rest of us were paying for.

My benefit costs went up 30% every year to cover that cost.

It was a POS that never should have been passed.

If Renquist had still been alive and the Chief Justice of the SC instead of Roberts The SC would have said No to Obamacare.

I agree that the Rehnquist court would have never allowed the Obamacare mandates to go into effect. And would have noted that it was forced on the people as something that would not raise their taxes and then argued before the court that the mandates were taxes and therefore the prerogative of the government to levy.

 

[iceberg]

The people who are blaming TDS for criticism of Trump were themselves OBS sufferers. Maybe we ought to consider the novel idea that there is legitinate criticosm.

For example, no one claimed Trump is dismantling all environmental regulations. He has however, without thought, attempted to with as many Obama era rules as he can with no study, no careful pro and con consideration of the effects but solely because Obama did it. Many of the people he put in charge are energy industry people who will directly benefit from these actions. Add to that he has had a number of ethically challenged if not downright corrupt people in charge.

His behavior regarding healthcare is similar. No replacement but doing all he can to wreck it. How will that effect people? Now I am willing to give him a positive if he tackles drug prices.

i would be glad to consider it if it were tapered with reality. but we've gotten far past that.

trump and ANY president can and should be criticized. they have a crucial role in the world with a lot of people watching. only we confuse what *we* want with what *everyone* needs.

and there is the source of our conflicts. we've divided up into so many subgroups and each group claims they are persecuted to the point where the word has no more meaning and can't be stretched any further.

TDS is real and it sucks. ODS was out there also but it wasn't as prevalent nor was it fueled by the media constantly on a 247x basis. i think it's idiotic for someone to be saying NO YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SEE HIS TAXES while they were demanding a birth cert for obama. but what i really find funny are people who said birthers were crazy to go to such lengths having to make up things to get mad about along the way don't see themselves doing that now. or if they do, their emotional state of mind justifies the extreme need for validation.

in both cases the candidates (at the time) made it through vetting and should be clear. but when "we the people" don't find our own source as THE source of hate today, we want things re-evaluated until we get what we want. anything else has become conspiracy all around.

i would 100% agree it's stupid to tear down things obama did just because he did it. it's right up there with rejecting anything trump does cause he is doing it. but we don't see that, we see PAYBACK and politics of revenge.

i simply don't see where our own extreme or bust views are helping a thing at all these days.

yes trump does some stupid shit. but no, not everything he does is stupid and if you call everything stupid then to me you lose all credibility - JUST AS IF you do the same to obama.

 

[Foxfyre]

We aren't seeing anything like this from President Trump:

 

[Darkwind]

Another good reason for those term limits.
Get the career elites out. All of them.

I can't really say that I can support term limits because so often we get rid of the devil we know and wind up with one far worse. I look at the amazing knowledge of people like Lindsay Graham, Jim Jordan, et al, how much their experience helps us in understanding what is going on, and how unwise it might be in putting inexperienced rookies in charge of issues most critical to the security and well being of the country. (And yes, I have had my issues with Lindsay in the past too, but I'll have to say he has been exemplary the last couple of years.)

I would far rather see us have a constitutional amendment that maybe allows more annual income for our elected representatives, but that would require them to pass no legislation of any kind that benefits any group or entity that does not benefit all, that would not allow them to dispense charity or grants of any kind. And all contracts would be put out for bids. Further they should pay into their own 401ks or IRAs and health plans--the same plans they force on the rest of us--and take those with them when they leave office with no government retirement after that.

Do that and it removes all incentive for dishonorable lobbying, or for anybody who is in office to benefit himself/herself to stay there or run for office at all. That would leave us with public servants who love America and work for the people again and I don't care how long they stick around.

Something has to be done. They voted themselves half the keys to the country during Carter..then they voted themselves the second half during Reagan's second Congress.

They've been living high on our money and making us poorer ever since.

Lobbying needs to be outlawed period. It is bribery.

There is honorable lobbying. There is nothing wrong with an industry or an entity sending representatives to the State House or Washington to explain why this or that legislation would, could, does, doesn't make things better or creates serious problems. It can be a significant and necessary component to educate legislators who have to make those decisions.

Dishonorable lobbying is that which seeks to bribe, extort, coerce, manipulate advantages from the government. Advantages others probably won't have. The proposals I made to restrict anyone in the federal government from responding to that would eliminate it. And it also prevents those in government from extorting money from groups, industries, unions, entities, etc.

I recommend everybody read this short book for a real education on how that works and why a permanent political class in Washington needs to be broken up.

He has an even better one, and solid information on why Mitch McConnel needs to go.

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Empires-American-Political-Corruption-ebook/dp/B07RC557SQ/?tag=usmb-20

I haven't read that one and probably won't until it is cheaper on Kindle. But thanks for the heads up.

I think McConnell is basically a decent human being overall despite being a poster child for the permanent political class. I have no wish to harm him or Schumer or Pelosi et al who are all important members of that same group. If McConnell is ousted, the permanent political class will simply elect somebody else who is proficient at raising money for their campaign coffers, super PACs, the RNC etc.

We need reform of the system to eliminate the permanent political class altogether which means eliminating their ability to so greatly personally profit from their positions that it becomes their Number One priority. Then they will term limit themselves out leaving mostly true public servants in government.

I think it will allow a constitutional amendment to accomplish though which they will never allow. We the people just need to do better in electing true public servants to government positions until they become the majority there.

For all his failings, shortcomings, flaws as a human being and the stumbles along the way, I honestly believe President Trump is a true public servant who is working for us and not for the interests of the permanent political class. Which of course is why the permanent political class and those who admire them in all political parties hate him so much.

It will never happen until we take it away from them. A Constitutional Convention is the only means we have left to take back power from them.

 

[IM2]

What you are describing is a permanent political class that are in it for their own personal benefit and not for those who put them there.

Why I think they hate President Trump so much apart from the fact that he beat their nominee who was supposed to be a shoo in?

1. President Trump is not a politician.

2. President Trump is non partisan.

3. President Trump is not an ideologue.

4. President Trump thumbs his nose at political correctness.

5. President Trump gives no respect to a status quo that has not been producing the results it is supposed to.

6. President Trump sets his objective and goal and then goes from Plan A to B or C or however many different plans it takes to achieve the desired outcome. He doesn't easily take no for an answer, he isn't afraid to try no matter how many say it can't be done, and he isn't afraid to fail along the way until the right solution or fix is found, and if it is important to him, he doesn't quit. (He will sometimes withdraw, regroup, and recalculate before trying again.)

7. President Trump is determined to do the job he set out to do and whether he does it out of ego or an honest desire to help America and Americans, it doesn't matter. He intends to get it done and he has kept campaign promises more faithfully and in actuality than ANY President in my now very long lifetime.

If he is sometimes petulant, petty, cringeworthy, unlikable at times, well that's a small price to pay to get somebody who actually wants to do the job. So I want to keep him.

He is the exact opposite of the professional political class and is a danger to their existance. And that is why they and their supporters in both parties hate him.

1. At this point Trump certainly is a politician. Before being elected, he acted a lot like politicians do; the bad qualities, at least.

2. I honestly don't know where you get this idea that Trump is so non-partisan. He's made comment after comment about how bad Democrats and 'the left' are, hasn't he?

3. Trump doesn't seem to be an ideologue, unless you were to describe promoting the Trump brand as his ideology.

4. True, but thumbing one's nose at political correctness doesn't have to mean being crass and rude.

5. Has the status quo really changed all that much?

6. Unfortunately, at least based on the things he says, Trump seems like the type who not only won't admit to ever failing, but who would keep promoting a failing policy in order to avoid such an admission. He also comes across as a person who would only go from Plan A to B or C if they were his plans, or he could take credit for them. That's just an impression, though.

7. How do you know what Trump, or any president, is determined to do? I have no idea how Trump compares to other presidents as far as keeping campaign promises. If he's kept more than other presidents, that's admirable.

I think most presidents want the job.

I don't think Trump is the opposite of the professional political class. I think he is more like a somewhat tarnished reflection of them. I think getting someone who is the opposite would be next to impossible because no one one would want to do the job is likely to try to get it. Worse, no one one would want to do the job is likely to get elected, even if they were to run. Presidential elections seem like more of a beauty contest than a political election to me.

You can't find any trait or action of President Trump that would make him part of the permanent political class.

Trump praises and compliments and thanks ANY Democrat who isn't trying to destroy him and his agenda. There are precious few of them, and he well understands that the Republican Party holds the only hope he has for getting legislation done that will help America, however tepid that hope is with status quo Republicans heading the party. So far all the Democrats are offering are short term benefits that cannot be sustained and socialist/even fascist initiatives that will hurt us some in the short term and pretty much all in the long term.

What they are offering could damage America to the point it would resemble Venezuela, not that long ago one of the top economies in the world but due to socialist/fascist policies now reduced to a warring, miserable, dangerous place with poverty, even starvation, too much the norm.

And that list of Trump era accomplishments up there. It ALL is much more than the status quo was. And every President has to live with his own administration's record. The Trump Administration is putting out a very VERY commendable record.

How does anybody justify taking the risk to reverse that just because they hate the President?

Not being part of the permanent political class isn't the same as being the opposite.

Democrat and Republican politicians all spend a large amount of time claiming the other 'side' is going to destroy the country, or is in the process of destroying the country. You yourself seem to have just said that Democrats are only doing things which will hurt the country. I find that idea funny, in a sad sort of way. Democrats and Republicans can and do both have ideas that would work for the country, just as both parties come up with ideas that would not. With a Republican controlled Congress and Presidency, the country has one of the highest deficits in history. With a Democrat controlled Congress and Presidency under Obama, the country had the highest deficit in history. Regardless of the party in power we've had wars and conflicts in various countries around the world. Regardless of the party in power we've had decades of the failed war on drugs. We've had the creation, continuation, and even expansion of the intrusive Patriot Act. Both parties seem to have some of the same bad ideas about how to run the government.

Venezuela was a top economy because of their massive oil reserves, I believe. I don't know if they ever had the sort of economy the US does.

Not everyone agrees with your assessment of the state of the country or of the reasons for why things are the way they are. So not everyone will see it as a risk to reverse some of the things that have occurred during the Trump administration.

I'm curious about which Democrats Trump has praised and complimented.

I get it. You really dislike the President and that probably makes you resist giving him credit for the good things that are happening. I can accept that and appreciate your civility in expressing it. We are unlikely to agree on this one though.

Actually, I dislike the president, but I think all presidents get far too much credit for things like the state of the economy. It doesn't matter if it's Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. Very basically, the executive is supposed to enforce policy, not make it, so I tend to think Congress should have more influence on the economy. Further, I think that government in general is given too much credit for the economy. That tends to ignore both the free market and the influence of the rest of the world. It's just one of many examples of where I think people look to the government too quickly as the answer.

This is a fair assessment with the exception of one thing, government writes the rules of business. There really is no purely free market.

 

[Foxfyre]

I can't really say that I can support term limits because so often we get rid of the devil we know and wind up with one far worse. I look at the amazing knowledge of people like Lindsay Graham, Jim Jordan, et al, how much their experience helps us in understanding what is going on, and how unwise it might be in putting inexperienced rookies in charge of issues most critical to the security and well being of the country. (And yes, I have had my issues with Lindsay in the past too, but I'll have to say he has been exemplary the last couple of years.)

I would far rather see us have a constitutional amendment that maybe allows more annual income for our elected representatives, but that would require them to pass no legislation of any kind that benefits any group or entity that does not benefit all, that would not allow them to dispense charity or grants of any kind. And all contracts would be put out for bids. Further they should pay into their own 401ks or IRAs and health plans--the same plans they force on the rest of us--and take those with them when they leave office with no government retirement after that.

Do that and it removes all incentive for dishonorable lobbying, or for anybody who is in office to benefit himself/herself to stay there or run for office at all. That would leave us with public servants who love America and work for the people again and I don't care how long they stick around.

Something has to be done. They voted themselves half the keys to the country during Carter..then they voted themselves the second half during Reagan's second Congress.

They've been living high on our money and making us poorer ever since.

Lobbying needs to be outlawed period. It is bribery.

There is honorable lobbying. There is nothing wrong with an industry or an entity sending representatives to the State House or Washington to explain why this or that legislation would, could, does, doesn't make things better or creates serious problems. It can be a significant and necessary component to educate legislators who have to make those decisions.

Dishonorable lobbying is that which seeks to bribe, extort, coerce, manipulate advantages from the government. Advantages others probably won't have. The proposals I made to restrict anyone in the federal government from responding to that would eliminate it. And it also prevents those in government from extorting money from groups, industries, unions, entities, etc.

I recommend everybody read this short book for a real education on how that works and why a permanent political class in Washington needs to be broken up.

He has an even better one, and solid information on why Mitch McConnel needs to go.

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Empires-American-Political-Corruption-ebook/dp/B07RC557SQ/?tag=usmb-20

I haven't read that one and probably won't until it is cheaper on Kindle. But thanks for the heads up.

I think McConnell is basically a decent human being overall despite being a poster child for the permanent political class. I have no wish to harm him or Schumer or Pelosi et al who are all important members of that same group. If McConnell is ousted, the permanent political class will simply elect somebody else who is proficient at raising money for their campaign coffers, super PACs, the RNC etc.

We need reform of the system to eliminate the permanent political class altogether which means eliminating their ability to so greatly personally profit from their positions that it becomes their Number One priority. Then they will term limit themselves out leaving mostly true public servants in government.

I think it will allow a constitutional amendment to accomplish though which they will never allow. We the people just need to do better in electing true public servants to government positions until they become the majority there.

For all his failings, shortcomings, flaws as a human being and the stumbles along the way, I honestly believe President Trump is a true public servant who is working for us and not for the interests of the permanent political class. Which of course is why the permanent political class and those who admire them in all political parties hate him so much.

It will never happen until we take it away from them. A Constitutional Convention is the only means we have left to take back power from them.

And with as many dishonest, vengeful, hateful, irrational, and downright dangerous idiots out there pulling every string, ethically or unethically, to get their way, a constitutional convention could be a very dangerous thing to have. Those people hate the Constitution and everything it was intended to be. We could lose it.

 

[IM2]

We aren't seeing anything like this from President Trump:

We've seen more than 10,000 lies from Trump.

 

[IM2]

Another good reason for those term limits.
Get the career elites out. All of them.

I can't really say that I can support term limits because so often we get rid of the devil we know and wind up with one far worse. I look at the amazing knowledge of people like Lindsay Graham, Jim Jordan, et al, how much their experience helps us in understanding what is going on, and how unwise it might be in putting inexperienced rookies in charge of issues most critical to the security and well being of the country. (And yes, I have had my issues with Lindsay in the past too, but I'll have to say he has been exemplary the last couple of years.)

I would far rather see us have a constitutional amendment that maybe allows more annual income for our elected representatives, but that would require them to pass no legislation of any kind that benefits any group or entity that does not benefit all, that would not allow them to dispense charity or grants of any kind. And all contracts would be put out for bids. Further they should pay into their own 401ks or IRAs and health plans--the same plans they force on the rest of us--and take those with them when they leave office with no government retirement after that.

Do that and it removes all incentive for dishonorable lobbying, or for anybody who is in office to benefit himself/herself to stay there or run for office at all. That would leave us with public servants who love America and work for the people again and I don't care how long they stick around.

Something has to be done. They voted themselves half the keys to the country during Carter..then they voted themselves the second half during Reagan's second Congress.

They've been living high on our money and making us poorer ever since.

Lobbying needs to be outlawed period. It is bribery.

There is honorable lobbying. There is nothing wrong with an industry or an entity sending representatives to the State House or Washington to explain why this or that legislation would, could, does, doesn't make things better or creates serious problems. It can be a significant and necessary component to educate legislators who have to make those decisions.

Dishonorable lobbying is that which seeks to bribe, extort, coerce, manipulate advantages from the government. Advantages others probably won't have. The proposals I made to restrict anyone in the federal government from responding to that would eliminate it. And it also prevents those in government from extorting money from groups, industries, unions, entities, etc.

I recommend everybody read this short book for a real education on how that works and why a permanent political class in Washington needs to be broken up.

He has an even better one, and solid information on why Mitch McConnel needs to go.

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Empires-American-Political-Corruption-ebook/dp/B07RC557SQ/?tag=usmb-20

I haven't read that one and probably won't until it is cheaper on Kindle. But thanks for the heads up.

I think McConnell is basically a decent human being overall despite being a poster child for the permanent political class. I have no wish to harm him or Schumer or Pelosi et al who are all important members of that same group. If McConnell is ousted, the permanent political class will simply elect somebody else who is proficient at raising money for their campaign coffers, super PACs, the RNC etc.

We need reform of the system to eliminate the permanent political class altogether which means eliminating their ability to so greatly personally profit from their positions that it becomes their Number One priority. Then they will term limit themselves out leaving mostly true public servants in government.

I think it will allow a constitutional amendment to accomplish though which they will never allow. We the people just need to do better in electing true public servants to government positions until they become the majority there.

For all his failings, shortcomings, flaws as a human being and the stumbles along the way, I honestly believe President Trump is a true public servant who is working for us and not for the interests of the permanent political class. Which of course is why the permanent political class and those who admire them in all political parties hate him so much.

Lol!

 

[Foxfyre]

1. At this point Trump certainly is a politician. Before being elected, he acted a lot like politicians do; the bad qualities, at least.

2. I honestly don't know where you get this idea that Trump is so non-partisan. He's made comment after comment about how bad Democrats and 'the left' are, hasn't he?

3. Trump doesn't seem to be an ideologue, unless you were to describe promoting the Trump brand as his ideology.

4. True, but thumbing one's nose at political correctness doesn't have to mean being crass and rude.

5. Has the status quo really changed all that much?

6. Unfortunately, at least based on the things he says, Trump seems like the type who not only won't admit to ever failing, but who would keep promoting a failing policy in order to avoid such an admission. He also comes across as a person who would only go from Plan A to B or C if they were his plans, or he could take credit for them. That's just an impression, though.

7. How do you know what Trump, or any president, is determined to do? I have no idea how Trump compares to other presidents as far as keeping campaign promises. If he's kept more than other presidents, that's admirable.

I think most presidents want the job.

I don't think Trump is the opposite of the professional political class. I think he is more like a somewhat tarnished reflection of them. I think getting someone who is the opposite would be next to impossible because no one one would want to do the job is likely to try to get it. Worse, no one one would want to do the job is likely to get elected, even if they were to run. Presidential elections seem like more of a beauty contest than a political election to me.

You can't find any trait or action of President Trump that would make him part of the permanent political class.

Trump praises and compliments and thanks ANY Democrat who isn't trying to destroy him and his agenda. There are precious few of them, and he well understands that the Republican Party holds the only hope he has for getting legislation done that will help America, however tepid that hope is with status quo Republicans heading the party. So far all the Democrats are offering are short term benefits that cannot be sustained and socialist/even fascist initiatives that will hurt us some in the short term and pretty much all in the long term.

What they are offering could damage America to the point it would resemble Venezuela, not that long ago one of the top economies in the world but due to socialist/fascist policies now reduced to a warring, miserable, dangerous place with poverty, even starvation, too much the norm.

And that list of Trump era accomplishments up there. It ALL is much more than the status quo was. And every President has to live with his own administration's record. The Trump Administration is putting out a very VERY commendable record.

How does anybody justify taking the risk to reverse that just because they hate the President?

Not being part of the permanent political class isn't the same as being the opposite.

Democrat and Republican politicians all spend a large amount of time claiming the other 'side' is going to destroy the country, or is in the process of destroying the country. You yourself seem to have just said that Democrats are only doing things which will hurt the country. I find that idea funny, in a sad sort of way. Democrats and Republicans can and do both have ideas that would work for the country, just as both parties come up with ideas that would not. With a Republican controlled Congress and Presidency, the country has one of the highest deficits in history. With a Democrat controlled Congress and Presidency under Obama, the country had the highest deficit in history. Regardless of the party in power we've had wars and conflicts in various countries around the world. Regardless of the party in power we've had decades of the failed war on drugs. We've had the creation, continuation, and even expansion of the intrusive Patriot Act. Both parties seem to have some of the same bad ideas about how to run the government.

Venezuela was a top economy because of their massive oil reserves, I believe. I don't know if they ever had the sort of economy the US does.

Not everyone agrees with your assessment of the state of the country or of the reasons for why things are the way they are. So not everyone will see it as a risk to reverse some of the things that have occurred during the Trump administration.

I'm curious about which Democrats Trump has praised and complimented.

I get it. You really dislike the President and that probably makes you resist giving him credit for the good things that are happening. I can accept that and appreciate your civility in expressing it. We are unlikely to agree on this one though.

Actually, I dislike the president, but I think all presidents get far too much credit for things like the state of the economy. It doesn't matter if it's Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. Very basically, the executive is supposed to enforce policy, not make it, so I tend to think Congress should have more influence on the economy. Further, I think that government in general is given too much credit for the economy. That tends to ignore both the free market and the influence of the rest of the world. It's just one of many examples of where I think people look to the government too quickly as the answer.

This is a fair assessment with the exception of one thing, government writes the rules of business. There really is no purely free market.

That is true because without RICO and fair trade laws and regulations between the states and between the USA and others, the strong would prey upon the weak with impunity, and the unethical would have nothing to restrain them.

President Trump is the ONLY President in my lifetime with the instincts and the guts to demand the USA get a fair deal in trade agreements with other countries and who has dared to take on the dangerously unethical practices of trade giants like China. Of course the current crop of Democrats pretty much refuse to look to or protect American interests in much of anything, but I am glad to see one by one some of the more reluctant Republicans start coming around to see the wisdom and profit for America in what he is doing.

We need a lot more to do so.

 

[Darkwind]

Something has to be done. They voted themselves half the keys to the country during Carter..then they voted themselves the second half during Reagan's second Congress.

They've been living high on our money and making us poorer ever since.

Lobbying needs to be outlawed period. It is bribery.

There is honorable lobbying. There is nothing wrong with an industry or an entity sending representatives to the State House or Washington to explain why this or that legislation would, could, does, doesn't make things better or creates serious problems. It can be a significant and necessary component to educate legislators who have to make those decisions.

Dishonorable lobbying is that which seeks to bribe, extort, coerce, manipulate advantages from the government. Advantages others probably won't have. The proposals I made to restrict anyone in the federal government from responding to that would eliminate it. And it also prevents those in government from extorting money from groups, industries, unions, entities, etc.

I recommend everybody read this short book for a real education on how that works and why a permanent political class in Washington needs to be broken up.

He has an even better one, and solid information on why Mitch McConnel needs to go.

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Empires-American-Political-Corruption-ebook/dp/B07RC557SQ/?tag=usmb-20

I haven't read that one and probably won't until it is cheaper on Kindle. But thanks for the heads up.

I think McConnell is basically a decent human being overall despite being a poster child for the permanent political class. I have no wish to harm him or Schumer or Pelosi et al who are all important members of that same group. If McConnell is ousted, the permanent political class will simply elect somebody else who is proficient at raising money for their campaign coffers, super PACs, the RNC etc.

We need reform of the system to eliminate the permanent political class altogether which means eliminating their ability to so greatly personally profit from their positions that it becomes their Number One priority. Then they will term limit themselves out leaving mostly true public servants in government.

I think it will allow a constitutional amendment to accomplish though which they will never allow. We the people just need to do better in electing true public servants to government positions until they become the majority there.

For all his failings, shortcomings, flaws as a human being and the stumbles along the way, I honestly believe President Trump is a true public servant who is working for us and not for the interests of the permanent political class. Which of course is why the permanent political class and those who admire them in all political parties hate him so much.

It will never happen until we take it away from them. A Constitutional Convention is the only means we have left to take back power from them.

And with as many dishonest, vengeful, hateful, irrational, and downright dangerous idiots out there pulling every string, ethically or unethically, to get their way, a constitutional convention could be a very dangerous thing to have. Those people hate the Constitution and everything it was intended to be. We could lose it.

We already have.

A Constitutional Convention with a single item on the agenda poses no threat to the tattered Constitution.

Limit the terms of both House and Senate, and make it illegal for ANY family member to be a lobbyist, or at the very least, a lobbyist to the branch of government their family member is a part of.

People continually ask, "How does someone who is barely getting by when they are first elected to Congress, leaving those office decades later multi-millionaires?

The answer is simple. They passed laws prohibiting themselves from taking money for laws but left off their family members.

Its called the "princeling" strategy, and China has benefited enormously from it, much to our regret. Just ask Hunter Biden how well he has done since his father went to China to "Obstentiously" talk with China about their annexation of the South China Sea. Or how his newly funded company, along with Kerry's kid, managed to get involved in the Ukraine energy sector. A more dirty game than any other on the planet.

These people are not going to give up the gravy train. What is best for America is to reign them in, regardless of what political party gets the advantage.

 

[Foxfyre]

We aren't seeing anything like this from President Trump:

We've seen more than 10,000 lies from Trump.

Could you please list them in alphabetical or chronological order?

 

[Foxfyre]

There is honorable lobbying. There is nothing wrong with an industry or an entity sending representatives to the State House or Washington to explain why this or that legislation would, could, does, doesn't make things better or creates serious problems. It can be a significant and necessary component to educate legislators who have to make those decisions.

Dishonorable lobbying is that which seeks to bribe, extort, coerce, manipulate advantages from the government. Advantages others probably won't have. The proposals I made to restrict anyone in the federal government from responding to that would eliminate it. And it also prevents those in government from extorting money from groups, industries, unions, entities, etc.

I recommend everybody read this short book for a real education on how that works and why a permanent political class in Washington needs to be broken up.

He has an even better one, and solid information on why Mitch McConnel needs to go.

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Empires-American-Political-Corruption-ebook/dp/B07RC557SQ/?tag=usmb-20

I haven't read that one and probably won't until it is cheaper on Kindle. But thanks for the heads up.

I think McConnell is basically a decent human being overall despite being a poster child for the permanent political class. I have no wish to harm him or Schumer or Pelosi et al who are all important members of that same group. If McConnell is ousted, the permanent political class will simply elect somebody else who is proficient at raising money for their campaign coffers, super PACs, the RNC etc.

We need reform of the system to eliminate the permanent political class altogether which means eliminating their ability to so greatly personally profit from their positions that it becomes their Number One priority. Then they will term limit themselves out leaving mostly true public servants in government.

I think it will allow a constitutional amendment to accomplish though which they will never allow. We the people just need to do better in electing true public servants to government positions until they become the majority there.

For all his failings, shortcomings, flaws as a human being and the stumbles along the way, I honestly believe President Trump is a true public servant who is working for us and not for the interests of the permanent political class. Which of course is why the permanent political class and those who admire them in all political parties hate him so much.

It will never happen until we take it away from them. A Constitutional Convention is the only means we have left to take back power from them.

And with as many dishonest, vengeful, hateful, irrational, and downright dangerous idiots out there pulling every string, ethically or unethically, to get their way, a constitutional convention could be a very dangerous thing to have. Those people hate the Constitution and everything it was intended to be. We could lose it.

We already have.

A Constitutional Convention with a single item on the agenda poses no threat to the tattered Constitution.

Limit the terms of both House and Senate, and make it illegal for ANY family member to be a lobbyist, or at the very least, a lobbyist to the branch of government their family member is a part of.

People continually ask, "How does someone who is barely getting by when they are first elected to Congress, leaving those office decades later multi-millionaires?

The answer is simple. They passed laws prohibiting themselves from taking money for laws but left off their family members.

Its called the "princeling" strategy, and China has benefited enormously from it, much to our regret. Just ask Hunter Biden how well he has done since his father went to China to "Obstentiously" talk with China about their annexation of the South China Sea. Or how his newly funded company, along with Kerry's kid, managed to get involved in the Ukraine energy sector. A more dirty game than any other on the planet.

These people are not going to give up the gravy train. What is best for America is to reign them in, regardless of what political party gets the advantage.

There is no such thing as a constitutional convention that can be restricted to one item and one item only though. What you are describing is a constitutional amendment.

 

[Darkwind]

He has an even better one, and solid information on why Mitch McConnel needs to go.

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Empires-American-Political-Corruption-ebook/dp/B07RC557SQ/?tag=usmb-20

I haven't read that one and probably won't until it is cheaper on Kindle. But thanks for the heads up.

I think McConnell is basically a decent human being overall despite being a poster child for the permanent political class. I have no wish to harm him or Schumer or Pelosi et al who are all important members of that same group. If McConnell is ousted, the permanent political class will simply elect somebody else who is proficient at raising money for their campaign coffers, super PACs, the RNC etc.

We need reform of the system to eliminate the permanent political class altogether which means eliminating their ability to so greatly personally profit from their positions that it becomes their Number One priority. Then they will term limit themselves out leaving mostly true public servants in government.

I think it will allow a constitutional amendment to accomplish though which they will never allow. We the people just need to do better in electing true public servants to government positions until they become the majority there.

For all his failings, shortcomings, flaws as a human being and the stumbles along the way, I honestly believe President Trump is a true public servant who is working for us and not for the interests of the permanent political class. Which of course is why the permanent political class and those who admire them in all political parties hate him so much.

It will never happen until we take it away from them. A Constitutional Convention is the only means we have left to take back power from them.

And with as many dishonest, vengeful, hateful, irrational, and downright dangerous idiots out there pulling every string, ethically or unethically, to get their way, a constitutional convention could be a very dangerous thing to have. Those people hate the Constitution and everything it was intended to be. We could lose it.

We already have.

A Constitutional Convention with a single item on the agenda poses no threat to the tattered Constitution.

Limit the terms of both House and Senate, and make it illegal for ANY family member to be a lobbyist, or at the very least, a lobbyist to the branch of government their family member is a part of.

People continually ask, "How does someone who is barely getting by when they are first elected to Congress, leaving those office decades later multi-millionaires?

The answer is simple. They passed laws prohibiting themselves from taking money for laws but left off their family members.

Its called the "princeling" strategy, and China has benefited enormously from it, much to our regret. Just ask Hunter Biden how well he has done since his father went to China to "Obstentiously" talk with China about their annexation of the South China Sea. Or how his newly funded company, along with Kerry's kid, managed to get involved in the Ukraine energy sector. A more dirty game than any other on the planet.

These people are not going to give up the gravy train. What is best for America is to reign them in, regardless of what political party gets the advantage.

There is no such thing as a constitutional convention that can be restricted to one item and one item only though. What you are describing is a constitutional amendment.

In fact, there is a natural limitation factor of a Constitutional Convention.

It takes 34 States to ratify it. If you propose a Convention with too many changes, you'll never get the necessary votes.

A convention call with a single issue stands the best chance. A convention limiting the number of terms anyone can serve in the US Congress would go a long way toward eliminating the abuse.

 

[Foxfyre]

I haven't read that one and probably won't until it is cheaper on Kindle. But thanks for the heads up.

I think McConnell is basically a decent human being overall despite being a poster child for the permanent political class. I have no wish to harm him or Schumer or Pelosi et al who are all important members of that same group. If McConnell is ousted, the permanent political class will simply elect somebody else who is proficient at raising money for their campaign coffers, super PACs, the RNC etc.

We need reform of the system to eliminate the permanent political class altogether which means eliminating their ability to so greatly personally profit from their positions that it becomes their Number One priority. Then they will term limit themselves out leaving mostly true public servants in government.

I think it will allow a constitutional amendment to accomplish though which they will never allow. We the people just need to do better in electing true public servants to government positions until they become the majority there.

For all his failings, shortcomings, flaws as a human being and the stumbles along the way, I honestly believe President Trump is a true public servant who is working for us and not for the interests of the permanent political class. Which of course is why the permanent political class and those who admire them in all political parties hate him so much.

It will never happen until we take it away from them. A Constitutional Convention is the only means we have left to take back power from them.

And with as many dishonest, vengeful, hateful, irrational, and downright dangerous idiots out there pulling every string, ethically or unethically, to get their way, a constitutional convention could be a very dangerous thing to have. Those people hate the Constitution and everything it was intended to be. We could lose it.

We already have.

A Constitutional Convention with a single item on the agenda poses no threat to the tattered Constitution.

Limit the terms of both House and Senate, and make it illegal for ANY family member to be a lobbyist, or at the very least, a lobbyist to the branch of government their family member is a part of.

People continually ask, "How does someone who is barely getting by when they are first elected to Congress, leaving those office decades later multi-millionaires?

The answer is simple. They passed laws prohibiting themselves from taking money for laws but left off their family members.

Its called the "princeling" strategy, and China has benefited enormously from it, much to our regret. Just ask Hunter Biden how well he has done since his father went to China to "Obstentiously" talk with China about their annexation of the South China Sea. Or how his newly funded company, along with Kerry's kid, managed to get involved in the Ukraine energy sector. A more dirty game than any other on the planet.

These people are not going to give up the gravy train. What is best for America is to reign them in, regardless of what political party gets the advantage.

There is no such thing as a constitutional convention that can be restricted to one item and one item only though. What you are describing is a constitutional amendment.

In fact, there is a natural limitation factor of a Constitutional Convention.

It takes 34 States to ratify it. If you propose a Convention with too many changes, you'll never get the necessary votes.

A convention call with a single issue stands the best chance. A convention limiting the number of terms anyone can serve in the US Congress would go a long way toward eliminating the abuse.

You might be right re a limited convention though my gut tells me it isn't possible. I'll research it though.

For reasons I have already posted, I am not convinced term limits is the way to go in a world as complicated and dangerous as the one we live in now. I don't want to throw the baby (i.e. experience) out with the bathwater just to get rid of some bad eggs in the permanent political class. Not only could we be in jeopardy with inexperienced, uneducated rookies in charge, our elected officials would be even more dependent on unelected, faceless bureaucrats than they already are.

 

[Darkwind]

It will never happen until we take it away from them. A Constitutional Convention is the only means we have left to take back power from them.

And with as many dishonest, vengeful, hateful, irrational, and downright dangerous idiots out there pulling every string, ethically or unethically, to get their way, a constitutional convention could be a very dangerous thing to have. Those people hate the Constitution and everything it was intended to be. We could lose it.

We already have.

A Constitutional Convention with a single item on the agenda poses no threat to the tattered Constitution.

Limit the terms of both House and Senate, and make it illegal for ANY family member to be a lobbyist, or at the very least, a lobbyist to the branch of government their family member is a part of.

People continually ask, "How does someone who is barely getting by when they are first elected to Congress, leaving those office decades later multi-millionaires?

The answer is simple. They passed laws prohibiting themselves from taking money for laws but left off their family members.

Its called the "princeling" strategy, and China has benefited enormously from it, much to our regret. Just ask Hunter Biden how well he has done since his father went to China to "Obstentiously" talk with China about their annexation of the South China Sea. Or how his newly funded company, along with Kerry's kid, managed to get involved in the Ukraine energy sector. A more dirty game than any other on the planet.

These people are not going to give up the gravy train. What is best for America is to reign them in, regardless of what political party gets the advantage.

There is no such thing as a constitutional convention that can be restricted to one item and one item only though. What you are describing is a constitutional amendment.

In fact, there is a natural limitation factor of a Constitutional Convention.

It takes 34 States to ratify it. If you propose a Convention with too many changes, you'll never get the necessary votes.

A convention call with a single issue stands the best chance. A convention limiting the number of terms anyone can serve in the US Congress would go a long way toward eliminating the abuse.

You might be right re a limited convention though my gut tells me it isn't possible. I'll research it though.

For reasons I have already posted, I am not convinced term limits is the way to go in a world as complicated and dangerous as the one we live in now. I don't want to throw the baby (i.e. experience) out with the bathwater just to get rid of some bad eggs in the permanent political class. Not only could we be in jeopardy with inexperienced, uneducated rookies in charge, our elected officials would be even more dependent on unelected, faceless bureaucrats than they already are.

I disagree. Some ground work will need to be accomplished first however.

For starters, we need to remove the power of the US Government and return it to ONLY what the Constitution authorizes.

It is past time that we wake up to the fact that the Federal Government has no right, power, or purpose to be involved in society. It serves as our instrument to the world in the form of a President, and acts as a mediator between the States, and where applicable, regulates lands not owned by the States or the People.

Nothing more.

Social engineering or society, in general, is to be regulated at the State level and not permitted to influence all citizens for the wants or desires of a few States.

All we really need from the Feds is a strong defense against the world and allow the States to handle our internal problems.

 

[Foxfyre]

And with as many dishonest, vengeful, hateful, irrational, and downright dangerous idiots out there pulling every string, ethically or unethically, to get their way, a constitutional convention could be a very dangerous thing to have. Those people hate the Constitution and everything it was intended to be. We could lose it.

We already have.

A Constitutional Convention with a single item on the agenda poses no threat to the tattered Constitution.

Limit the terms of both House and Senate, and make it illegal for ANY family member to be a lobbyist, or at the very least, a lobbyist to the branch of government their family member is a part of.

People continually ask, "How does someone who is barely getting by when they are first elected to Congress, leaving those office decades later multi-millionaires?

The answer is simple. They passed laws prohibiting themselves from taking money for laws but left off their family members.

Its called the "princeling" strategy, and China has benefited enormously from it, much to our regret. Just ask Hunter Biden how well he has done since his father went to China to "Obstentiously" talk with China about their annexation of the South China Sea. Or how his newly funded company, along with Kerry's kid, managed to get involved in the Ukraine energy sector. A more dirty game than any other on the planet.

These people are not going to give up the gravy train. What is best for America is to reign them in, regardless of what political party gets the advantage.

There is no such thing as a constitutional convention that can be restricted to one item and one item only though. What you are describing is a constitutional amendment.

In fact, there is a natural limitation factor of a Constitutional Convention.

It takes 34 States to ratify it. If you propose a Convention with too many changes, you'll never get the necessary votes.

A convention call with a single issue stands the best chance. A convention limiting the number of terms anyone can serve in the US Congress would go a long way toward eliminating the abuse.

You might be right re a limited convention though my gut tells me it isn't possible. I'll research it though.

For reasons I have already posted, I am not convinced term limits is the way to go in a world as complicated and dangerous as the one we live in now. I don't want to throw the baby (i.e. experience) out with the bathwater just to get rid of some bad eggs in the permanent political class. Not only could we be in jeopardy with inexperienced, uneducated rookies in charge, our elected officials would be even more dependent on unelected, faceless bureaucrats than they already are.

I disagree. Some ground work will need to be accomplished first however.

For starters, we need to remove the power of the US Government and return it to ONLY what the Constitution authorizes.

It is past time that we wake up to the fact that the Federal Government has no right, power, or purpose to be involved in society. It serves as our instrument to the world in the form of a President, and acts as a mediator between the States, and where applicable, regulates lands not owned by the States or the People.

Nothing more.

Social engineering or society, in general, is to be regulated at the State level and not permitted to influence all citizens for the wants or desires of a few States.

All we really need from the Feds is a strong defense against the world and allow the States to handle our internal problems.

The Feds also have to have the power to prevent the states from doing violence to each other. I do agree that the federal government is violating constitutional intent in many ways.

The devil is always in the details of these things though. A federal government given power to dictate what private citizens, once they leave office, cannot do can also dictate what private citizens must do. And term limits won't hamper the ability of the permanent political class to enrich itself at our expense. It will just keep rotating its own in and out of positions which is pretty much what happens now. Those without the endorsement of that permanent political class have far less chance to get elected than those who have that endorsement.

President Trump beat those odds which of course is one reason the permanent political class in both parties hates him. He presents the worst threat to them than anybody in the last 100 years.

We're probably mostly on the same page on this though with a little tweaking of positions here and there.

 

[Dragonlady]

He has torn the country apart, and has left it open to it's enemies, and namely one of it's greatest enemies.

Him being there can only lead to disaster.

LMAO For a torn apart country its doing damned well. A great economy. UE the lowest its been in 50 years and jobs everywhere.

If that's your idea of torn apart then your in the wrong country.

Oh and I don't see any disasters yet. You??

The country is so much more than the economy, and the economy really isn't that great right now. Wages are not rising very quickly. Tax revenues are way, way down, and the public isn't spending.

Trump's constant need for an adversary, someone to take on and defeat, means he uses everything at his disposal to create "enemies". The Democrats, the refugees, the Muslims. It's hateful and divisive. It's not building up anything, just tearing everything apart.

 

[Foxfyre]

He has torn the country apart, and has left it open to it's enemies, and namely one of it's greatest enemies.

Him being there can only lead to disaster.

LMAO For a torn apart country its doing damned well. A great economy. UE the lowest its been in 50 years and jobs everywhere.

If that's your idea of torn apart then your in the wrong country.

Oh and I don't see any disasters yet. You??

The country is so much more than the economy, and the economy really isn't that great right now. Wages are not rising very quickly. Tax revenues are way, way down, and the public isn't spending.

Trump's constant need for an adversary, someone to take on and defeat, means he uses everything at his disposal to create "enemies". The Democrats, the refugees, the Muslims. It's hateful and divisive. It's not building up anything, just tearing everything apart.

The NY Times, Washington Post, et al, no friends of the President, and others of the MSM concede wages are rising at the fastest rate that they have in a decade but at a rate that isn't impacting inflation. And those who most need that increase the most are doing better than the higher paid people. When you have full employment, it is a seller's market for labor. Also family income/wealth that had declined under Obama is again rising.

Trump does not go looking for adversaries. He has adversaries because he poses such a threat to the permanent political class and a socialist and/or Marxist agenda pushed by the Democrats. He is the first President in a very long time willing to put himself out there to solve real problems and actually accomplish good things for America and the American people. And he is demonstrating in spades how ineffective and nonproductive their policies have been for so long.

But yes the country is so much more than the economy. But without the ability to earn a living and take care of yourself and your family, nothing much else matters all that much.