The United States’ socio-economic-political dynamics are certainly in a state of a catch-22. On the off chance, one isn’t familiar with the terminology; catch-22 respectively means ‘damned if you do damned if you don’t’, ‘between a rock and hard place’, and ‘unstoppable force meets an unmovable object’.
Frankly, I consider the prime example right now is Responsibility to Protect and the War Powers’ Act that mandates an attack on the United States is direct and imminent to launch an attack without a Declaration of War utilizing expansionist foreign policy to violate the Constitution and to do so without an alternative established government violates RTP constituting a war-crime to do so under false pretenses is a premeditated war-crime even if one acquires a UN Resolution under false pretenses. The only reason I can think of that they aren’t pursuing impeachment here rather than the Trump-Russia collusion-interference utilizing Mueller is that violating RTP to violate the Constitution implicates HW Bush, W. Bush, B Clinton, Obama, H Clinton, Kerry, and a host of other Democrats’ leadership and Republicans’ leadership.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi believes President Donald Trump will “self-impeach” and that Democrats should wait for the Russia investigations — especially special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe — to play out before pushing to remove him from the Oval Office.
Translation, Trump appearing under oath would set the stage for a perjury trap, and this will justify his removal by either impeachment or 25th Amendment.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that all of these claims end up being completely without merit. How should we go about investigating them?
It is impossible to get at that in a meaningful way without considering the unsettling question: What sort of man is the president of these United States? We know he is a habitual liar, one who tells obvious lies for no apparent reason, from claiming to own hotels that he does not own to boasting about having a romantic relationship with Carla Bruni, which never happened. (“Trump is obviously a lunatic,” Bruni explained.) He invented a series of imaginary friends to lie to the New York press about both his business and sexual careers. He has conducted both his private and public lives with consistent dishonesty and dishonor. He is not a man who can be taken at his word.
(Bold emphasis mine)
Translation, Trump should be removed by the 25th Amendment utilizing an guilty until proven innocent argument that requires a much lower threshold of due process such as criminal statistics of demographics to demographically profile criminality-terrorism. Recall, the author isn’t arguing concrete evidence necessary to beyond a shadow of a doubt to prove guilt but rather guilty until proven innocent, which the argument as presented relays.
Rather ironic coming from a ‘right-wing’ outlet as the National Review, but it is rather a social conservative outlet who utilizes right-wing features to hide their Top-Down ‘moral principle’ solutions in response or retaliation to social liberals’ Top-Down social liberal ‘values’. Not to mention, this is one of the author’s who advocated regions who as America2050 examines in its research doesn’t or benefits little from globalization should move or die attempting to frame the argument.
Beyond his base voters, Trump has an even bigger potential problem looming with his base in Congress. While Republican lawmakers won’t say it publicly, it’s widely known if they could pick between President Pence and President Trump, the Vice President would win 90% of the vote among the GOP.
Recall, recent events utilized gossip of firing Mueller promoted by Trump allies that have since incurred backlash although Trump doesn’t have the power to unilaterally fire Mueller, and the entire affair entered abstract what ifs and possibilities, which is basically ‘Fear Progressive Government with Trump at the helm’ during the primary and general election of the 2016 election cycle.
One of the reader posts featured in my reader recently was this one:
Quoted highlights with limited commentary:
And I believe the same is true of government and religion. Of course, one could argue that there are parallels. And they’d be right. They both try to dictate (some more successfully than others) the lives of the people under them and they’ve both been, until recently, rather self-centered. Things have changed. Times have moved on, and I think it is time for leaders to realise that these two things fundamentally should not go together.
(Bold emphasis mine)
Government-Religious public-private mergers were common through much of history.
The first question we should be asking is what is the role of a government? Is it to tell people what to do? A government may have evolved into a lean mean “Allow me to pummel your beliefs into submission” machine, but the simple fact is, government is fundamentally an idea meant to keep the people of a country safe. And I’m extremely happy to see citizens taking their governments back. A government is no longer an elite society run by the few for the many. It is no longer a faceless, stone wall, but rather recognised as a means by which the country can be made a better place. Religion is a completely different matter. As opposed to an opportunity for congregation and celebration, religion has morphed into an unquestionable, unopposable block by which one must abide. When one is dissatisfied with religion, they can’t become a “religion MP”. They can’t try to make it more tolerant, more open and safer for all. No. Religion will stay as it has for however many years because “tradition”. And this irks me.
(Bold emphasis mine)
The elaboration probably would have benefited by focusing on the difference between public and private as well as the concepts of Sacred Law and Secular Law. The piece would have greatly benefited from this especially given the catch-22.
First, public mainly refers to government authority and powers that are relatively and loosely defined as essential or non-essential.
Private mainly refers to property rights that are in fact derived by an extension of ownership of one’s own body that is a result of investment through compensation of labor by wage, barter, or trade.
Second, Secular Law renders the entire affair as due process and individual rights as privileges often derived by Top-Down solutions in which individual rights becomes a grant of privileges. Such advocates tend to refer to the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights as a grant of rights, which by definition can be revoked by the regime in power.
Sacred Law is a reference of natural rights or otherwise ‘endowed by [a] Creator’ advocates here often refers to the Bill of Rights as enshrining rights in which act as limits to Secular Law.
The best telltale sign is that Secular Law proponents seeking authority and power such as Bismarkianism or Progressives focus on the lack of listing and definitions as limits and thus grant of rights. Sacred Law proponents such as the Bill of Rights enshrines unalienable rights focus on the many writings of in the US’s case ‘the very nature of writing or defining each individual right is a regulatory act that limits rights rather than understanding unalienable rights are transcendent’ meaning they can’t be carefully listed and defined without limiting them.
At such a divided time, we should be attempting to unify the world, bridge gaps between communities and strengthen the relationships between nations of the country so that we can all stand in solidarity against people who try to undermine us and let them know that they will never break us.
Unfortunately, as the old adages goes ‘the more things change; the more they stay the same’ and ‘an attack in all directions is paramount to an attack in no direction’ strikes me as apt given in order to bridge gaps and strengthen communities; one must also be willing to respect their viewpoint as much as they respect people who share their viewpoint. And, the present political ideological dynamics behind domestic and geopolitical balance of power are in the process of a catastrophic shift in balance of power.
This brings me to another post featured in my reader
Not to get too scholarly here, but according to various dictionaries, definitions of loser include the following:
- A person who is incompetent or unable to succeed
- Something doomed to fail or disappoint
- Someone or something that is marked by consistently or thoroughly bad quality, performance, etc.
Trump’s performance during his first six months almost guarantees that his will go down as a failed presidency.
As I’ve highlighted previously
When you look at who the Romney supporters being referred to, it may be prudent to note that the author is proposing targeting to acquire Republican donor class…
… Perhaps, the lack of Democrats’ Leadership unifying and energizing their base factions is strategic rather than tactical.
Winning these voters doesn’t mean that we have to change our agenda. Rather, we have talk about the type of quality-of-life issues that matter to these suburban voters—which means advocating our same policy priorities in tailored ways.
As referenced earlier, this means promotional public relations to political ideologies’ ambitions and visions of the future tailored to a specific group of people.
… The central issue here is if or whether Republicans’ leadership banks on ‘sorting’ and thus hatred of Democrats to impeach/remove Trump to preserve as many Republican donor class as possible with a President Pence or primary challenge Trump in 2020.
… Ultimately, the Democrats’ and Republicans’ leadership have several dilemmas to contend with.
-Unless they are putting their Party before the country, they would do well to remember outside their most ardent support; they are increasingly viewed nearly irredeemably corrupt to irredeemably corrupt.
-Their not going to win any favors from outside their ardent supporters to attack Sanders’ supporters or Trump supporters’.
-If Independent Parties opted to organize to counter the DNC and RNC, they’d overtake the DNC and RNC strategically (in the long-term).
I’ve also written about President Pence possibility before:
… Second, Progressive Republicans have advocated purging TEA Party or otherwise members of TEA Party support that was based on anti-globalization, anti-guilty until proven innocent justice system, and anti-expansionism foreign policies.
Third, Governmental fiefdoms, public-private partnerships, and aspiring public-private mergers as Too Big To Fail Banking institutions aren’t going to accept Sanders’ Democratic Socialism or otherwise populist sentiment opposed to promoting an technologically advanced Agricultural-Consumerist-Service economy whose economic model caters to them. This is the same economic model dating to 1492 and prior; the technological advancement does not alter or change its economic nature…
…This brings us back the former link
Just imagining a President Pence for a minute, one thing is clear: overstressed Republicans in Washington could finally put down their fidget spinners.
Ryan, McConnell, McCain, Portman, Graham, Levin, and etc are Progressive Republicans as are Vice President Pence, Priebus, and otherwise by a factor of 5 to 1 staff-cabinet of the administration. Note, many of these Republicans are precisely the ‘fidget spinners’ the TEA Party references as ‘Republican In Name Only’, well except TEA Party Express Glen Beck conducted a hostile takeover of.
But the bright contrast will shift the party’s image immediately. With some drama, President Pence could immediately assuage both Democrats (by pursuing mutually appealing policy areas – criminal justice reform anyone?)…
In other words, if Progressive Democrats streamline Pence’s staff-cabinet positions, Progressive Republicans who overwhelmingly support Pence will 25th remove Trump from office
(Bold added emphasis)
As for recent articles
In his first major budget hearing since becoming secretary of state in February, the former ExxonMobil CEO told lawmakers Tuesday that the administration will “ask other donors and private sector partners to increase their support” to compensate for cuts in State Department and USAID initiatives.
It would seem that we’re headed for repeating history.
‘Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat history’
‘Those who wish to make history often do so through repeating history’…
On the bright side, Congress finally started enforcing its constitutional checks and balances, but the drawback is that apparently will be short lived.