Update from the
Heartland
No.790
30.1.17 – 5.2.17
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Several federal judges have issued immediate Temporary
Restraining Orders (TRO) to President Trump’s executive order (as
yet unnumbered) titled: “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement
Improvements.” [789] A few judges have refused to
intervene. Of course, The Donald
being The Donald, he goes into grand mal convulsions when anyone tells him
NO! And what does The
Donald do, he fires his acting attorney general and attacked the latest federal
judge, as a “so-called judge.” Then, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected
the government’s (Trump’s) emergency petition to set aside the judge’s TRO,
seeking to hear the fully developed argument from both sides. All this legal turmoil has to be
debilitating for those caught up in this tangled web. Just because he made a
campaign promise to his followers / supporters does not make such action wise
or legal. With every move, he
saunters closer and closer to the archetypical fascist dictator. He still has a way to go to attain the demagoguery
of Adolf Hitler, but hey, he is only two weeks into his 208-week term. The hits just keep coming.
President
Trump nominated Judge Neil McGill Gorsuch of the 10th Circuit Court
of Appeals to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court bench. Gorsuch has very
impressive credentials from his education to the appeals court bench. I have not read one of his rulings,
yet, but he has a reputation for well-written decisions. Then again, so did Merritt Garland, but
the Republicans in the Senate would not give him the time of day. Of course, at the first sign of
resistance, Trump encouraged Senate Republicans to take the nuclear option . .
. so bloody typical . . . burn the house down, he could care less about the
future, collegiality or compromise; he cares only about his agenda, his image. The consistency of his performance
(conduct) is rapidly solidifying.
Rex
Tillerson was confirmed by the Senate to be Secretary of State. If you did not hear Tillerson speech to
the State Department staff, I urge everyone to listen to it – most impressive
actually. He was humble,
respectful and self-effacing . . . qualities his boss is completely devoid of
in any form. This is going to be
interesting.
President
Trump was invited to the National Prayer Breakfast, as all presidents have been
since the gathering’s inception in 1953.
It is intended to be an event of camaraderie and affirmation. And, what do we get from the
bonehead-in-chief? The audience
and the world are subjected to his narcissism at a rather disgusting and debasing
level. Instead of talking about
uplifting subjects for the good of this Grand Republic, he chooses to malign
the television ratings of “Celebrity Apprentice” with Arnold Schwarzenegger, as
if that is some important topic for any of us (other than him, of course, and
the feeding of his ego) or the rest of the world. This man has no dignity . . . or any other admirable trait in
a human being.
On
Friday, President Trump signed yet another “Make-a-Wish” executive order. This one titled: “Core Principles for
Regulating the United States Financial System.” The words are positively suggestive in that they say many of
the correct things; however, there is no detail to explain or specify how these
words are to be implemented.
Further, while not attacking existing law directly, the words suggest he
intends to seek repeal or major diminishment of Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act [PL 111-203; 124 Stat. 1376] [21.July.2010; 468, 544]. I understand that the rich folks in this Grand Republic and
elsewhere want a no-holds-barred, anything goes environment for them to extract
as much money as they are able from the rest of us without being threatened by
some prosecutor; but the laissez-faire approach to financial
system regulation did NOT work. We
tried that when Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Financial Services
Modernization Act of 1999 (AKA Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) [PL 106-102; 113 Stat.
1338] [12.November.1999; 353] that
repealed most of the Banking Act of 1933 (AKA Glass-Steagall Act of 1933) [PL
73-I-066; 48 Stat. 162 (1933)] [16.June.1933]. Please note the dates and ask yourself,
how did we do financially between 1933 and 1999, and then ask yourself how did
we do between 1999 and 2010.
Dodd-Frank is certainly not a perfect law, but it is far better than
what we had. Bankers and other
moneymen are human beings. They
are subject to the same flaws as all the rest of us, and it could be argued
they have amplified flaws. They
made a lot of money between 1999 and 2008, but with their greed, all the rest
of us suffered the trauma of the Great Recession. Nope, there is no reason to trust them. Sure, they will not make as much money
as quickly as they can with the regulation in place, but they still make far
more money than all the rest of us combined. While I will not reject the President’s executive order
off-hand, I want to see a lot more about what he really means in those nice
words. I would urge all of us to
pay attention to this one, as the consequences can and probably will affect all
of our lives.
The
bulk of this week’s Update appears in the Comment Section below . . . not that
I really needed to state the obvious.
As
I edit this week’s Update, I am struck by the reality that it is all about
Trump, which is exactly what his narcissism and egocentricity wants and
needs. He has to be the center of
attention . . . he is still seeking daddy’s approval. I would rather discuss anything else.
Another comment
to the Update no.788 edition Blog:
“Regarding the Trump vs. The Press.
“Do you think Trump
is trying to fatigue people with all of his bizarre tweets and wild behaviour? I realized yesterday that I didn't want
to watch or read the news because it would be about Trump. All the news even
our Canadian news is focused on Trump, it's the 24-hour Trump show. We're being
distracted by his un-president-like actions and bold moves and we're not paying
attention to anything else, is this a deliberate strategy? It's become tiring to watch and he has
only just started his term. If the public stop reading/watching he can get away
with whatever he wants.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
“Do
you think Trump is trying to fatigue people with all of his bizarre tweets and
wild behaviour?” That
thought has crossed my mind a few times.
One of Goebbels’ developed theories of propaganda was to saturate the
information network (they killed off any Press dissent, literally) with
meaningless “news” to avoid any discussion about the really sensitive stuff,
like their monumental defeat at Stalingrad.
There
is little doubt in my little pea-brain that he is making a concerted effort to
define a new normal for information overload. Again, there is little doubt he seeks “the
24-hour Trump show.” His
narcissism and egocentricity dictate that he MUST be the focus of public
discourse; he is a prima donna
(feminine intended) after all.
Re:
“is
this a deliberate strategy?”
My opinion: YES!
Re:
“he
can get away with whatever he wants.” I intend to do my best to remain vigilant, critical and
vociferous. I will NOT be one of
those silent dissenters in Germany 84 years ago. I may get a visit from the thought-police in the middle of
the night, but I’ll deal with that when it happens. I am neither helpless nor passive.
. . . Round two:
“I didn't know that Goebbels did that that's makes it a scary kind
of interesting that Trump is doing it. Sidenote that reminded me I watched a documentary recently
about the children of infamous Nazi's, Goebbels was one of them. It was about what the children's
lives were like growing up during the war and afterwards with their
father’s last names. What a
burden.
“I'm afraid people will eventually tune out from information
overload, let's hope there are enough Americans who won't!”
. . . my response to round two:
Re:
Goebbels. He did a lot of really
bad things. There were a lot of
reasons he was such a high ranking National Socialist and governmental
minister.
Re:
Sidenote. Did the documentary
disclose the fate of Goebbels’ children?
That was a sign of his ruthlessness. I’ve heard some of the stories of the children of Nazi
leaders, but I have not seen that documentary.
Re:
information overload. I hope and
trust you are correct – there will be enough Americans who will refuse to be
distracted or saturated by the subterfuge and obfuscation of the
administration.
. . . Round three:
“Oh I've heard of him. I googled it and I'm pretty sure it was the documentary
'Hitler's children'. It was
interesting and sad some of them have a lot of shame. Inspiring too because if I recall
correctly one man uses his history to speak at schools to teach children
about the war. I don't want to
give away too much just in case you watch it. I can't recall if they said what happened to Goebbels'
children, I don't think his kids or descendants were in it but it's been
awhile since I watched it. I can't say I'm very good with names, actually
I'm terrible with names.”
. . . my response to round three:
I
saw and took notes on a History Channel documentary “Hitler’s Perfect Children”
– perhaps the same one.
The
children of those mad men were indeed a tragic lot.
Goebbels’
children were injected with morphine, and then cyanide capsules were crushed in
their mouths. All six were
murdered by their parents with the assistance of the SS, before their parents
committed suicide. Six innocent
children! They were not good men.
Comments and contributions from Update no.789:
“Cap, you’ve used this expression several times of late-would you
kindly explain- Would anyone with
the proper decoder ring?”
My reply:
Re:
decoder ring. There are several
references in comic book series stories and well as various fictional story
lines. The decoder ring enables
characters to understand coded messages.
It seems like a perfect analogy given our new president’s penchant for
not speaking the King’s English. I
cannot count the number of times he has said something in public, either spoken
word or tweet, and the talking heads must come along behind him to explain what
he really meant to say. He clearly
is not speaking any form of English I am familiar with, which suggests some
form of fictional decoder ring must exist to translate his gibberish into proper
communication.
Hope
this helps. If not, shoot back.
Comment to the Blog:
“If ‘liberals protest, conservatives vote,’ why did Hillary
Clinton get 2.8 million more votes than Trump in our recent election? I grant you that many progressives,
including me, refused to vote for either of those, but the totals are easily
verifiable. Millions more people voted Democrat.
"Trump’s bluster about fraudulent voters only emphasizes that we
must see him through the lens of abnormal psychology, parallel to the way a
police profiler predicts and locates a serial killer. Don’t expect ordinary logic of the
mentally ill. This entails quite a bit more than the ‘monumental ego’ so common
in public figures. It involves a
well-defined set of behaviors and underlying issues that can be studied and
used. His ‘sore winner’ behavior
is surely part of that. Others,
including Steve Bannon, know how to make the most of Trump’s condition. Bannon, potentially unstable himself and
certainly hateful and harmful, could do major damage on the National Security
Council and within the White House.
“The Republicans are not the only ones with complaints about our
election process (beyond imaginary fraudulent voters). The Democrat primary process and the
possible Russian (or other) influences deserve our attention. So does getting rid of the Electoral
College system that got us into a Trump Presidency. That system ignores the notion that ‘all men are created
equal.’
“Trump’s immigration order troubles and the delay of Brexit
illustrate the resistance to the radical right’s attempt at a quick takeover of
the western world.
“The border fence is a distraction.
“I share your UK correspondent’s view of our health care ‘system.’
Explanation? We do not follow the examples of
advanced nations because what we have now benefits the major campaign donors at
insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats want to give up those
donations.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
voting. As I mentioned in my
original statement, this is my perception. How often do you see conservatives protesting? It is also my perception that the
percentage of registered Democrats actually voting is consistently lower than
the percentage of registered Republicans who actually vote. Just my perception, nothing more.
He
is not the only person today or in history with a monumental ego. Yet, he is a rare bird in the
combination of negative traits as well as the magnitude to each. I have seen and studied monumental
egos, but none with so many, off-the-scale, negative traits.
We
have discussed the presidential election process. I understand and appreciate your reasoning for a national
presidential popular vote election process. Unfortunately, as a student of history, I apparently place
too much weight on the balance between federal and states rights. Elimination of the states in this
instance would upset that balance in my humble opinion. I will stay with the tried and true
constitutional system, even though it elected the most dangerous of all the
candidates. In the long run, the
Electoral College system serves a real purpose.
Resistance
to the radical right . . . quite so.
The resistance will undoubtedly grow. Unfortunately, like Nero, he appears to be oblivious to the
chaos he is creating directly by his signature alone.
A
very expensive distraction . . . that wall.
Political
donations . . . of that we share a common view.
. . . Round two:
“Nobody's ever explained what states' rights have to do with one
voter being equal to any other voter. It's a Federal election, not a state
issue. The states ought not to have power over Federal issues, and there's no
sane reason to favor one state's voters over another's.”
. . . my response to round two:
By
your words, I presume you are quite content to have the presidential elections
decided by voters in a handful of the most populated states. Is that correct? There will be no more Iowa, New
Hampshire, or even Wisconsin or Michigan.
The only voters who will matter are in California, Texas, Florida, New
York, and Illinois . . . well, maybe add in Ohio from time to time. Oh wait, you are in Ohio, so perhaps
that is perfectly acceptable. The
top nine states . . . down to North Carolina . . . have more than half the
population. Should the rest of us
just abdicate to the people in those states?
I
understand that you do not accept my arguments for states’ rights and that is
your choice entirely. Like you, I
have not seen sufficient rationale to throw away 230 years of history.
This
Grand Republic has never been about majority rule; it has always been about
trying to find a balance between large and small, between city and rural,
between rich and poor, and between strong and weak. Further, if we break down the Electoral College, perhaps we
should disband the Senate, eliminate state laws, oh heck, while we’re at it,
let’s just eliminate state names and the name of this Grand Republic . . .
let’s just call it America and forget about the united . . . states. History does not matter a hoot anyway.
. . . Round three:
“When has the U.S. not been about majority rule (with minority
rights protected)? I still do not understand what justifies one voter being
more important than another.”
. . . my response to round three:
Re:
“When
has the U.S. not been about majority rule (with minority rights protected)?” Short answer: from the get-go (1787),
e.g., Supreme Court, amendments to the Constitution, votes required to override
a presidential veto, votes to end a filibuster in the Senate, et al. There are numerous instances that
exceed simple majority rule.
Re:
“I
still do not understand what justifies one voter being more important than
another.” Every vote counts
the same: rich, poor, educated, uneducated, man, female . . . every vote is the
same. What you continue to seek to
ignore is those votes are collected and reported by the states in accordance
with the laws of each respective state.
The states can collectively change their rules, as Maryland did
[10.April.2007; 279], to abdicate
their autonomy regarding presidential elections. To my knowledge, no other state has so abdicated. You are suggesting that the votes of
citizens are differentiated. I
contend they are not . . . within each state. By the Constitution, we cannot ignore the states.
A different contribution:
“I just might do what a visitor at the Air Force Museum recently
asked me. Just before election time, we had two dozen visitors from New
Zealand & Australia. Out of no
where, one asked me – ‘After your election, you want to move to New Zealand?’
“Now, I guess we will no longer have those people visiting.”
My reply:
Oh,
this too shall pass. In time,
folks will adapt to the new normal.
I expect . . . or maybe it is hope . . . the chaos he seems to enjoy and
thus creates will ebb as he runs out of pots to stir. Time shall tell the tale.
Another contribution:
“There is much to absorb in your Update, and I invite readers in
my group to please feel free to add your opinion, debate, discourse, etc.
“Cap, I made it clear in social media, how I see it right now:
"Trump will either fix things or
destroy order, to be replaced by chaos. Time will tell and it may be a short
time." [Emphasis: original author]
We have an apprentice now as POTUS, and while many of us want(ed)
change, it could take us to a place all of us regret. I am getting a more
uneasy feeling about the new administration, than the day of the inauguration,
when many of us were high on euphoria, since many of us were hypoxic, because
we were so oxygen starved from 8-years, we could not see the forest from the
trees.
“I'm gonna take a lot of heat for this post I just opined.”
My response:
I
will agree with your emphasized statement. I would not give him credit for the noble title of
apprentice, but hey that is just me.
That
said, I cannot and will not agree to your assessment of the Obama
administration. I give President
Obama a great deal of credit for trying to mitigate the “Ugly American”
syndrome in the international arena.
The Trump-ster appears to be seeking and hell-bent upon full and
amplified reinstatement of that schoolyard bully mentality; it will not serve
us well. I have railed against the
“Ugly American” since I was first exposed to it internationally in the 1960’s;
my rejection of that mentality has only solidified with age and experience.
. . . follow-up comment:
“That certainly is one of my concerns about the ‘Ugly American’
syndrome, and what we project to others as a nation. It is not attractive to me to see Americans that really
believe they are superior to most others in the world (yet most have never left
America for travel). The hubris is
troubling, especially if it is being modeled as an acceptable form for our
leaders.
“I have serious concerns about Trump, having said that, I
apologize to some that I am not giving Trump more time to prove some of our
worst predictions, wrong. I will
give Trump great credit for keeping some of his promises so far, at least
getting the balls rolling (whether they land on our house crushing it, or
somewhere else, we do not know). There is a sense of good pace, velocity, momentum, that Trump
& Camp have demonstrated, which is refreshing. Let’s just hope it leads us out of the condition I believe
our country is truly in.
“Thanks for allowing me this contribution. I have an open mind, and will be the
first to admit I am/was wrong, but need to give Trump more time to either fix
things or cause the world more chaos. Maybe the powers-that-be want such disruption to existing
orders, I do not know.
“Neil Gorsuch seems like a worthy Supreme Court judge nominee, but
it seems there may be a fight.”
. . . my follow-up response:
Re:
“Ugly American” syndrome. I could
tell you far too many stories of my passive observations during my many travels
outside the United States. The
syndrome is real, tangible, persistent and hubris indeed, as you say, quite
troubling. It is also
extraordinarily counter-productive to peaceful relations with our
neighbors. And, now, we have the
ultimate ugly American ‘leading’ this Grand Republic.
Re:
“give
Trump great credit.” I will
not be joining you, just yet. I
have clearly objected to many of his signature ‘deals,’ and I still object to
them. The fact that he has taken
unilateral action with the stroke of a pen without even consulting the
departments required to implement his brain farts does not speak well for him
or the new administration. That
said, I will join you in giving him credit for this lobbying hiatus, and I
truly want his nominations for Defense and Homeland Security to be
exceptionally successful. I want
him to be successful for all of us.
Just
a little side note: Franklin Roosevelt was notorious for executive action, but
he was politically savvy and experienced enough to manage the implementation
exceptionally well. The debacle of
the travel ban portends ineptitude.
I
have always striven to keep an open mind about presidential conduct. I have witnessed good and bad in every
single president for whom I have independent thought and assessment (from
Kennedy on) [I could say Eisenhower, but I was still too deeply influenced by
my parents and teachers]. The
issue always boils down to the tilting of the balance scales in one direction
or the other.
I
have not read any of Gorsuch’s rulings, but he certainly has impressive
credentials. People who have read
his writing claim Gorsuch is also an exceptional writer. I did not always agree with Scalia, but
I most definitely admired his writing.
Gorsuch claims to be a strict constructionist, or at least that’s the
label many give him, and in that sense, I will probably not agree with him much
either, for reasons similar to those by which I objected to Scalia’s
reasoning. The battleground will
be a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy. Unless he has some bonehead conduct in his past, like the
man who nominated him, I cannot imagine anyone being successful in assailing
his credentials and qualifications for the seat. But hey, we elected the man despite his gargantuan and
clearly visible flaws, so I guess anything is possible.
. . . a third party contributor via this
contributor:
“Cap, you have touched a deep sense about which I must respond,
but first I agree that Obama gets credit for trying to mitigate some Ugly
American foreign policy misadventures and the catastrophic failures of the last
administrations, especially the disastrous Bush II neo-CON long nasty 8 years. Iran and Cuba are examples of
intelligently restrained foreign policy.
Though in his last term, Obama was struck with the Ugly American hubris
bug: the bugaboos of ‘American exceptionalism and indispensability." Those two successes were followed by
continuous bungles, the biggest and most dangerous were his disastrous Russia
policies, not to mention the wholesale failure of his Israel/Palestine endeavor
for justice and his Syria war mongering red-line rhetoric while supporting
terrorists to undermine a sovereign government.
“In the first 2-3 weeks of the Trump campaign, it struck me what
this man Trump was made of, inside and out, what he always was about....and
what he would continue to project into the future--at least superficially. Even if only NOW to achieve his goals
from his Ugly American shock effect.
“I said, you know,
(to my spouse and best friend) Trump could be wrapped up in one brief
expression or evaluation: more than any other blowhard American I've ever met
on my travels here and abroad or read about.... he, Trump is the proud,
multi-award winning Quintessential Ugly American of the
last some 70 years!!
[emphasis: original author] (Remember the then popular non-fiction book
"The Ugly American," penned in the sixties or was it the seventies?) It was recommended all travellers to
foreign destinations read the book and resist displaying Ugly American
behaviors.
“Ugly Americans are rare.
Most Americans one meets anywhere on this planet are polite and pleasant
and many are very kind. Those rare
Ugly Americans one runs into are usually rich or fancy themselves as such. Too many rich people are bedeviled by
the demons of small mindedness. By
dint of their riches, they consider themselves ENTITLED to all sorts of
idiocies. They compound their
insecurities by being gasbags and showoffs, braggarts and boasters
galore...with not a hint of recognition that they care about the rotten impressions
they spread around. In fact, they
enjoy offending people--it's inbred in their DNA. They are drunk with hubris, almost helpless with their self
delusions. What makes it worse is
there is no accountability. Those
traits consist further of monumental selfishness, egotism to the extreme,
childish bad tempers. They adore
basking in the limelight for show, without exception... to play their silly,
loud mouth-tantrum-like theatrics with devilish glee---like those mischievous
imps of yester year's fairy tales. This is Trump. ‘I
know the system better than anyone else, thus I'm the only one that can fix it.’
Since his is now POTUS we, and the
rest of the world, can only hope and pray his antics and braggadocio is mainly
a show to advance the betterment of the nation--and not a self serving, devious
play with all the demons released from Pandora's box.
“Later in Trump's campaign, I would broaden that evaluation when
it comes to the idiosyncrasies of Trump. In his case, he not only enjoys the show of himself as the
main and only character know-it-all, but he uses all those traits strategically
and tactically to achieve his goals--so far quite successfully. As a disrupter of a deeply corrupt but
very entrenched, elitist Deep State led government, Trump realizes or thinks
only shock and awe can ‘drain the swamp’ of the filth, as he puts it. The grand question is, when will that
cess-pool of the misdirected and the debauched...of the now extremely insecure
and the enormously angry political and bureaucratic led government, allow him
to progress. That is the great
question!
“It would be unbelievably naive to think Trump as refreshingly
honest to begin with and/or that he is all of a sudden a revamped human from
his previous emotional and psychological state of being for some 70 years. Just not exposing his tax history speaks
volumes, especially since he has admitted that ‘smart people don't pay or pay
the very least taxes they can get away with.’ Yet he proposes multi-trillion dollar projects out of thin
air with no tax revenues to back them. All this while the nation wallows under the scourge of a 20
trillion-dollar national deficit!
“Trump has more than his share of corruption and dirty deals in
his long history of big business and much, if not all of it, heavily exposed in
numerous books, some which go all the way back to the sixties--on up to the
very present.
“But who knows, miracles happen!! Maybe he is now sincerely concerned about his nation and his
fellow Americans. Maybe he does
mean well. Maybe he has overcome some of his Ugly American swellhead
nasties and maybe age is gracing him with some special foresight before he
departs life.
“Only time will tell. But the establishment will make everything Trump attempts
very very difficult. And all the
more, the question arises...will he survive his enemies.”
. . . my response to the third-party contribution:
In
the main, I agree with most of your treatise. However, there are a few counter-points I must add.
First,
an erratum . . . since it is the
central thread . . . The Ugly American was a novel . . . fiction . . . based on
the observations of the authors, not non-fiction.
Burdick, Eugene, and William Lederer. The
Ugly American. New York:
W. W. Norton & Company, 1958.
Second,
I absolutely agree with your statement: “Trump is the proud, multi-award
winning . . . Quintessential Ugly American of the last some 70 years!!” I could not have said it better. However, your preceding statement:
“Obama was struck with the Ugly American hubris bug” seems deeply
contradictory. As it appears to
me, based on my knowledge of such things, Obama is the antithesis of Trump. Republicans wailed and whined about
Obama’s “Apology Tour” early on in his presidency. Obama worked very hard to soften the American image in the
world community and increase mutual cooperation. He held out the olive branch to Russia and got smacked in
the face for his effort. Does that
make the effort wrong or hubris? I
do not think so. Yes, without
qualification, Obama made a dreadful mistake in Iraq and Syria (especially the
latter). Teddy Roosevelt taught
us, never make a threat you are not fully prepared to deliver in full
measure. Obama failed in spades;
we suffer the consequences today.
Re:
“Ugly Americans are rare.” My
first reaction was no way. As I
thought about things and considered my words, I will say, I have no scientific,
factual data to substantiate my opinion.
That said, let it suffice to say, in my world travels, I have personally
seen and witnessed (and wanted to smack them up-side the head) far too many
Ugly Americans in every country, in every time over the last 50+ years. One Ugly American is too many. Are most (a significant majority) of
American citizens travelling overseas good, decent, respectful people? Yes, absolutely, without question;
however, it only takes one bad apple to spoil the barrel . . . quickly . . . 0and
my experience says there are more than a few bad apples.
Lastly,
19% of the American population voted for Trump. He made his Ugly American persona, stance, position and
plans quite visible and in full display during the campaign, and yet 19% of
Americans voted for him. So, presumably,
those Americans who voted for him are quite happy, content and satisfied with
his Ugly American approach to international relations . . . the big-dawg bully
is back. I, for one, am NOT a fan
of such behavior in a private citizen or the President of the United States;
every American represents this Grand Republic in the world neighborhood. Unfortunately, I must say, he does NOT
represent me.
. . . with the contributor’s add-on:
“It would be interesting to see how many Trump voters may have
changed their minds once the hangover wore (wears) off?”
. . . along with my response:
Yes,
it would be VERY interesting. Caveat emptor!
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment