Trump for president!!
That's right. I said it. Read here and here for a primmer. Now here's my thought. It is my FIRM belief that the biggest problem facing our country is the corruption in the house and senate. And I'm not talking about corruption as in "senator so and so is taking money to turn his back while innocent people are being murdered," but rather "senator so and so is taking money to advance someones agenda ahead of what is best for our country." Sometimes these things might seem innocent or at least justifiable, but the problem is that it never is. Commities, groups, companies, and now (since the 1990s, thanks Clinton) foreign countries even, are influencing our politics via the very people we elect to represent US!! You don't hear about it because a political party can't very well criticize the other party for doing the same things it does or would like to do.
That's why Clinton was impeached for lying about Lewinsky, but not for taking money from the Chinese for fundraising. Because the Republicans thought it was a great idea and probably wanted to give it a try. Big thanks to Dan Carlin at Common Sense for reminding me of that one. It looks like any organization can spend money on political ads, even if it gets foreign donations, provided "foreign money is kept separate and not used for the ad." Is there any such thing? I mean, anyone who has ever been married or cohabitated knows there is no such thing as separate funds. Say I want a $900 TV and all I have is $1000 and rent is due next week. Obviously I can't buy the TV, because I have to pay the rent. But if my neighbor gives me $900, I can now spend his $900 and $100 of my own on rent, and then only "my" $900 on the TV. That's the way I understand the law, and it's freakin stupid, obviously written by someone who wanted to get around the spirit of keeping foreign interests out of our domestic activities. What's next? Are we going to let other countries decide who we go to war with? Wait, Israel is probably working on that one already.
Bring in an outsider, though, and things change. Not only would Trump be ABLE to critcize both parties for corruption, even when it isn't technically corruption, he would almost certainly HAVE to in order to be viable. I know, he isn't lily-white, but at least it's out there. He is a public figure, and we have a good idea of what he has done. To the questions about his foreign policy expertise? So what? There are thousands, maybe more, people in the country with a much better idea of foreign policy than anyone who's EVER been president. The president's job is to select the right people to advise him, and Trump is obviously proven a critical thinker and human resource identifier. His experience in front of a tv camera would be another asset to him in debates. My favorite part is that, unlike my man Ron Paul, if Trump commits to this adventure, he would likely go all-in, and when he opens his mouth, whether they do it from respect, admiration, or for sheer entertainment, people LISTEN. Even if he isn't elected, but runs and runs his mouth, he could serve as the catalyst to bring a bit of change to this stagnant governance of ours. Let's get this guy in there, and start telling our reps and senators "you're fired."
That's why Clinton was impeached for lying about Lewinsky, but not for taking money from the Chinese for fundraising. Because the Republicans thought it was a great idea and probably wanted to give it a try. Big thanks to Dan Carlin at Common Sense for reminding me of that one. It looks like any organization can spend money on political ads, even if it gets foreign donations, provided "foreign money is kept separate and not used for the ad." Is there any such thing? I mean, anyone who has ever been married or cohabitated knows there is no such thing as separate funds. Say I want a $900 TV and all I have is $1000 and rent is due next week. Obviously I can't buy the TV, because I have to pay the rent. But if my neighbor gives me $900, I can now spend his $900 and $100 of my own on rent, and then only "my" $900 on the TV. That's the way I understand the law, and it's freakin stupid, obviously written by someone who wanted to get around the spirit of keeping foreign interests out of our domestic activities. What's next? Are we going to let other countries decide who we go to war with? Wait, Israel is probably working on that one already.
Bring in an outsider, though, and things change. Not only would Trump be ABLE to critcize both parties for corruption, even when it isn't technically corruption, he would almost certainly HAVE to in order to be viable. I know, he isn't lily-white, but at least it's out there. He is a public figure, and we have a good idea of what he has done. To the questions about his foreign policy expertise? So what? There are thousands, maybe more, people in the country with a much better idea of foreign policy than anyone who's EVER been president. The president's job is to select the right people to advise him, and Trump is obviously proven a critical thinker and human resource identifier. His experience in front of a tv camera would be another asset to him in debates. My favorite part is that, unlike my man Ron Paul, if Trump commits to this adventure, he would likely go all-in, and when he opens his mouth, whether they do it from respect, admiration, or for sheer entertainment, people LISTEN. Even if he isn't elected, but runs and runs his mouth, he could serve as the catalyst to bring a bit of change to this stagnant governance of ours. Let's get this guy in there, and start telling our reps and senators "you're fired."
Comments