Letter: Suckers!
PT Barnum once said “a sucker is born every minute” and Trump seems to be proving Barnum’s words ring true!
As Trump softens his positions across the board, positions he took to get elected by fed up voters, it seems he is more interested in reassuring and maintaining relationships with his past friends and associates.
Trump may be the greatest showman of all as he has reversed course on much of his rhetoric. He is talking to the media he despised (New York Times, 60 Minutes, etc.). After saying she should be in jail, he has forgiven Hillary Clinton, alluding to the fact that she is indeed above the law and he has decided she has suffered enough. He is appointing individuals to cabinet positions who aggressively opposed. He has accepted some provisions of Obamacare—which might be workable, but the entire plan needs to be replaced. Also, he relaxed his talk on the WALL and immigration issues; he never talks of his proposed term limits; and more.
It appears he wants to be liked by his recent bipartisan foes, the media, the general public at large and may have smartly played into the obvious frustrations of the American people, but now reverts to his “Apprentice” self, by keeping control of his business empire, making Hillary’s play for pay schemes look childish and continues with his SHOWMANSHIP ways.
Hillary won the majority of the popular vote by over 2 million votes, yet the right wing crows like it was a great mandate from the vast majority of Americans just because of the apparent electoral college win. Most of my friends that voted were not voting for Trump but against Hillary. Like everyone was saying, “the lesser of two evils.”
Trump’s apparent electoral college win was not to show America’s support of the Nazi hand salute, the ultra right wing or the tea party.
Trump successfully tapped into the anger of the nation. If his anger was just part of his plan to win the game as a showman, then it appears he may let us down as he will fail to bring significant change to the government, and instead, cuddle with his elitist friends.
I hope Trump stays on the most difficult path of all as immense change is needed throughout the entire government.
I was hoping he was sincere when he said he was going to drain the DC swamp. But it is becoming apparent, like all politicians, he was simply lying. Now, it appears he is only changing the faces of the existing establishment alligators and snakes.
If our voices are not heard and politicians continue their path of deceit, I fear our beloved nation could degenerate into a fallen, broken country that may end up actually in combat of some type, as the extreme polar ends of the spectrum are on display regarding what the American people desire our country to represent!
So, in the end, all of us extremely frustrated people, without voices in our government, unable to trust any politician, as they obviously all lie to get votes, may be the ultimate suckers!
I fear the Trump-machine’s real agenda was not to make America great again, but rather to make Republicans great again.
All this election proved is that both major parties are corrupt at the national level.
Dan Barrett
Jasper, Ind.
C’mon Dan. EVEN I gave obumbzo 6 months to show us what his true colors were. but that 6 months started after the day he was sworn in as president. he may turn out to be the “Greatest Show on Earth” or what lies on the floor of “Big Top”. but at least cut him some slack and give him a little bit of a chance.
Great Letter Mr. Barrett. We are all just waiting for the impeachment that our Constitution provides for trumpf and idiots that think they can destroy this great Country. Mr. Wilkinson, hope you have purchased the trumpf hat to hang on your Christmas tree.
Mrs. Stranger
Chuckle! Chuckle! as I said your just the gift that just keeps on giving and giving! looking forward to at least four years of your jocularity!
The problem is Trump has already revealed his hand, months before being sworn in. Yesterday he said that people who burn the flag should be thrown in jail and stripped of their citizenship. He isn’t aware that the Supreme Court has twice, with the strong concurrence from the sainted Antonin Scalia, held that such conduct was core political speech — the kind of speech that is given the highest level of constitutional protection.
HE DIDNT KNOW THAT. The depth of his ignorance is breathtaking. And we are to trust him with our constitutional rights?
This is just another diversionary Trump tactic to lead the press away from what is important, which in this case are the financial conflicts of interest he faces at every turn. Unless he tidies that up, the credibility of his administration is undermined before it even begins.
Hillary Clinton co-sponsored a Flag Burning bill in the Senate in 2005, to force the court to revisit their 1989 decision to allow flag burning. So she too agreed with Donald Trump even though she knew the Supreme Court had already sanctioned flag burning as a form of free speech. The bill missed by one vote of making it out of committee and to the floor for a vote.
“(c) Flag burning.—Any person who shall intentionally threaten or intimidate any person or group of persons by burning, or causing to be burned, a flag of the United States shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.”
https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-bill/1911/text
“The Flag Protection Act of 2005 was a proposed United States federal law introduced in the United States Senate at the 109th United States Congress on October 24, 2005, by Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah) and co-sponsored by Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.)”
“Although the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson (1989) that flag-burning was protected by the First Amendment, the bill was intended, according to the New York Times, to take the issue back to the Supreme Court which was more conservative in 2005 than it was in 1989 in order to overturn that earlier decision. Since the law was not passed or even considered by the United States Congress, its constitutionality was never challenged in the Supreme Court.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005
Overturning a Supreme Court decision is not impossible and has in fact been done more than 100 times by the court itself. There are two ways to overturn a Supreme Court decision.
1. States can amend the Constitution itself. This requires approval by three-quarters of the state legislatures — no easy feat. However, it has happened several times.
2. The Supreme Court can overrule itself. This happens when a different case involving the same constitutional issues as an earlier case is reviewed by the court and seen in a new light, typically because of changing social and political situations. The longer the amount of time between the cases, the more likely this is to occur (partly due to stare decisis).
Here are some recent examples you might recall.
“On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges decision that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states. The Court overruled its prior decision in Baker v. Nelson 1972, which the Sixth Circuit had invoked as precedent.”
“In 2003, the Supreme Court decided the case of Lawrence v. Texas by rejecting Texas’s anti-sodomy law, essentially declaring that the Bowers decision was incorrect. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion stated, “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.” The dissent also specifically noted that the court was going against stare decisis by overturning Bowers.”
“In 2010, the Supreme Court heard the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and overturned the Austin decision. The 5-4 decision essentially drew two conclusions: Money equals speech, and corporations have the same right to free speech as individuals. The Citizens United decision also overturned parts McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 Supreme Court decision that upheld the McCain-Feingold Act, which introduced federal campaign finance reforms.”
The Supreme Court has reversed previous Supreme Court ruling more than 100 times
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions
The Congress has reversed Supreme Court decisions at least 60 times with constitutional amendments or amendments. The most recent was the US Supreme Court decision
Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 561 U.S. 247 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extraterritorial effect of U.S. securities legislation. The ruling was reversed in 2010 by the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_abrogated_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions
Daryl,
I am an equal opportunity critic. When Hillary Clinton sponsored that bill, I was highly critical of her. It was political grandstanding.
As an aside, I think that courts in general and the Supreme Court in particular are much more amenable to overturning precedent in a much shorter period of time. Who would ever have thought that the Supreme Court would hold that gay marriage is a protected interest in so short a time? The social zeitgeist just carried them along in breathtaking fashion. Amazing in view of the that the Brown Court took almost sixty years to overturn Plessey.
On reflection, I think Trump knew what the law was. But that doesn’t absolve him. I think he wakes up every day with some outrageous tweet designed to lead the press on a wild goose chase. The real problem he has are his almost insuperable conflicts of interest. If he doesn’t resolve this issue (and passing his interests on to his children will not solve the problem), he sabotages the credibility of his administration before he even assumes office.
Seems like the bleeding hearts never mend.The least we as American can do is give Donald Trump a chance to prove himself.Before we burn him at the stake we should let him have time to succeed. Remember he does not take office until January..Sure glad to see carrier stay in Indiana….
Wow! Great FACTS Mr. Hensley! I guess less people didn’t know these FACTS than they thought?
I think it’s horrible how so many are already judging Trump on his 4 year legacy as President BEFORE it even begins?! So many people are already saying “he’s already revealed himself” or “he’s just a showman”. I think that is the ultimate definition of being “closed-minded”.
Didn’t Hillary say that SHE would accept the outcome of this election and condemn Trump for saying he might not? Yet, she is behind the Jill Stein recount movement in 3 swing states. What’s up with that? Did she lie again? Or just “waffle” on her stance?
I think we all need to give Trump a chance and judge him AFTER his term is OVER.
We all need to pray that our nation’s leaders (Republican or Democrat) receive the necessary guidance from above, to navigate our great nation through the dangerous waters ahead.
Many have knee-jerked to an incorrect interpretation of Trump’s comments about flag burning – that is, he wasn’t or isn’t aware of the law that allows it under the first amendment. In fact, he very much IS aware of this, but as we all do with various issues from time to time, we disagree with the law and express what we think or believe SHOULD be the law without reference to the current law – and that’s what Trump was opining with his comments about flag-burning. I happen to agree with him in part, though not about losing birthright citizenship providing if also from natural-born citizen-parents and for a first or second offense, but certainly either with a graduated fine(s) and/or jail time(s). However, a third offense indeed should result in something more harsh, to include either substantial prison time here or potential deportation to another country for up to 20 years.
Again, my opinion – the destruction or desecration of our flag should NOT be included or defined as free “speech” – rather, such actions go far beyond words of “speech” and therefore should be separate from this amendment or the “free speech” clause of same. While there are many ways to respectfully and peacefully express disagreement with our country, it’s policies, et al, public desecration or destruction of our flag is not one of them, and should not be a lawful act. And remember – Hillary wants (wanted) it that way, also.
Furthermore on a related topic, protests – protesters – for ANY reason(s) cease to be lawful the moment any property damage, harm, and/or violations of local laws occur such as intimidation and impeding traffic or business access, and in fact these actions then become not protests but criminal acts and should be treated as such in terms of enforcement and prosecution of suspects as criminals. No – NOT like Nazi oppression as some (will) inaccurately claim, but rather simple common-sense civility, respect for law and order, and consequences for one’s actions of being unable to control themselves while blaming others and events for such behavior. This is the REAL hate and racism – totally contrary to that of MLK – and there’s no excuse. NONE.
Mrs. Green,
Do you realize what you are proposing? The Supreme Court has twice stated that simple flag burning represents “core political speech” — the kind of speech that enjoys the highest level of constitutional protection under the First Amendment. What you suggest is that the State can dictate to its citizens what kind of speech the State will tolerate. That is antithetical to the very idea of American democracy.
As to protesters (both left and right), there are already parameters as to their conduct. They are criminally or civilly liable if they destroy property, trespass, unlawfully intimidate others, or disobey local ordinances. If you’re a conservative or liberal, you have to be very concerned as to whether the State uses pre-textual excuses to punish legitimate protesters.
Scott, Trump is a troll. He loves to pull the media and his oppositions chains. He does not respect the media because they don’t do their research and just react in opposition.
He trolled them on the Obama birther issue. He knew that Hillary’s best friend started the birther issue on 2008, yet the media didn’t want to report it, so he kept the story going. When the time came to really troll them, he paraded 75 Medal of Honor recipients and assorted generals and admirals endorsing him for 25 minutes at a press conference and then he finally said that he was able to prove the 2008 Hillary Clinton birther accusation was false and glad he could finally help put the issue to rest. Man was the press pissed off on being trolled.
Daryl,
What’s frustrating is that the press knows it’s being gamed, yet is incapable of stopping itself. It’s like the dogs at the dog track chasing the fake rabbit. I worked at the trade in a previous life, and editorial judgment comes before anything else. You have to know when it’s a story and when it’s not.
I maintain that Trump’s conflict of interest problem is the story here, and it is not going away. I didn’t vote for Trump, but if he doesn’t clear this problem up satisfactorily, he is not giving himself a chance. If the press does its job, every domestic and foreign policy decision he makes will be filtered through the prism of how that decision benefits his private financial interests.
Scott, instead of replying to everyone that you don’t agree with and through your two cents in, why don’t you reply to me? When I obviously 100 percent proved you wrong! No you can’t. You don’t have enough gumption to even admit that Hillary was responsible for those people in Benghazi. Pathetic…
Scott, Trump has announced that he will be leaving his business on December 15th. The reality is he is not required to divest himself from his business. Congress has exempt the President, Vice President and all Federal judges from the law that requires all Federal employees to divest themselves.
U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 11 › § 202
“(c) Except as otherwise provided in such sections, the terms “officer” and “employee” in sections 203, 205, 207 through 209, and 218 of this title shall not include the President (1), the Vice President (1), a Member of Congress (535), or a Federal judge (3,294). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/202
“presidents in recent history have generally tried their best to adhere to the conflict of interest laws that govern their fellow executive branch colleagues during their time in office.” -Forbes
Members of Congress and the media try to portray to the American people that the president is required to divest and create blind trust like the rest of government employees. Their goal is to create a law when there is none, just like the required income tax returns, which aren’t required by law.
I guess the media must think that no one will research the truth but they do and it only causes us to further mistrust the media.
Daryl, I quoted the United States Code to Scott before. Proved him wrong about Hillary and Benghazi. According to the code she was responsible for those who lost their lives. Scott told me I would “never ever” find a legally binding document to prove him wrong. He still has never responded… Looks like he doesn’t want to believe the truth.
Logan, though the responsibility always lies with the Secretary of State, even the Republican led committee on Benghazi, rightfully blames Chris Stevens for his and the others deaths. Ambassador Steven’s made several requests for security upgrades that were denied by his senior managers. In effect, what his senior managers were telling him was, Benghazi was not a safe place for him to be, especially with a small security detail. Steven’s ignored the dangers on the ground and placed himself and his detail in a dangerous position to defend and that was born out. Steven’s was asked to “assist on the messaging of violence in Libya.’ His trip to Benghazi was an assessment trip. It should have been just a day trip only but HE chose to stay an additional night, knowing he didn’t have enough security to defend the consulate he was staying at.” The Red Cross, and U.K. closed their Benghazi facilities. Ambassador Steven’s could have flown/drove back to Tripoli to stay over night, at a better guarded embassy, but chose to stay over night at a consulate that had three guards and a computer technician. BTW the Tripoli and Benghazi locations did not meet the standards set in the “Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999”. Ambassador Steven was privileged to read the security reports on Libya, He knew how dangerous it was on the ground and made a bad judgement call that cost him and others their lives.
What’s really tragic is the CIA had 30+ employees working in Benghazi and a simple request to the CIA asking for an assessment on the violence could have saved lives. The State Department asked for the CIA’s help in guarding Stevens and his team while he was in Benghazi during the day. That CIA team was shocked that the Ambassador was staying after dark. Indicates to me a change of plans made by the Ambassador to stay over night with out securing additional security?
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/4%20Part%20III%20Redacted%20DR.pdf
Daryl,
Democratic and Republican ethics experts have both strongly advised Trump to put his assets into a truly blind trust, not because he would be in violation of a federal statute. He won’t, because the president, as you note, is exempted. The press that I follow (which I consider legitimate) has always acknowledged that. The problem, though, is much more dire. The controlling law is found in the Constitution itself, specifically Article I section 9. It’s the Emoluments Clause, which has heretofore been a dusty reminder of the past, but has now assumed center stage. If he doesn’t satisfactorily tidy up his business affairs before his inauguration, he may very well have committed an impeachable offense the moment after he repeats the oath.
I didn’t vote for Donald Trump and still consider him wholly unfit for office. But from an objective point of view, he risks his very presidency if he doesn’t create a truly blind trust — not because he’s in violation of some federal statute, but because he violated the Constitution itself.
daryl hensley,
you stated: “though the responsibility always lies with the Secretary of State”.
enough said!
As a teenager, when I hit another car while driving my parents car, they were responsible for paying for the other car’s repairs but the police officer cited me for causing the accident.
Ambassador Steven’s acted irresponsibly by staying the night in a very poorly protected consulate. His supervisor should have ordered him to return to Tripoli.
What made Hillary culpable is she did not punish those who supervised Steven’s. She should have not lied to the families of those killed but none of those actions caused Steven’s death. Those ultimately cost Hillary her job. I believe we will eventually learn Obama asked her to resign over Benghazi.
Daryl Hensley,
What a very poor analogy.
“though the responsibility always lies with the Secretary of State”.
enough said.