Archives for category: Politics

One of the first things I learned as I was being groomed to be a good manager was that foul language and an attacking attitude on the part of one of my staff would not be good for the rest of the staff, and would not be tolerated.

I guess that Trump’s management style, as a chief executive with no one to account to, allows him to let his people snipe at one another and use foul language whenever they want with no repercussions. I’ve heard that he likes his people to be highly competitive, and maybe that works for a business that is only there to make money for its chief executive and his family, but its no way to be responsible for the safety and security of over 300 million people.

As President, Trump has shown no leadership ability. While he has signed 42 Executive Orders to date, evidence of the way he wants things to be managed, he has not provided guidance to Congress, which is what a leader would do to get legislation enacted.

Our country has no clear vision of where it is going, although we are seeing that the protections put in place by previous presidents for groups that have been subjected to discrimination are being thrown out the window. Civility and cooperation (and this has nothing to do with so-called political correctness) have also been tossed aside, as Trump does not exhibit either of those traits. He wants his word to be law, and will bully to get it, which may work in a business where he is the absolute boss, but not in government, where he is technically an employee of the American people and is expected to be looking out for them and not himself.

While I am personally not a fan of Reince Priebus, I expect his treatment by Trump and the White House to have serious repercussions. Priebus was probably the only one in the Administration who understood how the government works and how to get the Republican Congress and governors to support the president’s plans. Trump now is surrounded by millionaires, billionaires and Goldman Sachs people who don’t necessarily have the trust of the American people, or their elected officials. Congressmen will stand together, and the Administration’s veiled threats to individual congressional members, even if they are Senate females, will not be tolerated.

Maybe the White House needs to take some refresher courses on the changes that have affected rules of management if they ever want to get anything accomplished.


Having had a chance to step back from the craziness to take time to review the US Constitution, I suddenly realized that Trump’s tweets, whether official or not, have no bearing on US policy without the backing of Congress. Unlike the Trump Organization, Trump’s word is not law. He can send off tweet after tweet, but our founding fathers came up with a form of government where the Executive Branch is supported or constrained by the Legislative Branch.

Trump can tweet all he wants, and sign Executive Order after Executive Order, but if any tweet or EO requires funding or the approval of Congress, he is dead in the water. Much like Obama was during his second term.

Trump’s tweets are displaying his total betrayal of the people he promised to support and protect. His veiled threats to members of Congress and his own congressionally-approved appointees show that he cares not a whit for them if they disagree with him. So much for his loyalty to others when he demands it from them.

Loyalty and respect require a two-way street, and as we have been seeing with Trump, it is his way or the highway. At least in his own mind. As he has not yet managed a coup on our democracy, he is only as strong as Congress allows him to be. They represent the will of the people, unlike the bankers and backers he has appointed to tear down the governmental agencies by which they feel constrained.

It is time for Congress to take a stand, either for the American people, all of them, or for a man who would be an autocrat, if allowed. And its time for the American people to remember how their Congressmen vote on issues that affect them.

So long as the women do what the men feel they should be doing.

Representative Buddy Carter of Georgia said on live television appearance on MSNBC that he wants to “snatch a knot” in Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski’s “ass”. In other words, he feels beating a female member of Congress is acceptable because she didn’t vote for something that would have hurt her constituents.

This followed Representative Blake Farenthold of Texas, speaking of Senator Susan Collins’ vote against the quickly and secretly drafted repeal and replace bills, telling a local radio station that, “If it was a guy from south Texas, I might ask him to step outside and settle this Aaron Burr-style.” Again, the threat that violence is acceptable, although he stopped short of saying that it was appropriate to attack a woman. Those two at least had the decency to offer and accept one another’s apologies for statements made.

I’m not surprised by Buddy Carter. Georgia Republicans have a long history of charming their constituents with all the right words, but then working to cut the legs out from under those same constituents. Georgia, one of the red states that did not expand Medicaid “because it would be too costly”, has a high percentage of workers living under the poverty level. While expanding Medicaid would have helped reduce that, the Republican legislature all rejected it. But what can you expect from a state that will not submit disability applications to the federal agency making those decisions, despite the examining doctors confirming to the patient that they should be on disability, unless an attorney forces the issue?

Back to the non-war on women. It is Republican-dominated legislatures that are now trying to force raped women wanting an abortion to get the permission of the rapist. I guarantee that if it was the men who had to go through the experience, it would be shot down immediately. Generally speaking, men are competitive and have to be winners, while women are more cooperative and try to do what is best for their community. Taking that to the political arena, I’ve been noticing that most of the (too few) women in Congress are often shut out of secret meetings and are more likely to consider what is best for their constituents while the men are more interested in making a name for themselves amongst their constituents rather than helping all but a few who can help them retain power and enrich themselves.

Men who cheat on their wives, serially marry, or beget children off multiple women are praised and looked up to, while mothers who have been abandoned and try to get on with their lives are sluts and worse. Heaven forbid a working woman tries to assert herself and her expertise, as she is usually considered, at least among much of corporate management, to be aggressive and bitchy. If, as the Bible says, Eve was created to be an equal and helpmate to Adam, why do men consider women to be no better than chattel, and have to restrict their actions and liberty.

I have yet to hear of Democratic Congressmen inciting violence against women, so I find it hard to believe reports of Democrats having a war on women. Democrats have other problems, but they pale in comparison to the way Republicans are currently acting against half the population (and I am not just considering women in that statement).

Once again betraying a portion of the population that he previously assured he would support, we see that transgender people are not worthy in the eyes of the President or his administration.

I suppose once all the details are worked, the next group he will ban from military service is women. After all, they are just supposed to be eye candy and don’t have opinions or ideas on a par with any man, unless they are President Trump’s daughter.

After that, considering all his expertise in foreign relations, we will obviously need to reinstitute the draft because we won’t have enough servicemen with the elimination of our current and future transgender and female service people to support the size of the military we are going to need to protect ourselves.

I sure do hope that the President’s sons and son-in-law, as well as the male children and grandchildren of all our Congressmen, will be willing to serve their country in the place of all those others willing but not allowed to.

POTUS tweet Wednesday morning after the special election in Georgia’s 6th District:
“Democrats would do much better as a party if they got together with Republicans on Healthcare,Tax Cuts,Security, Obstruction doesn’t work!”

So tell me again how the Democrats are supposed to work together with the Republicans when the latter draft bills behind closed doors and do not allow the Democrats to even see what is being drafted so they can contribute.

And how Pelosi and the Democrats are able to obstruct when they are in a definite minority in both the House, the Senate, and the number of Governorships in the USA. As opposed to the earliest words of the Republicans when Obama was first elected, that the Republicans would resist anything Obama wanted to enact. And as proven by their multiple shutdowns of the government and refusal of the Senate to even consider vote on a Supreme Court nominee, as is their duty. Of course, if the Democrats adopt the same behaviour, maybe they can make obstruction work.

And how its “left” that is hateful when its the “right” that has been trying to keep anyone different from themselves from having the same rights and securities. When I was growing up, we were taught “judge not lest ye be judged”, but its only the more conservative and outspoken religious that seem to be judging others and proclaiming their lives and lifestyles as wrong. Not to forget that most hate crimes in this country are performed by people who don’t like anyone different in any way from themselves (Democrats don’t go to churches or synagogues or mosques and open fire, Democrats do not open fire on health clinic workers, and the non-religious do not protest at funerals for fallen heroes). By the way, I remember Democrats calling Republican behaviour deplorable, but its the Republicans who proudly call themselves that, and call anyone who disagrees with the a Libtard. Of course, what can you expect when a President went around calling his campaign opposition “Little”, “Lyin;”, “low energy”, ugly, “Cheating”, and such. Why wouldn’t his followers do the same?

By the way, my favorite remark from Karen Handel was that she, like other Republicans, does not believe in a livable wage. Her attempt to backtrack to say that the government shouldn’t be responsible for setting a minimum wage doesn’t cut it, as “I really believe that the solution to helping insure that all hard-working Georgians can make a good salary is not through mandates.” However, if not for federally mandated minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, many Georgia employers would not be paying their employees any more than the $5.15 an hour minimum stipulated by the Georgia legislature. Of course, the 6th District doesn’t have to worry about that, as many of them, like Representative-elect Handel, have made their money by using their name-recognition to advance rather than working for the benefit of others. One of the the things Handel did was to use the “woman” card, although she has not done much to improve the lives of woman who need help. But that does seem to be the Republican way.

According to the news I’ve been reading this morning, that’s what President Trump has said about his new job.

The Man was never an employee before. The President is an employee to 326 million people, a majority of whom are not happy with the man hired to do the job.

The Man was able to bully people to get what he wanted because he had money and a reputation. The President is constrained by laws and rules and cannot legally use his money and reputation to assume he will get what he wants. He is only now, at 70 years old, learning how to compromise with others.

The Man appears to be a narcissist with some kind of antisocial personality disorder. (I am a lay person, untrained in psychology, so unable to diagnose even in person, but to me this is how he appears to behave and the characteristics he portrays.) The President is leader and guardian of the the United States of America, and must act in its best interests and defense. That includes a need to always put on an ambassadorial front to make the best impression possible on the rest of the world because America cannot survive isolated from the rest of the world. It also means that each person should be treated with the respect and care given to every other person. It means ensuring that the people of the United States have conditions under which they can thrive, are not adversely impacted due to tainted air, water and food supplies, are safe at home and when traveling around the country, and have the education and training to be competitive with others.

The Man can surround himself with people who are just like him and be as open or close minded as he wants on a personal level. The President must professionally surround himself with people who are at the top of their fields, people who can make well-calculated assumptions, predictions and decisions based on the needs of the entirety of the populace, not just those who are friendly towards the President.

The Man went to Wharton for an education on business. The President should undergo some form of training for the position. I would never hire my buddy with no experience to re-wire or re-plumb or re-build my home. I would never hire my mechanic to take care of my finances, or vice versa, without training. Why so many people thought that electing someone who knew nothing about how our country is governed, and still knows very little about it, is unfathomable.

Change begins with the first step, not the top goal. If people are unhappy with the government, and understand the basics of governmental operations, they would not keep re-electing the politicians not functioning according to their job requirements and the expectations of the constituency. As an employer, if someone was not performing up to specifications they would be given a warning and chance to improve, and then justifiably could be terminated for cause. Instead, this country has gone right to the top to make changes. That is the equivalent of firing the CEO or president of a company but keeping the staff that do nothing except collect their paychecks. Would anyone really expect any changes to that company? Next time maybe we should elect a President who understands the gravity of the job and takes it on to make America a better place for all, not just because it adds to their personal prestige.

I hope everyone realizes that American citizens will continue to pay for President Trump for the rest of their lives. He and his wife will have live-long Secret Service protection. (Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012 (Pub.L. 112–257)) He has a guaranteed income for life, equivalent to the pay of a Cabinet Secretary, as well as a paid staff (I did not read this section closely enough to herein state the size or duration of that staff) and free postage for life. His widow also has a guaranteed income until she dies or remarries before 60. (Former Presidents Act (3 U.S.C. § 102 note))

The job may be tough, but its benefits go on forever.

Someone please explain to me how, with a Republican president, a Republican-majority Senate and a Republican-majority House of Representatives, it can possibly be the fault of the Democrats if we have another government shutdown because the Democrats won’t agree to a budget including money for a wall that will accomplish very little. Does anyone really believe that if we build a wall that another country will pay for it? Keep the wall out of our budget, support the programs that help and protect people, and Comrade President and Republicans need to take courses in economics and history (wherein they will see that historical actions to cut funding has only increased the need for higher costs down the road when the system which they decided to not fund went belly up and needed complete overhaul and repairs.

Here’s an alternative: how about letting our billionaire president pay for the wall out of all his excess funds (call it a capital expenditure on his taxes) and then get reimbursed by Mexico. He could even charge interest. This way, he gets his wall, and the people who would be most financially and medially damaged by the social funding programs he wants to cut in exchange for the wall funding will continue to have the resources they would otherwise lose.