DONALD TRUMPS AMERICA: MY WAY, OR ELSE. PART 1.

As the TRUMP ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES ITS MARCH TO THE ABYSS, PROGRESSIVES, LIBERALS AND OTHER GROUPS THAT HAVE OPPOSED HIM FROM THE BEGGINGING MUST REMEMBER THE FOLLOWING:

HE ATTAINED THE OVAL OFFICE THROUGH A SHAM ELECTION, WHERE THE RESULTS WERE INITIALLY ACCEPTED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF LAWMAKERS AND POLITICIANS WITHOUT ANY SCRUTINY.

DON'T UNDERESTIMATE DONALD TRUMPS ABILITY TO USE WHATEVER MEANS IS NECESSARY TO ADVANCE THE AGENDA OF THOSE WHO HELPED HIM ATTAIN POWER. HIS DECISION TO BAR OR REMOVE TRANSGENDER AMERICANS FROM THE MILITARY IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE, FOR IT ACCOMPLISHED TWO THINGS;


1)  IT GAVE THE FAR RIGHT A "TENTATIVE VICTORY" THAT IT COULD POINT TO AS PROOF THAT THEY WERE STILL A FORCE THAT COULD MOLD PUBLIC POLICY.

and...

2)  DONALD TRUMP RE-AFFIRMED, TO THE FAR RIGHT, THAT HE WAS STILL THEIR CHAMPION. THIS MEANS THAT HE WASN'T GOING TO ABANDON THE IDEOLOGY THAT THEY BELIEVE ALL AMERICANS SHOULD BE FORCED TO CONFORM TO.


That being said, what can be done to stop DONALD TRUMP, AND HIS SUPPORTERS FROM DRAGGING THE U.S. AND ITS ALLIES INTO A HATE FILLED "HOLY WAR", WHERE DISAGREEING WITH, OR OPPOSING DONALD TRUMP IS MET WITH A TEMPER TANTRUM, AND FURTHER ATTEMPTS TO SUBVERT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

A good place to start is to acknowledge the following:  That the Agenda of the FAR RIGHT FANATIC is to turn the U.S. into an OLIGARCHY, WHERE POLITICAL POWER RESTS IN THE HANDS OF A CHOSEN FEW.

However, BEING OPEN ABOUT SUCH A GOAL WOULD NOT PLAY WITH THE AVERAGE VOTER, SO MORE SUBTLE FORMS OF PERSUASION MUST BE USED TO DECEIVE AND MISLEAD.

ONE EXAMPLE IS THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. SINCE THE SENATE FAILED TO OVERTURN THE LAW, DONALD TRUMP IS CONSIDERING MORE INSIDIOUS WAYS TO GET THE LAW REMOVED.  HERE IS AN EXAMPLE;

CAUSING FAILURE BY SABOTAGE, AND NOT ALLOWING 
THE LAW TO SUCCEED OR FAIL ON ITS OWN MERITS.

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:  

THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN... 

...THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT FAILING TO ACHIEVE SPECIFIC GOALS...

...AND...

...THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT BEING PREVENTED FROM ACHIEVING SPECIFIC GOALS.

OR

THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN...

...THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT NOT BEING STRUCTURED
PROPERLY, WHERE DEFICIENCES CANNOT BE ADDRESSED AND CHANGED...

...AND...

...IGNORING THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT EXIST IN LAW TO CORRECT DEFICIENCES.

SEE PART 2.

BLASTS FROM THE PAST... FEATURE ARTICLES. MESSAGE TO ALL PROGRESSIVES: DON'T YOU SEE IT, EVEN NOW? PARTS 1-8, SELECTED PASSAGES, PART 2.

Before the November, 2016 election, I PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE WITH THE TITLE:  
MESSAGE TO ALL PROGRESSIVES: DON'T YOU SEE IT, EVEN NOW? 
THIS ARTICLE HAD 8 PARTS, AND FOCUSED ON DONALD TRUMPS CANDIDACY, AND SPECULATED ABOUT THE TYPE OF PRESIDENT HE WOULD BE.


HERE ARE A FEW MORE EXCERPTS TO COMPARE AND CONTRAST ABOUT WHAT WE KNEW THEN, AND WHAT WE KNOW NOW.   


FROM PART 2.

No, Hard Core Trump Supporters go far beyond the Republican Party "Revolution." To them, Hate, Prejudice, Xenophobia, Racism,and Religious Zealotry are not Abstract Concepts to be studied, but Tangible and Useful Tactics to Influence Fanatics of every Stripe, and scare more Rational Potential Voters.

What is Rule #1- What Donald Trump has Done or Said, or will Do or Say, MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AS LONG AS HE TOES THE EXTREMIST LINE.



FROM PART 5.

Why, and What kind of Individuals and Groups have supported DONALD TRUMPS CANDIDACY,NOW,AND IN THE PAST?

As we have seen, Candidate Trump has no trouble speaking his mind, especially if it means disparaging an entire segment of society, be it GENDER, ETHNICITY, RELIGIOUS FAITH,SOCIAL AND/OR ECONOMIC STANDING etc.

...the last desperate attempt to prevent Progressive Ideals from becoming the Norm in every facet of American Life. Concepts such as Justice, Equality, Freedoms, and Rights becoming Universally applied to all, not just those who consider themselves Superior by some Convoluted and Irrational View of how Society should be formed and governed.



FROM PART 7.

#3-  Wages and Income.

Over the last Eight Years we have seen Progressive Democrats support an Economic Policy that included;

-  An increase in the Federal Minimum Wage of 7.25/ hr.
Which was opposed, and killed, by Congressional Republicans.
( However, on the State Level, there are examples of Minimum Wage
Guidelines that the Republican Party couldn't stop).

-  Expanding the Time Period for receiving Unemployment Benefits, to
   Temporarily Relieve Financial Distress associated with Job loss.

-  Financial Relief for crippling costs incurred through Higher Education.

-  Consumer Laws protecting Americans from predatory practices by
    Dishonest Marketers.

    Of course this list does not include the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT,
    which resulted in Millions of Americans obtaining Medical Care
    Insurance that would not result in Crippling Debt, or a Dramatic
    Decrease in Their Quality of Life.

The Republicans, besides attempting to stop all of the above, stuck with
the old "TRICKLE DOWN THEORY" OF ECONOMICS...

THE "EMPTY" ASSERTION: THE DEMAGOGUES BEST FRIEND. (INTRODUCTION).

"EMPTY" ASSERTION-  ANY STATEMENT, (WRITTEN OR ORAL), THAT CLAIMS TO BE FACTUAL, BUT HAS LITTLE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OR DATA THAT CAN WITHSTAND PROPER SCRUTINY.  In many cases, the act of criticizing the Assertion is discouraged, AND IT MUST BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT QUALIFICATION.

THE EMPTY ASSERTION works best, when it feeds into preconceived ideas and conclusions. It allows those with little Intellectual Evidence to support their opinions on certain issues, to make "FACTUAL CLAIMS" that are not based on the Rules of Logic. 

It gives the Opportunist the chance to prey on the Prejudice and Irrationality of those who don't want Reality and Truth to keep them from forcing their own brand of "TRUTH" on everyone else.

Some examples might include;

-  Inventing a causal relationship between certain groups, that their place of Birth or National Origin automatically indicates the Increased Chance that they are likely to carry a communicable disease. This is done without actually researching the statistics to back up this conclusion with factual data.

-  That the Existence of a Right according to Constitutional Law is found not to be Valid by Judicial Decision, will lead to an immediate Government crackdown to eliminate any trace of the Subject Matter ruled on before the Court.

-  That an Accusation of MORAL or CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT, automatically means there is Sufficient Grounds or Evidence, to make such a Statement.  In fact, there may be nothing at all.  The Accusation is just a Tool to mislead, and place an undeserved Tag on an Opponent or Rival Organization.

Remember, the "EMPTY ASSERTION" does not need to provide any Reasonable Explanation for anything that is said, or claimed to be true.

THE "MYTH" OF UNPOPULAR HILLARY. PART 2. The first meeting of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.

(

(The excerpt below was taken from an MSNBC NEWS REPORT.)

The co-chairman of President Donald Trump’s vote fraud commission on Wednesday cast doubt on the 2016 election results, saying he was unsure how many votes Hillary Clinton or Trump received due to the possibility of fraud.

“You know, we may never know the answer to that,” said Kris Kobach, the Kansas Secretary of State, who serves on Trump’s Presidential Commission on Voter Integrity, after he was asked by MSNBC’s Katy Tur whether he thought Clinton “won the popular vote by 3 to 5 million votes.”

“We will probably never know the answer to that question,” he added.

Clinton won the popular vote in the 2016 election by approximately 2.87 million votes. According to the certified Federal Election Commission records, Clinton received 65,853,516 votes and Trump got 62.984,825.

Kobach did not provide any evidence to support his statement. There have been no instances of widespread fraud reported in last year's election.

When Tur followed up with, “How do you say we may never know the answer to that question?” Kobach explained his rationale:

“What I'm saying is, let's suppose that the commission determined that there were a certain number of votes cast by ineligible voters. You still won’t know whether those people who were ineligible voted for Trump or for Clinton or for somebody else.

“And so, it's impossible to ever know exactly, if you took out all the ineligible votes, what the final tally would be in that election,” he added. “You can obviously, based on the data, you can make some very educated guesses.”

Kobach then admitted that some of the votes Trump received in November could be called into question, too.

“So are the votes for Donald Trump that led him to win the election in doubt as well?” Tur asked.

“Absolutely,” Kobach said.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

WHAT SHOULD WE TAKE FROM THIS?

#1-  Donald Trump first made the accusation BEFORE THE ELECTION, NOT AFTER IT. THEN, AS NOW, HE OFFERS NO EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THE ACCUSATION. An "ASSERTION OF FACT" IS MEANINGLESS WITHOUT PROPER FOUNDATION. OCCUPYING THE OVAL OFFICE DOES NOT EXEMPT YOU FROM THE RULES OF LOGIC.

#2-  Read carefully the Quote: “What I'm saying is, let's suppose that the commission determined that there were a certain number of votes cast by ineligible voters. You still won’t know whether those people who were ineligible voted for Trump or for Clinton or for somebody else."

In order for the Commission to determine that a specific number of votes was cast illegally,THEY MUST BACK UP THIS CONCLUSION WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. THIS INCLUDES THE REASONING THAT LED THEM TO THAT NUMBER, SUCH AS WHICH CRITERIA WAS USED TO ESTABLISH THAT AN ILLEGAL VOTE HAD BEEN CAST. 

#3-  MOST IMPORTANTLY: Do not to allow Donald Trump to turn this "Investigation" into something it is not: AN EQUIVALENT ENDEAVOUR TO THE CHARGE OF MANIPULATING BALLOT/VOTER COUNTS TO CHANGE THE ELECTIONS OUTCOME. 

There is adequate evidence that the final vote totals in at least 6 States show signs of Tampering, changing the results to favor Donald Trump. (SEE MY ARTICLES ON THIS TOPIC IN OTHER POSTS ON THIS SITE.) You cannot allow Evidence, (OR LACK OF EVIDENCE), OF ONE TO SUPPORT A CONCLUSION ABOUT THE OTHER. THEY ARE TWO SEPERATE ISSUES.