With the U.S. at a Precipice, Here Are a Few Things To Hope For
Frequent commenter and ever-thoughtful gentleman “Breath on the Wind” reacted to yesterday’s post “A Pair of Notes on Trump” as follows: Is there a way forward?
Here’s what I’m hoping, my friend:
• We expel Trump as soon as possible, on any or all of the four–soon to become five–points laid out here. And one could add a sixth: Trump’s statement that “the media is the enemy of the American people” is inconsistent with his oath to uphold the Constitution, which includes the guarantee of a free press.
According to this article, this concept is not lost on retired U.S. Navy Four-Star Admiral Will McRaven, now system chancellor at the University of Texas, who praised the work of the press as important and necessary so that people in powerful positions can be held to account. He then laid into our President for failing to uphold his oath to the Constitution and for infringing on our rights to a free press. “We must challenge this statement and this sentiment that the news media is the enemy of the American people. This sentiment may be the greatest threat to democracy in my lifetime.”
The article continues: “If anyone knows what a threat to American democracy looks like, it’s Admiral McRaven. He began his career as a SEAL and worked his way up the ladder to serve as the commander of US Special Operations Command, retiring as an admiral with four stars. He advised both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama and is responsible for organizing and overseeing Operation Neptune Spear, the raid which killed 9/11 mastermind Osama Bin Laden.”
• We apologize to the rest of the world for our temporary lapse in basic judgement, and work hard to undo the enormous amount of damage he’s already done to the common U.S. citizen and to America’s standing around the world.
• The GOP is so disoriented and embarrassed that, having lost all credibility, it goes underground for at least a little while. With it go Fox News and all the other forms of infotainment aimed at fomenting anger and bigotry in ignorant people.
What Next?
Then, we must try not to forget that this calamity happened. Rather, we should look at this like a case of cancer detected early on; we should be glad we caught it in time to prevent a complete breakdown in our civilization, so we can learn from our mistakes and put in place safeguards to make sure we never have a recurrence. In other words, we need to hope that this serves as a wake-up call to several different groups:
• To the Americans who allowed democracy to be perverted by demagoguery, and who thus believe the unbelievable: that ISIS will be defeated in 30 days, that 3 – 5 million people voted illegally, that Obama tapped Trump’s phones, that Hillary Clinton was running a child porn ring out of a pizzeria, that Mexico will pay for a wall separating itself from the U.S., that completely unqualified fools make good cabinet appointees, that coal jobs are coming back, that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, that the public school system will function better when its top teachers, students and physical resources are removed from it, that it’s OK for the president to profit from his position, etc.
• To the Democratic Party who think it’s a good idea to commit crimes behind the scenes and push one candidate over another, and then (incredibly) tell 62 million desperate, uneducated voters that they’re “deplorable.” News flash: People, regardless of who they are and how they’re constituted, don’t like to be treated like that.
• To the Republicans in Congress who don’t have the spine and love of country to refuse to support a sociopathic habitual liar, and who think it’s a good idea to cut federal support for environmental protection, public education, fair labor practices, civil rights, etc.
• To the religious hypocrites who think it’s morally correct to fight for the life of an 8-week-old embryo but to remain indifferent to keeping live children safe and nourished once they’re born, and to anyone who thinks of himself as a Christian but turns his back on refugees desperate for food and safety, and doesn’t care about the health and well-being of everyone, rich and poor.
• To those who have not been told that the key to a healthy U.S. economy is participating in cleantech (the defining industry of the 21st Century) while phasing out the dirty energy of the dinosaur economy, to those who believe that generating corporate profits justifies poisoning our waters and skies, to those who don’t see that well educated children, both here and abroad, tend to stay away from gangs, crime, and terrorist groups, and thus that education is an extremely important investment for a society to make. Every dollar we spend in education produces an enormous social ROI, as expressed so well here.
After that alarm bell has rung:
Then let’s hope the U.S. brings out the very best it has within it (which is considerable), in terms of fact-based thinking, innovation, fairness, compassion, ingenuity, and environmental stewardship, to name a few. As a nation, we come to recognize a few fundamental things, e.g., that 1.6 billion followers of Islam aren’t to blame for the horrific acts of a few madmen who call themselves Muslims, that healthcare is actually complex–and that it’s a human right, that terrorism can’t be beaten with guns and bombs, that our immigration policies need reform, that black lives really do matter, and, if nothing else, that we need to separate big money from politics.
The result? A strong economy, a commitment to the environment, a well-educated populace capable of critical thinking, tolerance of minority races, religions and sexual orientations here at home, and a more just and peaceful planet as a whole–all as a direct result of America’s taking the moral high-ground and doing the right thing.
This even might become known as the American Renaissance. My God, is there anyone who wouldn’t love to see that phrase become popular?
Craig,
That’s quite a wish list !
Like most wish lists, it focuses on a lot of stuff that doesn’t really matter to America or it’s citizens.
When the US needed a great President, the voters got a choice between three very discredited candidates.
Confronted with a choice between a grumpy old man wanting to turn the clock back to his heady student days of hippy’s and flirtations with incomprehensible Marxist-Leninist gibberish, or a tired, political manipulator with too much corrupt baggage and failed policies, they decided to choose a populist outsider.
They chose Donald Trump, not because they believed in Trump, but had wearied of the hypocrisy and arrogance displayed by the ‘elite’. (not the rich elite,America has always admired the rich) The real target of resentment was the smug, self appointed, condescending, political and social elite represented by commentators like Stephen Colbert.
But mostly it was the hypocrisy.
” Black lives matter” Of course they do, but do they matter more than any other lives?
Slogans like this are emotive, but essentially meaningless and unsupported by facts. In a City with a 70% black police force, a black police chief and black mayor, claiming discrimination against blacks, doesn’t make sense.
What does make sense, is young black men and women commit more violent of street crime, are more likely to be gang members, as a result are more likely to be involved in confrontations with the police.
Protesting against the police, and “discrimination” won’t solve the problems of a failed society.
The US is more than $20 trillion dollars in debt. Where will the money come from to spend on all those expensive items like healthcare, ‘fair labour practices” welfare, education, and the burden of an increasingly ageing population ?
Environmentalism may be a luxury the US just can’t afford. The target of environmentalist ire, are the only taxpayers generating revenue to pay for the vastly increased bureaucracy.
These industries desperately need assistance to recapitalize if they are to compete on the world stage.
The only thing preventing a complete collapse of the US economy has been the timely boom in North American oil and gas production.
Without those revenues, US society would be even more divided, chaotic and impoverished.
The new, high tech industries generate wealth for an educated urban class, but due to the nature of such industries they pay little or no taxation to the US economy.
President Trump is what you get when everyone else is a hypocrite.
Craig, I know it’s hard to accept, but President trump isn’t going anywhere. He certainly lacks the talent and economic knowledge to met the economic challenges facing the US, and unlike President Reagan, he lacks the ability to attract talented advisors and administrators, but he is, and will remain, President. His removal is a fantasy.
America’s biggest challenge is not the environment, but the US economy. The US is losing it’s economic war with the PRC. Unlike the old USSR, the PRC economy has no fundamental flaws that can be easily exploited.
The US has only a short window of opportunity provided by it’s domestic energy boom, to invest in it’s future.
Reform and restructure of the US economy should be the first priority. Without a strong economy, no environmental or social progress can be achieved.
Your wish list contains no mention of the US economy. in this you are not alone, the majority of American’s live on credit and don’t care to be reminded of mounting debt.
The main problem with US political life, is not President Trump, but hypocrisy in every aspect of American life.
It starts with ourselves. When you condemn the President and others you dislike for a moral lapse, yet excuse the same or considerably worse lapses in those you support, you add to the growth of hypocrisy.
Here is an article that highlights something interesting. When Republicans have come to power they seem to focus on destroying whatever they can and then fighting among themselves. http://grist.org/article/the-right-wing-hates-scott-pruitt-as-much-as-the-left-does/
Perhaps is also suggests a bit of hope and a way forward.
Can we be certain that the VP would be any better than Strumpet as president? He could even be worse just because he seems more reasonable. That could give him greater influence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=things+are+seldom+what+they+seem&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Frank I am sure that the VP insider answers to the same masters as the present presidential outsider. If anything we may have learned that insider and outsider are meaningless terms when the officeholder is a billionaire, his cabinet is full of billionaires, and he is determined to openly profit along with his family from the office.
Breath, you may well be right. The VP seems more mentally stable than Strumpet which could render him more capable than Strumpet of causing damage.
The bombing of Syria is alarming. However, there are two sides to the matter and it is not completely clear which side is right.
Frank,
The US strike against Syria was a measured, appropriate and well considered response.
In one concise and prompt action the President has taught the combatants the US will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons and can effectively punish any transgressions without harming civilians.
The missile strike effectively eliminated the offending air base, including workshops and spares.
The effect of the strike was particularly effective since it didn’t involve the US in taking sides in the complex civil war, simply sent a clear lesson to desist using chemical weapons.
This single action will do more to raise US prestige and sincerity than all the previous administrations ineffective rhetoric.
Marcopolo,
I shall refrain from taking a position on the bombing. I don’t know whether or not it was a reasonable thing to do. There are two sides to the matter partly because there are too many unknown variables as those of us who have listened to all sides and read all positions should be aware. At this point, it is impossible to know for certain what the long term results will be. It could be that the results will be as intended with no down side, but on the other hand, it could lead to a disaster far worse than the gassing. Those who claim otherwise and think that they can predict the results with no possibility of error are very naïve.
Unfortunately it is sometimes necessary to make decisions when knowledge is incomplete as Strumpet has done. I don’t like Strumpet, but I have to acknowledge that even a stopped clock is right twice per day, so it is possible that Strumpet did the right thing; I don’t know.
Opinions can change very quickly in response to delayed results. If this starts another cold war with Russia or causes other serious problems, which is very possible, then many of those who now support the bombing will say that they never supported it. On the other hand, if the results are good over a long term, many of those who opposed the bombing will deny that they ever opposed it.
About all we can agree on is that gassing the people was a horrible thing to do. You are much too sure of yourself.
Frank,
I understand it’s difficult for those who dislike the current President to accept reality.
President Trump is only following an established precedent for using minimal military power to modify another nations behavior..
The principle is to employ force in a highly effective display to reduce the prestige of the ruling class of the opposition, without getting involved in a protracted war or harming the general population.
The British used the tactic effectively in 1814 against the Americans. The destruction of only public buildings in Washington DC and humiliation of President James Madison,successfully brought an end to American depredations in Upper Canada.
The British and French under Lord Elgin, destroyed the Summer Palace in Beijing thus humiliating the Manchu dynasty, but not toppling the Manchu’s, occupying the nation or hurting the common folk.
Reagan was effective in Grenada and Libya, by pursuing limited objectives with clear and definite results.
On the other hand, G W Bush employed excessive force. A lack of clear objectives or well organized and viable alternate local political resolutions, got President Bush caught in a long running civil war.
Obama dithered and equivocated in Syria. Lacking any real knowledge of what was doing, or any clear practical objective He took sides in a complex civil war,and attempted regime change.
When he found himself in a complex quagmire of his own folly, he realized he had become part of the problem, not the solution. His solution was to betray friend and foe alike, making America look weak and dishonest.
In doing so US prestige fell to an all time low.
In contrast, the action of President Trump is a master stroke.
The restrained but effective missile strike (no bombing) against a clear target as a demonstration of US power to punish the use of chemical weapons, is brilliant.
It sent a clear and effective message to all sides, without becoming involved in the political quagmire of the civil war.
It also sent a message to the Russians. By this action, Trump has informed the Russians that his policy of realpolitik and understanding goes only so far, and the Russians shouldn’t take his more realistic attitude, for granted.
The issue of chemical weapon use in Syria is complicated. Although the Russian have destroyed nearly a third, a large part of the Syrian stockpile is missing.
Some of the chemical artillery shells and rockets are in the hands of the rebel coalition, some are with diverse groups following their own agenda, others are in the possession of Assad and his allies.
How many are missing, and who has what, is difficult to assess with any accuracy. Some of Assad’s military units pay only nominal allegiance to the Assad regime.
In this case, the evidence was very clear. The chemical weapons were fired from helicopters loyal to Assad. The base was identified and punitive response by the US was swift and effective.
The object of the exercise was not to defeat Assad, or even reduce his military capacity. It was simply to prove to Assad, the Russian’s, the Rebels, all civil war participants and the world in general, the power of the US to intervene effectively, in a restrained and calculated manner.
It also deals a blow to rabid anti-Trump critics claiming the President is a Russian puppet.
I have no evidence to suggest that this initiative originated from Rex Tillersen, but I wouldn’t discount such an assumption either.
Breath
Just a few point’s.
Could you explain how President Trump “openly profits along with his family from his office” ?
Could you also name some of the other ” billionaires” in his cabinet ?
Considering Trump attracted almost no large corporate donors, or larges support groups to his campaign, could you nominate these mysterious “masters” ?
Thanks
Marcopolo,
We know that there are billionaires in Strumpet’s cabinet. The news have reported on the matter as those of us who follow the news are aware. We do not need to memorize the names of the billionaries to be aware of it. If you want the names, do your own research.
Strumpet indirectly owns a number of businesses the income of which will be affected by actions he takes. And no, I will not take the time to do the research for you and list them. It ought to be obvious that if Strumpet directly or indirectly owns an umpteen star hotel and foreign diplomats stay in it when in D.C. that Strumpet will profit from it.
Marco, we could start with the masters: “avarice” and “narcissism” rather than “duty” and “obligation” and trickle down from there.
Frank, I particularly noted in the news that the gas attack was “attributed to Syria” Here is a interview that suggests we should see proof before launching into military action. http://s1.zetaboards.com/Express_Yourself/topic/8087534/1/
Breath,
I am aware that governmental entities cannot always be trusted to be honest, including the CIA. But we do know that there was a gas attack; we are not dependent on governmental agencies to verify that. Unless there is a possibility that the attack may have come from somewhere other than Assad’s government, I think that the evidence is overwhelming that it did come from Assad’s government. It is difficult to see how there could be any skepticism in this case. Note the comment to the article for which you have provided the link. Of course that does not necessarily mean that Strumpet should have ordered a missile attack. Both those for and those against the attack have made good and valid points. Unfortunately the world is a complicated place and sometimes we don’t have unequivocal answers. And, we cannot be sure of Strumpet’s actual motives.
Breath on the Wind,
Heh, heh, nicely done !
The ambiguity of the term “masters” , does allow for a different, (if damned obscure), interpretation ! If that’s what you meant, I guess it must be accepted as a valid opinion, but not fact.
However, no such ambiguity exists with the claim ” cabinet is full of billionaires”, which is clearly untrue.
Nor is there any ambiguity in the accusation, “openly profit along with his family from the office”. Again, you have no evidence to support such an accusation.
I would have thought there was enough valid stuff with which to take the administration to task, without inventing clearly discreditable nonsense.
Here is a link to one position on the bombing:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/4/7/1651126/-War-is-the-ultimate-distraction?detail=email&link_id=17&can_id=dfdaa44d5c3d384b7eaef6db4870ec45&source=email-sad-oreillys-show-abruptly-ended-15-minutes-early-last-night-advertisers-continue-to-flee&email_referrer=sad-oreillys-show-abruptly-ended-15-minutes-early-last-night-advertisers-continue-to-flee___195518&email_subject=ny-times-is-smoking-something-says-end-of-the-scotus-filibuster-makes-the-senate-more-bipartisan
Unlike many, or perhaps most people, I believe in studying multiple positions to understand matters as well as possible. Thus, the fact that I am posting the above link should not be construed to indicate that it accurately reflects my position. However, I do think that it includes factors which should not be ignored.
The website for the above link is strongly anti-Trump and should not be assumed to be free of bias. Even so, it does state positions with which people should be familiar if they wish to be well informed.
Frank, Breath, Craig et al,
At the risk of causing offense, what is happening to you guys ? You appear to be afflicted by an American epidemic of disingenuous hypocrisy !
No Frank, it’s not good enough to make unsupportable assertions and accusations, then when challenged to produce evidence of the veracity of your assertions, just contemptuously tell doubters to find the evidence for themselves since you never possessed anything to support your claims in the first place !
Have you all caught this malady from the President’s campaign ?
If so, it’s very unwise to copy Trump ! Trump gets away with such behaviour because he never claimed the moral high ground.
His wilder statements are accepted as part of his rash and larger-than-life character. He doesn’t bother with justification, but also doesn’t really care of his utterances are received with a degree of caution.
But you guys do claim the moral high ground. You expect to be taken seriously, and pride yourselves on moral credibility.
So why make claims and accusations so easily disproved ?
With the possible exception of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Louis Ross Jr, there are no “billionaire” Cabinet members. At least four aren’t even “millionaires” !
Attorney General Jeff Sessions, owns a very modest family farm worth maybe $2-3 million.
Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos is married to one of the heirs to the Amway fortune, but she’s only modestly wealthy in her own right.
In reality, the aggregate wealth of Bill Clinton’s Bill Clinton’s cabinet appointees exceeded the current administration.
But, I suspect you knew all that already, didn’t you ? In fact you knew your accusation had no substance before you made it, but went ahead anyway, because it’s such a attractive lie !
Likewise, the argument that because “some (unnamed) diplomats” may choose to stay at a Trump owned hotel (where they usually stay anyway) is evidence the President improperly enriches himself by misuse of his office. The accusation is not only preposterous, petty and downright silly, but just plain spiteful !
Regrettably, even Craig’s moral courage fails and he falls silent silent when the “virtues” of those he supports are discredited, and shown with not only feet of clay, but dirty hands.
As I stated in my original comment,Americans appear to be suffering from an epidemic of hypocrisy ! The malady of “cant” (hypocrisy, sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, humbug,affected piety,) seems most virulent and evident among the enemies of the Administration !
That’s a shame, because if ever there was and Administration that needed an honest, candid, and morally virtuous opposition, it’s the Trump administration.
Marco perhaps you are too quick to pull out the label of “hypocrisy.” Have you never been hypocritical?
An essential element of hypocrisy is the lie of acting (or speaking) against one’s beliefs. I would not necessarily consider myself a lier but every time I act in a play I am “lying” to the audience. Every time a magician performs he is “lying” for our entertainment. More altruistically parents are sometimes hypocritical in an effort to demonstrate correct behavior to their children. Are all these people also hypocrites. Sure in a sense.
Unfortunately there is a lot of leeway in such definitions and it depends upon which side of the lie you are on. I could imagine Trump saying that he never told a lie. He was simply “performing” on the campaign trail in an effort to get votes. Some enjoyed the performance while others called him a hypocrite and a lier.
Do we also sometimes risk a lie and hypocrisy in an effort to disseminate “hope?” “Often,” I would say. We could even say we “hope” such or such a thing will happen while we “believe” the opposite may be the eventual outcome. Is this a form of a lie? Is this hypocrisy? Who is deciding? The very title of this article and subsequent discussion includes the word “hope.” I feel as though we left you at the doorway and you need to catch up or simply choose not to enter the room as “hope” may not be in your lexicon.
Breath,
I’m afraid there comes a time when no ambiguous semantic can disguise or justify hypocrisy.
Attempting to pass off a deliberate false hood intended to defame another, while claiming moral superiority can’t be disguised as anything else.
Have I never been hypocritical? I try had to avoid hypocrisy. I try very hard to avoid knowingly bearing false witness. If I’m proved wrong, misinformed or even inaccurate, I immediately admit, apologize and make amends.
Trying to excuse a deliberate untruth told to gain unfair advantage by pretending it’s a only a ‘white lie’ or some bizarre definition of “hope”,t simply to avoid acknowledgement of being caught out, just deepens and compounds the depth of deceit and hypocrisy.
I agree, and regard it as a compliment, when you acknowledge I have not followed you across that threshold.
Nor do I believe that falsehoods are okay as long as they’re told about “bad” people. The morality lies within the falsehood, not the quality of it’s target.
I believe it’s the same level of moral wrong to tell a falsehood about Adolf Hitler as St Frances of Assisi.
I may be old fashioned, but when I make an accusation, or claim something to be true, I expect when challenged to produce evidence or retract with an apology.
It would seem you have indeed crossed into a room, where falsehoods no longer matter, only the skill of the dissembler.
No, it’s not a path I wish to tread.
Marco, The reason I have not responded to your requests for enumeration of “facts” is because I would consider them so self evident that they are beyond dispute. You can pick out from here a list of billionaires and millionaires. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-cabinet-richest-in-us-history-historians-say/
The Trump family making money from the position of presidency is also beyond dispute. Putting the daughter and son in law in as advisors is clearly a fracture of rules against nepotism. It is now clear that the two sons running the business do confer with the father. Governments around the world are actively seeking the business back door and a different kind of pay to play with the us Government. Corruption has always existed but this is open and obvious. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-donald-trump-family-business-money-20161117-story.html http://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-trump-still-benefiting-from-businesses-conflict-of-interest/
So Marco, you have to understand my reluctance to engage in this futile and harmful debate. Invariably, the one who cries “hypocrisy” so vehemently is in fact the hypocrite. As with previous dialogues with you, I have nudged, implied and suggested, but you seem to have a penchant for personal deprecation, and appear to remain so thick skinned (or obdurate) until I knock you over the head with a verbal bludgeon. I frankly have a growing dis-interest in indulging the perverse fantasy you seem to be mistaking for moral fibre.
Breath,
Finally, you cite a source for your comments.
Obviously, you regard Bernie Saunders and Julianna Goldman from CBSnews.com, as oracles ” beyond dispute “.
Now, I wouldn’t regard the utterances of two obviously biased opponents as being evidence of “beyond doubt”, but even by that very low bar of accuracy, your claim “a Cabinet full of Billionaires” still fails.
The US Cabinet consists of the following offices.
Vice President
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Secretary of Homeland Security
Officials not official members of Cabinet but considered at Cabinet Level.
Trade Representative
Director of National Intelligence
Ambassador to the United Nations
Office of Management and Budget
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
Administrator of the Small Business Administration
As for the claims which you proclaim “beyond doubt”, since Vincent Viola, Todd Ricketts and Linda McMahon are not Cabinet appointees, it would appear your “source ” like yourself, indulges in ” embellishment” to create a good story.
Of 16 member of Cabinet, only 1, Wilbur Ross, qualifies as a ‘billionaire’.
(Betsy DeVos married one of the heirs to the Amway Trust fortune, her own personal fortune is modest.)
The majority of the Cabinet appointments appear to be people of very modest wealth, including four, including the Vice-President, whose personal wealth is estimated at less than $ 1 million !
How does 1, or even 2, out 16 justify the claim “A Cabinet full of Billionaires” ?
No matter how you wish to “verbally bludgeon “, you can’t alter the inaccuracy of the falsehoods you claim as “facts beyond doubt”.
The President may rely on his family as “unpaid” aides and even confidants. Not unprecedented, JFK appointed his brother Attorney-General and his brother-in-law head of the peace core.
In fact, most US Presidents appointed family members as aides in one way or another. ( Bill Clinton obtained the same security clearances for Hillary).
Since the 1967 act preventing cabinet appointments being members of the Presidential immediate family.
As for President Trump or his family using his office to advance his business interests, that’s completely speculative. Neither article you cite contains any “fact’, just speculation of what might happen.
In reality, his family hotel business may suffer from the heightened risk of terrorism, protest etc. Speculation, is not evidence, the issue is far from “beyond doubt !”.
Why is is so hard for you to just admit you “embellished ” the truth ?
I wonder if Marco is as concerned about problems in his native Oz as he is about problems in the U.S. Surely there is nothing wrong with people in other countries occasionally pointing out problems in the U.S. But when it seems to become an obsession and someone in another country spends much of his time analyzing details about governance in the U.S., it does seem a bit odd.
All countries have problems and checkered histories. The U.S. and Oz are not exceptions. But one would think that someone would spend more time dealing with problems in his own country than with problems in another country.
Frank,
Oh dear, that’s a very telling response Frank, commonly employed by the losing side in any debate “why don’t you go back where you came from”!.
Australian politics and policies, in general only affect Australia and immediate neighbors. Even UK politics and policies have only a limited impact on the rest of the world.
In contrast US politics and policies affect the entire Western world, and to a lesser extent the entire world. If the US economy sneezes, the rest of the world’s economy catches cold.
US media is all pervasive, especially in the English speaking world.
For people like me who are involved involved in finance or clean tech technology, knowledge of US affairs is essential. Knowledge of Australian affairs is of little importance to my US contemporaries.
Perhaps I shouldn’t but I’m concerned for the sort of world my children and grandchildren will inherit.
I admire and applaud the relationship Trump enjoys with his family. It’s evident he’s a loving and inclusive parent. I would imagine having Donald Trump as a parent can’t be easy, yet the children all seem well adjusted and pragmatic about their father’s personality.
As every parent will attest, raising children whether you are rich or poor, ain’t easy !
Including your family when serving your country has a long tradition. Trump is not a young man, and grew up in a tradition of family enterprise. given his background his desire to include adult family members in his circle of advisors is not less surprising, in contrast to more professional politicians.
But that’s just my opinion.