Archives for 2017

Candidate Donald Trump sold himself to the American people as a winner. He promised if they elected him president, they would start being winners too. In fact, there would be so much winning people would get sick of it.

“We’re going to win. We’re going to win so much. We’re going to win at trade, we’re going to win at the border. We’re going to win so much, you’re going to be so sick and tired of winning, you’re going to come to me and go ‘Please, please, we can’t win anymore.’ You’ve heard this one. You’ll say ‘Please, Mr. President, we beg you sir, we don’t want to win anymore. It’s too much. It’s not fair to everybody else. And I’m going to say ‘I’m sorry, but we’re going to keep winning, winning, winning. We’re going to make America great again.”

Two months into his presidency, Trump voters are still waiting for the winning to start. Instead of being a victor, it seems President Trump has been a loser, with one set back after another.

Here is a list of Trump’s losses so far:

1. He lost the popular vote by the biggest margin ever for a “winning” president.
2. He lost on the “Muslim” travel ban … twice.
3. He lost his first National Security adviser.
4. He lost out on Mexico paying for the big, beautiful wall.
5. He lost out on repealing Obamacare.
6. He is under investigation by the FBI.
7. He has the lowest approval rating so early in his first term.

Historian Douglas Brinkley, the best-selling biographer of presidents Gerald Ford, Franklin Roosevelt, and Theodore Roosevelt, told The Washington Post, “This is the most failed first 100 days of any president. To be as low as he is in the polls, in the 30s, while the FBI director is on television saying they launched an investigation into your ties with Russia, I don’t know how it can get much worse.”

Even conservative pundit, Charlie Sykes, quipped on MSNBC, “Yeah, so far the only president who had a worse 100 first days would be William Henry Harrison who didn’t last past 30 days.” Harrison died of pneumonia one month after taking office.

It appears the only winners so far have been those Americans opposed to Trump’s agenda. They are saying, “with winning like this, who needs losing?”

Photo | theonion.com

He was going to be their hero. He was going to shake things up in Washington D.C. like no career politician ever could. He was going to stand up for the forgotten man (and woman). He was going to fatten their wallets!

For a significant number of Trump supporters, the dream of finally having a champion-in-chief of the common folk has been shattered. The excitement they felt on inauguration day has turned into regret. Former devotees now openly admit Donald Trump has taken them for a ride.

Trump’s failure to repeal and replace Obamacare with a GOP healthcare plan that he promised would be more affordable, expand choice and ensure “health care access for all Americans” is just the latest blow to a love affair gone bad.

Even the more ardent Trump backers are upset with his rushed, ill-thought-out “Muslim” travel ban now blocked by the courts.

Many Trump followers have been shocked to learn that American taxpayers will be paying for his big, beautiful wall, not the Mexicans.

There are some voters who take offense at Trump’s frequent weekend getaways … and all the additional security expense they entail. Three million dollars for the president to golf at his luxury Mar-a-Lago resort, they ask?

Some disillusioned supporters say they had hoped Trump would act more presidential once in office. A few even admit to wishing he would act more like Obama!

There is a Twitter feed specifically for Trump supporters who feel let down by the man they helped put into the Oval Office. The feed had 25,000 followers even before Trump took office. The current following has climbed to over 250,000 of mostly exasperated people who claim to have voted for Donald Trump.

There, no doubt, is a solid base of Trump supporters who will never give up on their man. These are the people Trump had in mind when he boasted he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and not lose support.

But for many voters, especially those who reluctantly voted for Trump, less for his promises and more because they hated Hillary so much, the regrets will just keep on coming.

Photo | upi.com

Just when you thought Donald Trump couldn’t make it more obvious he’s the most unqualified, and dangerous, person to ever occupy the Oval Office, he finds a way to prove you wrong.

In an interview with Time’s Washington Bureau Chief Michael Scherer, the 70-year-old president, who has boasted he sees a 35-year-old when he looks in the mirror, sounded more like a petulant five-year-old playground bully.

At the end of the interview, in which Scherer confronts Trump on the serious issue of credibility, more specifically his lack thereof, Trump answers, “I guess, I can’t be doing so badly, because I’m president, and you’re not.”

And that wasn’t the most cringeworthy part of the conversation!

Trump proceeded his schoolyard taunt by telling Scherer, “I’m a very instinctual person, but my instinct turns out to be right.”

So we have the leader of the free world admitting he listens to his gut more than the sound advice of experts? We have a leader who is guided more by what he feels to be true than what’s actually true?

If these statements were the ramblings of an unenlightened senior citizen who never gained the wisdom that normally comes with age, we could simply ignore them.

But this man is the President of the United States!

Even though Scherer presented Trump multiple opportunities to walk back some of his more obvious lies, Trump wouldn’t have any of it.

Yes, he was wiretapped by Obama. Yes, there was a terror attack in Sweden. Yes, Ted Cruz’s father palled around with Lee Harvey Oswald. Yes, Trump saw thousands of Muslims celebrating on 9-11 in New Jersey. Yes, 3 million undocumented people voted in the 2016 election.

Scherer asked Trump, “But you would agree also that some of the things you have said haven’t been true.”

The reporter then observed, “But traditionally people in your position in the Oval Office have not said things unless they can verify they are true.”

“Well, I’m not, well, I think, I’m not saying, I’m quoting, Michael, I’m quoting highly respected people and sources from major television networks,” Trump replied.

And there you have it. Trump is not just making stuff up!

Seriously, can a president get his information from any more highly respected news sources than Fox News and the National Enquirer?

Photo | time.com

In a largely underreported news story, a group of citizens has initiated a case with the Supreme Court of the United States to nullify the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

A petition for a writ of mandamus has been filed asking the Court to take mandatory action in the name of public duty. The writ – filed Jan 18, 2017 by Diane Blumstein, Donna Soodalter-Toman, and Nancy Goodman – has been assigned a docket number.

The gist of the petitioners’ argument is that under Article IV § 4 of the U.S. Constitution, it is the job of the federal government to keep U.S. territory safe from foreign invasion. The Constitution stipulates, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.”

The petition cites as evidence of such an invasion the Russian hacking of our presidential election and asks that Trump’s victory be nullified on the grounds that cyber-territory in the U.S. was invaded with the intention of altering the results of the presidential election. The petitioners seek an entirely new election.

The High Court has scheduled a conference for March 17, 2017.

While this is good news for those holding out hope that the election results may be undone, legal experts are predicting the petitioners’ chances of prevailing are slimmer than Trump having graduated the University of Pennsylvania summa cum laude.

In a story on the subject, Occupy Democrats described the court action as “a longshot,” later indicating the petition “has a 1% chance of even being heard by the court, let alone of being decided favorably” for the petitioners.

But isn’t the fact the Court assigned a docket number and a conference date a good sign?

No. According to Counsel Press, a consulting firm, the Court’s action is not an indication the Justices have decided the claim has merit and ought to be discussed. A spokesman for the firm even speculated the individuals who filed this petition had a better chance of winning a Powerball lottery than of seeing their petition move forward.

Could all this obvious futility be why the case has remained largely unnoticed?

The bottom line seems to be don’t look for this court to get involved in the 2016 presidential election as it did in 2000 with Bush v. Gore.

Sad.

Photo | REUTERS/Larry Downing