on trump's unfitness for the office

TL; DR: just looking at hard evidence of words and actions, there are 759 reasons why trump is not fit to serve in the office of president.  confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance combine to cause trump supporters to either not see, or not care about any of them, or to consider "the other side" as worse.

 

 

while it might be easy to dismiss me as a never-trumper, hater, or whatevs... i'm actually not. 

i like to give points for results. 

in 2016, the idea that we had a solid chance to elect a businessman to be president meant to me that words and intentions that drive much of politics could possibly be replaced with actions and results.  and if trump delivered results, it would be disingenuous to say that he doesn't deserve a second term.  i mean, let's keep emotion out of this.  he either did a good job or he didn't.

but here we are in 2020.  the results are in, and the scoreboard is posted.  he failed.

this article below is the antidote for the illness of chronic confirmation bias that seems to afflict many in the maga cult.

meaning even if 95% of the article linked below are outright lies...

that still leaves 40 reasons why Trump is unfit to hold the office

and given that 100% of them have references to back them up...

i'm figuring that maybe the amount that are actually true is a little more than 5%

take a nice casual stroll thru this fairly comprehensive review of the past few years:

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/columns/reasons-why-donald-trump-is-unfit-to-be-president

on just letting the man do the job we elected him to do

TL;DR: supporting trump means that you have to abandon the concept of separation of powers as designed and written into the US constitution.  the power that trump supporters want trump to have has many parallels to leaders around the world that are dictators, authoritarians, monarchs, or fascists. 

 

i hear this a lot from the right:

we elected trump to be president, but when congress in general, and the democrats in particular, and the majority of the news media, are doing nothing but obstructing him.  imagine how much more he can accomplish if we just got out of his way and let him do the job we elected him to do.  we had this one great opportunity to elect a successful businessman to be president, so that he could bring innovative and cost-effective strategies to government to make it run better.  this opportunity is squandered when the legislature and judiciary, not to mention the media, all keep getting in his way.  this is just evidence that they all hate him more than they love america.

like... wow...

i know, right?

here's the thing though.  for about half the country, these ideas are true to them.

there are millions of americans who have allowed themselves to become so delusional, that they actually believe this.  of course this attitude divides rather than works to unite.  but more than that, it shows an extreme lack of understanding of what america is, and why the constitution is written the way it is, and our government is designed the way it is.

so let's take those ideas above, and let them play out to see where we end up:

1. when you want a legislature to rubber stamp what the chief executive (ie, president) wants...

2. when you want federal judges, especially supreme court justices, who “lean your way”, rather than those who are impartial...

3. when you wish america and the media would just let the man fix the country “like we elected him to do”...

it sure sounds to me like you want the same system russia, china, north korea, saudi arabia, and several african dictatorships have. 

...and not to mention, for a while there, venezuela!

(i bring up venezuela, because that seems to be the flavor of the month for those on the right to back up their idea that socialism is bad... that any country who implements socialist programs will eventually become venezuela.)

all said with a straight face.  no understanding of what checks-and-balances are, and why they exist, both the other branches and levels of government, and our independent media, no, just a desire to give trump (or obama, or bush, or any one person, for that matter), The Reins.  

so...

are you sure about that?

are you really sure a government completely aligned behind one person's agenda is what we want?

in other words, when trump supporters say they "love america", but also have these kinds of ideas, i'm confused about what they mean by that.

these are today's conservatives, and today's GOP.  the same people who called obama a dictator and wanna-be king are all for everyone getting out of trump's way.  the same people who were perfectly fine with mcconnell declaring publicly that the official stance of the GOP in 2009 was obstruction, are all about pointing out democrat obstruction.

here's what they really mean:
they're ok with dictators as long as it's on their side.
they're ok with obstruction as long as they're the ones obstructing.

and if those are the new positions of the GOP, that's actually fine.  a party can adopt whatever platform they want and let the voters decide, but to pretend that you believe obstruction per se is wrong, or that america should not be led by a dictator, just another bag of lies.

on how the impeachment worked out

TL;DR: going toe-to-toe between conservatives and liberals about why the impeachment process happened, if it should have happened, etc. often comes down to a belief about what trump did, why he did it, (if he even did it) and if he did, was it even wrong, or illegal, or significant enough to warrant an impeachment at all.  in the end, you just spin in the mud.  in this article. i take a slightly different approach and isolate out and discuss as impeachable only those actions that are undisputed facts, often recorded on video, and often enough admitted by trump himself, often proudly.  in the end, yeah, his offenses fell squarely into those the founders considered major enough to warrant impeachment.

 

yeah, we get it.  there's a lot of stuff like, he did this, he didn't do that, you can't prove this, even the "other side" did that too, or even worse...

whatever.
like it or not, the process worked as designed, and the president was acquitted.

no use going toe to toe, trading punches, making points that are assumptions or opinions.  it isn't going to resolve anything, and only results in shouting past each other.


so let's try something different.


let's sum things up by making a few points that are undisputed by either side, shall we?

undisputed point #1: trump asked russia to hack hillary to find missing emails, etc

this is not disputed.  it's in fact video recorded.  he repeats it often, and seems to be quite proud about it, defiant even.

giving foreign interests any influence or control of our internal political processes is one of the primary reasons why the impeachment clause exists to begin with.  the founding fathers wanted to make sure that the person elected to the office which *presides* over how our government runs is fully defending it from foreign powers.

therefore, a fundamental flaw.  it almost falls under the category of "you had one job".

trump on the other hand, went the other way with it.  i'm thinking his position might be, why have power if you can't use it to help himself?

if you've got a problem with the steele dossier, then you have to have a problem with this too.

undisputed point #2: at best, trump ‘incentivized’ ukraine to dig into biden

forget the words "pressured", "extorted", or "bribed".  ukraine wants and needs to stay on the good side of america, represented in this case by the chief executive, trump.

now that we're beyond whether or not a connection between aid and dirt can be proven, since the impeachment is over, now we're free to take a look at what happened, why and when; what was offered, why and when; what was expected, why and when; and what was ultimately done, why, and when.

let's say you need something from the president, that he has the discretion to give, and you talk on the phone with him about that stuff you need, that he has the discretion to hold up, if he wants to.  he offers the help you want, then follows up that point with "but i need a favor though".

if you say yes, you figured that increases the chances he'll help you, nor or in the future.
if you say no, you figure that could risk the chances that he'll help you.

that's how favors work.  zelensky may not have been "pressured", but the president of the united states at best incentivized a foreign leader to investigate a case, that trump believes shows strong indicators of corruption.

c'mon...

if you ask fox news, they were on both sides of the fence:

a. for some, there was no way trump linked aid to fighting corruption.
b. for some, trump had every right to protect taxpayer money by linking aid to fighting corruption.

the fact that fox news isn't even on the same page, says a lot.

if biden wasn't a presidential candidate, that call never happens and that favor never asked for.  can that be proven?  apparently not.  but... c'mon.

but check this out...

trump was asked weeks later if he ever discussed corruption with a foreign leader that did not involve someone running for president against him, and he could not answer that.  he said he'd have to check.  we're waiting.

undisputed point #3: trump asked china to do BOTH

he has asked china to hack political opponents, and he has tried guilting china ("if they would do the right thing") into investigating corruption committed by the bidens.

and there's no debating over quid pro quo here.  trump came right out and asked china to investigate.  sorry magas, it's a fact.

here's the thing though...

trump doesn't just do stupid things.  it's that when he gets caught, he often doubles down, seemingly as a message to say, it wasn't wrong then, and it's still not wrong now.  it's almost as if he figures that if he doesn't double down, that's sort of an admission that what he did the first time was wrong.  and for him, unwavering confidence is so much more important that doing the right thing.

undisputed point #4: trump is completely ok with accepting campaign assistance from foreign sources

he admitted it on national tv.  says he wouldn't have a problem with it, he'd listen to it, he wouldn't contact the fbi.  he said "it's called oppo research", even when it's coming from a foreign government looking to earn some favors and influence.  when trump was told that the fbi director claims that it would be illegal to not report it, trump's reply "that's not how the world works".  then later caved and  said "ok maybe i'd call the fbi, but i'd still listen to it; there's no harm in listening".

according to the federalist papers, one of the primary reasons for the impeachment clause was to provide congress with a mechanism for performing overwatch on the executive branch, as a check and balance, and primarily to ensure that the president is defending the nation from foreign influence  in the areas of authority covered by his office.

nope.  trump is 180 degrees in the opposite direction.  so much for conservatives loving those who "enforce the constitution as written".

undisputed point #5: trump's excuse that quid pro quo is used by presidents all the time

he's right.  they do.  quid pro quo (ie, negotiation, trade) is, in itself, not wrong.  in fact, it's hard to get anything done without it.  it is a valid and powerful tool, even in foreign policy.

but here's the thing.  it depends completely on what's being traded and why.

shooting someone is, in itself, not wrong.  it depends on if the person you shot broke into your house, threatening the lives of your family, or if the person you shot is a random innocent person in a shopping mall.  it's not about shooting, per se.  it's about who's being shot by whom, and why.

let's talk about trade.  trump is great at trade.  and he's doing his best making trade deals for the country, and for 50 years he's done a good job making trades for his businesses.  he even wrote (allegedly) a book called The Art of the Deal.  bestseller.  well known for a few decades now.

we hired a businessman to inject some business smarts into government.  business succeeds when it maximizes value for minimum cost.  government usually isn't incentivized to work that way.  so ok, elect a businessman president, and let's see how this goes.

the problem with trading when you’re the president is that as long as the trade benefits the country, great.  but if it benefits you personally or politically, or even appears to, you end up in deep shit and you need the power of the US Senate to bail you out.  trump doesn't appears to understand or care about the critical difference between those two.

undisputed point #6: the senate to the rescue

a. the GOP's position is basically, hey, the economy is clicking, and ok sure, he bent a few rules along the way, but when our enemies don't play by the rules, why put ourselves at a disadvantage?

b. trump's thinking, he's bent rules his whole life.  why would he change his formula for success now?  and if i was a supporter, i'd get that.

c. but in the end, as president you are entrusted with a lot of power, as long as you use that power in the context of doing your job for US.  when you use it for you, or worse, use it to given foreign powers control over our politics, that's a huge problem.  some would consider it treasonous.

not today though...  not today.  not by the GOP anyway.
they used to be against abuse of power.  now they're all for it.


i almost can't wait until trump is out of office someday, and watch all the GOP career politicians start yelling about how much they were "the one who was against trump the whole way".  ;-)  they were all against him in 2016.  they'll be against him again someday.  it's coming.

on quid pro quo

TL; DR: "quid pro quo", meaning "this for that", or basically the concept of negotiating a trade, is a valuable concept in business and in government.  whether the trade is good or bad, right or wrong, legal or illegal, moral or immoral, or ethical or unethical, depends completely on what is being traded and why.  "quid pro quo" by an elected official that serves constituents is proper, but when the prime motivation is in serving the elected official himself, it is improper.  trump's conversation with ukrainian leader zelensky was improper.

 

we elected a businessman, remember?

we elected a businessman to run the country with the efficiency and competitiveness of a business, and business runs on quid pro quo. that’s the only way business works.

if both sides negotiate and get what they each want, then that’s a fair trade and it probably baffles trump that something like this would be wrong, when his whole business life it’s been how things work.

when i read the transcript of trump's call with zelensky, my first impression was, i absolutely believe, that trump absolutely believes, that there was absolutely nothing wrong with that conversation.  trump later described the call as "absolutely perfect", and in the world of business, he's absolutely correct.

here's what happened:

trump has something that zelensky wants: aid, arms, javelin missiles, etc.

zelensky has something that trump wants: information that will damage his political opponent.

that's how business works.

not only is quid pro quo perfectly legal and acceptable in the business world, it also happens to be the ONLY way that business works.

i want a gallon of milk more than the $5 bill in my pocket.
the clerk wants a $5 bill more than the gallon of milk back in the dairy case.

the clerk and i BOTH get what we want, and life moves on.

that is The Art of the Deal!

the right will tell you that trump, being a law-and-order president, was simply inquiring about an investigation about some possible criminal behavior on the part of hunter biden, and possible misuse of power by the former vice president.

and if that's as far as you want to look into it, on paper, it seems logical, seems fair, seems proper.  if someone broke the law, they should be held accountable.

i would suggest two things, though:

1. trump seems to be very selective, maybe a lot too selective, about this particular criminal investigation that he's so concerned about.  i have to believe that criminal investigations that involve both the US and ukraine probably number in the dozens, if not hundreds per month.  why. that. one?

2. it hardly took the president of the united states, calling the president of the ukraine, to get an update on the biden investigation.  in business, sometimes you need to pull the boss card.  and almost always, it's because getting the boss involved means you're after something a little more than what you're asking about.  you want to influence the speed and outcome of the issue.  always. it's called "management escalation", because otherwise you're wasting everyone's time.

he has something ukraine wants, and they have something he wants.

they agreed on principle to trade fairly, so what’s the problem? this is how business works, right?

when two high school basketball players got arrested in china for defacing a sign, and trump himself chose to get involved, he was successful negotiating the release of the students.  one might figure that trump had to give something up in order to win back the students and gain some PR points.  if so, so what?  presidents use quid pro quo in these kinds of situations all the time.

trump did a great job with that. he did his duty. everyone was proud of him.  but then the father of one of the players, not only failed to thank the president, he stated publicly that he refuses to thank the president.  which is of course, his right to do.

what a president should do is, perhaps be a little dismayed or disappointed in that response, but at the end of the day, know that he did his duty to our country and our citizens, regardless of whether or not it is appreciated.  protecting these young americans was the right thing to do.

but not trump... no.  trump replied that maybe he shouldn't have worked to release the students, and he should have left them in china, in jail.  and all because one of the fathers wouldn't praise him.

yikes...  but hey...

that's how quid pro quo works.

we elected a businessman.  we should NOT be surprised when he acts like one.

on boot camp

TL;DR: despite the fact that service members, veterans, and military culture itself leans heavily to the political right, i found it funny that most of the lessons i learned in the military, especially in basic training, were communal, socialist, and stressed personal sacrifice for the team, and the needs of the unit outweighing the needs of the individual.  i don't understand why more members and veterans of the military aren't liberals.

 

why did i enlist in the US Army?

and why did i later choose to accept a commission as an officer in the US Army?

when people i talk with learn that i spent a few years in the army, some ask me what was boot camp like? and what were things i learned there that i remember now?

sorry trumpist "conservatives" you're not going to like this shit at all.  best stop reading now.

:-)

in short... every life long lesson i learned in boot camp was socialist, communal, and emphasized the greater good of the whole over the individual.

did you just feel a chill up your spine?  good.  fools...

for those who've never served, it seems to me, the general public's impression of boot camp is mostly from the movies.

so in that model, boot camp is pretty much about how some tough battle-hardened bastard in a campaign hat yells at you, identifies your weaknesses, flips your bunk, dumps your lockerbox, makes you run and do push-ups, makes you clean stuff way beyond clean, and forces you to drill every skill over and over until each one is automatic, and you conform to what they see as "training to standard".

you might hear things about about needing to "break you down", followed by weeks of "building you back up", or something like that.

those images are impressive.  they move your emotions.  they're entertaining. and on one level, most of those stories have a lot of truth to them.  but at the same time, i think they miss the point completely.

would you like to know what i think is the most valuable lesson i learned in boot camp?

i'll get there, but you need to read some more to get there.

i was 17.

i there for the most part, because a plain clothes recruiter came to my house and spoke to my parents. told them how far i exceeded on the asvab test.

i qualfied for ANY "occupational specialty" in the army. signal corps, military intelligence, whatever. i chose eleven bravo infantry anyway. i figured if i'm going to join the army, i may as well be an infantryman.

the recruiter told my parents that my love of country would serve me well through hardship.  and he got them, to allow them, to take government possession of their spawn a full year ahead of legal consent. in other words, if i'd waited til i was 18, they wouldn't need them to sign off.

but y'know... my parents were fine with that.

here's how i think they saw it:

my father volunteered for the marines in '67, and was half way thru boot camp at parris island before the army drafted him. (ha).  then served honorably in vietnam, receiving 3 purple hearts, a marine corps combat action ribbon, and others.

and i will never in my life forget the most important part, that he volunteered.  

(he might have had bone spurs too, i dunno. he didn't let anyone find out. i doubt that would have stopped him anyway, because he was in fact deaf in his right ear... completely deaf... he hid it.  he picked up a rifle and deployed to southeast asia, because that's what his country asked him to do.)

my mom trusted me, and knew that i knew what i was doing. i earned that trust through hard work, and she was fine with that.

ok here goes.

i learned a lot of things in boot camp:

- how to make my bunk. at hard angles. to the point where even after a long day, you stare at it a few seconds, and you're afraid to sleep in it... seriously.  sometimes you slept carefully on top of it, so that you could buy 10 minutes of sleep the next morning not having to remake it.  seriously.

- how to brush my teeth and wipe my ass (because apparently i've been doing it wrong my whole life,  thanks mom) ;-) 

- how to display my locker  

(hint, there is no "one way". just do it the way everyone in your platoon does it... uniformity is more important than conformity. 

meaning, if your squad leader puts six rolled up wool socks on the left side of the bottom drawer, 3x2, then that is where your socks better fucking be.)

- how to get beat on the side of the head with a trash can lid when i don't wake up and stand to, in time.

- how to lower my heart rate using breathing patterns, in order to knock down a tiny target 300m away with a 5.56mm round using nothing but iron sights and passionate focus, else i can eat later than everyone else (even though after a morning 5 mile run, and an evening 10 mile ruck march, i'm pretty fucking hungry)

- yes, when it comes to learning how to kill something at age 17, they figured out that hunger is the most powerful motivator.  it works.  i never failed after that first day to knock down that target 300m away.  (i like to eat)

- how to shine my boots to mirror finish using black kiwi, spit, and nylon stockings from the PX that i bought off this guy for $5, from the next company over, who i met on CQ tour, and he was two cycles ahead of me. cotton cloth doesn't work.   gotta go with the nylon.  i'm sure he only gave me a piece of it, and he paid less, but i didn't fucking care. my boots looked awesome after that, and so did those of everyone in my squad, for free.

- how to sneak in extra shit into your ruck, so that when your buddy gets caught short of something, he doesn't go without and get punished. (he will pay you back next time. buddies are good to earn.)

- how to bend rules without getting caught.  because in life, if you're not cheating, you're not trying. (by the way... in life, this works a lot too)

but the singular most important life lesson i learned in boot camp, that i think this country would be much better if everyone had a chance to learn this lesson, is...

how to silently and directly eat the blame, and bear the punishment, for something that wasn't your fault. 

how to resist the urge to lash back, to plead your case, to expect that life is going to be fair, and the expectation that the authority punishing you for the offense even gives a shit about the facts of the matter.

it's hard.

it's harder than 100 pushups.

when you're blamed, and you know it's not your fault, you want to fucking scream.

whenever something went wrong, and it wasn't my fault, and i got blamed, yelled at, judged, and punished for it, in my mind, i felt offended. i felt aggrieved. i felt that if i could just logically state my case, i would be absolved, and that justice would be served, and the leveling of the world would come back into balance.

i kept those feelings in my mind, to myself.

i learned that in life, fuck what you expect.

when something happens, bad, to you or your team, and they blame you. you fucking eat it.

eat. it. 

shut up.

forget it.

move on.

your team is counting on you. (life isn't about you)

drill sergeants. part of what they do is set you up in catch-22 bullshit. and if you keep expecting justice you will continue doing push ups.  hundreds.  and they hurt after a while.

they don't fucking care.

and life doesn't either.

and that's a GENIUS MOVE for teach a teenager this.

the moment you accept the blame, you will eat their anger they spit at you, but you won't have to do pushups anymore.

i've never forgotten that lesson.

prepare.

control what you can control.

and then reach out and help others who haven't prepared.

you might have to eat their blame, and next time, despite your best efforts, they might eat your blame.

but ANY TIME your buddy fails and they blame you. eat it.  that's the meaning of sacrificing to something bigger than yourself.

the mission is more important than your feelings.

the reason why this country could use a draft ISN'T because we want more teenagers to learn how to march, shoot, and get yelled at.  that's horseshit that don't mean nothing.

the reason why this country could use a draft is to GIVE EACH young adult the humility and HONOR they need to understand that while their own personal needs and desires deserve respect, the needs and desires of AMERICA require and deserve greater respect.

EVERY soldier who was maimed, or died, due to to the call of their nation, over the last few centuries, booked a debt that is your duty to pay back with whatever might, public or private, you have, to the progress of our nation.

i often fail to understand why those in the military are conservatives.

it's maybe because they're too young.
they respond more to strength than they do to logic.

or they apply socialism at scales close to them, but conservatism at scales larger than they can mentally wrap their heads around.

to salute the flag, is to respect the fact that we are a collective society.  we decided that joining together is a great way to deal with things best handled collectively, that we all use: highways, border protection, military, environmental protection, law enforcement, courts.

it sickens me when today's conservatives get their panties in a wad when someone doesn't do something with or toward The Flag that they find acceptable. especially those who never served. in doing so, they never grasp the perspective needed to understand what's really important and what's not.  what's worthy of being whiny about and what's not.

the one thing i always take away from folks on social media poppin off about what they think is right, what they demand as fair, is this: the more they whine, the more they show themselves to be soft.

when you talk hard but act soft, we're laughing at you.

i really wish we would bring the draft back.

it's not just about extracting service from those who benefit, for life, from the society built and defended by those who stand a post--no--it's more about how to eat shit for the greater good. to understand that, while your feelings have value, that value is worth exactly about 1/320 millionth of America, and not one bit more.

here's how to reclaim your worth.  reach down. grab the wagon handle.  pull it for us.  help people.  make the world a better place.  try... really try... to understand the perpective of someone other than yourself.  when you're in disagreement with someone, rather than seize the opportunity to force everyone to see how right you are, appreciate the opportunity to learn something new.  pay your taxes--and also get involved.  then at some point, die.  that's all you're worth.  you did a good job.

and if you do it right, someone might recognize you and give you a thumbs up. or not. the rest of us don't give a shit, k?

on the electoral college

TL;DR: the electoral college made more sense when states had more power then the federal government, or basically, back when the 10th amendment was the most important one.  the president runs the executive branch, and the federal government's role was designed to be a somewhat unifying organization of the states working together.  the reason why it doesn't make sense over the past century, is that the president is seen as the leader of the american people, and the federal government has more laws, dictates more actions, taxes heavier, spends more, and asserts control in more aspects of our lives than ever before.  to fix this, we should either abolish the electoral college, or we should atrophy the size, scope, and power of the federal government, returning most of the power back to the states like back when the US was formed.

 

the electoral college is the right way to elect the president and vice president of the united states--and i can prove it.

and i will.

but for a moment, let's back up and unpack some new (and some old) ideas that fuel so much drama and misinformation about this topic.

one of the hidden problems in this debate, and it stirs a lot of confusion, is that, when it comes to right vs left--each side thinks they're right and the other side is wrong.

what many don't realize (or don't want to realize) is that they're both right, and both wrong. and i'm about to show you how.

understanding and finding common ground between all of us, united, as americans, relies on us first cutting through the wrong aspects of our position, *and* at least *trying* to understand the others' thoughts enough so that they can either be logically accepted, or logically set aside.

first and foremost, if the extent that you understand the problem doesn't go further than the fact that in some recent elections, *your* guy got elected based on the electoral college tally, then you may not have enough attention span to make it through this thought exercise.

two examples:

1) Dear Conservatives:

if you're happy that trump got elected because it proves that the electoral college is setup so that the entire country isn't controlled by urban coastal elites, or so that the tyranny of the majority is held in check, or some other foxnews-invented pseudo-plausible reasons not based in fact or reality, then it's perhaps time to realize that you might be a little too brainwashed to dig any further. in which case, you either don't have the interest, or maybe don't have the ability to see this any way other than the way that fits what you want to believe.

or...

2) Dear Liberals:

if you believe that the office of president should be elected by a simple majority of americans, because to give the office to someone who received the second most american votes, over the person who got the most american votes makes no sense to you at all, then it's perhaps time to realize that you might be a little too brainwashed to dig any further. in which case, you either don't have the interest, or maybe don't have the ability to see this any way other than the way that fits what you want to believe.


ok, so if you've made it this far, and if you think one of the two examples above fit you to a T, then probably best to bail out on this article, and pull yourself back into your calm, soothing, ego stroking "yeah yeah" bubble.

still here? ok, let's dig in.

then i'm thinking you're ready to explore this issue a little further...

Here is where the RIGHT is CORRECT

at the federal level, we are a republic of states, united. and to a great degree, the states are treated as equals in the eyes of the federal level of government. so given that, are the needs of the people, despite one's state of residence, important to the federal level of government at all? yes, the people being equally represented is already covered by the house of representatives, which is half of congress, which is 1/3 of the federal government. how this works is, congress makes the laws that fairly serve the people (the house) and laws that fairly recognize and serve the needs of the states (the senate). for a bill to pass into law, it must serve and protect the interests of people and states. then of course the judiciary ensures that all are working fairly within the system, and conform to the constitution. 

so here we are. all we're left with is the executive branch. these are the agencies that take those laws and programs and money and put them into action. that branch needs a leader, a chief executive, and that is the president.  if we look at it like this, then it makes perfect sense that we don't elect the president by popular vote. after all, the president's primary job isn't to represent the people. rather the president's job is to run government operations the way congress decides, and in the manner that the judiciary backs up.

but, of course, if it were only that simple. Which brings us to...

Here is where the LEFT is CORRECT

it's been well over a century since we can look at america and see a place where you are a citizen of a state first, and the nation second.  there used to be a time when the powers of the federal government were correctly applied (and more importantly, mostly not applied). one could say it's more important that the federal government recognizes what it should NOT be doing, and LESS important for it to assert involvement in everything as the dominant force in our lives.

but for the past 100 years, in this context, the federal government has moved in the opposite direction than intended. it has grown in power and scope to the point where it has almost completely stripped the sovereignty of our 50 states down to the nib. sure, we have pride in "our state", but the degree that quaint idea is shifting toward full anachronism is rapidly accelerating.

the federal government has more laws, dictates more actions, taxes heavier, spends more, and asserts control in more aspects of our lives than ever before. it's arguable that 2/3 of what the feds do should be done by state and local government. but it's been so long, and so many generations since we saw a model of how that works, that the habits and muscle memory of who we are as a people have completely crushed those collective historical memories.

so now that we're left with a country that is almost all National, and what's left over for the states is not much more than local application of national patterns and practices, it makes perfect sense that the president, who is now more Head of State representing us all, than he is simply the executive that brings federal level legislation into action. it makes sense that we have been homogenized.

and when we all live in a flattened, unified nation where state borders are barely noticed anymore (politically), why should an individual vote in wyoming be worth *four times more*, than an individual's vote in california when electing the president?

but...

Here is where the LEFT is INCORRECT

so in short, i see where the left is coming from. but where they are wrong is that this is not how the federal government is designed to work--it's simply how for the past 100 years we've allowed it to *slide* into working.

so, if this is the way that the federal government is broken, then you don't "fix" that by breaking the presidential election process so that it fits. rather, the way to fix it, is to somehow get the federal government to go back to working the way it used to. back when the 10th amendment was more important than the 2nd. then the electoral college would make perfect sense again.

and if you had to look up what the 10th amendment is, then you just helped prove my point. It has become a remote figment and remnant of an earlier time.

but at the same time...

Here is where the RIGHT is INCORRECT

1) they say that the reason for the electoral college is to act as a bulwark against the tyranny of the majority. this is of course factually and historically wrong.

and this point is well-documented.

i mean, you don't prevent the majority from acting like a bully by giving power to the minority, effectively making *them* the bully.  after all, the majority opinion on any matter deserves legitimate respect. to some degree. and minority positions also deserve legitimate respect. to some degree.

no... rather... the bulwark against the majority enacting mob rule is made up of two components: an ethical legislature that represents all of our interests to the degree they can, backed up by a judiciary who make decisions with the intent of protecting everyone, majority and minority positions, along the lines of constitutional intent.

this can never be perfect. living in a society, and benefitting from a society has costs, and one of those costs is that you don't get to have everything your way. you occasionally need to respect the needs of the whole over the wants of yourself, and recognize that we all have creator-endowed rights to live and pursue happiness in a framework that defends everyone's freedom to the degree it can.

2) they say that the reason for the electoral college is to ensure that the needs of rural america aren't steamrolled by the desires of coastal urban elites.

no. Not only is this not mentioned anywhere in the constitution or federalist papers, the actual measurement of this is so tiny to be almost completely, statistically insignificant.

here's some propaganda meant to convince those outside of urban centers that the electoral college is meant to protect them.

if I lived in a rural area or rural state, feels like I'm going to get bullied by city folk.

looks like a big difference huh?

speaking of propaganda, here's another map that goes even *worse* in the other direction, in an attempt to show that rural areas actually have *more* righteous authority than they do, or should.

president trump loves this map down here on the left. It's the one he has hung in his office. He loves it because he knows that while it doesn't actually reflect reality, it's plausible enough to be brilliant marketing. Big swaths of red where the dirt is, and dots of blue so dense with humanity you can't see it without squinting. 

and note, neither map below has anything to do with the electoral college. check out these two maps. truth and lies in the same data.

the problem with this map on the left, is that it ignores population density (and thus ignores *people*) completely. This map is statistically, measurably, intellectually, and cartographically bankrupt. whereas the map next to it on the right, well, that one maps people. imagine that.

sucks to be that stupid map. ;-)

ok time for a reality check...

If the intent of the founders was to create an electoral system that prevents against "mob rule" they clearly did a shitty job of it.

the map on the left shows the relative strength each state has on the electoral college as a whole, based solely on the number of electors each state gets.

the map on the right shows the relative strength each state has on America as a whole, based purely on popular vote pure democracy.

the difference can barely be noticed.

by the way, it's already possible--given the current electoral college system--for the president to reach 270 electors by winning the 10 most populous states, ignoring 40 states.

how is that a bulwark against the majority? a defense against urban elites? or assurance that rural voters are respected? It's just math, folks. and the click-bait right-wing media lies about this. all. the. time.

maps feel so authoritative, it makes them an excellent propaganda tool.

i'm not going to say the founding fathers were not geniuses. because many of them were geniuses. but if one's argument for them being geniuses involves something they didn't do, on purpose, or by mistake, then you simply don't know what you're talking about, or... you have signed over your critical thinking skills to the propaganda arm of your chosen political party. congratulations.

you remember the electoral college don't you? the president does. and yet again.. he is wrong.  thank goodness the president has no power to change the system that put him in office.

and, oh, by the way, if your knee-jerk reaction to the tweet above was something along the lines of "but the US is not a democracy!!", then here's what i have to say about that..

let's hope the electoral college remains. but let's also hope that the federal government goes back to staying in its own lane when it comes to governmental authority. push it downward. feds push authority down to state; state to county; county to local; local to people and personal responsibility. that's the American way.

on abortion

TL;DR: ten reasons i support pro-choice, and most of them are consistent with just about all of the other traditional conservative values, oddly enough.  it's odd that in this particular case, conservatives gladly take rights away from the individual, and hand full domain over to big government.

 

these 10 ideas below are mine, and i believe they are completely consistent with one another.

why are they rarely--if ever--combined this way?:

1. life begins at conception. there is zero scientific evidence to the contrary.

2. gestation is a biological process that is inextricably linked to a woman's body. there is zero scientific evidence to the contrary.

therefore the progress of a pregnancy is the domain of the woman undergoing it. no one else's.  therefore, there is zero logical support for a government having greater domain over a woman's body, than the woman has.

continue...

3. the woman can choose to get advice, care, services, procedures from a qualified medical physician, or not.

4. if the woman, with or without medical advice, chooses to end the gestational process, with or without the advice of others, that is her business and no one else's.

5. if the man who biologically contributed to the pregnancy, is unmarried to the woman, then he has as much say in this as the woman wants him to have. if she chooses none, then it's none. period. full stop. shut up and go home.

6. however if the man who biologically contributed to the pregnancy, is unmarried to this woman, and SHE chooses to bring the gestation to term, deliver the baby, and raise it, then HE is 50% responsible for this child, and fully obligated to support that child, at a minimum, financially, until the child is 18 or 21, or whatever is required by local laws.

7. (dear unmarried men: if you don't think 2 through 6 are fair, then maybe next time put more consideration into who you choose to have sex with. there are many reasons why sex outside marriage is risky. this is one. you accepted the risk. you have no say in it going forward, but you are fully obligated to the consequences.)

8. if the man who biologically contributed to the pregnancy, is married to the woman, then he has exactly 49% say in how the gestation process continues, 51% of course being reserved to the woman in this situation, and her physician, if she so chooses.

9. (dear married men: #7 mostly applies to you too, by the way. sorry, be more careful next time.)

10. making abortion illegal does not get rid of abortion. it only results in dangerous abortions and deaths of women. and by "women" i mean poor women, because of course women with resources, money, or political influence, even those who love the baby Jesus, will ALWAYS be able to get safe abortions when it's convenient for them. yes... every bit of sociological research, in every country, throughout time, has shown this to be true. there is no historical evidence to the contrary.

----------

ok, reals? honest? let's fucking bottom line this bullshit, and expose the full picture to those who think it's their job to tell others what to do, and take some twisted comfort in only seeing HALF the problem:

A. abortion is surely a tragic thing. even women who choose this path know this to be true, and the decisions they make never go away, and they know this too.

B. practically no one believes abortion is a good thing. an aborted fetus is a potential human who never got to be a kid, grow up, learn, explore, fall in love, help others, build a life, nuture a family, grow old on their own terms, and reflect on memories of a life well lived...

C. but as free people, we are free to make decisions for ourselves that could haunt us, and could fill us with regret and guilt, *as much as* we have the right to make decisions for ourselves that we could look back and consider was the right thing to do. these two eventualities extend to all of our life's decisions, well beyond the abortion issue--all of our decisions.

BUT...

...at the end of the day, a woman's gestation, pregnancy, fetus, is hers. it. is. hers.

we as americans have been given the gift of freedom. many have labored and died to build and defend that freedom. we are free to live our lives, and when it comes to our bodies, men's or women's, we all have rights that should always supercede the government's.

if you're part of the "new right", and you'd like to claim some moral high ground to tell other people what you think they should do, here's my advice: shut the fuck up. no one asked you.