and more of this…
and more of this…
12.5% strength & charisma
50% pours gasoline on the fire
2016: Hahaha, look at the snowflakes melt!
2020: Oh my gawd,, how could he lose?! It was rigged!!!
No copyright infringement is intended.
In fact, the word is championed by Republicans. But as Ayn Rand put it…..
America was created by men who broke with all political traditions and who originated a system unprecedented in history, relying on nothing but the “unaided” power of their own intellect. But the “neo-conservatives” are now trying to tell us that America was the product of “faith in revealed truths” and of uncritical respect for the traditions of the past (!).
It is certainly irrational to use the “new” as a standard of value, to believe that an idea or a policy is good merely because it is new. But it is much more preposterously irrational to use the “old” as a standard of value, to claim that an idea or a policy is good merely because it is ancient. The “liberals” are constantly asserting that they represent the future, that they are “new,” “progressive,” “forward-looking,” etc. — and they denounce the “conservatives” as old-fashioned representatives of a dead past. The “conservatives” concede it, and thus help the “liberals” to propagate one of today’s most grotesque inversions: collectivism, the ancient, frozen, status society, is offered to us in the name of progress — while capitalism, the only free, dynamic, creative society ever devised, is defended in the name of stagnation.
Now after reading that try to apply conservatism to the most important target group: the young. Who in their right fucking mind calls themselves the Grand Old Party?! Why not then Grandpa’s Ornery Problems??
If you’re a young, undecided voter, are you gonna vote for this crinkly built on boring traditional family values???
Or this hip upstart who went on MTV of all places? And played sax too?
Ever wonder why Clinton was reelected?
Jeez, he won your primary. Surely the kids were cackling over that.
How about this nice chap who served?
Or this badass?!?!
Kicks and giggles aside, conservatives go bug-eyed over words like tradition and heritage. However, to that young person coming up and wanting to make their mark in the world, well those things don’t really resonate with them because frankly it’s a vocabulary for old people. You wouldn’t see descriptors like New Republican, Free Market Enterpriser, Pro-Capitalist, etc. No, it’s back to the old slog of I’m a conservative with the attached vagueness of …..who believes in The American Way.
Conservative is the vocabulary for the old on their last legs. There’s nothing in its pronunciation that brings excitement to our young because it’s guilty of being so gal darn steeped in the past. There’s no vision of a New Conservative because Republicans believe in the status quo on the language of conservatism. Compared to the future-sounding progressive, well conservative amounts to that old rocking chair about to crumble. Yet it continues to be used by Republicans as if it has meaning. Take a look at any definition of conservative and what you will always find is “the established,” “the old,” “what worked then, works now,” “preserving tradition.” But you’ll never find the words today, tomorrow, or future. It’s odd for a conservative word that claims to have done so much for human history that it cannot utter one word beyond yesterday.
My recommendation for any young Republicans out there would be to take the word, put it in a sealed bottle with weights, and drop the goddamn fossil in the lake.
Update: It has been mentioned by a few that because conservatives are about preserving and changing only if needed, that they’re fine with boring. This is incorrect. You have to make the traditional new & improved, but certainly not the language of boring. It’s sort of like watching home improvement shows. A house is still basically a box, but the design innovations make it exciting and fresh.
(No copyright infringement is intended.)
You can’t complain about the left not covering this…
When you went silent on this…..
Wait. You did…..
No copyright infringement is intended.
These are a few of the too many to name examples of bizarre bias when trying to defend Trump’s behavior and flat-out hypocrisy. Against critical detail, some have replied with “MAGA IN 2020!!!” or the tiring “FAKE NEWS!,” as if they didn’t listen to or read the comment to begin with. It’s this miss on what is extraordinarily obvious that’s perplexing.
1. Melania Trump’s “Anti-Cyberbullying” Campaign.
The hypocrisy is amazing in that Trump is The Master of bullying. As one person said, it’s clear the First Lady feels helpless in stopping her husband’s tweet storms and general verbal attacks. Honorable mention to the youtubers who criticized CNN for “bullying” Trump.
2. “God wanted Trump to be president.”
ZAP! The hand of God. Trump did once mention The Bible “Is my favorite book of all-time,” but if you actually believe him I’m not sure what to say???
3. “I don’t understand why people criticize President Trump. He’s such a nice person.”
I’ve heard Trump called a “buffoon”, “jackass,” “an idiot,” “vulgar”, “arrogant,” “loudmouth,” “narcissist,” and “a 70 year-old child with a tantrum problem,” but I’ve never ever heard anyone describe him as “a nice person.” In fact, I’ve never heard a Republican say as much. It’s bizarre projection from the depths of the twilight zone.
4. The turbulent political climate wasn’t created by Trump. He is just a product of a brash social media that had been doing this for years.
This implies the media is responsible for his behavior, not Trump. No examples were given, and apparently none were needed.
5. “Quora is not really the place to ask a question phrased in so inflammatory a fashion. I, for instance, would ask you to define the term “jerk” and provide some evidence or illustration that DT has frequently acted in a way that meets that definition.”
Common sense doesn’t need a dictionary definition of a “jerk.” You look at Trump’s name calling and numerous other infantile outburst to realize this. It’s only when there’s a partisan bias do we need to dig into the depths of the banal to make gray what isn’t.
What did I do?!?!
What I’ve read that has been mentioned over and over by psychologists is Trump’s narcissism. Therefore it shouldn’t be a real surprise he tried to push the G7 summit at his Doral resort with a “no-bid” contract, or flippantly described the Emoluments Clause in the Constitution as “phony.” It is the first clause in the Constitution which was written and has never been removed to this day. There could be a reason for this (?), and Trump’s deplorables might want to do some reading up on it as to why.
The Domestic Emoluments Clause(a.k.a. the Presidential Emoluments Clause) (art. II, § 1, cl.7): “The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United
The purpose of the Domestic Emoluments Clause is to preserve the President’s independence. Under the Clause, Congress may neither increase nor decrease the President’s compensation during his term, preventing the legislature from using its control over the President’s salary to exert influence over him. To further preserve presidential independence, the Clause prohibits a sitting President from receiving emoluments from federal or state governments, except for his fixed salary.
Basically the Clause states that the President, during his time in office, is guaranteed a wage “which shall neither be increased nor diminished,” meaning we the government cannot pay him less, and the President cannot make more. Trump’s wage, a “public” wage, is an agreed upon wage, and that’s it. You’ve taken an oath “to serve the people.” Ah, nevermind that nonsense… Deplorables are now saying because the economy is in the best shape ever… ah yes, there we go.
Trump has mentioned he doesn’t take a salary as president, which is around $400K. That’s a lot of money regardless, and some of his supporters have cited this as the reason for no attempt to profit. However, the truth is his con is his president’s salary is peanuts to the tens of millions he can gain from international leaders staying and utilizing his business properties. What makes this unique is it’s right out in the open for all to see. (As one said, you’d think he’d do a better job of hiding it?) Except that Trump’s supporters don’t, or worse refuse, to see it.
As Toluse Olorunnipa points out, it was the Republicans who had to point out to Mr. Trump that this is a bad idea politically (and not the Democrats or the media). Because, I dunno, there’s a conflict of interest in holding a summit at one of your own properties. More to the point, it’s the appearance of a conflict of interest that’s the problem. I’d explain that for the deaf, but over and over do supporters not see a conflict of interest. A few Republicans interviewed have tried to downplay the incident by saying it was an “(un)forced” error. Sadly, if you do this
( R ) (D) Donald J. Trump, the outcry begins.
As another said, since Trump isn’t in it for profit than he won’t mind we reverse the decision and move it to a different site altogether.
Why not Camp David? Because the president doesn’t own it.
Because the president can’t use taxpayer money to renovate and upgrade his personal property unless conducting official government business there.
It’s simple grift. Easy to understand, easy to see why it should not be allowed.
But hey, it’s your guy. Cognitive dissonance wins again.
Defend it, if you can.
Forget that. The domestic emoluments clause states:
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
His order to allocate federal government funds to his own personal business is as blatant, deliberate a breach of this constitutional provision as could be imagined.
This has to be one of the most (if not the most) blatant violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which says:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
In short, it is illegal for Donald Trump or any other elected official in the U.S. to receive any sort of gift, payment, or anything of value from a foreign leader, officers, or foreign representatives. It is nothing short of outrageous that Trump would flout this blatant disregard for this law. As Rep. Jamie Raskin wrote in an op-ed for The Washington Post, the founders specifically addressed this to prevent someone from profiting directly off the presidency:
Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist No. 72, warned that a day might come when a president treated the government as a get-rich-quick opportunity: “An avaricious man, who might happen to fill the office, looking forward to a time when he must at all events yield up the emoluments he enjoyed, would feel a propensity, not easy to be resisted by such a man, to make the best use of the opportunity he enjoyed while it lasted.”
The framers wrote the foreign emoluments clause — the original and true “America First” policy — in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution, to prevent the president and other federal officials from accepting, without congressional consent, “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” And they wrote the domestic emoluments clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 7, which authorizes a fixed presidential salary that may be neither increased nor reduced by Congress during a president’s term, and which specifies that the president “shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”
This cannot stand. The location of the G-7 must change or Donald Trump must be held accountable for breaking the law. We are either a nation of laws, or we are not.
This was just an attempt to use taxpayer money to renovate his failing Doral.
What’s so wrong with that? Get Over It.
I agree, I like how he purposely didnt read the WHOLE clause… Leaving out the part of ” without the Consent of the Congress”. Wish people would read the constitution themselves instead of being sheep to the media.
he didn’t get consent from congress tho
Oh big deal if the Trump’s are making a little do-re-mi on the side during his presidency. Don Jr. looks like he needs the money for a shave and Eric needs it for….well….something. Emoluments Clause, Schmoluments Clause. Sometimes the Constitution goes too far! This is your tax money at work!
Humor in Hypocrisy
“Next G7 at Obama Towers, a wholly owned hotel of Obama, Inc. GOP erupts in applause and approval.” Lindsay Graham quoted as saying, “Obama is just so gosh darn proud of those towers. I’m so happy for him.” Sean Hannity tweets out his approval and excitement for Obama’s wholly owned hotel to be hosting official government events.
We did not vote in Trump as President just for him to act cowardly when faced with the a challenge from the Constitution. He should fight the Dems over this who are trying to enforce the Constitution on him.