Tag: Donald Trump

Term Limits Trump

Donald Trump, term limits, president, first, illustration

Entering his campaign’s homestretch, underdog Donald J. Trump gave an important speech at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. He emphasized his support for term limits in what he called his “100-day action plan to Make America Great Again.”

“[R]estoring honesty, accountability and change to Washington” is the top item on Trump’s agenda, along with a pledge to begin the drive for “a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress” on his very first day in the Oval Office.

Public disgust with the corrupt status quo in Washington — and the hope that he will shake things up — drove Trump’s victory.

Yet, today, the Elections Committee of Michigan’s House of Representatives hears testimony on several bills to weaken or repeal term limits. Have the limits lost public support? Not on your life.

Politicians simply want to stay ensconced in power, reaping the many benefits they’ve bestowed upon themselves. They want to stay in power longer.

Just look to California. Back in 2012, a dishonest ballot explanation tricked voters into thinking they were tightening their term limits law. But what they were actually doing was voting to weaken it.

Now, Golden State legislators can stay in the same seat for a dozen years. And special interests have noticed. They’re “investing” more heavily than ever before.

The Los Angeles Times summarized the result in its headline: “Longer terms for California’s Legislature mean a flood of cash from interest groups …”

Here’s for enacting real term limits at every level of government. And if the politicians and special interests don’t like it — good!

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags agenda, Donald Trump, president, term limits, U.S. Term Limits

Accountability media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies

Indecency Abounds

Donald, Trump wins, media, failure, illustration

The most indecent aspect of this bizarre election year? The “grab them” comment … from a decade ago? The lies about lies about lies? The “debates”?

Maybe not. Maybe it’s the infamous “mainstream media.”

Last week I wrote about the most obvious case, that of Donna Brazile and her helping hand emails to the Clinton campaign, accomplishing what years of mere induction and analysis could not: justifying, totally, the epithet for CNN as the “Clinton News Network.”

But it was nearly the whole media that was in the tank, as we say nowadays, for Mrs. Clinton. This has been obvious for some time. Even mainstream media mavens have noticed it, as I wrote not too long ago.

Will more journalists and TV faux-journalists notice?

They certainly have now noticed that they did not see a Trump victory coming.

Delusional about Hillary Clinton’s likability, and about how normal folks react to her history of corruption and scandal, TV talking heads and powerful newspapers doubled down in her favor … which may have actually helped precipitate a result against their intention.

The mainstream media triggers much of America, you see, especially the parts of the country that revolted against the prospect of a Clinton Dynasty.

Not that I place myself above journalists as objective, either. I’m not a journalist. I’m an activist. I am for liberty. Responsibility. Accountability. Limited government. I’m no more a fan of major party messiahs than I am of their rah-rah boys in the journalist biz.

I’m not exactly shouting about Trump’s win. I’m just happy that Hillary — and her vast Democratic-partisan media conspiracy — lost.

If this be indecency, make the most of it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags Donald Trump, election, Hillary Clinton, journalism, media

ballot access general freedom government transparency media and media people national politics & policies political challengers

A Brexit Effect?

gamble, betting, HIllary Clinton, Donald Trump, president, presidency, election, voting, illustration, creative commons

Before the Brexit vote, the likelihood of British secession from the European Union garnered a mere 25 percent chance. That was according to European betting markets, which are usually more accurate. In June, the Brits voted Brexit.

Donald Trump has made much hay of this, understandably.

On Tuesday, the odds of a Trump victory hit the same mark: 25 percent.

Gwynn Guilford’s report on this was drolly titled “Donald Trump has the same odds of winning as Jon Snow ruling Westeros, according to betting markets.”

On June 11, Business Insider had reported that Hillary was increasing her lead; on October 18, it exulted that the Irish betting markets had “already declared a winner” — not Trump. On November 1, the news aggregator merely noted that Moody’s is calling the election a landslide for Clinton.

But BI is also covering the scandal that has disturbed the Clinton camp. There’s no love lost between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice, explains Natasha Bertrand in “‘The Antichrist personified’: ‘Open warfare’ and antipathy toward Clinton is reportedly fueling the FBI leaks.” The meat of her representation is that “much of the agents’ frustration … may boil down to partisanship”; the FBI is “Trumpland.”

Yet the article ends quoting another FBI official insisting that both Trump and Clinton are awful candidates.

A plausible judgment.

Whether late-in-the-game revelations of Clinton corruption and FBI probing can defy current odds and produce a Clinton defeat remains to be seen. As of Thursday evening, polls-only forecasts placed the odds of winning at 67/33 in favor of Mrs. Clinton, while electionbettingodds.com placed them at 70.2/29.2.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

N.B. Late-breaking Brexit news: The United Kingdom’s high court ruled yesterday that Parliament must vote to approve Brexit before the secession can proceed.

Printable PDF

Tags betting, creative commons, Donald Trump, election, gamble, Hillary Clinton, illustration, presidency, president, voting

ideological culture media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

Pigs in Pokes

Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, war, danger, president, illustration

On Tuesday, Former Massachusetts Governor William Weld exhorted Americans to stop Donald Trump at all cost.

The Donald, he asserted, is dangerous because too touchy, too childish in his egoism, to withstand the pressures of the presidency of these United States. “In the statement, Weld made no mention of Clinton,” writes the AP. He focused on Trump and the GOP, instead.

Both progressive and conservative outlets interpreted this as a de facto endorsement of voting for Democrat Hillary Clinton — an uncomfortable conclusion, considering that Weld is Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gov. Gary Johnson’s VP running mate.

Looking at the statement itself, it is apparent that Gov. Weld prefers The Devil We Know to The Devil He Fears.

Which is where he loses me.

One need not like Trump to understand his appeal. Trump is a smoking sack of Who Knows What placed upon the doorstep of the Establishment, the insider classes running the federal government and the Fourth Estate. By taking offense at Trump but not Clinton, Weld sides with the insiders. My longtime respect for Weld aside, how can one plausibly do that?

We know what the Establishment wants most: perpetual war, permanent debt, and secure power.

Meanwhile, the ostensible Republican has been awfully vague on policy. Voting for Trump is buying a pig in a poke.*

The Democratic poke is fairly well known. But Hillary, the war-monger who accuses Trump of being Putin’s “puppet” and repeatedly plays chicken with the world’s other great nuclear power, puts her own policies in a poke by proclaiming her personal prerogative of telling the voters one thing and her insider crowd another.

Neither sack of … uh, please.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Old idiom: synonym for swine in a sack.

Printable PDF

Questions Answered:
Who is Gov. William Weld most fearful of this election year?
How plausible is a preference of Hillary over The Donald?
What can we make of Hillary’s and Donald’s foreign policies?

The Next Question:
If pigs could fly, which one would you vote for?

Tags danger, Donald Trump, election, Hillary Clinton, war

Accountability crime and punishment general freedom ideological culture judiciary national politics & policies U.S. Constitution

The Best Case for Trump Isn’t

Post author By CS Admin
Post date October 27, 2016
4 Comments on The Best Case for Trump Isn’t

Supreme Court, Congress, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, election, illustration

I support neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump for the presidency. Still, I do understand several reasons to vote for Trump, including, most obviously, “he’s not a Clinton.”

The most persuasive strategic reason given for voting for the man, however, and the one that has most purchase with me, is that he would appoint better Supreme Court justices than would Mrs. Clinton.

Note: if the Democrats gain hold of the U.S. Senate, an elected Donald Trump would “negotiate.” And the next set of Supremes might be quite bad.

But is all this irrelevant? It does not look like Trump will be elected, so any vote thrown at him will be just as “wasted” as a vote for Johnson, Stein, or Mickey Mouse.

More importantly, if Hillary wins, no biggie on the Supreme Court front IF (a big “if”?) the Republicans maintain congressional dominance.

Why?

Our Senators are not required to vote for any of a president’s appointees. But, alas, that is not what Democrats are saying now! Forget such self-serving nonsense. The Constitution does not specify the number of justices on the Supreme Court. It is nine now, sure, but the Highest court in the land was first manned by five justices, then seven.

So, after the election, unpack the court.* Back down to seven, at least.

And then let’s talk terms for the currently “serving for life” justices, and term limits.

In any case, the best case for Trump isn’t so much a case for him, as a plan of action no matter who is elected.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

*This notion is more doable, I think, than Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s infamous court packing scheme, in which he threatened to put more justices in to over-rule those justices who thought his “New Deal” program unconstitutional. Congress, not required to vote in any proposed Supreme Court candidate, could balk at all and then, by law, reduce the number, even removing one justice from office if need be.

Printable PDF

Questions Answered:
Does the best reason to vote for Donald Trump really hold water?
Does the Constitution specify the number of justices that should be on the Court?
Is Congress really at the mercy of any bully who occupies the Oval Office?

The Next Question:
Will voting for someone other than Trump be more of a “wasted vote” than voting for Trump himself, if, as polls indicate, he loses?