Trump Breaking Campaign Promise: Trump Supporters Angry

I'm talking directly to Trump supporters. I remember him saying that we have to preserve Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security in a speech. I seen him and heard him say it on TV. That was a campaign promise to all of us citizens. I also heard Paul Ryan, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, say we have to cut entitlements to balance the budget. I didn't just see them on this one video stand there and say that. I seen it before in other video as well. I don't like this one damn bit, and all loyal American Trump supporters shouldn't either. Here is why. Please listen. I'm not trying to be mean or smart assed or anything like that. I just think we all need to sit down together and talk some things out. His is a good place to start. It affects all of us profoundly.

Remember This

You all heard Mr. Trump say that he wants to preserve Social Security and the other things too. I don't know your situation, but you must have believed him, and took his word on it. Maybe you have a lot of money so you have no worries. There are a lot of Trump supporters who don't have tons of money and depend on our nation keeping the promise of Social Security. You pay into it all your life so if something happens to you beyond your control, at least you won't be flat broke and destitute. You just never know. For them who believe in the bible it says the "lord giveth and the lord taketh away". It says too that God makes kings out of paupers and paupers out of kings. It could be you tomorrow or any time run into trouble with your health, like me.

I was an aircraft structures technician and inspector for 35 years. I made lots of money. I worked for the big boys like Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas and many others.I contracted out too. I wasn't in need of anything. If I wanted it, I went and got it. Then one day the unexpected happened. I was diagnosed as having hepatitis C, then neck cancer. I was only 55 years old and BAM, I get the lord taketh away side of the coin. I was unable to work because of the effects of the virus and cancer plus the harsh drugs and radiation therapy. I went from 160 lbs down to 128 before it was over. It totally wrecked my body and I went broke too.

It was a darn good thing I'm a veteran of the US Navy. The Veteran's Hospital saved my life. I would be cold and dead if it weren't for that. I applied for Social Security of course. I had no other choice if I didn't want to live in a homeless shelter. I almost did if it weren't for a friend. All my money was gone by the time I finally got a check. I ended up going in front of an administrative judge. He took one look at me and knew I was in real trouble. He gave me a bench judgement in my favor right off the bat. They don't do that all the time. Most times they have to go think it over for a while, so I lucky I had a judge who could tell when one of our citizens are in trouble.

My country, my fellow Americans had my back. Now Trump says he'll continue to have my back, then goes back on his word to us all? That stinks like hell, and you should know it. We work hard for what we get. We pay into a system all our working days, so we have a right to get our due. We was promised that a long time ago. You may be a young Trump supporter. So you may not be affected by a cut now. One thing's for certain! All of us are going to get really old one day, or we are going to die first. So don't cut your own lifeline against being flat broke.

Trump supporters have grandmothers and fathers and sisters and brothers. How many of you have a mother who depends on that check she earned by paying into the system? We all have to look out for each others back on things like this regardless of if we are a supporter of Trump, or who ever. This is some basic stuff that we have to keep for all of us so we don't end up on the street scratching for crumbs.

I didn't vote for Trump. He's the president now anyway, so I have to deal with it. You who did vote for Trump have to deal with it too. Mr. Trump made a lot of promises on the campaign trail. I don't know about you, but when I hear a politician make a campaign promise I expect him to keep it. That goes double for something like Social Security. What are they trying to do, make it hard on my aunt, or my brother, or myself? I didn't ask to become disabled. I made a hell of a lot more money working in the aerospace industry than collecting this "entitlement". An entitlement I paid for for 35 years.

I remember seeing Trump conventions. People were cheering and all happy. Mr. Trump said this and that making promises to you and me. All of us can't let them on capitol hill break the promise of Social Security to keep us out of abject poverty in a pinch. I hope we all can see eye to eye on this one. This is something that affects all of us deeply.

Body Language Shows Putin Dominates Trump & It Victimizes Women

Yesterday I read an article entitled "Odds Are, Russia Owns Trump". For a long time I have been interested in the study of body language. If I were to judge by this picture I would think that Putin were the dominant figure in the group.

Putin Dominance over Trump

I looked for information on body language to help my understanding. I found this offering:

"Using Body Language to Show Dominance and Submissiveness Part 4"

I thought that keeping the head lower and leaning forward towards a person showed submissiveness. That seems to be a correct assertion. Notice in the photo who has what kind of posture.

I want to offer another observation on submissiveness that as to do with another thing we hear about in the news a lot these days. It is the charges made by a lot of women accusing men of improper sexual advances in the workplace. In this culture we have grown up in "Many females have a tendency to display submissive traits because they are culturally taught to do so from early age." I found that to be an interesting statement and wondered if that animalistic dominance/submissive trait in humans, with a cultural reinforcement of submissiveness in females and dominance in males might be something that promotes this undesirable behaviour in males?

Yesterday I blocked a fellow because of their persistent defense of the notion of something he called "high-T", meaning high testosterone, for some kind of inability of some men to control themselves when in the presence of a female with "provocative" clothing. I tried to convince them several times of the error in their argument to no avail. Now after further consideration in light of the dominance/submissive factor, my belief that his argument is in error is further reinforced. I now think the fellow defending the notion of "high-T" causing an inability to control aggressiveness because of hormones is totally wrong. I think the inability to control aggressiveness by some males may be brought on by the dominance/submissive postures we are taught from an early age coupled with an inability to control urges.

I'm not trying to make some kind of a defense of men who display inappropriate sexual aggressiveness in the workplace or anywhere else. I am also not trying to cast blame on females either. What I am trying to do is understand why the inappropriate sexual aggressiveness occurs at all, and how we as a society might deal with it.

My conclusion is that men with a tendency to show inappropriate sexual aggressiveness must not allow themselves to succumb to that type of primitive behaviour and we have to call them on it from the moment it happens. We all know it is wrong. Furthermore, we as a society must stop treating females in a way which promotes "...a tendency to display submissive traits because they are culturally taught to do so from early age." and women in general should cultivate dominant postures and reinforce them instead. Start teaching females to be more dominant from an early age. Stop stereotyping males and females in childhood by using devices like for example Barbie and G.I. Joe, blue and pink, etc. etc.

We did evolve from the animal barbarism of the beast. Those animalistic traits may have served our species well eons ago, but now we have removed ourselves from the jungle. We humans have been making a claim that we are an enlightened species compaired to our animal relatives. Let's start acting like it.

Trump Weak on North Korea

North Korea has been boosting that the newest missile launch, which went 2800 miles up proves it has a nuclear deterrent that can reach any target in the United States. A deterrent for what? What exactly is it that the DPRK wishes to deter other countries from, invasion? It has been 50+ years of standing toe to toe with them and still no invasion. I have a bad feeling about this.

It has long been the stated goal of North Korea to rid the Korean peninsula of American troops. Why do they want that? I think it would be much easier for the North to invade the South and they would be more emboldened to do it if there were no American presence. Remember, it was the North that invaded the South so many years ago. They did the invasion when the American presence there was small. That history and stated goal of reunification, which they tried with force and failed, cause me to think that is the true reason for their desire for Americans to leave.

So what if the US left the area because we feared a nuclear strike on the US homeland? What happens then? Maybe the DPRK would actually risk invasion to obtain their goal of reunification. They might believe that the US feared their "deterrent" and wouldn't do anything about it. Of course the United States would do something about it. The problem then becomes the time between now and some time in the future in which they invade and we respond. How many ICBMs armed with nuclear warheads would they have amassed between times, 10, 50, 100? This is playing out like a bad scifi movie.

Remember what happened with Germany. They built up massive arms even though they weren't supposed to because of post WWI treaties. They built them up anyway and they used them too. The use of appeasement didn't work to stop them and their territorial aspirations, so what makes anyone think that more "tougher" sanctions are going to work against North Korea? Sanctions haven't worked and more sanctions will not work either.

We have tried and tried with the sanctions, but yet the North Korean ICBM get longer and longer ranges and their nukes get ever more powerful. I don't know the numbers, but I can guarantee that the numbers of missiles they have down the road will be more than they have now.

All the guessing about accuracy, and survivability don't mean a hill of beans if they are wrong. If their guessing is wrong, a lot of people are going to die. The president talked so big about raining down fire upon them. About how they will not allow them to have a nuke that can reach our shores. Okay, now they have them and how does Trump react? More ineffective sanctions. That is a move that will only embolden the DPRK even more. They will think that what they are doing is working. Now Trump has moved from a position of (fake) strength to weakness of the worst kind.

I hate war. I'm a total peace-nik. I am also not a fool. If some person was threatening to kill me with a gun, and I thought they meant it, then they went out and bought a gun, I wouldn't sit around and wait for the bullet to blow my brains out. I would get the police (think sanctions) because we live in a civilized society. If I didn't think the police was going to help me and they kept up the threat, I would have no other choice than to take action on my own. That's something like what we have going on now.

This is a bad situation and it is only getting worse.  I don't think it is good at all, as you probably guessed already. I didn't even spell out all the factors in the equation. Here's another couple of factors. They have allowed their ground forces to become in a state of degradation while they poured scarce resources into developing their nuclear missile program. As evidenced by the poor health of the recent defector (worms, hepatitis), I believe the overall health of their armed forces is also poor. Their Air Force is old and not really a challenge against the South Korean or American Air Forces. Kim Jong Un just like all the people in the DPRK, has been fed a steady diet of propaganda all the way from the time he was born. What the state tells the people is what the people will tell others. As an example, one fellow there said that they have achieved the means to bring the death to America they they don't even realize is coming. Another American being interviewed on PBS said that the DPRK wanted to make a nuclear umbrella to protect them while they work on economic growth. I think that last one is looking at the situation with rose colored glasses.

There are adults in the room alright. Adults whose thinking harkens back to previous eras. Primitive animalistic barbarism rules the day. Just like with Nazi Germany when that same barbarism was allowed to flourish because of appeasement. Everyone was tired of war because of the carnage of WWI, so they would make any deal with the hopes of continued peace. We too are tired of war, and we know what would happen if a nuke were levied against a populated area. I tell you, the only thing that has kept the United States from attacking them already is the close proximity of the South Korean capitol to North Korean artillery on the border. That fear of attack has worked mightily in favor of the DPRK, just like it did the Third Reich.

This is a sore that has been allowed to fester. If we allow things to continue, they will build a lot more of their missiles. They will get to a state of not having to put so much money into development of them when their capability is solid. Then comes the upgrade of their other military that has been neglected. For years they have neglected the ground forces part of their military. Even at parades some of their soldiers were using fake weapons. They have also been neglecting their manufacturing base for consumer goods. I've read reports that all citizens there are expected to follow a military lifestyle even if they are not a soldier now.

I'm sorry guys. I'm not trying to bum you out. I'm just trying to keep my eyes wide open. Once when I was a child of 12 there was a squirrel in the flower garden. It was acting real strange. It wouldn't even try to get away. It went back and forth, making lurching, halting motions. My dad didn't try to capture it. He didn't wait to see if it might get better. He took a club and bashed in its head because he knew it was rabid. It was awful and upsetting, but no one got attacked and infected..

Because of all the weaknesses I mentioned in the previous comment, I think if the United States was going to go to war with them, and I think that is inevitable, they should do it sooner rather than later. One might put up two scales one for time and one for body count. The more time that goes by, the higher the body count. I believe these things I've told you all are the things that the military would consider. Trump is a coward too. He talks big talk, which is dangerous because talk is cheap, but in the end he'll try to kick the can down the road hoping he never has to make a tough decision.

Trump is Master of Doublespeak

Please keep in mind one thing when reading or hearing anything Trump says. He is an expert at "doublespeak". 

Take this recent tweet by Trump regarding the CFPB. Trump said that the agency was "...unable to properly serve the public." He isn't using the word "serve" as in to perform duties or services for people. He is using the word as in to mean serve up for consumption.

Doublespeak Trump

Yeah, I bet the financial institutions have been devastated by the fact that they could no longer feast off an unsuspecting public. Don't forget that the public was devastated by financial institutions in 2008, which prompted Congress to form the CFPB.

Trump minces words all the time. Many, if not all, of his base following are fooled all the time too! Remember when he was on the campaign trail? Trump said "What the hell do you have to lose?" Many people thought he meant one thing, but I have a different interpretation of his words. In my mind he was trying to take inventory of the loot and plunder he might gain for himself and his pals.

Don't think for a moment that anything coming from him has altruistic meaning or purpose. He is manipulating the people and using doublespeak to do it.

#DoublespeakTrump #InsincereTrump #LiarTrump #GreedyTrump

Those Who Failed to Recognize Trump as 'Greater Evil' Made a 'Bad Mistake': Chomsky

I do agree that "Those Who Failed to Recognize Trump as 'Greater Evil' Made a 'Bad Mistake':", but I do not agree that the people who did not vote for Clinton are at fault for the Trump presidency. I respect Chomsky on many levels, but I think he is dead wrong on this one.

If Chomsky wants to point a finger, point it in the right direction. The rise of Trump was a direct result of DNC corruption alienating a large portion of the Democratic base and the mindless support of Trump by racists and right wing radicals, many of whom never voted before, or haven't voted in a long time.

Trump's obtaining the presidency has brought out into full daylight the weaknesses and failings of our Democratic system. His undesirable tenure has enlightened many people to problems with our election system, and brought fully to the fore the problem of foreign meddling in it, namely Russian troll activity and fake news. Had Clinton been elected there would not be the problems we have today with Trump, but it also would have been business as usual. A Clinton win would have emboldened a corrupt DNC and confirmed in their leadership's mind that their corrupt practises bear fruit.

The following is the original article;

 "Those Who Failed to Recognize Trump as 'Greater Evil' Made a 'Bad Mistake': Chomsky"

"I didn't like Clinton at all, but her positions are much better than Trump's on every issue I can think of"

by
Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

Noam Chomsky calls the Republican Party "the most dangerous organization in world history." (Photo: Andrew Rusk/flickr/cc)

Leftist scholar Noam Chomsky has a message for voters who refused to cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton to prevent Donald Trump from winning the White House: You made a "bad mistake."

On both moral and practical levels, Chomsky told Al Jazeera's Medhi Hasan, the choice was clear.

"Do you vote against the greater evil if you don't happen to like the other candidate?" asked Chomsky, who spoke out during the election against Trump's candidacy—and in fact predicted his rise six years ago. "The answer to that is yes."

With an argument similar to the one made by political scientist Adolph Reed prior to the election, Chomsky insists that voters did not have to ignore Clinton's serious shortcomings in order to recognize Trump as the much more serious threat.

"I didn't like Clinton at all, but her positions are much better than Trump's on every issue I can think of," the professor emeritus of linguistics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) told Hasan. Chomsky supported Bernie Sanders during the Democratic presidential primary.

Watch:

Comsky also objected to philosopher Slavoj Zizek's post-election argument that Trump's victory would "shake up" status quo. "Terrible point," Chomsky said of Zizek's take. "It was the same point that people like him said about Hitler in the early 30s."

"He'll 'shake up the system' in bad ways," Chomsky said of the president-elect. "What it means is now the left—if Clinton had won, she had some progressive programs. The left could have been organized, to keeping her feet to the fire. What it will be doing now is trying to protect rights...gains that have been achieved, from being destroyed. That's completely regressive."

Indeed, Chomsky further warned in the aftermath of the election: "The outcome placed total control of the government—executive, Congress, the Supreme Court—in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history."

The GOP "is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand."

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Roy Moore Allegations Point to Evidence of Child Bride Culture

I wonder about something. Please don't attack me on this because I'm just trying to understand our culture and what got us here. I am not making any kind of a defense of Mr. Moore.

Is Mr. Moore a pedophyle, or is he one of the last vestiges of an archaic system of child brides in an era of newer and more socially advanced 21st Century values? After all look at where this occurred and how old he is. I would be willing to bet my eye teeth he seen that very same behaviour in adults while he was a child. A lot of southern backwater, and frontwater, churches advocate such a thing. Even my own dear mother was only 16 when she married the 22 year old who was my father, in north Florida.

They were all poor, and grandma and grandpa had 9 kids, 7 of which were girls. They were glad to get them married off.

Look at the culture there. I grew up in the deep south. I remember hearing countless times "If it's old enough to bleed, it's old enough to breed." as justification for pursuing underage girls. There are many there who are not much more advanced socially with regards to child brides than they were 1000 years ago. It seems like a crime to our 21st century sentimentalities, but to a lot of poor people in the deep south it makes for one less mouth to feed and maybe some grandkids to brag about.

I am certainly not giving this Mr. Moore a pass. This is the 21st Century and I expect people to act like it. What I do think is missing from this issue is the bigger picture. Do you think this type of behaviour ended with him? It most certainly did not, and will not unless we take in the bigger picture. First start with the obsolete laws concerning marriage. Laws that I feel encourage the behaviour Mr. Moore engaged in with a 14 year old.

If I had my way, there wouldn't be a state in which any person could get married before the age of 18, and not even if the parents wanted them too.
__________________________________
Code of Alabama 30-1-4, 5: Minimum age for contracting marriage; Consent of parents and bond required for marriage of certain minors. Marriage under 16 is voidable, not void. Marriage between 16 and 18 without parental consent is not grounds for annulment.
__________________________________
Mississippi's marriage age statutes are listed in the table below. Minors under minimum age may obtain license with parental consent and approval of court. Minor females age 15 yrs. and older and males 17 yrs. and older but under 21 may obtain license with parental consent and court order.
_________________________________
However, state marriage age requirement laws apply to minors. Some state age limit laws will allow partners with a child (or expecting a child) to get married and a few states have no statutory age limits. Marriage age requirement laws in Louisiana restrict marriage to those 16 and older with parental consent.

2nd Amendment in the 21st Century

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

I was thinking of various remedies for the current state of gun violence and death throughout our land. It occurred to me that the perceived "right" to "bear arms" is an "Amendment" to the Constitution, thus it was not a part of the original Constitution. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. What if the 2nd Amendment were repealed like the 18th Amendment? What if the 2nd Amendment were modified? 

It seems that everywhere I read of the Founders and their ideas, the notion of an ancient right to self defense and the protection from tyranny was at the forefront of their minds. It had been less time between the suffering under the British Crown, and their attempts to disarm the populace than has been between now and the writing of the Bill of Rights. During the Founders times it would have been easier to form a militia against government tyranny than now. The best firearms of the day were single shot smooth bore rifles and cannon. If a determined population was a mind too, they would have had an easier time of matching a government's firepower. That condition is long past.

In this 21st Century era, considering the military technology that has emerged with it, the people would not be able to match the firepower of the federal government. Every time I read about "militias" they were "well regulated" militias who were either under the command of the state or the federal government. I think there is good reason for that.

If there are many private militias in the various states, which one of them are going to be the arbiter of what constitutes federal tyranny? One private militia might deem one federal action perfectly reasonable. while another private militia might consider the same action to be tyranny. Even the thought of such a thing brings thoughts of rival private militias going to war against one another because of it.

In my estimation the best and closest modern match to the primitive militias of the Revolution is the National Guard and a Citizen Army. Shall a Citizen Army raise against itself or impose tyranny against its own families? I doubt it.

In this world we now live in, the best a private militia could hope to do against a tyrannical federal government is a protracted guerrilla warfare action. Let's face facts. If despite having a civic population fully engaged in the political process, and having a freedom loving, tyranny hating Citizen Army, our federal government falls into tyranny, we'll have big problems. How would a private militia stand against a tyrannical federal government? How would a private army match the firepower? A truly desperate tyrant might even employ nuclear weapons upon our own citizens to maintain power.

Basically we need to all sit down and revisit these ancient rights and notions in light of the developments of the 21st Century. Developments that the Forefathers could have never predicted. Our way of life, our society, our human condition and our entire planet have little to no resemblance to the days of 1776. We have far greater experience than the Founders. We should be building on our greater understanding and knowledge. We need to recognise that the needs of today are far different than they were 240 years ago. We have to change our methods and policy to reflect the changes and deal with the new dangers.

Consider the following:

Blackstone in his Commentaries alluded to this right to rebel as the natural right of resistance and self preservation, to be used only as a last resort, exercisable when "the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression".

Noah Webster similarly argued:
Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them ... by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.

Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:
Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures.

William Rawle did warn that "this right [to bear arms] ought not...be abused to the disturbance of the public peace" .

Joseph Story: "And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights.

Look what happened with private militias during George Washington's times. The first test of the militia system occurred in July 1794, when a group of disaffected Pennsylvania farmers rebelled against federal tax collectors whom they viewed as illegitimate tools of tyrannical power. Attempts by the four adjoining states to raise a militia for nationalization to suppress the insurrection proved inadequate. When officials resorted to drafting men, they faced bitter resistance. Forthcoming soldiers consisted primarily of draftees or paid substitutes as well as poor enlistees lured by enlistment bonuses. The officers, however, were of a higher quality, responding out of a sense of civic duty and patriotism, and generally critical of the rank and file. Most of the 13,000 soldiers lacked the required weaponry; the war department provided nearly two-thirds of them with guns. In October, President George Washington and General Harry Lee marched on the 7,000 rebels who conceded without fighting. The episode provoked criticism of the citizen militia and inspired calls for a universal militia. Secretary of War Henry Knox and Vice-President John Adams had lobbied Congress to establish federal armories to stock imported weapons and encourage domestic production. Congress did subsequently pass "[a]n act for the erecting and repairing of Arsenals and Magazines" on April 2, 1794, two months prior to the insurrection. Nevertheless, the militia continued to deteriorate and twenty years later, the militia's poor condition contributed to several losses in the War of 1812, including the sacking of Washington, D.C., and the burning of the White House in 1814.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Pre-Constitution_background