Connect with us

Everything

Will Trump’s presidency survive?

Published

on

So far, President Trump has gone through a Chief of Staff, Press Secretary, two Communications Directors (Spicer counts, along with Scaramucci’s disastrous 11 days), a National Security Adviser, an FBI Director, nearly an Attorney General (the jury is still out), a Homeland Security Director (he tapped the serving one to be the new CoS) and a Chief Strategist. He’s been in office just over 200 days.

This pace of turnover is completely unsustainable.

No large organization could long survive this kind of turmoil, and the United States requires, above all, stability. Free countries look to America for stability in a world filled with Venezuelas, Syrias and Brexits. America under Trump is not stable.

Trump’s presidency is based on about 25 percent of Americans who love him no matter what he does. It’s based on constant entertainment, lots of light with no heat–or heat without light depending on how you look at things. A Republican Congress, under Trump, has been able to do nearly nothing besides appoint a new Supreme Court Justice. Great: Neil Gorsuch is wonderful, but not enough.

Rex Tillerson, James Mattis and Vice President Mike Pence have spent the last six months traveling the world (but not at the same time–someone has to mind the Romper Room Oval Office) cleaning up Trump’s Twitter-diarrheic messes. Tillerson has unfilled posts at the State Department that Steve Bannon blocked because he the candidates didn’t pass his dogmatic filter.

Now Bannon is gone, along with Reince Priebus and Sean Spicer. The White House is run by Trump, his family and a couple of four-star generals. I trust the generals–mostly.

Either some discipline will be instilled, or Trump’s presidency is in danger. It’s not necessarily in danger from impeachment, because they’d have to find something impeachable. Congress does have the Constitutional authority to impeach for whatever reason it wants, but it doesn’t have the political backing to do it.

I haven’t looked at numbers, but I’d be willing to bet that the polarized elements of the American polity were just as polarized under Presidents Obama and Bush 43 as they are now. I’d bet that about 25 percent of Americans would have supported Barack Obama if he had murdered someone in the street, and another 25 percent opposed him no matter what he did. With the exception of a six month period after 9/11, I think the same thing about George W. Bush.

But Trump has made the polarization so much worse. Were Congress to attempt to impeach him, I believe violence would erupt.

So where does that leave us?

The over/under

Some of the writers here and myself have had a discussion of where things might go from here. Jesse Broadt has written her own piece calling for Trump’s removal under the 25th Amendment, section 4. That’s certainly a possibility, but again, it takes 2/3 of Congress to ratify.

Here’s our take.

Paige Rogers:

I walked out of the voting booth and, as I was walking to my car I kept thinking, “This is the 1st time I’ve voted and not been excited about it.”

I think America would end up in a civil war if Trump were to be removed, and maybe even if he we’re to resign on his own accord. Regular people became so disenchanted [and unfortunately, were sometimes disenfranchised] by the time Obama’s 2nd term ended. A vote is a vote and I think it should stand, bc I’d like for our Democratic process to remain intact. I am praying for our country and all our leaders!

Eric Dixon:

Trump is a stubborn and iconoclastic man who will be determined to prove his detractors wrong. He is capable of having (and likely to have) isolated but significant successes. 

In fact, Trump’s presidential political trajectory (if not his philosophy or temperament) can follow Ronald Reagan’s. Reagan’s approval ratings dove early in his first term as the economy fell back into recession in 1982-83, and his re-election was in great doubt going into the summer of 1984. Likewise, if Trump gets his troubles “out of the way” early in his first term, he has plenty of room — and plenty of time — to recover to a point where he can rehabilitate his presidency and his re-election prospects. I think he will serve a full term. 

A full second term. 

Dan Alexander:

I think he will serve the full first term, unfortunately. Then, sensing his own demise in the 2020 campaign, he will not seek re-election. I think he would rather step down than suffer a loss. 

Jeremy Frankel:

To be honest at that point I was sort of warmed up to Trump and was very happy about my vote because how scared I was of Hillary. I don’t regret my vote but I was pretty upset that he was the best choice there.

I do still reiterate that it seems that the one thing people fear more than Trump is the Left and the media (Hence many conservative voters). Which is why his base hasn’t shrunk much at all, throughout all the chaos.

Me:

I don’t think Trump can change. I don’t think the country can suffer him for 3 1/2 more years. The immovable object will continue to resist the unstoppable force.

I believe Trump will realize that the government cannot work with him as its leader. Congress will cease to function as a lawmaking body. The executive branch will cease to function in any capacity other than a administrative factotum.

Other nations will take advantage of American instability. We may find ourselves in an unintentional, limited but intense war. We might find ourselves withdrawing like cowards in the face of much weaker nations.

In the end, I believe Trump will resign, simply because being president will not be an enjoyable or uplifting experience any longer. The rallies will cease to be a salve for his ego. He will be alone, isolated, and unable to focus on anything but his many enemies.

He never wanted to win anyway.

Some closing thoughts

Eric Dixon supplied some happy thoughts for the weekend at the close of what’s been a terrible, awful, tumultuous week full of death and uncertainty. We could use some sunshine.

I don’t think the nation is past a tipping point.

Why? Consider what the vast majority of Americans, of all backgrounds, are doing this weekend.

They’re not thinking about Charlottesville, statues of dead men or Steve Bannon.

They’re thinking about vacations, going to the beach, a NASCAR race or the upcoming football season.

Plenty of young people are thinking about…how can I say this delicately?…reproduction. 

The supermarkets are full, gasoline is half the price it was in 2008, electricity is plentiful (and often cheaper than it used to be), the Internet is running, half the country has smartphones.

Trump could resign tonight, and none of the above will change. 

These are all signs of a confident, content — if somewhat under-informed — people, aren’t they?

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Judiciary

Census case will demonstrate if the Supreme Court is political or not

Published

on

Census case will demonstrate if the Supreme Court is political or not

There is an unnecessary amount of controversy surrounding whether or not a citizenship question can be added to the upcoming United States census. But now that it’s here, the outcome of the case will say a great deal about the makeup of the Supreme Court and whether or not it has become a body that is driven solely by politics despite the intent of the founders to make sure it never would be.

On the surface, this case seems rather mundane. It’s just a question about the citizenship status of individuals. Some may be wondering what the big deal really is. In reality, it’s a very big deal. Census data is used to determine pretty much everything as it pertains to the relationship between the federal government and the states. Grant money, House of Representative seats, and district allocations are among the many changes that will all be determined by the census.

From a purely political perspective, this should be a no-brainer to conservatives. Of course the question should be included. It’s unfair for states who allow a higher level of illegal immigrants to gain more power as a result. These are not voters (at least they’re not supposed to be). It’s idiotic to give states a great incentives to bring in as many illegal immigrants as possible, so if the presence of a censorship question lowers the numbers reported, that’s not a bad thing.

Politically, the citizenship question is a winning play for conservatives.

But here’s the problem. The judiciary is not supposed to be driven by politics. Their job is to interpret the Constitution and the law of the land to determine how it’s to be enforced by the executive branch and whether the legislative branch is in line with the intent of the Constitution through the laws they establish. By those criteria, the Trump administration has a major problem with the citizenship question. The Census Act clearly states Congress is to be given notice of changes to the census three years in advance. They were not. The citizenship question was not part of the original list sent by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in March, 2017. It was sent in the March, 2018 list, but that’s not enough time for Congress to review if we’re going solely based on the letter of the law.

This is an insanely stupid aspect of the law; it shouldn’t take Congress three years to read a question and determine whether or not they need to make new laws as a result. But it’s the law nonetheless and Ross broke it by not including the question in his original list. It was a rookie mistake made by someone who really shouldn’t be in his position, but what’s done is done.

Part of my heart says the censorship question is righteous and does not violate the Constitution, therefore it should be allowed. But the other part of my heart longs for a judiciary that is truly apolitical, one that does its job as laid out in the Constitution. If that’s the measure of this case, then the Administration clearly did not meet the standards set forth in the law to add the question to the census.

Where I take solace is knowing the balance of political bias within the judiciary favors the left. If it’s impossible to completely remove politics from the judiciary, then any win for conservatism is acceptable just as any loss for conservatism is unwelcome. I desperately want the originalist perspective to prevail in our judiciary, but if such apolitical adherence is only possible when convenient or in a robotic utopia of a truly impartial judiciary, then I’m forced to defer to the side of my heart that says, “Take the win and move on.”

We need the citizenship question in the census, and though I would have preferred to have seen it handled properly by the Commerce Department, I’ll accept a victory on it even if it comes by the hand of conservative bias.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Matthew 22:37 – ‘love the Lord thy God’

Published

on

Matthew 2237 love the Lord thy God

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. – Matthew 22:37 (KJV)

We’ve all heard this verse, but have we really contemplated it? This is a verse that sits in the middle of many different things happening. The Pharisees and Sadducees were questioning Him. His answers were profound and defining.

This important portion of this message is echoed three times: all. Love thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all they mind. This is the most important Commandment according to Yeshua.

Boost This Post

Get this story in front of tens of thousands of patriots who need to see it. For every $30 you donate here, this story will be broadcast to an addition 7000 Americans or more. If you’d prefer to use PayPal, please email me at jdrucker@reagan.com and let me know which post you want boosted after you donate through PayPal.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Opinions

Sign the petition demanding term limits on Capitol Hill

Published

on

Sign the petition demanding term limits on Capitol Hill

It’s time for term limits. This has been on my heart for some time, but I have held back because there are so many other important issues to cover. Today, I realized if I wait until more pressing issues are solved, I’ll be waiting forever. There are always going to be more pressing issues than term limits, but here’s the thing. Our representatives realize this, too, which is why it’s never given the attention it deserves. They use these other issues as cover to prevent them from having to address the one issue that will affect them the most.

This is my first petition on Change.org. I’ll admit I’ve never been a fan of the site because it is mostly progressive topics on the table, but this is an issue that even progressives should be able to acknowledge as a problem.

Here’s what I posted:

Set term limits for U.S. Representatives and Senators

Corruption is rampant in Washington DC. One of the biggest reasons this is the case is because lifetime politicians have become power brokers, making them the beneficiaries of favors, payoffs, and under-the-table deals. They live in a perpetual state of campaigning rather than focusing on addressing the problems that face Americans.

Term limits were never included in the Constitution because it was expected by the founders that those serving as our representatives in the legislative branch would do so as a duty to be fulfilled rather than a luxurious position of excess. They did not anticipate the electoral benefits of incumbents, nor did the realize the two-party system would polarize the nation to the point that positions could be made essentially permanent.

Power should not be accumulated over the length of a long career. It should be earned through action and earnestly held for a brief period of time. Today, too much power is consolidated in Washington DC, partially as a result of the extended lengths in which our representatives enjoy their tenure.

Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate should be there because they want to serve their country, not because they enjoy being part of the DC Country Club. Term limits are very popular among the people, but Capitol Hill continues to ignore our will by failing to address it. Why should they? Only they can be hurt by it, and it does not behoove them to hurt themselves.

Instead, they continue hurting us.

We demand Congress immediately put together legislation that spells out term limits for themselves. Americans need to know who is willing to suppress their own power for the sake of the nation. This can only happen by bringing legislation to the floor.

Imagine Capitol Hill without the perpetual campaigning. Imagine forcing our representatives to work within a time limit instead of working to stay in the DC Country Club forever. It’s time for term limits in the House and Senate.

Boost This Post

Get this story in front of tens of thousands of patriots who need to see it. For every $30 you donate here, this story will be broadcast to an addition 7000 Americans or more. If you’d prefer to use PayPal, please email me at jdrucker@reagan.com and let me know which post you want boosted after you donate through PayPal.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report