ldrews

I understand. You have different priorities than I do. That is why we have elections, to determine which priorities will be favored. Trump won. Now everybody has a choice: obstruct even if it causes damage, or support and try to shape the result. The chances of obstructing enough to get rid of or neutralize Trump without causing significant damage to the nation are very slim. Your choice.

I think it would be a good idea to give Sweden an explanation, but even as an ally I do not think they are "entitled" to an explanation. Of course, not providing one may have adverse consequences. If Trump does not make progress on the following (not necessarily all of them) then I would indeed no longer support him. Significant reduction in military presence around the world Renunciation of being the policeman for the world Significant improvement of opportunities for the middle/working class Significant improvement in the plight of inner cities Significant improvement in control of our borders Significant improvement in our educational system Let me ask you: if Trump does make measurable progress on the above in these next 4 years, regardless of what he says publicly, will you then support him? If not, why not? Do you support theater over results?

Yes, you are right. I do take "entitled" to signify a legal or moral obligation. That is what I learned as the meaning of that word. So, yes, we can reword that as "people of Sweden would strongly like to know what the hell he is talking about. But perhaps we shouldn't let clear use of language get in the way of a good exhortation. I would also point out the the indiscriminate expansion of the concept of "entitlement" is one of the things that pisses off the conservatives.

Why do you think you/they are "entitled" to anything?

Perhaps so. We shall see, won't we?

I respectfully disagree. Your view is essentially "we can do nothing, so never mind". I vote for change, however problematical or tenuous it might be. In my opinion, what we have is not working.

Well, Trump did win the election. So there must be a lot of Trump fanboys. Enough that they are really something, as you say. And unless the anti-Trump fanboys get their act together, he will probably win again. The anti-Trump fanboys show no signs of doing so.

In my lifetime (not all that much time left): Significant reduction in military presence around the world Renunciation of being the policeman for the world Significant improvement of opportunities for the middle/working class Significant improvement in the plight of inner cities Significant improvement in control of our borders Significant improvement in our educational system Each and every one of these areas is held hostage by the existing status quo and invested stakeholders. It seems to me significant change will not happen by playing nice. So, although I agree that Trump is a juvenile, he is at least kicking over the apple carts. Had Clinton been elected I would bet my last dollar that no significant change in these areas would occur.

And you can't be that naive! Politicians are primarily interested in getting re-elected and exercising power. You are right, government is not a nursery school and the White House is not a baby's play pen. You might stop trying to use kindergarden rules to evalute their inhabitant's behavior.

Right! Retiring from the position, no plans for further political position, no need for political power. You are right. Now name an active grown up politician who wants to be re-elected.

OK, name a grown up politician who would do so.

Well, certainly. Wouldn't you do the same if you were in his position? Do you really expect Trump to admit to any mistakes/errors that he doesn't absolutely have to? Would you realistically expect that of anyone else?

In my opinion a free press (not under government control) is a necessary but not sufficient condition. The "free press" must also report news factually and without bias. I have not seen that happen much during the last couple of years at least. A press that slants their reporting, reports inaccurately, and allows their bias to selectively report is indeed an enemy of the people. I would assert that, in my opinion, all of the above has been present recently. Since I feel that significant changes are needed in the US culture/policies to ensure survival/prosperity, I continue to support Trump because he seems to be attempting to make changes. You may not agree with me and therefore see Trump as a danger/buffoon/idiot, but that disagreement has been resolved, at least temporarily, by the recent election. We will see at the next election whether Trump retains enough popular support to continue or not.

Do you feel good about doing good? Then you are pursuing self-interest.

It is indeed a "sh*t sandwich"! There seems to be an internal war going on about who is going to run the government: the president or the "deep state". The jury is still out on that.

Actually I believe that Trump, like everybody else, primarily has his own interests at heart. That is how humanity seems to work. The trick is to get his interests lined up with my interests and let him pull the wagon. This seems to be happening. The only people who profess not to have their own interests primary, like you, are the real con men. But please do console yourself with the Russian conspiracy bit. It is very entertaining.

Step back a bit. Look at the bigger picture. Trump is a person who managed to do pretty well in the tough NY real estate market. He created an "empire" of some 500 international companies. He defeated 17 experienced, well funded Republican political opponents. He defeated Hillary Clinton, another very experienced, well-funded opponent. He did this with the Democratic party, the Republican party, and the main stream media all arrayed against him. He manipulated the media better than anyone else I have witnessed. He now has every other national leader jostled out of their comfort zones (perhaps the beginning of a negotiation strategy). He has already jawboned several major corporations into changing their plans and keeping/ moving jobs to the US. You think he might be brighter than we thought? Reminds me of the cartoons of Road Runner and Wiley Coyote. Poor anti-Trumpers! Will they ever catch up?

You win! See you at the voting booth.

Interesting. I have not asked for an apology but rather a corrected statement. It is lamentable that you don't see the difference.

So, yes, in 1975 I did move my family and business from California to Colorado to escape what I felt were oppressive taxes and regulation. I did not move to Mexico until 2010 and not for tax reasons. So you have made a mistake, a misstatement, and accused me of something that I did not do. Do you have the integrity to correct the record?

Ahh, you are right, I did say that some time ago. I moved from California to Colorado in 1975. I found California taxes and regulations oppressive. I believe that Colorado is still in the USA. I would recommend any family and/or business relocate from California. But that is just my personal opinion.

Since I did not move from California to Mexico how is that relevant? And I do not remember ever stating that I moved from California to avoid paying taxes, although I commend anyone who does so. Please cite my statement.

Are you saying that radical Islamists represent all muslims, and therefore a protest against radical Islamists is a protest against muslims in general? In other words, you are implying that all muslims are radical Islamists.

So obviously the level of risk is a matter of opinion unless you have some credible data that suggests otherwise. And again, the thoroughness of vetting is a matter of opinion. And I would be interested in seeing the data that indicates that there is no credible threat from the proscribed countries, especially since previously the intelligence community declared otherwise. Apparently (http://www.numberof.net/number-of-muslim-countries-in-the-world/) there are about 50 "muslim" countries in the world. The proscribed countries number 7. Since there are 43 "muslim" countries not on the list it seems a stretch to call the proscribed list a "muslim ban". However, it is noteworthy that all of the countries on the list are, indeed, "muslim". This list was created under the Obama administration. So unless you are willing to assert that Obama was anti-muslim, then the list should be considered anti-terrorist, not anti-muslim.

Interesting. You must have me confused with someone else. I never told you that I moved to Mexico in order to minimize my taxes. Would you mind correcting your mistake?