That Trump accomplished much else is not supported by any facts. His policy on tariffs was against all current economic learning and wisdom. He failed to understand the reason jobs were going to China, that U.S. currency is inflated and theirs is not. or far less inflated anyway. He did give corporations an enormous tax cut, but just as with different strategies of Obama, it created the illusion of prosperity as the national debt continued to soar ever higher. He did not cut spending except a few trivial token government programs. He perhaps thought more would have displeased voters. It probably would have. It is often suggested that the only reason he got the Republican nomination in 2016 was that no serious Republican wanted to run against Hillary Clinton since she would have been the first woman president. That he actually won was, as most will remember, very stunning news.
Good questions are who is he and who voted for him? Is such success as he had in life attributable to his intelligence? To his hard work? How much intelligence and hard work are required for success in real estate? For the average citizen being successful in real estate can require a very large amount of starting capital, usually quite beyond their means. Donald Trump was born into real estate. It might be suggested that some of his success was the result of being better looking, at least in his youth.
But why would people from other conditions of life vote for him? Are they as lucky as he was? One trait some people might "admire" in Donald Trump is that he does not care what others think of his decisions. As the owner of the building he probably did not have to care very often. He just wants, as his voters want, to "call the shots" as they might put it. His meetings with the public have been rallies, not meaningful debates. The people who vote for Trump have typically lost debates (later votes too?) and hope for something else.
Of course not all real estate executives are like Trump. Very religious people are also not like Trump. He has done much to hurt the reputations of real estate owners and religious people. It can be necessary for intelligent and hard working real estate owners to assemble and establish policies in advance and avoid most of the later negotiating, especially on very large properties with numerous and transient tenants. But Trump fails to recognize the importance of that negotiating that happens in the first place.
But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.
Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. ...
excerpted from Matt 21:28-31
Should the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, it would be a notable example of Trump and his followers "calling the shots" regardless of massive public opposition. Or so they might think.
Even if abortion laws are made somewhat more restrictive (and that is all that can happen) there is the problem of enforcing them. A typical Trump voter has the mentality of a child of 4 to 9 years. They believe it is as simple as passing a law and abortions suddenly stop. The real world is far more complicated.
To answer the critics who mentioned those complications, some people attempting to make abortion illegal include large monetary rewards for people who turn in abortion law breakers and accomplices. However, the credibility of witnesses is inversely proportional to the amount of money paid for their testimony. The more they are paid, the less believable their claims. It can be difficult to explain this to some children and Republicans, litigious nightmare #1.
Making exceptions, for example for rape, has always led to rather difficult problems.
If an exception for rape is included then some women might claim to have been raped despite the fact they were not, litigious nightmare #2.
If there is no exception for rape, the burden on the victim is quite more than a child of 4 can understand. Compensations to victims could approach huge sums of money in a variety of sorts of legal actions. An enormous burden could fall on the voters. It would be quite beyond the yearly allowance of a typical child, litigious nightmare #3.
Regulating abortion is not a task for the mentally retarded, Donald Trump, or any of his voters. However the entire country at the moment is dominated by such people. In a strange way it includes Democrats. Being fond of science hasn't made them any good at science. Their idiotic attempts at science have only enraged the corresponding idiots in the other party and stirred those Republicans to action.
If indeed Roe v. Wade is overturned it will likely only mean a failure to learn from the past and countless more years of litigious nightmares. Then it can be said Donald Trump accomplished nothing at all, except Making America Litigious Again.
People sometimes mix Donald Trump up with me because I have said things that I know are not popular and maintain my stand anyway. There is a very significant difference though. I actually use well gathered facts, orderly arguments, and most importantly the rules. I am not "calling the shots" because I think I'm better looking than others. So people also mix me up with the Democrats. It isn't fair because the Democrats are not any good at managing facts or making orderly arguments despite their preferences, but I am doing it right. It is the fault of Democrats, not me, that Republicans have abandoned orderly arguments and objective facts.
The better way is to persuade using actual truth rather than the most votes, the most guns, or the most "scientists" hired by idiots. It might not be apparent at the moment but the truth does have an inevitable power. Skills in obtaining meaningful data from the wide world are often intellectually as well as logistically beyond the abilities of children, Donald Trump, and his voters. There are however many people with much the same talent for it that I have or better. We are still not a majority though.
It has become necessary to overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover. One reason Republicans are so afire about abortion is that they utterly failed to see the significance of Kitzmiller v. Dover or the origin of life question there. So they need some accomplishment for their own. How great is "banning" abortion? Abortion will never be totally illegal, even if Roe v. Wade is pushed aside. And even in this world of ubiquitous cameras, people can still be very private about their wombs. Even if 98 percent of an area is covered by cameras people need only access the other 2 percent. Then 2 percent not covered is the same as 100 percent not covered. There is only meaningless haranguing over details, time limits, and definitions nearly impossible to settle in courts. It will be a spectacle with more image than substance, like Donald Trump, the consummate litigious nightmare.
Arlon Ryan Staywell
Overturning Kitzxmiller v. Dover will have the obvious benefit of ushering in a new set of scientists who actually understand science, and other much more important things as well. It will usher in a new set of theologians who actually understand morality and its basis. Accepting one miracle gives no advantage to anyone who cannot arrange his own miracles. Expect more humble theologians. There are many TV "evangelists" you will probably continue to keep at a safe distance.
Among the many reasons Republicans have so utterly failed to overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover is that they think they already have. That is only possible because they have the mentality of children. Trying to explain it to them is like trying to explain probabilities and causes to a beagle.
Journalistic integrity requires that I mention the one great benefit of overturning Roe v. Wade, should it be overturned. It is one good thing Trump might be able to claim. Overturning Roe v. Wade is something children can understand. Sadly though, the real world is something they often do not understand.
Getting accurate surveys on various "religious" issues can be nearly impossible. You might find surveys that show marriages of Republicans are actually less stable than marriages of Democrats. There are somewhat dependable surveys that show that people who especially call themselves "Christians" are less well educated, earn less income, have less stable marriages and on and on. Compare "religious" people who are not Christian in the same surveys. Perhaps it is not necessary to bother children in "Christian" or "Republican" families much with such complications and questionable data. There is the Bible to complicate things though. There is Matthew 21:28-30 about the sons who said one thing and did another. That is just the beginning of how complicated things can get in the adult world.
It has long been argued and I suspect true that abortion was not made legal because many people think it is a good idea. I believe they do not. It was made only somewhat legal and only because making it more illegal is so impractical. The point is to restrain those amateurs at law you see now on television who can only understand absolute yes or absolute no on anything.
It can happen in this very free country that some people begin to believe marriage laws are not for the "beautiful" people. Remember this number, 2.1 children. It is important in many debates. Obviously it is an average since the number of children must be an integer. A reasonable estimate of the average number of children per couple to maintain a steady population could be very near 2.1 depending on local factors. If 9 couples have 2 children and a tenth couple has 3 children, that is (9×2)+3 = 21 children among 10 couples or 21÷10 = 2.1 children per couple on average. The average must be higher than 2 because some children will not survive to participate in population growth and some will simply choose not to participate. If the average is less, that population will decrease. If the average is more, that population will increase. Because it is usual for some married couples to have 3, 4, 5 or more children, the "beautiful" people can very significantly increase in numbers well within the laws of marriage. That of course requires their offspring are as "beautiful" whatever that means.
Although I have very consistently been a "never Trumper" all along, some confusion can occur because I am fair and write articles that are too long for the childlike minds of his base. They cannot handle messages longer than about one hundred words and have probably never read a book all the way through in their entire lives, and that includes the Bible. They might read the first paragraph of this article and think I found many accomplishments or would vote for Trump.
In their attempts to justify a decision overturning Roe v. Wade you might hear Supreme Court justices argue that "the Constitution fails to address" significant issues such as when life begins and therefore they may not speak on abortion. Yes, that is extremely stupid, but it is typical of the Republican party under Trump, and possibly of his appointees. An obvious issue to anyone else is whether the mother has human rights and what they might be exactly. The Constitution does, and justices most certainly may still consider, those. To impinge on those rights requires the new definitions not in the Constitution. Do not get the burden backward.
While it is possible to amend the Constitution to define the beginning of life, or legal "personhood," or some such idea useful in banning abortion, that is a very different process not entirely in the hands of the Justices, or any individual who simply "calls the shots." And such process is not likely any time soon. The Constitution is not easily amended. If individual states attempt to set such definitions they should be advised that creating rights that place no burden on others can be a simple matter, but here there are indeed the rights of the mother to consider. Now if Donald Trump could get some constitutional amendment actually addressing that in a reasonable way it would be a very great accomplishment.
It was a constitutional amendment that ultimately freed the slaves, although Abraham Lincoln and the Union forces were rather obviously contributors. Did it really require such amendment though? What exactly did freeing the slaves take away from anyone else?