One of my favorite columnists, Jonathan Capehart, wrote a piece last Friday on President Trump’s first 100 days in office, titled “An Appreciation.” In it, Capehart says that Trump’s presidency hasn’t been as bad as he expected, and states that “[Trump] is responsible for the greatest surge in civic participation in half a century.” And while I’m not sure I would go so far as to say that exchanging Trump’s leadership for civic participation is a worthy trade, I think Capehart is spot-on in identifying the growth those who didn’t get what they wanted last November. We’re coming together now because we have to. I wish we didn’t have to, but at least we are.
For those who claim that Trump will protect “Christian America,” I must say that I strongly disagree with you. A Christian America is an America in which its people strive to live the commandments of Christ. We have already seen that Trump does not come close to living by Christ’s commands –– so how can one say that Trump is protecting “Christian America” when he actively opposes everything Christianity stands for?
Last week’s failure of the American Healthcare Act (an act whose formal short title was “World’s Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017”) is a major blow to Donald Trump and Paul Ryan. In the words of the former, “nobody knew that health care could be so complicated” (or, as the latter would say, “access to care”). Besides a crushing defeat for a divided Republican Party unable to reach a vote on the bill, its withdrawal once again puts the lie to Trump’s chief campaign argument of being a solid dealmaker. In the presidency, you can’t trade on your father’s name and money, as among the rarefied airs of New York City real estate. Indeed, Trump demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the art of the deal by both playing his hand too early and lacking knowledge of the parties with whom he was dealing (but who can blame a man for that when watching Fox is soooo much more satisfying).
American exceptionalism’s greatest metaphor — the American frontier — is dead, and in its place is Donald Trump’s proposed border wall, said Prof. Greg Grandin, history, New York University, in a lecture on Wednesday.
Look how the Democrats handled the past election. Ever since Obama was elected president, they have been pushing the same Hillary 2016 agenda. There was never any choice in the matter, after Obama we were to have Clinton. End of discussion. The DNC actively worked against the Sanders campaign when he threatened to take away the nomination from Clinton and promote actual progressivism to the party.
It is also comically partisan to prioritize Russian influence over CIA overreach. This is the first time Democrats view the CIA more keenly than Republicans. This change in sentiment isn’t ideological — at least I hope not. Giving the CIA a pass for hacking foreign governments but throwing a fit when Russia hacks us is incredibly hypocritical.
Yesterday, four of my colleagues coauthored a letter raving against Dodd-Frank’s Conflict Minerals Rule, §1502, which is in President Trump’s crosshairs after a leaked Executive Order allegedly advocated its suspension. Specifically, my colleagues believe §1502 decreased militia-led violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It did not. They correctly judged the intent of §1502 — and I agree with the statute’s intent — but not its result. My response will explain the regulation, expose its failure, and argue against their mandate that Cornell University waste its endowment and our tuition on useless audits. My colleagues asserted that §1502 “prevents American companies from purchasing conflict minerals.” Well, that’s a very simplified picture of what the statute does.
A tattoo of Earth inside a Haida raven on his left shoulder. Sightings at boxing matches. Articles and pictures of his rear in slacks. Ever since October of 2015, popularity over a certain world leader emerged. But since a highly controversial president was elected in America, not only has Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s popularity skyrocketed, but his status within this country has as well.
Before last year’s presidential election, Donald Trump was solidly the candidate of anger — anger at elites, anger at the media and anger at the yawning gap between the rural and urban Americas. As part of this anger, Trump foretold destruction — draining the swamp and dismantling NATO, all while building a big beautiful wall. He was a “disrupter,” that faddish term economists use to describe upstart startups. Clinton’s message of hope couldn’t withstand Trump’s brand of change. Now Trump and his motley crew have taken over the White House and those who were angry before are no longer quite so.