President-elect Donald J. Trump

Republicans, Democrats, 3rd Parties, and the media all said he could never do it; now who's laughing?

On November 11th, 2016, I woke up to the site of Donald Trump leading in the election; if memory serves me correctly, Trump was ahead with 140 electoral votes.  Honestly, I was in complete and utter shock.  Without getting myself too excited by the thought of Hillary Clinton watching her hopes fade away I thought to myself, "Holy crap, Donald J. Trump is going to to be the next president."  This was definitely an overconfident belief, considering none of the 6 major states had been called.

As I watched the map of the U.S. turn blood red, as well as the faces of Cenk Uygur and Anna Kasparian, it was clear the results of the left's detrimental activities had come home to roost.  The American public is simply fed up with their [the left] oppressive and illogical policies; policies which only cater to emotion, rather than logic, fact, and reason.

Over the past 8 years this administration has made the world less safe both domestically and internationally, implemented a failed healthcare system completely counter intuitive to core American values, and catered to movements rooted in misinformation, hate, and violence which have divided the nation to the point of irrecognition.  We have a border akin to a block of Swiss cheese and war tactics which resemble those of Vietnam.  Our nationalized healthcare system was a massive glitch from inception, and now people are unable to keep their doctors and are facing up to 116% premium increases (1).   There are people marching in the streets in the name of "social justice", unjustly infringing on the rights and safety of others.  The country is broken, and the people look to Trump to fix it.  The question is, can Trump do it?

Throughout the election my primary complaint about Trump was his vagueness.  He regularly used simple sentences which described his changes as "great", "huge", "big things", etc., and was awfully repetitive.  In his defense, there were some speeches of his that impressed me, but they still didn't provide a true insight into where we were going - just that it would be "better".  ...but what does "better" mean and how do we get there?

In recent days Trump has set out a plan for the first 100 days (2), which offers some impressive points:

1. Issue notification of intent to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
2. Cancel restriction on American energy
3. Reduce regulations - for every new regulation, two old regulations will eliminated
4. Protect America's infrastructure
5. Investigate abuses of visa program
6. Impose five-year ban on executive officials becoming lobbyists after leaving the administration and a lifetime ban on executive officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government

Personally, this opens my eyes a bit to how we are getting to where we are going; especially, number 6.  In my personal opinion the majority of the blame for our nation's incorrect path is on the shoulders of lobbyists.  Rather than making choices which best suite the American people as a whole, lobbyists use billions of dollars (3) to sway politicians to do their bidding, many times hanging constituents out to dry.  If you had doubts about Trump "draining the swamp", this should be a wake up call.  Based off this list, I also believe it's safe to say he is serious about immediate job creation, security, and immigration (although we'll all be waiting on The Wall).

Unfortunately, we don't have much to work on as far as gauging Trump.  All we can do is wait and watch with the hope his somewhat ambiguous goals come to fruition to the benefit of the people.  I do believe this will happen, which is why I openly supported Trump over Hillary Clinton, but only time will tell.  He has already delivered on keeping Ford's small car production line in Kentucky (4) and is currently working to keep Carrier Corporation from moving to Mexico (5).  If president-elect Trump is also able to deliver on these 6 points within the first 100 days, I think it's safe to say we have president who is a man of his word.

Being Liberal with Hypocrisy

So, the very director she used to vindicate herself is now being questioned/demeaned. And after she got on Trump's case for pointing out the timing of his accusers, she turns around and does the same thing. She's a hypocrite and liar. I hope she gets the 10 years she deserves - Martha Stewart 2.0.

The worst part about all of this is her voting base - the same people who were using FBI director, James B. Comey, to protect their candidate just last week have now taken up their torches and pitchforks against the man in light of his pursuit of material fact. The same people who were ganging up on Trump, when he made statements the system was rigged, are now cheering for Clinton as she does the same thing. This is typical of the left - it's O.K. for them, but it's not O.K. for you. This ideology has also been seen in regards to Hillary Clinton's husband, Bill Clinton, who was venerated by left, even after being charged with perjury and obstruction of justice in a sexual misconduct lawsuit, and subsequent impeachment (source: 1). Bill Clinton was also disbarred for 5 years and ordered to pay a US$25,000 fine (source: 2), as well as a US$850,000 settlement to one of his accusers, Paula Jones (source: 3).

During Bill Clinton's 1998 impeachment debate (video below), the comments from the Democrats were not only ignorant, but downright despicable. Representative Karen Thurman (D) of Florida states:

"President Clinton, being merely a human, gave into lust. With the shame and embarrassment of that flaw being discovered, he deceived us. Those of us who voted for this man can forgive him. We can see what he has done not only for this nation, but across the world. We can see that this president has much more to give as a president. But those on this floor who are calling for impeachment never voted for him, never supported him. They have pursued him relentlessly, and they cannot forgive or accept and imperfection in this man. Just as lust a deceit are sins, so are hate and envy. Just two years ago this house took disciplinary action against the Speaker, for intentionally misrepresenting information to the House Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee recommended and this House adopted, on a bipartisan basis, reprimand over censure - a penalty which allowed the Speaker to stand for reelection. I don't know how to reconcile the hypocrisy of the House in holding the Speaker and the President to two different standards."

If you know anything about the charges against the Speaker of the House at that time, Newt Gingrich, you would know there is no equivalency between his case and the case of Bill Clinton. Speaker Gingrich had eighty-four charges filed against him (all by Democrats), with only one violation being found - using tax-exempt funds to favor a political party. Gingrich violated House ethics rules, but he did not break the law (source: 4). Bill Clinton, on the other hand, did break the law by committing perjury and obstructing justice. The other major difference between the two is that one man used tax-exempt money to create a conservative video for a university course, while the other was forcing himself upon women and receiving oral sex from one of them in the Oval Office.

Nonetheless, this type of logic shouldn't surprise you coming from the left - liberals are always the victim. They'll turn a blind-eye to anything their party does, while calling for the public hanging of a Conservative for merely making a statement. They will also attempt to defame information based on it's source - now that their candidate is under fire from hacked e-mails released by Wikileaks, they pretend the information is not reliable as it's "from the Russians". Well, last time I checked, 2+2 = 4 regardless of who says it, and definitely regardless of whether or not it upsets someone.