Questions

For all who cannot discuss the current resident of the White House without taking blood pressure medication, I have a few questions.  Not to worry, I have some for those who feel it necessary to be defenders as well.   I will probably zero out my followers, my statistics, and eliminate all friends and possibly family when I'm finished.   President Trump seems to have a gift for creating a wall in a metaphorical and philosophical sense, if not in reality.   No one is luke warm.

Question #1:  Regarding the election.  Why would Trump claim election fraud if he was aided by the Russians in securing the office?  Why would he even bring it up?  Caveat, you can't claim he's sly like a fox  and dumber than a bag of hammers in the same breath.

Question #2:  How would targeting the DNC and hacking into their system, affect the election?   I get that the CIA and FBI and Obama administration and members of congress briefed on the matter all agree, Russia backed Trump and attempted to hack into the DNC and gather information from said emails to support him.  I can't say leading up to the election, that I saw any public/media based information to indicate Trump would win.  Here's the best and most complete discussion I've found on the issue. 

Question #3: If through harrassment, public social media trashing, and extreme vetting as it were, all individuals tapped for the task of leading a cabinet are destroyed, as are their families, only the unscrupulious and the lone wolves will be left, those who need not worry or care about public opinion.   How do we attract people of good character to the administration, if their character even solely by association with President Trump, regardless of their own personal faults or history, becomes instantly the social and moral equivalent of slime, putriousness and muck?  How do we preserve our government if as a people, we think it is okay to destroy people when we disagree?How do we get anyone to be willing to serve, if the cost is all peace all the time?

Question #4:  I know people who are convinced, the President should be impeached. On what grounds?  Here's a reasoned discussion, and here's a fact check of what's happened thus far, and here's what keeps people I think feeling keyed up...a quick google reveals nearly an article a week from a major media outlet, Politico, Huffington Post, Salon, Independent, and Chicago Tribune since the election, either advocating it happen or declaring it's a slam dunk certainty.  As I recall, there was a great anger over the use of impeachment on the President (Bill Clinton) as it could be used to weaken the executive branch and should not be engaged for mere political points.  This goes back to the real question, why should he be impeached?  On what grounds?  Most people are willing to say yes, I will take the consequences when there is no sacrifice on their side.  My question is, what are the consequences if this tool is used in this manner?


Question 5:# What would be the principle which would break the social contract between the government and the people?  If we chaffed (and many of us have) at executive orders under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama, we ought to still be agitated now.  We ought to recognize, if conservative principles mean anything, they can't be abandoned when it is convenient.  (See article I cited above).

Here's one of the better articles I've read recently discussing the issue of how necessary priciples are before politics or politicians. 

Question #6: What are the principles we're going to cling to regardless of party?  Regarless of power?  What will we stand for?  If we're going to be a good people, and not merely prosperous, we can't let parties determine our moral values.  Parties have only one objective, power.   Principles are the first thing to go when the option is principle or power.  

Question #7: Are we only talking and not listening?  Are we only saying, "It's our turn now?"  The goal of checks and balances, of divided government, of a democracy, is to create the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people and to be as universal as possible, as fair as possible, as ideal as possible.   Are we?   If not, why not?

It will require of us a higher level of vigilance with respect to this and every subsequent executive who takes power.  We can't only listening to those who agree with us or presume those who disagree are either ignorant or willingly deceptive.  We also have to not go nuts everytime something is said which seems outrageous.  In other words, "Verify, then trust."   That goes for the executive, legislative and judicial branch and media.