Everyone seems to be concerned about President Donald Trump these days.
And perhaps it is with good cause. Only recently has he fired off several missiles to a foreign county in retaliation for their actions - but what was the motive behind it and what did they do that was "wrong" ?
First off, if you are not aware, Trump is a mover and a shaker. That is, he is assertive, perhaps to a fault, and certainly unlike past presidents we have had. He promised a great many things during his election campaign and by God, to the fear of many, he is actually going to go out and do it now that he is the President.
So let's look at some possible infractions for the moment.
From a personal level, at least from my viewpoint, he seems smug and confident. Two traits I really don't appreciate in someone that is going to control the direction and destination of the United States, our future, and our people.
I would much prefer someone who would state at a quiet and discerning level what they plan to do in office and then invite some "long-time" members of the White House to hold intellectual conversations before making radical actions to change our country.
What is on the mind most recently of everyone is the missiles he fired. Let's look at this. The country is question was Syria. What the government did, which is appalling, is use chemical weapons against their own country.
As bad as this is, Trump "retaliated" by firing off 59 Tomahawk missiles to where he believed the chemical weapons were launched.
It can clearly be said that when he launched these at the foreign airport, while he may have successfully hit the source, there was a great loss of life in his attack and it can be surmised that innocent civilians were both killed and injured in Trump's missile launch.
While I think a great many people are against this, let's try to look at it from Trump's point of view for just a moment.
Understand that Syria had broken a treaty, a very old and long one that stated they would not use chemical weapons of any kind. To Trump, it did not matter that they used it on their own people, he set out to make a point that America would not stand by and let them, even if it was on their own people.
Personally I don't agree with this. Were it me I would've called foreign powers, Russia, China, Japan, England, and Germany, if I could, inviting them to a discussion over video phone if nothing else. And to sit and talk about the repercussions of sending a salvo of missiles to Syria - and to see if there is some other way to handle this situation without military action.
As it is, he did not and so America and specifically America is responsible for the launch of the missiles to Syria both injuring and taking lives of those responsible and those who were not.
I doubt Syria and its people are taking this sitting down. Likely they are planning some form of retaliation against our government and citizens and people.
Now - if other foreign powers like Russia, Germany, and Japan, had ALSO attacked Syria, they may not feel so confident as they do now. Unfortunately, it was just the United States so the terrorists at Syria have a clear and visible target - us.
* * *
On a different note, Trump has lied and been caught lying, apparently several times, one of which was attacking the very last President who IMHO kept us out of war and controversy by maintaining a low and professional profile.
Despite these accusations being baseless, as you know saying really anything, especially if you are in a position of power, against anyone else, even if it is not true, does cast a long and ugly shadow on the person so blamed. Despicable.
. . .
Allowed his budget director to argue that cutting funding to Meals on Wheels is “probably one of the most compassionate things we can do.
Surely this one great charity, if removed, would cause great hardship and trouble for those who rely on it to get a hot meal from day to day. I myself knew a friend who had had Meals On Wheels. It is a fine upstanding organization that provides good food for people who are handicapped, and she most definitely was. A wonderful contribution to feeding others.
. . .
It is claimed by those in office that Donald Trump has violated the Emolument Clause. That's a tricky word. It basically means to prevent the federal government from granting titles of nobility to members of government. It also states the denial of anyone in government to receive "gifts" from foreign states without the consent of the United States Congress.
Recently Trump violated this clause apparently. He had been hounding China for 10-years to accept his Trademark name of "Trump." Only recently did they capitulate and agree. It is estimated he will receive millions of dollars for this act - and it can be interpreted that this is a "gift" from a foreign country that did not receive the consent of the United States Congress.
A violation of the Emolument Clause.
Already those in congress are moving against him on this very singular act.
. . .
Okay, in truth probably like you, we are primarily concerned with what will affect us, the citizens of U.S.A., as a nation. When Monica Lewinsky and President Bill Clinton were caught in a lewd scene, my main concern was not what they were doing, but that he was so inept a president as to actually get caught by others.
My thoughts were that because he was caught here, he could be caught on other things - a great many political secrets in government that might've been found out by dangerous and foreign powers.
. . .
There is room for debate in many things Trump has done, perhaps in favor of others, perhaps not. But let's focus on what some of you want to have happen. Impeaching Trump.
First off, you need to understand the word because there's a good chance you do not really know what it means. For instance, it does not mean the immediate removal of office from such a transgressor.
No. "Impeachment" means and I quote:
"The process by which a legislative body formally levels charges against a high official of Government. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; it is only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law, and is thus only the first step towards removal.
Once an individual is impeached, he or she must then face the possibility of conviction via legislative vote, which then entails the removal of the individual from office."
So quite simply, impeachment is where steps are made to find what illicit or illegal activities someone on government has made. And THEN work towards removing them.
I am also understanding that if/when president Trump is removed from office, he is not replaced with Hillary Clinton (who I think some of you would like to believe), no. He is replaced by the vice-president, in this case, Mike Pence.
Already I am wary because Mike was quoted during the electoral process that, "Donald Trump is a good man and that he will make a great president of the United States of America." Mike was personally picked by Trump - and I suspect should Trump go down (either by stepping or being kicked), some may claim to not have so good a time with Mike as well.
These are some curious, disturbing, and interesting views I wanted you to be aware of.
Specifically the definitions for the following words, "emolument," "impeach," and the knowledge that Hillary Clinton will not be replacing him if he is removed or leaves office. It will be Mike Pence.
So it comes down to this. There is still a nice basket of peaches with serving trays of cream and honey, and they can be for Trump, but they can either be given to him as a gift in recognition for his positive services to the country, or thrown directly at him. It's all up to how you want to look at this.
What are your views ? Pros, Cons, Debate ?
![[send message]](https://www.writerscafe.org/images/mail.png){kind=small}
![[befriend]](https://www.writerscafe.org/images/friend.png){kind=small}
Share This
Email
Facebook
Twitter
Read Request
My Library
Flag Writing
