President Trump is a Master at Making the Media Dance ....

I seriously have to wonder sometimes if President Trump doesn't wake-up each and every morning and say to himself:  "Gee, I wonder how I can make the media dance today?"  Because Trump does indeed make the media dance with his unconventional verbiage from the highest office in our noble land.  President Trump, the intentional Pied Piper???

Image Source: Trip Advisor

I really have to laugh watching the latest looped-reel of countless news analysts and political commentators, practically beside themselves, being bleeped while uttering the earth-shattering phrase "Shit-hole."  I mean seriously, it's a word .. a word most of us --if we are being totally honest-- have used at some point in our own lives.  Is it a wholly presidential word? Probably not, by conventional standards, but then again who exactly is operating under the illusion that Donald J. Trump --President or not-- is actually in anyway conventional??? Certainly not the people who elected Trump into office.  Those people wanted a hard-headed hitter who would break down the barriers of the politically correct status-quot in order to get meaningful things done.  Furthermore, I suspect as long as President Trump continues to get meaningful things done  (e.g., unleashing true energy independence, lowering energy costs, revamping an outdated and over-burdensome  tax code, making the cost of doing business in U.S.A. competitive with rest of the world, creating millions of new jobs, renegotiating bad trade and other deals, standing up to terrorists, unleashing the military and decimating ISIS, helping to facilitate a resumption of talks between North and South Korea, reinvigorating the NASA and U.S. Space Program) for "we the people", most of us realists --antithesis of idealists--out here will be willing to give Trump a pass for the less-than conventional things he may say and tweet from time to time ... even if the off-rails media fails to ever cover Trump's accomplishments.  The wordsmiths among us may refuse to recognize the President's meaningful accomplishments to date, but those of us who have the ability to see behind the smoke and mirrors of a purely rhetoric-based  coverage of the Trump Administration do, in point of fact, actually see the progress President Trump has made thus far, on our behalf, nonetheless.

As for the predictable claim that President Trump's alleged "shit-hole" remark was "unequivocally racist", I have three things to say:

1) "He probably should have said "third-world" country, but if you look third-world up in the Urban Dictionary it actually says "s***hole." ~Tyrus

2) Referring to the factual living conditions within a given country, where the majority of the population has little if any ability to control said conditions, is not racist.  Trump's alleged choice of words, while vulgar, were merely an accurate reflection of the facts with respect to less than ideal, real-world living conditions in certain parts of the world.  Although succinct, I think we can all agree that if the word "shit-hole" was used in any Presidential meeting it was indeed a poor word choice.  That being said, President Trump's remark was pertaining to specific countries with less than ideal living conditions; his remark was not in any way intended to be denigrating of the people living therein. To claim otherwise, by hurling the term "racist" at the President is misleading, not mention dishonest.  Such tactics are merely a convenient tool used to subvert actual facts to the contrary, by playing to pure emotions in order to effectively bring the conversation to an abrupt close (i.e., "Trump said a bad word which we have interpreted to be racist, so the deal's off.")  "Racist" seems to have become the great-silencer these days, often being employed by liberals who don't have any meaningful facts to support their own side of a given argument.  By employing the silencing charge of "racism" liberals hope to circumvent any meaningful conversation, where a meaningful conversation might actually wind-up making real progress toward the end of addressing real-world issues, such as a long-overdue, sensible (balanced with merit-based) and comprehensive immigration reform.  In this light don't you have to ask yourself, which truly 'speaks' louder: mere words (rhetoric) or concrete, substantive solutions (action)?

3) I also find it striking that despite the left's repeated claims that 'President Trump is a confirmed racist', African-Americans are actually doing way better under a President Trump administration than they did under President Obama's administration.  Wages for African-Americans went DOWN $900.00, annually, under President Obama's tenure, while unemployment for African-Americans hit a record 16.8%.  Under President Trump, in just under a year, wages for African-Americans have gone UP $1,000 annually, while unemployment for African- Americans has hit an all-time low of just 6.8%.  Seems to me the numbers alone just don't support the left's ongoing claims of racism.  Something African-Americans can actually take to the BANK.

I have to admit, I didn't actually vote for President Trump, but his ability to cut through the crap in order to actually get things done, in a Washington D.C. that has been plagued by stagnation in years past, is slowly winning me over.  The fact that the left doesn't seem to have many (any?) coherent counter-arguments to Trump's positions and subsequent actions --aside from obstruct and resist-- doesn't do much to currently persuade me to support the ideas being put forward by the left.  I'm simply not buying into the unhinged emotion-driven rhetoric in their arguments to date.  Until the arguments on the left begin to show a bit more substance and reason*,  I'm going to have to continue to give President Trump the benefit of the doubt.  But who knows, the left could actually come around to embracing the notion of using logical facts and reason in order to make their case.  Stranger things have happened .... Here's hoping?

*[(e.g., DACA is not binding law, it was put into place in the absence of Congressional vote, by way of Executive Order --"the President's pen"-- at the end of President Obama's first term in office, never to be successfully revisited by President Obama or the U.S. Congress until Trump pushed the rescind-button.  President Trump wants to make DACA-like protection into actual binding law, by way of Congressional legislation which is really the only binding way to do so.  This was President Trump's reason for rescinding President Obama's non-binding Executive Order, in order to prompt binding Congressional action.  In this light, Democrats should be willing to meet the President halfway in coming to the table, in good-faith, in order to finally address long-overdue comprehensive immigration reform.  To my way of thinking, Republicans would be fools to give Democrats a "clean" DACA bill, given the Democrats obstructionist congressional voting record during the current legislative sessions thus far.  DACA is the ONE bargaining chip the Democrats have, and as such they should play it wisely lest they be made to look the fool to the American people.  I don't actually think the Democrats have enough support from the American people to actually shutdown the government over DACA, but we shall see how the chips play out.  Sometimes the Republicans aren't very bright where chip-playing is concerned.  Also think the circuit court's ruling to the effect that Trump cannot rescind a previous President's Executive Order --keep in mind, the U.S. Constitution does not in any way provide for the use of  Executive Orders-- actually does a disservice to the Democrats cause because they are no longer operating under an impending deadline which would have bolstered their position and argument for immediate action. Not to mention the fact that the courts are supposed to interpret and rule on the actual laws of the land, where Executive Orders kind of operate in a nebulous grey-area, are inherently vulnerable and subject to the whims of subsequent Presidents.  Remind me again, what is the check-and-balance on rogue justices who repeatedly make activist rulings, purely along party lines, in support partisan ends?]