Donald Trump Enters the Presidential Race

A "primary" is a preliminary contest right?  It's not an outright war.  I'm just checking, now that the provocative Donald Trump has --finally-- officially entered a Presidential race.  The object of this preliminary primary contest is not to eviscerate your opponents, towards the end of being a lone victor hobbling across the bodies of the other 'slain' Republican contenders in order to cross the "primary finish-line" --hopefully, with the ability to still stand-- to face the Democratic candidate in the general election.

With the above image seared into your mind, might I offer another timely word of advice to the Republican field of primary candidates: Let us NOT do the work of the Democrat Party for them.  Think it would behove all of us looking for a viable alternative to the status-quo --of the past eight years-- to have our primary candidates conduct themselves, during the course of the primary, with a strong measure of decorum and respect for one another.  As I told my daughter the other day:  just because someone is LOUD and obnoxious, doesn't make them right.  Translation --in this instance-- those with the fabric necessary for true Presidential leadership will find their way to using words effectivly, in a constructive manner, towards the end of conveying the thoughts and ideas needed to alter the trajectory our nation has been set upon. 

One last thought: A true leader also possesses the ability to listen and to consider the input of others, otherwise we will find ourselves right back in the throws of Congressional grid-lock and Executive Order overreach.

7/20/2015  Why embrace real issues, with real solutions when you can embrace a media circus drenched with hyperbole?
7/24/2015  In keeping with the theme of "hyperbole" in my last comment:  I actually heard a meteorologist (on the weather channel) say the following in a weather forecast this morning, in reference to a tropical storm currently brewing in the Atlantic Ocean:  "This activity is a key signature of climate change.  When we have these types of weather extremes:  Severe drought (motions to California on the western coast of United States) with tropical storms simultaneously delivering large amounts rainfall in other parts of the country."  And this meteorologist made this statement rather mater-of-factly; he didn't even blink an eye.  Seems he's well-positioned on the "science is settled" bandwagon, happily purveying a political (profit-driven) agenda: non-manipulated/unbiased data, actual facts and the inherent chaos of Earth's dynamic weather system be damned (I, personally, have no issue with the notion that Earth's climate obviously changes; it's been doing this for hundreds of thousands of years and it will continue to do so for thousands more with or without the input of mankind (e.g., witness previous ice-ages and periods of global warming, long before man entered into the picture in any significant way).  To think that we, mere humans, can in some way control or influence nature is simply ludicrous.  To think that world-wide impending doom is charging towards us at the hands of nature, via  ""climate change"" -- previously referred to as "global warming"-- is simply profit-driven insanity.  The latter aside, are we called to be responsible stewards of the Earth with which we have been entrusted:  absolutely, but "gloom and doom" at the hands of nature is not imminent in anyway ... now man destroying himself or being subject to larger cosmic forces may be another story, but I digress).  I mention this meteorologists weather statement --issued as if it were a documented scientific fact and subsequent effect thereof of man-induced ""climate change""-- not only because his statement caught me entirely off-guard (the larger portion of the present CA drought happens to be man-induced due to the diversion of river waters natural flow in an effort to protect some species of "smelt" fish) but because I am sincerely wondering where "The Donald" happens to stand on the issue of ""climate change""?

Side Note:  Went home over the course of my travels these past several weeks, to visit with my family in Texas.  Upon my arrival, I was surprised to find that nature had once again, after several drought-ridden years, finally reversed her course a full 180+ degrees.  That is to say, where once ponds and lakes had dried up, or sorely receded, and the sombre brown-brush of parched dryness had swept over a sullen land:  a blanket of lush greenness, swaddled in an abundance of liquid gold now unfolded across the vast landscape.  For me, it was, despite the areas of significant flooding, a refreshing sight to behold.  Life was returning to a seemingly barren-struck land.  In talking with parents about the change in their own piece of the vast Texas landscape they had this to say [paraphrasing]:  "The drought took both of our stock ponds, killing the fish in them.  It also diminished our harvest and it was hard on the animals, but the upside is that the drought seems to have taken all of the plague of disease-ridden oak trees and the disease they carried right along with them ("Texas oak-wilt").  Also the swarms of west-Nile carrying mosquitoes seems to have died off as well.  We now have 1/20th of the mosquito population we had prior to the years of drought and thus far we have not heard of a single reported case of the west-Nile virus in the area.  And both of our stock tanks are filled to the top once again."  So with the latter insight from my parents, I am thinking, in some strange and mysterious way: Nature knew what she was doing all along.  Go figure?  Nature finds a way.

7/28/2015  The 'damage' due to "carbon-footprints" has absolutely nothing on the potential for damage due to nuclear weapons in our much more immediate future. (i.e., Iran nuclear deal). The time for a serious embracing reality-check is long, long overdue, people.  Let's blow away the smoke and shatter the mirrors already.

9/2015  "Like" him or "leave" him, Donald Trump has been a lightening rod for focusing attention onto the presidential primary races.  Perhaps Donald Trump's entering the race has served a useful end in drawing the attention of the usually uninformed, low-information voter into the media-fray surrounding this candidate --and by default drawing attention to the other candidates, Republican and Democratic alike.  I mean viewer-ship for the Republican Primary debates has clearly broken all sorts of records, evidence that people who normally don't tune-in to the politics surrounding elections are actually listening this time around.  Perhaps the mere exposure potential voters receive to thought, information and ideas exchanged in the ensuing media dialogue will open their hearts and minds to consider another perspective and in the process of doing so these voters might glean new insights about candidates and issues important to them.  Thanks to Donald Trump, 2016 could actually be the year of the informed voter.  How exciting is that?!

A Timely Word of Advice for Republican Party Candidates ...

Here's a word of advice for the field of candidates currently vying for the Republican Party's nomination:  What you say now, while speaking to a traditionally conservative and often Christian audience, can and WILL LIKELY be used against in the larger political arena (i.e., the mainstream media and Democratic candidates/politicians will find a way to spin your words such that they will, wherever possible, be used against you.)  Lest you forget:  "perception has become the new truth in our modern day politics," whether we like it or not.

With the above in mind, might I suggest to the current slate of candidates that each of you choose your words, and more importantly that you CHOOSE YOUR ISSUES WISELY!  Where, extreme caution must be exercised when discussing hot-button social issues (e.g., birth control and gay marriage).  Here's a wholly radical idea:  why not just keep your campaign narrative focused exclusively on the larger issues, namely the issues which have the greatest potential to heal, empower, protect and unite our great nation, because the bottom-line is:  You cannot and will not win an election, in the larger public arena, where "hot-button" social issues are concerned, but you sure as heck can lose on them!  Candidates failed (miserably!) to make this important connection in the previous 2012 election cycle.  This time around, it is my sincerest hope that the field of Republican candidates starts thinking about the general election TODAY (from day one).  To my way of thinking, if you aren't doing the latter, then you aren't truly serious about becoming a viable Republican candidate for President.

[Side thought:  When, and if, you find yourself pressed on hot-button social issues it would greatly behoove you to redirect the focus back toward the larger, more universal issues currently facing our nation.  If, however, you are unable to successfully redirect the conversation and find you must give some answer, simply state some version of the following:  "Everyone in our great nation --thanks to the wisdom of our Founding Fathers-- is entitled to hold his/her own personal moral convictions, based upon their unique spiritual or religious beliefs, but we must recognize the distinction between the holding a personal  moral conviction and the infliction of those convictions upon others in the public arena.  In instances where there is a clear need for legislation, in order to protect the latter rights of various individuals or groups of citizens, provisions have been made in our United States Constitution for our States to enact the laws they deem necessary to meet the needs of their respective populations."  The important point in the previous statement being that YOU, the candidate, understand the clear distinction between holding a personal moral conviction and the infliction of those convictions upon others in the larger public arena.]


Now, I'm not saying you should deny your Christian (or other religious) heritage or your faith, nor am I denying the fact there have been an increasing number of instances where "the faithful" have been targeted for ridicule --by the mainstream media, opportunistic political groups and politicians-- for choosing to bring their personal (religious) beliefs into the public arena. What I am saying is simply this:  PLEASE, don't step into the trap of entering into the field laden with land-mines of personal moral convictions during this new 2016 Presidential Election cycle!  If you have learned nothing else from 2012 election cycle, let it be the necessity of avoiding extensive discussion on personal moral convictions.  Let us also avoid the newly nuanced charge of "religious persecution" just levied by Senator Marco Rubio in his interview over the weekend.  We really don't need to go there right now!  In sum, let us (the Republican party and candidates) not risk risk destroying the field of Republican candidates by continuing to take the bait on hot-button social issues.  Let's keep the focus on the issues which matter most: those issues being the ones capable of uniting and fixing the country as a whole.  

By avoiding hot-button issues, Republican candidates will remain free and clear to focus their campaigns on issues which will truly benefit the nation as a whole (e.g., tax reform, balanced budget, job creation, national security and education). These important issues, which you will speak about in your campaigns, can then be used to energize and unite both the party and the country as a whole, because Lord knows there is a whole lot that needs fixing in this nation of ours, right now ... not least among this list of 'fix-its' being the ever-widening chasms of division presently plaguing our nation (e.g., black vs. white and other minorities, wall street high earners vs. middle class, religious vs. secular, etc.)

One final, parting thought: Why not try GETTING INTO OFFICE FIRST and then let your actions and words speak volumes, from a place of undeniable authority, to the need for our nation to revisit its founding history in support of religious tolerance?