Trump to address the UN General Assembly? I'm a little nervous. . . .

Ok, President Trump is going to make his first address before the UN General Assembly tomorrow, and as a US citizen I'm nervous. I feel like I am going to the prom tomorrow with the horror movie character Carrie. Things can go bad really fast.

The President has recently softened his anti-UN stance, but has said little more than that the UN had potential and he is going to make it great. I wonder if he is going to pass out hats to the to UN members? "Make the UN Great Again." Not really appropriate, but you never know. It won't be the most embarrassjng thing he has done to the United States so far. Is he going to try to turn it into a campaign pep rally? Brag about the crowd? That won't go well. What if he reverts to the anti-globalist, anti-international trade rhetoric that made him popular among conservative ultra-nationalists in the United States? That would be, as emphasized in one of the President's favorite terms, a diisss- aaasss-teeerrrr. 

Or will the President listen to some wise counsel and deliver a relevant, statement about the value of the UN, and how to make it better. Will he admit that the core strategy of the UN since WWII has actually reduced deaths due to war to an all-time historical low? How the World Bank and IMF have helped bring stability to emerging nations by financing economic growth? How global trade that promotes financial interdependence among the nations has been a strong motivator for nations not to go to war with each other? 

The UN is not a perfect arbitrator of world peace and prosperity, but who would expect it would be? Do we really think the UN is capable of bringing about full equality and world peace? Is that the standard? Either world peace and universal prosperity or the UN is a failure? 

The truth is that the UN is a forum so nations can work with other nations to somehow keep an international order that minimizes, as realistically as possible, war, famine, disease, genocide, and the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. It is by no means a perfect international forum, but it is the only one we have. Each nation will, of course, work on behalf of its own best interests. Naturally, the larger and most powerful nations will exert their influences and be somewhat dominant. It is up to these leading nations of the UN to make sure that that countries find common ground that makes it in their best interests to seek global stability and peace while, of course, also promoting their own interests.

Those who do not understan the 20th century and post-WWII history ars less likely to see the value of the UN. Let's hope President Trump has some advisers and speech writers who do understand that history.

Here we go again: liberals criticizing Trump on non-issues

Ok, I am not a fan of President Trump. I did not vote for him. I think many of his polices are bad.

However, just as conservatives drooled over any excuse to criticize President Obama, many liberals are doing the same for President Trump, his family, and his advisors. They are nitpicking anything that they can seemingly find fault with, criticizing the First Family for non-issues like high-heels and attire. Stop it. It is counterproductive to honest criticism of his policies. It gives his supporters another reason to tune out that criticism, not that most would listen anyway. It also is a turnoff to undecided and swing voters, and since those are the people liberals and Democrats need to reach out to in upcoming elections, you would think they would show some restraint.

But today it happened again, and liberal news sites ran with it like a hungry fish with a synthetic lure. Eventually, the hooks set in. 

Based on Ivanka Trump's interview with the Financial Times, The Daily Beast ran this gem: If Ivanka Can’t Influence Trump, Then What Is Her Job? Only she never said it wasn't her job, as an advisor, to influence the President. In the interview she said that people have “unrealistic expectations” of how much she can influence her father.

Big difference.

The Huffington Post originally jumped on the bandwagon, but later revised their original title and content with this clarification:

Clarification: The headline has been amended to more accurately paraphrase Ivanka Trump’s remarks that her critics have “unrealistic expectations” of her influence, not that any influence on her father is “unrealistic.” Language has also been added to reflect that Trump was referring to public disagreements, not disagreements of any kind, in regard to her being “part of the team.”

Listen, I get it. Many are not happy that Ivanka Trump is an official advisor to President Trump. Boo hoo. In the light of President Trump pulling out of the Paris accords, pissing off key trading partners with his America First policy, making military threats he can't keep, and challenging immigration policies that even Republicans favor, who cares? If someone is running through the streets setting buildings on fire with a flamethrower, I don't think what his wife is wearing would be an issue with which I would be concerned.

But that is exactly what many liberals are doing in their criticism of President Trump and the First Family.

For those who care to know, this is what Ms. Trump said in her interview:

Some people have created unrealistic expectations of what they expect from me, that my presence in and of itself would carry so much weight with my father that he would abandon his core values and the agenda that the American people voted for when they elected him. It’s not going to happen. To those critics, shy of turning my father into a liberal, I’d be a failure to them.

I hear ya, Ivanka.

President Trump "discovers" bipartisanship

ABC News covered Donald Trump's meeting with moderates in an effort to a actually get something done. Something besides rescinding President Obama's executive orders and having his struck down in court. Something like actual legislation.

This is another "Who knew health care could be so hard" moment. Everybody knew.

He made observations like, "'some of the greatest legislation ever passed' was done in a bipartisan manner. . ." and that he is willing to give it a "shot."

Give it a shot? Why? Oh, he wants to pass tax reform. Which, in Republicanese, means tax cuts. Which, in simple accounting, means less revenues and higher deficits. I'm sorry, but the numbers are clear. Since 1980, every Republican President has used the Reganomics model to justify lower taxes, and as a consequence the deficit and debt has grown under them. It was reduced under President Clinton by bipartisan negotiations that raised taxes a mere 3-6%, cut welfare rolls, and reduced defense spending. It was reduced under President Obama by eventually raising taxes and reinstating much needed regulations, and could have been reduced even more if taxes had been raised earlier and the welfare reforms put in place in the 1990s had not been allowed to lapse or rescinded.

Still, Republicans always manage to blame deficits on the Democrats, and Democrats have done a poor job of setting the record straight. They have also done a poor job discrediting Reaganomics. They have failed to admit that cuts are needed in both defense spending and welfare spending. Democrats have failed to put tax increases in perspective. Their campaign rhetoric, like that of Republicans, has been geared toward their political base and not moderates and independents. You know, people interested in bipartisanship and a government that actually works.

So, the partisan divide has widened and bipartisanship cast aside Now, President Trump wants it to happen.

Be careful Democrats and voters. PresidentTrump wants something. He's not getting all warm and fuzzy bipartisany for nothing. He knows if he delivers so called middle class tax cuts he may win some voters back. However, if his tax cuts are like the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, help for the middle class will be minimal. Perhaps the fact that he started talking with Democrats is reason for some hope.

On the other hand, President Trump is no stranger to stiffing people who worked for him, so Democrats and voters beware.