The Colossus … and the enriching of America 26

Watch Donald Trump, President of the United States, as the Colossus standing astride the world, to whom the CEOs of the biggest companies in the world bring their tribute – their promises of doing business, more business, much more business in America, with investments of vast sums.

Several of the CEOs acknowledge that President Trump’s tax reform and deregulation have prompted them to grow their business in the United States.

Could any other American politician do this?

  • Ken Wicks

    I am a Trump supporter but I’m not feeling to special with the amnesty he is proposing to grant to almost 11 million illegals..Tell me how I’m wrong.

    • Don L

      Only way you are wrong , so far, is that it isn’t 11 mil, only 1.8 and it sucks. Those brought as kids … all but the ability to vote! no reward for their parents, as they are thrown out, and the Dems criminality (refusing to honor the law for votes). Illegals and DACA parents …so long; no chain, no anybody ‘just because’ and NO lottery.

      What really ganders my cruznobzingness is the lack of anybody blaming or pointing a finger at the self-serving parents who endangered their children’s future. Or, did they …knowing DEMs self-serving? Yes, because they could not have known.

      How do we rid ourselves of Lindsey Graham – wonder in Clinton ear trail, a total buffoon today!

      Otherwise, glad to hear from you!!!

      • Jeanne

        How much of this mess is the result of the seeming refusal of government to enforce the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which set limitations and regulations concerning illegal employment. And wasn’t there an agreement that if it was passed, thus giving amnesty to those already here and in good standing with requirements, then a “wall” would be part of securing our Southern border? Trump should not trust any promises made by any party until the funding is in “his hands” to fully secure the borders.

    • It’s a very clever ploy. A real Tump masterstroke. “I’ll make you an offer about the illegal immigrants that you cannot refuse without making yourselves look ridiculous, but I’ll make it dependent on getting what I want: money for the Wall.” Now their bluff is being called, will the Dems give up their obstinate opposition to the Wall to save face about the immigrant issue, or will they refuse the whole package, in which case their hypocrisy will be too blatant for anyone to miss? So far, they’ve fallen into the trap and are looking ridiculous and hypocritical. I heard today that about half the DACA people want the offer accepted. (Not sure if it’s true, of course, but it’s very possible. They want to stay here and don’t care about the Wall.) Notice, too, that the “path to citizenship” is the same as for any other would-be legal immigrant, only twice as long or more: 10-12 years rather than the usual 5, and only starting once the “deal” is agreed. The years they have already been here will not be counted. And no relatives except immediate family can follow. Trump is conceding nothing really, but could gain his Wall. Later he will probably even find a way to “make Mexico pay for it”. I put nothing beyond his reach.

      • Don L

        Amazing, from the the age of 10 I knew that god wasn’t real and somehow a ploy of control. I also felt horrifically alone!!! And, yet, as I read your post Jillian, my first utterance was “god”. God (capitalized only because first word of paragraph) I Hope what you said and I too thought is true – one of two is true and it isn’t god. I agree, he has the talents and knowledge and tactics unknown by these status quo career-stooges (politicians is an exchangeable word).

        Lastly, Jillian, I did not tell my neighbor to send the kid back! LOL.

  • Don L

    Trump is NOT a John Galt (“Atlas Shrugged: – Ayn Rand). He doesn’t actually exhibit an ideology – he is about applied business principles and apparently has an intuitive sense, although corrupted, about free-market capitalism (business success and understanding finance/accounting IS NOT to understand economics, per se).

    That said, Trump is turning the head of the elephant away from drought and destruction toward green fields and cool lakes. Again nothing happens until somebody sells something and he is selling and CLOSING the deals!

    The left thinks profit is an evil. Evil is no paychecks and long soup lines. And, that’s what happens when the left-leaning government intervenes in the economy. Profit is not only the reward for an entrepreneur rightly gauging the future potential and organizing the right resources to realize profit, profit is also the economic devise that regulates and sustains natural resources – profits go to the enterprise NOT wasting them. Think of all the waste in the Solyndra fiasco (one of thousands) – friggin’ Dems, ARGH!

    Trump speaks the language of business success and the business world is responding. The left’s hate of profit is misdirected. What they are actually bellyaching about is PLUNDER. Plunder is the after tax remainder of crony capitalists – the left’s buddies. They do not deliver market satisfying goods and services, but rather political-serving reelection and party entrenchment capabilities.

    Trump is establishing the environment for profit — for the entrepreneur who gets it right. Trump knows that business, not the tax payer, has to assume risk : P&L. Trumps destruction of the left’s insane/suicidal regulations is driving innovation and enthusiasm. The purpose of government is to protect rights – regulations curtail competition. The police and courts are for the violation of rights:physical being, fiscal, intellectual and property.

    An economy is a two-party system. When the lefties, or the fools that actually think they can manage an economy (or ought to), enter the economic fray, they distort the natural balance and coordination that exists between buyers and sellers. Trump is heading us back to a two=party economy and shifting risk back to business. It can ONLY be good.

    • Agree with everything you say here, Don L, except I would say that the purpose of government is to protect not rights but liberty.

      • Don L

        I should properly say unalienable rights as to distinguish from those the left creates. But Liberty? Yes, that is the purpose, but is not liberty comprised of natural unalienable rights? Legalistically, listing the rights gives greater clarity than just the expansive liberty? Or, Freedom. And, is not one’s liberty limited by the boundaries of others’ liberty? – isn’t it more comprehensible and easier to discuss unalienable rights being bounded by others unalienable rights? I’m interested in hearing why you chose liberty – well, we know that, LOL – the word liberty.

        And, I’m merely repeating the Declaration’s stated purpose of government.

        • They no longer have liberty in the UK. Freedom of speech has gone. .

          • Don L

            Well, they never had no right to it, they are subjects: all privilege is inalienable

        • Zerothruster

          I think it would be interesting to have a special forum among conservative atheists on the questions of “rights” and “liberty”. We agree that rights (and liberty) are not “endowed by [our] creator”. We might also agree that improper or capricious interpretations of those concepts can lead to (S.J.) nonsense — and an appeal to “their creator” is likely only to muddy those waters even more.
          My own sense of this is that ‘reason’ can get you only so far in clarifying those concepts – and it too can be invoked by advocates occupying any number of positions about who has rights to what. It seems to me that rights and liberty are more a product of cultural evolution among generations of freedom loving peoples, who are obliged to defend what’s been handed down to them by their civilization (rights and liberty, among many other things as well.)

          • Don L

            Oh my dear Zerothruster, “…’reason’ can get you only so far” …You have to inform me what other than reason gets you anywhere. Is it not the case that those on the socialist/left lack any reason … indeed include only delusion … lacking reason or rationality?

            Lacking freedom or liberty, what is it you do not then have … unalienable (creator was the best they understood to make sure it was NOT a christian god) rights? To the best our Founders understood, scientific knowledge 250 years ago, In creating the first government to actually recognize the individual as the source of government (divine be damned). Were they perfect, No. Did they understand government and religious tyranny, You bet. The DEMS are either the remainder Monarchists are the newer Marxists – both ideologies of those who use others for their personal aggrandizement!

            • Zerothruster

              Like I said, I think it would be interesting.
              I wanted to add that I thought your application of reason to the issue was a reasonable one.. based on the notion of mutually consistent rights — “my rights end where yours being”.
              Jillian says, “not rights, but liberty”. I’m sure she has her good reasons for saying that.
              Then you say, “is not liberty comprised of natural unalienable rights?” Depends on how you set up your reasonable definitions, I guess.
              “Legalistically, listing the rights gives greater clarity…”
              That’s why it was a good idea to specify them in the first ten amendments, where it is suggested that this is not an exhaustive list. Then what other rights might be added to the list…
              My point was just that I don’t expect an airtight case for liberty and rights to emerge unambiguously out of some abstract metaphysical realm of pure reason.

            • Don L

              There ya go with that metaphysical philosophical stuff. I agree with you when that crap comes in. Metaphysically, man was meant to have fire at his finger tips … light UP: LSMFT!

              I get you, yet anyone who walks up to you and says things in metaphysics … across the brow with a wooden baseball bat … metal if they do it again.

              Ah, thanks, I too agree that it is not an exhaustive list … among these are” … privacy is not unalienable as it can be sold away: inalienable My being alive and breathing is. That, and only that was what the SCOTUS was supposed to deal with. What is ABSOLUTELY TRUE: THERE IS NO RIGHT THAT REQUIRES ANOTHER TO GIVE UP THEIR UNALIENABLE RIGHT.

            • Don L

              “my rights end where yours begin”. It’s Locke vs Hobbs : Locke -individual freedom and government serves you: Hobb – you must serve government (John Kennedy).

              Serve something higher than you … There IS NOTHING HIGHER THAN ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! kunta kintay be damned!

            • Don L

              Last thought on this … you are right, it can be made into anything and that’s why Jefferson thought the judicial deal with lifetime seats was dangerous. So, I too was confused and questioning … for most of a 70 year life. Then one day I discovered Austrian economics .. .”austrian” Huh? It is the icons not the country. In fact the name of the economic school was attached as an insult by Burro’ s buddies (TAC’s econ advisor’s Oxford/Cambridge English econ schooling): Austrians. ugh! However, it was an absolute life changer for me … SENSE. Given you’re obvious intellect and curiosity, I would recommend discovering Austrian economics — It is what the “dismal” schools do not want you to know … IT was made dismal on purpose (I sound like a cheap infommercial). Any hows, Jillian has my list of reading suggestions, perhaps she could get it to you – follow the money to all the answers.

            • I have posted The Atheist Conservative’s (Starter) Reading List under Pages (see our margin). Don L’s list is the Economics section and some titles in the Politics section. The rest of the Politics, all the Atheism, and all the Fiction sections are mine. I have put in two of my own books. A starter list to be added to continually, drawn up at first to meet a request from Lauren Ell, founder and CEO of Atheist Republicans, it is incomplete of course. All such lists must necessarily be forever incomplete. But it is a good starter, containing works of varied quality. All the works, even the best of them, need to be read critically.

            • Zerothruster

              Funny you should mention that, because I was going to recommend an essay by Hayek, ‘Freedom, Reason and Tradition’ which discusses
              “two different traditions in the theory of liberty: one empirical and unsystematic, the other speculative and rationalist — the first based on an interpretation of traditions and institutions which had spontaneously grown up and were but imperfectly understood, the second aiming at the construction of a utopia which has often been tried but never worked.”
              The first is the British approach, the latter is the French. This essay became a chapter in his 1960 book Constitution of Liberty, but the original stand-alone essay is available at this webpage…


              A couple of choice quotes from it here…


            • Thanks, Zerothruster. I have been working on an essay in response to this discussion, and planning to quote Hayek on the nature of liberty – the very passages you you have linked us to. I will probably complete it later today or maybe tomorrow.

          • Don L

            I do believe I would enjoy a forum on which you and the others here were on … being in agreement; whose is buying the intoxicants! LOL LOL LOL!

            • Zerothruster

              Set ’em up, Joe. First round’s on me.

            • Don L

              Cheers, I’ll get the next!

  • liz

    This is what I love about Trump! He’s running the country like he would a successful business, putting our interests first, rather than the ridiculous agenda of suicidal, altruistic hogwash that Obama so self-righteously peddled.
    Couldn’t be a bigger contrast.

  • Jeanne

    Just saw the Time Mag cover with the “America Alone” notion that the Left has about Trump’s “America First” statements. I know he has spoken about how “America First” does not mean “America Alone” and why should it?

    Does any other nation have to think of other nations first when making decisions? Is it not a common idea for governments to consider what is best for their country first over what is best for the rest of the world? Frustrating nonsense…

    Hope this is on topic, as I can’t load the video without taking three times the minutes it runs. It happens when one lives in the middle of a forest on an isolated farm.

    • liz

      Nonsense is right. The Left never stops regurgitating the same idiotic bilge decade after decade, knowing there will always be a new crop of useful idiots to buy it. I hope the explosion from this latest scandal blows their ‘narrative’ into oblivion and sets them on course to lose every election in the foreseeable future.

  • Zerothruster

    Chairman of the Board.