Wealth Over Welfare: America's Trade of Care and Empathy Under POTUS47 Trump

America's Trade of Care and Empathy for Wealth Under POTUS47: A Critical Look at Trump's 2nd Ridiculous Term...

On January 20, 2025, Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 47th President of the United States, beginning his second, non-consecutive term. The ceremony, held indoors due to inclement weather, symbolized the beginning of a new era in American politics. However, beneath the rhetoric of national pride and renewed strength, there remains a central question: How has America, particularly under Trump’s leadership, traded care and empathy for the pursuit of wealth and power?

The Shift Toward Wealth Over Welfare

One of the most striking features of Trump's first term was his administration's prioritization of corporate interests and economic growth, often at the expense of social programs designed to care for vulnerable populations. As POTUS47, Trump has continued these policies, signaling an ongoing commitment to wealth-driven governance.

Trump’s inaugural address, filled with nationalistic fervor and a renewed focus on “America First,” laid the groundwork for policies that further reflect a shift away from care-oriented governance. His declaration of a national emergency at the southern border and his focus on increasing domestic oil production, while touted as moves for national security and energy independence, also underscore an administration committed to business expansion and economic growth, sometimes at the expense of social justice and environmental concerns.

Immigration Policies and the Erosion of Empathy

A key example of this trade-off can be seen in Trump’s continued stance on immigration. His second term began with a focus on building the border wall and further restricting immigration, including the expansion of the “Remain in Mexico” policy. While these measures were framed as necessary for national security, they also represent a hardened stance toward vulnerable populations, particularly refugees and asylum seekers.

Instead of offering compassion and empathy toward those fleeing violence and hardship, the administration’s approach prioritizes economic concerns—namely, the protection of jobs for American workers and reducing the strain on social services. This underscores a broader theme of prioritizing wealth and national interests over humanitarian considerations.

Economic Policies: Wealth Over Welfare

Trump's tax policies, particularly the tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, further reinforce the trend of valuing economic power over the collective well-being of the American people. In his first term, Trump’s tax cuts disproportionately benefited the wealthiest individuals and large corporations, exacerbating income inequality. Despite this, Trump has continued to champion these policies, arguing that they stimulate job growth and economic prosperity. Yet, the reality for millions of Americans remains that these policies have failed to substantially improve wages for the working class or address the systemic issues of poverty.

In his second term, Trump has shown no signs of shifting away from this economic model. His focus on deregulation and bolstering corporate profits stands in stark contrast to the unmet needs of millions of Americans struggling with healthcare, housing, and education. This economic framework, which favors wealth accumulation for the few, continues to prioritize profit over the social care systems that could benefit the broader population.

Healthcare: Profit Over People

A glaring example of America's trade-off of care for wealth is in the healthcare system. Under Trump’s leadership, the focus has largely been on preserving the interests of private insurance companies and pharmaceutical giants. Attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) during Trump’s first term without providing a viable replacement resulted in millions of Americans remaining without adequate healthcare coverage. Rather than prioritizing universal healthcare or making healthcare more accessible, the Trump administration’s policies largely favored corporate interests, with little regard for the societal benefits of universal care.

In his second term, Trump’s emphasis on deregulation and reducing government involvement in healthcare could further entrench the private sector's hold over medical services, potentially deepening the divide between those who can afford necessary treatments and those who cannot.

Environmental Policy: Profits Over Planet

Trump’s environmental policies have also reflected this trend. His administration has rolled back numerous environmental regulations, allowing industries such as oil and coal to operate with fewer restrictions. While these policies have been lauded by business interests for stimulating economic growth and creating jobs, they have come at a significant cost to the environment and public health.

The administration’s focus on short-term economic gains, such as increased fossil fuel production, directly conflicts with the long-term health and well-being of the planet and its inhabitants. In this context, the needs of the environment—and by extension, the health and future of the American people—have been subordinated to the interests of wealthy corporations with ties to the fossil fuel industry.

National Security and Military: A Focus on Power Over People

Trump’s actions in the realm of national security also reflect a prioritization of power over the well-being of everyday Americans. His rehabilitation of military personnel who were discharged over COVID-19 vaccination refusals and his broader focus on strengthening the military are emblematic of an administration that places national might over the care of its citizens in areas like public health and welfare. While military strength is often framed as necessary for the protection of the nation, the emphasis on military power without equal attention to healthcare, education, and social services suggests a system that values strength and wealth over the care of its people.

A Divided Vision for America

Ultimately, Trump’s second term as POTUS47 stands as a continuation of the policies that have led America to place wealth and economic power above the needs of its citizens. Whether through his immigration policies, tax cuts, deregulation of business, or approach to healthcare and the environment, the Trump administration prioritizes the interests of the wealthy and powerful over those of the broader population. As a result, the country continues to struggle with deepening inequality, a lack of universal access to basic services, and a failure to address pressing social and environmental issues.

In this context, America has increasingly traded care and empathy for wealth, with the rich benefiting from policies designed to protect their interests, while many Americans face greater challenges in securing their health, safety, and dignity. The question remains: Will the focus shift toward a more empathetic and care-driven society, or will the pursuit of wealth continue to dominate America’s political landscape? The answer will likely shape the future of the nation for years to come.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Trump's GOP: A Deep Dive into the Shifting Political Landscape and Its Long-Term Impacts

​Under Donald Trump's influence, the Republican Party has undergone significant transformations, reshaping its policies, ideological focus, and internal dynamics.

​1. Ideological Shift Towards Populism and Nationalism

Trump's tenure marked a departure from traditional Republican values, steering the party towards populist and nationalist ideologies. This shift is evident in policy changes such as stricter immigration controls, protectionist trade measures, and a focus on "America First" principles. The GOP's platform evolved to emphasize hardline stances on immigration, reduced emphasis on international alliances, and a more isolationist foreign policy approach. ​

2. Transformation of Party Rhetoric and Media Relations

Trump's approach to communication significantly altered the GOP's relationship with the media. He popularized the term "fake news," fostering a deep skepticism towards mainstream media outlets among Republicans. This rhetoric not only challenged media narratives but also reshaped the party's discourse, making combative and populist language more prevalent in political dialogue. ​

3. Centralization of Power and Loyalty Dynamics

The Trump era saw a consolidation of power within the party, with loyalty to Trump becoming a key criterion for political advancement. Figures who initially opposed him, such as Senator Lindsey Graham, shifted to become staunch allies, while those who criticized him faced marginalization. This shift highlighted a move towards a more centralized and personality-driven party structure, where allegiance to Trump often outweighed traditional policy debates.

4. Policy Reorientations on Social and Cultural Issues

The GOP's focus under Trump also shifted towards social and cultural issues, aligning with the interests of conservative bases. Policies addressing immigration, law enforcement, and education became more pronounced, reflecting a departure from previous Republican positions. This reorientation often involved challenging established norms and advocating for more stringent regulations on social matters. 

5. Electoral Strategy and Demographic Targeting

Trump's electoral success was partly attributed to his ability to connect with working-class voters, particularly in the Midwest and rural areas. His messaging resonated with voters who felt alienated by traditional political elites, leading to shifts in the GOP's demographic appeal. This strategy emphasized economic nationalism and a critique of globalization, aiming to reclaim American jobs and industries. ​

In summary, Trump's influence has indelibly altered the Republican Party, steering it towards populist, nationalist ideologies, reshaping its internal dynamics, and refocusing its policy priorities. These changes have sparked debates about the future direction of the party and its alignment with traditional conservative values.​

If the United States under Trump’s leadership and the current GOP were viewed as an imaginary country, the evaluation would likely center around several key factors—governance, societal dynamics, international relations, economic management, and overall stability. Here's how one might assess this "imaginary country":

1. Governance and Leadership

• Authoritarian Tendencies: The centralization of power and loyalty-based political system might raise concerns about democratic principles. In this country, the leadership style might prioritize personal loyalty over merit, leading to potential corruption and weakening of institutional checks and balances.

• Polarization: The leadership might foster deep divides within the population, pitting one group against another. This would result in a fragmented society, with limited ability for cooperation or compromise across political lines.

• Populist Policies: The leader (akin to Trump) might push populist policies that cater to immediate voter interests but could undermine long-term stability or fairness, especially in areas such as immigration, trade, and social rights.

2. Societal Dynamics

• Cultural and Social Divisions: The country could experience deep cultural and social divides, with groups feeling increasingly alienated from one another. Social issues—such as immigration, race relations, and gender equality—could become points of contention that further divide the populace.

• Civil Rights and Freedoms: Personal freedoms and civil rights might be selectively applied, particularly regarding freedom of speech, protest, or the press. The media might be regularly accused of being "fake" or "biased," creating a lack of trust in institutions meant to hold the government accountable.

• Populism and Nationalism: The country’s government may cultivate a sense of nationalism that appeals to certain segments of the population but risks isolating others. Ethnocentrism or nativist policies could be promoted, further separating the "us" from the "them."

3. Economic Management

• Economic Nationalism: The country might adopt protectionist economic policies, focusing on “America First” or similar nationalistic ideals. While these policies might temporarily benefit some segments (e.g., working-class voters), they could harm international trade relationships and lead to economic isolation.

• Wealth Inequality: Under such leadership, wealth inequality might increase as policies could disproportionately benefit the rich, with the gap between the wealthy elite and the working-class citizens widening.

• Short-Term Economic Gains vs. Long-Term Stability: Economic policies, such as tariffs or tax cuts, could yield short-term boosts to certain industries or voters but undermine long-term financial health, contributing to deficits, trade imbalances, or economic instability.

4. International Relations

• Isolationist Foreign Policy: The country's foreign policy might favor isolationism or confrontational diplomacy. Relations with traditional allies could deteriorate, while international institutions (such as the UN or NATO) might be sidelined or undermined.

• Trade Wars: Frequent tariffs and protectionist measures could lead to trade wars, disrupting global supply chains and creating long-term friction with major trading partners. The country's global influence could decline as a result of its "America First" approach to international trade.

• Unpredictability: The country might become known for unpredictable diplomatic actions, with leadership changing policies on a whim. Allies and adversaries alike could struggle to navigate this country’s foreign policy stance, leading to instability in global affairs.

5. Stability and Long-Term Outlook

• Political Instability: With divisive leadership and deep polarization, this imaginary country might experience political instability. The ruling party could face frequent challenges from opposition groups, and protests or civil unrest could become more common as citizens grow increasingly dissatisfied with the leadership.

• Institutional Erosion: Over time, institutions such as the judiciary, press, and legislature might become weaker under the influence of populist, authoritarian leadership, making the country more vulnerable to corruption and abuse of power.

• Democratic Backsliding: This country could face a slow erosion of democratic principles, such as free and fair elections, due to undermining institutions, voter suppression, or the centralization of power within a singular figure.

Overall Evaluation:

Pros:

• Strong connection with populist sentiments, rallying a significant portion of the population.

• Economic policies that benefit certain groups, such as working-class voters or specific industries.

• Clear and charismatic leadership that appeals to national pride.

Cons:

• Authoritarian tendencies and centralization of power.

• Deep political polarization and social divides.

• Economic isolationism that harms long-term stability and international relations.

• Erosion of democratic institutions and rights.

This imaginary country would likely be marked by a tense and unstable environment, with significant internal divisions and challenges in governance. While it could experience short-term economic gains or political successes among its core supporters, the long-term outlook would be fraught with challenges related to authoritarianism, international isolation, and growing inequality. 

The overall stability of the country would be highly uncertain, as it would depend heavily on how well it manages its internal divisions, economic instability, and international relationships.

Two things allow this kind of governing. Division. Fear/Hate. We cannot allow ourselves to be divided. We cannot allow ourselves to be set upon one another. MaGA Trump supporters think Liberals are stupid, Liberals think MaGA Trump supporters are stupid. Or..name whatever negative, dehumanizing adjective you can think of. But we are all Americans and that is what makes us great. Not our leaders. 

I see MaGA Trump supporters as Americans with a rough take on Life & America. 

I asked a stranger today:

“You a Trump supporter?”

Him: “Proudly.”

Me: “Cool—we can talk.”

(He smiles)

Him: “You too?”

Me: “Not...even...close.”

Him: “But…”

Me: “We can still talk. Just don’t have to agree there.”

We can think differently, be different, believe different things. But we can't stop talking. We can't stop being Americans. And to label the other side, those opposing you, or your group, or leader as incapable of thought, humanity, or decency...is to unbecome Americans and become something far lower in nature. By dehumanizing others, you dehumanize yourself.

“Monsters exist, but they are too few in number to be truly dangerous. More dangerous are the common men, the functionaries ready to believe and act without asking questions.” - Primo Levi, Holocaust survivor and author

The Founding Fathers would likely have mixed reactions to the idea of a "strong connection with populist sentiments" rallying a significant portion of the population, as their views on democracy, leadership, and governance were complex and varied.

1. Concern for Factionalism and Populism:

• Figures like James Madison were deeply wary of the dangers of populism. In Federalist No. 10, Madison warned about the dangers of "factions," or groups with specific interests that could overpower the common good. He feared that a government too responsive to populist pressures could lead to instability or the tyranny of the majority.

• Madison, along with Alexander Hamilton, believed that a republic should have checks and balances to prevent any one faction, including populist movements, from gaining too much power. They would likely have cautioned against populism becoming too dominant, arguing that it could undermine the careful balance they sought to create in the Constitution.

2. Support for a Republic, Not a Pure Democracy:

• Thomas Jefferson, who favored more direct democracy, might have seen some positives in the idea of populist sentiments rallying the people. Jefferson believed in the wisdom and virtue of the common people and was a strong proponent of more direct engagement of citizens in governance. He might have supported the notion of the populace having more influence, as long as it didn’t descend into mob rule.

• However, even Jefferson would likely have had reservations if populism turned into an unchecked, emotional force that undermined the rights of minorities or the rule of law.

3. Fear of Demagogues:

• George Washington, in his Farewell Address, warned against the dangers of political parties and divisive partisanship, which could easily be exacerbated by populism. He feared that these factions would lead to the rise of demagogues who could manipulate popular sentiment for personal or partisan gain.

• He might have expressed concern that too much populist energy could lead to instability or the rise of a leader who leveraged public opinion for personal power, potentially undermining the republic.

4. Balance Between Popular Sovereignty and Stability:

• The Founders recognized the importance of popular participation in government, but they also believed in mechanisms that would temper that influence. The Senate was designed to be a more stable body, less susceptible to fleeting popular sentiment, and the Electoral College was a buffer against direct democracy in presidential elections.

• The Founders likely believed that any connection with populist sentiment should be balanced with structures designed to ensure stability, reasoned debate, and protection of minority rights. They were wary of majorities using their power to trample on the rights of the minority or to make hasty decisions that could harm the nation in the long run.

5. Populism as a Double-Edged Sword:

• The Founders would probably have seen populism as a double-edged sword. On one hand, it was important that the government reflected the will of the people, but on the other, they recognized that unchecked populism could lead to chaos, instability, or authoritarianism. They would have likely advocated for structures and practices that ensure populism is channeled in a way that serves the greater good, not just short-term passions.

6. Economic Policies that Benefit Certain Groups:

• Alexander Hamilton, a staunch advocate for a strong central government and economic development, might support policies that benefit certain industries, especially if they align with building national infrastructure or strengthening the economy. However, he would also caution against favoring specific groups at the expense of others, as this could create inequality and injustice.

• Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, would likely be wary of policies that disproportionately benefit certain groups. He was a proponent of agrarianism and believed that a nation's strength lay in a balanced economy. He would likely view policies that create too much disparity between different classes as dangerous and potentially destabilizing.

• James Madison might have a similar concern, fearing that economic policies favoring specific groups could create factions that undermine the common good and lead to a concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few, which was contrary to the ideals of a democratic republic.

7. Clear and Charismatic Leadership that Appeals to National Pride:

• George Washington himself embodied clear and charismatic leadership, and he understood the importance of national pride in uniting the country. However, in his Farewell Address, Washington also warned against the dangers of excessive partisanship and personality-driven politics. He would likely support strong, principled leadership but would caution against a leader who stokes national pride for personal gain or uses it to divide the nation.

• Thomas Jefferson might appreciate the appeal to national pride but would be cautious about the leader's charisma overshadowing democratic principles. He believed in the importance of the people's role in government and would not want a leader to become too dominant or manipulative of public sentiment.

• John Adams would likely be concerned with the cult of personality surrounding any leader, as he was a strong advocate for reason and deliberation in governance. He might see a charismatic leader as potentially dangerous if it led to the erosion of democratic institutions and principles.

Overall Summary:

The Founding Fathers would likely have mixed views on these aspects of governance. While they would support policies that benefit the common good, they would caution against economic favoritism that deepens divisions or concentrates power in the hands of a few. They would also recognize the value of clear leadership, but only if it did not overshadow democratic checks and balances or cultivate dangerous, personality-driven politics that could destabilize the republic.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Parenting in the Toxic Crossfire: Pushing Back With At Least Feigned Humor

 How about a learning moment? This is from a Facebook issue on Friday, April 4, 2025. Three days after Trump's Destruction Day announcement as Pres. "Nero" was playing his fiddle, or fiddling around with...our economy, as it crashed all round us all. The level of something or other in MaGA electing a guy to not do exactly what he's doing is astounding. They hated Biden's economy that the Economist said was the envy of the world, but because Trump said words indicating what an allegedly horrible economy (it actually wasn't) and that he'd make it better, well...the irony in that is murderous. 

But we must listen to our fellow brothers and sisters, and otherwises on their other side too, and so I bring you this...

So Offensive's (apparently, but user account) post on Facebook:

"Not a lot of things piss me off. But this meme fucking did. As a father myself, this fucking infuriates me. What do all the fathers out there thing about this meme?"

OK so he got that out. Good for him. 

I "thinged" it was silly, though. Just to mention, this meme is not perfect, but one does get the general idea from it of what was intended. 

So I posted this:

For toxic masculinists, MaGA, or jerks...just reverse it.
We don’t spank kids who understand speech. As my psych degree taught me—pain’s unnecessary (but cathartic for the ignorant, toxic conservative mind), cognitive programming via verbal cues is. For toddlers, a padded diaper 'swat' & soft 'no' teaches association w/out harm. Now apply to those toxic "fathers".

And of course he felt the need to post this:

So Offensive: JZ Murdock Ah yes, the enlightened parenting philosophy, brought to you by a 'psych degree' and a thesaurus full of buzzwords. Forget clear communication and common sense, let's just 'cognitively program' our offspring with 'verbal cues' while occasionally administering a 'padded diaper swat' for that 'association without harm.' Because, you know, nuance. And if you disagree? Well, you're clearly a 'toxic conservative mind' trapped in the 'cathartic' throes of ignorance. I'm just trying to figure out if I need a decoder ring or a philosophy degree to understand this parenting manual. Also, is there a chapter on how to 'verbally cue' a toddler into cleaning their room? Asking for a friend who's currently being 'cognitively programmed' by a mountain of laundry.

Well, then of course someone else had to pipe up:

PM: JZ Murdock "as my psych degree taught me..." I've been to what used to be called university. Your psych degree taught you to hate masculinity and encourage children to pretend their sex isn't determined by their DNA. Ask the college for your money back. You were robbed.

I don't know, I just felt an urge to respond:

I know those you refer to, that's not descriptive of me by a long shot. Not that you are capable of observing that or correctly commenting on it. In addressing both who commented with banal diatribe...

It’s interesting and sad how easily dismissing complex subjects with sarcasm can seem like an argument. My degree, and the research it involved, is rooted in science and understanding human behavior—something that, I’d argue, isn’t best served by knee-jerk critiques or oversimplified mockery. As for your suggestion about 'verbal cues,' it’s a well-established concept in psychology, used in everything from parenting to professional settings, to help foster communication. If you’d like to actually understand the nuances of the field, I’m happy to have a more respectful discussion about it. Otherwise, it’s just noise.

Then, silence and nothing more up to now.

However, I was prepared for more if there was to be any. Always good to have a base comment in the wings as one's mind wishes to speak on it, then if something does come up, just hone to into appropriateness. 

My future never used comment was to be:

BTW, you get out of a university what you put into it. I worked far harder than most of my fellow students back when. 

Plenty of "stupid" out of Harvard (now in the WH) who slid through to a degree, but also, it's in if and how one maintains their education throughout the rest of their life. 

Many ARE there merely for that degree sans knowledge, or certainly, wisdom. 

We have a dullard POTUS like that now. Lazy-minded malignant narcissist/petulant manchild, but hey, not for (as long as he thinks).

My opinion being different from yours certainly does not make mine incorrect—especially when it comes with more clarity, alacrity and a basis in fact (I realized you're projecting how you are of such a type as is allergic to facts & reality), or the tribal infobubbble positions that so often serve to pacify and perpetuate the toxic and the dysfunctional beloved belief systems. 

Please do attempt to enlighten us on how ignorant and delusional everyone else is who isn't you. 

We're all ears. 

That is, those very many of us quite capable of hearing another’s 'opinion'—even if it’s unconsciously built from regressive anachronisms, delusion, disinformation, and toxic right-wing propaganda.

 But hey, as you can see, I’m quite good at digesting easily vetted, sheer and utter nonsense. :)

And now... for something completely different...(brief rather funny John Cleese video, actually)

So there it is.

This kind of thing happens a lot.  There are plenty of the ignorant whose opinions are so well placed-and-based within the realms of an alternate universe, or as Kellly Anne Conway liked to put it, the "alternate truth" category of having so very nothing to do with reality, or the truth.

But this is what we live with today. 

Nonsense as Reality.

Should I have kept silent? Maybe, it seems a group with a lof to exactly the type who would rail against such a meme. But when it comes to misperceiving or simply being (topically) ignorant about children, I tend to say something. So on that note... 

Cheers! Sláinte!

💥 Burning Bridges and Breaking Treaties: Trump’s NATO Playbook

Donald Trump's actions and rhetoric as President of the United States have been criticized as undermining Article 2 of the NATO Treaty, which promotes economic collaboration among member states to reduce the risk of conflict stemming from divergent economic policies.

📜 What Article 2 of the NATO Charter Says:

“The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.”

This article is about more than just military defense — it emphasizes mutual economic cooperation and reducing economic tensions within the alliance.

---

💥 Ways Trump Has Been Accused of Violating the Spirit of Article 2:

1. Trade Wars with NATO Allies

Trump initiated and escalated trade disputes with key NATO members like Canada, Germany, and the EU by:

• Imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from allies under national security grounds (Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act).

• Threatening tariffs on European cars.

• Retaliating against French digital services taxes.

These measures sparked tit-for-tat tariffs, harming cross-border economic stability and undermining efforts to reduce economic conflicts.

2. Publicly Undermining Allies

Trump often framed NATO allies as economic "freeloaders", accusing them of taking advantage of the U.S. economically and militarily. This antagonistic framing:

• Soured economic relations between member countries.

• Undermined trust that underpins collaborative trade and development.

3. Discouraging Investment & Stability

Trump’s repeated threats to withdraw from NATO and his transactional approach to alliances created uncertainty in:

• Defense-related industries and transatlantic investment.

• The overall economic stability that NATO promotes.

Such uncertainty can discourage long-term planning and undermine cooperative projects, particularly in technology, infrastructure, and energy security.

---

🧠 The Bigger Picture:

While Article 2 doesn’t have enforcement mechanisms or binding legal clauses, it sets a tone of solidarity, peace, and shared prosperity. Trump's confrontational and unilateral economic policies weakened that solidarity and contradicted the spirit and purpose of economic collaboration in the alliance.

This doesn't mean Trump formally broke Article 2 in a legal sense — NATO articles aren't typically "violated" like criminal laws — but many critics argue that he betrayed its intent and undermined NATO unity.

While it's true that Article 2 of the NATO treaty doesn't contain enforceable legal mechanisms, its language is foundational in shaping the alliance's ethos — promoting peace, economic cooperation, and mutual respect among member nations. Trump's aggressive economic posturing, particularly his trade threats against allies and transactional approach to defense funding, ran counter to the spirit of collaborative partnership Article 2 seeks to uphold. These actions may not constitute a formal violation, but they eroded trust and unity within NATO at a time when cohesion was vital.

Supporters of Trump’s approach often cheer his tough talk, seeing it as a businessman’s no-nonsense strategy to make allies “pay their fair share.” But even from that perspective, his tactics backfired. Instead of strengthening America’s position, they alienated key allies, made coordination harder, and gave adversaries like Russia and China an opening to exploit divisions. Undermining trust within NATO doesn’t just hurt European partners — it weakens the very alliances that give the U.S. global leverage, intelligence sharing, and strategic reach without having to bear the burden alone. So even if someone dismisses NATO’s idealistic goals, it’s still a bad deal for America’s power and security.

Compiled with aid from ChatGPT

Trump’s 24-Hour Ukraine/Russia Peace Plan Just Expired - 82 Days Ago

Let's see.

​As of today, Sunday, April 13, 2025, it has been approximately 2 years, 1 month, and 19 days since Donald Trump first claimed he could end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours. He made this assertion during his presidential campaign in May 2023 .​

Call to Activism

​As of today, April 13, 2025, it has been 82 days since President Donald Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2025. During his campaign, Trump claimed he could end the Ukraine war within 24 hours of taking office. However, the conflict continues unabated, with recent events such as a Russian missile strike in Sumy resulting in significant casualties. This underscores the unfulfilled nature of Trump's initial promise regarding the swift resolution of the Ukraine conflict.

What Trump did by later calling his ability to "end the Ukraine war in a day "claim“ as a little bit sarcastic” doesn't at all fit the definition of sarcasm. ​

Sarcasm involves saying the opposite of what you mean, often with irony or mockery.

Yet again, his speech is inaccurate, to the point of none. His original claim wasn’t ironic—it was confident and declarative.

What he actually did could be described in a few ways, depending on how charitable or critical one wishes to be, when charity here is utterly unnecessary:

• Backpedaling: Retreating from an earlier bold claim once questioned.
• Retconning (short for “retroactive continuity”): Changing the meaning of a previous statement after the fact.
• Walking it back: A common political term for softening or reversing a strong previous position.
• Reframing: Trying to shift the perception of the original comment to make it seem less literal or problematic.
• Gaslighting (most accurate): If he insists he never meant what people clearly heard him say (as he's done in claiming his backpaddling on tariffs was originally in the plan to begin with)—trying to make others doubt their perception.

🔹 DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender)
A coined acronym particularly useful in abuse and assault cases:

• Deny the behavior
• Attack the accuser
• Reverse Victim and Offender by portraying oneself as the real victim

Example: An abuser claiming, "She’s ruining my life with these lies."

When they are merely accurate observations.

Getting back down to "brass tacks" how has his method to end the war failed already?

​President Donald Trump has proposed a plan to end the ongoing conflict in Ukraine by negotiating directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin, aiming to achieve a resolution within 24 hours. However, this proposal has faced criticism from various quarters.​

Criticism from Ukrainian Leadership:

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has expressed skepticism about Trump's plan, cautioning that a hasty agreement could be detrimental to Ukraine's sovereignty. He emphasized that while ending the war is a priority, it should not come at the expense of Ukraine's independence and territorial integrity. ​

Rejection by Russian Officials:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has dismissed aspects of Trump's peace proposal, particularly the suggestions to delay Ukraine's NATO membership and the deployment of European peacekeepers in Ukraine. Lavrov stated that these elements are unsatisfactory and do not address Russia's core security concerns. ​

Continued Hostilities Despite Diplomatic Efforts:

Recent events have raised questions about the effectiveness of Trump's peace initiatives. On April 13, 2025, a Russian missile strike in the Ukrainian city of Sumy resulted in at least 31 civilian deaths, occurring shortly after U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff met with Putin to discuss a cease-fire. This attack has led to further skepticism regarding the viability of Trump's proposed peace plan.

These developments suggest that Trump's strategy to swiftly end the Ukraine conflict through direct negotiations with Putin faces significant challenges, including resistance from both Ukrainian leadership and Russian officials, as well as ongoing military actions undermining diplomatic efforts.

Trump’s claim that he could end the Ukraine war in 24 hours by negotiating directly with Putin was a bold promise that has proven to be false. His repeated assertions about resolving complex international conflicts in such a short time frame only served to mislead the public. As the war continues, it’s clear that his promises were less about practical diplomacy and more about self-serving rhetoric. 

This pattern of gaslighting—where he twists reality to avoid accountability—has been a hallmark of his leadership style. His attempt to rewrite his own statements, coupled with unfulfilled claims and shifting narratives, further exposes a tendency to manipulate facts for personal gain, even at the expense of national and global stability. The failure of his "peace plan" reflects not just a diplomatic shortcoming but a deeper issue of trust and integrity in his approach to foreign policy and leadership.

Additionally, Trump’s tariff system, initially framed as a way to protect American interests, has devolved into a mechanism of corruption. He was notably soft on Russia, with tariffs that often seemed to favor Russian interests or those of entities tied to Russian investments, while imposing harsher tariffs on U.S. allies and partners. 

This selective approach not only undermined America’s global relationships but also raised questions about his personal and business connections with Russian oligarchs. Meanwhile, his policies toward Ukraine were less about diplomacy and more about using Ukraine as a tool to maintain a hardline stance, despite the lack of meaningful peace progress. By manipulating tariffs for political leverage and economic gain, he blurred the lines between public service and personal profit, revealing how his actions served both his political ambitions and financial interests, often at the expense of U.S. global influence and credibility.

​Ultimately, if Trump continues to hold power, his pattern of corruption, dishonesty, and self-serving policies will only deepen the fractures within the nation and the world, and we will suffer even greater losses—both diplomatically and morally. It’s time for a change, or the consequences will be far-reaching and irreversible.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

10 Fun and Affordable Things to Do in Yakima

Yakima, Washington, on the eastern side of our state, offers a variety of enjoyable activities that are either free or budget-friendly. 

Here are ten recommendations to explore:

1. Yakima Valley Museum
   Discover the region's rich history, from Native American heritage to the development of the fruit industry. The museum features interactive exhibits, a vintage soda fountain, and free admission on the first and third Saturdays of each month.

2. Yakima Greenway
   Enjoy over 10 miles of scenic trails along the Yakima River, perfect for walking, biking, or fishing. The Greenway also hosts free events like concerts and nature walks throughout the year.

3. Cowiche Canyon Trail
   Hike through this beautiful nature preserve featuring canyons, wildflowers, and panoramic views. It's an excellent spot for birdwatching and photography.

4. Franklin Park
   This family-friendly park offers a playground, tennis courts, a skate park, and picnic areas. During summer, enjoy free music concerts on Thursdays and Fridays.

5. Downtown Yakima Farmers Market
   Browse local produce, crafts, and enjoy live music at this vibrant market. It's a great way to support local vendors and experience the community spirit.

6. Larson Gallery
   Located at Yakima Valley College, this gallery showcases rotating exhibits from local and national artists. Admission is free, and they offer workshops and lectures throughout the year.

7. Yakima Electric Railway Museum
   Explore vintage trolleys and learn about the city's transportation history. While museum admission is free, there is a small fee for trolley rides.

8. Central Washington Agricultural Museum
   Located in Union Gap, this museum offers hands-on exhibits about the region's agricultural heritage, including antique farming equipment and interactive activities for children. Admission is free.

9. Yakima Sportsman State Park
   This 266-acre park along the Yakima River is perfect for hiking, picnicking, fishing, and birdwatching. It's a green oasis in the desert landscape.

10. Free Community Fitness Classes
    Take advantage of free workout sessions offered by local organizations like the Yakima Athletic Club and Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital. These classes are available on select days throughout the year. 

Cheers! Slainte!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Architecture of Abuse: How Malignant Narcissists Build Systems of Control

A malignant narcissist and sex abuser in a leadership position often operates through a mix of manipulation, coercion, and delegation of abuse to maintain control and shield themselves from direct consequences. Their actions are driven by a combination of their own pathological needs—power, dominance, and gratification—while using those under them as enablers or extensions of their abuse. Here's how this process typically unfolds:

1. Grooming & Manipulating Subordinates

• They select and cultivate people who are loyal, weak-willed, or morally compromised.

• They groom enablers by offering rewards, power, or a sense of belonging.

• They foster an environment where misconduct is normalized or excused.

2. Delegating Abuse & Creating a Culture of Complicity

• They use their subordinates to isolate, intimidate, or coerce victims.

• They encourage or pressure underlings to engage in abusive behaviors themselves, making them complicit.

• By spreading the abuse, they make it harder for anyone to challenge the system without implicating themselves.

3. Psychological Projection & Displacement of Their Own Desires

• Their sexual abuse can manifest as a form of projection—they accuse others of misconduct or claim to be fighting immorality while engaging in it themselves.

• They externalize their pathology, coercing or gaslighting subordinates into becoming extensions of their abuse, often claiming it’s "just how things work" or that victims “deserve it.”

4. Creating a System of Fear & Control

• They threaten or ruin those who resist, ensuring silence.

• They control narratives, using their influence to discredit accusers and protect themselves.

• They leverage power dynamics to make victims feel trapped and powerless.

5. Rationalizing & Justifying Their Actions

• They often reframe their abuse as mentorship, tradition, or even a “necessary evil.”

• They gaslight victims and enablers into believing they consented or participated willingly.

• They manipulate systems (legal, institutional, social) to shield themselves from consequences.

In this way, their narcissistic sexual pathology doesn’t just remain a personal failing—it metastasizes into the culture around them, infecting their subordinates and making abuse systemic. This allows them to continue their predation while minimizing personal risk and maximizing the reach of their exploitation.

If you remove the sexual elements, what remains is a framework of abuse and control that is characteristic of malignant narcissism in leadership. At its core, this system is built on power, manipulation, coercion, and domination—all of which can manifest in various forms of abuse, whether psychological, emotional, financial, or physical.

Key Elements of the Abuse & Control Framework

1. Hierarchical Domination & Power Consolidation

• The narcissistic leader ensures that all power flows through them.

• They create a top-down structure where obedience is rewarded and dissent is punished.

• Decision-making is often opaque and arbitrary, keeping subordinates off balance.

2. Manipulation & Psychological Control

• They use gaslighting, making people question their perceptions, reality, or even morality.

• They manipulate loyalty through love-bombing, favoritism, or scapegoating.

• They create false crises to justify their authoritarian grip.

3. Delegation of Abuse & Creation of Enablers

• They encourage subordinates to mimic their behavior—either through incentives or coercion.

• By making others complicit, they spread responsibility, reducing direct accountability.

• They foster an environment of distrust, turning subordinates against one another.

4. Fear & Intimidation as Tools of Control

• They maintain obedience through threats (implicit or explicit).

• They use public humiliation or purges to make examples of those who resist.

• They foster a culture of surveillance, where everyone is watching and reporting on each other.

5. Narrative & Reality Control

• They control the flow of information, ensuring their version of events is dominant.

• They rewrite history, shifting blame onto others or distorting past failures as victories.

• They create false enemies to justify oppression and keep followers dependent.

Conclusion: A System of Pure Control

Once the sexual component is removed, what remains is a dictatorial, cult-like system that revolves around keeping people obedient, afraid, and dependent. This structure exists in authoritarian regimes, corporate environments, abusive families, and cults—anywhere malignant narcissists rise to power.

At its core, this system isn’t about any specific type of abuse—it’s about dominance, control, and the narcissist’s unquenchable need to be the center of everything.

While the sexual elements may not always be immediately visible in the framework of control, they are often an inherent and inextricable part of the abuser's broader system. The need for dominance, submission, and manipulation is not confined to one domain—it stretches into every aspect of the abuser's interactions. 

The use of sexual power or coercion may manifest as a primary method of control, but at its core, it is simply another tool in a larger pattern of exploiting others for personal gain. Whether it's through emotional, psychological, or physical tactics, the narcissist’s desire to maintain dominance ultimately manifests in all spheres of their relationships, reinforcing their sense of superiority and the subjugation of those around them.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT