Why Pro Trump

When Trump announced his presidential run, I was skeptical. His character seemed questionable, and his pro-choice stance typically would have been enough to make me oppose him.

As I examined the candidates’ positions, my perspective gradually shifted. His resolute approach to border security particularly resonated with me, aligning closely with my own views. Among the contenders, only he and one other candidate shared my stance. Though Senator Cruz remained my preference, especially regarding his pro-life position, I found myself increasingly drawn to the alternative candidate’s platform.

Reflecting on Trump’s account of his personal experience, I found his explanation initially convincing, yet lingering skepticism persisted. His past behavior and language further undermined my trust. In retrospect, I often contemplate whether Ted Cruz might have been a more suitable presidential candidate. Ultimately, the full truth remains elusive, and we may never fully know.

In the face of a polarizing election, my initial choice felt stripped away. Confronted with Trump, a relatively unknown quantity, and Clinton, whose public persona was exhaustively familiar, I felt politically cornered. As the campaign unfolded, my perspective subtly shifted. Trump’s candidacy began to resonate more strongly, while the alternative grew less appealing. Though momentarily tempted to protest by writing in my own name, I ultimately found myself gravitating toward a clearer electoral stance.

During the election, I found myself strongly aligned with Trump’s rhetoric, yet I harbored deep reservations about his character and credibility.

Throughout my years of observation, I’ve consistently maintained that individuals advocating for pro-life positions tend to demonstrate greater authenticity and moral courage. In today’s complex social landscape, embracing a pro-choice stance has become a convenient and socially acceptable narrative, which I characterize as fundamentally endorsing a culture of termination. The genuine commitment to protecting innocent life requires a deeper ethical stance and personal conviction.

Trump’s unwavering commitment to the pro-life movement demonstrated a principled position that demanded respect. His apparent sincerity on this issue suggested a deeper integrity that could potentially extend to other aspects of his political platform. By taking a clear and potentially unpopular stance, he showed a willingness to stand by his convictions, which was noteworthy in the complex landscape of all the political discourse.

Looking back, it was clearly true. No other modern president can claim such close adherence to his promises. While he couldn’t completely follow them all, it is not for lack of effort, even to the point of pushing the Constitution to the very edge. Also, this was not without opposition, even from Republicans. Might I remind one and all of the number one rino giving the thumbs-down during the effort to withdraw Obama Care. (I was never a fan Sen. McCain, who was the only Republican member of the Keating five & should have gone to jail)

President Trump is the only modern day president who enforced immigration laws, which were already on the books. He did this though there are even Republicans who opposed his actions. This likely was one of the main reasons he was elected. The Republicans only paid lip service to it and the democrats openly refused to enforce those legal laws. During the primary, he and Cruz were the only two that spoke of enforcing the law. All the rest of the Republican candidates got all mushy mouthed when asked about it.

Trump is constantly referred to as Hitler, this in light of all he has done for Israelis. No other president, whether he have a R or D after his name has hired more women in higher positions. No other president, except maybe Reagan & Kennedy, has done more to help our economy. Few have hurt in all of these categories as Old Joe. (For this reason Old Joe does not deserve to be called president, or even by his last name. Better to forget it completely)

President Trump has made a believer out of me.

Facts & Advertising

Over the years, I’ve developed a keen ability to discern the underlying truths within advertisements, despite their carefully crafted attempts to obscure or manipulate the message.

A recent television advertisement caught my attention, showcasing a central air conditioning system with a tempting promise of potential savings. While the ad strategically highlighted a $4,500 cost reduction, it conveniently sidestepped discussing the initial investment required. This marketing approach is far from uncommon—companies often dangle impressive savings figures to distract from the substantial upfront expense. Notably, the advertisement carefully avoided revealing the original price, leaving viewers to wonder about the true financial commitment behind the glossy sales pitch.

When confronting sales tactics designed to obscure true costs, maintain a direct and focused approach. Clearly communicate your sole interest is in understanding the final, all-inclusive price. Salespeople often employ diversionary techniques, attempting to distract you with complex explanations or seemingly attractive savings. Whether in retail or automotive sales, their goal is to complicate your decision-making process. By consistently redirecting the conversation to the bottom-line figure, you can cut through manipulative strategies and make an informed purchasing choice. Remain calm, persistent, and unwavering in your request for transparent pricing.

Incidentally, I recently purchased an affordable 10,000 BTU window air conditioner for under $500 that effectively cools my entire 900 square foot Missouri home. The product advertisement claimed potential energy savings that could offset the unit’s cost multiple times over. Before investing in a more expensive system, I recommend exploring budget-friendly cooling options that can provide similar comfort while keeping more money in your pocket.

The big, expensive central unit runs more quietly and distributes cool air more effectively. If that is worth the extra cost, fine. Just want you to know what you are truly paying for.

Never Mind

I developed an innovative approach to address air traffic control challenges, but the current system has been stabilized. My solution feels like repairing a roof during fair weather—seemingly unnecessary at the moment. However, I’m confident that future complications will arise, and when they do, I’ll be prepared with my carefully preserved strategy, ready to implement it at the critical moment.

Nostalgia, Humor & Feelin’s Too

In the realm of television advertising, I’ve learned to discern quality beyond conventional tropes. This particular Amazon commercial defied expectations, eschewing typical marketing tactics. Instead of relying on youthful stereotypes, the ad featured three women in their early seventies, initially portrayed with a sense of melancholy and listlessness. Their subdued demeanor quickly transformed as one of them sparked an ingenious concept, challenging viewer assumptions about age and vitality.

The three glided down the snowy slope, their joyous laughter echoing through the crisp winter air. Caught up in their infectious delight, I found myself grinning from ear to ear, even without a word spoken. The scene was so captivating that I could easily replay it countless times, each viewing bringing the same sense of pure, unbridled happiness.

Despite my reservations about the Beatles, I must acknowledge that the selection of “In My Life” as the accompanying music was exceptionally fitting and poignant.

I’ll enthusiastically confess: after carefully listening to the recording, I’m thoroughly impressed. The music is not just good, but remarkably close to excellent. In fact, I’m seriously considering purchasing a copy. My motivation? My wife’s lifelong adoration of The Beatles has been a fascinating soundtrack to our five decades together.

I’ll likely display this alongside the iconic Coca-Cola commercial, featuring that memorable scene where a diverse crowd harmonizes about spreading global harmony. Please say you remember it. Was it that long ago. If you’re not familiar with it, I recommend searching online for a quick refresher.

I don’t know for sure you will be able. It was even before we were married. Maybe. Possibly. I hope.

Top One Percent

The Democrats have a solution: “Raise the taxes on the top one percent.”

If the top 1% leave NY, NY they’ll need to tax top 2%.

As the city empties, financial obligations will cease. Yet, the final departing resident bears the responsibility of switching off all the lights, ensuring there is no bill to pay.

The Side Effect

Political choices often yield unforeseen outcomes that extend far beyond initial intentions. What begins as a calculated decision can spiral into complex consequences, where the unintended ripple effects may ultimately overshadow the original objectives, creating a landscape of unexpected and potentially profound impacts.

I like to say iI stay informed about political developments and current events, diligently tracking key statistics and emerging trends to maintain a comprehensive understanding of the world around me.

During the recent government shutdown, a sobering statistic emerged: roughly 40 million Americans depend on SNAP benefits, representing nearly 9% of the total population. To contextualize this figure, imagine a community of 100 individuals where 9 members require food assistance, supported by the economic efforts of the remaining 91.

It is bad enough that I would be one of the contributors. However, to me, I would really not like to be one of the nine living off the toil of the ninety-one.

To be sure, if it had not been for the shutdown, i, perhaps we wouldn’t have ever known how many are relying on welfare. To be sure many of them seem to be proud of it. They seem to want to wear it as some kind of badge of honor. It would seem they would think nothing of wearing a t-shirt declaring in large print that they have been living off SNAP for (fill in the years).

FREE MONEY

They call it SNAP. It’s a fancy acronym. It’s the way the Dems get away with giving away FREE MONEY.

If they called it FREE MONEY, they’d never have gotten away with it and they knew it.

By the way, they used to call it welfare, but SNAP is far and away more palatable. It is more dignified you see. It is less painful to the pride, you see. No one would brag about living off welfare for three decades. But they don’t hesitate to complain loudly when SNAP stops.

Safety Is Number One Priority

The statement echoes the typical corporate response following a catastrophic event, reflecting a carefully crafted narrative that may or may not align with the full truth. While potentially genuine, such communications often serve to mitigate reputational damage, leaving listeners to discern the nuanced layers of accountability and perception.

The disclaimer serves as a strategic legal shield, reflecting a calculated approach to risk management. Legal practitioners view such scenarios as potential goldmines, positioning themselves to represent clients with an eye toward lucrative contingency arrangements. Corporate leadership often opts for expedient settlements, recognizing that the financial and reputational costs of prolonged litigation can far exceed the immediate monetary outlay of a negotiated resolution. it megabytes the need for an outright win in court.

The most significant risks arise when false statements are exposed, potentially revealing deliberate corporate negligence. Imagine the catastrophic consequences if evidence emerged that leadership consciously prioritized efficiency over worker safety, creating a scenario fraught with legal and ethical peril. Such a revelation would demand an extraordinarily challenging explanation that could fundamentally undermine organizational integrity and trust.

The potential revelation of underlying issues could bring to light significant concerns within an organization. While not necessarily leading to immediate legal or financial repercussions, the implications might still be substantial for leadership. The practice of selecting personnel based on personal connections, physical characteristics, or arbitrary factors rather than merit raises serious ethical questions. It is worth recalling that during a recent presidential administration, such preferential treatment was not only tolerated but seemingly encouraged by federal policies. The memory of these practices remains vivid for many observers who witnessed such systemic approaches to hiring and promotion.

Wouldn’t it be something if we found out that the incident was the result of a lack of qualifications by some technician chosen by the color of his skin.

I don’t know. What I do know, I am much less likely to fly these days. There seem to be a number of accidents these days that are the result, not of mistaker, but rather just being sloppy.

I know the argument. Flying is still safer. Still, I’m going to drive, take the bus, or maybe just walk.

Half of What You Read; but Which Half

Verifying the accuracy of information is challenging when relying on quotations. I believed Mark Twain coined the advice to “believe nothing of what you hear and half of what you read,” but I questioned this attribution.

During my online research, I encountered a quote potentially attributed to Mark Twain, though I could not definitively verify its origin. A comparable phrase surfaced in what seemed to be an Edgar Allan Poe narrative. However, historical evidence suggests the sentiment predates both authors. An earlier writer named Johnson had previously crafted a similar line of dialogue, specifying the intriguing phrase, “Aye, But which half.”

Despite written accounts, personal experience provides the most reliable understanding. Direct encounters, like accidentally hitting one’s thumb while hammering, offer firsthand knowledge that transcends secondhand descriptions.

And so it is that I wrote the above to say this. Sometimes the internet experts do get it wrong, as I can contradict many of them with personal experience. I can’t remember why I stumbled into a bunch of questions concerning window air conditioning.

As I delved deeper into the expert’s responses, I found a growing discrepancy between their claims and my own lived experiences. Each successive question revealed a pattern of inaccuracies that undermined their credibility. My insights were not gleaned from academic texts, but from firsthand knowledge accumulated over years. Skepticism grew as I realized that only a fraction of the information presented could be trusted. My perspective was shaped by personal observations, such as the transformation of my home’s cooling system from central air to window units over a decade ago.

Over two decades of central air conditioning, I consistently paid over $1,000 annually for repairs. Since switching to window units, I’ve invested in three units totaling approximately $1,100, which I installed myself. My current unit, now three years old, performs flawlessly. If it fails, I’ll replace it for less than the cost of a single year’s central air maintenance.

The compact ten-thousand BTU air conditioner efficiently maintains my home’s temperature, rivaling the performance of my previous two-ton unit. Even during peak summer months, my electricity bill remains remarkably low, hovering just above $100, despite simultaneously charging my electric vehicle.

The window air conditioner offers unexpected advantages. Its washable filter requires monthly maintenance, a stark contrast to the costly, frequent filter replacements of central systems. Additionally, bypassing the evaporator coil allows the heater to operate with enhanced efficiency, ensuring a consistently warm and comfortable home environment.

To be sure, there are disadvantages to window units. The living room is always cooler than the rest of the house and it is a bit noisy. These are small inconveniences when one considers the financial aspects.

Based on my years of observation and understanding, I believe several core infrastructure challenges could be addressed with relatively straightforward solutions. The persistent nature of these issues raises questions about the genuine desire to resolve them.

A seasonal bypass lever for the evaporator offers a practical solution to reduce maintenance requirements during winter months. By redirecting airflow, this design can enhance heater performance and efficiency. The implementation appears technically feasible and potentially cost-effective, presenting an innovative approach to climate control system optimization.

Innovative HVAC design could revolutionize home cooling systems by integrating all components into a single, self-contained outdoor unit. This approach would streamline installation and maintenance, allowing homeowners to replace the entire system with minimal effort—similar to swapping out a major appliance. The modular design would enable quick replacement every four to six years, potentially reducing long-term repair costs and complexity. While this might challenge traditional HVAC service models, it represents a forward-thinking solution for residential climate control, emphasizing simplicity and efficiency.

Finally, evaporators should have easy access for cleaning. To me, that should be casual to the most obvious observer. This is true regardless of whatever other changes are made. At the least it might change a twelve hundred dollar repair into, maybe three or four hundred.I have seen repair men remove these things to clean them. It should not be that difficult to make regular repairs like this.

What truly astounds me is how an individual with minimal formal education can recognize these issues so clearly. Despite not being an expert or holding a high-ranking position, I believe I could address these challenges with minimal guidance. It seems those in charge are simply unwilling to take action.

Incidentally, when you see the words of so-called experts about the advantage of big expensive central units, just remember the words or Poe, or Johnson, or whoever it was who said it.