Well as to McCain, he is a, …how shall we put it politely, a career politician. I have all the respect in the world for his service and sacrifice to our country, But he is a weeny… In my humble opinion. Got his career through his hardship for the country, (and so well may be entitled to) but it is what it is. 
I’m not Steve but I will ‘as an American’ bang in on this.
McCain and Graham…
in my view, are old school republicans, sometimes known as RINO’s Hard to figure them out, other than understanding they are looking out for their constituencies. Which, in an of itself, is not wrong but from a idea of advancing the US’s policies about where we are in context to possible terrorists, they may be a bit outside the box… 
Just a couple of notes here:
Trump just fired the US attorney general - and replaced her. Because she disagreed with Trump’s immigration policy
Washington’s state’s attorney general, will be initiating a lawsuit - to challenge the Trump immigration policy. More states are likely, to join the lawsuit (i.e. New York).
See the BBC story at Is Trump’s immigration order legal?
Also see the BBC story Tech firms back legal fight against Trump’s travel ban
Some here look at Democrats, as the ultimate evil. And any Republican, is better than a Democrat. And everyone must accept everything they say and do, Much like the US policy decades ago. An evil and ruthless dictator, is better then a good communist or a Islamic leader (and I’m not implying, that Trump is An evil and ruthless dictator).
Obviously, on the immigration policy:
A Roman Catholic Cardinal doesn’t like it
Major company CEO’s don’t like it
Prominent Republican senators, don’t like it.
But I do like some things, Trump said he would do:
[list]Leave Social Security and Medicare along. This remains to be seen and I’ll work with AARP, to insure he keeps his promise there.[/list:u]
[list]Bringing back jobs to America. I’m all for it, as long as we also implement quality controls[/list:u]
Rebuilding America’s infrastructure. Both Democrats and Republications will support that.
As far as Obamacare goes, some things are good - like no penalty for pre-existing conditions. Let’s see what the replacement offered is. Which is what the AMA is asking for.
I’m a mixed bag with Trump. Sure, let’s see what he can do. But don’t take all he says and does as signposts, that everyone should agree with it. And rightly fight it, in the appropriate lobby and court channels.
Question for everyone: Does the T in Rufus T Firefly stand for Trump 
Trump just fired the US attorney general - and replaced her. Because she disagreed with Trump’s immigration policy
Washington’s state’s attorney general, will be initiating a lawsuit - to challenge the Trump immigration policy. More states are likely, to join the lawsuit (i.e. New York).
See the BBC story at Is Trump’s immigration order legal?
Also see the BBC story Tech firms back legal fight against Trump’s travel ban
Trump fired the “acting U.S. AG” because she was an Obama appointee and flatly refused to do her job although she acknowledged the President probably has the right to do what he did. She objected on moral grounds. Trump should have fired her, she can go into private practice and follow her moral path.
Folks don’t like Trump’s order, that’s fine! We have freedom of speech and thought here thanks to our constitution.
Thanks Steve. As an outside observer, it does seem odd that Trump garners so much divisiveness… you get that as a natural given between “left” and “right” in politics, but Trump seems to so easily have set his OWN side asunder. Where in your opinion does this divide run… is it Tea Party/not Tea Party, or is it some other beat?
I think it’s a combination of reasons. Trump’s personality is confrontational so this is one factor. He can’t be pigeonholed with any group like Tea Party or Republican or conservative so at times he upsets everyone. Infrastructure spending will upset Republicans but Dems will like it, Supreme Court Justice pick will please Conservatives and upset Dems, Travel restriction ban will please Tea Party but upset Dems and leave many Repubs unsure. Tax changes will upset Dems but make Repubs happy.
When you initiate a lot of stuff in a short amount of time a lot of folks will get upset no matter what and with Social Media everything is magnified dramatically.
BTW the media likes to highlight the folks who disagree with Trump so as to stir the pot because it drives ratings!
Randy,
This sounds good:
This contradicts the people in Hermano’s thread except you and qaz though. And I’m glad to see he’s promised not to touch Social security and Medicare Randy. He’s kept his promises so far hasn’t he?
Yes, so far he has, Michael. I’m not really anti-Trump. But then again, I’m not really pro-Trump either. But the US has elected him.
Since I am a member of AARP, 'll be getting alerts, on Medicare and Social Security. And I’ll have early indications, if Trump is keeping, his promises or not. So far, he has. But then again, nothing has been done - with these items, so far.
While all media has bias (either conservative or liberal), I do think the BBC is fairly objective at bbc.com/news. I was a Peace Corps volunteer teacher, at a Catholic mission school, in Liberia, West Africa - during the seventies. Shortwave was big back then and I got news from:
France
Russia
America (i.e. VOA)
BBC
I can tell you this much. The US government run radio (Voice of America) station, was every bit as bias and full of propaganda - as its Russian conterpart.
Today Trump is meeting with Pharma cos to start to negotiate drug prices that Medicare/Medicaid pays. It will save consumers and taxpayers billions.
Will NBC,ABC,CBS,CNN,MSNBC, RCC Cardinals, the Pope, Angela Merkel comment on this? Will it even be covered?
Well, the truth of a position is not determined by the majority view. There are countless examples wherein the majority view is incorrect.
Yes, of course the majority considers my view heretical. This is the very meaning of “heretical”—taking a view contrary to the majority. As for “dangerous,” perhaps you could explain to me why it is dangerous. Is it dangerous because it would require us to believe that some of the OT writers were mistaken?
How could the following two statements concerning the same event, both be true?
2 Samuel 24:1 Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”
1 Chronicles 21:1 Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel.
If Samuel was right, then it seems odd the God who incited David to number Israel, later punished David for doing so.
Ezra, or whoever wrote 1 Chronicles over 500 years later, says it was Satan. This makes sense if we can accept a progressive revelation of God’s character. The early Israelites believed God was the source of both good and evil—that Satan was his agent who could do only what God commanded or “allowed” him to do. Therefore, if Satan did a thing, you might as well say that God did it, since it was done by God’s agent. But by the time 1 Chronicles was written, Satan was beginning to be viewed as an independent author of evil who continuously worked against the will and purposes of God. The latter view continued on into the days in which Jesus and his disciples lived.
So many of the actions recorded in the Old Testament and ascribed to God, were actually acts of Satan. The very essence of God is LOVE
(1 John 4:8,16) and in Him is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5). God neither creates nor allows evil; LOVE entirely opposes it, and sooner or later overcomes it.
No.
Well, Michael, you can find scholars - who agree with you. For example - this artice by Christopher Malone, Ph.D.:
Donald Trump, American Social Darwinist
Note: I’m just saying here that Michael can find academic scholars, that side with his social Darwinism position. And I’m not sure if you need to be a LinkedIn member…in order to see the article.
And we do have a variety of views on Trump here. Like:
He’s the greatest thing since sliced bread. And Democrats have messed up big time - with Obama and Hillary. Now the Lone Ranger rides again.
Trump is a social Darwinist
“I’m from Missouri - show me.” But I reserve the right, to ask questions like Socrates…be a satirist - like Johnathon Swift…And engage in lobbyist political and social media actions…Like Henry David Thoreau might do now
Etc.
Randy said :
No offence Randy, but you are not from Missouri.
Don… how might this be a problem, given you are well on record boldly declaring… ”“I don’t care what is written in the Hebrew Scriptures.
YES… and wouldn’t that be the most natural, logical and likely conclusion for them to draw given their Exodus experience where “the destroyer” laid waste any uncovered firstborn. Such death and destruction was retributive, NOT remedial, as is plain here…
Now Don, sure, this can be swept aside using your MO above, but I’m not convinced this does justice to the biblical text. Take for example your thoughts here…
Someone like Jesus might beg to differ in attributing the Hand of God to that of Satan…
If one believes such blasphemy is still possible then it’s skating awfully close to the thin ice, or as Tom Wright expresses it on these texts…
The whole Evangelical Universalism idea has to be qualified by the historic narrative.
Oh boy let’s let stuff happen. 
Can anyone here benefit, from the sagely advice of Joyce Meyer? I’ve shared that on Twitter today.
From the BBC today:
Trump: Pharmaceutical executives told to cut drug prices
You’re right, Chad. I’m from Illinois. Where we elected the Republican governor Bruce Raune. And we had a 2 year standoff, between him and the Democratic controlled house and Senate. Where we really had no budget for 2 years.
And things like mailing out license renewals, etc., never happened.
To be fair, I did vote for Bruce for governor. And Donald as a Republican nominee. After all, I am an independent. And I wanted to see Donald in the race.
Now will things be like Illinois - at the US government level?
It depends. I look at things this way. We have the good ship Donald, navigating the arctic waters. And folks want to put up icebergs.
The RINO’s in Congress
The Democrats
The disgruntled (will they vote Democrat - 2 years from now?)
The Lobbyists
The court challenges (like the state of Washington and other states - with the current Muslim ban)
The press coverage
Unexpected crisis movements (i.e. natural disasters, terrorist attacks, etc.)
Etc.
The F.F.A. (AKA Fanatical Fans of America), are on the Good Ship Donald. But let’s see how the captain, manages the icebergs.
And I keep busy these days. Like:
Someone wants to interview me via Skype - from Japan this week. Business stuff. Even though I’m officially retired. Am I really that fascinating - to the Japanese?
A Catholic family from India - near Chennai, asks me (via Skype and WhatsApp), for spiritual advice. What can I possible tell them, that the R.C. priests can’t? And I’ll only agree to this, if they also consult an RC priest.
Etc.
I’m really Mr. Nobody. But folks still seek me out, for some strange reason (or reasons).
I came across this article on MSN today:
Steve Bannon: ‘we’re going to war in the South China Sea … no doubt’
How do you Trump supporters feel, about a prolonged war with China - over some uninhabited islands? It’s reminiscent of the Falklands war. And it’s a lose-lose idea.
And where would Russian stand, considering they are both friends with…and share a border - with China?
Speaking of which. Isn’t Russian also friends with Iran? Or at least, share some joint operations?
Taken as a floating headline, it made me think, “Bannon is saying that Trump intends to start a war with China.” I immediately thought, “That sounds very uncharacteristic of Trump.” So I clicked on the link, and my skepticism was justified:
Let’s put Steve Bannon’s statement in context: He made it in May 2016, and the full quote is “We’re going to war in the South China Sea in 5 to 10 years.”
In other words, Mr. Bannon said that before he was first employed by Trump on Aug. 17, 2016, and Mr. Bannon was expecting the war to start sometime between 2021 and 2026–not even during President Trump’s first term as president. (It was not clear back in May that Trump would be elected president. It is also not clear at this early date if Pres. Trump will even run for a second term, much less win.)
Back in May 2016, when it looked like we were going to get yet another CIA candidate (i. e., the Bushes, the Clintons, and their lackeys) for president, I wouldn’t have doubted Mr. Bannon’s grim prediction. Ever since George Bush I invaded Iraq in 1990, the Bushes/Clintons/lackeys have kept the U. S. in a constant state of war. If Hillary Clinton had been elected in 2016, I would have expected a U. S. invasion of Russia in April of this year. We really dodged a bullet marked “World War III”.
As for your question, I would be thoroughly against such a war with China.
As for your question, I would be thoroughly against such a war with China.
As any sane person would! MSNBC & CNN have been exposed. An incredible percentage of their political stories are misleading by design to advance their leftist agenda!