I'd like to break the OPs rant down and deal with the several parts.

Cut welfare: Absolutely true. Comes in several flavors. 1. Eliminate the new immigrants from getting any fed/state subsidies for five years after they arrive(I think it should be 20 years, but hey - 5 is a good start). 2. Put a lifetime cap on direct welfare payments of 18 years(funny, that's the amount of time from birth to adulthood for a welfare queen), and some other caps for other programs, but all would have a lifetime cap for direct welfare payments. 3. Cut back welfare where the recipient has hidden assets from the feds(bad problem).

Trump's direct payments to landlords: Partly true, mostly false. This is called the Section 8 housing assistance program. Trump does not own any real estate that is directly tied to any Section 8 housing payments. He is a partner in a large real estate trust that owns some redevelopment property that accepts Section 8 payments. I don't know what his stake in it is exactly, but he(and I) are all minority ownership interest. Why does the trust own RE which would be covered by Section 8 payments? Because, the govt tells us that as part of any RE trust where the assets exceed about 5 mil, a certain percent of the holdings MUST be in low-income, or structured relief payment housing - i.e. must accept Section 8. It - is - the - law.

Tax break for one of his golf courses: True. One more more of his courses was converted from a kind of fescue which is high water use to a kind of grass that uses far less water to stay green. The congress(in their infinite wisdom) back in 2009(who was prez?) offered tax rebates for courses which changed grass type. The law is on the books, the golf course qualifies, and Trump is taking LEGAL advantage of the tax break, or dodge, or loophole. BTW, the golf course is part of a collection of assets that is once again publicly owned, and so for the administrators(it is NOT Trump, he's turned all that over to others to manage) to not take advantage of reducing tax liability would be a case of failure to properly reduce taxes and fees, and maximize profits for their shareholders.

Thief and moron. A 'thief' by definition is someone who takes from someone else, or a group of people by force. So - that one's a lie. The moron comment is not worth responding to. Meh - whatev.

I'm actually not sure how much of a thing "microagression" is. It seems to me sort of a boutique issue, which a few young folks and professional social critics are prone to latch on to as the issue-du-jour, but which inevitably fades away as a whole lotta' nothing. I know not a single person in my social circle who is on board the microagression train. And that includes some ultra-liberal folks.

This is poor parenting. Social skills are taught, not inherent. In my house, no phones are allowed at the dinner table.

I don't want to get bogged down in this one theme, but I can tell you that the alt-left are using 'microagression' as another tool in the limitation on rights, specifically free speech. In the US, shutting down free speech is particularly hard, due in large part to the 1st amendment. Right or wrong, "hate" speech is protected. If it weren't then we would have a panel of 'experts' trying to decide what is hate speech and what isn't. Frex; 'you people' has NO ethnic or racial content. However, those with the 600Lb chip on their should have taken up the cudgel that 'you people' is now racist. Well just eff that. I'll write or say 'you people' with any social/civil organizational makeup I want. If I'm talking about or to a group of MDs I might use 'you people'. If I'm talking about a group of youths who are causing havoc, I might use it, no matter their gender, color, religion, etc.

Schools and some civic dept are now on the microagression bandwagon trying to use it as a method for limiting rights. It's another of the end-around deals just like the Fast & Furious was an end-around trying to limit the right to keep and bear. This is a major problem with progressive thinking. That you can substitute some kind of elitist panel of experts to decide what is, and what is not a right. Strangely, many liberals think that the labors and materials related to health are somehow a right. That a person has a right to take from those who invest wisely in their health and give that same benefit to those who choose to live unwisely, and don't invest in their health. my answer to that is in the US - there is absolutely a clear right to PURCHASE health insurance. No one from the gov, or private industry will ever limit or eliminate your right to BUY insurance. But - that's not what the libs want. They not only want to limit what is said, written, etc it all needs to be authorized, validated, but they need to control how, where, when, why things get done or not done.

This is in direct contravention of what the US is all about. We are about liberty. We are about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. We are about leaving people alone, unless they are in dire condition. All this focus on never hearing a bad word, and everyone singing the correct song, in the correct verse, and don't let your lawn grow over 2", and make sure your teeth are brushed every morning, and your car doesn't pollute more than 1 microgram of CO, and no one can ever, ever be offended. Just makes me sick. In fact, it makes me want to go out and offend as many liberals as I can possible work in my schedule.

I do think he goes overboard with his tweeting, like I've said before. I don't have a problem with him tweeting, but at times it comes across as off message and undisciplined. I hardly think he's an embarrassment to the country, though.

That's about the size of it. The platform just makes it easy for anyone to say stupid stuff in my opinion. It gets posted before you have time to think it through and edit yourself. It's the nature of it to let you say things on the fly you might not in other forms of communication. On the other hand Trump doesn't seem to care much about censoring himself in any case. I think it's refreshing.

And the most important thing is he is able to completely bypass the biased media and speak directly to us. The benefit of that outweighs the negative IMO.

What the fuck?  Leader of the free world and he feels the need to tweet about how he perceives being investigated as a witch hunt.  It's like he's in jr. high.  He's an embarrassment to our nation on the world stage.

I might agree with you,
if he wasn't right.  But it IS a witch hunt.

I do have some problems with Trump.  I didn't like the way he insulted fellow Nato countries and refused to endorse the mutual defense provision.  But I liked the rest of his speech.

But for the most part, the Democrats keep making up lies and spreading innuendo based on anonymous reports and demand investigations based on nothing other than the volume of their accusations.

Even Democrats agree that the main thing holding back economic growth is the need for tax reform, yet they do nothing to help.  They impede Trump at every turn and prevent him from accomplishing anything while he has to react to their frivolous complaints.  And those complaints wouldn't really be a problem either if it weren't for the media's obsession with all things anti-Trump, and encouraging the average citizen to think he is a moron.

Triggered much?

The TRUTH is that your loved ones have been engaged in a campaign of LIES, FAKE ACCUSATIONS, BULLSHIT Blabberings and all sorts of utterly vicious and cowardly innuendo that rival PRAVDA for disgusting.

And OF COURSE you are offended because he dared to defend himself by mentioning the obvious.

Why the republicans don't tell the truth about Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama's thievery loud and often is a mystery to me.

When one lives in the swamp, if they move outside of the pack then they become the prey.

The media will say that Trump has created an "environment of violence" due to his "rhetoric", and "hate speech".  The truth is the Alt Left (antifa, BLM, etc) has created an  environment where violence against any who don't agree with them is condoned.

I don't care.  I categorically reject this kind of idea.  The absolute truth is that the media has endorsed violent behavior against the president and against Republicans and THEY are responsible for this happening.  Nobody does this kind of thing unless they somehow have a path to believe it's ok.  In the past that only ever happened with the mentally disturbed, but today violence against your political opponent is being mainstreamed by the media. 

Meet every call that it was Trump's fault with a rejection and don't every say it sarcastically.  Republicans have a bad habit of using sarcasm, but the Left picks it up and trumpets it as the truth.  So don't even give them an edge. 

This was not the President's fault.  This was the fault of those who have endorsed violence as a "solution".  ENOUGH!

Demand that anyone who tries to pin this on the President strongly and uncategorically reject violence. 

How about everyone in one pool.  Everyone's premiums are based on their age at enrollment.  If you enroll young and maintain your policy uninterrupted, you keep low rates, except for annual COLA increases.  If you decide to enroll later, you start out with higher premiums, which also increase annually.  Also, if you have pre-existing conditions, your rates are adjusted up even more.  This would kick in after a certain age so that young people don't get hit with penalties for developing diseases early.  And since everyone's rates are adjusted upward annually (COLA), it provides a greater incentive to enroll young, and a greater penalty for waiting to enroll.

You left out retirees.  Under your plan, they would not have insurance because they have little ability to afford it.

Personally, I like the plan whereby we fix the tort problem, get doctors from under the thumb of lawyers and malpractice insurance and let them practice medicine.  I 100% guarantee you that if we do this, prices for care will crash.