Archive | September, 2016

69. The “Deplorable” Fans of Trump

13 Sep

The Google definition of “deplorable” is: “Disgraceful, shameful, dishonorable, unworthy, inexcusable, unpardonable, unforgivable”. Hillary stated: “half of Trump’s supporters belong in the basket of deplorables.” I applaud her for her courage. Most of the press seems to be afraid to really challenge him.

Trump’s response is that she called American voters deplorable. NO! only HIS supporters, and not all of them (at first “half” and then “some”). My speculation is that his original core membership was the deplorables, then later, others joined in simply to get on the bandwagon.

She clarified: They are “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.” David Duke, former KKK Grand Wizard is a Trump supporter, and well qualified to be called deplorable.

How can it be wrong to say that if a candidate, like Trump, has established deplorable characteristics, then at least many of his supporters have the same traits — and he does give them encouragement (see rally speeches).

Is Trump deplorable? Examine these facts, which are supported by words in his speeches. He has insulted women, Mexicans, NATO allies, Muslim nation allies, many Republican leaders, disabled people, our military, and others. His emphasis is on revenge rather than on making productive alliances. He believes in violence and torture more extreme that water-boarding. Regarding “terrorists, you have to take out their families.” All his plans for the country are vague and most are either obvious or impossible. As for military plans, he will to consult with the generals — a brilliant idea that no previous president has thought of.

Recent polls on Trump supporters show that a third or more of them believe that whites are superior to blacks, in many different ways.

Nothing above is an exaggeration. Of course Trump, after reviewing all of his gaffs, backed off a little from the worst, but NEVER apologized for any. In fact, he has changed his mind on so many issues that it is amazing that anyone who reads could support him. On the other hand, Hillary has gone overboard to apologize for several remarks — a sign of her better attitude and effort to be responsible.

68. Why Distrust Hillary?

6 Sep

There are three important facts to note:

1. If Republicans never existed or Hillary Clinton did not run for President, there would be little or no distrust . The repeated and fruitless investigations would not have been made. Republican leaders, such as Mitch McConnell, have dedicated themselves (in actual recorded dialogue) to destroying Pres. Obama, and now Clinton.

2. Even if she were inclined to do something untrustworthy the constraints of the Presidential office would keep her respectable and honest. The Presidency is constantly observed and reported on. Hillary will rely heavily on Pres. Obama, Bernie Sanders, other responsible Democratic leaders, her Vice President, past cabinet members, military leaders, etc. She will be relentlessly observed by the Secret Service, White House staff, other employees, friends and colleagues. Communications will be monitored for security classification by designated experts. Any favoritism for campaign donors would be obvious and very unlikely to be pursued.

3. Hillary has a long history of serving our country in responsible positions. You may not agree with her politics, but you cannot argue with her genuine efforts to help people and be responsible. With Hillary you can be certain that nothing radically wrong will be done and there is a good chance that she can make improvements.

If you simply distrust all Democrats, remember that our country prospered under Bill Clinton and was very financially responsible. Under President Bush (the 2nd), the country was committed to two major and expensive wars. Hillary as a Senator, did not vote for war, but merely to give Pres. Bush the right to make the decision. It could have been a bluff to show that we were serious. Remember also that she and the rest of the country were told incorrectly that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Her vote at that time was understandable and cooperative with Presidential foreign policy.  She also had no way of knowing that Pres.Bush would engage in nation building and occupy the country for many years.

On the other hand, Trump now has a history of hiring sleazy characters to run his Presidential campaign.  He originally emphasized his wealth and indepence from rich donors — but now pleads for donations.  He has told hundreds of lies, is racist, believes in internationally outlawed torture, and engages in petty revenge. He insulted his Republican colleagues, world leaders, news-people, the family of a fallen soldier, a judge born in the USA, and many others. He incites violence and uses foul language. He is self-centered, crude, and has a long history of the selfish pursuit of wealth at the expense of others.  All of these traits are well documented.  As a political strategy, he now accuses Hillary of the very traits that characterize him, such as bigotry, and thinking of people simply as votes.

He is NOT presidential in demeanor, attitudes, or actions. None of his skills as a real- estate developer are particularly applicable to the demands of a USA president. How could he be president when that requires broad knowledge, diplomacy, and coordination? He could cause international, military, and domestic financial disasters. For example, if he were to carry out one of his middle-east bombing plans, he could create more terrorists than he kills, and change ally nations to enemies. Financially, policies such as keeping minimum wage low and abolishing ObamaCare, can lead to more poverty, crime, and acts of rebellion.

Please see my previous blogs — especially no. 65 — for further discussion of these topics.  If you are a voter, please research what the candidates have written and examine other objective info. Please don’t just rely on what they say.

Addendum:   I just read a very relevant article in the Washington Post today, 9-6-16 by Paul Waldman entitled: Trump’s history of corruption is mind-boggling. So why is Clinton supposedly the corrupt one?   The main theme is that the media covers Trump’s corruptions once or twice while Hillary’s issues are repeated many times.  And often when Hillary is exonerated  by a new fact, the fact is presented without mentioning the exoneration.