Tag Archives: political truths

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.

67. Is Our Press Losing Its Ideals?

25 Aug

I just saw an interview with former Governor Howard Dean. He expressed a thought that I have had for several years now: that much of USA Press has been corrupted and does not fairly and intelligently present the news. Of course, many individual reporters and commentators do a very good job. Some of the best and bravest are Eleanor Clift, Fahreed Zacharia, Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Arianna Huffington, and a number of others. But there is a major trend to present news that is sensational and sells, rather than an accurate and fair presentation of facts. And often there is a clear avoidance of anything that might offend our rich “Royalty Class”, which includes most leaders of industry and government.

In the case of Hillary Clinton, there is a tendency to overly emphasize innuendo. They repeat over and over things that could be wrong but in fact are not wrong. If, for example, Hillary meets with a company CEO or major donor, it is often reported with an implication of suspicion. The Washington Post (usually an excellent paper) is emphasizing the large number of charitable donors that she meets with, implying that something is wrong. An article title calls her “shady”.  The Clinton Foundation does wonderful charitable work and why the Washington Post wants to tarnish her is beyond me — and it does not help that buried deep in an article they say everything is OK. Further, Hillary is very good at getting political donors and that also is ridiculed by the media. All the best elected officials are great at getting donors and it is not their fault that this is necessary. In these times, a huge amount of financial support is required for all high governmental positions. Message to liberal press: ease up on Hillary or suffer a Trump presidency.

The misinterpretation of emails by everyone including the press is deplorable. For example, an email states that someone (suspicious?) is trying to contact the Secretary of State. The mere fact that someone is trying to make a contact is not worthy of reporting, but it is often reported with unwarranted speculation.

Nasty unreasonable speculation excites the readers and sells newspapers and advertising, but can have the effect of devastating character assassination. Suppose you were walking down the street and a notorious crook just asks if you have the time. What if a reporter sees this and states that you have had a contact with this gangster. At the end of the story the reporter may clarify that there is no proof of wrongdoing — but the damage has been done. People often just remember the headlines and never get to the clarifications.

Sometimes the facts are totally misrepresented or important details are omitted. Wolf Blitzer once remarked that Al Gore called President Obama a failure. The fact is that Al Gore only said that Obama failed in promoting climate-change remedies. Many people, of course, only remember the first statement and never got to the clarification.

In another example, Obama was criticized for not immediately visiting the flooding in Louisiana. This was often reported without mentioning that Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards suggested the delay, as a presidential visit could interfere with rescue efforts. Presenting only part of the story can be very damaging.

One of the most annoying errors is the reporting that Democrats want to raise taxes, implying that the raise would be for everyone. What Democrats actually say is that they want to raise taxes for very rich people and not at all for the rest of us. This can have a profound influence on voters choices.

I have observed Chuck Todd (of Meet the Press) badgering Trump about more superficial issues, but rarely have I seen him attack on the most important issues such as taxation. It seems that most reporters and commentators are afraid to bring up financial issues, perhaps because they could offend the rich owners of their media . Why do they let Trump get away with obvious lies like Hillary is a co-founder of ISIS? He repeated this on several days and finally said he was being “sarcastic.”

We would hope that the Press, a necessary part of any democracy, would be able to help people separate the lies from the truth. I watch many news programs and see spirited discussions of trivia while the profound and history-making issues are ignored. Ask yourself what Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite would say about Trump and today’s reporting of issues.

In researching for this blog, I came upon a couple of wonderful quotes by Walter Cronkite (CBS news anchor from 1962 to 1981) listed on a Google search page.
“America’s health care system is neither healthy, caring, nor a system.”
“In seeking truth you have to get both sides of a story.”
I guess the current problems have been around for a long time. Maybe it is Trump’s bizarre candidacy and his manipulation of the Press that has exacerbated the apparent corruption.

61. “Extreme” FBI Attacks

9 Jul

Powerful and brave Hillary Clinton is still standing and running after many years of ridiculous and malicious abuse by desperate GOP officials. They cannot win on the important presidential issues and are forced to rely on inane character assassination. I have discussed the nonsensical Benghazi issue in previous blogs. Here is my detailed analysis of the email question.

Hillary has always maintained that she did not send out any emails that were marked classified. She did send or receive a number of emails that were as some point classified, but none of them were correctly marked at the time with a classification header. This is consistent with what she has always said.

Hillary sent three emails out of 30,000 with a (C) marking buried in the text — but without required “confidential” headings. That is one minor error per 10,000.

“Guccifer”, the hacker, confessed that he actually did not hack Hillary’s email. This is part of the desperately-lying mentality of Hillary haters.

Rep. John Mica (Republican) hinted at conspiracy, but his nasty innuendo was angrily rejected by FBI Director Comey.

The type of email-server used by Clinton was traditional for  Secretary’s of State and was used by Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.  It has also been used by many other public officials that did handle classified info.  (So why the “extreme” carelessness)

FBI Director Comey seems to be intelligent and reasonable, and has tried to be impartial, but has had a Republican affiliation. We thank him for not charging her. But does his GOP background explain why he said that the email carelessness was “extreme”. Does three (improperly marked) classified email transmissions out of more than 30,000 seem “extreme” to anyone? Most would say “a little careless” or not careless at all. Who is so perfect that they could do all of 30,000 things, perfectly. Comey might argue that she should have recognized some documents as requiring classification, but that is very subjective. Classifications are not permanent and change at times. There are no specific rules to cover all situations. Testimony at the recent Oversight committee hearing suggests that the (c) classification could be misinterpreted.

My only argument with FBI Director Comey is his characterization of “extreme” carelessness. Most people would accept what she did as just a small number of understandable errors. And certainly this highly intelligent candidate would be even more conscientious in the future handling of documents than other candidates. If Republicans who handled classified info were examined for a year, like Hillary, what would be the finding. Lets have the FBI check-out every email sent by Speaker Paul Ryan and see if he does better than: one error in 10,000.

59. Email Issue vs Policy Disasters

6 Jul

The FBI just published its finding of innocent (July 5, 2016) on Hillary Clinton email practices.  So voters must decide how this issue and a few other trivial negatives compare with the questionable candidacy of Donald Trump.  Here is my summary:

Hillary Clinton:          The FBI found “carelessness by Hillary and her colleagues” in the use of emails, but no criminal actions. There were no serious consequences, just an ordinary imperfection in a few cases out of many thousands. No worse than the imperfection of the FBI director who violated neutrality and made political statements. Remember it is the job of the FBI to find criminals, the more found, the higher their ratings. Also, mistakes made could have been by State Dept. employees and not Hillary. There is no claim that any emails actually marked classified were sent by her, as she has consistently claimed. The classification of communications is not the job of the Secretary, but that of designated others. Hillary’s email server decisions were consistent with long-standing State Dept. traditions and in fact were the same as that of a previous Secretary, Colin Powell, a Republican.  (I have to add that careless emails would not happen when Hillary is president, as all communications are carefully monitored and sent by trained White House staff.)

All of the serious negative talk about Hillary began with her run for President. No one thought much about it before. Unlike Trump, she has many years of experience and service to ordinary USA citizens as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State. She is enthusiastically supported by the past President and is the most qualified candidate that we have ever had. True, for many years she has taken campaign contributions from rich people, but there is absolutely no evidence that she has supported their agenda. It takes a lot of money to run for office so her strategy is understandable.

Regarding the Benghazi issue, Hillary was accused by Republicans of lying, in her characterization of the attack. The GOP said it was a “terrorist attack” and at only one point she said it was part of a protest against an anti-Islam video. So it all gets down to speculation about what the attackers were thinking: simple terrorism or anti-video protest. How can we know what they were thinking — one captured suspect said the attack WAS revenge for the anti-Islam video. Republicans have no reasonable arguments, they are just desperate to find something negative to say.

Donald Trump:        Vengeful actions and childish name calling of colleagues and others, suggest an inability to deal with foreign nations. He already has damaged relationships with Mexico, Great Britain, and all Muslim majority countries. His written proposed budget includes tax decreases for very rich people. He thinks workers are paid too much and does not want to raise the minimum wage. He lies about past events to suit his political needs. He advocates torture, which the revered President Reagan was against. He disrespects women and finds their biological functions to be disgusting. He frequently changes his mind about major issues, depending on his audience.  As a businessman, he has filed four major bankruptcies and numerous other businesses, such as Trump University, failed.  But here is the kicker, in almost every failed venture, Trump personally benefited by $millions while workers lost their jobs and contracted companies were not fully paid.  Hundreds of lawsuits were filed against him regarding payments and promises unfulfilled.

His goal has always been to make as much money as possible — how does that help us? He brags about making money from bankruptcies.  If the USA goes bankrupt, you can be sure that he and his very rich friends will profit by it, while the citizens will suffer a disaster.  He argues against the TPP, but Democrats are already working on making such treaties better for workers. He says that he is a great negotiator, but does not prove that our problems are the result of bad negotiation. Negotiating with contractors is trivial compared dealing with a nation like China or Russia. Many contractors can do a job, but there is only one China and one Russia and our relationships with them cover finances, defense, treaties, boundaries, human rights, alliances, travel, industrial development, membership in international organizations, etc. (Please see my previous blogs for more information.)

So who should we vote for?          Hillary Clinton is a known quantity, who will at the very least move forward on the Presidents agenda in a reliable and safe way — and could make major improvements, especially if there is a Democratic Congress.  Donald Trump, on the other hand, is fully capable of causing major disasters for our country.  We don’t even know what he is really proposing because he frequently changes his mind about critical policies.  For example,  if his tax plan were implemented as written, there would be a disastrous increase in our national debt and heavy constrictions in basic services.  Can we trust him to make  complicated decisions, such as:  when to go to war, how to make a treaty, when to send in troops, when to withdraw them, when to apologize for killing innocent civilians, when to form a coalition, when to do nothing, etc.  You only understand all the many complications when you have the experience of a leader, such as Hillary Clinton.

 

56. Why: Not-Trump?

10 May

While millions of well-qualified people are unable to get entry-level jobs, Trump zooms into a viable candidacy, which for him is an entry-level position — the most difficult job in the world. In previous blogs, I have discussed Trump supporters and their rationale. Trump’s early success was his appeal to people with less general education and/or less political knowledge; those with prejudices against various minority groups; and those influenced by FEAR mongering. Most are looking for simple solutions (often violent) to very complex problems. The don’t accept life styles dissimilar to “American” ways. That said, I argue that most of his early supporters have these characteristics, but later supporters often simply join in with what appears to be a winner. Now I am going to provide some reasons why Trump should not have this entry-level position:
——————
He often does NOT tell the truth, or is painfully ignorant about past facts. Briefly:

His portrayal of the Iran nuclear deal is terribly false. The USA took NO money out of its treasury to give to Iran. The money belonged to Iran and was confiscated by a group of nations that supported its sanctions. The treaty was not between Iran and the USA but was developed by a group of nations including China, Russia, France, Germany, UK, etc.   He says we got nothing from this deal, which is a terrible lie. Iran lost its enriched Uranium, lost most of its bomb-making equipment, there are provisions for inspection, etc.

His “birther” (citizenship) ideas about Obama were ridiculous and proven false. He never acknowledged this or apologized.

He claims that Hillary Clinton enabled her husband to abuse women. All of this is nonsense. There was no evidence of abuse and Hillary did not encourage these actions.

There is NO evidence that Hillary committed crimes with respect to her emails — and after years of investigation nothing criminal was found.

He says that Mexico “sends” criminals and rapists to the USA. The Mexican government does not send any immigrants to us and most who come are simply good workers trying to support desperate relatives back home. After the immigrant attacks, he later says “He loves the Mexicans”. (Note: I do not support illegal immigration)

The attack of Islamic militants on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi and Hillary’s role, is falsely portrayed. Over two years, there were nine official investigations, none of which revealed any wrong-doing. The ambassador knew he was going to a dangerous area, but went anyway. Immediately after the attack, a variety of intelligence reports came in and Hillary’s explanations varied because our knowledge was rapidly changing. And in the end, one of the arrested terrorists admitted he was angry about the publication that was offensive to Islam. People die in wars and we really don’t know what the killers were thinking. Kevin McCarthy (a top Republican) admitted that all of the investigation was just to bring down Hillary.

Attacks by Trump (and Republicans in general) on the Clinton Foundation have been false and nothing illegal was ever found. Republicans are desperate to attack anything that Democrats do.

Trump claimed that Muslims in New Jersey celebrated in the streets on 9-11 when the Trade-Center towers were attacked. This was made-up and there is absolutely no evidence to this.
There are many other deceptions. One good source is:
http://www.ibtimes.com/list-donald-trump-lies-10-claims-gop-front-runner-immigration-muslims-kkk-dont-hold-2330265
——————–
Trump’s proposals involve numerous “flip-flops” and many are irrational and impossible. A good example is the Mexican-USA wall. It would be extremely expensive and would not stop people from coming into our country. Terrorists would have the money to come in by sea or by air. There always will be other ways for people to circumvent any barriers. Mexico cannot be forced into paying for the wall — that’s nonsense. We need the support of our neighbors in many ways and coercion of any kind would be harmful.
———————
Trump is crude and lacks the temperament to be President. A really good example is his remark about a Democratic debate intermission. Hillary came back a little late and you can see Trump thinking about this and visualizing it (in an abnormal way) and concluding that it was “disgusting”. What was he seeing in his head?  It’s scary to imagine the way his mind works.  Trump endorsed torture, including water-boarding and worse — despite the fact that R. Reagan and almost all U.S. and world leaders opposed it.
———————
Trump deals with questions and criticism, not by talking about issues or facts, but by attacking the critics, often in childish way. He lost a wonderful opportunity of support by the Pope who said it is better to build bridges than walls. He could have agreed, and said that bridges are most desirable but in some cases like national defense, walls are necessary. What kind of person reacts so negatively and does not take advantage of opportunities to gain important allies.
———————
Many have observed that Trump’s crude, bizarre, and childish behavior reflects a mental problem. He acts like someone who is sleep deprived, and how he describes his lifestyle supports this notion. He is almost 70, dob: June 14, 1946, and the borderline age for Alzheimer’s disease is 65. At his age, many people have the noticeable cognitive impairments due to this disease. (Hillary Clinton, 68, by contrast, is very sharp, accurate, and presidential.)
———————-
My Conclusion.
Trump is unfit for President for these reasons.
He is unfit because without hesitation he lies about past events to support his goals. If this is not lying then he is so poorly informed about the world that he is still unfit. He acts like a person with brain malfunctions, due to Alzheimer’s and/or lack of sleep. His methods emphasize vengeance and dangerous simple solutions to very complex problems. Every foreign-policy decision a President makes involves our relationships with other countries, our national budget, the lives of our soldiers, the support of allies, expensive and serious long-term commitments, etc., etc.  His decisions when dealing with building contractors, zoning laws, bankruptcies, firing people, TV, etc. are trivial compared to the complex presidential decisions.

Now, one could argue that he would have the support of advisors. But he would have to choose good advisors and ultimately must make the final decision. Almost any of the other candidates could do this at least fairly well, but given Trump’s bizarre behavior, who knows? He claims to be incorruptible by very rich donors, but he is already one of them. Trump claims to be supportive of non-rich people, but says that working people are paid too much, the minimum wage should not be increased, his budget plan reduces taxes for rich people, and he started out his adult life with a “small loan” from his father, of One Million Dollars. Does this sound like he will promote the middle class ?  As the primary process is concluded, he will no doubt alter some ideas, but can we trust him?

48. Morning Joe “Trickles Up”

8 Mar

I was about to totally condemn Joe S. when I did some research and now I have to mitigate the criticism. I am retired and often stay up late at night. So late, that I often watch the early political show “Morning Joe”. This morning I decided to denounce Joe for his advocacy of torture and for his overly aggressive interaction with a female guest. His badgering reminded me of O’Reilly who is a master at suppressing his guests with fast, loud talk.  [Added later:  I changed my mind about Joe’s badgering, when on March 15, he made a gallant defense of Hilary Clinton’s record.]

That would be that, but as I did some research on Joe S., I discovered to my amazement that he condemned “trickle-down” economy, which is advocated (in a subtle way) by the vast majority of Republican leaders. This approach, also called “supply side” economics, says that the way to support non-rich citizens is to give more money to rich people and corporations. This extra money to the rich will make stronger corporations and promote hiring and better wages for the workers. In actual practice, however, this does not happen, and the rich simply enjoy the extra money. Instead of supply-side economics, Democrats tend to advocate a “demand-side” economy. If wages are raised, there will be more spending and the “demand” for goods will increase. Increased demand will promote production and hence economic growth.

For a few decades, now, we have had “supply-side” economics because more and more money has been diverted to the rich.  And everyone accepts the finding that income has substantially increased for rich folks, while for others, income has been stagnant. Every published budget by the GOP candidates has included lower taxes for rich people. In previous blogs I have presented more details.

46. The Candidates 2016

26 Feb

I just watched the latest Republican debate tonight (Feb. 25, 2016) and, being a Democrat, I felt really good about the Republican self-destruction. The press and the candidates all want to complicate the issues, but the fundamentals are really clear.

An examination of written budgets and various issues have indicated, for many years, that Republicans are primarily interested in making fortunes for very rich people and corporations. This is accomplished by lowering tax rates for rich people, simplifying tax code, abolishing regulations, gaining subsidies, etc. When you simplify tax code or reduce regulations, its easier for rich people to circumvent rules. The salaried workers gain nothing because the rules are already simple and fixed for them. Republicans are unashamedly committed to blocking the progress of Democrats and Obama, even if it results in destroying our country. It is Republicans that are dysfunctional, not Congress in general.

So Republicans have a fundamental problem. They can’t be honest and say to folks: “vote for us so that we can become even richer.”

Religion is just a diversion. Under both parties, there is no restriction on beliefs or place of worship. Both parties will provide a strong military, both will follow the Supreme Court and the established law. On the question of foreign policy, both parties are saying about the same thing. But I would assert that Democratic candidates are generally more thoughtful and careful in their decision making.

Here is my brief assessment of the highest polling candidates:

TRUMP: Impulsive, over-simplifying, unthoughtful, inconsistent and unprepared. He cannot be corrupted by wealthy contributors because he is already corrupted.   He is committed to all the negative factors listed above in my second paragraph.  He is a genius at making money for himself, but how does that help the rest of us. He panders to less-educated people. (Please see my previous blogs about Trump.)

RUBIO: Definitely a good candidate for high-school class president. Not ready for prime time. He may mature and be ready for the 2020 or 2024 election, but he does have the traditional negative GOP values.

CRUZ: He reminds me of the infamous Joe McCarthy, Senator from 1947 to 1957. Or maybe he is more like Pres. Nixon who presided over a culture of dirty tricks. I can picture him telling religious folks that they should plant a seed with him for $1000 and this will be returned, through divine intervention, with a 10-fold profit.

H. CLINTON: A really brilliant women who has the right ideals and has a long list of substantial accomplishments. She is quick witted and debates really well. She would make a very good President.  All of the GOP “scandals” are nonsense and strictly political.

SANDERS: Frankly, what Sanders is saying now, I have been thinking for many years, and it is wonderful to find someone who is enthusiastic about real change.  People like me need to have hope, and Sanders says the right things. If he were to become President, he might only accomplish half of what he is proposing, but even that would be marvelous. The sad part is that he is somewhat lacking in presidential charisma, which doesn’t bother me, but it could affect his success. I voted for him because I would like to give him a chance to show what he can do.

My dream for President and Vice-President is some combination of Clinton, Sanders, and the amazing Elizabeth Warren. I would like to see all of them working to restore our country to greatness: a true democracy, where caring for its people is the main goal.

44. Is Trump a Spoiler?

14 Feb

Its Saturday, 2-13-16 and I have just seen a Republican candidate debate. This debate was probably the meanest of all their debates. The insults and accusations were flying so fast that the debate actually heated up and I swear I saw smoke emerging from my TV.  One wonders whether the GOP can survive such a disaster.

If you look at all the debates, tweets, and comments by the candidates thus far it seems that the worst agitator is the Donald. He gets very angry over different events and is most disturbed when any other candidate approaches his polling score. Other candidates are not blameless, but most of their aggressiveness is defensive.  To read more about Trump’s abuses, look at several of my previous blogs.

While pondering the debate, a funny thought emerged from the deepest realms of my brain.  Perhaps Trump is a Democrat spy who penetrated the Republican world just to cause it to fail. His utterances and attacks are so crude and bizarre that they just don’t make sense.  As I thought more and more about Trump and his destructive debate, I began to hear music and see dancing — OMG, its Hilary and Bernie dancing for joy.

42. Questions for Trump?

12 Feb

I have watched numerous interviews of candidate Donald Trump and I usually feel that the important questions are not asked. Mostly he is asked about his relationship with other candidates and bizarre statements like baning all Muslims from the U.S. Fundamental ideas like his general economic orientation or his general foreign policy are neglected. Here are a few questions that should be asked:

1. In your published proposed budget, you provide lower taxes for rich people. Does this seem right, given that rich people have done exceedingly well, while the rest of us are stagnant or at serious poverty levels.

2. Do you advocate a “trickle down” economic policy? For several decades we have had just that, rich people and corporations getting more and more money, but it never seems to trickle down to us non-rich folk.

3. You keep saying that you want to make “America great again.” What does that mean? We already have a military that is far superior to that of any other country, so it can’t be that. Would it be improved education, infra-structure, health-care for all, abolishment of poverty, better movies, more fashion shows, healthier people, lower cost of living, or what? It seems that greatness for you, is just a more powerful “Royalty Class.”

4. You criticize your fellow candidates, brag about your successes, ridicule anyone who opposes you, criticize Democrats, Obama, and many others — but we hear very little about how you will help and improve the lives of ordinary citizens. We can get some idea about your values, because you do not want to raise the minimum wage of $7.25. You have very little understanding of poverty, because you started life out with a “small” family loan of only one-million ($1,000,000). I guess you regret disclosing that “small” gem.

5. Like all GOP candidates you hate ObamaCare, but none of you make specific proposals or present a detailed replacement plan. And if you abolish ObamaCare, what will happen to millions of people who have gone from uninsured to insured, and are now covered with “pre-existing conditions” and with exceeded life-time limits, and all the other vital improved coverages? And even more important, why do we need a third party, the private insurance companies, who make fortunes by withholding benefits from unfortunate patients. How many people will die as a consequence of losing ObamaCare benefits? Does this make America great?

6. I suspect your best answer about America’s greatness would be: better manufacturing, better balance of trade, and lower national debt. But to achieve these goals, would the middle-class have to provide all the sacrifices?

7. You emphasize that being already extremely rich, you cannot be bought or corrupted by rich contributors. But commentators never say: so what! you already have “royalty class” values and it is clear that you will implement their goals. No need to corrupt you.

Final thought: Could it be that TV moderators and commentators are all part of media systems run by the rich Royalty Class.  And so are reluctant to ask questions, such as: should very wealthy people pay more in taxes (increased tax rates and/or closing loopholes)?   Being rich is Ok, but extreme wealth for the one percent, while many others are in poverty, is unconscionable.