Tag: Trump

By on

In the past, I said that I would support a serial killer Democrat over a Mother Teresa Republican. The point, for me, is that the party matters more for me than the person nominated by the party. I am assuming that the serial killer would support the same issues that I, a fellow Democrat, support. I may not like the serial killer. I may much prefer sitting down with the Mother Teresa Republican than a blood thirsty killer but, in the end, I will vote for someone agrees with me on issues I care about. Particularly if he is going to be president. This means, I will have to, on occasion, align myself with people I don’t particularly like. I stand by that statement.

Which brings me to the election of Donald Trump. I think Donald Trump is a terrible person and I can’t imagine myself ever voting for him. Well, wait a minute, that is unless he changes his position on an array of issues and is somehow nominated by the Democratic Party and he was running against Ted Cruz and then, yes, I would happily vote for Donald Trump. Not because he was a good person, a truthful person but because, given the choices I have, he is the best possible option for implementing the policies I want. I vote for the person I agree with on policy and not the person I like best.

So I find it a little irritating when people say they could never vote for a man like Donald Trump and, because of your principles, you then are cutting out any Trump voters from your life. I have seen people asking any Trump voters in their friends list to unfriend them, people are cancelling their holidays with Trump voting relatives and some women are trying to organize a sex strike against Trump voting men. These people think they are punishing their Trump voting acquaintances. Why this is necessary is beyond me because they seemed perfectly willing to maintain their relationships as long as Harris won. Losing is what broke the camel’s back here. There is no principle involved. If Trump voters are so despicable, they were despicable before the election results came rolling in. Instead of looking like a moral stance based on good principles, they look more like a child throwing a tantrum.

Then there is calling the Trump voters racists, misogynists and stupid. This is half the country. Now if you are doing this in the privacy of your own home to let of some steam, go for it. But it isn’t particularly helpful public position when you are trying to persuade people to change their votes in the next election. Indeed it confirms all of their worst impressions of the snowflake liberal. Liberals just aren’t tough enough to handle disagreement and losing. Well, then toughen up buttercup because, if the battle is with facism as so many people believe, liberals need to be able to deal with people who disagree with them, address their concerns and hopefully persuade them to change. Taking to your bed is of no help at all.

That doesn’t mean beat yourself up listening to racists and misogynists spew their poison but it also means that there is a range of people who voted for Trump. Some were enthusiastic and thus unreachable, some were voting for the lesser of two evils and are potentially persuadable. They need thoughtful argument. Joe Rogan, for instance, who was a Bernie Sanders supporter in 2020 seems like a good example. Harris refusing to go on his show certainly didn’t help her cause with him or his millions of followers. Worse still, she opted out of appearing on Rogan’s show because she was afraid how it would affect her left wing supporters. Well, who else were left wingers going to vote for? Jill Stein? Better to show up for Rogan and disappoint the left wing purists. Even if Rogan was unpersuadable, it would have shown Harris was willing to reach out to the broader electorate instead she looked like a whiny snowflake.

The question shouldn’t be why are the American people so horrible. The better question is why did so many Americans, given the choice they had, choose a two bit carnival barker over a rather conventional Democratic politician. There is a problem here that needs to be addressed. Seeing how Democrats are stuck with the voters they have and not the voters they want, it might be a good idea to figure it out before 2026.

By on 2 Comments

Maybe it is because almost everything that comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth is bat shit crazy and to actually single one statement out becomes difficult given the sheer volume of his output that so few Republicans have commented on it. But recommending vigilante justice has disturbed me more than any of the other recent comments. An hour of violence or a day of violence to stop drug store thievery seems like a fairly big breech of democratic norms. It takes the government out of the whole process and puts it squarely into the hands of his own supporters.

I was certain that some Republicans would, at the very least, caution him to use less violent language. Yet there is nothing and I mean nothing so far that resembles even a mild rebuke. Given that Republicans like to point out the Constitution and the original intent of our founders, it seems like a good time to remind Trump that the Constitution enshrines the right to a trial as opposed to grabbing suspected thieves off the street and teaching them a lesson (in other words – beat them up).

Trump has always had a penchant for vigilante justice but this is the first time he has so nakedly expressed his desire to see it enacted. It also makes his denial of violent intent on January 6 less believable. If Trump thinks violence is a suitable response for shoplifting, why wouldn’t he also think it was appropriate for something more important like losing a stolen election? What are the limits of Trump’s extralegal violence? He needs to explain how this tool might be used if he were to win.

It is incredibly disappointing that Republicans have chosen to remain silent about this blatant call for violence. Trump talking shit like this is hardly surprising. It is the game he has been playing since he entered the political scene. What is surprising is the silence of other Republicans. The American legal system is flawed but, then, all systems are flawed. We should work to create a better system instead of ignoring the system we have. If we decide to go outside this system, particularly with violence, who knows where that violence will take us. I suspect to a much worse place than where we are now.

By on 2 Comments

The problem with comparing Donald Trump to Hitler is that Hitler is as bad as they come. Very few people quite match up to Hitler, Stalin and Mao spring to mind but then, after them, there is a pretty huge gap between potential Hitlers and actual Hitlers. It is very inaccurate measurement and should be used sparingly if ever. because if Trump is like Hitler, then isn’t killing Trump the right thing to do. There is no moral equivocation here. Better to kill the tyrant before the tyrant has power.

My narrow viewpoint of the efficacy of comparing Trump to Hitler, however, is not universally agreed upon. People are comparing Trump to Hitler, or at least to a potential Fascist dictator, and claiming he is an existential threat to democracy. If he is indeed that dangerous that leaves us with the question does Trump deserve killing?

I, personally, think it is a bad idea. A really bad idea. This means we who oppose the man need to be careful when people try to make an attempt on his life. Make it clear that Trump does not deserve this treatment and that this behavior is unacceptable. Indeed assassinating political opponents is far more dangerous than Trump himself. So far, Democrats, at least publicly, are saying this. There is, however, this unspoken sentiment that the world would be better off without him.

I think it needs to be said: he is a human being. An awful human being but a human being nonetheless. If he doesn’t rise to Hitleresque, and he doesn’t, then he deserves, as much as I do, his life. Nobody has the right to execute someone because you don’t like him or his politics. If he gets elected, we will need to see what happens.

It is a risk. But one that is preferable to people taking the law into their own hands. A Trump assassination is potentially disastrous in so many ways because, if the right wing is as dangerous as the Left believes, there could be bloody revenge and then what happens? This means President Trump is a better bet than a dead Trump.

Now, a better solution is for Harris to beat him, and beat him soundly, in the upcoming election.

By on

I watched the debate on Tuesday and I didn’t catch the same vibe really. I mean Trump sounded crazy as shit, he fell into Harris’ traps and his lies were so outrageous that the moderators had to correct him twice. I realize this has irked some people but honestly Harris’ lies were pretty well hidden and arguable enough that no moderator could justify the interruption. Trump’s, on the other hand, were whoppers and easily refuted.

That said, he didn’t seem any more crazy than usual. This was your standard Trump performance. I can’t see that it will make much of a difference with ardent Trump supporters. There may be that very thin slice of voters who hate Trump but are going to vote for him any way who might be influenced but I think these people have already made their peace about their vote. If they were on the Titanic, they would drown because they went back to their rooms to retrieve their jewels.

There are people who claim to be neutral but how many people are really in that camp. Trump has been around too long and is too divisive for people not to have an opinion on him. People either like him or they don’t. That means something like a debate, while entertaining for those of us who support Harris, is going to change very few minds. Trump’s performance was pretty much the same level of craziness that he has displayed for years without serious effect.

The fact that 68 million people watched it might have a little significance. Maybe the few undecided voters who watched will make their minds up based on her superb performance. But, then, there will be people who won’t like the sound of her voice, her vivid facial reactions to Trumps bull shit, or some bit of minutia that would be of no significance to the normal person but is of overwhelming importance to this voter. I know a woman who couldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton based on Chelsea Clinton’s wedding. Yes that was the determining factor in her vote — some nonsense about Chelsea’s wedding dress.

So, for now, the debate has given me hope but I am still worried about how this is all going to pan out. Keep in mind that Hillary Clinton won her two debates as well so what this means is difficult to know.

By on

I know some people who think that Biden bowing out of the election is a bad thing. I think it is genius.

First, and most importantly, what party is now stuck with an aging candidate who often borders on the incoherent. Biden was bad in the debate, but if incoherence is a problem, and I do, then Trump managed to look against Biden because he was marginally more coherent.

Now that Biden is out of the race, all eyes will turn to Trump, and he is a handful. He says whatever the hell he wants to which is what his supporters like about it. It also carries a risk. Often Trump is notoriously undisciplined. He says whatever is on his mind, unfortunately for Trump, this is often ill thought out and incoherent.

So what do you do if you have a troublesome candidate. Well, the Democrats just showed you. Party leaders have to come in, deliver the bad news to the candidate and change course. Contrary to some of the commentary out there, particularly the Republicans — this is a good thing. It is to Biden’s credit that he understood what these leaders were saying and acted on it. No doubt it was an unpleasant experience for everyone involved. But it was done and, for the most part, done well. Biden understood the message and acted on it. There was something more important than Biden running and that was Democrats winning.

Trump, on the other hand, won’t listen to anyone. He routinely ignores advice from his lawyers and his fellow Republicans. Trump has travelled unbelievably far on his brash personality but this very brashness has also created a lot of the problems for him. Sometime it is best just best to keep your mouth shut. Trump can’t do this even if it is costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.

This reveals Trump’s greatest weakness. He thinks he is smarter than everyone else in the room and if someone’s advice doesn’t match up to what he wants to do, he does what he wants to do. So therefore there is no influence on him other than yes men. Quite a bit of Trump’s time is spent cleaning up his own messes.

This was fine when Trump was matched with Biden. Now Trump has a new opposition candidate who will be a younger and more energetic candidate. Presumably, Kamala Harris, but most anyone will do. She will not be having senior moments. She will also be better at listening to advice from senior Democratic advisors which already gives her a leg up on Trump who doesn’t. A 78 year old man isn’t likely to change anytime soon

I don’t think this means Harris is going to handily defeat Trump. It is still a close election. The good news is that the Republicans are more locked into their candidate than the Democrats. The dynamic of the election has changed significantly with Harris and Trump is still pretty tied up in his present behavior.

By on

Elon Musk announced his intentions to give $45 million a month to a pro-Trump Super Pac. If he is true to his word, he will, at least, contribute $180 million to the Trump campaign before the election.

Think about it. He has an extra $180 million free dollars to contribute to an election campaign. This is a fairly large sum of money in anyone’s books. Unlike most people, his donation will not be missed in the least bit. He has billions so it doesn’t matter to him if he loses $180 million dollars.

If Trump wins, there is no way that Trump could pay off Musk other than through favors. Even the best person would have difficultly saying no to a man who gave you $180 million and Trump is far from being the best person. To be fair to Trump, in his crooked understanding of wealth, he probably thinks there is nothing wrong with billionaires draining the public trough any way but this makes it ridiculously easy for him to say yes.

More importantly, if Musk has this amount of money, why not divide it among his own employees instead of investing in a political campaign. $180 million divided among the employees of Tesla and Instagram would bring real benefits to his own employees, encourage other rich people to do the same and it spreads the wealth around a bit to people who can then make campaign contributions of their own.

Musk is free to use this money in any way he wanted yet he choose to use this money to support a political action committee. With all his billions, he would rather gamble with a political candidate that may lose than giving more money to his own employees. Spreading the wealth this way would also give some political power to his employees. Now, because he is such a generous leader, these employees might follow his lead and contribute to the pro-Trump Pac or they may choose to give to the Democrats but it wouldn’t be one man using this money to gain more political leverage.

But Musk would much rather spin the wheel with Trump. To get what exactly? More billions? This disproves this oft repeated notion that billionaires will do the right thing with their money if only left alone. Musk would much rather keep the money which also keeps the political power this money can provide strictly within his hands.

If the government took only half of the $180 million, Musk would still have $90 million to contribute to Trump. Wouldn’t it be good for Musk to help pay off the national debt the Republicans are so worried about and it wouldn’t be a bit of a problem for Musk because he wasn’t planning to put the money back into his business and creating in the first place. Win Win, I say.

By on

Given the absence of any credible information about why Thomas Crooks took a shot at Donald Trump, I would like to offer my opinion. Could it be not political but Trump was close at hand. Crooks wanted to shoot someone famous and Trump was near by. He may not have had a political agenda but a personal one.

By on

The Media’s coverage of Trump’s assassination attempt gives a prime example of what is wrong with the media. They immediately reported the assassination attempt with the announcement when it happened. While this is a good start, it is also, sadly, the high point of the day for reporting on what is actually going on. Then there is a lot of nothing because the news is so fresh that there is no new information. The cops are busy with the problem at hand, but for be it for Media to let something as minor as a lack of information to stop them from talking.

Thus begins the endless repetition of the video of the assassination attempt — showing it as it actually happened, showing it in slow motion, trying to determine if they can figure out anything new with this frequent viewing of the video. They rarely can. So then they interview people who were there and they know little that is new and their stories are remarkably similar. This leads to bringing in experts who then review the videos of the assassination attempt in order to find something new to talk about. they rarely do. Then one interview is interrupted by another interview of someone who is slightly more important than the present interviewee in the hopes that this new person, because they are more important, knows something new. They don’t.

Stuck with a captive audience and nothing to say, the Media then begins to report on what famous people are saying about the assassination attempt. It starts out reasonable enough. We have to tone down the political attacks. Know that in a democracy, our political opponents are good citizens with different opinions and not our enemies. Talking heads shake their heads in agreement about the sad state of political affairs. This isn’t the way the USA should operate. We all agree.

But that doesn’t stop one of the famous people from saying something controversial because the best way to get another call from the Media the next time is to be able to supply interesting sound bites that bring in viewers. The best sound bites are controversial, so eventually some famous person, who doesn’t know anything about the assassination attempt, is going to speculate about some conspiracy or another.

So now other famous people and experts are talking about conspiracies based on no credible evidence other than famous people talking about conspiracy theories. So the Media, purely in the interest of getting the truth out, must report on the conspiracy even though, as far as verifiable information is concerned, the Media has learned nothing new and certainly nothing that would suggest a conspiracy. But why should that stop people from speculating.

The urgency to fill empty air time is more important than the accuracy of information. Keep the audience watching at all costs. Ironically, after dozens of political leaders urging to tone down the rhetoric and the public knowing little more than they did on Saturday, the air is rife with speculation and anger. Fingers are carelessly pointing this way and that. Fortunately, the ever present Media is there analyzing and reporting on this sad sad situation and wondering how did it come to this awful state.

By on

The thing that frightens me most since Joe Biden’s disastrous debate performance is the number of Democrats who think Joe Biden is the only Democrat who can beat Donald Trump.

I like Joe Biden, I do. But he isn’t a particularly strong candidate. He has ran for President numerous times and never got past the early primaries. Barrack Obama rescued him from obscurity when he made Biden his Vice-Presidential candidate which left him the highest ranking Democrat eligible for the presidency after Hillary Clinton, another sure thing, by the way, lost. He is old and a visibly frailer man than he was in 2020 which shouldn’t be a particularly surprising circumstance for 81 year old man.

So Biden, this not particularly strong candidate, is the best that the Democrats got to run against the demented Donald Trump. Trump who has serious problems putting together a coherent sentence, who has no real agenda other than his own personal grievances and lining his pocket, who has a history of questionable business practices, a man who can say something one moment and deny that he ever said in the next breath, a man who is publicly on the grift to oil company executives, a man who has little grasp on the complex problems facing this country, a man that many members of his own party can’t bring themselves to vote for, this is the man so powerful that only Joe Biden can beat?

If Joe Biden is the only solution to the Donald Trump problem then the Democrats have a much bigger problem than a fragile Joe Biden. They had four years to line up suitable opponents for Trump and yet they decided to prop up an old man and hope for the best. This reveals a party with a lack of confidence in itself and unprepared for the future. Seriously, if the Democrats can’t beat an idiot like Donald Trump with any number of alternate candidates than politics might not be the best profession for them to be in.

By on

The only question I care about right now is can Joe Biden beat Donald Trump. If he can, I don’t care what physical and mental shape Joe Biden is in. You can also see the problem with this position. If Joe Biden is unable to put all his energies into campaigning for the presidency, how is he going to beat Donald Trump?

A candidate for office is required to give speeches, debate, travel the country, shake hands and kiss babies. This involves a lot of mental and physical energy. Can Biden muster the energy for the long days on the campaign trail necessary to win what will be a close race for the presidency? If he can’t, he must go.

People argue that his debate performance was just one bad night. It isn’t fair to dump a man based on one night. I am afraid it is. A candidate can have a mediocre night and carry on but a terrible night is unforgivable. This is what distinguishes a championship performance from just regular guy performance. A champion will have an off night and still fight through it to look OK and maybe even win the night. Biden had a terrible night.

What about all the lies Trump told. His performance wasn’t much better than Biden’s So what? It isn’t the first time Trump lied and it won’t be the last. Biden should have vigorously attacked those lies. Blaming the moderators for not fact checking Trump is a little lame when Biden, who is actually running for office and has a chance to challenge the lies, fails to do so. Indeed, that is the whole reason Biden was on the stage — to challenge Trump. Why didn’t he?

Then, there are those who say Biden is the only one who can beat Trump. Huh? Are people looking at the same poll numbers I am looking at. And look, if Biden were ahead in the polls, and was going to win reelection, I would vote for Biden if he was in a coma. But that isn’t the case. He is in a close election and, right now he is running behind. The fact is he is getting further behind with each passing day. How exactly is Biden going to change that dynamic?

There needs to be a reality check here on the President. He has served well and I like the man. But he is going into a job interview and he needs to show his best self on a fairly regular basis. A mediocre day can be forgiven, a bad day can not.

Unfortunately for Biden, staying in the race is only going to make his situation worse. The Republicans and the Media will scrutinize his every word, his every stumble, and will keep asking can Biden run the country. His every performance will be studied for gaffs and his message, and more importantly the Democratic Party’s message, will be lost.

If this is truly an important election then the Democrats need to step up and show they are interested in winning. Sticking with a man who is behind in the polls, performing terribly on the stump and has to be in bed by 8PM does not bode well for beating Trump. Then, what choice do the Democrats have than to dump Joe Biden?