After the less-than-stellar first debate with Hillary, I've been asked why I still favor Trump?
A. How we get our candidates and how have they done?
FDR -- Knew how to speak to the American public and was guided in many of his best works by his wife Eleanor. We should have helped the British a year or sooner than we did. Had we done so our actual casualties would have been much, much lower, but the American public wasn't ready until we were hit by Pearl Harbor.
Truman -- A nonentity who rose to greatness. He saw the world as it was and acted accordingly. He also integrated our military and did great good as regards civil rights. (He also properly put Gen. McArthur in his place.)
Eisenhower -- Kept the country on an even keel. Cut down McCarthy, when he threatened to probe the army for communist. Built America's highway system. Kept us out of Vietnam.
JFK -- Loved by Americans who, today, forget that it was he who put us into the Vietnam quagmire.
This was an even greater disaster than the Bay of Pigs.
LBJ -- Couldn't work his way out of JFK's disastrous war.
Nixon -- Was great on civil rights. Along with Kissinger, he negotiated a rapprochement with China and got us out of Vietnam. His sin: trying to cover up the Watergate break in.
Ford -- Pardoned Nixon
Carter -- Ineffectual. No friend of Israel.
Reagan -- Oversaw the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Bush (elder) -- Raised taxes despite his "read my lips" promise. Again, no friend of Israel.
Clinton -- Worked remarkably well with a Republican Congress.
Bush W -- He signaled the end of the conflict in the middle east when it was far from ended. He commended the work of a Mr. Brown who proved to be a disaster in dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Bush was largely as good or as bad as his advisors.
Obama -- Worked not at all well with Congress. Pushed through deeply flawed health care legislation. Tried to force Israel into what would have been a disastrous agreement with the Palestinians. Bypassed Congress to sign a deeply flawed agreement with Iran. Declared "red lines" which were never supported by action. Saw a sharp deterioration in race relations.
B. So what can we expect from a Trump presidency? Here are my guesses:
He would negotiate with Congress far better than Obama. He understands what makes an economy function well far better than do people on the left. He understands governmental flaws which he's observed first hand through his years in the construction business. I believe he sees the world as it is and would deal with it accordingly.
C. Now let's look at the charges that have been directed at Trump.
1. He used tax loopholes to reduce his taxes -- Consequently he pays little or no taxes.
But that, of course, is what very wealthy business people do. That's why they hire great accountants, people who can find those loopholes. Not to take advantage of loopholes is poor business practice. If loopholes are unfair or work against the interests of the American public, then let's get rid of loopholes. In pursuing this matter, I believe Trump would be far better than Hillary who is all too ready to accept the money of lobbyists, the very people whose job it is to create loopholes.
2. Trump makes Trump ties overseas -- As a businessman, Trump has few options. Who in America makes their ties in the States? We could, I suppose, manipulate rules and regulations to make the importation of ties uneconomical. But is that really what we want to focus on? Don't we have bigger fish to fry?
3. Trump is a misogynist (his cruel words about a beauty contestant's weight) -- I researched this charge. The first thing to note is that this matter is 20 years old. I then went to You Tube and put in "1997 press conference Trump and Machado." There was nothing said in that conference that was inappropriate. Check for yourself. His past comments (11 years ago) have been deplorable. But, overall, is he better or worse for America than Hillary?
4. His disparaging of the Khan family who's son died in the service of the American military --
This was just plain stupid. Granted, it's hard being lectured to by an immigrant who waves about a copy of the Constitution. But, that's what it's like on the campaign trail. As stupid as this was for Trump to do, it wasn't disqualifying.
D. Where Trump should focus his attack:
1. Benghazi
2. Hillary's private server and her many lies in her attempt to cover up her emails. Then too there's the smashing of her cell phones after they were subpoenaed.
3. The Attorney General's cloak of protection that he spreads over Hillary.
4. There is the very real possibility that Hillary would pursue Obama's policies.
5. The risk of Hillary picking Supreme Court judges that would move the Court far to the left.
6. Hillary's use of her foundation to raise money in a way that allows the money to be spent anyway she chooses without oversight.
7. The raising of hundreds of thousands of dollars to give speeches to banks and foreign countries like Russia deserves to be aired.
8. Hillary's facilitating the purchase by Russia of 20% of America's uranium stockpile. (She'd do anything to make a buck even if it hurts America.)
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Friday, September 16, 2016
PUMA (Political Unity My Ass) Movement
I checked to see who started the birther thing regarding Obama. I found it came from a group that referred to itself as PUMA (Political Unity My Ass). This was a group of pro-Hillary Clinton people who in 2008 felt that Hillary and not Obama should be the Democratic nominee for president. They felt Hillary had been cheated and they were not going to take it lying down. It was they who first questioned Obama's place of birth.
They argued that Obama's mother had lived with his father for a short period of time in Kenya and that, because of her pregnancy, she was not allowed to travel by air back to Hawaii for Obama's birth. This was false. But, it was Hillary supporters who nurtured this rumor, not Trump. Only much later did Trump say that maybe PUMA might have had it right. He no doubt should have examined this issue more thoroughly, but he had nothing to do with starting the rumor. It was indeed the Hillary people who did that. But, of course, by this time we know Hillary is really good at establishing deniability when it comes to anything she might have done or did not do.
They argued that Obama's mother had lived with his father for a short period of time in Kenya and that, because of her pregnancy, she was not allowed to travel by air back to Hawaii for Obama's birth. This was false. But, it was Hillary supporters who nurtured this rumor, not Trump. Only much later did Trump say that maybe PUMA might have had it right. He no doubt should have examined this issue more thoroughly, but he had nothing to do with starting the rumor. It was indeed the Hillary people who did that. But, of course, by this time we know Hillary is really good at establishing deniability when it comes to anything she might have done or did not do.
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
Trump, Putin, Russia And The Clintons
The Democrats seem to have gotten their knickers in a twist over Trump saying that Putin was a great leader and that traits of leadership were to be admired. That's not a direct quote but I do believe it's the essence of what he said.
Frankly I'm wondering as to what is so terrible about what Trump said. Can terrible people be great leaders? Were Chairman Mao, or Stalin, or Gen. Pinochet, or Kamal Ataturk great leaders? Was JFK sending thousands of armed "observers" to Vietnam a great leader? And, what about Merkel of Germany and her immigration policy? And what about Gen. Mac Arthur and his flawed assessment as to what China would, or what not do; judgments that left our soldiers unprepared and needlessly cost thousands of American lives?
Answering those questions shows just how quixotic are our concepts of leadership. Does leadership depend on the merit of the goals being pursued by the "leader," or does it depend on a man, or woman's, success in pursuing those goals? What Trump was saying was that Putin has been remarkably successful in pursuing his goals, whether in Georgia, in the Ukraine, in Crimea, or in the middle east.
In all those areas, Putin's success has been counter to what America had wished and hoped for. But, to what do you attribute success? To your hopes and dreams or to achieving your goals. It must gall the Democrats to see Putin's success when it clearly highlights Obama's lack of leadership and a lack of leadership that has also marked the Clintons.
Putin draws no red lines. He simply puts men and weapons where they will serve his ends. How different from Obama who give warnings and makes empty threats. Is this how we define American leadership? It also explains why he feels free to set conditions for Israel. Who else is obliged to listen to his empty words?
If you were Putin and you wanted to increase your sources of uranium, would it enhance your respect for America to find that you could get a hold of a chunk of their critical stockpile? All you had to do was pay a half a million dollars for one of the stupid speeches of their loud mouth, ex-presidenta, Bill Clinton.
It must be great to be the Clintons. You can take Putin's money and stick it in your back pocket and the next day berate your political opponent for saying something positive about the man who just paid you for a chunk of America's stockpile.
Frankly I'm wondering as to what is so terrible about what Trump said. Can terrible people be great leaders? Were Chairman Mao, or Stalin, or Gen. Pinochet, or Kamal Ataturk great leaders? Was JFK sending thousands of armed "observers" to Vietnam a great leader? And, what about Merkel of Germany and her immigration policy? And what about Gen. Mac Arthur and his flawed assessment as to what China would, or what not do; judgments that left our soldiers unprepared and needlessly cost thousands of American lives?
Answering those questions shows just how quixotic are our concepts of leadership. Does leadership depend on the merit of the goals being pursued by the "leader," or does it depend on a man, or woman's, success in pursuing those goals? What Trump was saying was that Putin has been remarkably successful in pursuing his goals, whether in Georgia, in the Ukraine, in Crimea, or in the middle east.
In all those areas, Putin's success has been counter to what America had wished and hoped for. But, to what do you attribute success? To your hopes and dreams or to achieving your goals. It must gall the Democrats to see Putin's success when it clearly highlights Obama's lack of leadership and a lack of leadership that has also marked the Clintons.
Putin draws no red lines. He simply puts men and weapons where they will serve his ends. How different from Obama who give warnings and makes empty threats. Is this how we define American leadership? It also explains why he feels free to set conditions for Israel. Who else is obliged to listen to his empty words?
If you were Putin and you wanted to increase your sources of uranium, would it enhance your respect for America to find that you could get a hold of a chunk of their critical stockpile? All you had to do was pay a half a million dollars for one of the stupid speeches of their loud mouth, ex-presidenta, Bill Clinton.
It must be great to be the Clintons. You can take Putin's money and stick it in your back pocket and the next day berate your political opponent for saying something positive about the man who just paid you for a chunk of America's stockpile.
Monday, September 12, 2016
I Guess I'm Simply A "Deplorable"
So, I'm now a "deplorable." I'm probably also a racist and an Islamophobe. And, except for one detail, I find I fit that profile. I'm not a millennial. I'm white. But, I do have a college education -- three degrees, in fact, from highly respected colleges.
So how did I fall to such a depth? I became a Trump supporter. What is it that troubles me about an influx of Muslim refugees? The first thing that comes to mind is their blocking streets in New York City when they're called to prayer. Our streets are public thoroughfares. They're meant to facilitate traffic through the city. They shouldn't be praying in the middle of the street. Prayer is a religious act, and I have noting against religious acts per se as long as they don't interfere with the general public. No other religious group in America would do such a thing. Yes, we do have protests and, yes, we do have parades. In addition, we have freedom of speech. But, we also have separation of church and state. This has all been worked out and is understood by Americans, but it is something so many Muslims just don't get.
Muslims do things that may be fine in Islamic countries but that I as an American find objectionable. The other day I went to Nickerson Beach in Nassau County, New York. The public beach club has a pool in addition to the beach itself. As I passed the pool, I noticed three ladies with their flowing black burka robes swimming in the pool. Burkinis are one thing but swimming in the pool with yards and yards of black cloth is quite another. Perhaps I should not bother to change into swimming trunks. Perhaps I should just take off my shoes and jump into the pool with my jeans, shirt and socks.
But why wouldn't I do it? Is there a law that forbids it? No one asks such questions. It's just not America's custom to behave in such a way in a public pool. Muslims don't get it. And, then when the wet, burka wearers leave the pool, they go to the women's restrooms and use the electric hand driers to dry their yards of fabric. This of course denies the other women in the restroom the ability to use the driers for the purpose for which they were intended; namely, to dry their hands.
Most Muslims in America have the same hopes and ambitions as other Americans. However, a small number, especially those who come as refugees from Islamic countries, wish to live in the manner of Mohammed. They're called Salafists. And, in America it's virtually impossible to live that way. As a Salafist, you try to live by Islamic law, known as Sharia. This law violates American law in numerous ways. In my opinion (note: the opinion of a "deplorable" and an Islamophobe) I would deny entry to any Muslim, and especially Imams, who wish to live the way Mohammed lived.
Then too most refugees from Islamic countries carry with them anti -Semitic attitudes. I don't think its legal to exclude a person who's anti-Semitic, but, as a Jew, it scares me.
So how did I fall to such a depth? I became a Trump supporter. What is it that troubles me about an influx of Muslim refugees? The first thing that comes to mind is their blocking streets in New York City when they're called to prayer. Our streets are public thoroughfares. They're meant to facilitate traffic through the city. They shouldn't be praying in the middle of the street. Prayer is a religious act, and I have noting against religious acts per se as long as they don't interfere with the general public. No other religious group in America would do such a thing. Yes, we do have protests and, yes, we do have parades. In addition, we have freedom of speech. But, we also have separation of church and state. This has all been worked out and is understood by Americans, but it is something so many Muslims just don't get.
Muslims do things that may be fine in Islamic countries but that I as an American find objectionable. The other day I went to Nickerson Beach in Nassau County, New York. The public beach club has a pool in addition to the beach itself. As I passed the pool, I noticed three ladies with their flowing black burka robes swimming in the pool. Burkinis are one thing but swimming in the pool with yards and yards of black cloth is quite another. Perhaps I should not bother to change into swimming trunks. Perhaps I should just take off my shoes and jump into the pool with my jeans, shirt and socks.
But why wouldn't I do it? Is there a law that forbids it? No one asks such questions. It's just not America's custom to behave in such a way in a public pool. Muslims don't get it. And, then when the wet, burka wearers leave the pool, they go to the women's restrooms and use the electric hand driers to dry their yards of fabric. This of course denies the other women in the restroom the ability to use the driers for the purpose for which they were intended; namely, to dry their hands.
Most Muslims in America have the same hopes and ambitions as other Americans. However, a small number, especially those who come as refugees from Islamic countries, wish to live in the manner of Mohammed. They're called Salafists. And, in America it's virtually impossible to live that way. As a Salafist, you try to live by Islamic law, known as Sharia. This law violates American law in numerous ways. In my opinion (note: the opinion of a "deplorable" and an Islamophobe) I would deny entry to any Muslim, and especially Imams, who wish to live the way Mohammed lived.
Then too most refugees from Islamic countries carry with them anti -Semitic attitudes. I don't think its legal to exclude a person who's anti-Semitic, but, as a Jew, it scares me.
Thursday, September 8, 2016
The Lauer Commander-In-Chief Forum: Hillary vs. Trump
I thought Trump won in this contest with Hillary despite what appeared to be his lack of background in foreign affairs and his admiration for Putin.
First, to Trump's lack of background in foreign affairs. Trump, as we know, came from civilian life. He is probably no more aware of the fine points of foreign policy than you or I. But is that disqualifying? Truman knew almost nothing of the negotiants that FDR had conducted with Stalin. That's the way FDR wanted it. Truman's first day was like walking into a buzz saw. And, yet, he turned out to be a great president.
Nixon was great in the area of foreign affairs, but this was largely because he was guided by Kissinger. And, while he may have been wound a bit tight, Nixon was a champion in the field of civil rights.
The much loved JFK put us squarely into Vietnam. Need I say more? (For those who doubt this, I suggest they read The Best and The Brightest by David Halberstam.)
How much did Obama know when he entered office with his one, lack luster year in the Senate and his background as a community organizer?
As to Iraq, nobody got it right. I do not feel that invading Iraq was a mistake. The mistake came when they disassembled Saddam Hussein's Baath Party. It was this organization that held Iraq together. Firing everyone who belonged to the Baath Party -- the teachers, the police, military officers, garbage collectors, etc. -- was what tore this country apart. And, this was done, I might add, by American experts; namely, our State Department.
Before going on to Hillary's performance, let me first comment on Trump's favorable comments as regards Putin. I believe Trump said, in so many words, that there was much to admire in Putin's leadership qualities and that he felt he could arrive at understandings with Putin. That really brought out Trump's critics. Doesn't Trump know that Putin is a killer who jails journalists if they write anything about him that is unflattering? Doesn't he know that in all likelihood Putin has been hacking into America's files?
It's difficult to grasp the hypocrisy of these critics. Of course, we know that Putin manages affairs in Russia in a manner we would find abhorrent in America. But not realizing that Putin wants certain things in the area of foreign affairs and that, to date, he's been successful in getting them is to be blind. What Trump, or Hillary, or Obama say about their feelings as regards Putin's actions is irrelevant. It's what we do that counts. What did the the U.S. (or Europe) do when he tore off chunks of Georgia. What did we do when he occupied Crimea and then put Russian fighters into the Ukraine?
When a leader barrel bombs his own civilians, as did Assad, a strong case can be made for keeping the skies clear of his planes and helicopters. We don't have to stand by as he murders civilians. But that's what, under Obama, we did. Putin quickly understood that he could take advantage of our lack of response. That's when he brought in Russian planes to protect Assad's air force. It's not that Putin was so brilliant, but rather that the U.S. was so negligent in protecting its interests. And, I don't even want to talk about "red lines" and then doing nothing when these red lines are crossed. It's too embarrassing. What would Trump do in these circumstances? I have no idea, but he couldn't do much worse.
As to hacking: Face up to it. It's the new arm of warfare. Scolding Russia is not the answer. Protecting ourselves from the hackers and getting better at hacking than the Chinese and the Russians is the correct answer.
Okay, now on to Hillary's performance. Having been part of the Obama administration, clearly makes her vulnerable to attacks -- quite valid attacks -- on the administration's foreign policies. To say her failures make her more capable to perform in the future as president sounds, to this observer, unconvincing. And, then there is her lack of truth and candor as regards her handling of confidential information. That will plague her professional life as long as she has one. But then, I don't believe she worries about that all that much. She always has her foundation to fall back on.
I also find amusing the criticism being heaped on Matt Lauer for trying to rein in Hillary as she tried to obfuscate and explain away her mishandling of confidential information and then lying about it. Doesn't he know that he's part of the media and that he's been tasked to hide Hillary's flaws and to make her look as good as is possible.
First, to Trump's lack of background in foreign affairs. Trump, as we know, came from civilian life. He is probably no more aware of the fine points of foreign policy than you or I. But is that disqualifying? Truman knew almost nothing of the negotiants that FDR had conducted with Stalin. That's the way FDR wanted it. Truman's first day was like walking into a buzz saw. And, yet, he turned out to be a great president.
Nixon was great in the area of foreign affairs, but this was largely because he was guided by Kissinger. And, while he may have been wound a bit tight, Nixon was a champion in the field of civil rights.
The much loved JFK put us squarely into Vietnam. Need I say more? (For those who doubt this, I suggest they read The Best and The Brightest by David Halberstam.)
How much did Obama know when he entered office with his one, lack luster year in the Senate and his background as a community organizer?
As to Iraq, nobody got it right. I do not feel that invading Iraq was a mistake. The mistake came when they disassembled Saddam Hussein's Baath Party. It was this organization that held Iraq together. Firing everyone who belonged to the Baath Party -- the teachers, the police, military officers, garbage collectors, etc. -- was what tore this country apart. And, this was done, I might add, by American experts; namely, our State Department.
Before going on to Hillary's performance, let me first comment on Trump's favorable comments as regards Putin. I believe Trump said, in so many words, that there was much to admire in Putin's leadership qualities and that he felt he could arrive at understandings with Putin. That really brought out Trump's critics. Doesn't Trump know that Putin is a killer who jails journalists if they write anything about him that is unflattering? Doesn't he know that in all likelihood Putin has been hacking into America's files?
It's difficult to grasp the hypocrisy of these critics. Of course, we know that Putin manages affairs in Russia in a manner we would find abhorrent in America. But not realizing that Putin wants certain things in the area of foreign affairs and that, to date, he's been successful in getting them is to be blind. What Trump, or Hillary, or Obama say about their feelings as regards Putin's actions is irrelevant. It's what we do that counts. What did the the U.S. (or Europe) do when he tore off chunks of Georgia. What did we do when he occupied Crimea and then put Russian fighters into the Ukraine?
When a leader barrel bombs his own civilians, as did Assad, a strong case can be made for keeping the skies clear of his planes and helicopters. We don't have to stand by as he murders civilians. But that's what, under Obama, we did. Putin quickly understood that he could take advantage of our lack of response. That's when he brought in Russian planes to protect Assad's air force. It's not that Putin was so brilliant, but rather that the U.S. was so negligent in protecting its interests. And, I don't even want to talk about "red lines" and then doing nothing when these red lines are crossed. It's too embarrassing. What would Trump do in these circumstances? I have no idea, but he couldn't do much worse.
As to hacking: Face up to it. It's the new arm of warfare. Scolding Russia is not the answer. Protecting ourselves from the hackers and getting better at hacking than the Chinese and the Russians is the correct answer.
Okay, now on to Hillary's performance. Having been part of the Obama administration, clearly makes her vulnerable to attacks -- quite valid attacks -- on the administration's foreign policies. To say her failures make her more capable to perform in the future as president sounds, to this observer, unconvincing. And, then there is her lack of truth and candor as regards her handling of confidential information. That will plague her professional life as long as she has one. But then, I don't believe she worries about that all that much. She always has her foundation to fall back on.
I also find amusing the criticism being heaped on Matt Lauer for trying to rein in Hillary as she tried to obfuscate and explain away her mishandling of confidential information and then lying about it. Doesn't he know that he's part of the media and that he's been tasked to hide Hillary's flaws and to make her look as good as is possible.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)