Recently a reader accused me of bias against Donald Trump. Among his comments were that I am, “a complete biased one sided pony that won’t budge even after being hit with a 10 foot truth pole.”
You can see my response in Comment #7 of the previous post, “What kind of President will Donald Trump be?”
I admit to being biased against a man who possibly is the most prolific liar in American political history.
After all, this is the guy who, after years of claiming President Obama is not an American, now like a naughty boy caught with his hand in the cookie jar, quietly and reluctantly whispers, “President Barack Obama was born in the United States, period.”
But the notorious liar couldn’t help himself. He also said, “Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy. I finished it. I finished it.”
Yikes! That’s a wild one, even for Trump.
And I admit to being biased in favor of someone whose charitable fund actually gives dollars to charity vs. someone whose charitable fund uses its “charity” dollars to pay for a portrait of its founder, pay rent to the founder, and to bribe politicians.
Recounting the many reasons a Donald Trump is as qualified to be President as Freddie Krueger (except Freddie is more honest), would take way too many pages. And, it wouldn’t change any minds; facts and logic influence only those who are influenced by facts and logic, which eliminates the vast majority of Trump backers.
But, the reader did say one thing that requires addressing: “The best we can expect from Hillary is an Obama, the worst is she sends us into another stupid war while our economy crumbles.”
Nevermind that “the war” was started under a Republican President (President “Mission Accomplished”), a war which Trump backed (though, despite evidence he, as always, lies that he didn’t).
And nevermind that despite continuous interference by the Republican Congress, the American economy somehow has grown better than most other economies.
Let’s instead focus on the “stupid war” claim.
As commander in chief, the president has ultimate and unbounded authority over the use of nuclear weapons. There is no veto power, no second opinion and there’s no turning back once the nuclear option is executed.
So let us consider the nuclear know-how of the Republican presidential nominee. It seems Mr. Trump has known everything there is to know about nuclear weapons for years.
- In 1984 as a 38-year-old real estate developer he said, “It would take an hour and a half to learn everything there is to learn about missiles. I think I know most of it anyway”
- In an interview with MSNBC in March of this year, when Chris Matthews referred to Trump not taking nukes off the table, Mr. Trump questioned, “somebody hits us within ISIS, you wouldn’t fight back with a nuke?”
- In the same interview, Trump refused to say he would never use a nuclear weapon in Europe In a separate interview, he was quoted saying, “Europe is a big place, I’m not going to take my cards off the table” in reference to using nuclear weapons in a continent that is home to some our closest allies.
- It was recently reported that Mr. Trump met with a foreign policy adviser and asked on three different instances why if we have nuclear weapons, why we cannot use them?
- Other foreign policy experts who have discussed nuclear strategy with Trump have said he lacks knowledge of the history of deterrence, and seems more interested in whether the US should ever use its nuclear arsenal
- Trump has also said that he has no problem with the proliferation of nuclear weapons to Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia.
- The author of Trump’s biography went so far as to say, “I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets nuclear codes, there is an excellent chance it will lead to the end of civilization.”
Mr. Trump’s remarks are almost as disturbing as his uncontrolled impulses and that’s a scary combination for a leader with access to the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
So herein lies the real nuclear threat for Americans. If we elect Donald Trump the likelihood of nuclear war will be dramatically increased and it will be on us.
As I said, “facts and logic influence only those who are influenced by facts and logic.” So the aforementioned reader will not be swayed. I fully expect his response will be “Benghazi and Emails.”
So yes, I admit to being biased against Donald Trump — but I’m not a pony. I most definitely am not a pony.
And Donald Trump, most definitely, is not a President.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money.
•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
•No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.
•Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.
•A growing economy requires a growing supply of money (GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
•Deficit spending grows the supply of money
•The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
•The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.
•Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.
•The single most important problem in economics is the Gap between rich and the rest..
•Austerity is the government’s method for widening the Gap between rich and poor.
•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.