In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth is Revolutionary.
Thursday, October 21, 2021

The growing chorus to ‘dump Trump’

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Protesters hold signs with the image of billionaire Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump as they demonstrate against the Trump International Hotel, which is currently under construction on Pennsylvania avenue between the U.S. Capitol and the White House, July 9, 2015 in Washington, DC.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Protesters hold signs with the image of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump as they demonstrate against the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Some of the best thoughts about the many failures and incredible lack of qualifications of Donald J. Trump that should prevent him from becoming President come now from newspapers that are already endorsing his opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Writes the Los Angeles Times:

American voters have a clear choice on Nov. 8. We can elect an experienced, thoughtful and deeply knowledgeable public servant or a thin-skinned demagogue who is unqualified and unsuited to be president.

Donald J. Trump, a billionaire businessman and television personality, is the latter. He has never held elected office and has shown himself temperamentally unfit to do so. He has run a divisive, belligerent, dishonest campaign, repeatedly aligning himself with racists, strongmen and thugs while maligning or dismissing large segments of the American public. Electing Trump could be catastrophic for the nation.

The paper continues;

In the style of earlier demagogues like Huey Long and George Wallace, Trump has aimed his misleading and mean-spirited diatribes at a struggling and frustrated segment of society — apparently touching a chord with voters who have experienced years of stagnant wages, whose jobs are threatened, who feel betrayed by Washington and nostalgic for a more prosperous past. To these voters Trump bashes immigrants and free trade and rails about law and order, promising to make America great again and assuring them that he alone can solve their problems. But those who put their hope in Trump’s politics of resentment and fear are making a terrible mistake.

The New York Times endorsed Clinton this weekend:

In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues. But this is not a normal election year. A comparison like that would be an empty exercise in a race where one candidate — our choice, Hillary Clinton — has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway. (We will explain in a subsequent editorial why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history.)

Can’t wait for the editorial about Trump being “the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history.”  We share the conclusion of The Times but will wait anxiously for their reasoning.

The Washington Post has not formally endorsed Clinton for President but has unleashed  string of editorials that make it clear that the paper will never give the nod to Trump.

In an editorial leading up to Monday night’s first debate between Clinton and Trump, and moderated by NBC’s Lester Holt, the Post says:

Yes, Monday night’s clash, and two additional debates to follow, will add drama to the election, and a bit more data to the massive pile of it already available to voters. In a fundamental sense, however, there is nothing much at stake, or shouldn’t be, because there is not much more to learn: Mr. Trump has amply demonstrated his unworthiness to occupy the Oval Office. It’s beyond his capacity in the upcoming 90-minute question-and-answer sessions to reverse or even substantially modify that conclusion.

The editorial concludes:

Suppose Mr. Trump keeps a cool head, conducts a respectful discussion with Ms. Clinton and Mr. Holt and even manages to avoid saying anything inflammatory or blatantly false. In other words, suppose he manages to conduct himself “presidentially” for an hour and a half. That could not undo the many, many instances, over more than a year — longer if you start with the launch of his “birther” campaign in 2011 — in which he has insulted, acted out, lied and countenanced violence beyond even some of the most rough-and-tumble precedents of modern American politics. Suppose, further, that he were to soften or even repudiate some of his most odious policy pronouncements; that, say, he opposes rather than supports the aggressive torture of terrorism suspects. That would be a backhanded form of progress, to be sure. But voters would still be left guessing as to which of his inconsistent statements they could trust.

In short, the challenge for Monday’s audience is to avoid the trap of thinking of this debate as yet another opportunity for “the real Trump” — or even a “new Trump” — to emerge, either stylistically or substantively. It’s way too late for that. The real Trump has been before the citizenry ever since he announced his candidacy in a rambling jeremiad that blamed Mexico for “sending” “rapists” to the United States as illegal immigrants. It has been said that the true test of an ordinary person’s character is how you behave when no one is watching. The corollary standard for a presidential candidate could be: how you behave repeatedly in public, before the one big night when everyone is watching. Even by that more forgiving standard, Mr. Trump has already flunked.

Couldn’t have said it better ourselves.

_______________________________________________________

Copyright © 2016 Capitol Hill Blue

 

 

6 thoughts on “The growing chorus to ‘dump Trump’”

  1. Sorry Doug, but this whole article and all the editorial board endorsements miss the point. There are no qualifications to be President that horse left the barn long ago. In our 250 yr. history as a nation we’ve elected a few other men who were unqualified in one way or another to be President, so Donald isn’t an unusual in that way. Sadly, your article amounts to little more than whistling past a graveyard as do most of the newspaper endorsements of Hillary. I hope your all right and I’m wrong, but it doesn’t do much to stop the growing churning in my gut when I think about what might very well happen on Nov. 8th. Least we forget that America recently selected GWB twice.

    • Well put Glenn. Scott Adams raised the question if there was any task the President does today which could not be done by a reasonably intelligent individual after receiving instructions and briefings by knowledgeable experts for a week. No such task could be found.

      • Broker a compromise between two wildly disparate (and warring) factions of House and Senate?

        Politics is a profession, just like dentistry or plumbing. Would you rather have someone work on your pipes who has studied plumbing, worked in the field, and gained experience through trial and perhaps error, or someone who cruises in and says “I’m really smart, look how rich I am, I’ll plumb those pipes like they’ve never been plumbed before!!”.

        Or work on your teeth?

        It bothers me when someone implies that being a professional politician makes them somehow less good at what they do because they are professionals at it. Do we look at auto mechanics that way? Or machinists? Or journalists, for that matter?

        Jon

        PS – Of course, the qualifications to get elected bear no resemblance whatsoever to the qualifications for governing… Scott Adams is wrong (if he’s in such a tizzy about double taxation, why isn’t he violently against sales tax? That is also tax on money you’ve already been taxed upon (and is nauseatingly regressive, too)). J.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: