Trump's Bogus Claim of Rigged Elections

Were it not for the seriousness of the bet, Trump’s accusation of “rigging” falls somewhere between comedy and farce.  The notion that a billionaire is the first to cry foul certainly makes one want to laugh aloud!  By all reputable accounts, voter fraud is not a problem in this country nor has it been for a very long time.  Who is doing the “rigging”, then, if not the Republicans and their nominee?  Let us take a look.  For starters, they do so in two obvious ways:

·         Through gerrymandering, the Republican controlled states have re-drawn congressional districts in such fashion as to ensure their own electoral success.

·         Through new voter ID laws and other restrictions, the Republican Party is attempting to disenfranchise certain targeted groups.  The poorest among us, along with urban and rural minorities, suffer the most from these new laws, groups expected to favor the Democrats.

The “rigging”, so called, began here!  Were the Republican nominee truly against “rigging”, he could insist that his party oppose gerrymandering shenanigans and the imaginary villainy created “to justify” new exclusionary voter ID laws. 

Consider this: the GOP controlled a majority of governorships and state legislatures when Barack Obama stood for president, first against Sen. John McCain and then against Mitch Romney.  Were these state-by-state legislature “majorities” a true reflection of popular sentiment, one would have expected the GOP nominee to sweep to victory in the presidential election.    What happened next--did the GOP nominee win?  No, of course not!  In both 2008 and 2012, Pres. Obama won handily.  Why?  Because the election for president still remains a national contest far less susceptible to the tricks of gerrymandering within individual states.

As to voter ID laws, that pious fraud continues to target legitimate American citizens to keep them from voting; while the new rules can affect the total number of votes cast, the number of citizens unfairly disenfranchised so far remains a relatively small percent of the tens of millions of votes cast.  True, in a very close election this Republican technique of cheating voters in one of the key swing states one day could affect the outcome, but President Obama won by such wide margins that this particular danger was stomped to smithereens.  (The year 2000 serves as a far better example of a contested and “stolen” election.)

Of course, Donald’s wild accusations are thrown in every direction and over a far wider field: his enemies are conspiring against him in a myriad of ways; shades of a persecution complex have begun to surface along with his suffocating narcissism.  According to Trump, the electoral system itself is “fixed” (i.e., rigged) so he will lose; apparently the polls are rigged as well.  He’ll “accept” the election results only if he wins—sentiments previously expressed only by dictators. 

Here, he threatens the vitality of our democratic system at its core—if he can’t have his own way, he threatens to accuse and sue anybody and everybody! 

Women are “against him” by revealing that he harassed, groped, and kissed them without their consent and a serious charge of raping a thirteen-year-old girl is being filed in New York. 

The students suing him for fraud because Trump University turned out to be a sham, they are against him--plus the attorney general of New York State—the list is lengthening.  Everybody who criticizes Trump or fights back is doing so because they have a personal agenda and fail to realize that he is Donald the Great! 

His accusations don’t stop there: journalists are also against him, according to Trump, thus “rigging” social media.  Finally, even leaders of his own party have it in him for him!  He still doesn’t have a clue how bad a candidate he is when fellow Republicans must turn against him.  Never mind the fact that it is always the words and actions of Donald himself that invite review and spark criticism—the audio and video Access Hollywood tape is pure Trump.  Of course the media reported the story; that’s their job! 

It is a news item for which only one person can be blamed: Donald Trump.  If he hadn’t made the vulgar remarks in the first instance, there would have been no story for the media to report.  And yet he blames the media and not himself!  This is an inability to grasp reality bordering on the ludicrous. 

He himself brags about the “publicity” his antics engender as though he prefers to go from one calamitous example of poor judgment to another rather than talk seriously of policy and goals: “free publicity”.  He still clings to the fatuous and totally indefensible notion that “there’s no such thing as bad publicity.”  Actually, there is, and it is his life that is proving the point beyond a shadow of a doubt! 

Being called a “sexual predator” is not the kind of “publicity” any sane candidate in his right mind would ever court or welcome!  If Donald did something good—if he were a generous philanthropist funding programs to help the less fortunate—the media would certainly have to cover such philanthropic enterprise, just as they report his blunders.  Only The Donald is not generous—he appears to be quite greedy. 

He shouldn’t be shocked, therefore, when people and media portray him as selfish and greedy, because he is.  He can hardly deny the obvious without his nose growing faster than Pinnochio’s.  Blaming others for one’s own fault of character and temperament?  Hardly a logical or coherent basis upon which to proceed!

Some pundits have adroitly conjectured that he is preparing his excuses should he lose, which appears likely.   Yet even within Donald’s distorted version of reality, certain additional elements of illogical falsehood leap out at one: 

If there is a problem with undue influence in our electoral system, it is being exercised by a small group at the expense of the many; its roots trace to status and wealth.  Think about all the connecting points that involve wealth: what is meant when people express dissatisfaction with how things get done in Washington DC?  One common complaint is the “undue influence” exerted by lobbyists working for private companies. 

Who can afford to pay professional lobbyists to represent their special interests?  Generally, you need a whole lot of money to hire a lobbyist--so only the wealthiest individuals, companies, and corporations can expect to influence legislative action through their paid lobbyists.  Simply put, rich people can influence political outcomes in ways that average Americans, whether middle class or living below the poverty line, can never hope to equal. 

Now what is Trump’s financial status?  He is a billionaire.  He himself brags about how much he is worth, claiming to be worth as much as ten billion dollars!  (Forbes and other sources believe this to a ridiculous exaggeration; they place his worth at half or less of that claim).  Still, even one billion dollars is a hell of a lot of money, so the notion that any part of our political system is rigged against a billionaire, is delightfully laughable. 

If there is any “rigging” and “fixing” going on, you can bet the wealthiest people are involved!  The same with our system of taxation: who can afford to create tax shelters to avoid paying their full share of taxes, if not the rich?  How many poor people do you know with offshore bank accounts and their own team of lawyers and accountants to look for new ways to dodge paying taxes?

If Trump is so honest, why does he not release his tax returns?  If he wishes to cast aspersions freely, he should remember the old adage: “People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”  The wealthy create and control the economic and political system of our nation by which they so richly and continuously profit; is it not ridiculous to suppose these financial and political systems are rigged against them? 

If elections are unduly influenced by money and status, who but the rich can lay claim to having the wherewithal to exert their nefarious influence by spending fabulous sums of money to buy air time?   Who but a billionaire candidate is most likely to get away with advancing his political fortunes through unconscionable smear campaigns against all his critics and opponents, with ads aired repeatedly until the most ridiculous accusations are drummed into voters’ heads as “plausible” after all? 

If voters are concerned about how “outside money” influences the workings on Capitol Hill, who in the country is best able to exert this influence if not the biggest corporations and the wealthiest individuals: the billionaires?  It is a joke to think of Trump as an “outsider” when he was born and bred of all the advantages that wealth can provide, a son destined to inherit a large family fortune, as he did.  He was born to wealth and privilege inside a system that entirely favors wealth and privilege!  Poor little billionaire, being unfairly put upon . . . by whom?

Trump as a businessman once became heavily dependent upon bank loans, to the tune of millions of dollars, to finance his building plans.  This dependency became accentuated after he was forced to declare bankruptcy, not once but several times.  The banks certainly could have called in these loans but instead decided to advance him more millions of dollars, a kind of “too big to fail” insight having seized hold of their financial imaginations. (It’s also a convenient way to buy someone’s soul and to own them lock, stock, and barrel for all future considerations).

Can you imagine the little guy losing his home to foreclosure or the small business forced to declare bankruptcy, and the bank stepping in to save the day?  No need to foreclose, no need for you to lose your business—we’ll give you more money to keep you going!  Holy mackerel, if the system is rigged, is it not rigged in favor of the fraternity of the rich when weighed against the interests of the rest of the people in the country?  Who is rigging what, pray tell?

·         The wealthiest families influence legislation through “think tanks” and paid professional lobbyists (let us not say “they buy votes”—that has such a nasty ring to it--although in the end “influence” and “buy” both lead to the same result);

·         The wealthy elites manipulate the tax system to their own advantage through numerous “loopholes”, offshore accounts, and other tax-avoidance strategies (which they themselves have helped create and of which Trump has so frequently bragged);

·         The wealthy can afford the costs of running for office better than anyone else; if they are not so inclined to a “career of public service”, they can find plenty of avatars and puppets to run in their place and be trusted do their bidding;

·         The wealthy use gerrymandering and restrictive voter ID laws to increase their chances of winning elections, to re-elect incumbent conservatives, and to prevent truly independent, courageous, and progressive leaders from ever entering the political arena;

·         The wealthy use their funds, power, and status to control and influence the economic and political system in a thousand and one ways.  It is rather strange, then, to hear someone as wealthy as Donald Trump bitch and complain about how unfair things are! 

A rich man like Trump complaining the system is rigged against him?  That is truly a perversion of history and the standing of truth upon its head.  What he perceives as “rigging” is really far simpler: a majority of the American people has had its fill of Trump’s ego, his misdeeds, his complaining, his bragging, his belly-aching, and his excuse-making.  They have had enough of his lies, vulgarity, and unfounded accusations.  He is a ruthlessly ambitious man who does not distinguish between ends and means; he does not care who he hurts or who he has to trample to advance his own personal interests.

  The American people remain committed to the highest standards for the presidency.  A man who is so temperamentally unfit cannot be trusted; lately, he appears hell-bent on proving that he is morally unfit as well; perhaps it is not too soon to ask whether he is mentally unfit as well?

There is a kind of mental instability surfacing with Trump that must give every American who puts country above party grave concern.   He has already shown himself to be dangerous as a colossal egotist, for narcissism raised to that extreme degree can never be trusted. 

He has increasingly shown himself to be dangerous in another way, as a forerunner of fascist-like thinking in his assertion he may refuse to accept the results of the election!  It is not reassuring to witness his growing dependence upon all the techniques of the Big Lie popularized by Hitler and the Nazis (the bigger the lie, the better).   Trump’s actions and accusations fly against the heart of democracy; they can never emanate from the soul of a true patriot but only a self-seeking career opportunist in love with himself, ruthlessly ambitious, and recklessly devoid of conscience and empathy for the real needs and hopes of all Americans. 

He is the antithesis of what our Founding Fathers envisioned and enshrined as sacred principles in their writings, speeches, and brave actions.  He is actively undermining American democracy and becoming a disgraceful exhibitionist mocking our free elections.  He is fooling himself into thinking his delusions of grandeur can replace the Constitution and all the ways in which American people guard their freedom, including their right to vote.

He may believe the American people are ready to give up their faith in American democracy and start supporting him as a dictator but he will find out to his sorrow, as all demagogues have found out before him, that he is sadly and irrevocably mistaken.    

An Open Letter to Megyn Kelly and Newt Gingrich

AN OPEN LETTER TO MEGYN KELLY

Regarding the exchange between Megyn Kelly and Newt Gingrich, there are two pertinent comments to make.  Ms. Kelly used the term ‘sexual predator” and Mr. Gingrich lost his cool, daring her to use the same term to describe Bill Clinton.  Why are the situations of Clinton and Trump not the same? 

1)       Bill Clinton’s misdeeds are in the past and he is not currently running for president.  He also has already faced the music: he was impeached by the House but not removed by the Senate. 

Donald Trump, on the other hand, is currently running for president and has not yet faced the music.  He faces additional rigorous scrutiny for that reason; the questions raised in the 2016 election are about Trump and what they say about his character.  

The intense coverage started with the Hollywood Access tape in which he freely used obscene language and bragged about how he could get away with kissing and groping women.  (It is worthy of note, besides the ten or twelve women that have so far accused him of unwanted sexual advances, that a suit is being filed in New York State accusing him of raping a thirteen year old girl.)

2)      The all-important issue is one of consent.  A sexual predator forces himself on women.  What is the difference between consent and force?  Example: A man might have an affair behind his wife’s back; he might even have a mistress.  For that matter, either the husband or the wife is quite capable of committing adultery in such a fashion but this still remains sexual activity between two consenting adults; an extra-marital affair is not considered predation. 

A sexual predator will fondle, grope, and assault a woman against her will.  This is predatory behavior because the woman did not consent to being touched or forced into sexual activity.   There is a world of difference between two adults consenting to sexual relations (even when adulterous) and force or predation being employed against a woman’s will.

In sum, Trump is accused of predatory behavior because he stands accused by a growing list of women of him groping them without their consent.  Trump has no choice but to deny everything but the fact remains neither he nor his followers have come to terms with this essential distinction between “consensual sex” and “sexual predation”. 

Newt Gingrich may think he’s smarter than Ms. Kelly but he missed the central issue involved: that of consent.  Trump is accused of sexual predation by all these women because he forced unwanted advances on them without their consent.  If Gingrich thinks there is a problem with this distinction between “consent” and “predation” then he is simply attempting to rationalize the immoral sexual predations of Donald Trump. 

There is, after all, not merely one accusation by one woman against Trump but multiple accusations.  Any chance of Trump claiming a one-time “mistake of judgment” disappears within this pattern of repetition.  And that is what makes Trump’s actions sexual predation and nothing less!

THE TRUMP FILE: THE WRONG MAN

He’s just a wee bit conceited, don’t you think?  I suppose every would-be king, tyrant, or dictator shares a marked degree of arrogance but the president of a democracy?  The American people surely have a right to expect better of a leader elected by and presumably held responsive to the people.

 

Of course, we understand that some people have more “arrogance” than others.  It is only when the trait becomes extreme that the focus shifts to studying the why and wherefore.

 

At times we may choose to call conceit by more pleasant euphemisms: drive, ambition, “over-achiever” and the like. Yet at bottom most of us have a limit to our tolerance for someone who acts in too arrogant a manner; indeed, it is one of the ugliest traits we know when it is fully exposed in the sun—public scrutiny—for too long.

 

There are various ways to describe arrogance but essentially it simply means a person who is too self-centered to allow easy, free, and equal inter-play with others.  The potential harm such arrogance can cause is quite great since it both prevents and destroys amicable working relationships in larger social settings.  It is, in sum, merely the old trait of greedy selfishness, however else it chooses to dress itself up in order to fool others.

    

Some personality traits can be kept in check or overcome in time, but the selfish man is unable to control his arrogance.  That is why people often measure the character of their family members, friends, and colleagues with one eye on this most damaging of all traits since it tends to ruin all other positive qualities over time as well.

 

At work or school, few people enjoy being under the supervision of an arrogant boss or administrator; it is well known that they often respond (if only under their breath) with such tidy epithets as “who does he think he is!” or “may he get what he deserves!”

 

Arrogance in an employer or political leader does not lead to team unity, healing, and the promotion of a healthy work or social environment.  Indeed, such arrogance tends to undercut or destroy efforts to build cooperation, progress, and success by failing to treasure the contributions of all members of a team, business, or institution equally.

      

Whether this trait of egotism is found in a boss or employee, family member or friend, acquaintance or colleague, arrogance always remains a terribly ugly distortion of the healthy personality—distasteful to others and almost wickedly disfiguring in its effects upon the body and mind of the person so warped.

          Parents do whatever they can to guide their children toward good values and virtues.  They hope their children will grow up to be honest, responsible, and trustworthy individuals.  To that end, parents know to keep a lookout for those traits that can undermine such healthy, normal growth.

If they see signs of dishonesty, such as lying or thievery, they know they must correct such wayward speech and action immediately.  If they see signs of growing conceit in their children, parents know they must not let this cancerous poison spread further. 

If parents note a distinct lack of empathy in their children, they understand their job is not finished.  It is not unusual for children to act impulsively as they grow; it is not at all unusual for children to act immature at certain ages as they make their uneven progress from one stage of self-understanding to the next. 

Be that as it may, parents and teachers also understand that from the start of childhood to its chapter’d end, an incredible transformation is taking place: when all goes well, the five-year old kindergarten child emerges as a mature young adult graduating high school and ready to enter a new episode of life: caring, independent, and responsible.

            Granted, many children grow up in less than ideal circumstances.  Depending on the home environment, children may have obstacles to overcome of varying degree of difficulty.  If parents are ignorant, superstitious, or racially prejudiced, the home environment can often exert a destructive counter-influence to the higher aims and purposes of the school.

 

A broken home or dysfunctional family will exert a tremendously detrimental influence on the children raised in that home for years to come.  Poverty itself can restrict the progress by which some children hope to advance.

 

If a parent uses drugs or commits a crime, these actions weigh heavily on the scales of the child’s future.  If a parent is unstable with a mental-emotional problem, this too could have a devastating effect on the child’s right to a happy, healthy home.

            Lastly, although it is not always recognized as a “problem”, if parents have wealth and abundant resources, they may spoil a child by over-indulging them and failing to set limits.  This, too, can lead to a child developing an unpleasant personality and an unmanageable ego, someone who does not respect or work well with others.

 

The children of the very rich can develop an overly-acute sense of arrogant entitlement. True, they may have far more money than the average guy to buy whatever they wish but it doesn’t mean they have developed a healthy and honest personality; they have not reached true maturity of character but instead a botched and caricatured version of it.

    

They may try to act mature, even be partially successful on occasion, but among the worst of the scions of America’s richest families, they fail to achieve those principles of honor and virtue we Americans hold most dear.

 

The one-time “brats” of the wealthy have a hard time finding their way back across the bridge of equality with other Americans; they fail to animate those traits that exist within a person that could lead them to become productive and thoughtful citizens, as we have come to expect from the best among us in our democracy.

 

Their thinking typically remains warped in certain injudicious ways; they believe they can buy anything.  This is a fundamental mistake, a failure to understand that the best qualities of human beings are not traits that can be purchased in a store or online.  Truth to tell, the finest virtues in life must be appreciated, nurtured, and practiced over many years until they become second nature within us.  They have no price tag.

Some people are born with a natural affinity for these virtues; others have to work a bit harder to make sure their best qualities triumph over their worst.   Still, in both instances, the vast majority of Americans understand the sublime importance of becoming honest men and women.  Their word is their bond; they think and act honorably because they understand that virtue must be given precedence over vice.

 

Honesty, integrity, the capacity to love, loyalty, compassion, and courage are counted as chief virtues among human beings everywhere in the world.  To be reasonable, to be willing to compromise, to be able to listen respectfully to another speak--we all share an innate sense of why such qualities are indispensable to a healthy and intelligent society. These are lesson that seem to have been missed in the life of Donald Trump.

 

A great big gaping hole appears where we would expect to see some decorum in civil speech, some attempt at modesty, some degree of restraint upon ego--some indication that he recognizes that flashy in-your-face arrogance is as offensive politically as it is socially when it comes to the measuring of the worth of a man.

 

Here we speak not merely of a degree of self-confidence or self-promotion that we’ve come to expect among certain types of ambitious men and women but of a truly colossal ego that borders on the abnormal and absurd.

 

From early in the campaign, the term “narcissistic” popped up repeatedly as pundits searched for a way to describe the vanity of Trump; they could just as easily have referred to his egotism or megalomania, both terms conveying an extreme arrogance that has burst outside the normal range in the psychological profile of a person.

 

In Trump’s case, his egotism totters on the threshold of becoming egomania all too often.  Herewith are definitions to help place such behavior in proper linguistic context:

·         Egotism: excessive and objectionable reference to oneself in conversation or writing; conceit; boastfulness.

 

·         Egomania: psychologically abnormal egotism.

·         Megalomania: an obsession with doing extravagant or grand things.

Take your pick! Donald is frequently, even continuously, guilty of one or more of these traits, not occasionally but constantly and unrelentingly.

What happened to historic examples of right conduct by past presidents?  In today’s world, gone are references to George Washington’s personal courage and dedication to a cause larger than himself.  Forgotten, too, is his stern repudiation of all suggestions that his new title as president should be like that of European kings when addressed; he kicked out plans to use “your eminence” or “your most serene high excellency” and suggested instead “Mr. President”. 

For all those who have personal contact with the president, we still use this form today.  The president may hold the highest office of the land but he also remains a fellow citizen.  He is not above us in a royal sense nor is he above the law; indeed, for many years the phrase “servant of the people” was aptly applied to the president. 

Gone, too, are references to another president, Abraham Lincoln, as a man of humble origins and self-effacing humility—traits that made his life of principle and sacrifice a sacred contribution to our national history and which endear him to countless Americans, generation after generation. 

The Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial are not tributes to these men’s vanity or conceit; they are the people’s memorials to men who were brave, steadfast, honest, honorable, and principled leaders in all matters great and small. 

How have we gone from the courage of a man like Washington--who stayed with his cold, starving, ill-suffering troops through eight long years of the American Revolution--to a pompous and arrogant man like The Donald?

How have we gone from the humility of an Abraham Lincoln (one of the founders of the Republican Party) to a presidential candidate who is boastful, brash, arrogant, self-centered, egotistical, impulsive, condescending, insulting, and vulgar--and given to fits of childish temper tantrums and ridiculous displays of narcissism and egomania?  Can anyone suggest another candidate who was ever as temperamentally unfit to be president?

And not only temperamentally unfit it seems; since the release of the audio-and-video Access Hollywood tapes, Trump is perhaps morally unfit as well. 

His depraved indifference to the equality of women is absolutely shocking.  He openly bragged about attitudes and actions that excuse sexual harassment and assault while speaking of women in the most degrading and vulgar manner—in language so obscene his words had to be bleeped from news reports as too offensive!

The tapes clearly record a man showing a pathological indifference to the basic social values and forms of civil discourse that have always served as bedrock for our greatness as a democratic nation. 

Trump is entirely dependent on the pronoun “I” for all his opening remarks; he sees everything through the “I” prism of me, me, and me: Donald first, Donald second, Donald everywhere like an omnipotent deity. 

He should have been born in the days of the Caesars where his attempt to make himself a god might have had half a chance of succeeding. 

When vice-presidential candidate Dan Quayle tried to invoke a likeness of his career to that of John Kennedy, his opponent, Senator Lloyd Bentsen, promptly nailed him with these simple words: “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.” 

Likewise, in today’s world, we can safely say: “Donald, you’re no Caesar.”  A man who has to have his language bleeped is not fit to hold any elected office, let alone the presidency.      

Trump attempts to repulse all criticism with his own version of reality, even though it is clearly his own poor judgment that opens the door to all such criticism in the first place. 

Here we see his narcissism becoming streaked with a mangled self-defense mechanism, his megalomania fed by an inferiority complex, his arrogance colored by feelings of persecution and paranoia.    Everyone is wrong except him; everyone is out to get him; the system is rigged against him; fellow Republicans are ought to destroy him as they distance themselves from his latest public relations nightmare. 

His antics bring on the criticism, rebuke, and revulsion but it’s never his fault . . . completing the psychological profile of a troubled, mean-spirited, ill-tempered man. 

His narcissism is such a strongly marked abnormality that we need not spend additional time investigating other questionable psychological traits of his that could be added to the list.  Suffice it to say that it is well understood that when one aberrant psychological trait visibly surfaces, such as Donald’s egotism, there are likely other underlying and related traits that further deform and defame the normal human personality. 

Now someone might rightly ask: in judging Donald Trump’s candidacy, should we not also address his beliefs concerning our social, political, and economic system?  Normally the response is yes, absolutely we should. 

There is nothing more important than understanding the basic differences in beliefs and policies of the two major parties and their nominated candidates. 

It is a sad but unavoidable truism, however, that this sensationalized state of affairs has been brought about by Trump himself.  Were it not for Trump’s off-centered personality and his unpredictable behavior--his unstable “psychological profile” if you would--journalists and voters could spend far more time analyzing the platforms over a wide range of topics.

He cannot have it both ways.  He can hardly expect voters to focus on differences of doctrine while ignoring his unbridled arrogance when he constantly insists on making such an ostentatious display of this trait himself.   

Trump the Revelator shows an amazing capacity for self-deception along with his outlandish theatrics and inexplicable outbursts of narcissistic nonsense. 

He throws wild accusations around like confetti at a party; he strikes out blindly like a cringing animal cornered in a cave, lashing out at anyone who comes within range—anyone he suspects of criticizing or betraying him.  This is paranoia alongside narcissism, along with other fault lines in his personality and behavior. 

The American people must not lose their way or let the moorings of the ship of state be broken and tossed asunder by trusting such a callous, ruthless, and arrogant candidate. 

Our democracy began with a historic revolution based on courage and commitment to constitutional principles. 

Such a man who always talks first and foremost about himself--who sees everything through the one-and-only Donald prism--cannot be entrusted to keep our ship of state on a safe and steady course.  He lacks the mature understanding of America’s democratic philosophy needed to provide intelligent leadership for the American people. 

He cannot appreciate, let alone embody, the political principles of our nation that rise high above the petty idiosyncrasies of any one man or woman. 

The first and greatest task of any president is to preserve and defend the Constitution, including its fundamental rights for all Americans as embodied in the Bill of Rights.  This includes the First Amendment’s liberty to speak our minds freely. 

A candidate who slurs and insults, slanders and threatens, mocks and denigrates any person who criticizes him in the slightest degree, lacks the most basic understanding of what the Constitution stands for and who we are as a nation. 

He lacks knowledge, understanding, and compassion—the very qualities we seek in our leaders.  Or does he think it presidential to:   

Act contemptuously toward other candidates on stage with him? 

Mock a reporter for his disability? 

Suggest undocumented workers are rapists and criminals?

Engage in ethnic slurs to impugn the motives of a federal judge, born in America, because the judge’s parents came from another country?

Refuse to honor a Gold Star mother and father whose son made the supreme sacrifice? 

Refuse to release his tax information and brag about how he pays as little in taxes as possible? (perhaps none in recent years, based on an earlier business loss of over 900 million dollars!)   

Gratuitously insult Senator John McCain, a man who survived years of mistreatment-in-captivity and who passed up an opportunity to be released in order to remain with his comrades?

Engage in a vicious twitter attack upon a former Miss Universe winner? 

Speak of women as objects-of-conquest for his sexual gratification?

The list goes on; one can hardly keep up, each new misstatement or scandalous episode pushing the previous one out of the headlines but they are there, all of them, with more to come.  As of this writing, the latest news is of two women coming forward to accuse Trump of sexual advances, inappropriately touching and groping them.  At this point, we should hardly be surprised, should we?     

That is why this election is about something other than political affiliation, other than policy, other than platform: we cannot let 240 years of national effort to improve our country through reasonable elections be sunk by a colossal ego that has no sense of perspective, proportion, or appreciation for the greatness of ordinary Americans everywhere. 

It is they who make up the country; they who performed the labor; they who create a new and evolving democratic philosophy; they who breathe life into words like justice, equality, and freedom; they who sacrifice on the battlefields and the home-front; they who pay their fair share of taxes; they who build and rebuild their houses, roads, bridges, and cities; they who truly make America great and continue to do so today. 

America is great because we the people are America!

We should never knowingly elect a candidate with such a visible pattern of abnormal psychological behavior; there is ample good reason to honor our history and to keep this record of sound and sober judgment intact and inviolate. 

If we wish to put the health and welfare of our nation first, then we must reaffirm in the strongest terms possible that the American presidency is not for sale to the highest bidder. 

One must earn the presidency by earning the respect and trust of the American people, by demonstrating a lifelong commitment to those core American principles that animate out nation at its very heart.  A candidate must be willing to demonstrate that personal desires and interests can be held subordinate to the needs and wishes of the nation. 

Trump lacks the temperament to be a moral leader; to the contrary, he exhibits far too many impulsive, reckless traits that could seriously endanger the nation. 

A man like Donald Trump appears wholly incapable of understanding these larger issues and principles, let alone act in a way to show that he can be as brave as a George Washington or as unselfish as an Abraham Lincoln. 

We as Americans must not endanger our country by allowing this charlatan through the gates.  We have fought too many battles, struggled for justice too hard, to allow our eyesight to become myopic or blind at this late date in our nation’s history. 

As a matter of conscience, as a matter of principle, as a matter of love for our American democracy, I earnestly beseech each of you not to be fooled, bought, or tricked by this man.  Do not sell our country to the likes of him but trust that calmer heads will one day again prevail.

He is making a joke and a travesty of the entire political process.  He is behaving like a clown, a jester, an inquisitor, an egomaniac—and to him we cannot entrust our nation’s future.

           There is only one power that can stop him: the power of the American people!

The Trumpster Dumpster

Well, chillun, the hour it is getting late to be sure . . . the witches are gatherin’ and mixing up their stew what lets them see things that ain’t there for the likes of you and me.  I axed one of dem witches dis question, what’s gonna happen after de ‘lection is over?  She say “Honey chile, you’s got to see inside your own heart to know de answer to dat question . . .”

            Den I wakes up . . . excuse me, I meant to say: Then I woke up.  The sun was streaming brightly through my bedroom window.  The cat was a-meowing and stretching in the corner just before she made a mighty leap onto the bed and wiggled her way across the covers to my hand. 

I had a newspaper deadline and a story due in two hours that I hadn’t even started!  Why?  All because for the last two nights I had the exact same dream and awoke with the exact same question dogging my mind: how will the candidates act after the election is over?

            It’s easy enough to speculate.  Winning candidates will display a generous and forgiving mood; they can afford to be generous amidst the high spirits of their winning campaign. 

When candidates lose, though, that’s another story altogether; it certainly requires far more self-control to be graceful in conceding defeat right after being handed the bad news. 

Most candidates manage it somehow or other but then I got to thinking about Donald Trump: if he loses, how will he handle it?  I think there are three main choices here:

1.      Donald Trump will handle it gracefully, with tact and deference.  He will congratulate the winner, Hillary Clinton, and promise his support in building strong national policies for the betterment of the whole country.

2.      He will be a bit on the quiet side: disappointed, pensive, perhaps biting his lip—but still, he will go through the rudimentary motions of saying what he has to say and keeping any other nasty thoughts or ugly utterances in abeyance.  He will recognize it is Hillary’s moment in the spotlight, not his, and wait for another day and time to speak.

3.      A defeat would get under his skin like venom; he would not be happy about being asked to accept such results; he would make caustic accusations and let fly insults willy-nilly; he would risk an unprecedented epic narcissistic meltdown the likes of which the world has never before witnessed.  

Rating these options in terms of likelihood:

1)      As regards the first choice, “graceful all the way”, nearly everyone in the country will agree that this is the most unlikely.  The idea of Trump turning polite and dignified at the very moment of the final blow is simply too challenging to imagine!

2)      As regards the second choice, the same sort of reasoning applies here as to the first.  Perhaps he will make a mighty effort to contain his anger and disappointment—letting his emotions show but nevertheless keeping his cool in a pleasant and surprisingly professional manner.  There’s just one problem: every week of the campaign so far proves that such restraint is impossible for Trump.  He has a hard time containing his impulse to hurl accusations and insults at anyone he perceives to have had a hand in criticizing him. 

This second choice may have a slightly greater chance than the first, but the slightness of the difference is so small as to melt quickly away into virtual nothingness, given the boisterous personality of the man in question.

3)      That leaves choice number three: he will lash out at his opponent, the press, the “rigged” election system and nearly everyone else he can think to attack as being responsible for his defeat: perhaps even his own party and staff. 

This is the Donald we have seen over and over again; this is the common pattern of his approach to life: strike back, blame others, deflect all criticism, make wild accusations, escape from the facts and substitute his own version of reality any which way he can.

Sad to say, choice #3 becomes the most likely response. 

Voters must make up their minds in their own way, but the notion of how one candidate might act if he loses feels me with a sense of curious apprehension.  While I may have exaggerated slightly how The Donald could go into a nuclear melt down, it doesn’t take much imagination for the reader to at least see the possibility. 

Would Donald in defeat remain quiet and gracious or would he start making excuses, blurting out insults, and blaming others for his debacle? 

I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to ask the reader to imagine how Donald might act after an election defeat—or to picture him acting in exactly the same impulsive, insulting, and rude manner as he so frequently exhibits now.

The notion of voting for someone who may be temperamentally unfit to hold the office of president of the United States is a frightening thought. 

The notion of voting for someone who may have a psychological meltdown if he loses amounts to suggesting the same thing: a candidate who cannot act in a dignified manner should he lose is temperamentally unfit to hold such high office. 

Have I embellished this scenario to such an extent that any reader can honestly think over the above choices and say “I see no chance of The Donald acting arrogantly, belligerently, and impulsively should he lose”?  That is the question. 

Do we expect a leopard to change its spots? 

What will happen should The Donald lose?

As a very wise man I once knew was fond of reminding me:

“The answer is in the question.”