Flag Counter
TRUMP & COMPANY ARE THE
DEVIL'S CABAL
Why Donald Trump Should Not Be President
By the New York Times Editorial Board
September 25, 2016
When Donald Trump began his improbable run for president 15 months ago, he offered his wealth and television celebrity as credentials, then
slyly added a twist of fearmongering about Mexican “rapists” flooding across the Southern border.

From that moment of combustion, it became clear that Mr. Trump’s views were matters of dangerous impulse and cynical pandering rather than
thoughtful politics. Yet he has attracted throngs of Americans who ascribe higher purpose to him than he has demonstrated in a freewheeling
campaign marked by bursts of false and outrageous allegations, personal insults, xenophobic nationalism, unapologetic sexism and positions
that shift according to his audience and his whims.
Now here stands Mr. Trump, feisty from his runaway Republican
primary victories and ready for the first presidential debate, scheduled
for Monday night, with Hillary Clinton. It is time for others who are still
undecided, and perhaps hoping for some dramatic change in our
politics and governance, to take a hard look and see Mr. Trump for
who he is. They have an obligation to scrutinize his supposed virtues
as a refreshing counterpolitician. Otherwise, they could face the
consequences of handing the White House to a man far more
consumed with himself than with the nation’s well-being.

Here’s how Mr. Trump is selling himself and why he can’t be
believed.

Despite his towering properties, Mr. Trump has a record rife with
bankruptcies and sketchy ventures like Trump University, which
authorities are investigating after numerous complaints of fraud. His
name has been chiseled off his failed casinos in Atlantic City.

Mr. Trump’s brazen refusal to disclose his tax returns — as Mrs.
Clinton and other nominees for decades have done — should sharpen
voter wariness of his business and charitable operations. Disclosure
would undoubtedly raise numerous red flags; the public record already
indicates that in at least some years he made full use of available
loopholes and paid no taxes.
Mr. Trump has been opaque about his questionable global investments in Russia and elsewhere, which could present conflicts of interest as
president, particularly if his business interests are left in the hands of his children, as he intends. Investigations have found self-dealing. He
notably tapped $258,000 in donors’ money from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits involving his for-profit businesses, according to The
Washington Post.
A straight talker who tells it like it is?

Mr. Trump, who has no experience in national security,
declares that he has a plan to soundly defeat the Islamic
State militants in Syria, but won’t reveal it, bobbing and
weaving about whether he would commit ground troops.
Voters cannot judge whether he has any idea what he’s
talking about without an outline of his plan, yet Mr.
Trump ludicrously insists he must not tip off the enemy.

Another of his cornerstone proposals — his campaign
pledge of a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslim
newcomers plus the deportation of 11 million
undocumented immigrants across a border wall paid for
by Mexico — has been subjected to endless
qualifications as he zigs and zags in pursuit of middle-
ground voters.

Whatever his gyrations, Mr. Trump always does make
clear where his heart lies — with the anti-immigrant,
nativist and racist signals that he scurrilously employed
to build his base.

He used the shameful “birther” campaign against
President Obama’s legitimacy as a wedge for his
candidacy. But then he opportunistically denied his own
record, trolling for undecided voters by conceding that
Mr. Obama was a born American. In the process he tried
to smear Mrs. Clinton as the instigator of the birther
canard and then fled reporters’ questions.


Since his campaign began, NBC News has tabulated
that Mr. Trump has made 117 distinct policy shifts on 20
major issues, including three contradictory views on
abortion in one eight-hour stretch. As reporters try to pin
down his contradictions, Mr. Trump has mocked them at
his rallies. He said he would “loosen” libel laws to make it
easier to sue news organizations that displease him.
An expert negotiator who can fix government and overpower other world leaders?

His plan for cutting the national debt was far from a confidence builder: He said he might try to persuade creditors to accept less than the
government owed. This fanciful notion, imported from Mr. Trump’s debt-steeped real estate world, would undermine faith in the government and
the stability of global financial markets. His tax-cut plan has been no less alarming. It was initially estimated to cost $10 trillion in tax revenue,
then, after revisions, maybe $3 trillion, by one adviser’s estimate. There is no credible indication of how this would be paid for — only assurances
that those in the upper brackets will be favored.
If Mr. Trump were to become president, his
open doubts about the value of NATO would
present a major diplomatic and security
challenge, as would his repeated
denunciations of trade deals and relations with
China. Mr. Trump promises to renegotiate the
Iran nuclear control agreement, as if it were an
air-rights deal on Broadway. Numerous experts
on national defense and international affairs
have recoiled at the thought of his
commanding the nuclear arsenal. Former
Secretary of State Colin Powell privately called
Mr. Trump “an international pariah.” Mr. Trump
has repeatedly denounced global warming as
a “hoax,” although a golf course he owns in
Ireland is citing global warming in seeking to
build a protective wall against a rising sea.

In expressing admiration for the Russian
president, Vladimir Putin, Mr. Trump implies
acceptance of Mr. Putin’s dictatorial abuse of
critics and dissenters, some of whom have
turned up murdered, and Mr. Putin’s vicious
crackdown on the press. Even worse was Mr.
Trump’s urging Russia to meddle in the
presidential campaign by hacking the email of
former Secretary of State Clinton. Voters
should consider what sort of deals Mr. Putin
might obtain if Mr. Trump, his admirer, wins the
White House.
A change agent for the nation and the world?

There can be little doubt of that. But voters should be asking themselves if Mr. Trump will deliver the kind of change they want. Starting a series
of trade wars is a recipe for recession, not for new American jobs. Blowing a hole in the deficit by cutting taxes for the wealthy will not secure
Americans’ financial future, and alienating our allies won’t protect our security. Mr. Trump has also said he will get rid of the new national health
insurance system that millions now depend on, without saying how he would replace it.
Trump is more bling than substance. Here he practices his
"humping" technique so he can fuck us all.
The list goes on: He would scuttle the financial reforms and consumer
protections born of the Great Recession. He would upend the Obama
administration’s progress on the environment, vowing to “cancel the Paris
climate agreement” on global warming. He would return to the use of
waterboarding, a torture method, in violation of international treaty law. He
has blithely called for reconsideration of Japan’s commitment not to develop
nuclear weapons. He favors a national campaign of “stop and frisk”
policing, which has been ruled unconstitutional. He has blessed the
National Rifle Association’s ambition to arm citizens to engage in what he
imagines would be defensive “shootouts” with gunmen. He has so
coarsened our politics that he remains a contender for the presidency
despite musing about his opponent as a gunshot target.

Voters should also consider Mr. Trump’s silence about areas of national life
that are crying out for constructive change: How would he change our
schools for the better? How would he lift more Americans out of poverty?
How would his condescending appeal to black voters — a cynical signal to
white moderates concerned about his racist supporters — translate into
credible White House initiatives to promote racial progress? How would his
call to monitor and even close some mosques affect the nation’s life and
global reputation? Would his Supreme Court nominees be zealous, self-
certain extensions of himself? In all these areas, Mrs. Clinton has offered
constructive proposals. He has offered bluster, or nothing. The most
specific domestic policy he has put forward, on tax breaks for child care,
would tilt toward the wealthy.

Voters attracted by the force of the Trump personality should pause and
take note of the precise qualities he exudes as an audaciously different
politician: bluster, savage mockery of those who challenge him, degrading
comments about women, mendacity, crude generalizations about nations
and religions. Our presidents are role models for generations of our
children. Is this the example we want for them?
Why we took a stand on Trump
By The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board
April 9, 2017
Why now?

That question cropped up repeatedly, from President Trump’s supporters as well as his critics, after we launched our six-part series of editorials
about the 45th president.

The answer is simple. Even though we’re only 11 weeks into the Trump presidency, there is good reason to believe that rather than grow into the
job, he’ll remain the man he was on the campaign trail — impulsive, untruthful, narcissistic, ignorant of the limits on presidential power and
woefully unprepared to wield it. Rather than wait until the public grew inured to the lies, the undermining of democratic institutions, the
demagoguery and bluster, we decided to lay out our concerns at length and in detail.
The Times editorial board is a group of nine
men and women that functions like an
independent newsroom within the newspaper,
metaphorically walled off from the news
reporters. Unlike those reporters, whose job is
to write objectively and dispassionately about
the news, our job is to write opinion.
Support our journalism

Become a subscriber today to support editorial
writing like this. Start getting full access to our
signature journalism for just 99 cents for the
first four weeks.

In the weeks after the election, we talked about
doing a series of editorials on the changes
Trump was proposing. Those included his
determination to deport far more non-criminal
immigrants living in the country illegally, his
repudiation of generally accepted climate
science and his rejection of the Affordable
Care Act. One of our colleagues, however,
made a point that caused us to think again:
Although we strongly disagreed with many of
Trump’s proposals, that wasn’t what made him
so uniquely dangerous.
It’s the man himself, his character and temperament, that set him
apart from his predecessors. So we decided to write instead about how
Trump’s erratic, impulsive, narcissistic personality manifests itself in
his actions in ways that pose a threat to our democracy.
We also wrestled with the tone. We
were sharply critical of Trump during
the campaign, saying that he was
“spectacularly unfit to serve as
president” and that if he were elected,
we expected a “catastrophe.” In the
days following his surprising victory
over Hillary Clinton, however, we wrote
that we hoped he would find a way to
succeed “because we want this
country to flourish.”

That remains true today. Yet we’ve
grown increasingly doubtful that Trump
will lead any responsible efforts to
reform immigration policy, grow the
economy, improve healthcare or
achieve other shared goals. His
Cabinet choices and budget proposals
show he’s more interested in
dismantling federal agencies and
programs than improving their
effectiveness.
So, were we jumping in too soon? Would it be better to compile a full year of heedless presidential tweets and impulsive acts? Wouldn’t our
argument about Trump’s war on institutions be more persuasive if we waited until he actually defied a court ruling? And what if he gets a grip on
himself and moderates his more reckless and heartless proposals?

We decided to move ahead because the future of the nation is at stake. These editorials set a baseline to help measure the president’s
performance over the rest of his term, especially how truthful he is, his relationship with the media and how well he curbs his recklessness and
impulsiveness.
We divided the pieces among six editorial writers, who spent several weeks conceiving, reporting
and writing drafts of the installments. The full board also discussed each of the pieces in our
meetings and via email as each writer circulated his or her draft, to help hone the arguments.

A good illustration of that back-and-forth is the last piece in the series, on how California should
fight back against Trump’s worst policies. Some editorial board members felt strongly that certain
state and local leaders were overreacting to the threats Trump made; others disagreed. SB 54,
the “sanctuary state” bill, captures that conflict. Some of us thought it was an appropriate effort to
protect local police and sheriffs’ deputies from being dragooned into the service of Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, potentially damaging their relationship with immigrants in their
communities and threatening public safety. Others worried that sections of the still-evolving
proposal would interfere with ICE’s ability to do its job.

The first installment alone has been read by more than 4 million people around the world. We
hope that we’ve prompted you to think more deeply about President Trump, the job he’s doing
and how he fits into our system of government. We’ve also suggested a number of ways to
respond to him, especially for Californians who feel uniquely threatened by his rhetoric on illegal
immigration and sanctuary cities, his desire to abandon the fight against climate change and his
eagerness to roll back even successful state implementations of Obamacare.

We will continue to do our part, commenting on how he conducts the affairs of state. That
includes supporting him when he behaves responsibly, as we continue to hope he will, and
critiquing him if he continues to be as intemperate, petty and head-spinningly inconsistent as he’
s been so far. Ultimately, though, it’s not just up to us, but to you as well to demand better from
him, day after day.

This piece was written by Nicholas Goldberg, the editor of The Times’ Editorial Pages, and
Jon Healey, the Deputy Editorial Page Editor.
The human cost of Trump’s health care tantrum
THE BOSTON GLOBE EDITORIAL
July 18, 2017
Presidents take a solemn vow to
execute the responsibilities of
their office, and, for the
foreseeable future, overseeing
Obamacare is part of the job.

Donald Trump’s tantrum on
Tuesday, when he said his
administration would let the law
fail after a Senate replacement
plan collapsed, marks an
astonishing abdication of
responsibility. If the president
follows through on his implicit
threat to intentionally sabotage
the health care market, Trump will
inflict a needless burden on
millions of consumers.
The executive branch — Trump and Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price — exerts enormous influence on the insurance market.
The administration could, for instance, refuse to enforce the law’s individual mandate, or eliminate some subsidies for low-income Americans. It
could refuse to allow advertisements during the sign-up period. Contrary to Trump’s rhetoric, the Affordable Care Act isn’t “imploding” now. But if
Trump and Price actively seek to undermine the health law, they could probably induce a crisis on the state insurance exchanges.

Trump seems to believe that if that happens, it would force Democrats to go along with repealing the entirety of Obamacare. As a political
strategy, though, there’s a good chance that purposely destablizing the markets would backfire on the GOP. Extremists in the Republican Party
tried a similar tactic in the debt ceiling negotiations during the Obama administration, holding the nation’s fiscal health hostage if they didn’t get
their way on spending. That strategy didn’t work then, and it’s hard to imagine it succeeding when so many Americans’ insurance coverage is at
stake. Consumers would likely blame Trump, and they’d be right.

Regardless, Trump’s willingness even to entertain the possibility shows a cynical, cavalier indifference to the actual human cost of his
administration’s actions. The consumers who need to buy policies on the health insurance exchanges are not pawns: they are the public that
Trump is supposed to be serving. This president — any president — should be working as hard as possible to meet Americans’ needs with the
tools at his disposal.

Unfortunately, Trump’s behavior on Tuesday was hardly surprising. It has become clear during the whole health care debate that Trump barely
knows or cares what the Affordable Care Act is, or what the House and Senate replacement plans would do instead. He wants something that he
can call a win.

It will fall to the responsible members of Trump’s party — including Susan Collins and the handful of other Republican senators who thwarted the
repeal bill, and Charlie Baker and other Republican governors who lobbied against it — to steer the administration away from that destructive
path. If Trump thinks he can improve on Obamacare, he needs to do the hard work of building a coalition in Congress. In the meantime, nothing
is gained by driving insurers away. When Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia announced her opposition to the Senate bill, she said: “I
did not come to Washington to hurt people.” Did the president?
Newspaper editorials rip Trump Jr. over Russian meeting
By The Hill
July 11, 2017

Junior
in deep
dodo
with
dada
Major newspapers ripped
President Trump's eldest son and
the Trump administration Tuesday
in scathing editorials after Donald
Trump Jr. revealed a meeting last
year with a Kremlin-connected
lawyer who promised dirt on then-
Democratic presidential nominee
Hillary Clinton.

Several major news outlets ripped Trump Jr. as
an "idiot" and "criminally stupid" Tuesday after
he released emails between himself and music
publicist Rob Goldstone prior to the meeting.

"Donald Trump Jr. is an idiot," wrote the New
York Post's editorial board. It was "criminally
stupid," they added.

"Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. As were Junior’s shifting,
incomplete accounts of the meeting under
days of Times questioning," the Post wrote.

The New York Times joined in the criticism,
accusing Trump Jr. of being at the center of a
"culture of dishonesty" in the White House.

"If a culture of dishonesty takes root in an
administration, how can Americans believe
anything its officials say?" the Times asked.

"Only six months in, President Trump has
compiled a record of dishonesty — ranging
from casual misstatements to flat-out lies —
without precedent in the modern presidency,"
the Times said. "Equally disheartening is his
team’s willingness to share in his mendacity."

The Washington Post's editorial went further,
calling the email chain "incriminating" and
saying that Trump Jr.'s actions were the "fire"
behind the "smoke" that Democrats were
looking for.
"There can now be no doubt: The Russia meddling story is not just smoke but fire. Donald Trump Jr.’s interactions with Russians during last year’
s presidential campaign were abnormal and alarming. An incriminating email chain has made it impossible for the administration to deploy its
always flimsy argument of last resort — that the whole story is just 'fake news,'" the paper wrote.
"How long can the rest of the
Republican Party prioritize
partisanship and agenda over
decency and patriotism?"

On Tuesday, Trump Jr. released
emails detailing his
correspondence with Goldstone,
who set up the meeting. In the
emails, Trump Jr. is told that the
attorney's information is "part of
Russia and it's government's
support for Mr. Trump."

“This is obviously very high level
and sensitive information but is
part of Russia and its
government's support for Mr.
Trump,” Goldstone wrote.

“If it's what you say I love it
especially later in the summer,"
Trump Jr. replied.

Trump issued a brief statement
defending his eldest son through
White House deputy press
secretary Sarah Huckabee
Sanders on Tuesday.

“My son is a high-quality person
and I applaud his transparency,”
Trump said in the statement
delivered to reporters during an off-
camera briefing.
It's slowly dawning on Republicans that Trump just
might be the worst president ever
All is not well in Republicanville. No matter how
slavish the Fox News segments become, it ain't
working; it is slowly dawning on powerful
Republicans that the president they are so
dutifully protecting and sucking up to may, in
fact, be an idiot.

Trump’s struggles go beyond health care.
More than six months into Trump’s presidency,
Republicans have no legislative
accomplishments other than the confirmation
of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, a
confusing foreign policy, and a White House
that is perpetually in damage-control mode.
From lawmakers and governors to donors and
foreign policy experts, a certain realization is
sinking in within the party, based on more than
a dozen interviews in recent days: Donald
Trump has been a historically weak and
ineffective president.

That it took six months to start wondering
whether the man who talked about grabbing
women, who discussed his penis size during a
presidential debate, who sent his press
secretary to baldly lie about the size of the
crowds on his inauguration day, and who is
currently engaged in a public defense of his
campaign team openly seeking the assistance
of the Russian government during a period of
unprecedented assault on our election
systems by that government, is perhaps not
the brilliant world-shaping genius he made
himself out to be.

This is the problem with the Republican Party.
They don't catch on too quick.
Even the president’s top backers are losing patience. Billionaire Trump patrons Rebekah and Bob Mercer are “apoplectic” over the health care
debacle, with renewed fears that Trump’s lofty goals of changing Washington have become all but impossible, said a Trump administration
adviser. The adviser added that lobbyists and establishment lawmakers are making Trump’s life more difficult. [...]
“They’re saying, ‘It can’t be done, he can’t change Washington,’” the adviser said, before putting more of the blame for the lack of progress on
Senate Majority Leader McConnell. “It’s the Washington cartel at its worst revolting against the president.”

Bob Mercer has been the funder of everything wrong with the conservative movement for some time now. He is now apparently "apoplectic" that
the band of incompetent white nationalist conspiracy-mongers and burn-it-downers he shoveled into the White House are somehow not able to
single-handedly work their white nationalist, burn it down ways—and blaming the rest of Washington for blocking them? Good. That's the best
news we've heard all day. Maybe the fucker will flee the country for some oligarchy that will treat him better; Russia is supposedly lovely this time
of year.

A recent report on “soft power,” a term that covers a country’s political and cultural influence, found that the United States under Trump has
slipped from first to third among 25 countries; France, led by Emmanuel Macron, jumped to first.

Heavens, it seems only yesterday Republicans had dealt a powerful blow to French influence by renaming cafeteria foods to spite them; this will
be unwelcome news.

Anyhoo, we're six months into the Donald Trump pretzeldenty and, by gum, he has no accomplishments, has cratered U.S. influence, is still
operating with a skeletal state department, is at war with his own staff to such an extent that they no longer are willing to appear on television
when speaking about him, and has no apparent foreign or domestic policy vision other than tweeting about whatever last caught his attention on
Fox & Friends. And this is despite Republican House and Senate leaders Ryan and McConnell bending over backward to defend him from an
unending stream of scandals and in-your-face corruption. Good show. Really, good show, everybody. What a fine denouement for the "party of
Lincoln."
BY DAILY KOS
July 22, 2017
View some of the fools
supporting Criminal Trump
at his rally on Aug. 22, 2017
in Phoenix, AZ