In reference to “Trump is more qualified than Hillary or Obama,” News Letter Journal, June 1, 2017, page two:
No Don, it wasn’t the “middle of the country” that put The Donald into office. It was the writers of our Constitution who unfortunately included that part about “The Electoral College” in it, and/or subsequent Congress persons who did not make any effort to update that part of the venerable document.
I do not subscribe to the “either or” school of thought when it comes to considering the direction our country should take. It has already been established that, beyond any shadow of doubt, that Bill and Hillary are neoliberals and as such are not to be trusted to put country before self.
They share that characteristic with all of the candidates from the right wing. Likewise, the serial bankruptcies of The Donald demonstrate that he can not be trusted. Both adhere to the “graft is my craft” school of thought.
We, the electorate, waste our time and energy trying to select which of the two peas in the pod is preferable when both are scoundrels from “the same swamp.” It would be a complete waste of our time (and sickening) to try to determine who is the bigger scoundrel.
Yes, I am very critical of Trump’s appointees, but not based on their bank accounts. Far, far more important is what they propose for those departments. For example, DeVoss wants to take our money and give it to private enterprise to run our schools. Every report I’ve read reveals that all those contractors take the money and provide far, far inferior service as compared to our existing systems. (Excluding the Chicago System. But then, Illinois has three ex-Governors serving time!)
Why is it that every right wing proposal to reduce waste in government is always on the backs of the poor, never on the bridges to nowhere? How did it happen that our country has thousands of repossessed, vacant homes, and at the same time has thousands of homeless people— including veterans— suffering on the streets?
Listing all the rest of the thousands of gross inequities would simply waste the NLJ’s paper and ink. Rather than wasting that space and ink on a point by point argument, could we both just admit that our two competing ideas about how our government should be run are diametrically opposed?
Illustration of this conclusion was in the news as this is being written: “The whole rest of the world is wrong about climate change, only Trump is right!”
Therefore, we will back out of the agreement. Should this be counted as bankruptcy number 35?