How I Learned To Love Trump – Part V

Or, A Bernie-Or-Buster’s “Ridiculous” Stance

In Defense of Trump

(Read Part I – An Open Letter to the DNC here)

(Read Part II – An Open Letter to Hillary Clinton and the Hillbots here)

(Read Part III – An Open Letter to Sarah Silverman here)

(Read Part IV – An Open Letter to Bernie Sanders here)

So, how did I get to this point, then? Even with the ridiculousness of the Deebdaba45aacd236441f0b7d09b2cd8a6mocratic Primary, the fraud and corruption, and the blatant disrespect of Bernie Sanders and his supporters by Hillary Clinton, her supporters, and virtually the entire Democratic Party establishment, how could I, who claims to support progressives and a progressive platform, stoop so low to support Donald Trump for President of the United States over Hillary Clinton?

I know. It’s a tough question to hear asked of me, and even tougher to answer. But, I can try. You may not understand it, but hopefully I can shed some light on it for you.

In short, I don’t think Donald Trump is as dangerous to the country and the world as Hillary Clinton is.

“What do you MEAN, he isn’t dangerous?!? Haven’t you been watching? Haven’t you been listening?” Well, yes, I have been. And I didn’t say he wasn’t dangerous. What I said was that I believe that Hillary Clinton is more dangerous.

Trump is a childish buffoon. He has no real idea of what it means to hold the highest office in our nation. I would say that his domestic and foreign policy ideas are a complete joke, maxresdefaultexcept I have no idea what his foreign and domestic policies are, with the vague exceptions of isolationism from the world stage in many cases, and division amongst the people of America in other cases. He is egomaniacal, narcissistic, and possesses the temperament of a third-grader.

But, I do know what Hillary Clinton’s foreign and domestic policies are. We have already seen them. She talks a lot of talk, and, granted, so does Trump, but her talk and her walk are two different things. She is quick to war, and on poor judgment from bad intel. She is careless with national security. She is pro-corporations, and that means she is inherently anti-everyone else. She is pro-fracking, and pro-TPP, regardless ofScreen-Shot-2016-01-07-at-12.39.56-PM-1024x395 what she said in her speech last night at the Democratic Convention. She will turn her back on her words the second she safely can. We aren’t sure what Trump’s walk looks like.

She is dishonest. And, though Trump is a moron, there is one thing that nobody, not Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama, not Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush or even Bernie Sanders, can take away from him – he actually won his nomination. He didn’t have to steal it.

Pair that with the fact that we already know what Hillary Clinton will do but aren’t really sure what Trump will do, and he is already winning in my book.

Will he be a disaster for the country? Probably. Will Hillary be a disaster for the country? Definitely.

“But Trump will cut taxes for the wealthy!!!” Yeah, probably. So will Hillary. She got CexOEMHWwAQVRmv“elected” to the Democratic nominee on the dime of the corporate elite. It would be against her best interest to raise taxes on them. She will “say” that she is going to take on Wall Street, Big Pharma, and Big Oil and Coal. But, despite everything Obama said in his DNC speech encouraging us to unify behind Hillary Clinton, I still believe his quote from 2008 – “She’ll say anything, and change nothing”.

“He will back out of our obligation to NATO! He will start WWIII!” That is a major oversimplification of the issue.

It is easy to forget that, in 1998, under the leadership of a US President by the name of Clinton, NATO gave assurances to Russia, who was growing concerned about the expanding presence of NATO (and, by proxy, the US) on the European Continent, that by treaty NATO was strictly a defensive pact – that only if a NATO ally were threatened or attacked would the alliance respond. Then, in 1999, while still under the leadership of that same President Clinton, the US led a NATO backed campaign proposing a major offensive in Kosovo, a territory of Serbia, a sovereign nation.

It is difficult to see how NATO could be touted as a strictly defensive treaty, considering that just a few years before, in the midst of the Bosnian civil war, and against much of the advice he heard, that same President Clinton led a campaign to convince NATO and the UN to sent NATO forces into Bosnia, also fighting against the Serbs. These areas are outside of NATO influence, and are sovereign nations.Clinton-Kosovo

To say that Trump walking away from NATO would start WWIII, especially when we already know that at least one half of the Clinton Political Machine views NATO as their personal war service, is the pot calling the kettle black. Trump is called a bully, yet would walk away from conflict (despite the foolish reasons for it). The Clintons welcome conflict as business opportunities, and use the strongest alliance in the world as their muscle. Who is really a bully? Trump might start a war. Hillary will start a war. She is already pushing for more US influence in Syria, and has sworn to up the offensive against ISIS. How much would you be willing to wager that she would somehow get “intel” that led her to believe that ISIS was being harbored in Iran, and use that as an excuse to attack them (a la Bush and Iraq’s WMD’s)? And the lives of the innocent, which the Clintons certainly do not care about, will be in the wake of the destruction.

And yet, despite all of this, I am expected to believe that a Hillary Clinton Presidency would be more peaceful on the World Stage than a Donald Trump Presidency.

As for Trump, he and Putin are on fairly civil terms, which some might find frightening, but which is far more beneficial in maintaining peace with Russia. Contrary to that, Hillary has already been saber-rattling, claiming that Russian hackers are to blame for the DNC email hack, when there is literally no evidence to that claim other than the word of the DNC and Hillary, both of whom have proven themselves to be untrustworthy. (It is worth noting here that Hillary and the DNC are doing their best to move our attention to the supposed source of the hack, rather than the content of the emails – damning enough, in my opinion.)

“But Trump took money from Russian oligarchs! He’s in their pocket!” Hillary took money from American oligarchs, and is in their pocket.

Is that different because it was American money she took? Or just not as bad? I reject that 725d3575ca34c75c8d39f299cf91b515as well, because Hillary took $145 million in “donations” to the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State. In return, she approved transfer of 20% of US uranium to buyers in Putin’s Russia. If WWIII were to break out next year under a Trump administration, with Russia as our opposition and threatening the use of nuclear weapons, who would be more responsible: Trump or Clinton?

“But there’s a bigger picture! You aren’t thinking about the Supreme Court!” Thought about it. Quite a bit, actually. In fact, this one took more thought because it is the most valid of any argument against Trump. So, I thought, and I read, and I pondered and discussed. And I came to a conclusion – Bullshit.

Supreme Court Justice appointments are not a valid reason for me to be bullied into voting for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

I know, I know, it isn’t just 4 years of Trump as a President that we have to worry about, his Supreme Court picks could affect us for years to come. I know, I know, 3-4 Supreme Court judges could be picked by the next president (pure speculation, but I will grant the potential validity of that speculation).

Hear me out, though, because in all reality, that doesn’t matter. Here’s why.

I hear “Vote Blue, because do you really want a completely red Supreme Court panel?” Seems that you all have conveniently forgotten that the current Blue president nominated Merrick Garland to replace Scalia. Though he is registered as a Democrat, Garland is not particularly liberal. In fact, he was dubbed as the “most conservative nominee by a Dem in the modern era”. He was praised by conservatives as a possible Supreme Court Justice pick early in Obama’s first term. So, a Democrat President doesn’t guarantee Liberal Supreme Court Nominees.

Why did Obama nominate Garland? Nobody can really be sure, except those involved in the back room deals that make up the process of appointing people to various departments and branches of government. But, since we are granting speculation, allow me to. Perhaps 489624cdf4b16ddef623283b1b7a9efd.pngit was because everything that he has tried to do has been blocked by the Republicans for the past eight years, and selecting a conservative judge was the only way that he might get one approved. Perhaps it was a bipartisan attempt to bring some semblance of unity to Congress, and between Congress and the White House. Or, and in my opinion this is the most likely, perhaps Obama is far more centrist and neoliberal than people would like to admit to.

Hillary has run virtually her entire campaign on Obama’s coattails, vowing to “continue the great work that he began”. What makes you so sure that she would reject Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland? Seems to me that she already told us that her administration would simply be an extension of Obama’s. Keep in mind that the entire Republican Party very literally HATES Hillary, as has been shown by their constant attacks (some well-founded, some not) on her for the entirety of her career.

What on earth makes you believe that ANY Liberal judge she would nominate for the Supreme Court would be approved? The Republicans would never allow it, purely out of spite for her (and with the way the Democratic Party is crumbling, she wouldn’t have much backup in Congress to push her nominations through). No, she will likely select more centrist Judges, and quite possibly some right-of-center.

“But what about Trump? He would select strictly Conservative judges, and the Republicans will approve them!!!” Not so fast there, slick. You seem to be forgetting (or willfully ignoring) the fact that about half of the Republican Party opposes Trump. The half that is backing him is doing so reluctantly, for the simple objective of defeating Hillary. And the entirety of the Democratic Party, as is evidenced by the fearful circular rhetoric being forced down my throat the past few days, will never grant Trump any support on anything. So, around 75% of Congress will fight Trump on just about everything. If he wanted to get a Supreme Court nominee approved, he also would have to choose a centrist, and even then, it wouldn’t guarantee approval. In fact, at that point, the best option for him to get approval for any nominee would be to choose a more Liberal judge, and hope that enough Democrats would support that nomination to get it approved.

Basically, the fear you are trying to instill about Trump and the Supreme Court will be an actual reality with Hillary in the White House. Both of them would be choosing centrist judges. Don’t forget, these are the two most hated and untrusted politicians in recent history.

“3-4 Judges in the next four years!” Actually, it’ll be 6 of 9 in the next 10-15 years. Of the current sitting judges, only 3 will be sitting in 10-15 years – Chief Justice John Roberts, age 61, a Republican; Elena Kagan, age 56, a Democrat; and Sonia Sotomayor, age 62, a former Democrat, now an Independent. Pretty even spread, and actually leans a little left. The rest of the Supreme Court Judges are pushing or over 70, and a couple of them are 80+. None of them will be on the Court in 10-15 years. And, if Trump is only a 4-Year President, the next President will certainly be a Democrat. 3 Judges in the next four years, and 3 more in the following four (give or take).

obamagarlandWhy is it that the Supreme Court is held over our heads like a guillotine every single election cycle? These guys die or retire all the time. There is always going to be at least one new Supreme Court judge every single term. In fact, check your history – there has only been one president since 1933 that has NOT appointed a Supreme Court Justice. That President? The single-term Jimmy Carter. Most Presidents appoint multiple. Garland was actually Obama’s 3rd pick in eight years. (It is worth noting that both Sotomayor and Kagan were nominated in 2009 and 2010 respectively, while the House and Senate were still owned by the Democrats. Had he picked either of them after the 2010 midterms, neither would be sitting on that panel right now.)

Look, I’m not saying Trump will make a great President. We all know he won’t (those of us that have working brains, anyway). But it seems to me that, with all things considered, even looking at the “bigger picture” of Supreme Court Appointees, he simply isn’t as bad as Hillary Clinton. And in an election where the DNC decided that we couldn’t vote for the greater good, and that we would, once again, have to vote for the lesser of two evils, I honestly believe that Trump is truly the lesser of those two evils.

But, there is an even bigger “bigger picture” that few people are talking about – the 2020 Census. I wrote about that previously, so I will keep it short here. But, basically, 2020 is a Census year. If Hillary Clinton, widely hated and rejected by much of the American public, is elected as President, I can almost guarantee that the Republicans will regain control of Congress in the 2018 midterms. And, with the widespread fraud that would be responsible for her election to the White House, you can be sure that the President that is elected in 2020 will also be a Republican.

Census years change things

Census years are when redistricting occurs. If the Republicans control the House and Senate, and have a strong claim to the White House in 2020, you can be absolutely sure that they will redraw district lines, gerrymandering the entire nation to maintain a death grip on the country for at least a decade. Your goddamn Supreme Court picks will look like a children’s Spring Musical at that point.

The other side of that coin is an equal, but opposite, result – Trump gets elected, the Democrats take Congress in 2018, and Trump, too, will be voted out of office in 2020. Who does the redistricting then? Yep, you got it.

In this light, a Trump Presidency makes more sense, in the long term and bigger picture, than a Clinton Presidency does. If you are really concerned about the future of our nation beyond the next four years, electing Trump is the way to go. But if you are more concerned about giving each other hand jobs under the table for getting a woman in the White House than you are about your children’s future, by all means, vote for Hillary.

Yes, many things would be awful under Donald Trump. Some people’s liberties would be taken away, though that has been happening under the past two Presidents. And that is truly terrible. But that is the choice that has been forced upon us. Though Trump would be terrible, he would be largely an ineffective President. His wall? It is literally impossible to build. His policies? Regardless of what they actually are, he would be fought, tooth and nail, by both Houses of Congress, and by both sides of the aisle. And then, in four years, he will be gone, replaced with a Democrat, or possibly an Independent, Green, or Libertarian. Yes, that will be a looooong four years. But it will be far less destructive than four or eight years of Hillary Clinton.

It doesn’t make me happy to say any of this. It truly hurts me to my very core. But this is what you have done to us, Hillary Clinton and the DNC. You have made this bed for us, and we all have to lay in it. By deciding to actively work against the strongest, most honest man in politics, who could have actually saved this country (and the DNC), you have given us the choice between idiocy and a criminal. Thanks.readImage.jpeg

Ok, ok. I can’t continue this charade any more. OF COURSE I’m not fucking voting for Donald Trump. What kind of a monster do you think I am?

But I’m also not voting for Hillary Clinton. I am going to vote Third Party, as I have always done. In fact, I have never voted Democrat or Republican, until this year. I voted Democrat for the first time in hopes of electing Bernie Sanders. You could have had my vote again, DNC. Possibly even for life. I am but one person, but there are millions of us that feel the exact same way. What could have been a revival of the Democratic Party turned into its destruction. And you did it with your own hand. You have heard the phrase “Political suicide”? Well, you just did that.

Why write this under the guise of switching from Bernie to Trump? I wanted to show how easily one could make that switch, especially if only two choices are available to them. But I vote on principle. I vote for policy, not a person, and certainly not a party. And there is one candidate yet that still stands on a truly progressive platform, one that is virtually identical to Bernie Sanders’ platform, far more than the DNC platform. That candidate is Jill Stein of the Green Party.

I say this to everyone – your vote is your vote. Who you vote for is your decision, and if you can cast your ballot with a clear conscience, then cast it for whomever you wish. But voting for a person out of fear of another person is truly throwing your vote away. Vote with your head and your heart, not out of fear of the boogeyman. Constantly voting for the lesser of two evils creates a downward trend into evil, and opens the door for much greater evils in the future. We have a chance to vote for the greater good instead. And that is what I will do.

“But a third party has no chance to win! A vote for anyone but Hillary is a vote for Trump!” No, a vote for Stein is a vote for Stein, and a vote for Johnson is a vote for Johnson. When you tell me that my vote doesn’t 13669842_1635655110097246_9124509458877392036_n.jpgmatter unless it is for one of two candidates, you are telling me that my thoughts, ideas, principles, and integrity don’t matter. You are telling me that the things that I care about, the issues that I am passionate about, aren’t worth fighting for. With that said, if Stein or Johnson make a strong showing, and Trump wins because Hillary wasn’t strong enough to beat him without begging for the votes she didn’t want to be cast in the primary, that is Hillary’s and the Democrats’ fault, not ours. And, though I was less than honest about my intentions to vote for Trump, I meant everything else that I said. I believe that he will be an awful President, but he will be far less awful than Clinton as President.

In the end, it really doesn’t matter who I cast my vote for. As long as I don’t vote for Hillary, my conscience is clear. A vote for Hillary is a vote to condone corruption, fraud, war, political favors for personal gain, corporate rule over sovereign nations, and energy policies that will continue the destruction of our planet. And, Trump be damned, I simply can’t let myself do that.


Richard Waite

July 29, 2016


What's YOUR View?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s