The Editorial Board of the Washington Post seems Very Concerned over how Donald Trump can win the election, and here’s their response
AS THE 2016 presidential campaign draws to a close, Donald Trump is airing commercials that present him as a change agent who will shake up Washington. Not a mainstream politician, exactly, but nothing to be afraid of, either. This appeal seems to be having some success, as Mr. Trump pulls even with his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, in some national polls and surpasses her in likely voters’ judgment on who is more trustworthy.
Ultimately, though, this appeal can succeed only if voters succumb to last-minute distractions and ignore or forget Mr. Trump’s record. Allow us to offer a few reminders.
You didn’t think this was going to be a positive editorial, did you?
“If I decide to run for office, I’ll produce my tax returns, absolutely.”
This lie is emblematic, for two reasons. First, Mr. Trump’s refusal to release his returns is an unprecedented sign of contempt for voters; every major-party nominee of the modern era has respected this basic norm of transparency.
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. . . . They’re sending people who have lots of problems. . . . They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
They often aren’t sending their best. The crime reports show this. Hillary, on the other hand, wants to bring in 10’s of thousands of people from the Middle East who cannot be vetted, won’t be vetted, and resettle them over the objections of US citizens. We’ve seen how well this has worked out in Europe.
“You’d be in jail.”
American democracy survives the passions and animus stirred up every four years because its leaders always have accepted this rule: The loser acknowledges the winner, and the winner leaves the loser in peace. Mr. Trump disavows both sides of that time-tested formula.
She would be in jail if her name wasn’t Hillary Clinton. And the WPEB would cheer this if she was a Republican.
“I would bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.”
Mr. Trump’s celebration of torture provides one answer to that question. His vow to kill the innocent relatives of suspected terrorists offers another. A commander in chief in the U.S. system has vast powers, often beyond the reach of Congress or the courts to check. Mr. Trump could in fact order the CIA to resume waterboarding suspects — and worse — to the immense discredit of the country.
Why such a concern over terrorists who would be happy to slit the throats of the members of the WPEB?
“I’ve always felt fine about Putin. I think he’s a strong leader, he’s a powerful leader.”
Remember when Hillary trotted out her “reset button”? And called Bashar Assad a reformer? When she pledged support and said how great Mohamed Morsi was, a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization?
Some addition whining from the WPEB continues, till we get to the end
“Make America great again.”
It is mystifying that so many Republicans, after criticizing Mr. Obama for eight years for showing insufficient pride in the United States, would attach themselves to someone who has such contempt for the country, its institutions and its values. U.S. generals have been “reduced to rubble,” the U.S. Army cannot fight, U.S. cities are “hell,” U.S. wealth has been “stripped” away by global interests, the electoral system is “one big, ugly lie.” To each of these disasters, Mr. Trump offers phony solutions (Mexico will pay to build a wall) or none at all. He has neither the interest nor the capacity to suggest actual policies.
Of course, he doesn’t have contempt. I dislike defending Trump, but, poll after poll show that people think the economy is not doing well. Really, though, this has nothing to do with anything the WPEB highlights, it’s the phrase itself: liberals hate America and all it stands for, and would like to tear it down.
We believe, as we have said, that Ms. Clinton is well-prepared to serve as president. But even voters who disagree — who believe that Ms. Clinton is unqualified or ethically distasteful — cannot realistically argue that she represents a danger to the republic.
Mr. Trump is such a danger. Only by forgetting or ignoring what he has told us could Americans decide otherwise.
Uh huh. A woman who put her convenience over national security. A woman who intentionally attempted to destroy women who credibly accused her husband of rape. A woman who used her position as Secretary of State as a means to enrich herself and her family through pay for play to her so-called charitable foundation, and used her charitable foundation to enrich herself while spending a whopping 6% on actual charity. She puts herself over country. That’s a danger.
Crossed at Right Wing News.