Exactly 1500 words if you care to read it:
I’ve been kicking around the idea of writing an intellectual case for my Trump vote, but I’m not sure it would mean very much since we live in a world of hyperbole and emotion. And I’m not saying Donald Trump isn’t part of that world. He’s certainly guilty, but he didn’t create it. Anyone who would like to be elected to public office had better know how to function a world of sound-bite policy, because I’ll bet a few of you have already stopped reading. So let’s look at a few of the issues, character, sexism, racism and trade policy, in that order.
When Trump thinks no one is listening, he talks like a dirty sailor. Hillary took the affirmative step of setting up a private email server for government business… So no one can listen. That doesn’t condone Trump’s naughty-talk, but is there really a moral equivalency? And by the way, the media balloon-heads; the supposedly impartial folk who were strategizing with the Clinton campaign, decided to capitalize the fact that most people don’t know the difference between assault and battery. If I say something nasty, I’ve committed an assault. If I touch you, I’ve committed battery. So the media can “legally” say that Trump has committed sexual assault, but you’ll never hear them use the far-worse term battery. Why would they try and confuse people? Agenda? Purely for sensationalism? Meanwhile, even the lowest level city-official (like me) knows that government business must be conducted on government servers to comply with record retention laws… And in the case of a Secretary of State, life & death security concerns!
A further word about his “sexism”… In his books (and even in a PBS documentary) there is mention made of women he placed in positions of power, often for the first time in the industry, such as the female construction boss of the Trump Tower project. Thirty years ago he was using words like “tough, strong, smart, etc.” to describe women in a book that would be read BY OTHER BUSINESSMEN. How can I rationalize this with his objectifying comments? Quite easily; for like any normal human being, he realizes that SOME women are well-suited for intellectually demanding tasks, while others can trade on their appearance. And if you haven’t lived on earth for very long, some MEN are only capable of throwing a ball or looking good on camera. On rare occasions, there are people well-suited for all of these tasks, among both sexes. I have a feeling he’d acknowledge that, as would most people.
The basis of Trump being labeled a “racist” is essentially that he said something which is true, but never discussed in polite society. Many, but not all (his words) of the people sneaking into this country are criminals in their OWN country and they don’t magically reform when they cross the border. This open border, which holds little consequence for those who are actually caught, IS a pathway for drugs that have destroyed the lives of millions of Americans, at a cost of billions of dollars. A full 15-years ago, the Mexican-born person who was MY BOSS told me essentially the same thing; the people crossing the border illegally (generally) aren’t abandoning successful careers or strong family ties. They are the “drifter/grafter” element that exists in every nationality. Spend some time living in a (southern) border state and you’ll soon find yourself rubbing shoulders with people who fear no consequences of their actions, for it’s even easier to sneak back across that same border and escape justice. Is this a function of their race, or a decades-old dysfunctional Mexican government? Before you answer, tell me why all the anti-Trump celebrities are moving to an igloo in Canada rather than a beach in Mexico? Are there any American companies issuing travel/kidnapping warnings for their employees working in Canada? Who would you prefer to stop you on a lonely roadside, the Federal Policia carrying a machine gun, or the Mountie wearing a huge brown hat? So if you’ve answered like a normal person would, you’re either a racist or you realize something has been very wrong with the Mexican government for a very long time. Does a leader have the guts to acknowledge the elephant in the room or do they ignore it? Did Trump suggest we ban all Muslims from entering the country forever, or just until we could get establish a vetting process? Did St. Jimmy Carter throw the immigration doors open in 1979, when Islamic Iranian nationals were murdering Christians, or did this spineless-wonder just ban all Iranians? How many intrusive laws and regulations are imposed upon US citizens on the basis of preventing “just one death” without a shred of protest? Yet when a man suggests controlling the borders (one true function of the Federal government) for much the same reason; just after deaths committed by Islamic terrotists, he’s a racist. Really? My ancestors left Sicily in the 1920s to escape a corrupt government and culture. Plenty of Mexicans, Muslims and even Europeans fed-up with huge government do the same thing in 2016. We only ask that they wait their turn in line, for the same reason you stop at red lights; anything less than that is dangerous and chaotic.
Like the ethics issue of email servers, we do have the Clinton public record regarding race which uses terms like “super-predator” and “deplorable” Americans. Those broad-brush terms were not used in haste because of a motivation to protect fellow American citizens, they were used because they were politically expedient. We also have the Clinton campaign emails which talk about “needy Latinos” and “stupid Catholics”. Was Hillary outraged to learn John Podesta used this language in his communications with Clinton staff? Did she demonstrate her strong leadership ability by firing him, or at least demanding a resignation? No. She used him as the spokesman to send her supporters home on election Tuesday.
Now onto the subject of trade policy, something far more in my wheelhouse of experience... If you think the mainstream Republicans refused to endorse Trump because of his comments on sex or race, you’re forgetting who funds many (but not all; my words) of their election campaigns. Sure, those issues provided some high-moral-ground cover, but the real motivator was the fear he’d turn over their sweet apple cart of borderless multi-national bank-ster and corporate wealth exportation. In other words, the same reason Hillary and the DNC machine needed to dispatch crazy Uncle Bernie who just like a blind-squirrel, occasionally finds a nut. During one of the early Republican debates, Talk of tariffs and foreign trade appeared to awaken the sleepy establishment candidates who delivered rousing performances that evening in defense of America’s long history sacrificing jobs on the altar of “free trade”. Jeb Bush warned us that if we impose tariffs, the Chinese might not choose American-made passenger jets! Memo to Jeb: The Chinese government already told Boeing that they need to start building aircraft in China, or risk losing more orders to Airbus, which already manufactures planes in China. Guess who announced a new factory in China a few months ago? Marco Rubio worried that “a tie or a shirt made in China” will cost more. Funny, I thought “Always Low Prices” was a slogan, not a line from the Declaration of Independence. When Trumps calls trade negotiators “political hacks and diplomats”, he’s dead-on correct. Trade is an executive branch function and The Department of Commerce is staffed with appointees. When administrations change, former trade negotiators very frequently take jobs with the companies (or governments) they were supposed to regulate a year earlier.
The author of “The Art of the Deal” realizes that you don’t start negotiations by announcing what’s off the table. Smart Americans know this but instead they see potential leaders-of-the-free-world in full panic-mode at the mere suggestion a political donor’s boat might be rocked.
So where is Secretary Clinton on this issue? Suddenly finding religion on the topic, just like she finds a bottle of hot-sauce when speaking to black audiences. She had the audacity to suggest a debate in the city of Flint, MI (never let a crisis go to waste). The real issue of Flint’s broken budgets and infrastructure as a direct result of lost manufacturing and worker/resident tax revenue. Hillary patronizes the issue, seemingly oblivious that hubby Bill pushed over one of the first dominos to shrink American manufacturing by signing NAFTA! (Which she has publically supported.) These two winds of destruction will blew into town and handed out Made-In-Mexico water filters. Almost 25-years after NAFTA was supposed to make American manufactured goods cheaper to purchase in Mexico, workers in manufacturing average $2.70an hour. Mexican minimum wage is $4.19 a day. The problem is, they aren’t lining up to buy $35,000 Chevy’s built in Flint.
So those are some (but not all) of the reasons this “uneducated white male” voted for Trump. Well, that and the fact the other candidate was crooked as f%$*.
