Tag Archives: obama

Trump Obama

Trump: A final post-mortem on Donald’s presidential victory

Donald Trump’s self-fulfilling prophesy

Most of you should be familiar with Nicholas Kristof, Pulitzer-prize winning columnist of the New York Times. In his most recent newsletter, he offered a mea-culpa. Earlier this spring, Nicholas argued that U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders wouldn’t be as strong a candidate as Hillary Clinton when facing Donald Trump.

Now, looking back at the election results, Nicholas admits he was wrong. Voters did not want the traditional political establishment candidate and perceived Hillary as the opposite of change. Looking at hypothetical match-ups, Nicholas admits that Sanders or even Joe Biden would have defeated Trump. I wrote about why Bernie was a superior candidate back in February during the primaries and it’s gratifying to know I was right.

Nicholas believes that this election was about nominating the wrong candidate at the wrong time (not to mention, of course, that Hillary was the victim of terrible sexism and unconscious bias). Voters who voted for Trump wanted to see a man as president.

Corporate Mainstream media’s promotion of Trump

I take satisfaction from Nicholas’s mea-culpa because it validates my own personal observations about the collapse of mainstream media’s obligation and responsibility in reporting news and information objectively, with as little bias as possible. The New York Times overtly pushed for Hillary’s campaign throughout the primaries and it disgusted me as a Bernie supporter. That’s just one example.

The majority of mainstream media gave Trump oodles of free publicity in order to maximize their own profits. It’s painful, however, to have known this throughout the campaign and yet you had columnists like Kristoff who so openly advocated for Hillary, even though she was the wrong candidate at the wrong time of this country’s political history. Yes, she did win the popular vote and if we didn’t have the antiquated electoral college, then Hillary would be president. But poll after poll showed Bernie winning against Trump by a higher margin of victory than Hillary. It’s just such a painful and difficult pill to swallow.

For those of you who supported Hillary in the primaries, I truly hope Trump’s victory inspires you to help create the badly needed 3rd political party in this country; a party that is not beholden to a corporate millionaire class but a party that represents working-class people, people who can afford to donate $5 or $10 to a party that advocates Medicare for All, an end to the electoral college, an end to Citizens United, a belief in government spending to invest in a crumbling infrastructure, a belief that human caused global warming is a fact and not a fiction, and a party that believes and wants to invest in public schooling.

Hillary supporters apologize to Bernie supporters

I’ve seen some Hillary supporters post apologies to Bernie supporters on Facebook. Yes, an apology is always welcomed. But what is needed now is a political revolution. U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders has created a new organization called https://ourrevolution.com/ It might not be perfect but it’s certainly a fresh start as we prepare to unseat President Trump in the 2020 election.

Thank you for reading and I wish you all good health and peace of mind.

Chemical weapons

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Syria!

The right questions to ask about Syria

Remember those wonderful words of wisdom sung by our most illustrious congressional public servant, Senator John McCain?

I’ve got news for you. The drumbeats for war are starting up again and it sounds eerily just like what George W. Bush and crew were telling the American people about the need to invade Iraq. I’m not saying that Assad did not use chemical weapons upon his fellow Syrians. But Obama puts forth the following question: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain site and pay no price?

My response, Mr. President:

What is the difference between death by bullet or death by chemical weapon? Enforcing an international ban on chemical weapons requires leadership from the international community, ergo, the United Nations Security Council. This is not a decision to be acted upon unilaterally.

How is it that the United States must again act as the final arbitrator when it comes to enforcing international law anywhere around the world?

What exactly will be attacked in Syria?  Chemical weapons plants?  Won’t that release toxins into the very air Syrians breathe?

Are U.S. military weapons going to target Assad himself?  I believe that would be in violation of international law itself.

Who is to say that by attacking various targets in Syria we won’t accidentally kill innocent Syrian civilians?

Why not engage other Arab countries to put a stop to Assad’s chemical weapons attacks?  And if the Arab League chooses to do nothing about Assad’s use of chemical weapons, what exactly does that say about Arabs in general?  Just how sympathetic are adjacent Arab countries to those Syrians opposed to Assad’s dictatorship and looking to overthrow his iron fisted rule?

What will be the consequences of a U.S. military strike against Syria? How might other Arabs view this act? Will the Arab world interpret this as another example of the U.S. intervening in Arab affairs where it doesn’t belong?

Where is the emphasis on arriving at a negotiated cease-fire between the opposition and Assad? Why not further engage Russia?  Russia supports Assad but at the same time might be able to pressure him to cease use of chemical weapons. Toss a diplomatic bone to Russia and give it an opportunity to prove itself as an international player who is capable of negotiating peace settlements. Surely the Russians could pressure Assad.

Why not engage Iran? The country recently elected a relatively moderate president (for a change) and it has a horrible history with chemical weapons during its nearly decade long war with Iraq back in the 1980s. Saddam Hussein used mustard gas against the Iranians, which left Iranians with a deep abhorrence of chemical weapons not to mention a deep skepticism of the international community that did nothing to enforce any of the existing chemical weapons treaties banning their use. The United States comes across as a hypocrite.

George W. Bush lied to the international community about the presence of WMDs in Iraq. He destroyed our nation’s “moral authority” to act in international affairs. President Obama should learn a thing or two when claiming the moral high ground on behalf of the global community.

Finally, let us not forget that the United States used the most powerful chemical weapon at its disposal during World War II when it bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The United States is an expert at chemical warfare and has no right to judge Syria.

If Obama wants to actually earn his Nobel peace prize now is the time to do so!

But if I haven’t swayed you with any of my pointed questions perhaps John Stewart will suffice. Truth bombs hurt and Stewart has zero patience for the same type of war propaganda that presidents and congress keep parroting time and time again.