 |
| Israel's Iron Dome, from ground level (CNN) |
Count me among the millions of Americans who long have held doubts about Donald Trump's fitness for president. Still, it was mighty convenient for Trump to take a campaign swing through Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia on Saturday and wind up erasing all doubts about his fitness for high office. We addressed those rallies in our post of Monday (6/24/24).
To his credit, and in a peculiar way, Trump raised some important issues at the two rallies -- law enforcement, domestic and international defense, the price of groceries, and crime. He even touched on issues related to the Ultimate Fighting Championship (AFC), but in typical Trump fashion, he did it in a way that was demeaning to Latinos and suggested that he, and perhaps his MAGA followers see them as sub-human.
Owen Levine, of The Daily Beast, provided a detailed account of the promises Trump made to his audiences in D.C. and Philly. In spotlighting Trump's remarks about selected serious issues of the day, Levine helped show that the "Orange Turd Blossom" proves to be "an emperor with no clothes." In short, Trump tends to reveal that he has no clue what he is talking about on matters of governance.
If, like me, you are a Never Trumper who believes our country needs leaders with serious credentials and ideas -- plus an interest in governance and a desire to lead (Trump appears to have neither) -- Trump's Saturday campaign swing should erase any doubts in your mind about his fitness to be president. He is, in fact, glaringly unfit, and our hope is that huge majorities of Americans come to that realization before it is too late -- and Trump drives us off a cliff, Thelma and Louise style, toward a second term that is likely to be a much bigger disaster than his first one.
Let's take the issues that Owen Levine lays out for us, then examine Trump's remarks about those ideas to show that he is not even close to being fit to serve as president. Our impression is that many Trump doubters have tended to focus on his lack of an appropriate temperament for the job he seeks. But we have concluded that Trump simply is not very smart; in fact, it would be fair to say he is ignorant when it comes to matters related to governance -- and that is not exactly a quality any of us should be looking for in a president.
Let's review Owen Levine's reporting on Trump's most recent campaign swing, and we will show 9issue by issue) that, to put it bluntly, he is too dumb to be president.
(1) Immunity for law-enforcement officers
First, what is "qualified immunity," the kind that usually applies to police officers, sheriff deputies, and the like. Here is what the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) says about it:
Qualified immunity has protected law enforcement officers and other government officials from being held accountable when they violate people’s constitutional rights for decades. The doctrine of qualified immunity allows state and local officials to avoid personal consequences related to their professional interactions unless they violate “clearly established law” and has been repeatedly used by police officers to escape accountability and civil liability for engaging in violent and abusive acts against the public. In practice, this often means that, unless there’s a case with nearly identical facts on the record, these officials can violate a person’s rights without being held personally responsible for their actions.
LDF also calls qualified immunity a "judge-created doctrine," indicating it has roots in the courts. It also has roots in Congress, and that brings us to at least three major problems with Trump's take on this issue:
a. Trump says he wants to give police "immunity" to be rough with suspects. But here is how the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) describes the issue's roots in Congress:
The evolution of qualified immunity began in 1871 when Congress adopted 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which makes government employees and officials personally liable for money damages if they violate a person’s federal constitutional rights. State and local police officers may be sued under § 1983. Until the 1960s, few § 1983 lawsuits were successfully brought. In 1967, the Supreme Court recognized qualified immunity as a defense to § 1983 claims. In 1982, the Supreme Court adopted the current test for the doctrine. Qualified immunity is generally available if the law a government official violated isn’t “clearly established.”
b. The history of police immunity indicates Trump probably would not be able to unilaterally give police the protection he promises. First, the U.S. Supreme Court is involved. In a case styled Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986), the high court held: that immunity does not attach when "a reasonably well-trained officer in petitioner's position would have known that his affidavit failed to establish probable cause, and that he should not have applied for the warrant."
c. Trump "lamented that police officers are “treated so badly” that they lose their jobs and their pensions “if they do something that’s harsh to stop a crime.”
Mrs. Schnauzer (my wife, Carol) and I have dealt with police immunity in an up close and personal way, and we know that cops are not always the benevolent beings Trump would have us believe. They have been known to enter a home with guns drawn when they have every reason to know such entry is unlawful, they have caused serious physical, emotional, and financial injuries, including breaking bones that required eight hours of trauma surgery for repair. They have brought false criminal charges against the victim of their abuse and lied about their handiwork under oath, in court.
They also have the favor of judges who have no problem cheating victims in order to protect their cop and sheriff friends. One such judge is M. Douglas Harpool (see photo at the end of this post) in the Western District of Missouri. We will show how Harpool ignored all kinds of legal precedent, engaging in breathtaking corruption, to protect his buddies in the law-enforcement world -- in a case where he likely was disqualified from taking it in the first place. We will have many more posts on this subject coming soon.
(2) An "Iron Dome
This involves a missile-defense system that was designed for the geographic and logistical challenges Israel faces. As such, it has no practical application for the United States. Here are details about Israel's Iron Dome, from Wikipedia:
Iron Dome is an Israeli mobile all-weather air defense system,[8] developed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries.[7] The system is designed to intercept and destroy short-range rockets and artillery shells fired from distances of 4 to 70 kilometres (2–43 mi) away and whose trajectory would take them to an Israeli populated area. From 2011 to 2021, the United States contributed a total of US$1.6 billion to the Iron Dome defense system, with another US$1 billion approved by the US Congress in 2022.
Iron Dome is designed for use against the enemies in Israel's neighborhood, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. It is designed to intercept missiles fired from less than 43 miles. Can anyone think of an enemy that might fire missiles at the U.S. from 43 miles or less? Would it be Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica. El Salvador?
Trump appears to be looking for a way to waste billions of dollars, and since Congress has the "power of the purse" in our style of democracy. it's likely Trump would not get the funding he craves.
(3) Crime
On this topic , Trump reverts to his usual tactic of lying.
a. This is from our Monday post:
Trump then turns to his usual tactic of simply lying, blaming Democratic incumbent Joe Biden for a crime rate that supposedly is soaring, when in fact, violent crime is at a near 50-year low. You can get a sense of the problems that can come from a president who is a chronic liar.
(4) Migrants Fighting
Here is how The Hill summarized this whacko idea from Trump:
Former President Trump over the weekend mused about the creation of a migrant fighting league to rival the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), characterizing migrants as “tough” and “mean” during stump speeches.
Trump brought up the idea during two separate events Saturday — one during a gathering of Christian conservatives in the nation’s capital and later at a rally in Philadelphia.
“These people are tough. They’re so tough,” Trump said in his speech during the Faith and Freedom Coalition event in Washington, D.C.
In both addresses, Trump recalled that he had floated the idea to UFC head Dana White.
“I said, ‘Dana, I have an idea for you to make a lot of money. You’re going to go and start a new migrant fight league, only migrants,” Trump recalled during the rally.
He suggested the migrant league champion and UFC’s champion could ultimately battle each other.
“I think the migrant guy might win, that’s how tough they are. He didn’t like that idea too much, but actually, it’s not the worst idea I’ve had,” Trump told the Christian group. “These people are tough and they’re nasty, mean.”
Audience members at the events could be heard laughing as Trump mused about the idea.
White told media members during the UFC Saudi Arabia postfight press conference that the conversation had indeed happened as Trump recalled. He took it as a joke.
“It was a joke. It was a joke,” White told reporters. “I saw everybody going crazy online. But yeah, he did say it.”
trump admitted that White was not big on the idea. Why not? It's possible that White is familiar with personal injury (PI) insurance coverage, the kind you need when someone gets hurt on your property or is injured because of your alleged negligence.
To put two untrained migrant fighters in an octagon and encourage them to beat up each other, likely would unleash a flood of personal injury lawsuits, and White probably knows the expense of such claims can add up in a hurry. That Trump does not seem to grasp this is another sign that the guy is not too bright.
(5) Trump's "wounds"
This subject took Trump's nuttiness to new heights. Here's how we addressed it our Monday piece:
Trump also bizarrely told the crowd that he has “wounds all over my body,” assuring them that if he “took this shirt off, you'd see a beautiful, beautiful person but you’d see wounds all over me.”
“I’ve taken a lot of wounds. More than, I suspect, any president ever,” Trump added. Evidently, he has not heard of John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan or William McKinley.
This sounds like Trump's malignant narcissism talking, but it also suggests he he is not a serious student of history -- and that is a subject about which a president should know a thing or two.
(6) Education
Here is how we addressed this issue in our Monday piece:
Trump also assured his audience he will “shut down the Federal Department of Education,” before promising to spend less than “half” of what President Biden is currently spending on education.
“There will be two people in Washington, the two people will make sure that, we will have to guarantee that they are teaching a little English,” Trump said of his plan for the Department of Education.
That is a plan for education? Doesn't sound like there is much to it. In fact, it does not sound serious. Maybe that's because Trump is not a serious candidate, and even he struggles to pretend otherwise.
Doug Harpool
No comments:
Post a Comment