Do not worry about the Cats and Dogs. Vote.
It is manifestly inconceivable, yet here we are on the cusp of the election with the possibility of a depraved scoundrel who has perverted the American experiment with a good chance of being re- elected President of the United States of America.
I have voted in every presidential election since 1960, and I have never experienced America in such turmoil, existential angst, a mixture of rage and fear. Even during Vietnam. Even during Watergate. Nine years of Trump since he came down on the golden escalator. Enough already.
On the one hand, Trumpists believe that their cult of personality has the keys to saving the republic. That despite all the hate and fear mongering emanating from his supporters, that Kamala Harris, a woman, a black woman, represents more of a threat to the nation than Trump. Even if one thinks that Harris lacks the gravitas to be president, one must cling to the hope that she will be able to restore a sense of normalcy to our politics. Yes, Biden hung around too long and she was anointed without going through the primary process. And yes, they gaslighted us by saying old Joe was fine. And yes maybe there could have been a more perfect candidate. But those possibilities pale in comparison to the threat of Trump’s disrespect for the rule of law, for the constitution. No other argument need be advanced. For God’s sake, he tried to overturn the election, to provoke a coup d’etat.
Surreal that Trump, after shattering all norms of political and civil discourse, after demonizing half of America could be returned to the White House, threatening to deport 12 million people. No one can even understand what a disruptive force that would be to almost every walk of life. Trumpers do not dare talk about what a budget buster that would be. How many familial bonds would be shattered. Children would again be separated from their parents and watch their mothers who gave birth to them in America, be dragged away from their citizen children, while the Joseph Goebbels of Trumpworld, Stephen Miller, executes his heartless, compassionless agenda while “Haitian immigrants feast on cats and dogs.” That said, the border should be secured, and criminals should be sent packing. Harris has said she will correct that error.
Putin and XI and Kim Jong Un are rooting for Trump. Our NATO allies are not.
Apologists for Trump such as Ben Shapiro, divine that Trump will not do what he says, that he only says things to gain leverage. “Watch what he does, not what he says,” says Shapiro. The problem is that not believing a proto fascist is dangerous. 41 of the 44 high government officials who worked for him, including a four-star Marine general, John Kelly, and Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff say that he is unfit, dangerous and unhinged, unable even to understand a briefing. These are serious nonpartisan
people. And the advisors he selects this time will be sycophants. Trump will be unbound. Heaven help us.
David is a skilled PI advocate, trained to convince a hopefully impartial jury that each defendant is personally and totally responsible for all of the issues at trial, which most often implies that the defendant is a bad person. David presents expert witnesses and defends their credentials and attacks the credentials of opposing experts. David's problem is that the jury is almost exactly evenly divided and it is not evident that his very based arguments will lead to the outcome he wants.
ReplyDeleteThe terms fascist, communist, and dictator are not sufficient for the current election. Neither Trump nor Harris have the strange combination of abilities needed to be a Hitler or a Stalin, and neither has ever used soldiers with fixed bayonets within the USA to enforce their executive orders as did Lincoln and Roosevelt. Although all of the campaigning seems to be about the personalities of the two candidates, the reasonably intelligent 160 million voters will decide if they want their government to continue to be run by a college educated elite (Harvard law is the standard) or by people who do not view them in the way that David describes them.
Insulting half the jury is rarely a recommended procedure.