Trump likely to lose … but might not accept it

OB-VG717_Romney_G_20121107020041

I’m glad to be not alone in fearing what might happen on Election Day, which occurs on Nov. 8.

Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump could lose the election to Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton in a big way.

He might get buried in an Electoral College landslide. For that matter, it could even be a popular vote landslide.

But just a little while ago, Trump laid down a frightening notion.

He might not accept defeat the way losing candidates traditionally have done. Remember when he said the “only way I am going to lose” is if the election is “rigged.” He said the only way for “Crooked Hillary” to win is to fix it so she gets more votes than he does.

What’s going to happen, then, if — after the news organizations declare Clinton the winner — and Trump fails to make the phone call to the president-elect, offering his congratulations and then stands before his supporters to concede defeat?

Eli Stokols, writing for Politico, thinks it’s entirely possible that Trump won’t concede. He won’t acknowledge what the rest of the world would have just witnessed.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-concede-succession-227252

Stokols writes: “Among the values most necessary for a functioning democracy is the peaceful transition of power that’s gone on uninterrupted since 1797. What enables that is the acceptance of the election’s outcome by the losers,” said Steve Schmidt, the GOP operative who was McCain’s campaign strategist in 2008.

Trump’s insistence that a “rigged” election would result in his defeat seems to put that tradition into imminent danger.

As an American who rather likes political tradition, I see this as a potentially terrible development.

Again, as Stokols writes: “The damage this is going to do to various institutions is going to be long term,” said Charlie Sykes, a prominent conservative radio host in Milwaukee who has been one of the country’s most outspoken and consistent anti-Trump voices. “How do you restore civil discourse after all of this? He is a postmodern authoritarian who’s in the process of delegitimizing every institution — the media, the ballot box — that can be a check on him.”

Are you scared yet? I am.

Trump ‘doubles down’ on deporting illegal immigrants, or does he?

immigrant trump

Donald J. Trump’s immigration policy appears to be getting suddenly quite muddled.

Reports came out over the weekend that the Republican presidential nominee was backing off his plan to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants.

Then he said he intends to deport ’em as fast as he can round ’em up.

He’s going to “build that wall and we’re going to make Mexico pay for it,” he said to cheering rally crowds.

So, which is it? Is he softening his view? Is he doubling down and getting even harsher?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-doubles-down-on-deportations-denies-backtracking-227293

There’s  a thing or two for Trump to consider.

If he backs off his deportation initiative, he risks losing the GOP base of voters that propelled him to the party’s presidential nomination.

Moreover, his alleged softening looks for all the world like an admission that his top-priority issue has angered a vast array of Americans who are offended by his characterization of illegal immigrants as “rapists, murderers, drug dealers,” while adding he’s sure “there are some good ones, too.”

However, if Trump holds firm to his initial hardline view, well, he’s got the base but he’s surrendering the rest of the American voting public.

This man doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Clinton faces defamatory attacks about her health

BROOKLYN, NY - JUNE 7: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton attends a primary night rally in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, June 7, 2016 in Brooklyn, New York. Clinton will become the first woman in U.S. history to secure the presidential nomination of one of the country's two major political parties. (Photo by Brooks Kraft/ Getty Images)

 

Rudy Guiliani used to be known as “America’s mayor,” a title he earned by his stellar performance as mayor of New York City as it coped with the hideous 9/11 terror attacks.

He’s now in danger of being considered “America’s goofball.”

His (former) honor is peddling pure crap as it regards Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. He has said she is ill. He doesn’t have an iota of hard evidence. He just says it.

When asked on Fox News about his contention, Guiliani then offered the most nonsensical rebuttal of all time. “Go online,” he said, referring to the Internet.

That’s it! If it’s on the Internet, he said, then it must be true.

My head nearly exploded when I heard that.

He’s parroting the line, the strategy being employed by Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

This campaign veered toward the gutter long ago. Trump has been at the wheel of the GOP clown car ever since he declared his candidacy for the presidential nomination. Now that he has been nominated, he keeps gripping the clown car wheel and keep riding it into the same ol’ gutter.

There are those of us out here who are struggling with these campaign choices. Clinton is far from an ideal candidate. She’s got some serious hurdles to clear herself. They deal with trust and whether she would be totally truthful when talking to Americans about serious policy matters.

None of the concerns about Clinton, to my mind, has a thing to do with her physical health.

She is sharp, engaged, well-informed, articulate.

Donald Trump is none of those things.

Rudy Guiliani knows it, too.

Temperament, man … it’s the temperament

ecf305473b9b613c82db81e4bfeba584

Hillary Rodham Clinton keeps harping on an aspect of Donald J. Trump’s emotional makeup.

She contends in her stump speeches that the Republican Party’s presidential nominee lacks the temperament to be president.

Others have joined the chorus. Republicans echo Democrats in saying that Trump’s emotional outbursts bode ill for someone who seeks to become the next head of state, head of government and commander in chief of the world’s greatest military machine.

So … how’s Trump responding lately?

He’s launched into another Tweet-storm, this time hurling insults and invective at — are you ready? — two cable TV news talk show hosts! Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski — co-hosts of the MSBNC “Morning Joe” talk show — now are in Trump’s sights.

He calls them “unstable.” He hurls insults at them. Oh, and he’s also suggested out loud that the two of them are — gasp! – dating each other. Which makes me say: B … F … D, dude.

They’re both single.

Whatever.

The issue that Clinton keeps raising, though, seems to ring a bit truer today as Trump assails two TV talk show hosts.

Temperament? Sure, Trump’s got it.

Trump confounds them by holding rally … in Texas!

061616TTtrump000028_jpg_800x1000_q100

Donald J. Trump has said many times how he has surrounded himself with “the best people” to run his presidential campaign.

If they are “the best,” one can ask, why do they keep sending him (a) to states he has no chance of winning and (b) to states he has virtually no chance of losing in the upcoming election?

As Ross Ramsey of the Texas Tribune points out, Trump is coming to Austin — the one in Texas — for a political rally this week.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/08/22/analysis-texas-august-funny-place-trump-rally/

It’s an interesting call.

Trump, the Republican nominee, is losing all the battleground states to Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, North Carolina … they all need to hear from the GOP candidate.

Texans appear to have their minds made up. They’re going with Trump — apparently — even though a recent PPP poll said Trump leads Clinton by just 6 percentage points. That marks a significant whittling of the margin that Mitt Romney won by in 2012 over Barack Obama.

Trump, though, is going to stage a rally in Texas.

Go figure.

Shoot, as long as he’s in Texas, he ought to fly Trump One — or whatever they’re calling that jet of his — to Amarillo, where I know he’d get a hero’s welcome.

World is watching … through social media

Magnified illustration with the word Social Media on white background.
.

A wise man — or woman, perhaps — once said, “You can judge someone’s character by what they do when no one is looking.”

Whoever coined that axiom obviously lived long before the advent of social media.

These days, with virtually everyone over the age of 6 packing cameras in their cell phones, you have zero privacy. You cannot do anything at all without the potential of someone capturing it for posterity — or for gossip purposes.

Gee, do I have anyone in mind as I offer this tidbit? I’m thinking at this moment of Ryan Lochte, the champion U.S. Olympic swimmer and former golden boy of the American Olympic team.

He and some of his swim team pals were video recorded acting up in a Rio de Janeiro gas station. They reported that someone robbed them; it turned out they, at the very least, “embellished” their version of what happened.

A security camera recorded their shenanigans. Those eagle eyes, too, are part of the modern world that makes it virtually impossible to keep the inquisitive among us from staying current with what we do. It’s especially true if you’re a sports superstar, a politician, an actor or a reality TV star.

Do you remember when former Democratic U.S. Rep. Anthony “Carlos Danger” Weiner decided to take photos of his manhood and distribute them via social media to women who are not his wife? Did that numbskull ever consider that someone, somewhere, somehow would obtain pictures of Danger and send them out for the rest of the world to see?

How about the cops who beat the daylights out of motorists, only to have their misconduct recorded by passersby? Or the cop who shot the man to death in the back — as he was running away? That, too, was recorded by an onlooker.

The examples are literally endless.

This is the price any of us must realize we pay when we decide to act up — or act out — in public. It’s especially true if you’re a celebrity.

I don’t know about you, but I long ago vowed to be on my best behavior all the time whenever I venture outdoors. The world is watching … even little ol’ me.

‘Liberal media’ become target of the right

liberal_media_bumper_sticker

It’s always been this way.

The so-called “liberal media” do all they can to conspire to sway public decisions, policy and the actions of those in power … allegedly.

We’re hearing it again in social media circles: The “liberal media” want to elect Hillary Clinton!

I believe I shall call a time out for a moment or two.

The so-called “binary choice” features Clinton, the Democratic nominee, and Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee. One of them will be elected president of the United States on Nov. 8.

The “liberal media,” according to those on the right, are giving Clinton a pass on all those hideous scandals that have rocked her political history. Isn’t that interesting? How do those on the right even know about the scandals/controversies/dust-ups? They read about them in the media.

Clinton’s past has been covered over and over again. She’s been scrutinized, examined, vetted and interrogated by more reporters than anyone in public life in the past 20-plus years. Congress has investigated her to the hilt and those investigations have been covered — also to the hilt — by the media.

As for the liberal media conspiring to elect her, I want to offer this brief rejoinder. The print media in particular don’t have the time, let alone the inclination, to concoct such conspiracies. I used to adhere to the truism while working as a full-time journalist that producing a newspaper every day was little short of a miracle, given all the things that can go wrong during a given production cycle.

One final point …

If the media were truly conspiring to elect either Trump or Clinton, I would put my bet on the media wanting Trump to win. Think of it: Whenever he shoots off his mouth, he draws a crowd; he attracts viewers to TV news shows and readers to print publications.

Those readers and viewers all mean the same thing to media moguls: money, lots of money.

Liberal media conspiracy?

Give me a break. There. I’m out.

How do you bring Dead Sea back to life?

dead-sea-sinkholes-1024x576

This story caught my eye, not because it surprised me, but because it portends potential tragedy for one of the world’s great treasures.

And I’ve had the high honor and pleasure of seeing it up close.

I refer to the Dead Sea, a small inland lake at the mouth of the Jordan River between Israel and Jordan.

I got to swim in the Dead Sea in May and June 2009. Take it from me: You haven’t lived until you’ve taken a dip in water that is 10 times saltier than the ocean, and which contains natural oil that prevents your skin from wrinkling up the way it does in normal salt or fresh water.

Public TV’s NOVA documentary series is going to look at the future of the Dead Sea, which according to the producers of the program isn’t looking too great … at the moment!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/dead-sea-dying/

According to NOVA: “The lake has a storied place in history. The biblical Sodom and Gomorrah reportedly overlooked its shores, while King David allegedly sought relaxation there in 1000 BCE. A few paces away, on the mountain top of Masada, Herod the Great built palaces, and in 73 CE, a thousand Jewish zealots chose death in their fortress over surrender to the Romans. Centuries later, Byzantine monks lived in monasteries overlooking its shores, and Crusaders built their castles.”

That was then. The future looks bleak.

The lake levels are receding. We were told that while we swam in the Israeli side of the water.

The culprits are dams, as NOVA reports: “But since the 1960s, the sea has had a more troubled history. That’s when Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel started building dams and diverting the rivers for drinking, irrigation, and industrial use, the same waters that have been feeding the Dead Sea for millennia.”

The lake has lost about 112 feet in depth; its volume has dropped about 30 percent.

What to do? It’s interesting to me, as NOVA points out, that a joint Israeli-Palestinian environmental group is seeking to call serious attention to the danger of continued depletion of the Dead Sea.

Does the world allow this treasure to disappear? Does it continue to stand by while its water evaporates?

Perish the thought. Perish even the hint of a thought that the world could allow such an international tragedy to occur.

john

OK, I’m biased. I’m one of those who has enjoyed the water. I’ve slathered myself in that mystery mud the Israelis and Jordanians tell you has restorative qualities. You smear it all over your body, let it dry and then wash it off with fresh water.

I can’t say it made me look younger, but I felt great just being able to say I did it.

Check out the story attached to this blog post. It provides tremendous detail about the ancient history associated with the Dead Sea and the myriad problems that threaten this holy body of water.

The Dead Sea must not die!

A rigged election? Yes, but not the way Trump calls it

Texas house of reps

Donald J. Trump likes issuing dire warnings about a “rigged election” on the horizon.

He means, of course, that the presidential election will be rigged and that the Republican nominee will lose only because of “crooked” politicians seeking to grease it for Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton’s election to the presidency.

Trump is mistaken, but only partially so.

Yes, the election at another level will be “rigged.” The rigging occurs in the election of members of Congress.

The culprit is the tried-and-tested method of gerrymandering, which the Republicans in charge of Congress and in many state legislatures around the country have fine-tuned to an art form.

David Daley writes in a blog for BillMoyers.com that the rigging will allow the GOP to maintain control of the House of Representatives, even as the Senate could flip to Democratic control — and as Clinton is swept into the White House in a landslide.

http://billmoyers.com/story/real-way-2016-election-rigged/

Yep. The GOP has done well with this totally legal process of apportioning House congressional districts. It’s done every 10 years after the census is taken and ratified.

They have gerrymandered the dickens out of the House districts, drawing lines in cockamamie fashion to include Republican-leaning neighborhoods and to shut out Democrats.

Now, to be totally fair and above-board, this isn’t a uniquely Republican idea. Democrats sought to do it, for example, in Texas when they ran the Legislature. As recently as 1991, the Democratic-controlled Texas Legislature monkeyed around with congressional districts, seeking to protect Democratic incumbents in the U.S. House.

Amarillo became something of a testing ground for that experiment. The Legislature divided the city into halves, with the Potter County portion of the city included in the 13th Congressional District, while the Randall County portion was peeled off into the 19th District. Potter County contained more Democratic voters and the idea was to protect then-U.S. Rep. Bill Sarpalius of Amarillo, a true-blue Democrat, from any GOP challenge.

Randall County, meanwhile, is arguably ground zero of the West Texas Republican movement and its residents ain’t voting for a Democrat to any public office.

The tactic worked through the 1992 election, when Sarpalius was re-elected. Then came the 1994 Republican wipeout, led by that firebrand Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia. Sarpalius got swept out by the GOP tsunami that elected a young Clarendon rancher and self-proclaimed “recovering lawyer” named Mac Thornberry.

The Republicans would wrest control of the Legislature from the Democrats after that and they have perfected the art of gerrymandering. Sure, the Democrats tried to gerrymander themselves into permanent power.

Republicans, however, have proved to be better at it.

You want a “rigged” election? There it is.

The GOP presidential nominee, quite naturally, isn’t about to call attention to the real rigging of the U.S. electoral system. Instead, he’s going to fabricate suspicion in a scenario that will not occur.

Michele Bachmann: She’s b-a-a-a-c-k!

bachmanntrump

It’s hard to believe that for a time during the 2012 Republican Party presidential primary — brief as it was — this individual was a leading contender for the party’s presidential nomination.

I refer, of course, to Michele Bachmann, a former member of Congress from Minnesota.

Here is what she told Minnesota Public Radio: “He also recognizes there is a threat around the world, not just here in Minnesota, of radical Islam. I wish our President Obama also understood the threat of radical Islam and took it seriously.”

Bachmann is referring to her new pupil, Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump, who she is now advising on foreign policy.

For the umpteenth time, I feel the need to remind the president’s critics — even a particular congressional has-been — of something regarding the nation’s fight against international terrorists.

Barack Obama is as dedicated as any of those critics are in seeking out and killing terrorists, and, yes, that includes the radical Islamists.

While I, too, wish that the president would refer to the Islamists by name as he talks to the nation about the threat, I do not for a single, solitary instant believe he is doesn’t take them “seriously.”

I feel the need to restate something I’ve declared already: We’re killing terrorists daily in the field. Our air strikes are decimating them in Syria, Iraq and in other Middle East hideouts; our special operations forces are hunting them down on the ground and are coordinating with local armed forces and militia in killing them. Our intelligence apparatus is working with international allies every hour of every day to stop terrorist conspiracies.

These ill-informed critics keep harping on the attacks that do occur. They never acknowledge — not surprisingly — that we’re stopping many more attacks from occurring because of our highly capable intelligence operatives.

Still, none of this stops demagogues such as Michele Bachmann from repeating the tired canard about Barack Obama’s alleged lack of commitment to fighting the terrorists.

Earth to Bachmann: The president is fighting them and killing them.