Archive for Thursday, February 8, 2018

Letter to the editor: Trump is dangerous

February 8, 2018


To the editor:

Frankly, I’m scared. I’ve watched Republicans prop up Donald Trump as he undermines the Constitution, as he profits from the presidency, as he uses the U.S. Treasury as his privy purse, as he vilifies our allies because they disagree with him, as he lies extravagantly about everything, as he muddies the separation of powers referring to “my generals” and “my Justice Department.” But certainly, their greed must take a back seat to Trump’s request for new “low-yield” nuclear weapons. Surely this is the final red line.

Thanks to Trump’s incendiary tweets and war-mongering rhetoric, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has advanced the Doomsday Clock a notch closer to the end of life as we know it. That a grandfather can even consider the use of any type of nuclear missile is an act of outrageous betrayal, egregious selfishness and blind, conscienceless hostility and shows an indecent disregard for their future and everyone’s. No human being with children or grandchildren can possibly support a nuclear strike of any “yield.”

We must urge our representatives to support the bipartisan Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017 (HR669/S200), which prevents the president of the United States from launching a nuclear attack absent a declaration of war by Congress.

The survival of our world is in their hands. Nuclear war is not an option. Life on Earth before party.


Bob Smith 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Yes, the howling mob on the port side of the aisle only has a single arrow in its quiver.

Ken Lassman 3 months, 2 weeks ago

So I didn't know you all were adherents to the "Tiny Dick Syndrome." Yes, many of Trump's actions such as his discussing the use of low yield nuclear weapons as a viable war tool have been attributed to less than well-endowed nether regions, but I'm surprised that you agree with that theory!

Brock Masters 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I think I OD on hyperbole after reading that LTE.

Bob Summers 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Why would Putin want an alpha male like Trump over a conciliatory like HRC?

Brock Masters 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Can someone provide an example of when Trump used the Treasury as his “privy purse?”

Also, isn’t Justice department under the executive branch and isn’t he commander in chief so how are his comments a violation of the separation of powers?

As for nukes - is okay to use nukes after we are attacked and Americans die, but not before to stop an attack and prevent loss of American life? How backwards is that - America first and if it means nuking a country that threatens us to stop their attack then so be it.

Greg Cooper 3 months, 2 weeks ago

No, Brock, the separate departments are SEPARATE. That's how separation of powers works: one branch can not willy-nilly its way into destruction of the nation. Law is law, law review is the restriction and explanation of that law. No single branch can do anything without the permission of another. That's how a republic works. And why ours is in such present danger. If the head of state can not understand that, he needs a severe lesson. That's why we have the legislative and judicial review, one of the other.

Brock Masters 3 months, 2 weeks ago

No Greg, separation of powers refers to the three branches of government. Departments are not branches. And, you ignore the fact that the president is the commander in chief.

Think about it - how did Obama instruct his agencies to do anything, think DACA and Obamacare if separation of powers prevented it? He could do it because they fall under the executive branch and the prez is the boss.

Disappointed you weigh in without understanding the issue.

Greg Cooper 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Ashamed to admit I read it wrong. Please lash me several times. Really, a mistake and I apologize. Thanks for pointing it out.

Brock Masters 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Aw geez Greg we all mess up but few man up and admit it. No lashes.

Ken Lassman 3 months, 2 weeks ago

How about using the New York Trump Towers and Mar-A-Lago as his frequent retreats, causing untoward disruption and expensive security detail for both locations and way more secret service overtime for starters?

You are correct about the Department of Justice and the FBI being part of the Executive Branch. The Department of Justice enforces the law. Federal courts interpret laws and rule on whether or not they’re constitutional so need to be in the Judicial Branch as part of our Separation of Powers doctrine. This doesn't mean that the Justice Department shouldn't be enforcing the law against other members of the Executive Branch if violations are occurring, and if the president is firing leadership investigating the legality of his campaign activities, then that indeed is obstruction of justice.

Nukes were seen to be justified as a way to prevent untoward loss of life through the invasion of Japan, and historians have largely supported this gruesome calculation. However to add a "low yield nuclear weapon" to an otherwise conventional wartime setting has always been seen as crossing the red line where the ends do not justify the means. Talk to the folks at the Leavenworth War College if you don't believe me.

Steve Hicks 3 months, 2 weeks ago

That's the truth, Randi (which is why the trolls are immediately out in force to attack it).

It's extremely dangerous for America that a man like the current president, with the backing of his Toady Party Congressional majority, has so much power...and the reckless belligerent do immense, lasting, harm to us all.

Anybody who loves America can see the danger we are in. And others attack anyone who warns us.

Richard Aronoff 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Randi Hacker knows as much about the separation of powers as a pig knows about Sunday.

Regarding the first use act, it is exactly the wrong thing to do. You do not announce to a potential adversary what you WON'T do.

And if the Dear Leader was stupid enough to launch a missile toward the United States, I don't think a president could get a declaration of war from Congress in fifteen minutes.

Steve Hicks 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Randi's point was that the Dear Leader in Washington might also be "stupid enough to launch a missle." That seems at least as great a concern as that the one in Pyongyang might: and hopefully Americans can do something more effective to restrain ours.

Or is it only a stupid thing for their Dear Leader to do, and not stupid if ours does it ?

Calvin Anders 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I do agree that Trump is dangerous. But he is also a distraction. Every time public opinion starts to coalesce around income inequality and the perverse extremes of wealth distribution, we see distractions thrown up to try to change the subject. Trump is now the new boogeyman, designed to concern conservatives and alarm liberals. Liberals are admonished to stop pushing for progressive reforms in the Democratic party because Trump is "so much more dangerous" than corporate money in politics. Many conservatives are also unsettled by Trump's overt fascist posturing. They are also thus discouraged from reflecting on the fact that the rich continue to accumulate a larger and larger portion of our nations overall wealth. And all the pundits and all the corporate media organizations want us to conflate a "robust economy" including increases in the stock market and big corporate profits with economic benefits to the working class. The middle class and the poor are continuing to be forced to cede more and more of their hard earned cash to the greedy super rich. And we just don't talk about it.

Bob Smith 3 months, 2 weeks ago

How do you think the Democrats are planning to enforce wealth distribution? A mass of JBTs fanning out over the nation and emptying the bank accounts of the petite bourgeoisie?

Steve Hicks 3 months, 2 weeks ago

"And all the pundits and all the corporate media organizations want us to conflate a "robust economy" including increases in the stock market and big corporate profits with economic benefits to the working class."

Amen, Calvin. Whether the biggest of the major issues we need to deal with or not, it's certainly one of them, and you put it very well.

Steve King 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Ah the boys are back pounding on the Liberal condition. How about the Conservative condition?

The Conserative Condition in black and white:

Owsely County Kentucky. Highest food stamp use in the nation. 99% White. 95% Conservative Republicans.

95% of the poorest counties are Republican. 8 of the 10 poorest states are Republican. Red states take more from the Federal Government than they pay in.

86% of the nation supports the Dreamers. Trump dangles citizenship because he wants $25 Billion in tax dollars to build his wall. Knowing he won't get it. Bluster.

So who's going to pay for the Wall? Trump is asking for $25 billion

I thought Mexico was paying for the Wall. I've heard no plan how that happens. Guess he lied huh?

Brock Masters 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Good thing for white privilege.

Trump is trading citizenship for border security- I’m good with it. Sometimes you have to give to get. If the Dems really cared about the DACA recipients they’d jump all over it. The cost is just a blip in total spending and the payback is priceless if you really care about the DRs

Scott Burkhart 3 months, 2 weeks ago

“But as I’ve already said,” Obama noted, “I have had my military and our team look at a wide range of options.” Barack Obama, August 2013.

If the left says it, it's fine. If the right says it, it's the end of time.

Ken Lassman 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Neither Bush nor Obama's Nuclear Posture Reviews advocated for an expanded use of nuclear weapons through the development and dissemination of low yield nuclear weapons. This is different, Scott, and you know it.

Scott Burkhart 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I particularly like the line, "lies about everything." Generalize much? (Pun intended.)

Steve Hicks 3 months, 2 weeks ago

No, got Randi's statement wrong. She didn't say Trump "lies about everything."

Randi said Trump "lies EXTRAVAGANTLY about everything" (my emphasis).

There: now Randi's statement is right.

Calvin Anders 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Yes, Scott, you are right, Trump does occasionally tell the truth, but he lies so often and so casually and about both trivial and extremely consequential things, that he has managed to cultivate a reputation among his supporters, his detractors and the media as someone who is as likely to lie as to tell the truth. There is not an expectation of honesty. He seems to want to be regarded as untrustworthy. And at this stage of the game this expectation that he is unreliable works both for and against him. But it only works one way for the rest of us. We have a President who is distrusted by other world leaders. He is distrusted by everyone with whom he interacts. It weakens our nation's position in the world community. His lack of credibility is costing our country in ways that will impact our economic and military security for decades.

Gary Stussie 3 months, 2 weeks ago

This letter reflects the New Democratic Party ... merit-less accusations ... obscene and inflammatory name calling ... senseless obstruction and litigation ... constant agitation and divisiveness. Look at these comments ... and Hillary called us Deplorable!

Steve Hicks 3 months, 2 weeks ago

The most important words in the title the JW gave this letter are the ones left unstated, as understood: “…to America.” Stated in full, “Trump is Dangerous TO AMERICA.”

Or, “…TO ALL OF US:” same thing.

The “understood” words shouldn’t need to be stated in full. But they do if there are people who don’t “understand” them.

Everyone of minimal intelligence, minimally fluent in English, understands that sentence means “…to America.” But some who understand the linguistic function of the words still fail to understand them cognitively. The idea that “Trump is Dangerous TO AMERICA” never quite dawns on some. Nor the fact that it should matter to them.

I’ve arranged for some friends to provide typically idiotic “non-cognitive” comments on this thread, as examples (above: thanks, guys, for helping me make my point !).

It’s hard to figure how anyone could not “get” that “Trump is Dangerous to America.” My best guess is that they simply refuse to understand. Only people who WANT to understand things ever do.

The “non-cognitive” also evidence refusal to understand they are part of “us;” i.e., America. People usually draw a line between themselves and others in the self-congratulatory belief they’re BETTER (“smarter,” for example) than others. That's quite clearly the self-image of many in that demographic.

Perhaps that’s the problem of the willfully non-cognitive commenters here (examples above). Perhaps they refuse to “get” that “Trump is Dangerous TO AMERICA” because they identify with America so much less than with Trump, who shares their belief of being smarter than everyone else.

What’s beyond speculation is that only people who identify as part of America have anything useful to say about America’s well-being and future. Those with no “skin in the game” don’t share that intent: so their input is at best a distraction, at worst intentionally harmful.

If we’re committed to America’s principles, we have to recognize the “right” of even the “non-cognitive” to speak their foolish and destructive opinions. But we also recognize their opinions don’t share our purpose of doing good for America.

Whatever else it is, such people’s claim they intend to “Make America Great Again” is absolute hypocrisy. They show, even in what they choose to understand or not understand, that their purpose is to do great harm to America. Anyone who will choose to understand can see proof of their intent, in their actions, every day.

Gary Stussie 3 months, 1 week ago

Try to get through one comment without calling other respondents, who do not share you horribly biased, and often non-nonsensical rants, names.

Steve Hicks 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Helloooo ? Any rational people out there with honest arguments that Trump is NOT dangerous to America ? If so, your silence is deafening.

Steve Hicks 3 months, 1 week ago

Rational honest arguments that Trump is NOT dangerous to us all...? Last call, please.

Gary Stussie 3 months, 1 week ago

Low yield tactical nuclear weapons ...

Your beloved HuffPost gets it, why don't you?

North Korea’s Simple But Deadly Artillery Holds Seoul And U.S. Hostage

"Burrowed into hard granite mountain faces and protected behind blast doors, 15,000 North Korean cannons and rocket launchers are aimed at the glass skyscrapers, traffic-choked highways and blocks of apartment buildings 35 miles away in Seoul ― and the U.S. military bases beyond.

In a matter of minutes, these heavy, low-tech weapons could begin the destruction of the South Korean capital with blizzards of glass shards, collapsed buildings and massive casualties that would decimate this vibrant U.S. ally and send shock waves through the global economy.

This is why North Korea has shrugged off U.S. threats to end the country’s nuclear weapons program,"

Ken Lassman 3 months, 1 week ago

Interesting article; however the US has an even more powerful "bunker buster" bomb, the GBU-57, that could be used successfully against the North Korean arsenal aimed at Seoul that would not require the development of low yield nuclear bombs. Keeping nuclear weapons on the other side of a red line is probably way more important for the security of the US than providing us with any tactical advantages that we would not otherwise have.

Armen Kurdian 3 months, 1 week ago

That weapon can only penetrate a limited amount of earth, concrete, and reinforced steel. For example, the underground nuclear facilties used by Iran cannot be destroyed using conventional weapons. You'd need a LY nuke to get to them.

NK C2 and other facilities are too deep underground to be destroyed by a GBU-57, GBU-28, or other penetrator.

Bob Summers 3 months, 1 week ago

Congenital Liberals are dangerous.

They allow foreign interference in our elections by allowing Illegals Aliens to vote.

Then they create a fuss when ID is required.

Yet, they create a fantasy that Trump and Putin worked together to get Trump elected.

lol too funny what goes through the Liberal's mind to create their wild fantasies!!

Ray Mizumura 3 months, 1 week ago

Give 'em hell, Randi! Actually, the clueless clowns who object to what you say think it's hell, but it's the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Terrific, necessary letter, very smart alternative to the confederacy of dunces lined up against you.

Steve Hicks 3 months, 1 week ago

Hmmm. Continued deafening silence to my question.

Evidently none of his supporters can come up with an honest, rational argument that Trump is NOT dangerous.

Evidently even honest, rational Trump supporters (there must be one or two) agree that Randi is right: Trump is dangerous.

Steve Hicks 3 months, 1 week ago

(That kinda explains most pro-Trump argument, doesn't it ? When there's nothing positive to say about your guy, you have to go nuclear negative on the "other" side, to try to keep people from seeing your guy is the problem.)

Armen Kurdian 3 months, 1 week ago

Having just joined the conversation, I'll play:

1) He would never do a deal like the Iran deal where we negotiated with the world's greatest state sponsor of terror, give them $100B or so, and a clear path to a nuclear weapon.

2) He relaxed RoE allowing much quicker responses on the battlefield, taking politics out of the equation and letting the generals fight the war, greatly accelerating ISIS' defeat in Iraq and imminent defeat in Syria.

3) He's not in anyone's pocket.

4) the notion that his rhetoric wrt to NK is exacerbating the situation is absurd when you consider what that regime is.

Why he might be bad:

1) Like the previous President, no thoughts or concerns for national debt and fiscal responsibility, though he didn't lie about going 'line-by-line' in the budget like Obama did.

2) Abrasive, and can't cowboy your way through the Presidency, though Obama wasn't any better, probably worse.

No he's not perfect. A lot of drama, character issues, and unnecessary distractions, but far short of 'dangerous.'

Steve Hicks 3 months, 1 week ago

"Dangerous" seems exactly the right characterization of an unstable egomaniac with nuclear weapons: whether in Pyongyang or Washington.

Gary Stussie 3 months, 1 week ago

President Trump is dangerous! ... he represents a significant danger to the chances of Democrats electing another liberal "professor" to the presidency in 2020. People like you shoot the Democratic Party in the foot regularly with your name-calling rants.

Liberals say Trump's policies promote white privilege. They don't. They say his policies disfavor minorities, but they don't; they are race-neutral and aimed at lifting up all people. They say immigration enforcement policies are driven by nativism and bigotry. They aren't; they are animated by a love for America and the American idea, which is enshrined in our founding documents.

David Limbaugh said it well ..."America was mired in a perpetual malaise under Barack Obama, and the Democrats' goal, when Obama's scapegoating of George W. Bush had finally extended even beyond the Democrats' willing suspension of disbelief, was to delude Americans into accepting economic stagnation as inevitable and the new normal.

Democrats have no viable alternative agenda; everything they tried under Obama failed. Yet they're still promoting the same destructive ideas. That is why they have reduced themselves to ad hominem Trump slanders, bogus charges of collusion with Russia and blanket smears of conservatives as bigoted extremists.

Democrats are the ones who have become more extreme every year. Yesteryear's liberal extremism is far too conservative for today's Democratic Party. With Democrats' constant westward shifting of the goal posts, they regard mainstream conservatism as radical. Proof of their extremism and intellectual bankruptcy is their maniacal rhetoric, such as accusing Trump of being a dangerous dictator."

" maniacal rhetoric," ... that's you Steve!

Steve Hicks 3 months, 1 week ago

Can anyone here cite proof that Trump is NOT unstable...and NOT an egomaniac ?

Absent any honest proof for those contrary propositions, Randi's statement that Trump is dangerous, is true...and partisan bloviators who insist otherwise are self-deluded liars.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.