Trump — With moderate Republicans, who needs foes?

The letters in the Telegraph lambasting Trump continue [09/12/16] and that is to be expected in this polarized political season. What is not to be expected, at least by savvy political debaters, is the ease with which these letter writers inconveniently ignore the rebuttals already made in total disregard of the usual rules followed in policy debates!

Take for instance, Len Gregor of Kathleen who anticipates the lack of “backbone” of House Republicans and takes exception with the aphorism of “voting for the lesser of two evils,” supposedly championing the Libertarian candidate. The problem with Mr. Gregor’s arguments is that state voters democratically chose Trump (not the GOP leadership in a smoke filled room as Mr. Gregor and others have implied); and thus Trump would be the main contender, the popular choice of Republican grassroots voters, a virtual  mandate to be taken into account — if the election were sent from the Electoral College to the U.S. House of Representatives, regardless of lack or possession of “backbone”!

As to voting purportedly against evil, it would be effectively Republican votes the Libertarian candidate would largely siphon off, not from “some disaffected Democrats,” who have instead an insignificant challenge in Jill Stein of the Green Party. So Mr. Gregor’s effort would go to “Crooked Hillary,” as much as he would want to deny it. But much of this argumentation has already been alluded to in a previous article. I wish he had tried to refute it instead of modifying previous objections to the proverbial “lesser of two evils” contention.

That same day we also heard from Jack Bernard of Peachtree City, a letter writer who has identified himself as a retired health care executive. The problem here is that in every letter he has penned that I have read Mr. Bernard has always come from the left side of the political spectrum, antipodal to conservatism and republicanism. For example he has argued for ObamaCare and socialized medicine, and yet he insists he's a Republican!

This time Mr. Bernard fulminates against ”two flawed candidates” but initially praises Trump for side issues. His real intention, to sink Trump, finally reveals itself by his playing the 1964 Johnson vs. Goldwater fear mongering card — pondering Trump’s “fingers on the button controlling the bomb”! With Republican friends like this, who needs Democratic foes!

Written by Dr. Miguel Faria

Dr. Miguel A. Faria is an associate editor in chief and world affairs editor of Surgical Neurology International and the author of "Cuba in Revolution — Escape from a Lost Paradise." His website is www.haciendapub.com.

This letter to the editor may be cited as: Faria MA. Trump — With moderate Republicans, who needs foes? The Telegraph, HaciendaPublishing.com, September 18, 2016. Available from: http://www.haciendapublishing.com/randomnotes/trump-%E2%80%94-moderate-republicans-who-needs-foes

The letter to the editor appeared in the Macon Telegraph, Sunday, September 18, 2016.

Copyright © 2016 Miguel A. Faria, Jr., MD

Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (3 votes)
Comments on this post

Hillary vs. Trump!

RE. Our debate in consecutive Sunday’s Telegraph

Sept 27, Dear Dr. Faria,
…Responding to your letter in the previous Sunday’s Telegraph was difficult for me because we started out on a more or less friendly basis, but as you know if you’ve read any of my previous Telegraph letters about Trump, I am appalled by him and bewildered as to how any intelligent person can support him for the presidency. And so I just couldn’t let your letter go unanswered; it virtually demanded to be answered in The Telegraph. Now, of course, I will be closely watching the letters column to see whether you reply.
  
One of the tragedies of 2016 is that it had all the hallmarks of a Republican year. Generally, after eight years of one party in the White House, the voters are ready for a change. That may be doubly true this year, as Obama is widely unpopular, his failures in foreign policy are manifest and his errors domestically almost as much so. In the same letter in the Telegraph I also talked about Obama’s and Hillary’s failure in Iraq.

But what Republicans got as their nominee was Trump, whose impulsiveness, unpredictability and lack of experience and decorum make him unacceptable as president. Yes many Republicans voted for him in the primaries, but as I point out in my letter, they were a minority. 
 
This is doubly tragic because he has indeed given long-needed voice to the frustrations of tens of millions of Americans, including me, in a number of ways, notably regarding political correctness and the invasion of our country through illegal immigration. Trump is the first major candidate ever to have the guts to tell it like it is on immigration. An impregnable, Berlin-style wall should have been built 40 years ago. And Hillary will not only maintain or increase the level of immigration, including admitting more unvetted Syrian refugees, but will nominate additional activist Supreme Court justices who will chart a liberal course for our nation for decades to come. But she is unlikely to get us into World War III, and the potential extinction of human life on earth, and to me that obviously overrides everything else. As I said, it’s a tragic year.  
In closing, two quick notes about differences between what I submitted and what was published. My suggested headline was “Trump illusions,” which I thought nicely paralleled the “Trump letters” headline on your letter, but which they changed to “Do they really know more?,” which I don’t like at all... Sincerely, David Mann 

Sept. 27, Hi David,
Thank you for your letter... True, your letter was the best of the contrarian letters, the only serious opponent. In fact I sent in a s short reply that may or may not be published but it is posted at haciendapub.com.

… Incidentally, as you might have read from my initial article, my favorite candidate was not Trump either and detested what the animosity he incited with my favorite candidates, but as the selected candidate in the primaries, I supported him. My candidates were Cruz first, Rubio, second. Hillary would be much worse for the country than Trump for reasons I have stated.

If you read the comments under these articles you will find that some of our readers thought as you did about Trump, and one or two of them came around. I hope you do so too. And I really appreciate you letting me know about your letter. Sincerely, Dr. Miguel A. Faria

Sept. 29, Dear Dr. Faria,
Thanks you for your gracious response in Wednesday’s paper and for judging my letter to be more thoughtful than the others. Obviously we simply disagree about the risk involved in Trump’s becoming commander in chief. Perhaps you saw that Republican John Warner, former secretary of the Navy, former Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, former five-term senator from Virginia and generally acknowledged to be a great friend of the military, on Wednesday endorsed Hillary, declaring her “prepared to be a world leader and the United States president” and saying he was “distressed” by some of Trump’s comments about the military. 
 
The only thing I would disagree with in your Wednesday letter is that I would not be voting for the Republican candidate, whoever he or she might have been. I think that Cruz, Rubio or almost any of the original 17 Republican candidates would make a better president than Hillary. We need a change of course!  

My expectation, however, is that Hillary will win and will not be the absolute disaster that so many fear but will essentially be four more years of the same that we have had under Obama. (Of course many would say that HAS been a disaster!) Sincerely, David Mann
———
Rather than persist in a tautologous exchange, Dr. Faria quotes from his original article in response to both the persistent general attacks on Trump and in explaining why Trump is vastly preferable to Hillary:

… I disagree with Trump on numerous issues; most prominently is the fact he has severely fractured the Republican Party, violating Reagan’s axiom of not attacking fellow Republicans. But Trump has also done some good, like breaching the monolithic wall of political correctness and reigniting freedom of speech — necessary activities for the cause of liberty.

Trump very unfairly has been likened to Hitler and accused of being a fascist by other liberal journalists, but as Dr. David Stolinsky, a Jewish scholar, has pointed out: “Trump is not a Nazi nor anti-Semitic. Two of his children are married to Jews, and one converted to Judaism.” As for fascism, Dr. Stolinsky further writes: “If fascism comes to America, it will come in the guise of fighting fascism. It will come in the guise of disrupting Trump rallies because Trump is a ‘Nazi.’ It will come in the guise of shutting off conservative opinions because they are ‘hate speech.’ It will even come in the guise of ‘tolerance.’ It will come in whatever guise is useful in diverting attention from the mob’s own totalitarian behavior.”

For their part, although the mainstream media have done their job in sheltering, diminishing, and squelching many of Hillary Clinton’s scandals over the years — from the time of her husband’s presidency to the very present — there is enough documentation for the rest of what is known to justly deny her the U.S. presidency, if an informed and vigilant citizenry duly exercise their right and responsibility. Trump may sometimes be an overbearing individual, an unknown quantity, but he is at least a successful businessman. Hillary is a conniving, imperious known quantity, much of it saturated with incompetence and corruption, as testified most recently by the Benghazi affair, the email scandal, and the very serious mishandling of classified information.

But let’s return to Trump, if he gets elected he will be bound from extreme mischief by the chains of the Constitution like all other previous presidents. Binding a loose cannon without ideology would be far easier than a determined autocratic ideologue with a party behind her.”

Addendum (Sept 30)- I neglected to mention, David, that no one should be surprised that several generals and Navy top brass have raised objections to Trump's ideas, considering the way he is rocking the boat with his intention to insist that Europeans as part of NATO shoulder a bigger share of their own defense! This has the Europeans, as well as those supporting the status quo in the U.S. military, worried, and with good reason!

Trump for the people, not the liberal elite!

Dear Miguel,
...I read the exchanges on your website, and I am still at a loss over the number of Republicans who are searching for the ideal candidate. There are none, and the Republican party, which some wish to defend has destroyed itself before Trump even declared his candidacy. What is further puzzling to me are the goals of the Democrat Party which keep everyone in line and help them develop a unity that the Republicans have not had since Reagan even though I disagree with their goals. The Republicans are a classic example of “losers” who do not know how to win, to fight for what they want, and to organize people to support them. They are like a football team that has each player doing what they individually want and have no strategy for even developing a strategy much less winning.

I read George Will’s comments this morning about Trump, which I think you could find on Google, and to me he is an arrogant, pseudo intellectual, who has little common sense or understanding of how angry the electorate is, particularly with people like himself, who is a self selected voice of Conservatism. The problem he has, as do the legions of people aligned against Trump and his policies, is that these elitists are totally out of touch with what the mass of people are saying and what they have suffered as a result of the failure of an opposing strategy to Obama.

It is inconceivable to me that any reasonably thinking person could even consider voting for Hillary Clinton as she is not only a pathological liar but also a sociopath, in my opinion. The people are totally against the Establishment everywhere in the world today. We have seen that in Brexit, in England, and a similar type of populism is occurring in Italy and France. It is also really what started with the Revolutions in the Middle East, which as I have written, were taken over by others who had their own interests in power and who were more organized to put their agenda in place. The Muslim Brotherhood is an example in Egypt. Obama supported them; many of the Muslim Brotherhood are in high places in the US Government, and El Sisi put an end to their rule by force. His example is what needs to be done, when a situation gets out of hand as it did in Egypt.

The Talking Heads (Commentators) on television, the Media, the Republicrats and Democrats, the politicians, the large international corporations, the lobbyists and others who have personal agendas for power and a desire for a part of the money the government takes from the people and gives to the members of the Establishment are all those who are opposing Trump. He represents the anti Establishment candidate. There is no other to support. I am amazed that with all this opposition, Trump, with less money spent than others who oppose him, is so close in the polls, which I also take with some skepticism. What do the people want is the question? Who has the best answer for them? That decision is not even close. The answer is obvious. If one only looks at whom Hillary would select for the Supreme Court, that alone is argument enough to support Trump.

But, there are many more positive reasons to support Trump, which I am sure that you have stated before. It is time for a Change for the better. More of the same policies as Obama has instituted will destroy the USA. It is an election of the policies of the Establishment vs the will of the people. That is a simple decision to make.

James I. Ausman, MD, PhD, is Professor of Neurosurgery at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles (UCLA); Editor-in-Chief of Surgical Neurology International (SNI); President, Future Healthcare Strategies; Chairman of the Board, The Waymaster Corporation Productions' and Creator, Executive Producer, THE LEADING GEN® TV Series. Dr. Ausman travels to all parts of the world teaching and lecturing.

Trump vs Hillary rallies!

From the Macon Telegraph

Mike Ganas: They have to turn away thousands at Trump rallies because of capacity, and Healthy Hillary's campaign has to PAY people to attend hers!

Willy Bean: They had to turn away 12,000 of that WWII bunch at yesterday's rally. I think your giving Geritol too much credit. Just like they'll pay to bus the ignorant to the polls for their vote. Democrats have been buying those plantation votes for 100 years.

Mike Mauro: Liberals, no matter how you whine, cry or jump up and down, I still don't hear the fat lady singing yet. Get on the Trump train or get run over by it.

So there is no lesser of two evils, umh?

Willy Bean (Sept 18): Dr. Faria, good points. Jack Bernard falls right in with --- and Erick Erickson. What’s ‘in it’ for them is beyond me....

Jimmy Jones (Sept. 18): When the choice is of two evils, there is no lesser evil.

Dr. Miguel A. Faria: Really, sir? Let’s examine your assertion and just take one example for brief moral examination. Are we to believe there was no difference in evil in the oppressive rules of Stalin and Khrushchev in the totalitarian USSR. True, both were evil men, but there was no difference? Khrushchev ordered purges and massacres in the Ukraine under Stalin; he presided over the ruthless suppression of the Hungarian Revolution (1957), true; and he maintained communist repression in the USSR until 1964, true. On the other hand, Stalin (1924-1953) ruled under absolute terror and exterminated 40-60 million people, including most of his own family — I suppose his millions of victims were mere statistics, as he himself adjudicated!

Dr. Faria critics and defenders spar!

Messiers Jack Bernard, Len Gregor, and David Mann — my irate critics for defending Trump as the GOP candidate, like it or not, selected by a democratic process — have all written a second or third round of accusatory letters attempting to reprove me for my defense of Trump in this affair. Two of these letters are quite long and among them they way surpass my humble critiques of their positions. All of these letters can be found posted in the Macon Telegraph Op/Ed pages dated Sept. 18 (Gregor and Bernard), Sept. 21 (Bernard), Sept. 24 (Gregor), Sept. 25 (Mann). My responses are posted in this page along with several letters and comments by other Telegraph readers and/or my correspondents, selected for their informative content. —Miguel A. Faria, M.D., Macon

Michael Albert Harrell (Sept 23): Len Gregor, Could you give us some examples (in context) of those claims?)

Delores Rinehardt Hicks (Sept.25): Mr. Mann, look at what this “officials,” these advisers have wrought us… a good number of the signers worked for Bush, no surprise they are against Trump since he has bashed the policies of the Bush administration, thus bashing them. They would be the ones who got us into the war in Iraq, not exactly glowing resumes. given the poor judgement many of these men have demonstrated over the years. Their opinions doesn’t matter much matter. They lied and manipulated data and information, their group opinion is utterly tainted. These advisers are fundamentally the originators of the instability in the Middle East…

Mike Ganas (Sept. 25): Mr. Mann, elections aren't decided using Common Core math. Thank God for that. Mr. Trump received 13.3 million votes. Ted Cruz received 7.6 million. Mr. Trump was the CLEAR winner, both in popular votes as well as delegates. Look, I realize you and and the neocons and the corporate-owned establishment all wanted another Captain Underpants or John McSame, but we the people are sick and tired of candidates who represent the big corporations instead of American workers. Therefore we turned out in record numbers and made our voices heard loud and clear.

Horacio (Sept. 25): David Mann's letter today chiding you for you support of Trump sealed my dismissal of him as anyone to pay attention to. Like so many useful idiots, he conjures up out-dated data, twists it to try to make a point, and thus destroys his own credibility.  If he has been listening to Trump of late, he must have a deaf ear. What Trump is saying makes absolute sense and offers hope to the nation—can Mann equate Hillary with this? The thing about these sorts of pseudo-intellectuals is that they fail to grasp the whole story. They mire themselves in minutia, convincing themselves that they are profound and right. Nothing, of course, is further from the truth.

For him to reference a list of deadbeat, feckless, traditional Republicans and a military general or two (who are the most ignorant of all bureaucrats!) is tantamount to lunacy.  For the past eight years the GOP has been an abject failure; the Congress is impotent and has let Obama corrupt the Constitution with impunity. And, here we stand, about to possibly repeat the Obama disaster, and the likes of Mann nitpick the only hope this country has by electing Trump. The bogus nonsense about Trump as a loose cannon who will push the nuclear Red Button is insane. Hillary— who disproved she would be alert for any 3:30 AM telephone call with Benghazi— were she elected would have to be helped to the phone and an aide steady her palsied finger for her to push the button. As for Gary Johnson: he would most likely be too high to realize it and pick up the phone to order a pizza with pot toppings.

Why wasn't Barack Obama— with absolutely no credentials or experience— scrutinized back in 2008 like the media are now doing to Trump— but not Hillary?  Unfortunately, there might not be as many who see the broader picture like you and I, and will, in their mass ignorance, bring this county down with their vote for Hillary. We must "Keep the Faith”....

MAF (Sept.27): Horacio, LOL!

MAF (Sept. 25): Dear Editor, Several letters have been published responding critically to my missive of September 18 defending Trump as the man selected by the Republican voters in the several states. Two of the letter writers responded in the same vein. First, let’s just say that Trump’s viable opponents are not Johnson or Stein, as these two individuals claimed directly or indirectly— but the most corrupt and mercenary individual to grace the history of American presidential elections, “Crooked Hillary,” as one of them admitted. They don’t rebut an iota of my brief arguments but continue to rehash the same points. Second, I do commend David Mann for a more thoughtful reply and whose points, such that Trump was selected by only a plurality of voters, are well taken. But fear mongering and crying wolf won’t do (for reasons already stated; see also Horacio's and Ms Hicks' rebuttal comments)! Finally, we live in an Aristotelian world of reality, not a Platonic world of pies in the sky. The lesser of the two evils is Trump and that remains virtually unassailable, considering even the arguments of my disputants. Frankly, I seriously doubt that any of these letter writers would have been voting for the Republican candidate anyway, whoever he or she might have been! —Miguel A. Faria, M.D., Macon

Addendum (Sept 27): It is interesting all these critics berate Trump, sometimes with good reason, but never defend Crooked Hillary, who is his opponent and the only viable alternative!--- MAF

"Willy Bean" on Trump!

Willy Bean: (Macon Telegraph) Dr. Miguel Faria, the lamenting media is desperately focusing all their attention on Trump to distract us from the disgusting public service life Hillary has been providing herself for over 40 years. Most anyone would be the lesser of the two evils compared to Hillary but they wouldn’t have a viable chance to win, unlike Trump. Lastly, who would have even thought of a guy with a funny haircut from Queens NY would win the hearts of America. His rallies are unprecedented and that’s not to brag about Trump so much, but a sign of how hungry is America for leadership that puts America first and foremost!

Degree of evil matters

Perhaps from a Biblical position one could say all sin is evil; therefore, in God's eyes there is no difference in one evil act or another. I won't enter that discussion, as I am not qualified to do so. Hence, I speak from a human and societal perspective.

A husband who repeatedly beats his wife would be considered evil by most people in the western countries. However, few would likely consider such a wife beater as evil as say John Wayne Gacy, the serial murderer of at least 33 boys.

Degree counts when evil is concerned. The concept of evil is no different than the concept of pain. Most people would readily agree that there is a big difference between getting a splinter in a finger and getting a hand smashed. Likewise, from a conservative stance there is a big difference between the evil that Clinton can do politically versus Trump.

-----

MAF: Excellent examples, Koba. Incidentally did I ever tell you that the best, or rather most captivating, biography of Stalin is Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore (2003)? Montefiore is also author of Young Stalin. The Court of the Red Tsar deals with personal and family stuff that is incredible. I have a brief description under Great Books.