Today’s face of the day has a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome as he’d rather see Bloomberg and Clinton (if she is his running mate) become the winning ticket. In fact, he’d rather see Sanders elected.
This is what Don Brash said on Facebook.
For the sake of the record, I disagree fundamentally. Yesterday, I replied to a US-based young man who commented on his preferences for President and, leaving aside my introductory remarks, this was how I expressed by view of Trump:
My strong preference for the next President is Bloomberg, like yours, and I suspect if he could persuade Hillary to be his running mate (as rumoured) the two would be unstoppable. And my ranking of preferences from Pete, through Amy and Joe corresponds with yours.
But even if Warren or Sanders were to be the Democratic candidate, I would still vote Democrat. Let’s face it: in the unlikely event that Sanders were to become President, his ability to do the kind of radical things he proposes would be virtually nil, given the way the US system works. We’re not going to see the House or the Senate suddenly full of people who would vote for that kind of radical agenda.
And my view is strongly motivated by the view that Trump is an almost unmitigated disaster. I say “almost unmitigated” because in a few specific policy areas I agree with him. I share his concern about excessive immigration. I agree that the top US corporate tax rate was far too high and needed to be reduced. I’m unsure what I think about man-made global warming, so I’m not totally opposed to his withdrawing the US from the Paris Agreement.
But after that, my agreement ends. He is an inveterate liar for starters – for example, claiming that US growth is better now than it’s been for years (not true); and that unemployment is low because of his brilliance (unemployment has been falling in an almost straight line since it peaked at the time of the GFC). Part of the reason why the economy is growing at all is that he is running a ginormous fiscal deficit – at the very time when he should be running a surplus. His intimidation of, for example, the Department of Justice (even when led by his strong supporter William Barr) is appalling, and the same can be said of the National Intelligence community.
He has no understanding of international trade, and seems to feel that if the US is running a trade deficit with country X it is clear evidence that country X is exploiting the US. His imposition of tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminium on “security grounds” has got to be nuts.
And internationally, he has done more to destroy the system of global alliances on which peace has been maintained for the last 75 years than anybody else alive or dead. The US created the WTO almost alone, and now the US is destroying it (by refusing to appoint anybody to the WTO appeal body, without which the WTO can’t operate). He has cast serious doubt on the US commitment to NATO at the very time that Russia seems intent on pushing back rather strongly. He abandoned the Kurds in Syria, after the Kurds had taken many thousands of casualties doing America’s dirty work on the ground, and when challenged about this Trump noted that the Kurds hadn’t fought with the Americans at Normandy! Good grief! Perhaps most egregious of all, he tore up the Iran nuclear deal despite the fact that Iran was complying with it in every detail – mainly, it seems, because Obama had made the deal. What Trump has told the world is “On no account trust America’s word. Even if the current Administration keeps its word, the next one may ignore it.” Why would the North Korean madman, or anybody else for that matter, trust the US to keep its solemn agreement? And his policy of ever-tighter sanctions against Iran appears to be aimed at starving Iranians so that they rebel against their government – I certainly don’t like their government at all, but not only is starving a population a pretty ruthless approach to policy, it is not even obvious that the policy works: the hard liners in Iran appear to be getting more and more strongly entrenched.
So no, under no circumstances would I vote for Trump. As indicated, my first preference by a substantial margin is Bloomberg, but I’d take any alternative to Trump, particularly given the fact that it is highly unlikely that any kind of radical agenda would get through either the House or the Senate, let alone both.Don Brash Facebook page
Our very own writer for Insight Politics Olivia Pierson had this to say to Don Brash in response:
Good God Don, I cannot believe what I’m reading here… TDS – et tu Brute??
Let’s face it: in the unlikely event that Sanders were to become President, his ability to do the kind of radical things he proposes would be virtually nil, given the way the US system works. We’re not going to see the House or the Senate suddenly full of people who would vote for that kind of radical agenda.
We have exactly seen the House full of people who would vote for “that kind of radical agenda.” Or did you miss the Mueller investigation along with the Impeachment trial??
Would you rather see a bloody COMMUNIST at the helm? I guess you would. And the Kurds have still been fighting side by side with Americans – in fact helped Trump get al-Baghdadi – they’re not as pissed as you over his withdrawal from Syria. And they were not abandoned, they were made to have talks with their own President, considering they still live in Syria. Should Trump have initiated a Regime Change?
And the post-war order which you say has kept peace for the last 75 years has resulted in the selling of European cultures down the river – For god’s sake, it has cost us – and the account of that cost is not fully in yet.
I actually voted for you on the ACT ticket – and right now, what you have shared – I see no difference between you and Jacinda with your OrangeManBad equations. Sheesh!
Where the heck do you get your news from, CNN?Don Brash facebook page
If you enjoyed this BFD face of the day please consider sharing it with your friends.