If you're one of those people who equate disagreeing with Trump, not understanding Trump or being critical of Trump, as hating Trump, you'll be easily offended.
If you're one of those people who equate agreeing with Trump, endorsing a Trump decision or seemingly giving Trump a pass when outrage is "expected", as loving Trump, you'll also be easily offended.
If you are easily offended STOP READING THIS because you are unable (or worse - unwilling) to look at things from a neutral perspective. You sure as hell won't be able to see it from mine. That being the case don't let me waste your time.
Still here? Read at your own peril.
Part One
2016 Election
Trump For President?
I didn't like Donald Trump. At all.
I didn't hate him, but in my view at the time I saw someone who was going to harm relations with Mexico, harm the economy, was a womanizer, a narcissist, and a privileged rich kid who never exactly grew up (as evidenced by the way he called opponents names much as a 6 year old would pick on a classmate in kindergarten).
I knew he was kind of like this long before he announced he was running for president, with his twitter feud with Rosie O'Donnell among others and his various interviews over the years.
I didn't even think he had a chance in hell of winning when he did throw his hat into the ring for the 2016 race. I thought it was a joke. I didn't think he'd get any kind of real attention. A few votes for laughs and maybe a little steam during the primaries but then the hoopla would die down and the Republicans would pick someone willing to walk the party line instead of some rich outsider - forgetting the Red vs. Blue rule of politics which is both sides will say and do whatever it takes to win and damn the consequences.
Mexico and The Wall
As the primaries went on and Trump continued to gain support and delegates, I found myself shaking my head at a lot of the things he said. What got under my skin was the rhetoric about building a wall along the Mexican border and then making Mexico pay for it. What concerned me was that Mexico is not only a border neighbor but a huge trading partner. Yes, illegal immigrants stream into the US every day from the Mexican side of the border and it is a problem that needs to be solved. I felt a new and improved wall in and of itself would be insufficient without investing more Border Patrol personnel, advanced electronic surveillance and engaging the Mexican government into deeper cooperation in regards to illegal border crossings, Trump was stuck (and still is stuck) on focusing on building a higher wall thinking it would be enough. I felt the lessons of the Maginot Line would have come in handy for him, but alas...
The wall would have symbolism for both sides. For Trump and his supporters it was seen as a bold step to stem the tide of illegal immigration. To me, I saw it as divisive. The war on drugs is being fought bravely south of the border by loyal Mexican police and military. I felt that suddenly building a wall and then forcing our Mexican partners to pay for the construction sent a terrible message which could demoralize them and perhaps even cause them to walk away leaving the cartels for us to deal with alone. The cartels are already crawling across the southern border and I feel if it weren't for the sustained efforts of the Mexican government to combat them the cartels push into this country would be far greater and far worse.
Name Calling
Politics, as mentioned above, is a game that is played to win. It's not uncommon for competing candidates to throw barbs and put a label or two on their opponents. Distasteful, but seemingly par for the course. I just don't recall it being done in the way Trump has done it. I'm sure people got a laugh or two when he got into scruffs on social media with the likes of Rosie O'Donnell but when he brought that kind of verbiage into the political ring I found it both childish and unbecoming of a person who has portrayed himself in a far more positive way. I felt this was also not the way a potential incoming president should act towards anyone, even if he dislikes them as much as he disliked Rosie. I couldn't help but wonder what might happen if he got into a war with words with other world leaders who, such as himself, are rather thin skinned and unable to shake off the slightest criticism. Would we be sending our military to fight a war based on traded insults? Would that be honorable?
Women Opposing Him
I don't know if Trump feels threatened by strong women. I think his daughter Ivanka is a strong woman and he had something to do with that for sure. I couldn't help but wonder though based on how he reacted to both Megyn Kelly and Hillary Clinton.
Kelly, during one of the Republican debates, asked Trump about past issues he's had with women, such as harassment claims. That led to Trump turning a lot of his attention on bashing Kelly, calling for her to apologize, calling for Fox (her employer at that time) to fire her. In fact for a time it seemed like he was more focused on her than his other opponents seeking the nomination. I found this worrisome. If he's that thin skinned that's a problem. If he's actually offended that someone would dare challenge him, that's a problem. The fact he went after her the way he did made me wonder if he had it in more for her because she was a woman. He did not go after men who were critical of him with the same kind of vigor, though he used lots of playground insults to address them all.
Whether he went after Clinton with the same vigor as he went after Kelly is debatable, and even if he did the stakes were much higher. Politics, remember? While using labels as "Crooked" to describe Hillary were very distasteful he did what anyone else opposing her would have done in questioning her conduct in regards to both the Libya fiasco and using an unsecured private email server where 30,000+ messages went missing and did so aggressively.
Emails and Russia
On one of his numerous campaign stops, Trump was going on a rant about Clinton and her missing emails and said maybe Russia could find them. Later on, the Democratic National Committee's emails were hacked and leaked by WikiLeaks. The hackers were, presumably and probably, Russians.
Often times, when this is brought up by the left, they cite this as Trump actually inviting a foreign government to interfere in our internal affairs. The fact it's Russia with a leader hell bent on screwing with our country any way he can short of starting a war makes it all the worse.The fact they did interfere made it even worse still.
I think context is required.
Did Trump actually invite Russia to interfere? Yes - and no. Trump was ranting. When people rant in general the filter is off and words just flow from the mouth. In my opinion Trump may have said the words but I felt he meant it as more wondering if anyone could get to the bottom of what happened to 30,000 emails. Clinton had testified to Congress about what she knew and didn't know about the emails and while she did own up to using a private email server which she was not supposed to be doing, she had no explanation as to why so many messages vanished and where they may have gone. The Russians are notorious for hacking and at that time in 2016 had been suspected of lots of activity - very much in the news feeds when Trump blurted out those words that day.
When the DNC was hacked and hundreds of emails were revealed by WikiLeaks the day before the national convention, the emails revealed some less than honorable activity within the party by the DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schulz (a close friend of Clinton's) and others working behind the scenes to tweak the nomination process to ensure Clinton's bid. The Mainstream Media quickly and quietly buried the contents of those emails after the convention, leaving only the fact that the DNC email was hacked. People on the left feeding off three facts (Trump seen asking Russia to find Clinton's emails, the DNC email server hacked, and a glaring lack of substance and context) in the weeks leading up to the election painted the picture of Trump collaborating with Russia to win the election.
(Note: I am not implying that Hillary Clinton knew of her good friend's efforts to help her secure the nomination. I will say that if she does know anything about it, she'll keep it to herself as any intelligent person would.)
Trump's non-Collaboration with Russia
As for whether Trump actually got help from the Russians, again that requires adding context.
I do not believe he directly worked with the Russians to get dirt on Hillary Clinton. I don't believe it because it doesn't make sense for him, or the Russian government to do such a thing.
Russia absolutely did interfere in the 2016 elections, and they did help Trump. Those are established and irrefutable facts. The reason the Russians and the Trump campaign did not collaborate with each other is a simple one. Impeachment and conviction.
For this, lets not even bother looking at Trump or how smart you think he is or isn't. Lets look at Russia's Vladimir Putin, who as mentioned is hell bent on messing with the US. He was in the KGB, which specialized in messing with the US. His tenure in office has shown him to be a pain in the ass every chance he can. So with that mindset put yourself in his place for a few minutes and look at things from where he's sitting.
His country's greatest adversary in the world is about to elect a new president. The choices are a New York real estate developer who's both politically inexperienced and easily annoyed by critics and responds to them angrily at times, opposed by the wife of a former president who on her own terms is not only quite capable of being president but would also be a formidable foe. Who would you want to win?
Collaborating with a foreign power to win an election would be seen as treason, even if the collaborator is on your political team. It's indefensible on every level, and Putin knows how we think every bit as well as we do. That was his job, and it's part of his MO now. He knows that if he, or anyone linked to his government, collaborated with Trump and or anyone in his campaign, Trump's term as president would be a very short one as there would be zero hesitation to remove Trump from office, republican or not. The implications would go even deeper. Mike Pence would be heavily scrutinized and if there was enough evidence he too would face impeachment and possible removal himself. Even if Pence were to remain, he is an experienced and competent politician. The fallout would go far beyond the DC beltway. Direct collaboration with Trump could even be considered an act of war by some.
Putin wouldn't take that kind of chance to have his candidate of choice losing office so quickly and risking a conflict he teases he's ready for but is he really? If he's dumb enough to work directly with Trump, they're both dumb enough to get caught.
