I couldn’t resist sharing this from artist, writer and fellow blogger Art Browne. There’s an odd sense of truth to it, since just about everyone in the Trump Administration is crazy, rich and White! Of course, there’s nothing wrong with being White! Or even crazy! Hell, I’m pretty much both! So is Art! I told him recently we’re both HUNG: handsome, understanding, nice guys. Love you, brother!
Tag Archives: Donald Trump
“The hearings ripped open the subject of sexual harassment like some long-festering sore.”
The U.S. Senate hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court have gone from the mundane (replete with the standard and predictable inquiries into the candidate’s judiciary paper trail) to the hyper-dramatic. Not since Clarence Thomas’ 1991 confirmation has an otherwise routine and constitutionally required procedure descended into the chaos normally reserved for daytime melodramas.
The Thomas fiasco was a ready-made soap opera. Gossip columnists and entertainment industry executives all felt they’d died and gone to ‘Trash TV Heaven.’ In general, only the nerdiest of academic scholars viewed SCOTUS hearings with rapt attention. But the Thomas proceedings quickly devolved into a media event when the Senate discovered – among the slew of Thomas documents – a complaint by one of his former colleagues, Anita Hill, accusing the judge of sexual harassment on the job. Hill had worked for Thomas in the early 1980s, when he was head of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. The hearings had technically concluded, and a vote was about to take place. Then Nina Totenberg, a correspondent with National Public Radio (NPR), received a copy of an affidavit Hill had completed several weeks earlier in response to a Senate request for any and all information regarding her dealings with Thomas. Such requests are standard for Supreme Court nominations, as well as other high-level government positions. The vote on Thomas most likely would have taken place without further discussion had the Hill affidavit not appeared. (The source of the leak to Totenberg has never been revealed.)
The vote was delayed, and the soap opera commenced. Hill described in graphic detail how Thomas asked her out repeatedly during their time working together. She made it clear, however, that he never touched her and never threatened her. But his behavior made her uncomfortable, and she was concerned for her job. Apparently, he got the message and stopped. Hill wasn’t the only woman to file a formal complaint against Thomas, but she had been the first. And she was the only one called to testify before the Senate during Thomas’ hearing. Despite her testimony, Thomas was confirmed 52-48, in one of the narrowest Supreme Court votes in history.
The controversy – especially the sight of an all-male Senate committee questioning Hill – prompted a feminist backlash. Months later, 1992 was dubbed the “Year of the Woman”. It also happened to be an election year, which subsequently saw large numbers of women elected to public office across the nation. It also put Bill Clinton into the White House. As anyone of a certain age might recall, Clinton became the focus of his own sexual indiscretions. Ironically, many of the same people who demonized Clarence Thomas championed Bill Clinton and proclaimed accusations of his flirtatious peccadillos were simply good old-fashioned sludge politics. Or what Hilary Clinton deemed a “vast right-wing conspiracy.”
Apparently, the New Feminist Order didn’t include the likes of Gennifer Flowers or Paula Jones. I recall plenty of women scoffing at the news that – in 1990 – Jones visited then-Governor Bill Clinton in his hotel room late at night on the promise of a job offer.
“What a dumb broad!” my mother told me one day. She, as well as some of my female friends and colleagues, laughed at the idea that Jones believed Clinton would invite her to his hotel room at 11:00 p.m. wanting to conduct a job interview. Right-wing sycophants portrayed Jones as a naïve 20-something who didn’t know any better. James Carville, Clinton’s campaign manager, remarked, “Drag a $100 bill through a trailer camp and there’s no telling what you will find.”
When Clinton’s sexual tryst with Monica Lewinsky came to light, self-righteous conservatives actually tried to impeach him for lying about it under oath. But again, no word came from the feminist camp. In fact, they were suspiciously silent throughout the entire ordeal. Clinton supported abortion, so I guess that’s all some women’s rights activists cared about.
Personally, I always liked Bill Clinton (Hilary not so much) and didn’t appreciate the news media focused so much attention on his hormonally-driven conquests. Yes, he likes women. He’s also one of the smartest and most verbally eloquent men ever to serve as Chief Executive. What a stark contrast to his immediate successor or the buffoon currently in the White House! But, if character counts – as so many social and religious conservatives proclaim – why are sexual indiscretions more important than, say, financial irregularities? Conservatives were quick to defend Thomas and just as quick to defend Trump. But they championed the ousting of Clinton because he got a blow-job from some unknown overweight intern. Conversely, liberals were quick to defend Clinton, but had no problems dragging Thomas through the mud. Character may be important for public officials, but politics keeps interfering.
All of that came back – like another “Rocky” sequel – recently with the Kavanaugh ordeal. This situation is different, however, but much more disturbing. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford came forward about her traumatizing encounter with Kavanaugh in the summer of 1982, when both were high school students. Whereas Clarence Thomas allegedly asked Anita Hill out on dates repeatedly and made one too many off-color jokes, Blasey Ford claims Kavanaugh and another teenage boy ambushed her at a house, dragged her into a bedroom and tried to rape her. If true, Blasey Ford is recounting an incident that goes far beyond mere uncouth behavior. It’s a harrowing tale of a felonious assault; one where she literally felt she could die at the age of 15.
I know first-hand what both sexual harassment and general bullying-type harassment on the job can do to a person’s sense of self-worth. I know it happens. I’ve experienced it from men AND women. In the fall of 1985, I was a naïve 21-year-old working at a country club when my openly gay male supervisor admitted to me one night that he’d “really like to suck your dick off.” It startled me more than it offended, but I didn’t know what to do. Working at a retail store just a few years later, I got into a verbal altercation with my immediate supervisor who threatened to “bounce me right out of here.” We eventually made amends, realizing it was just a bad misunderstanding.
While working at a large bank in downtown Dallas a few years after that, a woman came up behind me as I stood at a copier and literally jabbed a well-manicured fingernail into my back. We’d had an ongoing dispute about some otherwise small business matter.
“Oh please tell me you didn’t just poke me in the back like that!” I said to her.
She promptly jabbed me in the chest with that same finger and said something like, “I’ll stick it up your ass…”
Whereupon I literally shoved her back and told her never to touch me again. She marched out of the room and had someone call security on me. When I relayed what all had happened, attention turned back to her; she had merely said I’d “physically accosted” her in the copier room for “no good reason.” I informed management that, if I lost my job because of that, she’d “better come out with me” or the bank will buy me a new vehicle and give me an early retirement.
In 2006, while laboring as a contractor at a government agency elsewhere in downtown Dallas, a woman with the security division deliberately ran into me, as I and a male colleague started to enter through a secure doorway. I didn’t see her approach; she’d moved in on me that quick. She then grabbed my upper left arm and demanded to see my badge. When I told her (shouted at her) never to touch me again, she threatened to walk me out of the building. My immediate supervisor was more upset with me for talking back to her than the fact she’d literally attacked me. Again, I threatened legal action.
“I can be a real asshole about this,” I told him, “and tell everyone she hit me and tried punch and scratch me.”
My constituent vouched for the veracity of what happened. I suppose if he hadn’t been with me, I might have lost that job. But I had no fear of that. I would have ensured the same happened to her. But the matter quietly (amazingly) went away. Still, my supervisor and a few others seemed to be more upset that I’d actually had the nerve to talk back to a woman and not that she grabbed my arm.
I’m aware that, in this politically correct society, gender politics has taken an ugly turn. And it seems, whenever men are accused of sexual abuse and harassment of females, they are presumed guilty until proven innocent and the burden of proof lies with them. In other words, the standard protocol of due process is undermined. But only in those cases where a female – especially an adult White female – is victimized. Or claims to be have been victimized.
It was with all of that in mind that I viewed the life story scuffles between Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford. I compelled myself to view it all with an open mind and hear both sides of each tale. I noted that Anita Hill had been subpoenaed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1991, but that Dr. Blasey Ford had written to her local congresswoman about a one-time incident with Kavanaugh five presidents ago. And, when the Senate asked Blasey Ford to testify under oath, she agreed (via her attorneys), but only after a long list of conditions were met.
Who is she, I asked myself. Why is JUST NOW coming forward with this? And how pertinent is it to Kavanugh’s confirmation? His judicial record opposing abortion and gay rights, while recklessly supporting large corporations is more critical.
Even after listening to Blasey Ford’s statement and all the vitriolic after-effects, I wondered where this would lead. Then I witnessed with some degree of amusement Kavanaugh literally lose it, as he tried to defend himself and rebut Blasey Ford’s claims. The once-stoic, almost bland, jurist melted into near hysteria. His loudly defensive behavior was telling. I’ve been around long enough to know that people who grow hostile in such a manner are most likely guilty of the accusations laid before them.
But then, I realized something even more important; something about Blasey Ford. She had stated repeatedly that, while her involuntary interaction with a teenage Kavanaugh was a “sexual assault,” it didn’t culminate (apparently) in an actual rape. Neither Kavanaugh nor his friend managed to penetrate any part of her body with some part of theirs. She credits much of that to the fact she fought so hard – terrified for her life – and that she had on a one-piece bathing suit, which would be more difficult to tear off.
Yet, if she had fabricated this entire story, or at least had embellished it, there would be no such ending. If the story was born from the mind of a bitter middle-age female, both boys would have penetrated her somehow or another. In fact, there probably would have been more assailants. She would have ended up bruised and bloodied; stumbling out of the house naked and screaming. But that’s not what she says happened. That’s what made me realize she can’t be lying about this.
It’s not that I doubted her altogether. I didn’t have an opinion either way about the alleged incident. I’ve become accustomed to seeing male public figures – politicians and sports stars alike – be targeted by supposedly scorned women. Almost every man who has entered public life (at least here in the U.S.) has fallen victim to a plethora of accusations from a gallery of victims. And, once again, understand that men accused of sexual violence in this country aren’t always accorded due process.
But now, I realize Blasey Ford can’t be lying. It’s still odd that she wrote to her local congresswoman about Kavanaugh just this past summer. Yet, I’m certainly glad she did. Now other stories about Kavanaugh are coming to light; stories of his alleged drunken binges in high school and college; of verbal slurs and physical attacks. The accusers are both women and men. It’s not that the men are more believable – at least not to me.
Kavanaugh had portrayed himself as a studious, virginal, choir boy-type puppy dog in his youth; a kid who volunteered to help old women cross the street and attended church as he was headed for the priesthood. He proclaimed as much before the Judiciary Committee. Under oath. In public. With his wife and daughters seated behind him. Now all of that’s in question.
If character really does count – and we know it does sometimes – then people like Kavanaugh don’t stand a chance. And it’s fair game to dredge up their past indiscretions the way archaeologists dredge up ancient coins.
Sadly, this fiasco is not quite over. It will continue into this coming week. Sometimes, true-life soap operas are just too overbearing. Stay tuned.
Image: Rob Rogers
“It just isn’t going to work, and it’s very interesting that the man who invented this type of what I call a voodoo economic policy is Art Laffer, a California economist.” – George H.W. Bush, Carnegie Mellon University, April 10, 1980
I’m frightened for the United States, and it’s not just because of my disdain for our faux president, Donald Trump. I’m genuinely concerned about what could happen over the next few years.
In the above quote, George H.W. Bush was referring to the plans of fellow Republican and 1980 presidential candidate Ronald Reagan for revitalizing a stagnant U.S. economy. Then, when Reagan won in most of the primaries, his camp offered Bush the vice-presidential position, and the former Texas congressman shut up about economics. In 1980, the nation was in a bad financial situation. The costs of the Vietnam War, coupled with oil embargoes from OPEC nations, had finally taken their toll. Unemployment stood at nearly 10%; the prime interest rate was 21%; inflation was 14%; home mortgage rates were 17%; and the top marginal tax rate was 70%. In the second quarter of 1980, the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) declined by 8%. By the end of the year, the overall GDP boasted about $3 trillion (in today’s dollars).
With the help of some Democrats in both houses of the U.S. Congress, Reagan was able to generate an agreement that slashed taxes down to 50% on wages, to 48% on corporate income, and to 20% on capital gains. These measures initially jumpstarted the economy. Average citizens had more expendable income, which they poured back into the economy by purchasing many so-called big ticket items, like vehicle and electronics. By 1990, the size of the U.S. economy had grown from $3 trillion to $6 trillion, with roughly 4 million new businesses and 20 million new jobs created. Although the national debt increased from $1 trillion to $4 trillion during the same period, overall revenues doubled.
Reagan’s economic policies were in line with conservative views on taxation: if we give the “investing class” (meaning, the most affluent) generous tax breaks, they will respond by expanding their businesses or starting new ones, which in turn, will create more products and / or services and more jobs. Along with reduced business regulations (“job killers” in conservative lingo), average citizens will have more income, which of course, they will pour back into the economy. Such growth then will expand the tax base; the additional revenue will replace any money lost to the initial tax cuts.
Ask any frustrated project manager and they will tell you that everything always looks great on paper. While Reagan disciples keep championing his financial moves, the reality is that “Reaganomics” didn’t work out as planned. One thing people forget is a little thing called the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982, which rolled back financial regulations that had been established by the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt to prevent further damage caused by the 1929 stock market crash and the ensuing Great Depression. It’s interesting that Bush’s voodoo comment was made at Carnegie Mellon University. Founded by Andrew Carnegie in 1900 as Carnegie Technical School, it merged with the Mellon Institute of Industrial Research in 1967 to become Carnegie Mellon. The Mellon Institute had been established in 1913 by brothers Andrew and Richard B. Mellon who, like Carnegie, were self-made businessmen and titans of early 20th century America. Andrew Mellon served as Secretary of the Treasury from 1921 – 1932, one of the longest tenures for this position. He created the “trickle-down” economic theory by declaring, “Give tax breaks to large corporations, so that money can trickle down to the general public, in the form of extra jobs.”
But Andrew Mellon is also known for a notoriously rotten hands-off policy with the Great Depression. The banks that failed had put themselves in such a precarious financial position, he believed, and thus, they were responsible for extricating themselves from it. It didn’t seem to matter that these bank failures took people’s money with them; therefore, amplifying the effects of the 1929 crash.
Still, President Reagan – like any good fiscal conservative – held onto these beliefs and eagerly signed the Garn-St. Germain bill. That reduced the number of regulations on financial institutions and allowed them to expand and invest more of their customers’ deposits in various ventures, particularly home mortgages. Again, that looks-great-on-paper ideology swung back around to bite everyone when the Savings & Loans Crisis erupted. Between 1986 and 1995, 1,043 out of the 3,234 savings and loan institutions in the U.S. failed; costing $160 billion overall, with taxpayers footing $132 billion of it. It was the worst series of bank collapses since the Great Depression. That led to the 1990-91 Recession, the longest and most wide-spread economic downturn since the late 1940s. I started working for a large bank in Dallas in April of 1990 and saw the S&L crisis unfold in real time.
Nonetheless, trickle-down economics saw a rebirth with George W. Bush, as his administration further deregulated the banking industry and also deregulated housing. Combined with the costs of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. economy almost completely collapsed at the end of 2008. The 2007-08 Recession was the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Unemployment reached double digits for the first time since the start of the Reagan era, as millions of citizens lost their homes and their savings. Had it not been for such programs as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the FDIC, established by Roosevelt), we surely would have plunged into another depression.
Now, with Donald Trump in office, I fear we’re headed for the same morass. On December 22, 2017, Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act; the largest overhaul of the U.S. tax code in 30 years. Financial prognosticators have already forecast the act will raise the federal deficit by hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars over the next 10 years. The law cuts individual taxes temporarily, but cuts corporate tax rates permanently. As suspected, the most affluent citizens will benefit greatly, as they experience a significant reduction in their taxes. The rest of us lowly peons may see a tax increase after those temporary provisions expire in 2025.
You know that classic definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over, while expecting different results. It’s more like, well, if you keep doing stupid shit, stupid shit will keep happening!
Ignore Russia-gate for a moment and the fact Melania’s side of the First Bed is colder than a Chicago winter. This past week Trump visited the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland. This is where the most elite members of the business world meet (conspire) with leaders of developed nations to create economic policies and decide what’s best for us peons. Kind of like evangelical Christians often meet to decide what people should see and read. They’ve set themselves up as the righteous few; the ones who supposedly understand exactly what works and what doesn’t and are divinely compelled to bestow such knowledge upon the rest of us.
Trump ran his presidential campaign on the wave of anti-Washington sentiment; appealing to average citizens about reviving a once-lost “Great America” with a variety of clever ruses: ban Muslims, build a wall along the Mexican border, etc. So many people, of course, bought into it. Like Ronald Reagan, Trump was able to tap into that sensitive nerve of everyday angst; spitting out a slew of quaint buzz words to appeal to average folks. He had said he would never take part in a WEF convention. Yet, there he was; leading a parade of those self-righteous few into another kind of revitalization: the Gilded Age.
I doubt if most Trump voters even know what Davos means and how it could impact their lives. Understand, though, that Switzerland is a place where Hollywood celebrities often went for a retreat or a little vacation – code words for cosmetic surgery; long before Phyllis Diller made it openly acceptable. That’s essentially what Donald Trump did this past week. He flew to Davos to tell the world, “America first is not America alone.”
I’m frightened for the United States.
Over the past few months the dreaded “I” word has been floating across the nation: impeachment. As in the impeachment of President Donald Trump – which sounds pretty good – because his words and actions have put the U.S. in a precarious global position – because he really wasn’t elected to the office – because he’s an obnoxious bastard. Okay, that last one is more of a personal opinion. And, of course, we all have a right to that!
But talk of impeaching the president of the United States is like warning Americans about visiting North Korea: don’t go there. Forcibly removing the president from office was a rare topic of discussion – even among politicians – until the 1970s. But, after the Watergate left a bitterly angry taste in the mouths of the American populace, impeachment has been tossed around as often as limes at a Mexican barbecue.
Since Watergate, only one sitting U.S. president has faced a concerted attempt at impeachment: Bill Clinton. And that was only because he engaged in an eel-hunting adventure with a perky, overweight intern, which culminated in a blue dress wardrobe malfunction before anyone invented the term.
Yet, as much as I despise Trump and as little as I thought of George W. Bush, I would look at anyone who talks of impeachment with concern. Do you realize how serious that is? Do you understand exactly what it takes to oust such a person from the White House? It’s almost like a military coup; the kind that occurs in third-world nations. Think Cuba or the Philippines. Yes, that kind. It’s nowhere near as bloody and violent; we use pens and roll-call votes here, instead of guns and machetes. But it remains a complex and arduous task.
Keep in mind that, aside from Clinton, only 2 other U.S. presidents have faced impeachment: Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon. The key term here is faced impeachment. To date, no sitting president has actually been removed from office by impeachment. The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching the president, while the U.S. Senate has the sole power of trying impeachments. This all occurs under rules of law established in the Constitution; therefore, no single branch of government possesses omniscient power to remove a sitting president.
The first step, obviously, is to identify what acts performed by the president qualify as “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The House votes on articles of impeachment. If there is just one article, it requires a two-thirds majority of House members. But, if there are two or more articles of impeachment, only one of them needs to garner a majority to induce impeachment. Nixon came very close to actually being removed from office. But he resigned after the House voted in August of 1974.
Second, the proceedings move to the Senate where an actual trial is held. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court oversees the case, as they would any other legal matter. Here, a team of lawmakers from the House serves in a prosecutorial role, while the Senate is technically the jury. The president has his or her own lawyers. Once all sides have presented their arguments, the matter is handed to the Senate. If at least two-thirds of Senators vote in favor of the articles, then the president is removed from office, and the vice-president assumes the presidency.
This isn’t punishment for being tardy. The U.S. likes to present itself as a beacon of democracy for the world; a master of political dignity and fairness. If we are compelled to remove our own national leader from office, what does that say about our voting system? What does it say about the concept of democracy altogether? Is the presidential vetting process so pathetic that we can’t identify someone with a criminal mindset beforehand?
Elizabeth Holtzman is a former U.S. congresswoman from New York. In 1974, she was on the House Judiciary Committee that voted to impeach Nixon. In a 2006 essay entitled “The Impeachment of George W. Bush,” she not only describes the arduous process of removing a sitting president from office, but also the emotional toll it took on everyone in both houses of congress at the time.
“I can still remember the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach during those proceedings,” she wrote, “when it became clear that the President had so systematically abused the powers of the presidency and so threatened the rule of law that he had to be removed from office. As a Democrat who opposed many of President Nixon’s policies, I still found voting for his impeachment to be one of the most sobering and unpleasant tasks I ever had to undertake. None of the members of the committee took pleasure in voting for impeachment; after all, Democrat or Republican, Nixon was still our President.”
Curiously, she goes on to state, “At the time, I hoped that our committee’s work would send a strong signal to future Presidents that they had to obey the rule of law. I was wrong.”
In this regard, she was discussing the possible impeachment of George W. Bush. I can think of no other Chief Executive in modern times who exhibited such incompetence and corruptness as our 43rd president. That he got into office under dubious circumstances in the first place is enough to question the integrity of our electoral process. That he managed to remain there, despite mounting evidence of war crimes, is anathema to the grander concept of democracy. I’ve always said that, if the Democrats had at least made a concerted attempt to remove Bush from office, they wouldn’t just appear heroic in the eyes of their constituents; they also would have upheld the rule of law governing all institutions.
Remember that congressional Republicans tried to remove Bill Clinton for lying about his sexual dalliances. It was an incredibly one-sided, vindictive assault on democracy – all because the man didn’t want the world to know he’d screwed around on his wife and because right-wing extremists didn’t like him, no matter what he happened. You’re going to impeach him for THAT?! Then-House leader Newt Gingrich – who was married to his third wife with whom he’d cheated on his second wife – had led the cavalcade of self-righteous Republicans. He and his constituents paid for their hypocrisy when they lost their super-majorities in both Houses of Congress in the 1998 elections.
Watching the Trump presidency collapse around the real estate magnate-turned-reality-TV-star is almost laughable. But it’s not that funny. His behavioral quirks and fetish for name-calling are hallmarks of social ineptitude and, perhaps, mental instability. As with George W. Bush, that Trump actually made it into the White House is an insult to the core of the institution of democracy. Growing evidence shows that Russia interfered with the 2016 U.S. elections. Exactly how they did it has yet to be discovered – or revealed. But I honestly believe the Trump presidency is a fluke.
In his novel, “Shibumi,” author Trevanian (Rodney William Whitaker) relays the incredible tale of Nicholai Hel, a Shanghai-born spy of Russian – German heritage who is the world’s most accomplished assassin. After surviving the carnage of the Hiroshima bombing, Hel retreats to a lavish and isolated mountain citadel with his beautiful Eurasian mistress. But he’s coaxed back into the netherworld of international espionage by a young woman. Hel soon learns, however, that he’s being tracked by a mysterious and omnipotent global entity known simply as the “Mother Company.” The “Company” is a composite of corporate giants that installs leaders in key nations – even those in the developed world – manipulates the markets for such necessities as food and oil and incites wars whenever it deems appropriate. The conflict between Hel and the “Mother Company” becomes something akin to a board game, where millions of lives are used as toys for the benefit of a few powerful elitists.
I keep thinking we’re already dealing with that type of set-up; that Bush, Jr., was placed into office, so we could go to war in Iraq and gain access to their oil reserves, and that Trump was planted in the White House for whatever machinations the Russian government has underway.
But I still want everyone to be careful with the “I” word. It really is just a small step from undergoing the lengthy route of impeaching a president to rigging his limousine with explosives – like they do in those unstable third-world societies. Democracy is a difficult political state to establish. It’s even more difficult to maintain. It doesn’t function on its own; it simply can’t.
This mess we’re in may provide great material for standup comics. But it also presents us with an ethical dilemma. Again, I ask, do we truly understand how serious this talk of impeachment is?
The 45th President of the United States has achieved a previously unimaginable goal: reduce the size of the federal government. In this case, it’s the presidency, which has been downgraded to 140 characters. He has left people disoriented and unsettled; rattled and dismayed; flummoxed and constipated. Many of his most devout followers have embraced the lemming ideology of life and started following their magical penis-pied piper to the precipice of a faux utopia. And we thought George W. Bush was mentally-challenged! Well…he was. Yet Trump has taken messianic mendacity to supersonic levels. I keep thinking that someone on his staff should advise him to keep his pre-dawn twittering in the bathroom. But that would be like telling Abraham Lincoln, ‘Don’t go to the theatre! You’ll catch a cold.’ It’s virtually impossible to demand this bombastic, bull-headed businessman behave presidential.
It may be hard to imagine, but there are some logical comparisons to such a feat. But there are plenty. Therefore, telling Donald Trump NOT to Tweet is like…
- …telling the Kardashian girls not to take selfies.
- …telling Bill Clinton to honor his marriage vows.
- …telling Matthew McConaughey to keep on his shirt.
- …telling Ann Coulter to stop being such a bitch.
- …telling Justin Bieber to act like an adult.
- …telling Michael Moore to lay off the doughnuts and eclairs.
- …telling Elton John to tone down his wardrobe.
- …telling Kanye West to stop interrupting people.
- …telling Paris Hilton to get a job.
- …telling Rush Limbaugh to take a deep breath.
- …telling Caitlyn Jenner to grow a pair.
- …telling Willie Nelson to shave and get a trim.
- …telling Barbara Walters to retire once and for all.
- …telling Eminem to act White.
- …telling Pope Francis to stop wearing those designer gowns.
- …telling Bill Maher to shut the hell up.
- …telling Oprah Winfrey no one misses her.
- …telling Brittney Spears she can’t sing worth a shit.
- …telling Snoop Dogg to learn proper English.
- …telling Alec Baldwin to stop making fun of Trump.
Telling Donald Trump Not to Tweet is like… [Readers, please feel free to provide your own response]. The more fun we can have with this, the more likely Trump will get pissed off and Tweet and subsequently provide us all with more joke material. And the more we can all laugh at and ridicule our mentally-unhinged elected officials will bring us closer to that highly-coveted state of national nirvana.