Of Course Trump Takes Credit For Killing al-Baghdadi

The hunt for Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was a crowning event for our brave special operations soldiers. Going deep into enemy territory, these operators rooted out a vicious murderer. It’s too bad President Trump made such a spectacle of the event, and spent so much time taking credit for the work of others.

Frankly I would prefer being told that the terrorist was “eliminated” in a much more somber announcement. The editorializing and drama displayed by the president was disconcerting and not statesman-like.

Americans and peaceful people around the world appreciate that a mass murderer was taken out and would no longer kill innocent individuals with beheadings and immolation. But, Americans should derive little solace that al-Baghdadi was screaming, crying and dying “like a dog.”

Once again Trump made it all about himself. He tried to make us believe that he suited up for the mission with the Delta Force and personally drove the terrorist into the tunnel where the bad guy blew himself up. There’s nothing brave about watching and commentating on an assassination on a big screen in the White House, 7,000 miles from the action.

The politicization of this occurrence by conservatives and liberals is unfortunate. We are not playing war games. Innocents died, including 11 children that the terrorist used as a shield against US troops. Feeling relief about the demise of a very evil person is human and understandable. But reveling in his death takes our country down a notch.

Donald Trump has very low social IQ. He lives his life trying to prove that he is superior to all others including people who dislike him, competitors in business and now in politics and other countries and their leaders. It’s sad to say, but Trump is a very poor version of an elitist who has no regard for anyone who sees the world differently than he does.

Unfortunately Trump’s accomplishments are clouded by his self-aggrandizement and ego. He thinks he’s a master of adversarial confrontation that is often violent, degrading and scornful. Trump wants to eliminate and humiliate anyone who is not like him.

Notwithstanding all this, strongman tactics and aggressive negotiation has its place in this turbulent world in which we live. The US should be tough dealing with China, Russia and all the two-bit despots in the world who try to take advantage of others. But battling with politicians across the aisle and with long-term allies is unproductive.

Trump has done some things well. The economy is going great guns, and the US is making gains diplomatically with certain leaders and countries for the first time ever. Trump is honestly trying to end US intervention in places we should not be. He is unafraid to point out the missteps of others (but not himself). But he’s not a good man, a peacemaker, a leader or a genuine patriot.

The next five years are going to be very tumultuous. Trump is greatly responsible for the bad behavior of his opponents who have stooped down to his level. Everyone fights to the death on every issue. Compromise is nonexistent. I’m petrified about what will happen if the president is reelected, or if an irresponsible socialist wins the White House.

Hillary’s Baaaack!

Voters are living in a time machine. Incredibly, some Democrats are actually calling for Hillary Clinton to jump into the primaries. Will this person ever give up?

From a journalistic perspective having Hillary around is manna from heaven. She is so easy to criticize. She continues to say the 2016 Election was stolen from her. Not one time has this person, who has the dubious honor of being defeated by both Barack Obama and Donald Trump, ever admitted that she was a lousy candidate. Never has she taken responsibility for her ineffective presidential campaigns.

If she makes a come back I will be delighted to remind my readers about her emails, conspiracies and poor work ethic. She will also be handicapped because her husband has lost a step or two. Hillary’s critics are ready to dust off the old playbook and discuss why so many are fed up with her whining and poor performance as a politician.

The real issue is that the current crap, I mean crop, of Democratic candidates is so pathetic that smart liberals are really concerned that Trump is going to obliterate whomever is nominated by the Democratic Party. Everybody knows that a socialist will not be elected president in this country. And Warren, with her $40 trillion of new entitlements and giveaways, has no credibility. She even ducks questions by her Democratic adversaries in the debates about how she will pay for her empty promises.

So let’s bring back Hillary and discuss how she helped Bill be such a good president, and learned so much about being the commander-in-chief while she was First Lady. She seems to enjoy being beat up by the right wing conspiracy that has never been identified. I’d like to meet them someday. She won the popular vote in 2016, so she should be president now. Unfortunately for her, you must win the Electoral College to be president. Sixth grade civics students know this, but not Hillary or her die-hard supporters.

In the meantime Adam Schiff and his left wing pals in the House are losing more face every day with their Star Chamber inquisition of Trump. By the way, judgments in Star Chamber proceedings are high-handed, unfair, and predetermined. If Democrats have some impeachable offenses that they would like to pin on the president, expose them publicly, not in some basement office in the Capitol Building devoid of press coverage.

Nothing the inquisitors come up with is going to surprise Americans about Trump. And, since when does our country turn its back on due process and adjudicate in secrecy? Every day leaks are showered on the liberal press, who like lap dogs, report without vetting the facts. Yet we are told an impeachment and conviction are going to be a slam-dunk. Actually the only slam-dunk is that the Senate will not vote to oust Trump from office.

And finally Joe Biden is surging in the polls. When will we learn that the polls are no longer reliable especially when the election is over one year away? Biden can’t even communicate effectively. How can he be our president?

Moreover, the economy is doing well. It’s the economy, stupid. The trade wars will end soon, and Trump’s policy of taking our troops out of harm’s way in the Middle East is probably a good idea. The Syrian Kurds will likely take a beating, which is unfortunate, but Turkey has targeted them for years. Trump still gets a “D” for execution.

Hillary’s comeback will make the election more interesting, but she’s going to lose to Trump once again.

 

 

Military vs. Economic Persuasion

The US and its leaders are in a unique position to influence world events. They have the ability to use either economic or military persuasion. The question is which one should be used in specific circumstances. It’s often a life and death decision.

Donald Trump favors economic sanctions over military force for the most part. In fact he’s actively trying to decrease the presence of our military around the world and take our soldiers out of harm’s way. It was a campaign promise he made in 2016.

Currently he’s wielding sanctions against the largest and most powerful opponents of America, Russia and China. Since outright military aggression is not an option against the aforementioned countries, because it could possibly lead to a nuclear showdown, the president is wise to eschew the use of any violent strategy.

Ronald Reagan brilliantly out maneuvered the Soviet Union in the late 20th century. He artfully combined economic pressure and military threats that ultimately resulted in the bankruptcy of the Soviets. The communist regime could not compete with the US’s ability to build both nuclear and conventional arsenals at a break neck speed. By attempting to match our weapons development, the Soviet Union crumbled financially.

Today the US must contend with a megalomaniac-governed empire that dreams of the days when it had much more influence throughout the world.

Because military confrontation is out of the question, Trump has exerted economic sanctions against Russia and attacked the powerful class of oligarchs, the country’s business leaders, many of its largest companies and most importantly its banking system. Slowly, the US is once again bankrupting Russia. The result is shortages of food and other basic needs and curtailed government services as Russian leaders spend more and more on armaments and foolish military expeditions into remote parts of the world, such as Syria.

China is a similar story except its economy is much stronger. Trump reacted to Chinese misbehavior with extraordinary economic sanctions that have stopped China in its tracks and markedly reduced its industrial growth.

China sells over $350 billion of goods to the US annually, while the US sells about $100 billion to China. Tit for tat tariffs have hurt China far worse than tariffs on US goods. The leadership of China will be in jeopardy if the sanctions are not rescinded soon. This is why Trump is making progress in his negotiations with China to end unfair trade practices and the theft of US technologies.

Unemployment lines in China will begin to grow if the US sanctions do not end. Xi is under pressure to make the turmoil end in the short term. The expectation that China will “eat the US’s lunch” economically is misleading and untrue, especially because our economy is so much larger than China’s.

Sanctions have also been effective against North Korea and its nuclear aspirations. Kim cannot continue to spend so much of his country’s cash flow on nuclear and conventional weapons. He will ultimately accede to US demands or face regime change.

Similarly the aggression of Iran will end as sanctions are tightened. Iran will have to accept much tougher restrictions on its nuclear arsenal or face regime issues that will follow food shortages and civil unrest.

The shrewd use of economic sanctions rather than military engagement is wise. However some dysfunctional regimes throughout the world only understand military might. The US should be prepared to use its power exclusively when all other avenues have been exhausted.

America must act decisively in situations that threaten US security and our allies. Additionally, crimes against humanity, genocide and actions by nations that result in famine and displacement of groups of people, need to be dealt with apace.

Trump’s perspective on the strategy to use military and economic force has been effective to this point.

Impeach Trump, Nominate Romney

Voters in the United States are going to face an impossible decision in 2020. Who should they support, a brash and very unlikeable incumbent or a left wing, radical populist?

Many Americans, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, have absolutely no confidence in the slate of candidates vying to become the next commander-in-chief. They are screaming for a statesman (woman), a conciliator, a person who represents all of America.

Donald Trump has become a caricature of himself. He actually believes he’s a great leader, a master negotiator and savior of the country. Unfortunately he has proven, almost daily, that individuals like him with bad character, no government experience or appreciation of the way politics are done in this country turn out to be horrible presidents. His arrogance and complete disregard of decorum and compromise have severely impacted the reputation of the US globally.

Notwithstanding his desire to make America great, Trump’s personality, self-aggrandizement and reckless style have offended every conceivable group. Trump’s administration is out of synch and dangerously disorganized. Most Americans despise him for creating such chaos in the nation’s capital, even if they may be forced to vote for him.

Ironically with such a vulnerable opponent to contend with, Democrats have served us a radical group of socialists. These candidates are so far to the left that they have no chance to defeat a disastrous incumbent. Instructed on the finer points of socialism by the likes of Bernie Sanders, the candidates are prepared to buy the presidency with promises that would bankrupt the country and ruin our financial system. Everything will be free if you earn less than $200,000 annually.

But, capitalism and exceptionalism are still alive and kicking in the US. The middle class is not willing to give up the opportunity to grab the brass ring.

Nevertheless, salvation could be close at hand. Given that Republicans have finally showed some backbone by defying the president, perhaps the floodgates may open further. It may be possible to look beyond Trump and the socialists to a centrist ready to assume the most powerful position in the world.

Until recently Republicans seemed dead set against impeachment. But the worm turned when Trump walked away from Syrian Kurds, the US’s ally in the fight against ISIS and Bashar al-Assad. Many conservatives in the House voted to censure the president for his decision to walk away from problems in Syria.

Is it feasible that disgruntled Republican senators would collaborate with Democratic colleagues to oust Trump from office after receiving articles of impeachment from the House? Unequivocally yes. Even McConnell has about had it with Trumpian antics and bad behavior. Such an action would put Mike Pence in the White House.

But most importantly Mitt Romney could step in and save the country and his party. He would be a great contender for the presidency on the heels of his Senate victory, and what he learned a few years ago against Obama.

Technicalities aside, why wouldn’t this turn of events make sense? The country needs a squeaky clean statesman. It needs someone who is truthful and strong. Romney is experienced as a former governor of Massachusetts and now as a senator. He’s the right person for the job.

And one other thing. Nikki Haley is waiting in the wings. If the Senate votes Trump out, she could also fill the position with great expertise and experience if Romney is not interested.

Republicans Should Impeach Trump And Nominate Romney

Voters in the United States are going to face an impossible decision in 2020. Who should they support, a brash and very unlikeable incumbent or a left wing, radical populist?

Many Americans, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, have absolutely no confidence in the slate of candidates vying to become the next commander-in-chief. They are screaming for a statesman (woman), a conciliator, a person who represents all of America.

Donald Trump has become a caricature of himself. He actually believes he’s a great leader, a master negotiator and savior of the country. Unfortunately he has proven, almost daily, that individuals like him with bad character, no government experience or appreciation of the way politics are done in this country turn out to be horrible presidents. His arrogance and complete disregard of decorum and compromise have severely impacted the reputation of the US globally.

Notwithstanding his desire to make America great, Trump’s personality, self-aggrandizement and reckless style have offended every conceivable group. Trump’s administration is out of synch and dangerously disorganized. Most Americans despise him for creating such chaos in the nation’s capital, even if they may be forced to vote for him.

Ironically with such a vulnerable opponent to contend with, Democrats have served us a radical group of socialists. These candidates are so far to the left that they have no chance to defeat a disastrous incumbent. Instructed on the finer points of socialism by the likes of Bernie Sanders, the candidates are prepared to buy the presidency with promises that would bankrupt the country and ruin our financial system. Everything will be free if you earn less than $200,000 annually.

But, capitalism and exceptionalism are still alive and kicking in the US. The middle class is not willing to give up the opportunity to grab the brass ring.

Nevertheless, salvation could be close at hand. Given that Republicans have finally showed some backbone by defying the president, perhaps the floodgates may open further. It may be possible to look beyond Trump and the socialists to a centrist ready to assume the most powerful position in the world.

Until recently Republicans seemed dead set against impeachment. But the worm turned when Trump walked away from Syrian Kurds, the US’s ally in the fight against ISIS and Bashar al-Assad. Many conservatives in the House voted to censure the president for his decision to walk away from problems in Syria.

Is it feasible that disgruntled Republican senators would collaborate with Democratic colleagues to oust Trump from office after receiving articles of impeachment from the House? Unequivocally yes. Even McConnell has about had it with Trumpian antics and bad behavior. Such an action would put Mike Pence in the White House.

But most importantly Mitt Romney could step in and save the country and his party. He would be a great contender for the presidency on the heels of his Senate victory, and what he learned a few years ago against Obama.

Technicalities aside, why wouldn’t this turn of events make sense? The country needs a squeaky clean statesman. It needs someone who is truthful and strong. Romney is experienced as a former governor of Massachusetts and now as a senator. He’s the right person for the job.

And one other thing. Nikki Haley is waiting in the wings. If the Senate votes Trump out, she could also fill the position with great expertise and experience if Romney is not interested.

Warren As President- Yikes!

What would it be like to have Elizabeth Warren in the White House? Most business people, who are capable of adding and subtracting, think a Warren administration would be a total disaster. But, what does the average American think of this candidate? Perhaps they should be worrying whether Warren will be able to deliver any of the items on her long list of crazy campaign promises?

The smart money is betting that Democrats will retain control over the House of Representatives, and Republicans the Senate. Let’s assume Warren wins and Congress does not change materially. It’s likely that none of the large programs proposed by Warren, especially one-payer, universal health care, free college tuition, forgiveness of student debt and massive tax increases for both the wealthy and the middle class, would be enacted.

Keep in mind that even if the Senate went blue, to the Democrats, legislation would still be hampered unless liberals win a super majority. Obama was unable to enact very many programs after the death of Teddy Kennedy, which resulted in Democrats losing a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

How will Warren keep busy in light of overwhelming congressional obstruction? Well, you should expect that every mandate issued by Trump would be reversed by a corresponding Warren mandate. Our country will effectively be legislated by presidential edicts, not by Congress. This would be the third president in a row to experience this phenomenon. And what will the American people hear from Democrats every day- “President Warren is unable to govern effectively because Republicans are obstructionists.”

But America, rest assured, Warren’s most bird-brain proposals will be dead on arrival in Congress.

As far as her administration is concerned, Warren will stuff each position with politically correct, left wing, radical individuals that are of like mind with the new president. But since the inexperienced new president knows nothing about how a White House operates and coordinates with Congress and a thousand other bureaucracies, it will be interesting to see who Warren’s key advisors will be.

Even more frightening will be the individuals selected to advise Warren on foreign affairs. Undoing all of Trump’s accomplishments will be the first priority of this group.

What issues will Warren focus on during her initial weeks and months in the White House?

For sure the obliteration of the wealthy class in America will be the top objective. Exceptionalism, merit promotions and higher compensation will be discouraged, as will accumulation of wealth. Unfortunately for Warren, Congress will not cooperate, and the 1% will live on. The “specter” of capitalism, as seen through the eyes of a socialist, will be impossible to defeat.

Americans should expect to see proposals to redo (yet again) health care, reform immigration (goodbye to Trump’s wall), forgiveness of college debt and rebuilding of our infrastructure. The problem is that Congress will balk because of national deficit concerns along with the well being of our financial system. However, when possible, Warren, like her predecessors will sidestep Congress and issue mandates.

Of course global warming will be high on the agenda. But even Warren will be unable to reverse the damage inflicted on Mother Earth by man over the past 7,000 years in four short years. And besides where will the money come from to execute a “green plan?” Let’s not forget that other nations are not prepared to defer their industrial revolutions to benefit the global environment.

Warren’s relationships with foreign leaders will be interesting to observe. Who will she gravitate towards? It certainly won’t be macho men like Putin, Xi, Netanyahu, MBS (of Saudi Arabia) and Kim J. It makes no difference that problems instigated by this group account for a huge percentage of problems in the world that America must deal with. No Warren will gravitate towards Macron, Trudeau and Merkel (or her replacement), all socialistic leaning leaders.

Warren has not opined to any great extent about the Middle East, the area that gives American presidents more agita than any other place. However Warren will be ready to accept refugees from this part of the world that would fit nicely into her plan to open America’s borders to everybody.

You get the picture. Warren would be a hot mess. Moving from promises to execution will be difficult for a socialistic administration because most Americans support our capitalist system. Warren expected assault on businesses and shareholders will surely piss off most savvy citizens since they are dependent upon healthy employers.

Warren will believe her mandate will be to reverse everything Trump has done, good and bad. The sixty four thousand dollar question is “with what?”

Ukraine, Trump and Biden

The press coverage of the Ukraine affair has been very one sided to this point.

President Trump has been severely criticized for asking the president of Ukraine to “look into” the activities of Joe Biden and his son Hunter, suggesting that they were involved in corrupt business dealings. In the meantime Biden and his son are not the subject of any investigations, and they are dodging tough questions by the press.

This is what Washington is all about. Party trolls look for dirt, make it public and demand an investigation. The Ukraine situation appears to be much ado about nothing from Trump’s perspective, but you would think otherwise by the accounts in the media and all the talk of impeachment. In fact, even before investigations began, liberals called for proceedings against the president.

Activities that the Bidens were involved in have been minimized by the liberal press. It should be noted that if Hunter received favors from the Ukraine based upon his father’s lofty position at the time, it would be illegal.

Trump released a transcript of his conversation with President Zelensky. And, the Ukraine leader has publicly indicated he was not subjected to any strong-arm tactics, like armaments for a political favor or anything else. Yet the liberals in Congress and the bloodthirsty media press forward.

Democrats are trying to unearth whether Trump was legitimately looking into actions by an American vice president that benefitted his son, or, whether the proposed investigation by the president was a way for him to thwart Biden’s aspiration to be president. It’s going to be difficult to prove the latter- what Trump really intended to do.

Hunter Biden has never distinguished himself as a businessman or an international financier. Yet he was given a seat on the board of a Ukraine company that paid him handsomely, while his father was dealing with the Ukrainian government. Sounds fishy to me. Should it be investigated? In fact it has been reported that the young Biden has also been involved in other untoward behavior.

The elder Biden keeps pooh-poohing any suggestions that he or his son did anything wrong or unethical while he served as Obama’s #2. These denials are not convincing as Joe whines about harsh treatment by the press. The latter comment is laughable when you compare it to the way CNN, MSNBC and the New York Times treat Trump. It makes you wonder whether Biden has the chops to be president. And besides, Biden’s actions are not excusable just because many think Trump also acted improperly.

In any case the morale of this boring and never ending saga is that Trump and Biden both need to be investigated. After all they are vying to become president of the United States. The press should root out illegal and unethical activity. The only problem is that Trump and Biden are not being treated equally. Maybe the solution is that neither man should be in office.

L.G.B.T.Q. Rights Now

Conservatives on the Supreme Court may punt on a long-awaited L.G.B.T.Q. civil rights issue. The stalling tactic will alternatively put pressure on Congress to legislate basic rights of many with alternative life styles.

Job discrimination against gay and transgender workers is technically legal in many places in the US. Several states have already addressed this issue ahead of federal law enactment. The question at the Supreme Court is whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act applies to millions of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender workers. Does it protect these groups from job discrimination based upon sexual orientation?

Former Justice Anthony Kennedy was a great supporter of gay and lesbian rights and wrote the majority opinions in all four of the court’s major gay rights decisions. His retirement will make this effort to liberally interpret Title VII “an uphill battle.”

Ironically Justice Gorsuch could be a supporter of a liberal interpretation as he is “an avowed believer in textualism, meaning that he considers the words Congress enacted rather than evidence drawn from other sources.” He indicated that Title VII may bar employment discrimination based upon sexual orientation and transgender status. But, he says it’s a close call. And he added that legislation by Congress to end the aforementioned discrimination may be a more appropriate way to end unfair practices, rather than action by the Court.

Specifically Title VII outlawed discrimination based upon race, religion, national origin and “sex.” “The question for the judges [is] how broadly to read that last term.” Does it apply to whether a person is male or female only, or does it also relate to a person’s sexual preferences. Clearly, Title VII prohibits job discriminating against women. But if a man is married to another man should a company be able to fire him? Surely not.

The Trump administration chimed in by indicating, “it was up to Congress and not the courts to change the law [as it is now being enforced].”

Everyone knows that passing the buck to Congress at this time in history will extend discriminatory practices indefinitely given the vitriol that exists between the political parties. Yet the opposition appears to be resigned to the fact that a basic civil right is being denied to individuals for an inappropriate reason.

The simple thing to do is have the Court broadly and liberally interpret the law now because it is what society demands, and not delay the affirmation of job quality for all. We cannot depend upon Congress to effectively do its job on this matter at this time.

Warren Is The Last Socialist Standing

The three-ring Democratic presidential circus is about to end. Sanders is too frail to be the next president, so he’s out. Biden has not been able to explain away collusion with his son and the Ukraine government, either because he’s lying or can’t remember what happened. That leaves Dems with Elizabeth Warren, the screaming, radical, progressive darling of liberal America. By the way she just got caught in another lie, something about being fired when she was a teacher because she was pregnant. Will the drama queen drive us bonkers from the White House?

I’m not saying you’d be out of your mind to vote for Warren, but really you would be if the traditions, history and the strength of America are important to you. I suggest all those enamored with this candidate take the time to consider carefully her outrageous and inane proposals.

Warren wants a one-payer health care system and the end of private insurance. That means that every American will pay nothing for insurance or for seeing a doctor or checking into a hospital (this does not take into account increased taxation to pay for it all). It’s a ridiculously expensive proposal even if those with private health insurance could keep theirs. But what will it cost to pay for 350 million people to have unlimited medical care? If every American needs an average of $10,000 of health services each year, it would cost 350 million times $10,000 or $3.5 trillion annually.

The situation becomes even direr if you consider that there would be no limit on the value of services any individual might incur. And, how about the ability of doctors and hospitals to handle this unbridled demand for care? They would be overrun on a daily basis. Conclusion: This type of health care would bankrupt the country, so it’s a dumb idea.

Warren also wants to forgive $2 trillion or so of student debt. Even as president, would she even have the authority to do this? And who’s going to pay for it? I’ll bet you know where Warren’s looking. It’s the wealthy, stupid.

Why should individuals who ran up their debt by taking courses that don’t help them find high paying jobs (that would have helped these individuals pay back their loans), have their debt assumed by others (US tax payers)? If you examine this closely you will discover that middle class individuals, not needy people will be the biggest beneficiaries of this entitlement.

What responsibility do colleges with billion dollar endowments have in this affair? They are the ones jacking up tuitions. Apparently none as far as Warren is concerned. Conclusion: Stupid proposal, although needy students should be given relief.

The issue is one of fairness. High earners should pay high taxes, but there’s a point where excessive taxation is bad for the country. Consumption will decrease as well as overall purchases and consumer confidence. The government will essentially be establishing a maximum level of income for all Americans, a level that discourages exceptionalism and the capitalistic spirit.

But even more disconcerting is that the justification of higher taxes for successful people is “that they don’t pay their fair share.” Hasn’t the government established “fair taxation?” Of course it has, it’s the current tax tables. When you consider the outsized percentage of taxes paid by the 1% versus the rest of the country, this tired philosophy of political progressives is misleading and detrimental to our financial well-being.

Furthermore the proposal to reach back and tax Americans for wealth that they accumulated over the years is the height of financial insanity. Money earned through hard work, entrepreneurship and creativity should be protected not attacked. The death tax is already eating into the money earned in years past.

Elizabeth Warren is a menace trying to spread her populist and socialistic dogma on our eternal capitalistic society. As most of the world aspires to become more like the US, Warren wants to take us backwards. She wants everybody to earn the same income, not because she’s a true socialist, but because she thinks she can dupe Americans into believing in a new system that has been disastrous for those who practiced it historically, while stealing the presidency. She refuses to accept that America is the greatest country in the world in large part because of our capitalistic instincts.

Finally, I have not torpedoed several other Warren tax boondoggles. They are equally destructive as the ones mentioned earlier and should be disregarded and denigrated by all Americans.

 

Lying Politicians

The whole purpose of political campaigns, debates, interviews and rallies is to give voters an opportunity to hear from the candidates. The more data a voter accumulates about the contenders, the more informed the voter will be to elect someone who will represent his or her interests and concerns.

When the contenders lie about their experiences or their true feelings about important issues, the more difficult it becomes to make good decisions in the voting booth. Exasperating the experience is the press when its reporting is biased towards one political party or another.

For sure voters in 2020 will receive more information than ever before in history. There are newspapers, periodicals, magazines, news releases, cable TV, social media and so many other sources from which voters can gather data before they decide.

The problem is the information received may be tainted or inaccurate in an effort to sway voters one way or the other. Trump calls this fake news. Or, the “facts” provided are wrong because the outlet reporting them did not vet its sources and/or what it was told.

So that’s the rub. There’s plenty of information to sink your teeth into, but voters really don’t know who’s lying and who’s telling the truth. The real problems occur, and voters get confused, when two politicians stand up in front of the media with the same set of facts and express entirely different perspectives.

The Ukraine affair is a perfect example. Trump said he legitimately spoke with the Ukraine president about alleged political corruption perpetrated by Joe and Hunter Biden. Trump was so sure that his inquiries didn’t cross the line that he declassified and made public a transcript of the conversation.

Our president said it was in his purview to follow up on possible crimes of corruption by either of the Bidens, or any American for that matter. Was Trump investigating because he believed Biden did something illegal, or because Biden was expected to be his rival in 2020? If it were the latter, it would be fair to say Trump was attempting to interfere in the US election with the help of a foreign government. But how can anyone judge what’s in the heart of another person? In other words, is Trump lying about his motive for attacking the Bidens?

Democrats are dead sure that Trump was trying to rig the election and are preparing impeachment papers at this moment.

The backlash has been that Republicans and Democrats spent nearly a week calling each other liars. Trump says Adam Schiff, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is a liar and even suggested that Schiff helped the whistleblower document his accusations against Trump. Schiff says he will prove the president and Rudy Guiliani are guilty of trying to influence the 2020 election in their conversations with the Ukraines. Who is a voter to believe? The opposing forces have the same “facts” and completely different viewpoints. The Democrats are about to upset the stability of our government, so they better be sure they are providing accurate information.

I don’t have an answer to the previous question and would recommend that voters read the documents involved and then consider what each side is proclaiming. Past lies by anyone erodes the confidence of what they are saying presently. The president certainly has a problem in this arena, as does Schiff.

The veracity of all the people involved in the Ukraine affair is in question. At least Trump provided a document that purportedly gives us the essence of what he discussed with the Ukraine leader. Democrats are trying so hard to find an impeachable offense that they are stretching the truth from my vantage point.