BY JOHN K. WILSON
Here’s an important point to remember this Halloween: Trump is a narcissistic con man dressed up as a presidential candidate, as I reveal in my book Trump Unveiled: Exposing the Bigoted Billionaire. It’s the scariest costume anyone will ever wear. Inside, he’s as hollow as a Trump piñata that my cats Sunspot and Quark have enough sense to distrust.
Trump has always worn disguises. In 1991, he called People magazine pretending to be his own PR flack named “John Miller” in order to spread false stories about all of the celebrities he slept with. In 2016, Trump was still engaged in the deception, loudly denying that he had done it, despite an audio recording and his admission at the time.
Trump won the nomination by pretending to be a Republican. In considering a presidential run in 1999, Trump was adamantly pro-choice and supported the largest tax on the rich in human history, a 14% wealth tax so radical that Bernie Sanders has never suggested it. This year, Trump called for jailing women who have abortions and giving the rich the largest tax cut in human history. Trump believes in nothing except Trump.
Now, Trump is trying to win by wearing the disguise of a populist. He has put on the costume of an anti-war protester and pretended to be a leader of the fight against the war in Iraq. In reality, Trump supported the war and never criticized it publicly until long after it began and went badly. In fact, Trump consistently supported invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein from 1991 to 2003, putting him to the right of Dick Cheney.
Trump has disguised himself as a great businessman for years, even after multiple bankruptcies and a $916 million tax loss revealed the truth. He pretended to be an educational leader running Trump University, a delusional business that ended up as a massive scam. But years of acting on The Apprentice and a red power tie provide the perfect costume.
Trump is the least qualified person ever to run for president for a major party. He lacks the experience, the knowledge, the character, the temperament, the attention span, and the abilities to begin doing the job. It’s like electing Kim Kardashian for president, if she were a bigoted idiot with terrible business sense and worse public policy proposals.
It can be disheartening to watch the current campaign and see 40% or more of the American electorate voting for an ignorant scumbag. How can we teach people to see the difference between fact and fantasy, to understand when a con man is trying to frighten them into a bad decision?
I can hope that one day the Trump candidacy will be remembered as a scary story to tell children about the day when America came close to installing a bigoted buffoon as the most powerful person on the planet.
Great piece. I hope more people read this before voting.
I agree that Donald Trump should never be trusted on anything and is as phony and shallow as you get, but I may vote for him because I am scared of Hillary Clinton starting a nuclear war.
There are understandable reasons why certain conservatives might prefer to vote for Trump–but fear of nuclear war is definitely not one of them. During a March 2016 interview, Trump was asked, “where would we drop a nuclear weapon in the Middle East?” and he responded, “Somebody hits us within ISIS, you wouldn’t fight back with a nuke?”(MSNBC Town Hall, March 30, 2016, http://info.msnbc.com/_news/2016/03/30/35330907-full-transcript-msnbc-town-hall-with-donald-trump-moderated-by-chris-matthews?lite) And MSNBC host Joe Scarborough reported being told by a Trump foreign policy advisor that during a briefing, Trump asked three times about nuclear weapons, “If we have them, why can’t we use them?”(MSNBC, August 3, 2016, http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/08/03/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-trump-asked-three-times-hour-briefing-why-cant-we-use-nuclear-weapons/212129)
Hillary Clinton is a conventional hawkish Democrat. Donald Trump is a violent isolationist, who was to the right of Dick Cheney in advocating war against Iraq for more than a decade. The notion that Trump is less likely to start wars or use nuclear weapons is simply absurd.
I admit your first Trump quote bothers me. I don’t think the second quote by itself proves that Donald Trump is eager to use nuclear weapons. This question may just mean that a non-expert in nuclear weapons policy, Donald Trump, is asking an expert this question to find out the rationales against using nuclear weapons. He asks this question three times because he has not received a clear answer. To be fair to Trump, one should look at all his statements on nuclear weapons. For example, he has stated he would not make a first use of nuclear weapons. As on most issues, he is all over the place. I think his incoherence reflects the fact that he knows nothing. An expert (and non-opportunist) will have thought about a subject for a long time and give the same answer every time. I do believe he wants good relations with Russia. I think two of his advisors, Flynn and another fellow, are in favor of this.
I don’t know what would happen during a Trump presidency in the sense that I don’t know to what extent he would follow his own views, how much he would follow his advisors views, what their identity would be, and how much he could deviate from the anti-Russian belligerence of the Washington deep state.
What about Hillary Clinton? She is promising to place a no-fly zone over Syria as was done over Libya. This will mean war with Russia, as the JCS has testified to congress. Once a conflict starts, how likely is it to escalate into a nuclear war? A conflict with Russia is being promoted not only by Clinton but by the Washington establishment. The consortiumnews.com website has been publishing articles on the U.S.-Russian crisis such as this one:
consortiumnews.com/2016/10/14/the-warnings-of-a-new-world-war/
I’m not an expert on nuclear weapons policy, but I still know that using nuclear weapons is a very very bad idea without needing to ask the experts why. I don’t see any indication that Trump follows the advice of experts. He mostly listens to himself, Infowars, and whatever person he most recently had a conversation with who praised him. Good relations with Russia by Trump are not guaranteed, and his current praise is mostly based his former campaign manager’s connections and the fact that Trump thought that Putin called him a “genius” due to a mistranslation. No, Clinton is not promising to start a war with Russia by shooting down their planes. A negotiated no-fly zone might not work and might not help, but it doesn’t make her a crazy war-monger.
“I’m not an expert on nuclear weapons policy, but I still know that using nuclear weapons is a very very bad idea without needing to ask the experts why.”
The president should have a better understanding of this subject then his own naive, non-expert views. The question could just mean Mr. Trump was trying to gain this knowledge. Of course, your interpretation may also be correct; from the question alone we can’t tell.
“Good relations with Russia by Trump are not guaranteed”
I agree.
“his current praise is mostly based his former campaign manager’s connections and the fact that Trump thought that Putin called him a “genius” due to a mistranslation”
O.K., I think you need to be careful here. This is speculation; are you being fair to Trump? There are good reasons why Donald Trump might desire good relations with Russia.
“No, Clinton is not promising to start a war with Russia by shooting down their planes. A negotiated no-fly zone might not work and might not help, but it doesn’t make her a crazy war-monger.”
Ms. Clinton’s no-fly zone does risk a war. Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified recently that controlling all of Syria’s airspace would require a war with Russia and Syria:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xywb7KqPJoM
I am not sure what the alternative is supposed to be. How is Russia supposed to agree to a no-fly zone that excludes Russian and Syrian aircraft?
On Trump, here’s what he said about Putin: “A guy calls me a genius and they want me to renounce him? I’m not going to renounce him.” Of course, there are other reasons why Trump admires Putin, but that’s the main one. Many of Trump’s relationships depend upon whether people say nice things about him, which is a terrible approach to foreign policy. As for the no-fly zone, Clinton explained at a debate, “This would take a lot of negotiation.” So, no, it’s not a plausible interpretation of her no-fly zone that she will be shooting down Russian planes. This would be an agreement with Russia and Syria, not a unilateral no-fly zone.
“Many of Trump’s relationships depend upon whether people say nice things about him”
I think this is true, at least, unsurprisingly, in the campaign. At the same time he probably has a sophisticated, if machiavellian, understanding of people, based on the success of his campaign, and can probably negotiate when he needs to. I agree with Trump when he asks, “What is the point of demonizing Putin?” How do you negotiate with a demonized Putin?
” it’s not a plausible interpretation of her no-fly zone that she will be shooting down Russian planes. This would be an agreement with Russia and Syria, not a unilateral no-fly zone.”
The Syrian no-fly zone has been discussed for a while now by what the Russians call the “Hillary Block”. That discussion is described in this article:
lobelog.com/think-tanks-beg-give-us-war/
According to this article:
Although the Russia problem has acquired new import in the past few weeks, it’s been a consideration pro-airstrike advocates have grappled with for months. Earlier this year, one of the more vocal supporters of an intervention—the Washington Institute for Near East Policy—sponsored a series on “safe zones,” grappling somewhat haphazardly with the question of Russian involvement. In one report, James Jeffrey wondered “why Washington, with far greater local and global military capabilities [than Moscow], so worries” about a no-fly zone resulting in a military confrontation with Russia. Plus, explained Anna Borshchevskaya in another policy paper in the series, “the threat of escalation with Russia exists whether the United States implements safe zones or not, simply by virtue of Russia’s growing presence in the region.”
The Atlantic Council—which is expected to forcefully call for a more interventionist foreign policy in its forthcoming report on the next president’s role in the Middle East—took a similar position in its report on the Middle East earlier this year as well, noting that concerns over Russian retaliation were overblown. “American interests and capabilities greatly outweigh Russia’s in the region,” the report explained. “It is Russia that should want to avoid a fight with the United States in Syria, and probably will.”
The article continues with more examples in this vein where Russia is not expected to respond to a no-fly zone. The Russians, however, have thrown cold water on this idea:
consortiumnews.com/2016/10/14/the-warnings-of-a-new-world-war/
Also on what he chose to call “Black Tuesday,” the Russian government confirmed that it has installed its S300 air defense system in Syria. For the explanation, Kiselyov pulled up video recordings of the televised statement by the chief of the press and information service, the Russian Federation Ministry of Defense Igor Konashenkov, who was responding to questions about the Syrian campaign.
Konashenkov said the air defense was installed because of U.S. and French threats to impose a “no fly zone” and because of the lessons learned from the U.S. coalition strike against Syrian forces at Deir Ezzor on Sept. 17. Konashenkov stressed that there will likely be no time for any hot-line discussions with Americans about stealth aircraft or incoming missiles: they will be shot down, “whatever the dilettantes” in American military circles may think.
He explained that Russian military are in settled areas across Syria performing humanitarian work and dealing with local Syrian militia who are laying down their arms under Russian-brokered deals. Therefore, any U.S. air strikes in Syria will likely also hit Russian forces, which is utterly unacceptable.
***
I think the idea of “negotiating” a no-fly zone was raised by Clinton in the third debate to avoid alarming voters that a war is in the offing. I haven’t seen it raised elsewhere. If there is a magic plan to impose a no-fly zone on Syria without starting a war with Russia why hasn’t it been made public?
The most troubling aspect of the current mess is that the red line that existed during the cold war against nuclear war no longer seems to exist. Both Washington and Moscow understood then, especially after the Cuban missile crisis, that a conflict could escalate into a nuclear war and must be avoided.