Category Archives: Donald Trump

john kelly niger

John Kelly’s Shame

Many days after American soldiers died in Niger, Donald Trump finally decided to call the grieving widow of one of the lost soldiers.  He bombed spectacularly, telling the widow her husband “knew what he was signing up for, but I guess it still hurt.”  A car full of mourners heard the president disregard an American death because they should have seen it coming and been emotionally prepared.

Donald Trump, when faced with the natural outrage that followed his most recent stunning lack of basic human empathy, decided to attack Congresswoman Wilson, a longtime family friend of the deceased, on Twitter, labelling her account of the conversation as fake.

As usually happens when Trump claims to have proof that vindicates his side of the story (see his threat of releasing tapes on James Comey which the White House ultimately conceded did not exist), Trump lied.  He’s lied to the American people well over a thousand times; this one just so happened to concern a Gold Star family, a label which Trump has long disrespected.

To soothe things over, the administration trotted out Chief of Staff John Kelly, a retired general whose son died while serving the country.  Kelly, faced with the impossible task of defending Trump’s callous and entirely heartless remarks, decided not to and instead resorted to the logical fallacy of whataboutism.

Whataboutism, a common propaganda technique, shifts focus from one wrong to another (whether real or imagined) to dilute outrage and signal loyal partisans that the offending party actually did nothing wrong, or is simply the lesser of two evils.

In Kelly’s case, he decided to attack the family friend and congresswoman present with the family during the phone call, saying “it stuns me that a member of Congress would have listened in on that conversation. Absolutely stuns me. I would have thought that was sacred.”  What Kelly fails to mention, however, is that the family invited the congresswoman to listen to the call, putting it on speakerphone when all were together.  

Kelly decried Wilson’s “selfish behavior,” but not the president’s callous remarks.  He attacked a friend supporting a widow faced with raising children alone, but admitted that the president spoke without sympathy or empathy and offered no support in such a trying time.  

John Kelly tried to create phony outrage by slandering a widow’s friend while letting the president off the hook for his ineptitude.  That’s perfect whataboutism — shifting the focus from the president to the supposed evils of someone else.

It’s also a complete lie, and John Kelly knows it.  He purposefully lied to the American people in an effort to help a man who said he prefers military members “who weren’t captured.”

Mr. Kelly, I must ask: What is wrong with you?

cost-sharing reductions

Congress Must Appropriate Cost-Sharing Reductions

Donald Trump announced that the federal government halt cost-sharing reductions with insurance companies, threatening the stability of the insurance marketplace and raising premiums for all as well as increasing the federal deficit by $194 billion.

Unfortunately, though Trump’s sabotaging the law, he has good reason to end cost-sharing reductions: They’re probably unconstitutional because Congress never appropriated the funds spent by both the Obama and Trump administration.

Congress, and Congress only, has the power of the purse.  Whereas parts of the ACA have a permanent appropriation — the tax credits given to low- and middle-income Americans do not have to be reappropriated every year — the cost-sharing reductions are not included in those provisions.

The Obama administration unsuccessfully argued that Congress intended for the cost-sharing reductions to be grouped with tax credits and their permanent appropriation, an argument similar to the intent argument made in King v. Burwell.  A federal judge did not buy that reasoning.

We won’t know the case’s ultimate outcome as the Trump administration will drop its appeal (Trump’s decision made it moot).  Regardless of intent, or what a court would divine as intent, the hastily-written ACA final text did not permanently appropriate cost-sharing reductions.

And Congress has not appropriated them since the Republicans took over the House of Representatives in 2010.

It must do so now.  As mentioned, ceasing the subsidies increases premiums and gives insurance companies a reason to leave the marketplace in 2018.  The poor see access to healthcare restricted and the federal government spends more to cover rising premiums.

Let’s be smart and appropriate cost-sharing reductions.  Failing to do so hurts everyone.

cost-sharing subsidies

Cost-Sharing Subsidies Stabilize the Insurance Market

Donald Trump, after mulling the issue for months, has decided to end the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) cost-sharing subsidies, a move that could drive insurers from the market place and which will raise the cost of insurance, especially for those hovering at or just above the federal poverty line.

Cost-sharing subsidies make healthcare affordable for low-income consumers

These cost-sharing subsidies help consumers who earn between 100 and 250% of the poverty line afford copays and deductibles if they purchased select healthcare plans through the ACA exchanges.

The plans that qualify for cost-sharing subsidies tend to have high deductibles — the Silver Plan, for instance, had an average deductible of more than $3,000 in 2016 — that would otherwise render purchased insurance all but useless for low-income consumers.  Cost-sharing subsidies help make the Affordable Care Act affordable.

Payments, made directly to insurance companies, total around $7 billion a year.  Without these subsidies, health experts fear insurers would drop out of marketplaces.  Those that remain would have to raise rates to “cover the costs of reducing cost sharing while ensuring solvency.”

Ending cost-sharing subsidies leads to uncertainty

Before Trump announced an end to cost-sharing subsidies, uncertainty around future payments caused insurers to raise rates in case the administration cutoff reimbursements.  Insurance companies had to insure themselves against the possibility of the Trump administration signing an executive order; unfortunately, the premiums for that insurance fell on consumers.

That’s not all.  On top of insurers leaving the markets and premiums rising, ending cost-sharing subsidies would actually increase the deficit by $194 billion over 10 years.  This paradoxical finding by the CBO — federal spending actually rising by the president cutting some spending — will happen because of premium increases.  As premiums rise for those with low incomes, government subsidies will also rise, costing the government hundreds of billions over the course of a decade.

Trump’s decision and his rhetoric leading up to it have sabotaged the ACA and the healthcare markets by creating instability, discouraging insurers from entering the marketplace, raising premiums, and, as subsidies end, increasing the deficit.

The Founders Did Not Want a Businessman as President

The Founding Fathers never wanted businessmen elected to public office and they certainly did not want one to become president.

Public officials, the Founding Fathers believed, should act disinterestedly — that is, with virtue, willing to sacrifice their own interests, and those of their peers, for the benefit of the country.  Patricians should lead the government as only they, free from avaristic influences of occupation, could rationally and dispassionately consider policy.

Businessmen could not for their commercial interests and bias would skew public policy towards a special interest.  Considerations would ignore the state as a whole and instead focus on, at best, enriching peers and patrons, and, at worst, themselves.

The Founders’ Warning

Alexander Hamilton warned that electing those representing special interests, such as businessmen (as well as men from other occupations), would take government’s focus away from the polity and shift it towards helping specific factions.  Writing in Federalist No. 35, Hamilton asked “Will not the merchant understand and be disposed to cultivate, as far as may be proper, the interests of the mechanic and manufacturing arts, to which his commerce is so nearly allied?”

To free government from such influence, he advocated electing statesmen free from conflicts of interests.  These statesmen would have studied government and its science and “feel a neutrality to the rivalships between the different branches of industry,” making them “likely to prove an impartial arbiter between them, ready to promote either, so far as it shall appear to him conducive to the general interests of the society[.]”

Adam Smith, father of modern economics, also voiced similar concerns.  His Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations argued that “The interest of [businessmen] is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public….The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order…ought never to be adopted, till after having been long and carefully examined…with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men…who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public.”

The Constitution’s framers and other influential thinkers understood that electing a businessman to public office would risk conflicts of interest that pitted the financial stakes of the individual with the concerns of the country.  And, understanding the greed so natural in mankind, they knew which interest such an official would pursue.

Donald Trump and his Conflict of Interests

These warnings are particularly prescient today.  Donald Trump’s sprawling business empire from which he refused to divest leaves him susceptible to innumerable conflicts of interest as well as chancing his violation of both the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses.

We’ve already seen Trump’s personal interests butt heads with the interests of the country.  He spends a disproportionate amount of time at his private golf clubs, mingling with donors and lobbyists who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year be with the president at such resorts.  As Puerto Ricans — American citizens — suffered a humanitarian crisis in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, Trump golfed at his own club.

Trump has shown no ability to place America’s interests ahead of his business interests.  That is precisely the unenlightened leadership our Founders and other enlightenment thinkers so greatly feared.

To learn more about the Founding Fathers and the birth of the new American nation, checkout Gordon Wood’s The Empire of Liberty, linked below.  PoliticalEdu may receive a commission for purchases made through that link; such money helps maintain the site.

empire of liberty
Click to purchase
end the iran deal

It Would be a Mistake to End the Iran Deal

Donald Trump wants badly to end the Iran Deal, which he has wrongly lambasted as “one of the worst deals ever created.”  The Iran Deal has successfully stopped Iran’s nuclear development and triumphed diplomacy over armed action.

To end the Iran Deal, to renege on an agreement from the previous administration, would dissuade other (rogue) regimes from negotiating with the United States as Trump would increase the costs and decrease the benefits of civilized issue resolution while making it clear that the United State’s word is only good as long as its speaker remains in power.

A Victory for Sanctions and Diplomacy

The Iran Deal represents the victorious conclusion of economic sanctions.  We never intended to hurt Iran’s economy indefinitely; instead, we hoped to bring them to the negotiating table by offering a clear benefit — relief from crippling sanctions — in return for ending its nascent nuclear program.  That succeeded.

Iran, once mere months from building a small nuclear stockpile, has followed the terms of the deal and now stands a decade (or more) from attaining a nuclear weapon.  Its centrifuges have been cemented and uranium stockpiles reduced some 98 percent.  Relatively moderate leaders have even used sanction relief to gain power in the state, reducing tensions with Israel and the West.

Should Trump fail to uphold our end of the deal, as he seems likely to do, Congress will have to decide whether to reimpose sanctions on Iran.  If it does, the Iran Deal will fall apart and, without sure support from our allies (who, aside from Israel, want the Iran Deal affirmed), only weak sanctions could be levied.

Iran Walks Away and Doesn’t Come Back

These sanctions would not, as before, bring Iran back to the negotiating table so Trump can work his faked dealmaking magic.  Iran will be free from its nuclear obligations and could resume work on weapons of mass destruction.  That sets Trump’s successor(s) up with a dilemma similar to what he faces with North Korea: How to handle an aggressive regional power with, or close to having, nuclear weapons.  And the Middle East has a lot more fluid parts than does North Korea.

Importantly, if we end the Iran Deal and manage to apply meaningful sanctions, it’s highly unlikely that Iran could be brought back to the negotiating table to hammer out a new deal.  They did so once and ended their nuclear program, abiding by all of the deal’s terms.  But that hasn’t stopped Trump from doubting the deal and continuously threatening to tear it up.  If he does so, why should Iran trust us again in the future to uphold our side of the bargain?

Can’t Negotiate with Other Rogue States

This breach of trust hurts us with other states.  Take North Korea.  We can only hope that North Korea could be induced to diplomacy to curtail its nuclear development.  While this might not seem likely — and seems especially unlikely when President Trump continues to throw cold water on the idea — it’s not impossible and is a partial hope of sanctions.

However, should Trump end the Iran Deal, North Korea will have no reason to ever negotiate with the United States.  What possible benefit could they get from it?  A brief respite from sanctions that could be reimposed at the whim of a tempestuous president?  An agreement at risk with every new election?

Without standing by our agreements, one president’s word — one Congresses action — means nothing.  Continuity in foreign affairs is incredibly important.  Signaling that our words and deals means little takes away whatever benefits other states might gain from negotiating with us: Following the agreement hurts their interests and may not help them in the long run if the United States backtracks from our word.

Don’t End the Iran Deal

Should Donald Trump end the Iran Deal, we will see our foreign policy become much more complicated.  Rogue nations will double-down on nuclear development and will avoid making deals with the United States.  We’ll increasingly isolate these states and they will increasingly build arms and increasingly become a threat.

Mr. President, please don’t end the Iran Deal.

trump press fake news

More Shameful Attacks on the Free Press

A whopping 86 percent of Americans do not know that the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of the press.  Apparently Donald Trump, in whose presidential oath of office he swore to uphold the Constitution, falls in that group.

His repeated attacks on the free press, routinely and incorrectly calling it “fake,” have always reeked of authoritarianism.  Now, though, he’s extended his authoritarian leanings by specifically floating the idea of cracking down on the press simply because he dislikes or is angered by its reports.

For those wondering, the First Amendment specifically forbids the government from silencing the press.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.

The Burden of Proof Falls on Trump

Donald Trump’s talking about an unconstitutional policy borne from his hatred and anger that accompanies each leak about his train-wreck of a presidency.  He has yet to identify a single instance of fake news and doesn’t seem to realize that basic logical concept that when making such outrageous claims, the burden of proof falls on him.

The burden of proof to show his views are the truth, the failure to provide which shows he’s but a goof.

Elite Cues and Political Beliefs

Unfortunately, voters don’t particularly care about logic.  Political scientists have long argued that the power of elite signals — popular politicians explicitly supporting or even winking at certain ideas — leads to partisan acceptance.  Voters take signals and incorporate those views into their political beliefs.

As partisanship increases, so do the value of these signals as they increasingly define and coalesce the party tribe against its adversary, the opposition.

Such virtue signaling helps the competition of ideas and is only bad for democracy when leaders attack its fundamental underpinnings.  Donald Trump has routinely done this, especially with the press.

The Press’s Virtue

The press plays an invaluable role in a democracy.  It enables the electorate to make educated decisions while also holding power accountable.

Our mainstream press outlets do just that.  Unfortunately, Trump bristles with negative accounts and so lashes out at the institution without realization his words have profound consequences — people take seriously attempts to undermine faith in the press and come to doubt honest outlets.

It’s yet another indication of Trump’s efforts to backslide our liberal democracy by eroding faith in institutions and encouraging the ultimate political sovereigns to run from reports and facts that in any way harm their leader.

nfl's taxes

Trump’s Completely Wrong about the NFL’s Taxes

Donald Trump, lover of all culture wars and hater of the National Football League (NFL) ever since his failed attempt to start a rival league, denounced NFL’s taxes, claiming that no organization tolerant of protest should receive “massive tax breaks.”

Trump Doesn’t Understand the NFL’s Taxes

There’s one major problem with Trump’s tweet (aside from the grammar), however: The NFL no longer receives these tax breaks and hasn’t for two years.

In 2015, the NFL’s taxes situation after the organization voluntarily gave up its 501(c)(6) tax-exempt trade organization status, which it held since 1942.

Even that status didn’t stop the NFL from paying taxes.  The 501(c)(6) status, shared by the Chamber of Commerce, the NHL, and PGA Tour, did not exempt the NFL’s taxes on revenue from sponsorships, broadcast deals, and ticket sales.

Only office income remained untaxed and the NFL did not generate any such profit (a requisite for taxation) until 2012.  From that point, the exemption saved the league an average of $10 million a year.

Furthermore, whereas the NFL had limited tax exemption, individual teams — those against whose toleration for political speech Trump rails — have no tax exemption.

Using Taxes to Silence Opinion

Though Trump’s fell flat for want of facts, his intent remains clear (and authoritarian): He wants to politicize taxation and tax exemption to coerce organizations into abiding by his moral and political standard.

Trump dislikes free speech, especially when the arguments presented challenge his worldview.  Now that he’s president, he wants to wield the powers of the state to punish any organization, business, or individual that challenges him (see his attacks on the Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos) or the status quo.

This is a worrying precedent as it threatens ideological coercion.

Political viewpoint has no bearing on whether the IRS grants an organization tax-exempt status.  This is incredibly important as it means that a conservative (or liberal) government cannot muzzle opposition by making it unduly expensive (or unprofitable) for, eg, think tanks to disseminate ideas.

The free and equal opportunity to share viewpoints — to compete in the marketplace of ideas — maintains a liberal society.

But Trump doesn’t understand these normative issues and instead contributes to the further degradation of democratic values by signaling to his followers that it is just and legitimate for the state to punish dissidents by withholding tax-exempt status for those who tolerate protest.

So much for small-government conservatism.

fairness doctrine donald trump

Donald Trump Wrongly Supports the Fairness Doctrine

Donald Trump, who spends a disproportionate amount of his time watching and raging over news and late night television (versus, say, reading about policy or the origins of North Korea’s aggression), has suddenly latched on an antiquated idea that he thinks will force the press and media to fawn over him: The fairness doctrine.

The fairness doctrine mandated that holders of broadcast licenses present issues in what the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) deemed “honest, equitable, and balanced.”  Ronald Reagan rolled back this requirement for obvious reasons – it trampled on the First Amendment, wrongly created two sides to every story, and allowed the government to restrict criticism of it.

Free Press and the Fairness Doctrine

Obviously, the fairness doctrine conflicts with the First Amendment.  The very nature of a free press mandates that the government cannot in any way shape or control published content.  With the fairness doctrine in place, the government, whether through a genuine commitment to perceived fairness or simple malice, can wholly alter coverage and exert control over the press and media.

Coverage can be altered by curtailing government criticism and instead forcing outlets to have on their shows administration cronies offering little more than predictable propaganda.  Similarly, using the coercive power of the state to enforce fairness threatens outlets and bullies them into government control.  A malicious FCC encouraged by a reckless president could interpret the fairness doctrine as necessitating that the administration get more time than its dissidents – a true authoritarian move.

Bizarrely, Trump not wants to bring back the fairness doctrine, he wants to extend it beyond traditional news outlets and into the realm of late night television.

Late night television is not news.  No people – and not responsible voters – get their information primarily from the likes of Jimmy Kimmel (against whom Trump’s likely railing).  People of intelligence, and I realize this removes Trump from the mentioned population, watch shows for laughs and a good time.  So even the theoretic idea behind the foolish fairness doctrine – that all sides have the equal time to make their cases – doesn’t hold up here.

Instead, it’s a clear desire for Trump to tamp down on criticism.  He wants to restrict the time comedians can spend attacking him and instead mandate that he, or one of his cohorts, can defend him in front of millions (millions who would then turn of the television and grow even more frustrated with the administration).  Trump wants the government to have the unfettered ability to shorten criticism and spew its nonsensical defenses.

There are Not Always Two Sides

Perhaps the fatal conceit of the fairness doctrine is the notion that each story has two sides.  Facts and clear moral happenings do not have two sides and we should not pretend otherwise.

Climate change, a scientific fact, does not have two sides.  GMOs do not have two sides.  Bragging on tape about sexually assaulting women does not have two sides.  Assaulting a reporter because he asked a question does not have two sides.  These facts or happenings are entirely clear cut and do not warrant a defense.

However, the fairness doctrine would force outlets to air defenses by those who simply deny science or excuse predatory behavior.  These defenses, of course, have First Amendment protections and have every right to be aired, but news outlets have every right to deny lending credence to such smut (and the government has no right to force a private company to broadcast a single thing).

Trump, often on the wrong side of one-sided stories (such as a dozen allegations of sexual assault), has every reason to force outlets to empower those who for some reason defend him.  Only by calling for the fairness doctrine can Trump hope to keep mindless voices with undoubted loyalty in the news despite his existing scandals and those that are still to come.

In the end, the government controlling news coverage and the ideas that can be heard invites authoritarianism.  It enables the president and the FCC to muzzle criticism and strengthen the administration’s voice.  Control over the free press empowers those without society’s interests at heart.  It’s a step towards authoritarianism and so it’s little wonder that Trump has embraced the fairness doctrine.

donald trump rally violence

When the President Endorses Political Violence

Legitimizing Violence is Not Acceptable

Donald Trump’s temperament leaves much to be desired.  He’s erratic and prone to bizarre outburts that leave him screaming at the television or blowing smoke on Twitter.  But unlike a regular old goon tweeting demented sentiments, Trump is (somehow) the President of the United States, so his actions have meaning and many look to him as a signal of moral authority.  The actions and endorsements of the leader of the free world carry weight.

So when Trump retweets images or memes of violence against his political opposition, the norms of democracy fall.  Political violence has no place in a dignified, liberal democracy.  That means not encouraging rally-goers to assault protesters; no encouraging “Second Amendment people” to rid the nation of an alleged threat to it; no driving through protesters in your car (or urging others to do so); and not glorifying those who wantonly punch Nazis, much as they may deserve it.

Trump Sees a Violent, Hobbesian Struggle

But Trump doesn’t see it that way.  He doesn’t view politics through norms of civility — he likens the political world to a Hobbesian struggle of survival wherein (political) conflict becomes the norm until a Leviathan arises and asserts total dominance.  So naturally Trump enjoys images of him wresting to the ground the so-called “fake news media” or him hitting a golf ball and knocking out Hillary Clinton.

That’s not acceptable.  Humans may tend towards violence, but we rightly hold elected leaders to a higher standard, one in which reasoned and dispassionate discourse guide political decision making and hopefully trickles down to the laypeople — the voters — as they see logic, empiricism, and refined values trump the primal nature of ignorance.

Seeing a president so openly embrace violent imagery — having a president descend to the demos and turn legislative conflict into a more physical form — normalizes such actions.  It riles up a base eager to cultivate some sort of enemy readily used a foil for Trump, for a foil of American greatness.  And, while not to many, but to enough, seeing the president’s approval of such action — feeling a call to perceived greatness — they may actually act.

People Act When Violence Seems Accepted

Before you laugh such a happening off as ridiculous, remember that a deranged man who fell into the right-wing fever swamps came to so fervently believe the “pizzagate” conspiracy that he drove to the parlor, armed, and shot his gun in the restaurant, ready to kill anyone he thought at all connected to the fabrication.

Or see the left-wing loon who tried to massacre Republican members of Congress as they practiced for the congressional softball game.

Crazies exist and they on prejudice and emotion, especially when a revered leader signals acceptance for such action.

That’s why we can’t simply shrug off Trump’s Twitter antics.  They have no place in a civilized and democratic society.  Nothing the president does is a joke; his words can quickly devolve to stochastic terrorism.

All citizens — and especially all lawmakers — must condemn and do what they can to preserve what history has proved to be a system never more than a generation away from being flung into the throes of political violence and chaos.

Golfing During a Humanitarian Crisis

Donald Trump Attacks First Responders as He Golfs

As Puerto Ricans suffer in a humanitarian crisis and San Juan’s mayor wades flooded, waste-riddled streets to find and help stranded residents, President Donald J. Trump, whose utter failure to help Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria destroyed the island lengthened an unnecessary disaster, relaxed at his Bedminster golf club, played a few rounds, and slandered Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz on Twitter, spreading falsehoods and showing his vile hatred whenever a woman – or a Latina – dares criticize his slovenly laziness.

In the two weekends since Maria ravaged Puerto Rico, Donald Trump played golf, despite his many Twitter promises to never play golf when president, especially not during a crisis.  Puerto Ricans have little food, almost no clean water, hours of wait time for gas to try to navigate ruined roads so they can go to work, no electricity, and no ability to communicate with others as cell phone towers have almost all been destroyed.

So, naturally, Trump finds it right to play a few rounds of golf and mingle with the millionaires, billionaires, and lobbyists who now frequent his golf clubs, paying the Trump Organization – from which Donald J. Trump still profits – hundreds of thousands a year to enjoy face time with the president, something no other American enjoys.

The populist president enriches himself as some of the poorest Americans starve and try desperately to avoid death.

Mayor Cruz, Committed to Puerto Rico

Luckily, those in Puerto Rico have public servants committed to livelihood.  San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz has put her life on the line by wading through toxic waters with a bullhorn to find those stranded by Maria floodwaters.  She also lives in a shelter with others who lost their houses, sleeping on a cot, and eating the same food to understand how her constituents suffer.

Seeing firsthand the suffering of her fellow Puerto Ricans, Cruz, desperate for help, used the national media to outline the severity of the crisis and urge Trump and his administration to actually provide the island with help.

In response to the Trump administration saying “…it is really a good news story in terms of our ability to reach people and the limited number of deaths that have taken place in such a devastating hurricane,” Cruz said:

“Well maybe from where she’s standing it’s a good news story.  When you’re drinking from a creek, it’s not a good news story. When you don’t have food for a baby, it’s not a good news story. When you have to pull people down from buildings — I’m sorry, that really upsets me and frustrates me.  I would ask [Duke, acting DHS Secretary] to come down here and visit the towns and then make a statement like that, because frankly, it is an irresponsible statement in contrast with the statements of support that I have been getting yesterday when I got that call from the White House. Dammit, this is not a good news story. This is a ‘people are dying’ story. It’s a life-or-death story.”
This plea did not settle well with Trump.  Angered by a Latina woman criticizing his response to an American tragedy, has, as usual, took to Twitter from the comforts of an opulent resort and slandered the mayor.

His tweets show hypocrisy and unbridled anger at person suffering with Puerto Ricans.  He relaxes as a resort; she sleep on a cot and tries to help constituents find food.  Trump plays golf and feasts; Cruz cries as she sees, firsthand, the island’s pain.
Trump has no understanding of Puerto Rico’s suffering.  He sees negative news headlines and grows angry that anyone would dare criticize him.  That the critique comes from a Latina woman only makes matters worse.

Unfit for Office

He’s a man not fit for office.  No worthwhile president would play golf and slander a first responder on Twitter as she seeks only to raise awareness and procure help for her suffering people.
Trump doesn’t care about those in pain.  He doesn’t care about Americans, especially Americans with darker skins and without electoral votes.  He’s a worthless president whose actions bring greater shame on our country with each day that passes.