Drunk at the End of the Bar

Today (08/15/16), Donald gave a major speech concerning the rise of ISIS, how he intends to combat it, and what he believes is needed to protect us here at home. All afternoon and into the evening, media commentators had a field day with Trump’s simple-minded solutions to complex issues. There were so many ludicrous suggestions in the speech that just the thought of discussing it made me weary.

When Trump tries to explain his policies and solutions, I like to imagine that one of two things is really happening:

  • I’m listening to proposed solutions to world problems voiced by “that drunk at the end of the bar.” Sure, he has ideas and opinions, but so does the guy who always wears a tinfoil hat to avoid having his thoughts read by The Government.
  • The dumbest kid in class has just been asked to explain the Theory of Relativity.

The “rise of ISIS" portion of the speech was quickly analyzed by Politifacts.com and, as usual, was found to contain a number of major factual errors that ranged from misinterpretations and misstatements to outright lies. The remainder of the speech—the “solutions"—has already been dissected and roundly criticized by almost everyone as ridiculous, unnecessary, unworkable, dangerous, contrary to our country’s beliefs and long-standing policies, and damaging to how other countries will view us. Here are a couple of highlights:

  • Donald and many top Republicans continually insist that we’re doing a terrible job of vetting incoming refugees who might be terrorists. (See "Infographic: The Screening Process for Refugee Entry into the United States” for a description of the non-trivial 2.5-year screening process for each applicant that is currently conducted by the U.N. Refugee Agency, Resettlement Support Center, FBI, National Counterterrorism Center, Homeland Security, the intelligence community, and others.) To prevent any would-be terrorists from slipping through the screening process, Trump said that we will employ “Extreme Vetting.” The details aren’t clear, but he said that we will ask refugees whether they ascribe to American values and turn them back if they don’t answer correctly. (This is similar to his earlier proposal of rejecting anyone who admitted that he or she was Muslim. My thinking is that this would eventually eliminate only people who had a prominent “Muslim and Proud” or “I love ISIS” tattoo. Unfortunately, as with Orthodox Jews, tattooing is a major no-no for devout Muslims.) Anyway, if this extreme questioning tactic is successful, we can simultaneously do away with drug-testing convenience store employees, conducting background checks for gun purchasers (“Do you swear that you won’t use this AR-15 to shoot anyone other than terrorists?”), and solving crimes (“Did you rob the bank?" “Ah, you got me. I was completely unprepared for you to ask me if I did it. I’ll go quietly.") Perhaps, though, when Trump talks about Extreme Vetting, he’s thinking about combining the intake interview with sodium pentathol, lie detector, car battery, and/or waterboarding. That would be extreme.
  • Donald stated that after the Iraq War, we should have nationalized the oil fields (ala “to the victor goes the spoils") and used the money for our veterans. First, the U.S. doesn’t do that; i.e., attack a country and follow up with some good ol’ fashioned looting, pillaging, and/or raping. Our standing in the international community would immediately drop to the level of Russia and no one—other than The Donald—thinks that’s a goal for which we should strive. Second, taking oil is terribly impractical unless we mean to occupy the country forever. Finally, our intent was to be thought of by the Iraqis as heroes and saviors. Although that didn’t happen, it would have been especially difficult if we stole their remaining financial resources on the way out.

Ah, dummy dummy dummy Donald.

—Steve (DummyDonald.com), August 15, 2016

© 2016 DummyDonald.com. All rights reserved.