Letter: Choosing 'non-politically correct' Republican over deplorable Democrat
I look at the picture under a title that caught my eye in The Dickinson Press Opinion page and see a young face -- that of Matthew Becker. So young, yet already an elitist establishment political snob. Trump was not my pick of the large pool of v...
I look at the picture under a title that caught my eye in The Dickinson Press Opinion page and see a young face - that of Matthew Becker. So young, yet already an elitist establishment political snob. Trump was not my pick of the large pool of very capable Republican candidates. But the Republican voters elected Trump as the Party representative - and a record number at that.
Because of political elitist establishment snobs, such as the naïve uber-young Mr. Becker, not listening to the voice of the people. His excuse is the Don having the nuclear codes, national security and the like. But in reality, what elitist establishment snobs like Mr. Becker are saying is the same thing Clinton said about Trump supporters, and voters, being ... well, you all know what Clinton said.
So, nuclear bombs and national security are concerns to Mr. Becker. Is Iran a concern as well? A deal that for all practical purposes, allows them to proceed with their construction of "the bomb" with sights set on an ally of ours. And that is not a concern? Not to mention Iran's budding relationship with Russia.
Where was Clinton in those discussions? The Democrat candidate worked for this president who made the deal; who has created a vacuum of power that enables rogue states to aggressively seek their place in history - even nuclear history. Where was diplomacy there? Where has "Leading from behind" got us? Where has Clinton been in dealing with North Korea? Russia? Syria? The list is terribly long don't you think, Mr. National Security?
Clinton's public service record is before all to see. What about those demonstrative failures as secretary of state? What about the server(s) of convenience? Was there no compromise to national security there?! What form is Clinton's immigration reform going to look like? I suppose there are no national security concerns there either, Mr. Elitist Establishment Snob?
Clinton is already presidentially disqualified, just on those terms alone. There are plenty of issues that I disagree with in regards to the Democratic Party platform, national security is just one of them, albeit, an important one.
And, in the face of a changing national demographic and electoral map, I will take a non-politically "correct" Republican entity over one that has shown deplorable character in public office, and spotlight, any day of the week. The Republican voter has spoken.