Tag: Trump

What Is a “Real” General?

W.J. Astore

Tragically for America, Trump Believes He Is the Law

Yesterday, President Trump fired the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General CQ Brown, nominating retired Lieutenant General Dan “Razin” Caine as the next Chairman, who, Trump claims, is a “real” general instead of a “TV” general.

General CQ Brown, apparently not “real” enough for Trump

Trump’s affection for “real” generals is well known. In his first term as president, Trump was much taken with retired Marine Corps General James Mattis, who reminded Trump of General George Patton of World War II fame. Mattis became the Secretary of Defense—but his term of service didn’t end well.

General Caine first impressed Trump in 2018. They share something in common: boastfulness. Caine apparently told Trump that the Islamic State could be destroyed “in a week.” Trump also recounted meeting Caine in a hangar as the assembled troops were donning “MAGA” caps in a show of support for the president. As Trump recounted last year: 

“They all put on the Make America Great Again hat. Not supposed to do it. I said, ‘you’re not supposed to do that. You know that.’ They said, ‘It’s OK, sir. We don’t care.'”

Clearly, Trump selected General Caine because he perceives him as being loyal—to Trump. The MAGA caps and his can-do boastfulness were the clinchers.

I guess “real” generals are real when they talk a good game while donning MAGA caps. It helps too that Caine is a white male who can’t be construed as a DEI hire.

Trump didn’t just fire General CQ Brown, who’s Black. He also fired the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Lisa Franchetti, perhaps because as a woman Trump perceived her to be another DEI hire. Equally as likely, Trump saw Brown and Franchetti as insufficiently loyal—to him.

Back in March of 2016, I wrote an article in which I said Trump had disqualified himself as a Presidential candidate because he elevated personal loyalty to his potential commands (even illegal ones) over service members’ solemn oath to the U.S. Constitution. I continue to stand by that article.

To Trump the man, what matters is personal loyalty and obedience to him. As president, what should matter to him is an officer’s loyalty to the law—to the Constitution. Tragically for America, Trump believes he is the law. Too many of Trump’s followers also believe this.

Far too often, Trump behaves like a petulant man-child who is jealous of his power. His idea of “real” leaders are those who kowtow to him. That’s the idea not of a strong and mature leader but of a wannabe petty dictator.

The “Threat of a Warmongering Military-Industrial Complex”

W.J. Astore

Will Tulsi Gabbard “shrink the bloated bureaucracy” in DC?

Former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is America’s Director of National Intelligence. Here’s a part of the ceremony, with President Trump’s introduction:

What struck me in watching the short ceremony was Trump’s words about “the threat of a warmongering military-industrial complex.” Bold words indeed, as well as his call for Tulsi Gabbard to “shrink the bloated bureaucracy” in DC.

In her brief remarks, Tulsi mentioned an almost forbidden word in DC: peace. She mentioned war as an absolute last resort rather than the first action selected by the “warmongering” (Trump’s word) military-industrial complex. I find that remarkable as well as encouraging.

There are many reasons why I like Tulsi as DNI, but the biggest one is this: She has President Trump’s respect. He likes her. Meaning he’ll listen to her when she briefs him on a daily basis about the threats facing America and the options he has to address those threats.

In his first term as president, Trump was notorious for not caring much about his daily intelligence briefing. Tulsi will change that—and that and her commitment to military action as a last resort is again highly encouraging.

Political Blitzkrieg by Trump?

W.J. Astore

Answering a friend’s challenge

Recently, a friend wrote to challenge me to “write a great article about Trump’s introduction of ‘lightning war’ into politics,” citing Nazi Germany’s use of Blitzkrieg in the opening campaigns of World War II. My friend sympathizes with Trump, so his political Blitzkrieg comparison wasn’t meant pejoratively.

Image of Blitzkrieg from the Imperial War Museum. It wasn’t my idea for Trump…

Whether you call it Blitzkrieg or a “flood the zone” strategy, there’s little doubt Trump’s rapid-fire orders and actions have put those who oppose him on the defensive. Democrats are throwing up their hands in surrender-like motions. Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries plaintively asked: “What leverage do we have?” Then he added: “They [the Republicans] control the House, the Senate, and the presidency. It’s their government.”

The Democratic battle flag is a white cross on a field of white. They claim they can do nothing to stop Trump and his rampaging billionaire sidekick, Elon Musk.

It’s funny: When the Democrats had control of the House, Senate, and presidency, I often recall them complaining they couldn’t get much done due to obstruction by Republicans. How come Republicans can obstruct but not Democrats?

Leaving that aside, what about my friend’s praise of Trump as having launched Blitzkrieg politics? Reversing Clausewitz, is politics simply a continuation of war by other means?

America, so I’ve been taught, was founded as a republic with a Constitution. We claim to be a nation of laws. We like to think we’re a representative democracy. The House and Senate are supposed to be deliberative bodies where laws are made and money is spent in accordance with the will of the people.

I know: nice fantasy, right?

The U.S. government has become corrupted by money and special interests. We know our representatives rarely represent us. They represent their owners and donors. That breeds cynicism and a certain level of affection among some for Trump as a disruptor.

But smashing government isn’t the smartest and most effective way of reforming or even of rebuilding it. Empowering autocrats and plutocrats like Trump and Musk isn’t going to produce democracy and a government that serves the people. A Trump “political Blitzkrieg” will likely echo the Nazi Blitzkrieg of 1939-41, featuring widespread destruction and subjugation of “enemies.” It’s not a method conducive to greater justice and a more perfect union.

So, to my friend’s challenge, I say this: Political Blitzkrieg may provide an illusion of victory, but “victory” for whom, and for what? Wars, whether real shooting ones or political ones, are corrosive to liberty, freedom, and equality. In war, it’s typically the workers and poor who suffer most, the rich who profit most, as power congeals at the top.

Trump’s so-called Blitzkrieg, combined with a Democratic attitude of surrender, is producing a government by and for men like Elon Musk, even more so than it already is. If you truly desire plutocracy and one-party rule, Trump/Musk is your dynamic duo.

I still prefer democracy, however imperfect, and a system that doesn’t elevate and empower the richest among us as dictators.

If the Government’s Done Nothing Wrong, It Has Nothing to Hide

W.J. Astore

Will anything good come from Trump-Musk DOGE chaos?

Despite our rebel reputations, Americans are often more than deferential to authority. Consider those who say: If you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve nothing to hide. As if authority figures were completely trustworthy; as if ordinary Americans didn’t have a Constitutional right to privacy.

Indeed, that saying needs to be turned around: If the government’s done nothing wrong, it has nothing to hide. The government, after all, is supposed to be transparent to the people. It is supposed to serve us. We pay for it as taxpayers; we elect its representatives; we should be able to hold it accountable when it goes wrong and does wrong.

Sadly, the few revelatory truths about “our” government usually come from whistleblowers, who are then persecuted and often prosecuted. Consider Daniel Ellsberg. Edward Snowden. Daniel Hale. Chelsea Manning. John Kiriakou.

The problem, of course, is that “our” government has done, and keeps doing, many things wrong, and many wrong things, meaning it has plenty to hide. Which is one big reason why President Trump and his billionaire sidekick Elon Musk are taking plenty of flak from the powers that be as they go after agencies like USAID, DOE, perhaps even the DoD (in which case they, or their efforts, may soon be DOA).

The wrecking balls are swinging (Reuters/Carlos Barria)

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t support Trump and Musk. Their methods and motives are less than noble. Or just plain ignoble. Put differently, their methods are akin to taking sledgehammers and wrecking balls to a house that has termite damage. Sure, as they demolish the house, some termite damage will be exposed, but shouldn’t the point be to fix the damage rather than destroying the house?

That said, can something good come from their “Hulk smash!” attacks on the federal government?

A slightly different question: Why has it taken so long for a little light to be shed on highly dubious government spending? Isn’t there another way, other than Trump/Musk engineered chaos, for citizens to gain insight into how our money is being spent? Why can’t we call to account powerful government agencies and agents for their budgets and their decisions? It’s our money, right?

Congress, of course, holds the purse strings. Our representatives are supposed to be providing oversight with respect to spending, ensuring a modicum of integrity and competence. Yet complicity (and personal enrichment) rather than oversight seems to be the default mode of operation adopted by most members of Congress.

Congress, instead of opposing Trump, should get ahead of him. Throw open the windows of the federal budget! Air out the dirty musty bloody laundry! Do your jobs! And by that I mean do the people’s work, rather than the work of the owners and donors who’ve bought you with their campaign donations, their promises of future high-paying positions, their threats to remove you from power by throwing their support to yet another politician with no moral spine.

Congress, instead of blocking Trump/Musk, should render them redundant by doing the people’s work. Make government accountable to the people again, and the people won’t feel that they need to vote for chaos agents like Trump.

If Congress was doing its job, a DOGE would be worse than useless. Who needs duplication of effort? It’s so inefficient!

Gaza as the New Riviera–But Not For Palestinians

W.J. Astore

Trump’s Fantastical “Takeover” Vision

FEB 05, 2025

Now it’s take and take and takeover, takeover
It’s all take and never give
All these trumped up towers
They’re just golden showers
Where are people supposed to live?

Don Henley, “Gimme What You Got” (1989)

Yesterday, President Trump said the U.S. would take over the redevelopment of the devastated Gaza Strip (destroyed mostly by bombs, shells, and bullets made in the USA), turning it into a “new Riviera,” not for the Palestinians, obviously, but for Israelis.

To borrow from Don Henley, Where are the Palestinians supposed to live? Not in Gaza, where their presence would interfere with Zionism as well as Israeli desires to control profits from offshore gas fields. Roughly 1.8 million Palestinians are simply supposed to leave the Gaza “hellhole” (Trump’s descriptor), after which a lot of men with briefcases (and bulldozers) will move in to turn Gaza into a paradise on earth, free of Palestinian “savages” (a word I’ve seen employed often online, and obviously one that echoes how the white man saw Native Americans, whose land was ruthlessly stolen from them as well).

So, where will be the Palestinian “reservation”? Trump has floated Egypt and Jordan, but both countries have expressed no enthusiasm for this scheme. Greenland, maybe?

Trump has the virtue of saying the quiet part out loud. There will be no Palestinian state, no two-state solution. There will be one state, Greater Israel, with Palestinians either killed or ethnically cleansed from their lands. This was the policy of the Biden administration, even if that administration gave lip service to a two-state solution. Trump just states it plainly, like a mafia don intoning: “It’s nothing personal—it’s strictly business.”

Congress, which is owned by AIPAC, may grouse a bit about Trump’s terminology, but look for most members to rubber-stamp this plan, if one can call it that.

I suppose Trump’s admirers might say he’s cut the Gordian knot here—that peace in the region will only be attained when Israel is completely dominant and Palestinians are simply gone for good—but something tells me the fantastical new Riviera in Gaza is another manifestation of “trumped up towers.”

Great album. Check it out.

Tulsi Gabbard, A Smart Choice as Director of National Intelligence

W.J. Astore

And she surfs too

Former Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has been nominated as Director of National Intelligence by President-elect Donald Trump. The so-called intelligence community is up in arms about this. That is a very good thing.

Tulsi Gabbard (Reuters, Jeenah Moon photo)

Here’s what Reuters has to say:

WASHINGTON, Nov 14 (Reuters) – President-elect Donald Trump’s choice of Tulsi Gabbard as U.S. intelligence chief has sent shockwaves through the national security establishment, adding to concerns that the sprawling intelligence community will become increasingly politicized.

Trump’s nomination of Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman who lacks deep intelligence experience and is seen as soft on Russia and Syria, is among several high-level picks that suggest he may be prioritizing personal allegiance over competence as he assembles his second-term team.

Among the risks, say current and former intelligence officials and independent experts, are that top advisers could feed the incoming Republican president a distorted view of global threats based on what they believe will please him and that foreign allies may be reluctant to share vital information.

Randal Phillips, a former CIA operations directorate official who worked as the agency’s top representative in China, said that with Trump loyalists in top government posts, “this could become the avenue of choice for some really questionable actions” by the leadership of the intelligence community. [Emphasis added.]

As if the intelligence “community” isn’t already politicized! And who sees Gabbard as allegedly “soft” on Russia and Syria? Hillary Clinton? The “queen of warmongers,” as Gabbard memorably described her?

Wow. We might get “some really questionable actions” by the IC (intelligence community). I’m glad we’ve never had any of those before.

Tulsi has a wealth of experience in the military (she remains a lieutenant colonel), she’s a former Congresswoman who’s served on important committees dealing with national security, and she’s tough as nails, having survived ruthless attacks on her character by the neocon Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. She is an excellent choice as Director.

What Tulsi has is integrity. Honesty. Poise. Perhaps even more importantly, she has Trump’s ear and his respect. As Director, she will oversee the preparation of Trump’s daily intelligence briefs. Trump was notorious in his first term in office for not paying much attention to those briefs. He should do better with Tulsi, somebody he trusts, preparing them.

Tulsi won my respect in 2016 when she supported Bernie Sanders and revealed how the Democratic presidential primary process was being fixed for Hillary Clinton. Tulsi has paid a high price for her principled stance, being smeared by Clinton and mainstream media outlets like NBC as a “Russian asset,” maybe even a stooge for Vladimir Putin. Politics is a rough game, but accusing a serving U.S. military officer and Congresswoman of being a “Putin puppet” is truly reckless and defamatory. Good for Tulsi for punching back.

The establishment Democratic party hates Tulsi because she refused to play their game. She refused to bow to the Clintons. Tulsi has also questioned America’s constant warmongering and knows a thing or two about the horrendous costs of war. She even has a normal life as a surfer. She has a connection to nature that I respect.

Her poise, her toughness, her integrity, makes her a superb choice as DNI. The more the intelligence “community” complains about her, the louder certain Democrats scream, the more certain I am that Trump has made a smart decision here.

Recall when Kamala Harris vowed to put a Republican in her cabinet? Well, Trump has made Gabbard his DNI and RFK Jr. will lead Health and Human Services. He’s picked two (former) Democrats for important posts and the Democrats can’t stand it.

On this occasion, with these appointments, I applaud Trump. You go, Tulsi. Ride the wave. Continue to serve our country as you always have.

Trump and the Warmongers

W.J. Astore

More Bombs for Bibi to Kill Babies

Trump and the war hawks. Or war sluts. Or war pigs. I thought about all three of these. Then I thought: Why insult hawks, sluts, or pigs?

Marco Rubio and Mike Waltz, seeing enemies everywhere while wearing their red power ties

Donald Trump is forming his cabinet by rounding up the usual warmongers. In 2016, he gathered the generals, men like James Mattis and John Kelly. This time around, he’s tapping people like Marco Rubio. “Little Marco” as Secretary of State, a man who’s rarely met a war he didn’t like. For Secretary of Defense he’s nominated Pete Hegseth, whose main concern seems to be waging a war on “woke” generals. One thing is certain: Rubio and Hegseth won’t challenge the military-industrial complex. They will feed it … and feed it again.

Other nominations include Elise Stefanik, a rabid Zionist, as UN ambassador, along with Mike Huckabee, a pro-Israel evangelical who believes in the “end times,” as U.S. ambassador to Israel. Trump may trump Biden as being more slavishly pro-Israel. “Bombs for Bibi to kill babies” should be their motto.

Kristi Noem, who shot and killed her own dog because she couldn’t train it, will run Homeland Security. (If you work for DHS, it might be a good idea to watch your back, or at least to avoid being alone with Noem at a gravel pit.) Mike Waltz will be the National Security Advisor; here’s how Caitlin Johnstone describes him:

Waltz is a warmongering freak. Journalist Michael Tracey has been filling up his Twitter page since the announcement with examples of Waltz’s insane hawkishness, including his support for letting Ukraine use US weapons to strike deep into Russian territory, criticizing Biden for not escalating aggressively enoughin Ukraine, advocating bombing Iran, opposing the US military withdrawal from Afghanistan, and naming Iran, North Korea, China, Russia and Venezuela as “on the march” against the United States toward global conflict. The mainstream press are calling Waltz a “China hawk”, but from the look of things he’s a war-horny hawk toward all the official enemies of the United States. 

Once again, Trump isn’t draining the swamp. He’s filling it with warmongers and Zionists who are even more extreme than the warmongers and Zionists of the Biden administration. 

Of course, the fundamental problem is that Republicans want to boost military spending even higher than Biden and Harris have.  Republicans are “all in” on revamping the nuclear triad, for example, which is likely to cost $2 trillion factoring in the usual cost overruns.

It’s possible Trump/Vance will be more likely to pursue diplomacy with Russia; perhaps the war in Ukraine will finally stumble to an end. But the imperial vision remains, aggravated perhaps by a war within to expel “illegal” immigrants, together with a coup within the military against “woke” officers.

That sounds pessimistic.  If I’m being optimistic, perhaps Trump can have a “Nixon goes to China” moment.  Trump can sell virtually anything to his followers. He is also driven by ego.  Maybe there’s a way to drive him toward peace, dangling the carrot of a Nobel Peace Prize for him.  Trump loves accolades, and if he could be influenced to stop throwing all of America’s chips into the Pentagon, that would be a good thing.

But, if personnel is policy, America had better prepare for more war, catastrophically so, even as more bombs are sent to Bibi to kill babies. There’s certainly nothing “woke” about that.

Blame

W.J. Astore

When candidates lose an election, they are primarily responsible 

If Kamala Harris loses this election, can we please not blame Jill Stein, Susan Sarandon, Vladimir Putin, the usual suspects?

If Donald Trump loses this election, can we please not blame immigrants, voting machines, and various alleged forms of ballot- and ballot box tampering? And god knows what else Team Trump comes up with?

When candidates lose elections, they and their campaigns are primarily responsible. Sure, there’s always the possibility of bad breaks, bad luck, even occasional attempts at cheating. (Find me some votes in Georgia!) But usually one candidate and one campaign simply ran a better, smarter, more dynamic race.

For all you Kamala Harris and Donald Trump supporters out there, you should be prepared for your candidate to lose, and, if so, you should want them to lose with grace. No one likes a sore loser.

So, for example, Harris may win the popular vote but lose the election in the electoral college. If that happens, it will be likely due to her tepid campaign messaging and her total support of Israel, which is costing her votes in critical swing states.

If Trump loses, a critical factor will be Republican messaging on “women’s issues,” the biggest one being abortion. Trump’s own inconsistencies and inconstancy will also be a factor. Sure, MAGA loves Trump, but many other Americans see Trump as divisive, bombastic, and unreliable. Trump’s rallies, where he’ll say virtually anything, convinces more than a few Americans that he’s the very opposite of a “very stable genius.”

An excerpt from the New York Times (see below) yesterday explains why Harris may yet lose. Again, it’s not because Stein will steal “her” votes or Putin will brainwash his American comrades; rather, Harris has run a careful, often shallow campaign that simply may not generate enough voter enthusiasm on Nov. 5th.

Hopefully, we’ll know by Wednesday who won, and we’ll also witness the loser bow out with some grace and dignity. A man can dream …

The famous Rudyard Kipling quote featured at Wimbledon

The New York Times on the Harris campaign and its weakness:

Harris has run a strikingly cautious campaign. Game theorists would describe it as a low-variance strategy. She and her aides avoided moves that might have gone very well — and might have gone very poorly.

Can you name her campaign’s central theme, for example? Many of her main messages are vague (“when we fight, we win”), Trump-focused (“in it for himself”) or both (“turn the page”). Asked on television how her presidency would differ from Biden’s, Harris said, “There is not a thing that comes to mind.”

She could have taken a different approach. She could have run on the populist, anti-corporate message that is helping Democratic Senate candidates — or gone in the opposite direction and portrayed herself as a business-friendly centrist. She could have picked an issue, like housing, and signaled that it would be her No. 1 priority, much as health care was for Barack Obama. Instead of offering a bold, thematic message, Harris has announced a series of modest policies.

Her low-variance strategy is also evident in her decision not to explain why she reversed her stances on immigration and fracking. Many voters say they want to know more about Harris — who became a candidate only three months ago — and she hasn’t always filled in the blanks.

The strategy is evident with the Middle East, too. She didn’t pick as her running mate the popular Jewish governor of Pennsylvania partly because many Israel critics opposed him. Her campaign also didn’t invite any Palestinians to speak at the Democratic convention, which may hurt her in Michigan. When possible, Harris has avoided conflict.

All these decisions have benefits, to be clear. Making the Middle East more salient is rarely smart in American politics. Explaining why she changed her mind about the border could have made her look weak. Doing more town halls and interviews to explain her views could have exposed one of Harris’s weaknesses: Although she is an excellent debater, she can struggle in less structured settings.

But if Harris loses, her caution will look problematic. 

According to the Times, the basic weakness (and strength) of the Trump campaign is Trump himself. Are enough Americans ready for another four years of MAGA? We’ll know soon enough …

Multicultural Militarism

W.J. Astore

The Bombs Land Softer When a Latina Lesbian Drops Them

Listening to Chris Hedges and Cornel West the other day, I heard them use the term “multicultural militarism” to describe the Democratic Party’s embrace of war and the U.S. military. It fits. Consider Kamala Harris as commander-in-chief. She’ll be celebrated as the first woman of color, the first Black and South Asian president, even as she embraces and boasts about the “lethality” of the U.S. military and the utility of war. And by “utility,” I mean Harris’ support of Ukraine and Israel to the tune of $200 billion in weapons and other forms of mainly military aid.

But do the bombs and missiles land softer because a Latina lesbian Air Force pilot drops and launches them?

Speaking of the Air Force, my old service, I caught this cartoon by Pia Guerra:

The U.S. government really believes it can have it both ways. It can provide bombs to Israel to annihilate Gaza while at the same time dropping care packages among the wounded and desperate. Call it feel-good militarism. Have some MREs with your HE.* A new form of American (un)happy meal.

Harris and Trump reflect the bipartisan consensus in DC that Pentagon budgets must always go up. They both boast and brag about the U.S. military and its deadliness. They mainly disagree on which enemy is the most serious, with Harris favoring Iran and Russia while Trump hypes China. Neither candidate sees militarism as a problem: they see it as something to celebrate. It’s just that Harris and the Democrats prefer “diverse” militarism.

Trump, of course, has said he wants to end the Russia-Ukraine War. He also raised the specter of nuclear war. Harris, apparently, seems to think she must be more hawkish than Trump, hence her embrace of generals and her talk of lethality.

Whether Harris or Trump wins, higher military budgets are guaranteed and probably more war too. Interestingly, Trump talks more of the enemy within than the enemy without, though his “enemy within” is typically a caricature of woke liberals out to destroy America by forcing your kids to undergo gender-reassignment surgery. Just as Trump is using threat inflation for the enemy within, Harris is inflating the Iranian and Russian threats from without.

Civil discord within America or more war outside of America? That may be our “choice” on November 5th. Or maybe we’ll get both.

One thing is certain: A B-52 with a rainbow flag and a BLM slogan is still a B-52.

I suppose a Harris B-52 will be the first joyful bomber

* That’s meals ready to eat (MRE), or rations, with your high explosives (HE).

An Election Dominated by Fear

W.J. Astore

It’s “Take America Back” Versus “We’re Not Going Back”

This year’s presidential election is as grim as can be, and that grimness is reflected in the campaign slogans. Trump wants to “Take America back,” the implication being that bad people, I suppose the Democrats, have captured America and ruined it, and that only Trump can fix it. Harris says “We’re not going back,” meaning Trump can’t win again because he’d take America back to a hateful and brutal past.

Not a positive election, is it? How do you like your future, very bad or even worse?

It’s reflected in a story I saw in The Boston Globe this AM. Here’s an excerpt from a report on the swing state of Wisconsin:

Here in this key swing county of a key swing state [Wisconsin] that may well decide the presidency, voters across the political spectrum are gripped by fear over who will win the upcoming election.

Instead of expressing excitement about supporting their candidate — or simply relief that the election will soon be over — more than 50 voters interviewed here three weeks before Election Day repeatedly used words like “anxious,” “apprehensive,” “scared,” “worried,” and “terrified” to describe their feelings about the other party’s candidate winning.

Voters supporting former president Donald Trump said they fear that if Vice President Kamala Harris wins, inflation, crime, and illegal immigration will rise, leading to a fundamental change in American life. And Harris supporters say another four years of Trump would increase division and undermine the country’s democratic institutions.

Two memorable quotes about fear occur to me. One is from Master Po from “Kung Fu” who said, Fear is the only darkness. And then Frank Herbert from “Dune”: Fear is the mind-killer. And of course FDR who told us at the height of the Great Depression that the only thing we had to fear is fear itself.

It’s an incredible disservice to the American people for both candidates to be stoking fear. What cowardice by both the Blue and Red Teams!

That’s yet another reason why I like third parties and why Jill Stein and the Green Party appeal to me. Stein presents a positive vision of the future, a more peaceful one, one in which Americans come together to tackle common problems like climate change, health care, infrastructure, and the like.

I refuse to vote for parties and candidates that stoke fear, that promote darkness and that seek to kill my mind.

Trump supporters at a rally in Wisconsin (Scott Olson/Getty)

Sorry, Democrats and Republicans: I’m not going “back” to you and your fear.