Who Trumps Who?

(From June)

As I may have mentioned, I’m not much of a game player, and especially cards. I know some of the terms, and that’s about it.  Trump, for example, denotes the suit or number that supersedes other cards in a game like bridge or pinochle, if I have that right.

It’s funny to have a presidential candidate with the name Trump who seems to be superseding the others.  But it depends on the game.  If we’re playing Uno, or Yahtzee, somebody else might be winning.  Or surely “go fish” would go to a more relaxed contestant.  Someone in favor of amnesty could win a poker game with a full house, or a socially conservative plumber might win with a straight flush.

Pro-business candidates might like running a campaign to the rules of monopoly, but one particular candidate may end up going directly to jail without collecting $200.  And one anti-business candidate might learn some things about how business works by playing monopoly, but will probably quit if he can’t bring a printing press to make more money, or get the other players to give their money to him for the greater good.

Maybe the most entertaining debate format would be a pajama party with a rousing game of truth or dare.  Or maybe, truth, dare, or with draw from the race.

I heard somebody talking on the radio the other day who made an interesting point, and some other incidents have happened since then that have supported his point.  He made the observation that this election isn’t about Republicans and Democrats, or even liberals and conservatives.  To paraphrase, it’s about common sense.

Now, that doesn’t mean that Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders actually HAVE common sense, but since the current president and congress don’t seem to, perhaps doing the opposite of what they’ve done will make sense.

I understand the sentiment, but not the logic, any more than I understood the logic of voting for someone because of their color, or voting for someone because of her gender, or voting against someone because he was a Mormon.  There are plenty of points of evaluation for each candidate, but none of the above make any rational sense to me.

I think a president should be tough, also dignified.  A president should be both forward thinking and conversant in traditions and international relationships.  Respect for other nations and for friends and foes in our own country is essential.

Being candid is a good thing, but not when it takes future negotiating options off the table.  Repeatedly and purposefully lying for political expediency is short-sighted and a character flaw.