RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Stigma Over Solutions: How Corporate Media Are Enabling the Opiate Epidemic Print
Saturday, 08 July 2017 13:34

Corcoran writes: "Four Democratic senators held a press conference on June 15 to highlight what the passage of the American Health Care Act (aka Trumpcare) would do for the opiate crisis."

Changing the national dialogue about addiction, and about treatment, is a matter of life and death. (photo: Getty Images)
Changing the national dialogue about addiction, and about treatment, is a matter of life and death. (photo: Getty Images)


Stigma Over Solutions: How Corporate Media Are Enabling the Opiate Epidemic

By Michael Corcoran, FAIR

08 July 17

 

our Democratic senators held a press conference on June 15 to highlight what the passage of the American Health Care Act (aka Trumpcare) would do for the opiate crisis. The conference came just days after a report showed overdoses are now the leading cause of death among Americans under 50 (New York Times, 6/5/17), and days before GOP senators released their secretly crafted version of health reform (Washington Post, 6/22/17) that will make it worse in countless ways. Under these dire circumstances, one would hope the room would have been filled with reporters.

Vox’s Jeff Stein posted a photo on Twitter, however, which showed, sadly, just a handful of journalists in attendance: “Does it look commensurate with massive looming crisis for ~20 million people? Or like business as usual?”

That media paid so little attention (there was almost no national coverage) to such an important topic is one of the many major problems with the corporate media coverage of the opiate epidemic. While there is never a good time to gut Medicaid and throw 22 million off their health insurance, it is especially worrying that it may happen in the middle of a tragic opiate epidemic that is being covered by the media in all the wrong ways.

For decades coverage of drug policy helped fuel the racist, wrong-headed drug war (Extra!, 9–10/98), which led to policies such as draconian mandatory minimum sentences and laws refusing financial aid to anyone convicted of drug-related crimes, which were particularly hard on the African-American community, due to racial disparities in arrests and sentencing. “News media are not presenting things as they are—but rather as racial fears project them to be. And a racialized policy agenda is being served up and served,” as FAIR’s Mikal Muharrar noted in an analysis of racial profiling in the media in 1998 (Extra!, 9–10/98). “Too often, we don’t get the reality of what really is, or the dream of what should be, but an imaginary nightmare in blackface.”

Now that addiction has “a white face,” as Ekow Yankah (New York Times, 2/9/16) put it, the tone has shifted, toward a supposedly more humane approach. But even as reporters display more sympathy (New York Times, 10/30/15), media are still failing to help solve the crisis. Overdoses continue to rise (New York Times, 6/5/17), racial disparities in the criminal justice system are still rampant (Slate, 8/9/15), and dominant media often treat the opiate crisis as fodder for anecdotal, often sensationalized stories about a sad phenomenon, not a massive health emergency begging for serious and urgent policy reforms. Further, studies show most reports covering opiate abuse still portray it as a criminal issue, as opposed to the health crisis that it is.

The medications that are the most effective treatment available are often vilified in the media as being no better than the illegal drugs they treat. This contributes to a stigma that, according to researchers at John Hopkins University (4/16/14), dissuades “people who use opioids from seeking effective services,” and “is impeding progress in reducing the toll of overdose.”

There are real solutions to the opiate problem that require sensible policies and a public that understands the nature of addiction. By failing to cover these remedies in a serious way, corporate media have enabled the opiate crisis to get worse.

Sensationalism Over Solutions

In the weeks following the Democrats’ press conference about the opiate crisis and Trumpcare, the New York Times made no mention of it. The next major article about the epidemic itself, published four days after the conference (6/19/17), illustrated how the press largely ignores treatment and relies on sensationalism over solutions.

The article profiled Frank Whitelaw, a county coroner in Elizabethtown, New York, with a unique approach to warning young students about the dangers of opiates: “In contrast with the relatively sanitized classroom instruction…his talk was meant to pack an emotional wallop,” the Times reported.

Whitelaw gives students a PowerPoint presentation showing “crime-scene photos of a victim of an opioid overdose—a graduate of that high school, her face purplish-blue, her right hand still clinging to a cigarette lighter.” He describes how women find liquid fentanyl, the dangerous drug often mixed with or sold as heroin, and “stick it in their vaginas.”

His tactic is reminiscent of the “scared straight” approach often seen on television, where prisoners attempt to frighten kids out of a life of crime. This type of deterrence doesn’t work, according to researchers, who have found such approaches “ineffective, and even potentially harmful” (Pediatrics, 3/05; Psych Central, 11/26/10).

The word “crime” is used twice and “death” is used six times, but the word “medication” appears nowhere in the Times article. There is no reference to any of the pharmaceuticals that are widely accepted as most effective at reducing overdoses: buprenorphine, Suboxone, methadone.

The word “treatment” only appears once, near the very end, and it is placed on equal footing with law-enforcement: “While drug interdiction and treatment are critical in addressing the opioid crisis, Mr. Whitelaw believes the first step is effective education.”

This is exactly the problem, according to a 2015 study in Psychiatric Services (12/1/15), which found that media generally ignore public health solutions, and focus mostly on criminality. Only half of the reports covered over a 14-year period even mentioned solutions at all, and most of the time they had little to do with public health.

Said Dr. Emma McGinty, one of the authors of the study (The Fix, 12/07/15):

The national dialogue around opioid analgesic abuse still frames this issue predominantly as a criminal justice issue rather than as a public health problem or treatable health condition.

Demonization of Evidence-Based Treatment

It is worth noting that the Times article about Whitelaw’s powerpoint presentation wasn’t dug up in an effort to find an egregious example of this kind of reporting. It was literally the first major article the paper of record produced on opiate addiction following the June 15 press conference.

More egregious examples, however, aren’t hard to find—in many cases, not ignoring but demonizing treatment. A recent NPR story (6/19/17) about the medication buprenorphine (marketed as Suboxone) is an appalling example of this.

“When used correctly, [suboxone] can help addicts recover,” notes the report’s only clause that portrays the life-saving drug in any esteem, “but it has a dark side…. Some doctors are selling the drug illegally, making the opioid crisis worse.” Then comes the stern warning that “Kentucky’s attorney general, Andy Beshear, said he is not taking this new Suboxone issue lightly. He is cracking down.”

The article is misleading and irresponsible. Suboxone and other medication-assisted treatments (MAT) are, according to an overwhelming medical consensus, the most effective available remedy for opiate abuse. MAT is supported as effective treatment by, among others, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the US Surgeon General, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Centers for Disease Control.

Yet here is a respected news organization amplifying a narrative that the drug—which is non-euphoric when taken by patients with a tolerance to opiates—is extremely dangerous. There is no reference to the effectiveness of the drug, no counterpoint from an expert to oppose the Kentucky politician. And the story aired nationally, adding stigma to a drug that will likely prevent many people who need the treatment from seeking or receiving it.

“The coverage from NPR, like so much of the coverage of medication-assisted treatment, is still really poor,” Zachary Siegel, who writes extensively about addiction treatment, told FAIR. He argues that critics of MAT are often at odds with the hard scientific data:

On some level—and I may be guilty of this myself—it is worth asking if she should even quote these blatantly false statements about addiction and medication. It is like global warming. When the scientific consensus is this overwhelming, there really isn’t “two sides” to the story.

The facts are indeed staggering, as Siegel notes in Slate (11/30/16). Numerous studies have shown MAT to reduce overdose deaths—by 80 percent in France, 75 percent in Australia and 66 percent in Baltimore. “These studies are rarely covered or even mentioned in most articles,” he told FAIR.

Press and Trump Administration Both Perpetuate Stigma

This has been going on for years. In 2013 the New York Times (11/17/13) issued a now infamous two-part report on the “dark side” of drug treatment, declaring that “buprenorphine has become both medication and dope,” infuriating medical experts and addiction treatment advocates (Salon, 12/22/13).

Just weeks later, the Times (12/8/13) ran a five-part series on a homeless child that decried her parent’s methadone maintenance therapy as just a “substitute addiction.” Would the author prefer the child’s parents seek no treatment, or treatment not backed by science? ”Clients on opiate-replacement therapy struggle daily with feelings of shame that their recovery ‘doesn’t really count,’” explained Sarah Beller, a writer and employee at a mental health clinic, in response to the Times’ reporting (Salon, 12/22/13).

In 2007, the Baltimore Sun (12/16/07) ran a similarly one-sided series, barely mentioning the successes of the drug and instead reciting the temperance movement’s belief that someone on medication is “substituting one addiction for another.” As health reporter Maia Szalavitz wrote of the Sun’s article (Huffington Post, 1/16/08):

This implies that continuing on maintenance is not really recovery but “being hooked.” But methadone and buprenorphine are safe for long-term use—a fact the Sun doesn’t emphasize.

As this narrative is pushed by major media outlets, it should not be surprising that Republican politicians, never the strongest advocates for science (FAIR.org, 12/4/16), parrot the falsehoods. Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway, when asked about the AHCA’s negative impact on the problem, said on ABC’s This Week (6/25/17) that those suffering from addiction need “a four-letter word called will.” HHS Secretary Tom Price claimed in May, against the findings of his own agency, that maintenance drugs are just “substituting one opioid for another.”

Interestingly, NPR (5/16/17) was among those who reported how “unscientific” Price’s claims were, according to experts.  Clearly NPR is capable of reporting reasonably responsibly on the issue of addiction treatment—though the opportunity to showcase yet another example of the Trump administration’s anti-science attitudes (Scientific American, 1/18/17) no doubt played a role.

Why Coverage Can and Must Improve

Another positive step occurred last month when the Associated Press updated its stylebook (5/31/17)—seen as the industry standard for editors and journalists—to try to decrease the use of stigmatizing language when covering addiction. Clearly many in media are aware of the news industry’s failings in covering this epidemic.

With the GOP attempting to gut Medicaid, the public needs the press to report on possible solutions to the opioid crisis absent the stigmatizing, drug-war emphasis that dominated coverage for years. Changing the national dialogue about addiction, and about treatment, is a matter of life and death.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Trump Declares War on Voters Print
Saturday, 08 July 2017 12:10

Feingold writes: "President Trump and Vice-President Pence's 'election integrity' commission is unequivocally declaring war on voters - and right now, two prominent Democrats are helping."

Voters at a polling precinct. (photo: Getty Images)
Voters at a polling precinct. (photo: Getty Images)


Trump Declares War on Voters

By Russ Feingold, Reader Supported News

08 July 17

 

resident Trump and Vice-President Pence’s “election integrity” commission is unequivocally declaring war on voters -- and right now, two prominent Democrats are helping.

The commission recently sent a letter to all 50 states requesting the very same data that Republican state governments have used to create hyper-partisan gerrymandering and enact restrictive voter ID laws across the country.

This commission is laying the groundwork for nationalized voter suppression. It is completely illegitimate and will harm our elections.

But the presence of the secretaries of state for Maine and New Hampshire on this commission -- both prominent Democrats -- is making it look bipartisan. And that gives it a greater chance of succeeding. We can’t allow that to happen.

Nationally, the Democratic Party is gaining support as the country’s demographics become increasingly diverse. The Republican Party has known for several years that its best tactic to cling to power is not to build a party worth supporting, but to deny participation in the political process to Democratic voters.

So Republicans have been suppressing voters state-by-state for years. And now that they control the White House, they’re trying to do it nationally.

By agreeing to participate in this commission, Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap (D) and New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner (D) are helping.

But don’t take my word for it. National voter suppression expert and co-chair of the commission Kris Kobach even went on CNN this week to tout the commission’s bipartisan credentials. We have to make it clear this commission doesn’t have legitimate support from both parties.

Tell Democrats participating in Trump’s voter suppression commission: Resign from this illegitimate voter suppression effort. Deny Trump the sheen of bipartisanship.

When people are denied participation in the political process, it undermines the legitimacy of our elections -- and ultimately undermines the legitimacy of our government itself. We must not let President Trump suppress legitimate votes.

Thank you for standing up for our democratic legitimacy today,



Sign LegitAction’s petition to the Maine and New Hampshire Democrats on the Trump voter suppression commission: Resign from this illegitimate voter suppression effort.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: North Korea Does Not Threaten World Peace, the US Does Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=20877"><span class="small">William Boardman, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Saturday, 08 July 2017 10:49

Boardman writes: "President Donald Trump is 71 and Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un is 27, but if they ever met, would there be a grown-up in the room?"

A mushroom cloud. (photo: Medium)
A mushroom cloud. (photo: Medium)


North Korea Does Not Threaten World Peace, the US Does

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

08 July 17


Petulant leadership risks war to what end?

resident Donald Trump is 71 and Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un is 27, but if they ever met, would there be a grown-up in the room?

One of them knows full well that North Korea is not a threat to world peace and is not even a serious threat to South Korea. The one who knows that is not Donald Trump. Or if he does know it, he’s choosing to inflate the North Korean “threat” even more than some of his predecessors.

But wait, didn’t North Korea just fire a missile in the general direction of the United States? Yes indeed, and like every other North Korean missile (except the ones that blew up on launch), it hit smack dab in the Sea of Japan, unpleasantly for aquatic life but a danger to no one else. This is, after all, exactly what the US does periodically to the Pacific Ocean from California’s Vandenberg Air Force Base, generally causing yawns around the world.

Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work witnessed just such a US test (the 15th or so in five years) in February 2016, after telling reporters the purpose was to demonstrate an effective US nuclear arsenal to Russia, China, and North Korea:

That’s exactly why we do this. We and the Russians and the Chinese routinely do test shots to prove that the operational missiles that we have are reliable. And that is a signal ... that we are prepared to use nuclear weapons in defense of our country if necessary.

Not only is that perspective less than comforting, it includes a major tell. For reasons that may be obvious but unspoken, North Korea is not allowed to do what the US, Russia, and China do. That’s the price of being a member of the US-determined Axis of Evil. That may be a stupid foreign policy position (Exhibit A: Iraq), but it’s American stupidity, not Korean stupidity. The North Koreans are well aware that they do not have “operational missiles that … are reliable.”

Do as US says, not as US does

US-imposed rules forbid other countries like North Korea or Iran from following rational patterns of self-defense, even in the face of overt US threats. And when North Korea ignores US rules and hits the ocean with another rocket, the US ratchets up the hysteria as if the North Korean launch were a hostile act while the Vandenberg launches are only benign peace-keeping splashes. The US framing of the world is clearly nuts, but we’re so used to it we hardly notice anymore.

Not only does North Korea pose no serious threat now, its hypothetical future threat is largely imaginary. Whatever military might North Korea has is unlikely to be used outside its own country unless the US or someone else attacks it first. That might well lead to all hell breaking loose, but it’s the only thing that will as far as North Korea is concerned. Washington is baffled: What doesn’t North Korea understand about its duty to do what the US tells it to do?

Fear-mongering over North Korea hasn’t worked — ever

Assessed objectively, North Korea’s missile tests demonstrate a missile program proceeding haltingly, with frequent failures as well as “terrifying” successes. What terrified Washington about the July 3 North Korean missile launch is the presently imaginary threat that the Independence Day ICBM prototype could deliver a nuclear warhead to the United States. It can’t. That’s a pure future threat, if it’s a threat at all. Capturing the widely proclaimed fear with merely modest hype, Business Insider led its report on the new North Korean missile with this: “North Korea claims that it has launched its first intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, which experts say could have the ability to reach Alaska.” (Reuters upped the ante, reporting that “some experts believe [the missile] has the range to reach Alaska and Hawaii and perhaps the U.S. Pacific Northwest.” As with other reports, these experts go unnamed and unchallenged.)

Unpack all that and what do you have? A North Korean claim, inflated by anonymous experts, selling a worst-case scenario. The North Koreans also claimed that the missile could hit any location on the planet. So nobody’s even trying to tell the truth here. The missile actually went about 580 miles, which isn’t even close to qualifying as an ICBM. The nearest point in Alaska (not target, just rocks) is about 3,000 miles away. Any point on the planet is 12,000 miles away, give or take a few thousand.

But the North Koreans have nuclear weapons. Yes they do, maybe even 20 of them, all smaller than the one the US dropped on Hiroshima. At this point there’s no evidence North Korea can deliver its nuclear weapons anywhere by any technology much more advanced than donkey cart. By comparison, the US nuclear arsenal, which was once over 31,000 warheads, is now down to 4,000, with about 1,900 methods of delivery to anywhere on the planet, and almost all those warheads are many times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. For all that some worry about aging nuclear weapons, the US is not even close to being an inviting target to attack with impunity.

Not to minimize nuclear weapons of any sort, but seriously, some sense of proportion is expected of mature leadership. Chicken Little cluckings of impending doom is not mature leadership.

Isn’t 64 years long enough to get a peace treaty?

The Korean War began June 27, 1950, when North Korea invaded the south. The armistice was signed July 27, 1953, ending hostilities, but not the war. There is a cease-fire but no peace treaty. The US entered the war under UN auspices. Congress never declared war, but supported the war with appropriations. Currently, some in Congress are seeking legislation to prevent the president from taking any military action against North Korea without explicit permission from Congress. That hardly seems to matter.

The new president of South Korea wants to negotiate with North Korea, but that hardly seems to matter either. South Korea engaged in perennial massive war games with the US that North Korea deems threatening, as would any neighboring country facing the same reality. Worse, the US has introduced anti-missile weapons into South Korea without telling the South Korean president.

And President Trump publicly blames China for not bringing North Korea to heel, as if China had either that responsibility or ability. China has increased trade with North Korea by a reported 40 percent, which should be a stabilizing factor, especially over the long term. But the US is demanding short-term results.

What could the world community do to reverse this growing threat, real or imagined, from North Korea? It would help to allow North Korea to feel safe and unthreatened, maybe even as safe and unthreatened as Vermont. That, as Korea expert Christine Ahn argued on Democracy NOW, would require President Trump to do what he claims to be good at: negotiating, making a deal. Something very like this view was formally articulated to President Trump in a June 28 letter from such policy experts as former secretary of state George Schultz, former defense secretary William Perry, and former senator Richard Lugar:

As experts with decades of military, political, and technical involvement with North Korean issues, we strongly urge your administration to begin discussions with North Korea…. Talking is not a reward or a concession to Pyongyang and should not be construed as signaling acceptance of a nuclear-armed North Korea. It is a necessary step to establishing communication to avoid a nuclear catastrophe. The key danger today is not that North Korea would launch a surprise nuclear attack. Kim Jong Un is not irrational and highly values preserving his regime. Instead the primary danger is a miscalculation or mistake that could lead to war. [emphasis added]

A more colloquial way of saying much the same thing might be that you don’t control a bratty child by burning down the house, unless you’re another bratty child yourself, and you don’t really care all that much about the house.



William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump's Fascist Weakness Mars Poland Diatribe Print
Saturday, 08 July 2017 08:37

Cole writes: "Donald Trump's speech in Poland may have attempted to camouflage its Fascist undertones with some Nazi-bashing, but no one will be fooled. The speech was probably shaped by alt-Neo-Nazi Steve Bannon, White House strategist and enabler of the white supremacist roll of toilet paper known as Breitbart."

President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump walk to the podium at Krasinski Square in Warsaw, Poland, July 6, 2017. (photo: Carlos Barria/Reuters)
President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump walk to the podium at Krasinski Square in Warsaw, Poland, July 6, 2017. (photo: Carlos Barria/Reuters)


Trump's Fascist Weakness Mars Poland Diatribe

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

08 July 17

 

onald Trump’s speech in Poland may have attempted to camouflage its Fascist undertones with some Nazi-bashing, but no one will be fooled. The speech was probably shaped by alt-Neo-Nazi Steve Bannon, White House strategist and enabler of the white supremacist roll of toilet paper known as Breitbart.

Like all Fascist speeches, it configured the Fatherland as weak and a laughingstock, threatened imminently with being wiped out. It is this paranoia and poor self-image that drives Fascist aggression. So Trump said,

“We have to remember that our defense is not just a commitment of money, it is a commitment of will. Because as the Polish experience reminds us, the defense of the West ultimately rests not only on means but also on the will of its people to prevail and be successful and get what you have to have. The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?”

What this paragraph means by values is not the same as what Americans mean by values. We mean the Bill of Rights. Trump means the Religious Right. We mean a decent life for everyone, with health care a basic human right. Trump means plutocracy, an America of, by and for the multi-millionaires and billionaires. We mean tolerance and pluralism. Trump means racism against brown and black people. He again defended his Muslim ban, even though no one from any of the 6 Muslim-majority countries on his boycott list has launched a terrorist operation here in the twenty-first century. He is lauding Poles not because of their cultural achievements but because this are configured as the achievements of white people.

The irony that is papered over by the phrase “our civilization” is that the biggest enemies of Polish nationalism have been other Western states–Sweden, Germany and Russia (and no, not just National Socialism and Bolshevikism. Poland at one point was made to disappear by Germans and Russians who had never heard of either. And Polish Jews, a major component of the population, are no longer there because of virulent white nationalism.

As for Muslims, the lurking bad guys in Trump’s “Heil West” screed, they have been an important part of Polish history. Tatar Muslims served Poland militarily for centuries, and right into the twentieth century. In 1590 some 200,000 Lipka Tatars dwelled in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, serviced by at least 100 mosques. A unit of Tatar Muslims serving Jan Sobieski fought the Muslim Ottoman Empire at Vienna in the 1600s, helping preserve Europe from Ottoman rule. One of the direst threats to Polish Muslims was the Nazis, who attacked their mosque in the 1940s. There is still a small Polish Muslim population.

“Our civilization” has all along included Muslims and Jews and Africans and Arabs.

Trump papers over these ambiguities in favor of large-scale racial stereotyping.

Trump’s so-called health care bill will kill 22,000 people, far more than terrorists of any kind ever have.

Above all, Trump upholds the values of fear, timidity and paranoia. A small radical fringe in the Muslim world cannot menace America’s civilization. But a far right white nationalist president with serious mental issues can.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: President Trump's Handshake With Vladimir Putin Was a Disturbing and Sickening Display Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=40776"><span class="small">Dan Rather, Dan Rather's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Friday, 07 July 2017 12:38

Rather writes: "The first thing President Trump did when meeting Russia's Putin in a social gathering in Germany today was shake his hand warmly, then pat him fondly on the back. There it was and remains for the world to see."

U.S. president Donald Trump and Russia's president Vladimir Putin shake hands during a meeting on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in Hamburg. (photo: Saul Loeb/Getty)
U.S. president Donald Trump and Russia's president Vladimir Putin shake hands during a meeting on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in Hamburg. (photo: Saul Loeb/Getty)


President Trump's Handshake With Vladimir Putin Was a Disturbing and Sickening Display

By Dan Rather, Dan Rather's Facebook Page

07 July 17

 

he first thing President Trump did when meeting Russia’s Putin in a social gathering in Germany today was shake his hand warmly, then pat him fondly on the back. There it was and remains for the world to see.

All indications are that Putin helped orchestrate an attack on the sovereignty of the United States during the last U.S. election and has made similar moves in other Western counties, seeking to undermine confidence and stability in democratic institutions and ideals. Now he gets a pat on the back from the leader of the free world.

It was a disturbing if not sickening display. But it is theatrics for now. The real showdown comes when the two meet and talk formally. Putin is widely known to respect strength and he has a nostril for weakness. He is an experienced and shrewd operator, while Mr. Trump has proven to be a bumbling novice who seeks affirmation. It is a recipe for disaster.

For all the damage Mr. Trump and his policies can do domestically, what is happening on the world stage - from dangerous posturing on North Korea, to risking a trade war with Europe, to pulling out of the climate pact - is truly frightening. The number one job of the President of the United States is to protect the safety and security of the nation. Mr. Trump is in far over his head, and the most dangerous thing is he doesn't know it and his enablers who should know better don't seem to care.

No one is arguing that seeking peace and lowering tensions with Russia isn’t necessary. But demonstrating strength and resolve, in ways small and large, is an imperative in trying to reach those ends. That and making it abundantly clear that mucking around in American elections will not be tolerated.

A pat on the back is not an encouraging way to start.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 Next > End >>

Page 1588 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN