Trump's mental health discussion

People discuss President Trump's mental health and his fitness for the presidential office. Of course, people should be able to do so. Still, the way some people discuss this suggest some have their own problems. Concerning certain issues I'm even on President Trump's side and don't support his opponents although now they may also question my mental health.
For instance, in my opinion the President was right to bomb Syria after President Assad's gas attack as he crossed a red line that was set by President Obama but never enforced.
He's right to warn North Korea and to involve China and the UN to stop its further development of nuclear weapons. And his method seems to work as it resulted in more sanctions after which North Korea pretends it is prepared to talk with South Korea and now joins its neighbour for the Olympic Winter Games but it seems without any conditions, something I find unacceptable.
On other issues I disagree with the President such as on climate change or his solution to stop immigration. But many of his opponents don't agree on anything he does, even when they may do the same when in power. And thus, why should he take them serious?

Recently people were discussing President Trump's mental health and many think it's not great. Indeed, it should be possible to discuss this although people should then also question the mental health of his (powerful) supporters. Still, sometimes I question the mental health of those who question the president's mental health as they use every opportunity to not only argue against his policies but to ridicule him. Do they really want him or his supporters to be angry? I think someone like President Trump needs to be approached in the same way as people do for other presidents, i.e. in a polite but correct way although that doesn't guarantee it will be successful; still, people are more likely to listen to opponents when they speak and not shout.

For instance, President Trump wants to stimulate the local industry so people have a job. Very noble indeed. But people can explain that his country can be the frontrunner of new energy that will make the USA independent from others and thus great again. E.g. the car industry can be stimulated by building electric cars in the USA that not only need people to develop and build them but also people who build the equipment to charge them and for maintenance. He may or may not do as others inform him. If he prefers fossil energy, people can still decide to continue with electric cars and other measures to reduce our carbon footprint; some States already indicated they will continue the commitment the USA made at the Paris climate summit. He may not like it but later, if he notices it works, he may change his mind and support it with the argument he supports great new technologies, developed in his country that result in jobs for Americans. During an interview with Piers Morgan, the President already suggested the USA could re-enter the Paris agreement, maybe an opening (although he should not oppose things because the previous black President supported them). But ridicule him and it may confirm that he is right and others are baboons. And ridicule may increase his and/or his followers anger as they consider also to be insulted, something not very useful as it may convince them even more to enforce their ideas.

In the past, we thought many opponents of President Obama didn't seem to be very civilised and thus we should do better while often it seems many of Trump's opponents don't differ that much. The difference is President Obama was calm while President Trump is the opposite. Still, he is right on certain things although people may question his communication that probably reflects his character or he knows how to achieve something from strong opponents.

President Trump not always wrong in contrast to what his opponents suggest
  • Syria
In my opinion, President Trump was right to bomb a Syrian army base after Assad's last chemical attack as it seems to have stopped that person using these weapons again; Mrs Clinton suggested she would have done the same. Because, as this bombing showed, when red lines (that were set by President Obama) are crossed, it will make Syria's president weaker as a major force (preferably under UN leadership) may strike against him and this in contrast to the Russian army that keeps Assad in power and helps him to destroy his own people and country.

Chemical and nuclear weapons: not allowed and to be stopped

  • North Korea
In my opinion, President Trump is also right concerning North Korea and I don't support those who claim only diplomacy without any pressure should be used because then the development of its (nuclear) weapons and army can continue as it demonstrated during the time of diplomacy under Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama. Also in the 30s, diplomacy alone didn't stop the development of Hitler's army and today we know that those who argued in favour of only diplomacy were wrong as Hitler should have been stopped when he broke international laws (that may not have stopped WWII, we don't know). President Trump's treats don't necessarily mean he will use nuclear weapons to stop North Korea, also conventional weapons can stop North Korea's nuclear ambitions if the correct targets are hit. President Trump's policy of confronting North Korea but also the international community that fears he may attack the North is working as demonstrated by stricter UN sanctions (see also further) and Pyongyang that now pretends to seek rapprochement with its southern neighbour and enemy South Korea, probably because it hopes to gain time but also further divide the West as North Korea's leader understands that people condemn the US president's policy that tries to stop the final development of these dangerous weapons by a regime that is completely untrustworthy while South Korea may be to scared to say "no".

President Trump is also right that China (and other countries) needs to be involved to be successful in the UN to stop North Korea; this resulted already in stronger sanctions. Indeed, the USA should not be the only country on this planet to enforce its will and needs to involve other countries, certainly because the economic and as a result also political power of other countries are growing (in the past often neglected for which the USA was criticised); of course, countries can disagree but then it should be explained why opinions differ, as the USA successfully did in the UN concerning North Korea (and if China, Russia and other countries ever want to be taken serious than people should know they protect people and not mad regimes by blocking action from other countries). As the new UN sanctions are harsh, it could be expected that the North would try to find support by countries that may try to reverse the sanctions or find partners with whom it can continue to buy illegally fuel for its rockets. People who claim President Trump may endanger the world by starting a nuclear war are wrong in my opinion: President Trump inherited a nuclear arsenal that exists because previous presidents had to end WWII and afterwards to oppose the USSR's treat while the North Korean regime, against all treaties, started developing them because its regime not only oppresses its own people but also threatens to attack the rest of the world. If the North can continue to develop these weapons, there will be a bigger chance of having a nuclear war than when the development is stopped. If a regime murders its own people and people accept this by not rebelling against their own leaders, we may say that the people accept their destiny. But if a regime threatens to attack others or destabilises regions as war results in mass migration, certainly with the (possible) use of destructive chemical or nuclear weapons, then its the duty of leaders to protect their citizens and stop the treat, if needed by using violence.

Personally, I find South Korea can agree to perform together with North Korea at the Olympic Winter Games (whereby the South sacrifices a number of its own qualified athletes) but only on the condition the North allows inspections and negotiations about disarmament to show goodwill or is further isolated but we should not give in just when sanctions seem to work. If he wants to be accepted then he should do what everyone expects. And don't forget, also Hitler organised Olympic Games just before he started a war because those Games can be abused to gain time.

My concluding summary
People should realise that it's not because an opponent is in power that all policies are wrong. And indeed, although President Trump may seem mad to some, the Syrian and North Korean leaders are the real mad persons; still, President Trump may one day be fed up with his critics. But also in the past many of the European "intelligentsia" rather trusted Stalin's USSR than the Americans who liberated Europe from its own evil. In addition, the USA should not be the only leading country and this to prevent it may become dictatorial and enforce its will on other countries as happened in the past; therefore, President Trump is right to involve other countries, certainly because countries such as China or Russia are important but also to prevent they impose policies directly opposed to those of the free world as the only way to execute influence; and although we listen to them, we can still agree or disagree and if needed criticise them. But the Western world will no longer be able to silence other nations as white people did in the past, the opinion of other counties also counts.

The irony is that President Trump's links with Russia are under investigations and this should be possible. But he was the first to oppose Russia by bombing the army of Russia's friend and mass murderer Assad. And we may expect that many more powerful people can be accused of links with Russia as everyone in a position of power will have in one way or another, directly or indirectly, links with Russia, it only business links.

President Trump uses a language that other alpha males understand.
President Trump, much cleverer than most of us and someone who dares to do things or we would all be as wealthy and powerful as him.
Opposition to President Trump should not be based on the person but on the policies and thus yes, I don't agree with everything. But by opposing everything, the result may be that he listens even less to other opinions as whatever he does, good or bad, will not make a difference for opponents while in power his opponents may do exactly the same.
But I also understand, never claim to be better than the President or you're out.


Popular posts from this blog

Brexit, refugee crisis and the EU

(7i) Return to (travel) business in times of a virus

(20b) Coronavirus statistics: how to present data about cases and mortality