It troubles me enormously, as the Presidential debates will soon be upon us, that the lies of opposing candidates are not sufficiently challenged, either by the candidates themselves or the moderators.
Donald Trump has been given too many passes, as he repeats a litany of lies that are so clearly documented by every form of media.
Admittedly, Hillary Clinton has been heard to present weak excuses for challenges, but every reputable evaluation supports the findings that Trump is by far the biggest unashamed abuser of the facts.
There is a danger that arguments between the candidates can obscure the discussion, but I think a very controlled moderator can limit this if there is evidence, such as a quote.
And the candidates must be more courageous.
Beyond that, Trump continues to claim that he has been a very successful businessman, that he has many thousands of satisfied employees and that his dealings have been ethical.
Of course, he refuses to provide his income tax returns, and despite lame excuses that he is being audited, or his son’s comment that no one would understand them, or even care about them, it is so obvious that he has much to lose if they are revealed.
Even without those documents, the recent profile of his business dealings throughout his career provide evidence of his dishonesty and disrespect for the victims of his schemes.
If 3,500 lawsuits, investigations of his Trump University fraud, his bankruptcies, and the latest revelation that during the Taj Mahal era he was billions of dollars in debt not cast serious doubt in anyone’s mind that he can plan and execute programs with any assurance of protecting our economy?
In regard to his touted military acumen, declared just before the TV Commander-in-Chief Forum, a debate with Hillary Clinton to compare each candidate’s fitness to serve in that area, Trump trotted out a letter from 88 military officers attesting to his expertise.
His presentation of his list of experts, much fewer than those who support Hillary, and indeed, the number who supported Romney, was not impressive.
None of the signers was a service chief or led a major combatant command.
The New York times noted that two were signers of a letter containing critical statements on Islam.
Several hold seats on boards of military contractors or stand to profit from their investments in such corporations.
Not exactly impartial.
Esther Confino
New Hyde Park
