Trump's POOR DECISION-MAKING evident in his rant about pet-eating migrants during presidential debate

Americans expect their next president to be able to make excellent decisions as and when necessary. It is the hallmark of a good president. It is their raison d'être. An American president must be able to make great decisions. The best possible decisions, balancing up all the various factors and influences and consequences. I would expect that an American president makes hundreds of decisions every day all of which have the potential to improve for worsen the lives of Americans.

Screenshot from the debate. An angry as usual Trump and a smiling Harris.

The recent much-publicised debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris emphasises, as far as I am concerned, the fact that Donald Trump makes poor decisions. He is a poor decision-maker.

During this debate he had all the opportunity to discuss issues that are central to the lives of Americans such as healthcare and the economy. Immigration might also be in that discussion. Uncontrolled immigration is important to many Americans as it is too many other citizens of other countries including the UK.

Both parties to this debate had plenty of time to prepare for it. Donald Trump had the choice whether he should rant and rave about Haitian migrants eating pets in Springfield Ohio, or is it Canton Ohio, we don't know exactly? He could have avoided the subject completely. He could have addressed immigration but in a professional and balanced way.

But he went on - in his usual way - about a viral social media story which Springfield officials and police say is untrue. They say that there are no credible reports of pet-eating migrants. However, Ohio's Republican Attorney General has launched an investigation into the claims. Link to a further discussion on this.

And there's a video on social media of a Haitian woman, Allexis Telia Ferrell, being arrested and reportedly charged by the local police.

The police officer - as they approach the woman - receives a witness account from people standing by saying that she ate a cat. Were these witnesses truthful or did they have an agenda to further? And I'm told that she was charged - I guess on the basis of that witness evidence - but we are getting very mixed reports on this topic.

The point I'm making is this: at the moment there is no hard evidence that Haitian immigrants are killing and eating pet dogs and pet cats in Springfield or Canton, Ohio, USA. There appears to be some witness evidence but it's been hyped up on social media. It might be unreliable and biased.

And it appears to be hyped up on social media in order to further Donald Trump's political campaign about uncontrolled immigration into the country. He is very strong on that and it appears to be one of his major platforms for history election.

But you cannot, as a potential president of this great country, rant and rave about something on mainstream television in a very major debate that is not based on hard fact at the time you talk about it. 

In the heated exchange, Harris turned to Trump and declared that as vice president she had spoken to foreign leaders who "say you (Trump) are a disgrace."

He has egg on his face. He looks stupid. I am embarrassed for him. A really good person with a good mind would not do this. It's incredibly careless and stupid. It makes him look stupid. And it makes him look like a poor decision-maker. And unfit to be the next president.

I'm pleased because I am very much a supporter of Kamala Harris and I don't think that Donald Trump was a good president. I've said before that if you combine Putin with Xi Jinping you will get a kind of semi-chaos.

Trump's sidekick also fell into the same trap:

“Months ago, I raised the issue of Haitian illegal immigrants draining social services and generally causing chaos all over Springfield, Ohio,” JD Vance wrote on X/Twitter. “Reports now show that people have had their pets abducted and eaten by people who shouldn’t be in this country.”

------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also: sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. Also, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable.

Fraudsters labelling puppy mill dogs as rescue dogs. Beware.

"A federal jury awarded nearly $4 million against two men who brokered puppy-milled dogs in violation of California’s pet store sales ban by falsely claiming they were rescued puppies. The lawsuit has driven the men out of the state and resulted in the closure of pet stores that illegally sold the puppies." - Nathan Winograd.

The same issues could just as well apply to cats.

Some detail: a federal jury in San Diego ruled that David Salinas of Cedar Pet Supply and puppy mill brokers Raised and Alicia Rothman misrepresented where the puppies that there were selling had come from. A press release says that Rothman is the sales manager for Select Puppies in Iowa. This business supplies puppy mill puppies to pet stores across the country.

They lied to customers according to the court ruling saying that the puppies came from Maryland-based PetConnect Rescue in order to avoid California's 2019 law which bans the sale of dogs in pet stores unless they are rescue animals.

PetConnect Rescue learned about the fraudulent use of the name in 2020 after California customers contacted them to complain that their puppies were seriously ill.

Court exhibits showed that the animals were labelled as coming from PetConnect Rescue when in fact they came from puppy mills.

The jury awarded damages to PetConnect Rescue of $3.9 million. The organisation said that this represents a portion of the wrongful profits that were gained by the fraudsters in using their organisation's trademark. Nonetheless they were pleased with the jury's verdict.

The Cedar Pet Supply stores were put out of business in California. Although they still operate at several locations in Nevada and Utah. They have three locations in southern Nevada:

• Las Vegas - 5191 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite #170
• Las Vegas - 5105 S. Fort Apache Road, Suite #115
• Henderson - 1000 W. Sunset Road

Comment: I hope people read this article and my thanks to Krnv.com and Nathan Winograd for bringing this to my attention. People should know when they buy puppies from a pet shop that they were either rescue animals ideally or at least from a certified and registered dog breeder. The same of course applies to cats.

By registered I mean registered with a dog association and the same applies to cats.

-----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Should Alaska’s annual Iditarod sled dog race be banned?

Image by DALL-E 3

The question of whether Alaska’s annual Iditarod sled dog race should be banned is a complex and contentious one. Let’s explore both sides of the argument:

Arguments in Favor of Banning the Iditarod:

1. Animal Welfare Concerns: Critics argue that the race places an immense physical strain on the sled dogs. The harsh conditions, long distances, and extreme cold can lead to injuries, exhaustion, and even death. Advocates for banning the race emphasize the need to prioritize the well-being of these animals.

2. Ethical Considerations: Some people view the Iditarod as an outdated tradition that no longer aligns with modern sensibilities. They believe that using dogs for such gruelling races is ethically questionable and that it perpetuates a harmful mindset about animals as mere tools.

3. Changing Attitudes: As societal attitudes toward animal rights evolve, there is growing pressure to re-evaluate practices like the Iditarod. Bans on other animal-related events (such as circuses with animal acts) have set a precedent for reconsidering the treatment of animals in various contexts.

Arguments Against Banning the Iditarod:

1. Historical and Cultural Significance: Proponents of the Iditarod emphasize its historical roots and cultural importance. The race commemorates the vital role sled dogs played in Alaska’s history, transporting supplies and people across vast wilderness areas.

2. Musher Dedication: Many mushers (the sled dog drivers) have deep connections with their dogs and treat them well. They argue that the race provides an opportunity to showcase the bond between humans and animals, as well as the resilience of both.

3. Regulation and Improvements: Supporters contend that the Iditarod has made significant improvements over the years. Stricter regulations, better veterinary care, and improved race conditions have been implemented to safeguard the dogs’ welfare.

In conclusion, the decision to ban or continue the Iditarod involves weighing tradition, cultural significance, animal welfare, and evolving societal values. It’s a nuanced debate, and finding a balanced solution that respects both history and ethics is essential. Ultimately, it’s up to policymakers, communities, and stakeholders to determine the race’s future. 🐾🏁

This article was written by Bing's Co-pilot and illustrated by its assistant DALLE. They are both AI computers and they are amazing. If you can't beat them join them is the motto nowadays. I didn't even read the article! Just copied and pasted it for good or bad.

----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. NOTE: THERE ARE  NO TYPOS IN THIS!!