Comparing Trump To A Grapefruit
It's a more palatable option than the original.
Citrus Power, activate! (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
I wrote several months ago that if I had the choice of voting for Donald Trump or a hot, stinking turd, I’d vote for the turd.
I didn’t want to repeat the word “turd” too many times in this post, so I’ve changed it to “grapefruit.”
The Ethical use of Generative AI
Who should you vote for: Trump or a grapefruit?
Let’s think carefully about those two choices.
On policy issues, it’s not close: The grapefruit wins.
A grapefruit, unlike Trump, would not cause the United States to withdraw from NATO.
Sponsored
Attention Buyer: Not All Legal AI Models Are Created Equal
Mitigating M&A Cyber Risk: Pre- & Post-Acquisition Due Diligence
New Report - Are Small Firms Achieving Their Legal Tech Goals?
Attention Buyer: Not All Legal AI Models Are Created Equal
A grapefruit would not try to solve the problem of inflation by enacting 20% across-the-board tariffs (which would have the effect of raising prices).
A grapefruit would not advocate for leaving the Trump tax cuts in place, which will both dramatically increase the national debt and contribute to inflation.
A grapefruit would not insist that Haitians in Ohio eat pet dogs, thus triggering bomb threats in Springfield.
A grapefruit would not cut off aid to Ukraine.
So much for policy. What about character issues? How does the grapefruit fare against Trump when we compare their respective characters?
Sponsored
How To Maximize Productivity With Westlaw Precision With CoCounsel
The Ethical use of Generative AI
Grapefruit are pale, round, and bitter. I guess the same could be said of Trump. (But grapefruit are at least thick-skinned.)
A grapefruit would not say things that caused it to be civilly liable for defamation.
A grapefruit would not run a company that was then convicted of criminal tax fraud.
A grapefruit would not commit sexual assault.
A grapefruit would not be convicted of 34 felonies.
A grapefruit would not mishandle confidential government documents.
Hmmm. Are you starting to see my point?
How about Trump versus grapefruit on presidential proclamations? Again, it’s grapefruit one; Trump zero.
A grapefruit would not tweet outrageous things every morning that are meant to attract publicity to the tweeter personally and stoke divisions in America.
A grapefruit would not insult members of America’s military.
A grapefruit would not encourage people to come to Washington, D.C., for a “wild” day in January or give a speech that encouraged a mob to attack the Capitol Building.
A grapefruit wouldn’t stand by idly for three hours while the Capitol Building was ransacked by a mob. A grapefruit — being inanimate and all that — wouldn’t stop its staff from tweeting something suggesting that the mob should discontinue its attack.
If a grapefruit were told that the vice president was in danger, the grapefruit would not say, “So what?” The grapefruit would predictably remain silent — which isn’t my preferred response, but it’s a whole lot better than what Trump did.
Lastly, if elected, a grapefruit would not instruct the Department of Justice to prosecute me as a political enemy because I’d written these words at Above the Law.
Some folks criticized The New York Times last week for the structure of The Times’ endorsement of Kamala Harris. Readers thought that The Times should have started by emphasizing the positives of Harris’s policies, rather than leading with criticisms of Trump.
I disagree with those readers: It really doesn’t matter who, or what, opposes Trump on the ballot.
Whether it’s Harris, or a grapefruit, or a turd, the choice is clear: Not Trump.
Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at [email protected].
