미국 언론 유에스에이투데이, 트럼프 반대 사설 전문번역

미국 USA투데이 신문은 대통령 선거에 중립을 유지하는 34년의 전통을 깨고 공화당 트럼프 후보가 미국 대통령에 적합하지 않다고 미국시간 9월30일자 사설에 호소했다. 

USA 투데이는 사설에서 트럼프에 대해 성격과 지적수준, 일관성, 성실성 등에서 대통령에 부적격하다고 혹평했다. "USA투데이 신문 편집위원회의 만장일치의 결론"으로 1982년 창간 이래 처음으로 대통령 선거 중립 정책을 깨고 트럼프에 투표하지 말라고 호소했다. 

아래 기사 전문을 번역했다. 미국 1차 TV토론 전까지 미대선 공화당 후보 도털드 트럼프의 대통령으로써 부적절한 점을 미국언론이 총정리한 셈이다. 

[아래 기사 전문 번역]

34년동안 대통령후보를 추천한적이 없었지만, 이번 대선에는 예외를 두기로 하였다. USA 투데이 34년 동안 편집부는 대선가도에서 어느편도 지지한 경우가 없었다.

USA TODAY는 유권자들의 선택에 도움이 되도록 주요 대선 이슈에 대한 논설을 실어 왔지만 어느 대선 후보가 정책적인 우월성과 가치를 다양하게 보여주고 있는지에 대해서는 언급하지는 않는 것을 전제로 해왔다. 지금까지 모든 대선 가도는 다르게 펼처지기 때문에 어느 쪽도 지지하지 않는 것을 4년마다 반복해왔다. 이전 대선까지는 이러한 본지의 정책을 바꿀 이유가 없었다.  올해의 대선의 선택은 메이져 다수당이 두 곳이 내놓은 이념적인 차이가 현격히 다른 대통령 후보자 중 한명을 뽑는것이 아니다.  대선 후보자 중에 공화당 도널드 트럼프 후보는 USA 투에이 편집부의 만장일치의 의견으로 대통령으로써 부적합하다. 트럼프는 15개월전 대통령 후보를 선언할 때부터 지난주 첫번째 대선 TV토론회에 이르기까지 보여준게 있다면 미국의 대통령이 되기 위해 필요한 자질, 지식, 일관성과 정직함이 부족함을 반복적으로 보여주었다.  트럼프가 무지해서든 무관심해서든 2차세계 대전 이후로 지켜져 왔던 보편적으로 대통령에게 기대하는 책무에 대해 수행할 것이라는 신뢰를 져버렸다. 대통령의 책무는 나토와 동맹에 대한 확고한 지지, 러시아의 침략행위에 대한 강경한 반대, 미국이 자국의 부채에 대해 충실히 이행할 것을 절대적인 보장하는 것을 포함한다. 트럼프는 국가 지도자에 대해 문제가 있는 태도를 보여왔으며 헌법 수호에 대해 충분하지 않은 존중을 보이고 있다.  본지는 공화당 후보자(트럼프)에 대해 이전의 사설에서 수차례에 걸쳐 강도높게 비판해왔다.  사전선거가 이미 몇개의 주에서 시작되었고, 여론조사가 근접한 결과를 보여줌에 따라 트럼프가 대통령이 되지 않을 이유에 대해서 이번 지면을 통해서 정리하고 자 한다. 

트럼프는 불안정하다. 트럼프는 마치 움직이는 타겟을 사격하듯이 정책적인 포지션을 시도하는 과정에서 너무 많은 부분의 너무 많은 이슈를 다루고 있다.  NBC의 한 리스트에 의하면 트럼프는 대통령후보에 뛰어 들기전에 20개의 주요 이슈에 대해서 124번을 변경했다고 밝혔다. 트럼프는 정책들에 대해서 어떻게 달성할 것인지 신뢰할 만한 설명도 없이 슬로건과 성과를 마구 내뱉는다. ‘오바마케어’ 정책을 대신하여 ‘뭔가 괜찮은 것’으로 대체할 것이라고 한다. 

트럼프는 최고 지도자로써 준비가 안되었다.   트럼프의 외교정책에 대한 발표는 전형적으로 앞뒤가 맞지 않고 잘 알려지지 않은 것이다. 민주당 측에서만 언급하는 것이 아니다. 공화당의 국가 안보 분야의 리더급 인사들도 트럼프의 외교 정책이 “전반적으로 원칙에 대한 일관성이 없이 표류하고 있다”며, 극히 예외적인 공개 서한에 사인했다. 이번달 월스트리트 저널의 로버트 게이츠는 컬럼에서 대내외적으로 신망이 두텁고 반세기 이상 미국의 양당 즉, 공화당과 민주당의 대통령과 일한 경력이 있는 한 전임 국방부장관은 트럼프를 일컬어 “수리불가”라고 비난했다.  

트럼프는 편견으로 (인터넷 검색 등의)트래픽을 일으킨다.  초기부터 트럼프는 멕시코와 무슬림 이민자들에 대한 편견과 외국인 혐오에 호소하는 대선 캠패인 전략을 구사했고 이들에 대한 분노를 채찍질 했다.  트럼프의 대규모 추방 정책과 종교적 테스트는 미국의 이념에 반하는 것이며 쓸모없는 이야기다. 트럼프는 심각한 인종 차별적인 감정을 불러일으켰다. 또한 아프리카계 미국인에 대해서는 뒤늦게 어정쩡한 태도로 화해의 손길을 내밀었니만 지울수 없는 인상을 남겼다.  트럼프는 멕시코계의 인디애나 태생 연방 판사에 대해 공격했고 이는 인종 차별주의자의 교과서적인 발언이라고 공화당 최고위 선출직 대변인인 폴 라이언이 말했다. 지난 5년동안 트럼프는 “birther” 즉, 오바마대통령의 출생지를 미국이 아니라고 의심하는 세력을 부축여 미국 최초 흑인 대통령에 대한 부적절 논란을 가중했다. 

트럼프의 사업은 파란이 많았다. 트럼프는 부동산 개발 사업가로서 사업성과를 기반으로 후보가 되었으나 위태롭다. 1973년 주택임대에서 흑인에 대한 조직적인 인종 차별로 인해 미법무부와 소송을 진행했고 후에 정부의 승리로 기록된다. 트럼프의 회사는 재정적으로 괄목할 만한 성공을 거두기도 했지만, 여섯번에 걸친 파산과 자선재단의 유용 및 트럼프 대학의 사기혐의 등으로 사업이력이 지저분하다. USA 투데이에서 발행한 일련의 조사 기사에 의하면 트럼프는 지난 삼십년간 수천건의 소송에 휘말렸으며 이중 60건은 돈을 받지 못했다고 주장하는 영세사업주나 직원들과의 소송이다. 미 대선 후보자로써 치졸한 소송전이 너무 많았다. 

트럼프는 미국 국민과 수준을 맞추지 않는다.  트럼프가 본인이 말하는 것 처럼 부자인가? 어떤 면에서는 누구도 모른다. 지난 40년간 미국의 주요 다수당 대선후보들이 세금 내역을 공개한 것과 달리 트럼프는 세금 공개에 반대했다.  트럼프가 지금까지 국내외 사업에 대해 제대로된 세금을 납부했는지 알 수 없다.

트럼프는 막말한다. 공화당 대회 후 트럼프는 러시아 해커들에게 힐러리클린턴의 이메일을 배포하여 미 대선을 방해하라고 하는가 하면 (총기 소유 자유를 주장하는) 수정헌법 지지자 들에게 힐러리 클린턴이 (대선에 당선되는것을 막아서, 총기 소유 자유를 반대하는) 진보 진영 대법관 임명을 막아야한다고 말했다. 

트럼프의 토론은 국격을 떨어뜨린다. 미국 공화당의 대선후보 선출을 위한 토론회에서 후보자가 전국방송에서 자신의 성기의 사이즈를 말한다는 누가 상상이나 했을 까. 미국의 대선 후보가 그것도 국방의무를 회피한 자가 이라크에서 아들을 잃은 최고 레벨의 국가유공자를 비난하는 것이 가당찮은 일인가. 심지어 대통령 후보가 장애인 기자를 희롱하는 일도 벌어졌다. 트럼프는 비판에 대해 무능력하며 무시할 뿐 받아들이지 않는 다. 이는 대통령에 대한 구설수가 들끓게 할 뿐이고, 리차드 닉슨 대통령처럼 정적들만 늘어나며 비판에만 대응하기 위해 소모적인 대통령으로 전락할 것이다. 

트럼프는 연쇄 거짓말장이이다. 여론조사에서 클린턴이 정직함과 신뢰도에서 낮은 점수를 받기는 했지만, ‘거짓말’ 부분에서는 상대가 되지 않는다.  트럼프는 거짓 발언의 양과 질에 있어서 압도한다.  이라크 전쟁에 반대했다는 것과 같은 잘못된 진술에 대면하면 트럼프는 더 큰 거짓말을 반복적으로 기술하는 태크닉을 구사한다.  대중이 그의 거짓말을 믿기 시작하는 현상이 여러번 일어났다.   우리는 트럼프가 근로자 일자리 부재, 과도한 정치적 공정성, 대법원의 향방, 도심소요과 거리폭력, 이슬람국가 테러리스트의 봉기, 워싱턴의 정체, 재계의 영향력을 캠페인 활동에 편취해 왔음을 알고 있다. 

본 USA 투데이 편집부는 힐러리 클린턴에 대해 지지를 표명하지는 않는다.  힐러리클린턴도 약점을 가지고 있다. 그렇지만 힐러리의 약점이 국가안보를 위협하거나 헌법적 위기를 초래할 것으로 생각하지 않는다.  USA 투데이 편집부는 힐러리클린턴을 지지하기로 합의하지는 않았다. 편집부 일부는 힐러리의 이슈에 대한 정책제안과, 쾌활함과 퍼스트레이디, 국무장관의 오랜 공직 경험이 미국의 대통령직 수행을 잘할 수 있을 것으로 믿는다.  편집부의 다른 의견은 클린턴이 기득권을 유지하려는 성향이 있고 솔직하지 못하며 기밀정보를 다루는데 부주의하다는 점을 들어 부정적이다.  결론적으로 본 USA 투데이는 유권자들에게 최소한의 충고로써 신념에 따라 투표하라고 권고한다. 신념에 따른 투표가 클린턴에게 투표하는 것일 수도 있다.  트럼프가 당선되지 않게 하는 것은 최선의 선택이다.  또는 제 3당의 후보에게 투표하는 것일 수도 있다. 또는 (미국 방식인) 후보자 명단에 없는 사람을 써 넣는 것일 수도 있다.  또는 정직하게 국가에 봉사하고 자신의 분파의 문제점을 해결할 소수 후보에게 투표할 수도 있다.  누구에게 투표하든 위험한 정치선동가가 사이렌을 울리는 것을 막아야 한다. 아무조록 최소한 트럼프가 아닌 후보에게 투표하자. 

[아래 기사 원문] 출처 : http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/09/29/dont-vote-for-donald-trump-editorial-board-editorials-debates/91295020/

USA TODAY's Editorial Board: Trump is 'unfit for the presidency'

We haven't made a voting recommendation in 34 years. For this election, we made an exception.

The Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. We're doing it now.

In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed opinions about the major issues and haven’t presumed to tell our readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.

This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.  

From the day he declared his candidacy 15 months ago through this week’s first presidential debate, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents.

Whether through indifference or ignorance, Trump has betrayed fundamental commitments made by all presidents since the end of World War II.   These commitments include unwavering support for NATO allies, steadfast opposition to Russian aggression, and the absolute certainty that the United States will make good on its debts.  He has expressed troubling admiration for authoritarian leaders and scant regard for constitutional protections.  

We’ve been highly critical of the GOP nominee in a number of previous editorials. With early voting already underway in several states and polls showing a close race, now is the time to spell out, in one place, the reasons Trump should not be president:

He is erratic. Trump has been on so many sides of so many issues that attempting to assess his policy positions is like shooting at a moving target. A list prepared by NBC details 124 shifts by Trump on 20 major issues since shortly before he entered the race. He simply spouts slogans and outcomes (he’d replace Obamacare with “something terrific”) without any credible explanations of how he’d achieve them.

He is ill-equipped to be commander in chief. Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements typically range from uninformed to incoherent. It’s not just Democrats who say this. Scores of Republican national security leaders have signed an extraordinary open letter calling Trump’s foreign policy vision “wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle.” In a Wall Street Journal column this month, Robert Gates, the highly respected former Defense secretary who served presidents of both parties over a half-century, described Trump as “beyond repair.”

He traffics in prejudice. From the very beginning, Trump has built his campaign on appeals to bigotry and xenophobia, whipping up resentment against Mexicans, Muslims and migrants. His proposals for mass deportations and religious tests are unworkable and contrary to America’s ideals.Trump has stirred racist sentiments in ways that can’t be erased by his belated and clumsy outreach to African Americans. His attacks on an Indiana-born federal judge of Mexican heritage fit “the textbook definition of a racist comment,” according to House Speaker Paul Ryan, the highest-ranking elected official in the Republican Party. And for five years, Trump fanned the absurd “birther” movement that falsely questioned the legitimacy of the nation’s first black president.

His business career is checkered. Trump has built his candidacy on his achievements as a real estate developer and entrepreneur. It’s a shaky scaffold, starting with a 1973 Justice Department suit against Trump and his father for systematically discriminating against blacks in housing rentals. (The Trumps fought the suit but later settled on terms that were viewed as a government victory.)  Trump’s companies have had some spectacular financial successes, but this track record is marred by six bankruptcy filings, apparent misuse of the family’s charitable foundation, and allegations by Trump University customers of fraud.A series of investigative articles published by the USA TODAY Network found that Trump has been involved in thousands of lawsuits over the past three decades, including at least 60 that involved small businesses and contract employees who said they were stiffed. So much for being a champion of the little guy.

He isn’t leveling with the American people. Is Trump as rich as he says? No one knows, in part because, alone among major party presidential candidates for the past four decades, he refuses to release his tax returns. Nor do we know whether he has paid his fair share of taxes, or the extent of his foreign financial entanglements.

He speaks recklessly. In the days after the Republican convention, Trump invited Russian hackers to interfere with an American election by releasing Hillary Clinton’s emails, and he raised the prospect of “Second Amendment people” preventing the Democratic nominee from appointing liberal justices. It’s hard to imagine two more irresponsible statements from one presidential candidate.

He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to ignore criticism raises the specter of a president who, like Richard Nixon, would create enemies’ lists and be consumed with getting even with his critics.

He’s a serial liar. Although polls show that Clinton is considered less honest and trustworthy than Trump, it’s not even a close contest. Trump is in a league of his own when it comes to the quality and quantity of his misstatements. When confronted with a falsehood, such as his assertion that he was always against the Iraq War, Trump’s reaction is to use the Big Lie technique of repeating it so often that people begin to believe it.

We are not unmindful of the issues that Trump’s campaign has exploited: the disappearance of working-class jobs; excessive political correctness; the direction of the Supreme Court; urban unrest and street violence; the rise of the Islamic State terrorist group; gridlock in Washington and the influence of moneyed interests. All are legitimate sources of concern.

Nor does this editorial represent unqualified support for Hillary Clinton, who has her own flaws (though hers are far less likely to threaten national security or lead to a constitutional crisis). The Editorial Board does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement.Some of us look at her command of the issues, resilience and long record of public service — as first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of State — and believe she’d serve the nation ably as its president.

Other board members have serious reservations about Clinton’s sense of entitlement, her lack of candor and her extreme carelessness in handling classified information.

Where does that leave us? Our bottom-line advice for voters is this: Stay true to your convictions. That might mean a vote for Clinton, the most plausible alternative to keep Trump out of the White House. Or it might mean a third-party candidate. Or a write-in. Or a focus on down-ballot candidates who will serve the nation honestly, try to heal its divisions, and work to solve its problems.

Whatever you do, however, resist the siren song of a dangerous demagogue. By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump.