Coal is declining because "Drill Baby Drill" produced a lot of cheap natural gas that pushed the price of coal down - that is the market - and the GOP supposedly likes the market.
Trump Digs Coal means that Trump supports the losing industry - coal. Trump Digs Coal invokes the Federal Government trying to pick winners and losers in the market place, and supporting the loser. The market has chosen renewable power because it is cheaper than coal. Add in external costs from the health of miners and environmental costs, and renewable energy is massively cheaper than coal.
Presidents are supposed to consider all costs and benefits. Guys with degrees from Wharton are suppose to be able to estimate the cost of energy from various industries. Trump seems not seem able to do a correct economic analysis. Trump has lost his Wharton skills. A real Wharton graduate would have gotten the "fact" in his speech correct. Trump is a loser.
Then, how did he make his money? He did deals where he lied and was a bully. How could he get to be president? He could lie and bully - he is good at that. Maybe he crossed the line and just stole his money. Several criminal schemes have yielded as much money as Trump seems to have. After all, he will not show his tax returns.
Would America tolerate a real criminal for president? Maybe - almost every town has a used car salesman that makes a living despite not being trusted or liked - America is tolerant of fraud and intimidation.
All in all, I would rather vote for "Bernie" Madoff" for president than D. J. Trump. If we are going to have a thief for a president, then let's get the best thief we can. Bernie stole a lot more money than DJ.
Now, that brings us to the $64 question. Would I throw away my vote by writing in "Bernie" for president? No, if not Madoff, and not Trump, then that leaves Clinton.
On the other hand, I think it is very clear that DJT, has stolen money. It is in a thief's nature to assume that everyone steals. In law school, HC learned about the full range of crimes in the world, but I do not get the sense that she is inherently criminal. Is she 'secretive" ? Yes, every good attorney that I know puts a high priority on attorney- client confidentiality, and that tends tends to rub off on their personal life, so yes, most high profile attorneys are very secretive. Over all, HC's accumulation of wealth was by more innocent means than DJT's. This puts HC in a different class - one where she was able to "make good" without stealing or extortion. I would rather have someone like that, than even the best thief.
Now, she might be a 3d term to Obama or a 3d term to Bill's administration - the 2 best economic records since Eisenhower. Would her speeches be as much fun as Trump's? Hell, no!, but she would get her facts correct. Would she promise as much as Trump? Hell, no!, but she might actually deliver a good chunk of what she does promise. She is smart enough to let someone that remembers their economics do the research on the cost of various sources of energy. She knows how to delegate and manage a large organization. Trump does deals, he does not manage large organizations.
We need to remember that Trump has a long history of not keeping his promises, e.g., not paying vendors, dumping projects into bankruptcy, and firing workers on short notice. All of these hurt the kind of people and families that he promised to protect in his acceptance speech. He lied! He got his facts wrong, and he lied. The man is no better than the most ruthless used car salesman in the US, and some people want to let him be POTUS?