I may not be the sharpest pencil in the crayon box, but I do pay a fair amount of attention to politics and the news of the day, and I figure I have as much right to my opinion as anyone else has (a right to their opinion, I mean, not mine).

You know what I mean.

My opinion, judging by the Donald Trump signs in almost every yard on my street, is different from my neighbors in the same way that Elon Musk’s bank account balance is different from mine: very far apart.

My neighbors are good people. I expect the reason we see things differently is because we get our “read” on what’s developing in this presidential election from dissimilar sources. I don’t know where they get their news. I get mine from books, newspapers, and what I consider reasonable news outlets (neither Facebook, TikTok, nor assorted random internet bloggers who may or may not live in a room over Vladimir Putin’s garage). My sources are the sources Donald Trump calls “fake news,” although he and I differ on the definitions of “fake,” “news,” and a good many other things.

The question becomes, in every presidential election but especially ones involving Trump, whom to believe?

Fox News slants right, MSNBC slants left — not the best sources for unbiased information, in my judgment.

Trump’s good buddy Sean Hannity, who many people watch on TV and apparently trust, doesn’t claim to be a “newsman,” but a self-described “television presenter,” which puts him in the same category as an on-air pillow salesman and under no obligation to tell the truth. Some people choose to believe pillow salesmen, and that’s OK, but it’s worth pointing out Fox’s own news people have been known to contradict Hannity, because, sometimes, even they don’t believe him.

So if, for the sake of argument, TV personalities like Sean Hannity, Joy Reid, Laura Ingraham, and Rachel Maddow are not the sources of all truth, to whom do we turn? Who is going to really lay it on the line?

The New York Times (which slants a little left but I think is mostly even) published a collection of quotes from people who personally know and have worked with Trump, people who have little to gain (and maybe something to lose) by coming forward. Those people were highly critical of the man, as were 84 other Republican advisors, Republican politicians, Republican military leaders, and world leaders cited in just that one Times sampling.

Former joint chief of staff Gen. Mark Milley: “Trump is an absolute fascist … the most dangerous man in America.”

Former secretary of defense Mark Esper: “I do regard him as a threat to democracy.”

Former Indiana senator and national security advisor Dan Coates: “He doesn’t know the difference between the truth and a lie.”

Former acting chief of staff Mike Mulvaney: “I think he’s a terrible human being” (but still voting for him).

Former White House lawyer Ty Cobb: “Trump relentlessly puts forth claims that are not true.”

Former secretary of Homeland Security and chief of staff John Kelly: “He is a person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators.”

Trump’s older sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry: “You can’t trust him.”

Some may choose not to believe any of those seven and the 84 other close Trump officials in the Times story, as well as the hundreds of other political, military, and civil authorities who’ve signed letters opposing him. I believe them.

And on the economy — the prevailing issue for many Americans — whom do we trust to tell us the truth?

Should we believe Trump and his plan to cut taxes and deport immigrants, or trust the business experts and economists? University of Pennsylvania’s own Penn-Wharton School of Business, from which Trump proudly claims his college degree, estimates the Trump campaign’s tax and spending proposals would increase primary deficits by $5.8 trillion over the next 10 years. And, in terms of immigration, the Penn-Wharton analysts say “the budgetary impact of removing just 1 million immigrants from the U.S. economy over the next decade depends on the skill distribution of the immigrant reduction. (Assuming the Trump policy of removing immigrants) is phased-in over the first decade, Penn-Wharton estimates a federal budgetary loss of $40 – $50 billion over 10 years and $350 billion over two decades. These numbers will nearly double if the policy focuses more on higher-skill workers.”

That’s right! Removing immigrants would actually be BAD for the economy. Penn-Wharton analysts’ studies show immigrants provide a net gain to America: “Economists generally agree that the effects of immigration on the U.S. economy are broadly positive. Immigrants, whether high- or low-skilled, legal or illegal, are unlikely to replace native-born workers or reduce their wages over the long-term, though they may cause some short-term dislocations in labor markets. Indeed, the experience of the last few decades suggests that immigration may actually have significant long-term benefits for the native-born, pushing them into higher-paying occupations and raising the overall pace of innovation and productivity growth.”

Some may choose not to trust the economists on Trump’s economic and immigration policies. I trust them.

In one area, though, I do trust Trump. When it comes to democracy, I believe he means what he says and will do what he suggests.

On terminating the Constitution: “A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude (again falsely claiming the 2020 election was “stolen”) allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution (Posted on social media, 2022).”

On America having a “president for life:” “He’s now president for life, president for life (referring to Chinese President Xi Jinping after he was put permanently in power). And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday (during Trump’s first term as president, fundraiser in Florida).”

On ending the vote: “Vote for me, you’re not going to have to do it ever again. It’s true … Because we have to get the vote out. Christians are not known as a big voting group. They don’t vote … This time, vote. I’ll straighten out the country, you won’t have to vote anymore. I won’t need your vote (rally in Nevada 2024).”

On being a dictator: “I didn’t say (I wanted to be a dictator). I said I want to be a dictator for one day. You know why I wanted to be a dictator? Because I want a wall, and I want to drill, drill, drill (Young Republicans meeting, New York, 2024).”

I may not be the sharpest pencil in the crayon box, but those words from Trump scare me. Why would any person who believes in the American people, believes in a country founded on the Constitution and ruled by law, believes in the sacred principle of democracy, want to be a dictator?

The answer: He wouldn’t.

Good people may choose not to believe Trump means what he says. But, when it comes to threatening democracy, I do believe him, and, this year, I will cast my vote as if it were potentially my last.

Betty Werth is a former Alpena News reporter, a columnist for 30 years, and a lifelong Alpena resident. Her writings have been published in “Chicken Soup for the Soul,” Family Circle Magazine, and the Traverse City Record Eagle.