A person with no memory is incredibly easy to manipulate and control. This is no less true on a collective level. An amnesiac society is a facile society. The conspicuous amnesia of leftists is something that always stood out to me, and during the Trump candidacy it became undeniable, that the memory of GoP voters was no less limited and selective than their Democrat rivals.
Well, that's true, and indisputably awful. But it's better than pretending they don't exist at all, which is apparently what Trump voters prefer to do. And if that's not an option, Trump voters do the exact same thing Democrats do, and automatically dismiss those claims. And a prime illustration of this was the dispute between Michelle Fields and Corey Lewandowski.
During and following that controversy memes like the one above were plastered all over social media. Trump supporters accused her of deception, hyperbole, etc. What they will never broach, however, is the fact that video evidence proved that Corey Lewandowski lied too. He initially claimed he never even came into contact with Fields. Yet video of the event clearly shows him grabbing her by the arm and pulling her backward. But Trump, and likewise all of his supporters, sided with Lewandowski and mocked and smeared Fields ad nauseam. Michelle Fields may very well be a drama queen and globalist. But that's besides the point. The point is that if you're against their candidate, then just like Hillary Clinton and her supporters, Trump voters will "trash" and seek to discredit you in efforts to obscure and conceal the truth. Both were apparently liars but only Field's lies mattered to Trump voters. Lewandowski's didn't. Because lying is only wrong when their opponents do it.
Trump supporters, like Democrats, only care about the pasts of people they either dislike or which serve as impediments to their agenda. Just like Obama supporters didn't care about his troubling past, Trump supporters don't care about Trump's troubling and highly ideologically eclectic past. Indeed, Trump was born for them on June 16, 2015 (when he announced his candidacy on the Republican ticket). Anything prior to that is irrelevant, and that's a significant problem, because a lot of things that happened prior to that date plainly illustrate that Donald Trump was not the man he claimed to be. But again, they don't care about that. You either support Trump or you don't want to "make America great again." Those are the only two options that exist to the mindless GoP loyalist. (The "make America great again" campaign slogan is now being condensed to "MAGA." Because apparently the GoP, who's incessantly accused of "fascism" by their rivals, think it's a good idea to start associating themselves with a four letter anacronym. Sure, it's not of any real significance to any rationale person. But since when are leftists rationale? So why give them the fodder?)
Corey's Lewandowski's not gone either.
He's still around and spouting off the same logical fallacies as the rest. It's okay that Corey and the rest of the GoP support a sexual predator, because the Democrats supported one first. In what can this perverse two wrongs make a right reasoning result, but a society ever more descending into the depths of abject amorality? Clearly one party of liars and hypocrites wasn't enough for Republican voters. Their solution to the Democrat party, was a candidate who's lowered the standards of discourse and conduct in virtually every way, and the regression of their own party into one virtually indistinguishable from their rivals in all but name.
Democrats having supported a sexual predator doesn't make it okay for Republicans to do so. That's tantamount to arguing it's okay for me to rape a woman because someone I dislike raped one first. But that's exactly what you'll hear from Republican and Democrat loyalists alike. What I do is okay a long as someone else did it first or does it too. So now both parties openly subscribe to and advance moral relativism.
Another spectacle of abject hypocrisy on display during the Trump candidacy was regarding the electoral college.
For years and years Democrats have been criticizing the electoral college and calling for its abolition. Basically, any time they lose as a result of it, it needs to go. Back when Donald Trump was losing primaries he and his supporters agreed, and began calling for the exact same thing. According to candidate Trump elections should be decided by the popular vote.
For years and years Democrats have been criticizing the electoral college and calling for its abolition. Basically, any time they lose as a result of it, it needs to go. Back when Donald Trump was losing primaries he and his supporters agreed, and began calling for the exact same thing. According to candidate Trump elections should be decided by the popular vote.
According to Trump lackey Ben Carson the electoral college should be abolished.
Amazing. There's Ben Carson, an alleged "Conservative" who ran on the Republican ticket, stating that the Constitution is obsolete and out of touch with our societies "modern" needs; verbatim the same argument the Socialist left's been making for decades in defense of things like Obamacare (Socialist Medicine). Carson couldn't be more wrong. His ignorance is staggering considering the position he was seeking.
Not only does the electoral college not disenfranchise people it's does the exact opposite. Without the electoral college the votes of virtually everyone not living on the east and west coasts would be rendered irrelevant. A presidential candidate would need only campaign in, and win large metropolitan (and overwhelmingly left) centers like New York city, Chicago, Los Angeles, et al., to clinch the nomination and presidency. This would naturally cause every candidate to lunge left and pander to leftist sensibilities, as the diminutive number of people living in rural Kansas, for example, would be politically nugatory. The electoral college is the only thing that enfranchises those people, and forces presidential candidates (in order to procure their electoral votes) to take their concerns into consideration. If not for the electoral college the residents of Los Angeles, and the other major cities, would dictate how people in Oklahoma live.
The electoral college wasn't the result of a myopic oversight on the part of the Founders. It was implemented to do exactly what it does, to prevent exactly what I just described above. It was part of the checks and balances systems devised by the Founders to preserve Republican government and prevent mob rule.
Simply put, if Carson had his wish a Republican would likely never win the presidency ever again. Because the large urban centers that would decide the outcome of presidential elections are almost entirely Democrat meccas. But Carson is so blatantly ignorant of the very system over which he would preside as executive, he's oblivious to the fact he's proposing something that would only serve to benefit his political rivals.
So the GoP, just like the Democrats, want the Constitution discarded and our form of government fundamentally changed when it runs contrary to their interests. Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Trump's supporters wanted to replace our Republican form of government with a pure Democracy. Which to any thinking person makes them Democrats. Carson may be a brilliant surgeon and Trump a brilliant businessman, but both plainly know nothing about our Constitutional Republic, and therefore have no business being in positions of power. The Founders viewed a pure Democracy as one of the worst forms of govenrment on Earth.
Trump didn't cede victory to Hillary based upon his previously stated position that the popular vote, and therefore the will of the people, should decide the outcome. No, suddenly Trump and his supporters were in love with the Constitution again. So during the course of Trump's campaign I saw his supporters opinion on the electoral college transition up to three times. They were for it before Trump was against it. Against it once Trump was against it. And then for it again when Trump won as a result of it. Trump voters were literally calling for the abolition of the electoral college one day and then mocking Democrats for wanting it abolished the next.
Amazing. There's Ben Carson, an alleged "Conservative" who ran on the Republican ticket, stating that the Constitution is obsolete and out of touch with our societies "modern" needs; verbatim the same argument the Socialist left's been making for decades in defense of things like Obamacare (Socialist Medicine). Carson couldn't be more wrong. His ignorance is staggering considering the position he was seeking.
Not only does the electoral college not disenfranchise people it's does the exact opposite. Without the electoral college the votes of virtually everyone not living on the east and west coasts would be rendered irrelevant. A presidential candidate would need only campaign in, and win large metropolitan (and overwhelmingly left) centers like New York city, Chicago, Los Angeles, et al., to clinch the nomination and presidency. This would naturally cause every candidate to lunge left and pander to leftist sensibilities, as the diminutive number of people living in rural Kansas, for example, would be politically nugatory. The electoral college is the only thing that enfranchises those people, and forces presidential candidates (in order to procure their electoral votes) to take their concerns into consideration. If not for the electoral college the residents of Los Angeles, and the other major cities, would dictate how people in Oklahoma live.
The electoral college wasn't the result of a myopic oversight on the part of the Founders. It was implemented to do exactly what it does, to prevent exactly what I just described above. It was part of the checks and balances systems devised by the Founders to preserve Republican government and prevent mob rule.
"Whenever any of the said States shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, such State shall be admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the original States in all respects... Provided, the constitution and government so to be formed, shall be republican." - Ordinance of 1787.
"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government." - Constitution of the United States.The Founders didn't want the presidential election decided by a simple majority vote and it never has been, because the Founders didn't America to be a pure Democracy, and therefore didn't want everything being decided by simple referendum. But Trump, Carson, and his supporters would clearly scrap that system in a heart beat in order to achieve their political aspirations. Just like Democrats.
Simply put, if Carson had his wish a Republican would likely never win the presidency ever again. Because the large urban centers that would decide the outcome of presidential elections are almost entirely Democrat meccas. But Carson is so blatantly ignorant of the very system over which he would preside as executive, he's oblivious to the fact he's proposing something that would only serve to benefit his political rivals.
So the GoP, just like the Democrats, want the Constitution discarded and our form of government fundamentally changed when it runs contrary to their interests. Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Trump's supporters wanted to replace our Republican form of government with a pure Democracy. Which to any thinking person makes them Democrats. Carson may be a brilliant surgeon and Trump a brilliant businessman, but both plainly know nothing about our Constitutional Republic, and therefore have no business being in positions of power. The Founders viewed a pure Democracy as one of the worst forms of govenrment on Earth.
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." - James Madison, Signer of the Constitution, Fourth President of The United States, Federalist #10.But of course Trump would go on to win the electoral college and not the popular vote, and consequently president elect Trump's opinion on the electoral college was quite different than candidate Trump's position. It's almost like there's two Trumps. (Remember that reference for later.)
Trump didn't cede victory to Hillary based upon his previously stated position that the popular vote, and therefore the will of the people, should decide the outcome. No, suddenly Trump and his supporters were in love with the Constitution again. So during the course of Trump's campaign I saw his supporters opinion on the electoral college transition up to three times. They were for it before Trump was against it. Against it once Trump was against it. And then for it again when Trump won as a result of it. Trump voters were literally calling for the abolition of the electoral college one day and then mocking Democrats for wanting it abolished the next.
It's plain to see that far from being diametrically opposed in principle, that both Republicans and Democrats employ the same specious rhetoric to the same end, and are in reality two sides of the same Socialist coin. Because that's from where opposition to the electoral college is derived. ("We call for the elimination of the Electoral College and support instant run-off voting of all elected officials." - SPUSA.) So the Republican party can espouse the Socialist platform all it wants. Socialism is only wrong when a Democrat does it.
My question is the same now as it was then. How much of the Socialist platform does the GoP have to adopt, exactly, before we acknowledge the obvious? That it's just another party of apostatic commies like the DNC. Apparently it's 100%.
This all alludes back to the observation made at the outset of this article. (A person with no memory is incredibly easy to manipulate and control.) The platform of Trump voters during the campaign was whatever their party's leader told them it was on a day to day basis. Like Democrats they're literally told what to think from moment to moment, and what they're told to think is forever changing based upon what's in the party's interests at the time. Sure, there are exceptions to this, but it's generally true. And the farcical shifting that took place in regard to the legitimacy of the electoral college among Trump voters during the last election cycle superbly illustrated this. (The Democrats did this also, but his post isn't primarily about them.)
The flagrant hypocrisy doesn't end there.
How many have to die in America before we care, Nikki? Trump unconstitutionally bombed Syria for killing 70 people, only some of which were children, while at home we've killed 60 million children in specialized child murder facilities established by racist Nazi sympathizers. How many more children have to die before Donald Trump bombs Planned Parenthood, Nikki? Why the disparity? Are the lives of Syrian children worth more than those of American children? Until we can get our own state sanctioned and funded genocide under control, which has killed millions, we probably shouldn't be admonishing other states who've killed a few dozen on the sanctity of life.
To be fair the GoP has consistently opposed abortion. So it's not so hypocritical for them to oppose the deaths of children in general. But it is quite hypocritical to do so as a supporter of a man who spent much of his life as an ardent abortion supporter, and which during his campaign only a year ago, was defending Planned Parenthood during nationally televised interviews with rhetoric conspicuously derived from Planned Parenthood itself.
Don't let Trump or his supporters fool you. Trump's position on abortion in the above interview was the same as it was seventeen years prior, when he was also against it, and yet "strongly pro-choice" and "pro-choice in every respect" at the same time. In both instances he paid lip service to life while defending and ultimately siding with those that perpetrate and profit from infanticide. But in the interview above it's very easy to see from where Trump derived the rhetoric used in his response.
In the above except from Planned Parenthood's own website, Planned Parenthood is basically saying that abortion is "actually a fairly small part of what they do," and that most of what they do is "helping women." This is the kind of response you'd expect from Cecil Richards (the head of Planned Parenthood), who's actually given similar responses in interviews. Not a Republican presidential candidate. But there you have it. Trump the "Republican" once again espousing the Democrat position on an issue.
There are no "two Planned Parenthoods." There's only one which exists purely to terminate human life, and uses "family planning" as a specious cover for that enterprise. If Planned Parenthood only wanted to "help women," and not end lives, then why not merely provide things like Pap tests and stop offering abortions? Because abortions are the true, core service Planned Parenthood provides, and the other services it provides (like Pap tests) are merely ancillary to that service and offered purely to grant legitimacy for the former endeavor. It's hard to justify only killing. It's a lot easier to justify killing and a bunch of other services that are considered by many to be "good."
I'd expect to hear this sophistry from a Democrat. Democrats are typically hardcore genocidal Marxists who view pregnancy, and child rearing, and everything derived from and associated with it as a cruel biological joke that prevents women from having "equality" with men. Men don't get pregnant from having sex, you see. So only through freedom from their physiology, i.e., the ability to terminate a pregnancy, can women have consequence free sex like men and therefore "equality" with men in their egregiously warped minds. To hear a candidate for the Republican party, the ostensibly pro-life party, puking this rhetoric (even going so far as to construe it as a "womens' rights" issue) just like a Marxist Democrat was repugnant.
Why does a man who claims to "hate" abortion, running on the ticket of the pro-life party, sound just like the head of Planned Parenthood in interviews? That was a question Trump voters clearly never asked themselves.
The very notion of saying you oppose something but support it anyway is farcical. Imagine me telling you I hate rape, and then voting for the legalization of rape. Is there anything more asinine and intellectually dishonest? One either opposes a thing or supports it. One cannot do both. And even if you could, as goes the old adage, actions speak louder than words. So when pondering a man's loyalties, one need merely ask themselves what does he support in deed? The latter is where his greater or true allegiance lies.
Such duplicity was a staple of Trump's rhetoric, which was in nigh interminable flux throughout his candidacy, in flagrant attempts to garner support from both sides of the fence. The Planned Parenthood example is but one of many in which Trump is literally taking both sides of an issue in order to win votes from both parties. And an amnesiac electorate who cognitively operates exclusively in the present, has no recollection of the past and consequently no ability to divine the future, is kept in a state of perpetual credulity. When Trump says something today that contradicts something he said yesterday, they have no recollection of yesterday, and therefore there is no contradiction. This is compounded by the fact they also see what they want to see, and hear what they want to hear, and dismiss anything to the contrary. The Republican, Trump hopes, is inclined to hear only his support of life. The leftist only his support of "choice." Neither, he hopes, will see and hear the truth.
I criticized the hypocrisy and deceit of the Democrats and the Obama administration for eight years. Trump voters had no problem with me then. It's only when I turned my attention to their God that it suddenly became a problem.
And that's no hyperbole. Trump was portrayed as a messianic figure, destined to "save the country" by his supporters, just like Obama was by his supporters. The vagina groper in chief is God's anointed, according to GoP voters, chosen to battle and defeat the Devil's emissaries; the Clintons, with whom Donald Trump was friends, and gave lots of money, promised to jail but didn't, etc., etc., etc.
Trump is their God and the party is their religion. They're not freedom fighters. They're idolaters. That he literally tells them what to think is evinced in how they mirror his disposition at any given time, even when he does does a 180° about face on an issue.
Throughout Trump's campaign his supporters mirrored his pro-jailing rhetoric. And when Trump stated he no longer sought to jail Hillary in a subsequent interview after being elected, but wanted to focus on other problems instead, the rhetoric of his supporters shifted in identical fashion overnight.
How anyone doesn't now recognize this as the blatant political theater it was is amazing to me. But of course to recognize it as such, you'd have to first remember it ever happened in the first place. Trump voters don't. And this serves to illustrate the problem with an amnesiac society. This wasn't some passing remark Trump made. It was an explicit pledge that he repeatedly made to his voters; something he owed to the people and employees of the FBI according to him. And not only did he not deliver on it, he plainly never intended to do so. But it never happened to his supporters. When it initially happened they made excuses for it and then it promptly fading into oblivion. So there's zero accountability in either party. When their representatives betray them, they defend those betrayals, and then almost immediately forget they ever took place. And that will be the paradigm for his entire administration, just as it was Obama and his supporters.
It should go without saying that a system that functions, or perhaps more aptly dysfunctions in this manner, will never be able to "fix" our country.
Again, actions speak louder than words. Trump said he would jail Hillary (word), but once in a position to do so, chose not even to investigate much less jail her (deed). Yet Trump voters remain convinced Trump is the ant-Cltinon, despite the fact his rhetoric regarding her and her husband shifted drastically over the years. The Clintons went from good people (before his candidacy), to criminals who should be jailed (during his candidacy), to good people again (once he was elected). Some may say his position "evolved." I say he was never really anti-Clinton in the first place. But if they're right, and I'm wrong, it's no better. A guy who's position constantly evolves is worse than one who's reliably opposed to you. At least you know where the latter always stands and may plan accordingly.
I could provide numerous other examples of this behavior. How Trump proposed repealing Obamacare while simultaneously promoting Socialist medicine (i.e., his intention to replace Socialist medicine with Socialist medicine). How Trump professed to be for job growth but suggested he was in favor of raising the minimum wage (which is the Democrat position and has the opposite effect). How Trump told Megyn Kelly he wouldn't release his off the record comments to the New York Times, because he had "too much respect for (the journalistic) process," but told another journalist in a prior interview he had no qualms about them using his off the record comments. How Trump offered a 5 million dollar ransom for Obama's birth certificate and school transcripts, in the interest of "transparency," and then refused to release his own tax returns and off the record comments to the New York Times. How Trump accused Ted Cruz of being "in bed" with Goldman Sachs, which his utterly moronic supporters believed and regurgitated by rote.
Trump is their God and the party is their religion. They're not freedom fighters. They're idolaters. That he literally tells them what to think is evinced in how they mirror his disposition at any given time, even when he does does a 180° about face on an issue.
Throughout Trump's campaign his supporters mirrored his pro-jailing rhetoric. And when Trump stated he no longer sought to jail Hillary in a subsequent interview after being elected, but wanted to focus on other problems instead, the rhetoric of his supporters shifted in identical fashion overnight.
How anyone doesn't now recognize this as the blatant political theater it was is amazing to me. But of course to recognize it as such, you'd have to first remember it ever happened in the first place. Trump voters don't. And this serves to illustrate the problem with an amnesiac society. This wasn't some passing remark Trump made. It was an explicit pledge that he repeatedly made to his voters; something he owed to the people and employees of the FBI according to him. And not only did he not deliver on it, he plainly never intended to do so. But it never happened to his supporters. When it initially happened they made excuses for it and then it promptly fading into oblivion. So there's zero accountability in either party. When their representatives betray them, they defend those betrayals, and then almost immediately forget they ever took place. And that will be the paradigm for his entire administration, just as it was Obama and his supporters.
It should go without saying that a system that functions, or perhaps more aptly dysfunctions in this manner, will never be able to "fix" our country.
Again, actions speak louder than words. Trump said he would jail Hillary (word), but once in a position to do so, chose not even to investigate much less jail her (deed). Yet Trump voters remain convinced Trump is the ant-Cltinon, despite the fact his rhetoric regarding her and her husband shifted drastically over the years. The Clintons went from good people (before his candidacy), to criminals who should be jailed (during his candidacy), to good people again (once he was elected). Some may say his position "evolved." I say he was never really anti-Clinton in the first place. But if they're right, and I'm wrong, it's no better. A guy who's position constantly evolves is worse than one who's reliably opposed to you. At least you know where the latter always stands and may plan accordingly.
I could provide numerous other examples of this behavior. How Trump proposed repealing Obamacare while simultaneously promoting Socialist medicine (i.e., his intention to replace Socialist medicine with Socialist medicine). How Trump professed to be for job growth but suggested he was in favor of raising the minimum wage (which is the Democrat position and has the opposite effect). How Trump told Megyn Kelly he wouldn't release his off the record comments to the New York Times, because he had "too much respect for (the journalistic) process," but told another journalist in a prior interview he had no qualms about them using his off the record comments. How Trump offered a 5 million dollar ransom for Obama's birth certificate and school transcripts, in the interest of "transparency," and then refused to release his own tax returns and off the record comments to the New York Times. How Trump accused Ted Cruz of being "in bed" with Goldman Sachs, which his utterly moronic supporters believed and regurgitated by rote.
Only to appoint numerous former Goldman Sachs employees to his administration after being elected.
Turns out Sachs, the Clintons, etc., ain't so bad after all. I mean, how many times does crap like this have to happen before we acknowledge the plain and simple truth? Trump voting Republicans aren't "anti-establishment." They're just dumb. No less dumb and slaves to the two party system than their Democrat rivals.
I could go on, and on, and on, providing example, after example, after example. But I won't. It's time consuming work. To articulate every instance of hypocrisy on exhibit in the two party system would require I dedicate every second of every day for the rest of my life to that endeavor; one far too thankless to merit that level of dedication.
So, I'm now a man with no party, hated by both. And I've never felt better. It's a profoundly liberating experience to no longer be a lemming who falsely conflates advancing the party's interests with my advancing my own. No one's beating down my door to shower me with adulation, like Trump or Hillary, but I'll keep my soul. And in the end that's enough for me.
No comments:
Post a Comment