Admittedly, I wasn't hostile to Trump in the very beginning. People can change. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. And that's what I told a friend who called and queried me over multiple social media posts expressing support of Trump's rhetoric in the infancy of his campaign. (And when I say infancy, I mean just that, the very beginning.) That would soon change however.
It would be one thing if Trump likewise claimed Obama had no obligation to disclose his personal documents; that they're no one else's business. But he did the exact opposite of that. He offered five million dollars for Obama to do what he will not. If that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what is.
Donald Trump is perhaps the biggest fraud in presidential history, and most certainly the biggest fraud in Republican presidential history. He is the most vacuous, crass, tergiversatory GOP candidate, and now president, ever. And he is all of those things because, as I said for most of his campaign, he is a leftist Democrat who merely ran on the Republican ticket to keep far more legitimate Conservatives with far superior records (like Cruz and Paul) out of the white house. Trump is a demagogue of the worst sort unsurpassed in the annals of demagoguery. And a prime example of this is his flagrantly self-serving evolution on the electoral college.
What this illustrates to any non-partisan shill, is that Donald Trump is a Democrat (a proponent/supporter of "democracy"). That Donald Trump sought to be the executive of a government he could not even correctly identify much less understand. That his position on this issue changed purely out of personal interest as opposed to principle. And his supporters don't have a problem with Trump only figuring this out over two years into his presidency, despite incessantly proclaiming during the campaign of Barack Obama, that the presidency is not a position suited for "on the job training." In other words, ignorance of nuance was unacceptable when Barack Obama wanted to be president, but is now perfectly acceptable now that Trump is president.
At this point some shill will likely observe that Trump's tweet was from 2012, and seek to undermine the validity of this observation by claiming it too old to be relevant, and/or that Trump's disposition may have changed well before he was a candidate. As if Trump wasn't peddling this same erroneous and subversive tripe during his campaign.
Imagine someone claiming field goals are stupid and shouldn't be in the game. And then they win the national championship with a field goal, and subsequently begin claiming that field goals are great. Trump's change of heart has no more basis than that. He now realizes the next championship (election) will likely be another close game, and that he may once again only win by a field goal (electoral college). So now it's in his interest to tout its virtues. And his supporters, being mindless sheep, will mirror whatever his position is at the time. And that's not hyperbole in the slightest. I saw Trump supporters on social media, with my own eyes, shifting their position on the electoral college (and therefore completely contradicting themselves) in tandem with Trump.
But such is now the state of the GOP that, just like the Democrat party, they prefer an executive who could not pass a grade school civics test, because he mirrors their partisan prejudice, to one that could but does not. The reality is Donald Trump was never a Republican, and neither are his supporters, because they don't know anymore than he does what that is.
Few probably remember when Trump in another spectacle of demagoguery, seeking to capitalize on the recent San Diego shootings (perpetrated by a Muslim), called for the murder of the families of terrorists. The fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, wives, and even children of those who engaged in terrorists attacks should be the target of retribution killings, he argued. And all of a sudden the same party that opposes abortion, and ostensibly holds the killing of children to be an egregious sin, had no problem drone striking toddlers in their cribs for the sins of their fathers. Trump quickly backtracked on that stance (as he has so many others), after it received extensive negative media coverage. And while this is not as significant as the electoral college, it illustrates his capricious and opportunistic nature all the same. Trump's position on any given issue is whatever benefits Trump at the time; the paradigmatic leftist/Democrat comportment. This is likewise seen with his shifting on gun control, in which he's repeatedly taken anti-gun stances following a shooting, because it benefits him personally/politically to do so. If adopting an anti-gun position behooves him at any moment, particularly after a highly (excessively) publicized shooting, Trump clearly has no qualms about doing so.
Donald Trump is doing precisely what I said throughout his campaign; subverting the GOP from within. A Democrat has taken over the Republican party and is lunging it to the left, which allows the Democratic party to posture itself even farther left still to provide a specious distinction between the two, and construe the GOP as to their "right." (Something that will always be technically true, and have merit in the eyes of the ignorant, even if it's only slightly less Socialist than the Democratic Party.) They are not "opposition" parties whatsoever however. Both are working in reciprocity to herd the American people ever farther left and bring them more in conformity with Marxist principles.
As stated in the past repeatedly, this is evinced by how Donald Trump has achieved wide scale Republican support, for things the average Republican would have never accepted under a Democrat president. It was Donald Trump that raised the age to purchase an AR-15 to 21. It was Donald Trump that proposed suspending due process and confiscating firearms, and red flag laws are now proliferating across the nation under his administration, with virtually no Republican voter acknowledgement much less opposition. It was Donald Trump that passed a 100% unconstitutional bump stock ban (violating his oath of office), which again is scarcely acknowledged, and even defended by his supporters.
Despite instance after instance of Trump betraying his word, and adopting positions contrary to the traditional platform of the party he leads, Trump supporters continue to proclaim him a "promise keeper."
Except for releasing his tax returns, repealing Obamacare, protecting gun rights, etc., etc., etc. What about those promises, Lara? What about when Trump told the NRA, "I will never ever infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms?" And then on national television said he supported suspending due process and confiscating people's firearms. What about when he said, "No longer will federal agencies come after law abiding gun owners?" And then passed an unconstitutional law that turned many of them into felons.
The key language in Trump's statement, which none of the partisan bigots who adore him could discern, was "law abiding." And that distinction, as we've seen, is merely an executive decree away under President Trump. The "law abiding" today, by executive mandate, are rendered criminals tomorrow; hunted by the very federal agencies from whom Trump promised protection.
As I've said in the past. Red Flag Laws and arbitrary executive gun control legislation are the real legacy of Donald Trump which none of his supporters will acknowledge.
"If the president may arbitrarily ban firearm parts and accessories like a bump stock, what's to stop him from doing the same with any other part or accessory? If the president may ban bump stocks because he personally deems them unnecessary or too dangerous, then what's to stop him from banning red dot optics, vertical grips, picatinny rails, upper receivers, extractors, firing pins, et al.? Answer: Not a damn thing. Once conceded to have that power, and that he alone is arbiter of to what extent he wields it, the precedent is established. And worse every subsequent president will be presumed to have that same power. But Trump lemmings can't be bothered to think that far ahead." - Me, December 16, 2018.And what did Trump supporters do if not promptly concede he has that power (regardless of what the Constitution says)? It's only natural that the next Democrat president will assume they have the same authority (and then some).
Trump supporters speak of "saving" the country. But I ask who will save us from their stupid asses? This throng of ignoramuses who, when proposed by a "Republican," support the very things they oppose from Democrats. Even now, all these people who sat silent for, and outright supported Trump's egregious attacks on the Second Amendment, vehemently denounce any Democrat merely following Trump's example.
So basically Kamala Harris wants to do the exact same thing Donald Trump did and pass gun control laws as president. Despite the fact only congress has the power to pass laws. Despite the fact even congress may not pass such laws per the Second Amendment. Kamala Harris is doing nothing more than proposing what Donald Trump has already done. Yet here's an excerpt of some reactions to her proposal from Trump supporters.
I can't post all of the comments because there's literally thousands of them. But the vast majority are from people who are highly critical of her proposal, even implying violent resistance is the solution, while simultaneously supporting Donald Trump who did exactly the same thing when he arbitrarily raised the age to purchase a rifle and banned bump stocks.
Firstly, this is an all too paradigmatic problem with Republicans. They're always "compromising" (ceding in increments) our rights away. The left is forever advancing to get everything it wants, while GOP is forever "compromising" to keep ever smaller portions of what it had. And notice the argument used by this Trump supporter. It's basically just a different way of saying no one "needs" a bump stock. In other words, when Donald Trump imposes gun control laws, his supporters use the exact same argument as leftists to defend it. No one needs a bump stock = no one needs a thirty round magazine = no one needs an AR-15 = no one needs a gun. I mean, any woman "worth her salt" won't use a gun to fend off a rapist anyway, but should be able to do so with hand to hand combat. Right?
Secondly, this isn't a matter of necessity. Rights are not contingent upon a "need." You have the freedom of speech, for example, whether you're using it or not. You have it whether you need it or not. Necessity reverses the intended paradigm, and makes the people answerable to the state, as opposed to the state being answerable to the people. This is a common deceptive subtlety of leftist reasoning. It presumes the people must ask their government for permission to have and/or exercise a right, as opposed to government requiring permission from the people to govern.
Thirdly, far from Trump giving them nothing, he's given the enemies of the 2A something profoundly dangerous. Precedent. The fact is congress, and not the president, is conferred the power of legislation by the Constitution. But even the federal congress is prohibited from passing such legislation by the 2A. The federal government, much like religion with the 1A, is denied any power to regulate private firearms by the 2A. That's what it does; it divests the federal government of any power to that end. Trump has not only violated this Constitutional protection, he's done it in the worst way possible, i.e., unilateral autocratic decree. Trump, and his supporters by their acceptance of such, have acceded to the legitimacy of not only federal regulation of privately owned firearms, but unilateral executive regulation of privately owned firearms. This will benefit future Democrat presidents, far more anti-gun than Trump, immensely. As seen with Kamala Harris already openly stating she will utilize the precedent established by Trump to a far more significant degree. Trump supporters are simply too myopic and obtuse to make such simple deductions.
Again, if you wouldn't want your enemies having such power, then you should not want your allies having it either. (Because once established all it takes is one election to transfer that power from your ally to your enemy.) Again, we see Hamilton's admonition being vindicated right before our eyes.
"It is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion." - Federalist #25.But we don't need to wait for the Democrats to regain control of government to have our rights subverted. Even now the GOP openly works to abridge the right to bear arms nationwide, just like Democrats, but unlike when proposed by Kamala Harris there is abject silence from the Republican constituency. It's not "tyranny" anymore, nor is it even worth acknowledging, when done by a Republican.
What is the cause of such abject stupidity and hypocrisy? The Founders tell us. At essentially the birth of our Republic, George Washington warns us about the "baneful effects of the spirit of party," which he states "is itself a frightful despotism."
"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." - John Adams, Oct 2, 1780.With Republicans under Trump, more than ever, the criteria for being a "good" or "successful" candidate or president is (just as with Democrats) based upon subjective nonsense and nothing that matters. It's predicated upon the extent to which he seems to be insulting and wounding the other party (even when he's really not), as opposed to his conformity with and fidelity to the Constitution. Though they love to mock AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez), the average Trump supporter is no more knowledgeable of these matters than she is, and has far more in common with her ideologically than they realize or would ever admit. Thus, their aversion to AOC and Democrats in general is far more rooted in partisan prejudice than principle, and if she ran as a Republican and disparaged her ostensible Democrat rivals, Republicans would embrace her just as they did Trump.
Even the "Russian collusion" over which the two parties have been endlessly bickering is a direct byproduct, according to Washington (in his Farewell Address), of hyper-partisanship.
"It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."
"Foreign nations, too, would not fail to avail themselves, in pursuit of their own interests, of every opportunity to foster our intestine divisions, since they might thus more easily command our trade, or monopolize our products, or crush our manufactures, or keep us in a state of dependence upon their good will for our security." - Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of The United States, Exposition of the Constitution - The Preamble, 1840.Basically, party enmity will allow foreign powers to influence and even subordinate our country, by exploiting the domestic distrust and animosity of the parties for each other. They can go to one, or both, and offer assistance against the other in return for something (contrary to our collective interests) for example. And they will find venal partisans who, wanting to "win" elections more than anything, will betray their constituents and country. So, if there is foreign meddling in our elections (which is not at all impossible), it's not the other party that's to blame, or even the foreign power, but the blind loyalists of the two party system here in the U.S., whose hyper-partisanship and desire to win at any cost facilitates such machinations.
In closing, I am a Republican (a supporter of the Republican form of government), but I am no longer a member of the Republican party (because it's not). If I wanted to be in a party of abject partisan hypocrites I'd have joined the Democrat party long ago. Because what other explanation is there for the following quotation but fanatical partisanship?
That's right folks, the first candidate to ever talk about his dick during a nationally televised debate, the guy on his third wife (having cheated on the first two), the guy who grabs women's vaginas, the guy who screws porn stars and bribes them with fortunes not to tell anyone, is the most "Biblical president" Michelle Bachmann has seen in her life. And thus, as the Trump presidency was always intended to do, it has rendered the "Evangelical" right and GOP hypocritical farces bereft of all credibility. They will makes deals with devils, and forsake God without compunction, to "win." Give them the choice of an angel, and a pimp they're told has the best chance to beat the Democrat, and they will side with the pimp. They've unequivocally proven that, by electing Republican Bill Clinton, to beat Hillary Clinton. No longer is fornication or adultery a sin to the GOP. If it means them winning elections, it's "Biblical" to bang your neighbor's wife, to bang prostitutes, to bang whomever you please. Mark my words, it's a matter of time before the "Evangelical" GOP is supporting an openly homosexual candidate, because he's the one with the "best chance of winning." Sodomy too will become "Biblical," and perhaps much sooner than you think. (The GOP's political strategy these days is to counter sin with sin, and as such they will need a commensurate response to Democrat candidates like Pete Buttigieg, to cite as proof they're "tolerant," "inclusive," etc.; i.e., Democrats.)
The Founders advised us to choose only wise and virtuous men for office. Men free of reproach, without scandal, and not given to vice. And both parties have completely abandoned that notion. Hell, the GOP in the last election out of 16 candidates favored the most politically ignorant, lascivious, scandalous, and compromised one among them. Because they'd rather sell their souls to win, and die prostitutes, than lose with their conscience and integrity intact.
What hope is there for such a party? What hope is there for such a nation?
No comments:
Post a Comment