----------------------------
Let's answer the author's question. Democracy. That's how Trump became president again.
Let's answer the author's question. Democracy. That's how Trump became president again.
The author apparently really believes the leftist narrative. For nearly ten years the Left has unrelentingly attacked Trump. Invented dossiers, fake controversies, endless name-calling, malicious prosecutions, and repeated false claims that Trump would be a dictator... This has been the war waged against Trump, an onslaught of regurgitated talking points, bumper sticker slogans, and outrageous rhetoric designed for a single purpose: Destroy the man.
No, not get him out of office or keep him from being re-elected. Destroy the man. Make him destitute. Strip from him his reputation, his freedom, his wealth, his family. This is not a political strategy, it is a hate campaign, very personal, that justifies any statement, any action, any behavior, that hurts Trump. Including assassination.
No limits.
The foundation of the violent offensive against Trump is raw, unrestrained, vindictive, irrational hate. Interestingly, that's partly why Trump ended up being elected: the sheer magnitude of increasingly ridiculous rhetoric used against him. At some point a sane person comes to the conclusion that a man being called Hitler needs to at some point do or say something Hitler-like. Such a thing never happened. It didn't happen when he was last president. It hasn't happened since he's left office.
That's when peoples' opinions start turning, when politics as a rough sport turns into something way beyond that.
The fact that the author believes so much that isn't true doesn't speak well for his thinking skills.
----------------------
And so, here’s a man who repeatedly lied claiming he won the 2020 election; (An opinion can be mistaken, true, or false. An opinion cannot be a lie.)
And so, here’s a man who repeatedly lied claiming he won the 2020 election; (An opinion can be mistaken, true, or false. An opinion cannot be a lie.)
who pressured election officials to modify the results; (False.)
who is a convicted criminal; (True. Falsifying business records, 34 technical convictions regarding book keeping practices.)
who incited folks to attack the U.S. Capitol; (False. He specifically stated, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today.")
who stated that the racist white-nationalist protesters were “very fine people”; (False.)
who showed total disregard for classified national security documents (and shared some with friends); (False. Oh, maybe the author was referring to Biden?)
who was found by a jury to be liable in a case of sexual assault. (Omitted is the fact that this case for the alleged 1996 incident was brought in New York in 2023 after legislation passed in 2022 created a "one-year lookback window" to sue their alleged abusers regardless of the statute of limitations and when the incident occurred. This specially-created scenario which gives people a 12 month window to bring old charges back for prosecution. It certainly suggests Trump was the target of the law. Trump is the only one to have been found liable under this statute.)
Here’s a man who said of the 2020 election: “A massive fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules ... even those found in the Constitution.” (True.)
And yet ... and yet, about half of voters think this is a fine man who they believe is somehow morally, ethically, and legally competent and well qualified to be president of the United States. (The author has no basis to claim this. He attributes motives to voters that he can't possibly know.)
This, after almost a decade of getting to know him, watching and listening to him. (And after almost a decade of accusations of Hitler, fascist, racist, dictator, and various malicious prosecutions, investigations, two unfounded impeachments, etc., etc.)
In Peter Baker’s excellent piece (New York Times, Nov. 7), he says, “In her closing rally on the Ellipse last week, Kamala Harris scorned Donald J. Trump as an outlier who did not represent America. ‘That is not who we are,’ she declared. In fact, it turns out that may be exactly who we are. At least most of us.”
Look around you. Statistically, about half of those you see voted for this man, and considered him to be the best choice as honorable, competent and capable of representing our country. Four more years.
Gary Peterson
Bozeman
In Peter Baker’s excellent piece (New York Times, Nov. 7), he says, “In her closing rally on the Ellipse last week, Kamala Harris scorned Donald J. Trump as an outlier who did not represent America. ‘That is not who we are,’ she declared. In fact, it turns out that may be exactly who we are. At least most of us.”
Look around you. Statistically, about half of those you see voted for this man, and considered him to be the best choice as honorable, competent and capable of representing our country. Four more years.
Gary Peterson
Bozeman
No comments:
Post a Comment