First, some definitions:
* “They” – who are “they”? 1- his outright supporters. 2- Repukes who opposed or were scared to lose with him. 3- Latino Repukes who are now outraged. 4- Media enablers.
* “Neutral” (as in judges presiding in his lawsuits) means “finding in his favor.” When he says minority judges have conflicts of interest over his anti-minority/race/religion beliefs and cannot be “neutral” he means anything not in his favor is not “neutral.” Carrying his postulate to its natural extreme, in a DRUMPF society there would not be any judges at all, at least not in his thousands of lawsuits, because any and every adverse ruling towards him would be attributed to something in their personal history that would be a conflict. No adverse rulings would be allowable, period.
* “DRUMPF” – is this usage of "DRUMPF" participating against him in his own kind of “heritage” prejudice? To me, it is highlighting that immigration is a very large topic in his life story (grandparents, mother, two of his three wives) and yet he made it something *negative*. In the light of that, to just say “TRUMP” would be to play along with his apparent façade that he sprung generically “American” like from Zeus’s head. Some amateur psychologizing here, is his fury on immigration a self-hating thing?!1
*********So, proceeding right along...
What did they, the core supporters, expect? We are told he freed them with political incorrectness, to say aloud what they/everybody secretly thinks but have been shamed into silence, meaning racist stuff. The ugliness in him was there from Day 1 but only now are there signs it might be coming home to roost. Did they think that their ugly inner beliefs would be made to be mainstream, normal, and respectable?
So what did they/Repuke leaders think, that their voters have spoken so they must go along and after the DRUMPF debacle (win or lose, there *will* be a debacle) they can claim to be exonerated by having qualified their support?
And the media enablers. They started out acting like DRUMPF’s bombs were CUTE, like he was a naif on “deep” policy matters and was only spouting refreshing, unfiltered things. And now it’s too late. The same as the media during 2000 when they thought Shrub was cute and any hint of toughness on him was said to be harsh, like he somehow deserved kid gloves.
And what did the ethnic/minority Repukes, expect when they became Repukes? The broad strokes are that Repuke-ism is for the racist and the greedy, that is all. One Ana NAVARRO, a media Repuke, is being lauded for a rant against DRUMPF’s racism. She has a tweet saying she became a Repuke at eight years old, RAYGUN blah blah. Isn’t this proof that eight years old ain’t the time for making life decisions?!1 Meanwhile, Alberto GONZALEZ, whatever mental age *he* is, continues his blind Repuke-ism by justifying DRUMPF’s right to question the “fairness” of judges based on ethnicity. And Ruben NAVARRETTE continues his animus toward “White Liberal males” with his accustomed “advice,” this time on how DRUMPF should “follow his own trail of breadcrumbs” to accomplish wooing Latinos (hah hah).
As for the violence of some supposedly anti-DRUMPF individuals, some five (5) scenarios: Could be such violence infringes on the free speech and association of others and everybody; could be legitimate revolution-type redress against threatened oppression and discrimination; could be criminal delinquency taking advantage of opportunity like looting at race riots; could be real life conspiracy of DRUMPF false flagging; could be tit for tat against DRUMPF-ites pepper spraying them. Last night’s Kanye WEST “riot” shows that criminal delinquency is very real and sparked by the most random things. It also honestly true that we Libs, with our characteristic of looking within for root causes of things, tend to wring our hands and blame ourselves and be concerned for others who might be oppressed (some of our enemies), so we are particularly susceptible to we’re-BETTER-than-that, meaning we’re BETTER. Well, no we’re not. All of us, Lib or wingnut, are just human and contain the whole spectrum from good to evil.
The single biggest point about DRUMPF is what I learned from defending Bill CLINTON, that somebody with the big personality and the big personal problems turns everything away from the national agenda into spending all energy into defending him, a total distraction.
|
