Sunday, September 6, 2020

The Coronavirus Twenty-Five Weeks Later - Did Trump Really Say That? And Other News

In a now well publicized article in The Atlantic, the latest allegations against President Trump are quite disturbing. But, are they true? The anonymous allegations are that, while on a trip to the American cemetery at Aisne-Marne in France in 2018, Trump said that the cemetery was filled with "losers" and "suckers." Clearly, if true, it is a despicable comment if made by any American, let alone a President. But does it pass the smell test? While Trump has had disagreements with individual members of the military, he has been very supportive of the military and troops overall. And the timing, coming 2 years after the fact, and only 2 months before the election, with Trump gaining in the polls, is very suspicious. The rebuttal would be that the sources, while anonymous, are said to be very credible.

What about the "credible" members of the Obama Administration who were willing to recommend violence and even a military coup within two months of Trump taking office. (See the 3/12/17 post, "The Deposing of an American President.") What about Comey, Strzok and Page, presumably all "credible" government officials until they weren't, once the truth came out about them. (Recall the Strzok-Page email exchange discussing the need to make sure Trump would not win in 2016, and what they would do about it if he did.) Recall Rep. Adam Schiff telling us that he had incontrovertible evidence of Trump collusion with Russia. Except, he never told us what that was - and nor did Mueller. I am certainly well aware of where we are as a country. Democrats do not believe a word Trump, or other Republicans, say - and the reverse is true for Republicans.

But I look at the context. I recall how the Democrats have never accepted the 2016 election results; and how determined they are to make sure that Trump does not win a second term. I know the hatred that people have for Trump, as I have eperienced that hatred myself. I consider that people who were there, such as Sarah Sanders and Hogan Gidley, did say on the record that it never happened - that Trump never said that about our fallen soldiers. And John Bolton, who has no love for this President, said "I didn't hear that." Bolton: "I'm not saying he didn't say them ("losers" and "suckers") later in the day or another time, but I was there for that discussion." So, at the pertinent time Bolton was there and never heard it. Obviously, no one is with the President 24/7, such that they could tell us every word uttered by any president. So, do I believe Trump said those terrible things about our fallen soldiers? No I do not. But, should our analysis end here?

We still need to ask, assuming for the sake of argument that Trump indeed said those awful words, then what? In other words, what influence, if any, should it have on our voting even if believed? My answer is - it should have no effect. As the expression goes, "actions speak louder than words." Trump has done his best to bolster the military. He makes the hard phone calls that presidents have to make to families of fallen soldiers. He visits our troops - on location overseas and in the hospitals. But the real issue is: so what? So what if he said those words in terms of his job performance. Yes, it would be despicable. Yes, I would think less of him as a person. But as they say about Richard Nixon, a man accused of frequent anti-Semitic remarks, yet who suppled the necessary war materiel to Israel to help them survive the surprise attack by the Arabs during the 1973 Yom Kippur war - his actions spoke far louder than his words.

What won't Democratic elected officials say about Trump? Here is yet another example, from San Francisco Mayor London Breed: "We have a terrorist, we have a dictator who is running this country..." Just another ad hominem attack. Those descriptions of Trump are absurd. And what won't Democrats and their allies do to help defeat Trump? Fox reports that unions with millions of members are threatening to walk off their jobs - just in time, again, to destabilize the country before the election, and hurt Trump's chances. The unions' statement is nothing other than Democratic talking points: "We echo the call to local and federal government to divest from the police, to redistribute the stolen wealth of the billionaire class, and to invest in what our people need to live in peace, dignity, and abundance: universal health care and housing, public jobs programs and cash assistance, and safe working conditions." Apparently they do not want safe neighborhoods with the police being defunded. Free health care, free housing, government jobs for all and best of all - cash money.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden had his second press conference just recently, after one month of staying in his house. Did the reporters grill Biden the way they do Trump? Here's one reporter's question to Biden, the reporter being from none other than the aforementioned The Atlantic: "When you hear these remarks - 'suckers,' 'losers,' recoiling from amputees, what does it tell you about President Trump's soul and the life he leads?" There you have it. No reason to challenge Biden on anything - not his policies, his condescending racist statements about blacks, and nothing about how he might work with the far left wing of his party. No. Instead, let's give Biden an apportunity to dump on Trump, to attack Trump's soul. Just another reason to question The Atlantic's claims about what Trump said.

What about the polls? They say Trump is trailing, but gaining. But this might be the most important poll - Bret Stephens reports that, according to Bloomberg, "nearly 12% of Republicans and 11% of independents say they're unlikely to give telephone pollsters their true opinion on how they'll vote in November because they think 'it's dangerous to express an opinion outside of the current liberal viewpoint.'" Don't I know it. Ironic that they call Trump "fascist" when conservatives know that to express an opinion contrary to the left-wing orthodoxy is to risk losing family and friends who are offended, and also risk one's livelihood and safety. The latest incident of a personal nature occurred just the other day. While getting an afternoon iced coffee, I ran into someone who I used to call "friend." He says he is a "moderate," but hates Trump. He was trying to dissuade me from supporting Trump in the blog, and from voting for him. As this man is Jewish, I pointed out that Trump brokered a peace deal between Israel and the U.A.E., which is also good for America as it brings greater stability to an area that has seen much US involvement. I was told (more or less, I cannot be sure of the exact quote as I was rather startled because he was screaming at me): "Who cares about Israel? If you love Israel so much why don't you move there? I'm done with you!" And he stormed off. It should be no surprise the harm that left-wing fanatics are willing to do to businesses and people they don't know, when someone I have known for well over twenty years is willing to be so hostile to me.

We have gone from what was once thought to be a noble goal - a color-blind society (that concept is now considered racist) - to a focus on race all the time in every place. But somebody has to stand up for us, so I will ask again - what about the Jews? The context is Joe Biden going to Kenosha and speaking with Jacob Blake, Sr., the father of the man who was shot in the back, resulting in rioting and looting. According to the ZOA (Zionist Organization of America), the senior Blake had quite a few anti-Semitic comments on his Facebook page. Here are a few. "A Jew can't tell me shit period." "The same pink toe Jewish people that control the interest rate control the media they control Minds and money." "The Jewish media picks and chooses who is a terrorist and is not." And "I'm with Farrakhan 100(%)." I understand that the meeting with Blake Sr. could be justified on a human basis - father to father. But, just imagine if Trump happened to meet with a father of a victim of Antifa/BLM violence - and if that father was a white supremacist. We would never hear the end of it.

The professional football season is about to begin. The NFL has plans to deal with "racial justice." In the two end zones on every field you will see either "It Takes All Of Us," or "End Racism." Players and staff will also be allowed to their helmets or caps emblazened with those expressions, or with "Stop Hate" or "Black Lives Matter." Personally, I'm for the "Stop Hate," as maybe all those who "unfriended" me in real life would learn a little tolerance for others. During each game, the NFL plans on telling a story of a victim of racial injustice or police brutality. I am curious as to whether they will discuss the Michael Brown "murder," as Kamala Harris made up during her campaign for president. (See the very last post - "The Coronavirus Twenty-Four Weeks Later, Part II - A Few Words On The Candidates.")

If you want another reason to vote for Trump, here is one. Trump has put an end to the teaching of "critical race theory" across all government agencies. That's where they deal with things like "white privilege," and teaching that "virtually all white people contibute to racism." And saying that America is the "land of opportunity" is considered racist. As Trump directed, this so-called diversity training is really "training government workers to believe divisive, anti-American propaganda." He called it a "sickness." I think that fairly accurately portrays a system that encourages people to focus only on race, and making one race (blacks) think poorly of another (whites). So much for the "content of one's character." Yep, that class is, indeed sick.

4 comments:

  1. If black athletes exercise their first amendment rights and kneel during the national anthem, the Right accuses them of "disrespecting the flag" and "disrespecting our troops", but if Trump did indeed make these comments (I don't think anyone would truly be surprised that he did given that he called John McCain a loser for getting captured and said "I like people who weren't captured") I guess it doesn't matter. I'm curious how you'd untangle that inconsistency. Fascism always starts when decent people start saying "Yeah, our guy is corrupt and doesn't respect our nation's democratic norms, but he has to because those other guys are so much worse!"

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for your comment. Yes, they have a right to kneel, but a private business has a right to stop it. Although the NFL is all in now. And it is disrespectful also. It is based on a lie that the police go out daily to target black Americans for killing. Just like the lie Kamala Harris told last year while campaigning for President, that Michael Brown was murdered. No, he wasn't. As for Trump's alleged comments, the story has the perfect aura of authenticity, given what Trump said about McCain. So, if people wanted to make up a story about Trump (like that hasn't happened) this one is perfect.

    As to the gist of your comment - who's the fascist? You must mean the Left (acquiesced in by the Democrats) which shuts down opposing viewpoints on college campuses, in the news media, and on social media. Just like fascist dictators. You must mean BLM which threatened diners at a restaurant that they better raise their fists in solidarity or else. Or the shakedown of that store owner for "contributions" to BLM. Or the destruction of businesses - just as occurred in 1930's Germany. I could go on. So, I get that the Left hates Trump, but show me his fascistic actions. I'm afraid that's the Left and the Democrats.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It isn't "based on a lie that the police go out daily to target black Americans". It's based on the fact that unarmed black Americans are killed by police at a rate of almost 3 times that of unarmed whites. And it's based on the fact that far too often these police officers are often acquitted by their white peers even though the evidence is overwhelming (and would certainly be enough to convince a white jury to convict if that defendant was black).

    I believe fascists are the ones who use examples of very small minorities to smear a whole group. Blaming BLM for the unruly behavior of a few of its members doesn't seem too different to me than 1930s Germany (you brought it up) blaming ALL Jews for the imaginary acts of a few. That tactic is just as easily applied to the right - all gun owners are irresponsible because a few gun fanatics armed to the teeth set up illegal roadblocks during the fires in Oregon, all religious Christians are fundamentalists because some want to impose their views on the entire country, or all right wingers are anti-science quacks because some deny climate science, evolution, and think wearing masks to prevent the spread of the coronavirus is an infringement on our rights (this one is arguably true though - most right wingers are anti-science these days).

    It's incredibly dangerous when a party is more devoted to its nominee than the country he is expected to serve. One can only hope the Republicans get trounced and the Electoral College is abolished. This might (one can hope) force the wacky Republicans to bring their views from the fringe towards the middle.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Let's not forget that if Obama had allegedly said these things about our troops the right wouldn't have hesitated for a second to believe the reporting. If he refused to release his tax returns, Republicans and Fox News (is there even a difference) would've been outraged. If he had said he grabs women by the pussy without even asking for permission, the right would've screamed about Christian values. If a Democrat had held up a supreme court nomination with the cynical and dubious claim that we should wait until the next election to fill the seat, Sean Hannity would've been foaming at the mouth. But as long as your side displays behavior so damaging and corrosive to the Republic you don't care. That's how fascism takes root in a democracy.

    ReplyDelete