Dear Trumpsters,
Shall we play role reversal? Yup, we shall! For 500, let’s have Caucus Room Conspiracy!
Let’s say on inauguration day Dem leaders meet and promise to block everything, and anything, President Trump tries to do: even if it’s for the good of the nation and both sides want it. Promise not to allow any of it to even come up for a vote. Would you support their right to do that? You wouldn’t call them traitors, take no action against them? Say, “Well, are they supposed to just bend over and take it?” like several cons have said to me regarding damn near anything Obama tried to achieve?
I think not.
Would you accept them challenging his citizenship? When documentation was provided would you have no problem with them demanding “better” documentation? Even when better documentation arrives would you mind if they continue to challenge that? If George Soros claimed to have investigators investigating and said, “You wouldn’t BELIEVE what they’re finding,” but show squat when it comes to results, would you just shrug that off? Then let’s say Soros could run for president, would you accept his evasions regarding those investigations, and finally him claiming he did Trump a favor, he actually cleared the president?
You know the answer to that, and it’s not “yes.”
How about Black Panthers carrying, “Put the Black back into the White House, not some racist,” signs? Hey, freedom of speech, ya’ll. I can just hear Billy O on TV saying, “These are the freedoms we fought for.” I can hear it in my dreams… or would that be nightmares?
How about Trump’s every move, every word, being labeled racist, misogynist, being a dictator. OK, that’s likely to happen, one might argue already happening, I suppose. But you haven’t been accepted it, why would you now? Apparently name calling (“criminal,” “corrupt”) is OK as long as your side isn’t the target?
Get the parallel here yet?
Recently a right winger posted on a debate site a clip with a short portion of Obama’s response to a very poorly phrased question. The supposition made was his response meant he’s for illegals voting. Except the interviewer called them “citizens:” citizens by definition being legal. She also cluttered up the question with a laundry list of words like “millennials,” and these same “citizens” not voting because they thought voting might bring INS to their door to investigate the whole family. Barack’s answer was right, “Since citizens have a right to vote, and the sanctity of the vote is protected…”
Three observations…
1. The clip started mid question as if it really had been pulled out of context.
2. The question was so cluttered it took me a while to figure out what the hell she was asking.
3. The question asked was so cluttered it made me wonder if that was intentional so a clip could be pulled out of context in an attempt to make it what it wasn’t. In this case a poor attempt, at best
Is that OK when it comes to any interviews with Trump? OK, we already know it’s not OK from all the talking heads and posters who suddenly find value in nuance, even when there doesn’t seem to be any. Seriously, anyone meaning more than judges should be banned from judging only due to their ethnicity should stop saying over and over again the over simplistic phrase, “He’s Mexican, I’m building a wall.”
So is it OK if some reporter interviews Trump with a question just as cluttered, just as edited in a suspicious way, and then claim words like “citizen” mean something they don’t?
We already know: not.
Damn near a year before every presidential election should President Trump have to just give up and let the next president appoint? Come on, be honest, would you agree to that? Could you even honestly claim to see an ounce of anything to it but pure partisanship hackery and absolute neglect of duty?
Be honest.
Can you be honest? Understand in a less than partisan way? Sometimes I wonder if we need to get the Scooby Doo gang, or Where’s Waldo, and see if we can find an ounce of honesty in the body politic these days.
(Politics has “body?” Well, anywhosie…)
If “libtards” and other names are acceptable then continuing and pushing the envelope on name calling is acceptable for the left, right? Maybe we should start suggesting assassination in ways that might inspire the mentally ill? Is that OK with you? If the Dems get one part of Congress next election, would starting impeachment proceedings be OK, investigating every and any claim, no matter how wild, or obviously partisan? Going back a tad further in history, would it be OK to assign a left wing special prosecutor, and if the results aren’t what the left wants, assign someone more Michael Moore-like?
This has been only a short review of the right’s behavior over the past 8 years, even 20 years given the last question. I am in no way claiming the left is filled with saints, or pure in these matters. But… now the left supposed to be nice, kind, congenial, cooperative and respect “the people’s” decision? “Respect” that decision even though right now the public either didn’t overwhelmingly vote for him, or didn’t even give him the popular vote? Don’t you remember all your oddly phrased “shove it down our throats” or “bend over” comments?
Get the parallels here yet?
You don’t see even the slightest bit of asshole-ishness and hypocrisy in all this? Really? If not, I fear for our nation even more than I already do. For that kind of behavior, that kind of lack of rational thought, pretty much defines those throughout history who have demanded that everyone else to goose-step, or else.
You wouldn’t rebel against all that if you thought it was happening to you?
Trick question: you have already have.
-30-
Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 40 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks, and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.
©Copyright 2016
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
all right reserved