I made no secret of my antipathy for Donald Trump in 2015 and 2016. (And also in 2011, when he was considering running for President before.) I thought he was the least qualified of the Republican candidates for President, and I still think that. I worried that he would embrace policies that are fiscally and socially liberal, which would eviscerate any and all opposition to the Democrats’ big government agenda. I did not vote for Trump in the 2016 general election. I voted for Darrell Castle, the Constitution Party candidate. Since January 2017, I have become much more supportive of the President.
So what changed?
I anticipate pushback for writing a nearly 400 word letter to the President based on “one word.” But the issue of maturity and temperament is about much more than “one word” and everyone knows it. This is part of a pattern going back a very long time. It is not a good thing for the President of these United States to be petulant and childish and throwing insults about someone’s looks. You can and should “fight back” against the Left. But fighting back does not mean you have to behave like a spoiled child.
This is not acceptable.
Your policies have been far better than I anticipated, and I am not alone. Many conservatives like me were also worried about what a Trump presidency would bring on policy, and you have been solidly conservative. I went from being a #NeverTrump voter in 2016 (I voted for the Constitution Party candidate) to being a Trump supporter, complete with a “Make America Great Again” hat. But your personal behavior remains abominable.
Barack Obama continues to claim victims a year and a half after he left office, as this outrageous case shows. The so-called “University” of California demonstrated they do not care about facts, only about getting a desired outcome. For a “university” to behave this way should cause alarm among students, parents and alumni, because such an obvious disdain for facts is anathema to everything a “university” should stand for. In a perfect world, Obama would be criminally prosecuted for his violent rape of the United States Constitution.
There is not one single protection that a “hate crimes” law would grant that is not already in place. Murder, rape, assault, arson and other crimes are already illegal.
Texas did not need a hate crimes law to execute one of the men who murdered James Byrd, and put another on death row. Indiana does not need a hate crimes law to execute someone for committing a bias-motivated murder.
What a hate crimes law would do is punish thoughts.
When a woman accused Brett Kavanaugh of groping and attempting to rape her in the early 1980’s, it was a powerful story that could have derailed his nomination. But the Democrats decided that they were going to pile on this story with ever more ridiculous and outlandish allegations, and the absurdity of the other allegations damaged the credibility of the first one. That may have saved Kavanaugh’s nomination.
First, we heard that Kavanaugh exposed himself and put his genitals in a woman’s face at a college party over 30 years ago. The woman was by her own admission drunk at the time, and said that her memories were unclear for decades. The memories became clear just as Brett Kavanaugh was about to be confirmed to the Supreme Court and had been accused of sexual assault. Well, that is certainly convenient. It was a weak allegation at best, and caused people to suspect Christine Ford’s allegation.
If we are going to navigate the thorny issues surrounding sexual assault and provide support to victims, then we need to honestly engage in the arguments made instead of setting up weak straw men to knock over. One such straw man was used at Vox last week:
Trump and others appear eager to pit men against women, implying that taking claims of sexual misconduct seriously means unjustly ruining men’s lives.
No, that is not true.
In a discussion of the harm done to men falsely accused of rape, a so-called “feminist” tweeted that the standards need to change to bring justice to the women who have been raped and never saw their abuser punished:
it’s just gunna be too bad if a few innocent men have to carry that burden for the sake of justice for the many.
This tells you all you need to know about modern “feminism.” This is not about equal rights or justice for women. This is about hatred of men, and punishing men generally for the grievances of modern feminists. It does not matter if a man is actually innocent or not. He deserves to be punished anyway, because there have been so many women who have not gotten justice. This is the worst form of identity politics, a tribal hatred that blames an entire group for the actions of a few.
Someone who has had a comment approved already will see their posts right away, but new comments require approval. WordPress isn’t perfect with notifications, so I may not see a new comment to approve. I will attempt to approve comments faster, though.