I admit it, I’m struggling. I don’t understand a lot of this. I know what I thought and said four years ago. I know what I felt during Trump’s first four years. I know that I had a small inkling into the lies of the Left, but not enough to make me change. Now? Now I see so much, and I wonder how I could have been so stupid.
I’m constantly being blasted with headlines like What If Trump Wins? (“The safeguards that kept Trump in check during his first term have collapsed — starting with the MAGA-fication of the Republican Party. “We know from the first administration that Trump was an amateur and lots of people stopped his most radical actions,” says Jason Stanley, a Yale professor and author of How Fascism Works. He underscores that Trump’s darkest ambitions were present from the beginning — from the Muslim ban to the coup attempt of Jan. 6. “The only thing that stopped him from being a full-on dictator was other people,” Stanley says. “We know that that’s not going to happen anymore.”), Pelosi suggests Trump might skip presidential debate against Harris: ‘I know cowardice when I see it’ (“Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested former President Trump could skip the upcoming presidential debate because of ‘cowardice’…”), and Trump warms up for debate by threatening to jail election officials (“Trump warned he will jail election officials he considers cheats; is complaining Pennsylvania’s voting is a fraud; vowed to pardon January 6 rioters; railed against women who accused him of sexual misconduct; and spent hours in recent days on sometimes incoherent rants that raised questions about his state of mind.”).
The so-called news doesn’t seem to match the reality. When I go and research things, it turns out that words are taken out of context, lies are being told, and things are being blown ridiculously out of proportion. I’m especially confused by the comments about “incoherent rants” that I keep hearing about. I tried to listen to Trump back when he first ran, and I found it difficult. His speaking voice was uncomfortable in pitch, and he tended to ramble. He’s gotten MUCH better. I admit I wondered if it was my own bias that made it seem less coherent before, but I went back and listened and a lot of what he said on campaign tended to be difficult to follow. He has either taken lessons in public speaking, or has been practicing. Regardless, his ability to stay on topic is much better. That aside, when you hold up Biden or Harris beside him, the term “incoherent” should not even be considered. Good grief.
I’m still struggling with the idea of Texas going after people who help women go out of state for abortions. I’m fine with the state making its own rules, even if I disagree with them. After all, I don’t have to live there. But what a woman does in another state should have no bearing on the people who helped her. Because the people who helped her are still in state, and because what they did (helping her) happened IN state, it makes the law applicable. I strongly feel that this causes a “chilling effect” that has long-ranging effects, and so it’s wrong. Women are going to be considering whether their spouse, adult child, parent, or friend is going to be jailed because they went out of state for an abortion. That’s wrong. I cannot get around it being wrong. Cut off insurance if it’s out of state, I’m cool with that and it makes perfect sense. But punishing someone (or a person who helps someone) for going out of state for something they can’t get in state… that goes against the very fabric of the Constitution. Do not be reaching across state lines, not for anything, because that takes away from the sovereignty of the other state.
I’m worried about the possibility of Harris winning this election. I’m worried about what will happen to my family, to our finances, to our future. I’m thinking more about putting up canned goods and getting my garden started up again. I’m emotionally exhausted from this election cycle, in ways that I was not previously. To put it succinctly, I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired.
Comments
24 responses to “I Just Don’t Understand…”
Too many people are going to get their news from social media, and read nothing past the headlines. And, that is going to get Harris elected.
No, Trump is not a rapist.
No, Trump is not a racist.
No, Trump did not say he will weaponize the DOJ.
No, Trump does not have full immunity for any action as President.
No, Trump did not disparage military veterans/dead.
Yes, Trump did say a less than nice thing about John McCain, but it was clearly in jest if you know anything at all about a NYer. When a sportsball star does the same thing to a member of the opposing team, it is called psyching them.
No, Trump did not leave a disaster of an economy. COVID did.
No, Trump did not threaten a bloodbath if he does not win.
No, Trump did not lose every lawsuit filed about the 2020 election. Not having standing and losing are two very different things, and a former DA/AG should know that.
Etc… Etc… Etc…
But, each and every one of them was cited by Harris as a fact and too many people believe it.
A political campaign is nothing if not advertising and marketing. And, frankly, conservatives suck at it.
No, Trump did not lose every lawsuit filed about the 2020 election. Not having standing and losing are two very different things, and a former DA/AG should know that.
A former DA/AG certainly DOES know that, but her average supporter likely does NOT know the difference. She’s counting on that ignorance to win, just like she’s counting on the average American’s ignorance of Constitutional rights and mandates to enact and enforce her agenda.
And people who wonder why I want my kids to be able to read and write in cursive? Our founding documents are written in cursive; if you can’t read cursive, you have to trust what a transcriber says they say … and if they didn’t transcribe correctly (unintentionally or intentionally) and you can’t check it yourself, how would you ever know?
No, he *lost*. Here are the results: https://campaignlegal.org/results-lawsuits-regarding-2020-elections
As far as I’m aware, only one case was dropped because of standing.
No ignorance. Only facts and evidence.
If any cases were dropped for standing, then he didn’t lose every case as Harris claimed. Which wasn’t even my comment.
It still doesn’t change that a former DA/AG — who knows the difference — is intentionally perpetuating and benefiting from her supporters’ ignorance of the law, legal procedures, and Constitutional mandates. Which WAS my comment.
Thanks for the down-vote. Can you point to anything I said that is factually incorrect?
What do you think “dismissing claims” means?
Perhaps, under the legal definition of “no standing” it is not the same, but we are not talking legalese here, we are using common American english.
If the case did not go to trial, he did not lose.
I think the thing that bothered me most about the debate, which I watched most of, was the twisting of things. They only fact checked Trump, and did so incorrectly several times. Even if they’d been correct, the optics are horrid. It’s incredibly unfair, and I am pissed as hell that they did that. Harris lied on several occasions, and made asinine statements, and the moderators didn’t even blink.
I hate that political campaigns are advertising and marketing. They should not be. They are JOB INTERVIEWS, and the fact that we make it into a popularity contest is disgusting.
If I were moderating a debate, I would enforce these rules:
mic timing (whatever was agreed on) would be automatic, not controlled by anyone, so that when time runs out, it runs out
no talking directly to the other candidate(s)
no dissing the other candidate; speak only about YOUR platform and answer the questions asked
candidates who do not answer the question in the allotted time will of course have their mic muted, and the moderator will note that out loud (“Ms. Harris did not answer the question.”)
if a candidate continually breaks a rule, such as dissing the other candidate or speaking for them, they will lose out on the rest of the debate
We need to remind the candidates, ALL of them, that they are applying for a job, it’s a professional job, and we expect certain things from them. They need to be able to answer questions in allotted time. They need to be able to be concise and express themselves well. They need to be able to function without a teleprompter at least some of the time. They need to be able to actually outline their own agendas in a positive rather than negative manner. All these are JOB REQUIREMENTS. We should not be hiring someone to act as President who cannot fulfill the job requirements.
I know I’m preaching to the choir here. I’m just frustrated.
In earlier centuries, newspapers were explicitly, honestly, and unapologetically partisan. At some point in the past century or so, newspapers switched to the notion that they were “unbiased” or “neutral”. To some extent they lived up to that, for a while.
That changed somewhere around the turn of the century. It may have been with the “permanent campaign” concept created by Bill Clinton, or the similar notions pushed by Obama (amounting to “no decent person could possibly disagree with me”). In any case, we’re right back to where the media are explicitly partisan; the main difference from the 18th century is that they are not admitting it. And the other difference is that the split is extremely unequal, with the vast majority leaning hard left and only a small fraction leaning right.
The WSJ had an op-ed yesterday by Bill McGurn about the “malpractice” of the media failing to push Harris for answers about anything. I pointed out in a reply that his wording implies an accidental or unintended failure, while at this point it’s clear to me that the silence is intentional.
No one voted for her, and yet she’s in the running for President. Why would they push for anything? With Harris in place, the media is in charge again. With Trump, that is very not true. They have a vested interest in keeping her in place. I am beginning to think that anything that wants to be labeled a “news outlet” of any kind (newspaper, magazine, email, tv show, whatever) should be required to be non profit. That ought to weed out the money seekers. Sigh…
I have to point out that many “non profits” attract liberals. the whole entity is non profit while the employees enjoy ludicrous salaries. some in my opinion work at a non profit to ease thier guilt ridden minds…. some, not all! news outlets need to be cleaned just like gubmint…the only way I know is act like liberals- stop buying products advertised on news, call news and tell them we are not watching them. stand UP to them. We the People must overwhelm.. or it will be worse than biden. is that what you want??
Plus a non-profit is a way to make yourself look morally superior while using other people’s money.
That appeals strongly to leftists.
There are non-profits, and there are non-profits. If I start something and make it into an ethical and moral thing, and it’s a non-profit to discourage people from giving in to the money folks, I don’t care if there are liberals involved. The rules get set up in advance, and you stick to them.
I might point out, churches are non-profits. Food banks are non-profits. Hell, the Mormon church is a huge non-profit, and does amazing work. If it weren’t for the whole Jesus thing, I could totally be Mormon. LOL… Not every non-profit is bad, folks, and we need to keep that in mind.
If you’re going to walk away from something just because a liberal twisted it, it’s going to be a dank and empty world. Instead, how about we focus NOT on what leftists are doing, but what WE can do with something. I focus on what I want, not on what someone else is doing.
no,not every non profit is bad.. I said some, not all..
You might want to look into the mormon church and finances… they built a 1.5 BILLION dollar shopping mall. And now they’re buying up Australian farm land.
When I worked as a Safety Manager for a local hospital/healthcare organization (allegedly aligned with a major Christian Religious sect), I was informed that the organization was a Non-Profit by my manager, (a rapacious business person if there ever was one; think a heartless Gordon Geko) that the only difference between a For Profit organization and a Non Profit organization is how you keep your books.
By the way, the ethics of that organization was 180 degrees opposite from the Religion they allegedly associated with. I would rather die than go to one of their facilities.
The parties have weaponized campaigning to a degree I’ve never seen before. I believe the reason is to instill fear in their faithful of an Armageddon if the Party loses and in the Public that if they don’t vote for the Party’s candidate, evil will prevail (until the next election). Fear is a powerful motivator.
It’s why our Founders gave us the system of governance we have (and may lose). It was to mitigate fear of extremist rule. A feature of the USA the Progressive Elites cannot abide by.
At this point, if they’re threatening an Armageddon if their candidate loses, I’m willing to call their bluff.
If it’s not a bluff, it will be their people instigating it, and they won’t like the backlash. I hope to see a lot fewer Democrat voters by next election.
(For the record: No, I’m NOT saying to shoot them; I’m saying to arrest and imprison them on various felony charges — and there are a TON of state and federal statutes that apply to rioters and election “influencers” — and thus remove them from the future voter pool. Y’know, just like how Biden’s DOJ and BATFE want to reduce or eliminate the “gun vote” by arresting a bunch of us on made-up felony charges.)
In MY case, I AM saying that I WILL use force against any rioters/instigators/subversives that try to HARM me and my family.
I firmly believe that is one reason the so called ‘anti-fascists’ have been primarily a ‘feature’ of blue, high density population areas.
They KNOW that if they try to hit the ‘burbs, or especially the rural areas, that there WON’T be any support from the local cops to ‘protect them’ from the use of force to cause an immediate cessation of their ‘activities.’
Washington State for instance, generally considers it to be ‘justifiable homicide,’ if the response to the attempted arson of an OCCUPIED space results in the death of the arsonist. RCW 9A.16.050 (NOT a lawyer here, but this appears to be a pretty straight forward section of the RCW.)
I love that CNN quote: “Trump warned he will jail election officials he considers cheats; is complaining Pennsylvania’s voting is a fraud; vowed to pardon January 6 rioters; railed against women who accused him of sexual misconduct; and spent hours in recent days on sometimes incoherent rants that raised questions about his state of mind.”
Going line by line:
– If election officials are cheating, they should be jailed; it’s illegal for a reason.
– Pennsylvania was one of the states in which the “inconsistencies” were large enough to affect the outcome, and were never properly investigated; it’s a problem a reasonable person should be complaining about.
– What crime did the J6 protesters (NOT “rioters”) commit, that would justify holding them for four years, many without legal counsel, without charges, and without a trial? If the DAs can’t name a crime, the protesters must be released, and if they’re not released, we should all be worried about the state of the “justice” system.
– If the women baselessly accused him — as every instance seems under investigation — he has every right to “rail against” such complaints.
– The “incoherent rants” are usually in response to being asked a bunch of questions, not being given time to properly answer, and not wanting to seem like he refused to answer or didn’t have an answer. They “shotgun” him with questions like that on purpose.
I read that list of “problems” from CNN, and my thought was, there’s no problem here. This is all contextually reasonable from his (and my) perspective. The only two problems are: 1. the false one CNN is trying to implant in their readers’/viewers’ minds; and 2. the reality that they will probably succeed.
Archer, I totally get what you’re saying. I was listening to the moderators say stuff about Trump, and I was like… but that’s what he *should* be doing! Ugh.
Yes, they’re gaslighting the American public by treating normal human reactions as unreasonable and unhinged. It’s supposed to make us question our sanity and doubt the reality we see before us.
Trump is an avatar; all the hate, vitriol, and contempt they direct at him, they hold toward the rest of us. He’s just the current high-profile target.
So, for example, when he “rails against” women who level baseless assault claims (which again, are fully investigated and determined to be unfounded) and then gets attacked for defending his public image from demonstrably false allegations — which is a perfectly normal and reasonable response, and if I’m not mistaken he’s become quite a bit more measured in it; he’s more likely now to attack the allegations, not the women making them — that’s how they would treat all of us if they didn’t have a bigger target to draw their fire.
They want us walking on eggshells, fearful of what someone else might say if we even look at someone the wrong way. That’s the reality they want us living in. And so they attack anyone who walks boldly and gaslight the rest into thinking they had it coming.
the scary part is people who can’t see and hear the blatant lies spewed by liberals. is Trump threatening to “sieze patents”? is Trump threatening the “ban firearms “?? harris is the dictator, liberals are power hungry freaks hell bent on turning America into a vast slave camp. any time I see “college professor” as a job title my “LIEDAR” goes apeshiite. every thing the left is doing is blatent facism and communist action.. Miss A- at least you are willing to learn and can see what is really goin on, hang tuff and keep learning!
I am always willing to learn. It’s why life is so fekking miserable lately. Heh…
I’ve been saying since 2016: A third to half of the country hates a man and a reality that doesn’t exist.
just how effective the dumbing down of America has been.