Why Trump's Supporters Still Support Him

Trump haters keep asking this question, "Why to people still support him?" This is usually accompanied by a list of heinous acts Trump has done and sometimes a list of virtues that the Obamas embodied.

There are some interrelated reasons. It starts back in the early 1990s with Clarence Thomas and Bill Clinton. During his confirmation hearings in 1991, Thomas was attacked as unfit for the court because of accusations of sexual harassment. But then, the following year the Democrats nominated Bill Clinton. Clinton has has multiple extra-marital affairs, before, during and after his presidency. Some of these were clearly worse than anything Clarence Thomas was accused of. His supporters made it clear that they didn't care what his personal life was like as long as he supported the proper policies in the White House (starting with abortion). There was no question that George H. W. Bush was the more upright person but Clinton supporters didn't care. In fact, when his affair with Monica came out, Clinton supporters outright admitted that their outrage to Thomas had all been an act to keep him off of the court.

Once you've admitted that your moral outrage depends on the policies of candidate it's hard to be taken seriously. And this wasn't ancient history. We almost had Bill back in the White House again as First Gentlemen.

And it's not like Hillary Clinton was a spotless candidate, either. The choice wasn't between Trump and Obama. It was between Trump and a Clinton. The list of scandals she has been involved in is far longer than I want to devote space to here. It was bad enough that, on Inauguration Night, 2001, SNL did a sketch about all of the last-minute Clinton scandals with the punch-line "What do you expect, we're the Clintons?"

In addition to having an unsteady moral compass, the Democrats also showed that no one was virtuous enough to escape attack as a racist. McCain was going to roll back civil rights to the 1950s. Romney was going to roll them back to the 1950s and bring back slavery. The two primary attack against Trump, moral superiority and racism, were blunted by overuse.

Many of the attacks on Trump were exaggerations or outright lies and his supporters know it. He did not call the neo-klansmen good people. He did not follow Hillary around the stage. He did not collude with the Russians. It's not racist if Speaker Pelosi attacks the Squad but if Trump does it's a top news item for days (complete with a twisted version of what he actually said). Never-Trumpers seem to believe that the louder they say these things the more effective they are but instead Trump supporters just tune them out.

There's also a matter of policies. Obama's policies hurt a lot of the middle class. He presided over the slowest recovery in history. Obamacare caused a dramatic rise in insurance costs for people who had been buying catastrophic insurance. His middle-east policies were a disaster. He inherited a stable Iraq and, through mismanagement, allowed the rise of ISIS. He allowed Russia to expand. He signed the Paris Accords which would have hurt American industry in exchange for a rounding error in CO2 reductions. Clinton promised to continue or expand on these policies. The current crop of candidates has moved far to the left of candidate Obama.

The Democrats have become the party of heavily urban areas. They openly disdain people who live in the suburbs and rural areas.

So, the question really becomes, "Why don't Trump supporters abandon him and embrace a candidate who despises them and who's policies will hurt them but who is a certified member of the ruling elite?" To ask it that way is to answer it.

A final note on the Obamas: The image we have of them as the ideal couple is a media creation. She hated being First Lady. He didn't like working with people and preferred to go over briefing papers alone at night. Foreign leaders hated meeting with him because it always came with a lecture. He was ultra-competitive, a poor loser and a worse winner. He also had a poor opinion of rural voters, describing the people who preferred Hillary in 2008 as bitter, clinging to guns, religion and racism.

Why Conservatives Mock PolitiFact

Several days ago Representative AOC posted a picture of herself during a visit to an immigrant detention center last year when she was still a candidate. She was nearly doubled-over in grief in front of a chain-link fence giving the impression that seeing children in cages was to much for her to bare. A few days later conservative sites posted photos takes from a different angle. These showed that there was nothing on the other side of the fence but an access road with some parked cars and a nondescript building in the distance. There was not a child to be seen. This gave rise to an Internet meme about AOC crying in front of a parking lot.

Enter the "nonpartisan" fact-checking site PolitFact. They decided to do a fact-check on this but they didn't fact-check AOC's original picture which implied she was crying over children, nor did they fact-check the conservative sites which accurately described the pictures. Instead they fact-checked the Internet meme's use of the word "parking lot". They carefully showed pictures documenting that what was in the background was cars parked on a road rather than on a parking lot. Based on this, they rated the meme false.Left unrated was the fact that AOC was weeping in front of a mass of pavement and parked cars.

This is a perfect example of why conservatives mock PolitiFact. Any real fact-checking would have made AOC look bad. They managed to phrase the question in such a way as to ignore the whole AOC question and concentrate on the work "parking lot". Even then, a fair site would have rated the meme mostly true. After all, she was in front of cars on pavement. But they managed to ignore the context of the picture in such a way to give the impression that AOC did not fake her histrionics. More people will see the false rating and not bother to read the details so by framing it this way they covered for AOC.

Why I Couldn't Care Less About the Women's Soccer Team Win

The American Woman's Soccer Team won the World Cup. Big Whoop. I'm sick of hearing about it. I've never been much of a sports fan and even less a soccer fan. But there are several other reasons that I'm less than thrilled about the team.

They got off to a bad start by showing poor sportsmanship (shortspersonship?). They were always the favorite team. They made a big show of celebrating each score against a team that never stood a chance against them.

Then there's the politics. Star player Megan Rapinoe made a show of not standing for the national anthem and saying ahead of time that she'd never accept an invitation to the White House from President Trump. This isn't a regular pro team playing in an American league. She's a member of a team representing the USA but her actions show that she does not represent all Americans. She doubled down on this in a post-win interview when she said that she'd be willing to meet with Nancy Pelosi, AOC and anyone else who she agrees with. But she won't meet with any politicians she disagrees with. Again, she's supposed to be on a team representing all Americans. And she's a soccer player, not an elected official.

And, finally, there's the pay issue. The team's been very vocal about wanting pay equity with the men's team. But the issue is a LOT more complicated than they are making it out to be. In the World's Cup, the men's tournament makes a lot more money than the women's does. Both teams are paid a proportion of the earnings. The women get a bigger share of a smaller pot. In the US, the woman's team's pay is figured very differently. They are on a salary with benefits. The men are only paid when they play and have to pay their own benefits.

When a team representing the USA wins a championship then it should be a cause for a national celebration. This isn't. It's become multiple reasons to browbeat the country instead of uniting it.

Trump, Kim and the Editorial Staff

I saw an editorial recently that was written after President Trump became the first American President to enter North Korea. Naturally, the editorial downplayed that historic event and said that he should leave the negotiations with North Korea to normal diplomatic channels. This is an excellent example of an editor who reflexively hates anything that Trump does without bothering to use any sort of historic perspective.

Regular diplomatic channels were used by the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. The result of that was that North Korea is now a nuclear power with intercontinental missiles capable of reaching Washington DC (although it's doubtful they can get anywhere near as far with a nuclear payload and their guidance systems are iffy). They also celebrated their chairman's birthdays by releasing videos of their missiles destroying American cities. Regular diplomatic channels were so ineffective that the Obama administration gave up and adopted a policy of "strategic patience" which was a euphemism for kicking the can down the road. So, after 24 years of letting diplomats handle the negotiations we were left with a country that is more dangerous than nuclear powers like Pakistan and India (neither of them has tested intercontinental missiles).

Our dealings with other countries made a deal with North Korea even less likely. The Bush administration toppled two governments. Afghanistan was understandable since they were sheltering the perpetrators of 9/11 but Iraq had given up its nuclear program and we overthrew it on suspicion that they had restarted it.

The Obama administration doubled down on this. First they helped overthrow Libya, a country that had voluntarily given up its nuclear program. Then they ratified Iran's program and sent them billions on condition that they simply slow their nuclear program down a bit. We even let them keep their missile program.

The clear message to the North Koreans was that the US is more likely to overthrow a country that gave up its nuclear program and to reward one that refuses to give it up.

Following the tradition of leaving advice for one's successor, Obama warned Trump that North Korea would be his first challenge.

So Trump took a completely different approach. He realized that North Korea will never give up its nuclear program without the consent of Kim Jong-un but if Kim agrees to disarm then it will happen. He also employed a carrot and stick approach. He used Viet Nam as an example of a country that went from being at war with the US to being a prosperous trading partner. At the same time he tightened sanctions. His message is that North Korea can be like South Korea or Viet Nam and become peaceful and prosperous but first they have to give up their nuclear program.

So far North Korea has refused to disarm but, and this is important, they also stopped testing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. This may be the best that can be accomplished but it's still a major improvement over the state of affairs when Trump took office.

And that is why Trump is pursuing the proper course and the editorials are wrong.

A Few Final Thoughts on Colin Kaepernick and Independence Day

First Nike announced that it was recalling a new line of shoes because Colin Kaepernick objected to the Betsy Ross flag on them. Then Colin himself out out a tweet on the 4th of July quoting from Frederick Douglass saying " This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn."

This is all very childish and ignorant. The American Revolution was not about slavery. Slavery existed world-wide before and after the revolution. It did not completely end in the United States until the Civil War but this was the beginning of its end. Massachusetts incorporated language from the Declaration in it's state constitution in 1780 and by 1783 this was used in court cases to outlaw slavery in that state. By 1804 every state in the north had abolished slavery. The middle states were slower to abolish it with the last two, New Jersey and New Hampshire being the last in 1865. While new southern states were allowed slavery, it was always outlawed in the Northwest Territory.

Great Britain freed it's slaves with an act in 1833 that required slaves to remain apprentices until 1840. Mexico outlawed it in 1829. France alternated abolishing slavery and allowing it again in its colonies until it was outlawed for the final time in 1848.

The point here is that slavery was not "America's original sin" and unique to the US but rather something practiced by all of the European powers. I won't get into what the Indians did to each other because it's irrelevant to people enslaved and transported from Africa. Anyway, claiming that the flag Washington fought under is tainted is quite a stretch.

As for Kaepernick's 4th of July tweet, that was excerpted from Douglass's " The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro" speech which was given in 1852, well before the Civil War, and was give by someone who was born a slave and was calling for the abolition of slavery. Was Kaepernick who is part of the 0.01% comparing himself to a slave? Seriously? Or did he just find a pithy quote without looking up the context?

Save the Flag

Nike just cancelled a new line of shoes with a small Betsy Ross flag on them because of protests from Colin Kaepernick. Depending on who you listen to, the flag is either offensive because it was used when slavery was legal or because it's been adopted as a symbol by white supremacists

Addressing the second reason first, no, this flag is not on anyone's list of hate symbols.

"Most white supremacists would not know what the Betsy Ross flag was if you asked them about it, compared to all the other symbols that they constantly use," Mark Pitcavage, senior research fellow with the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, said.

So that's just a lame excuse someone thought up to excuse the cancellation.

The first excuse is equally lame. The 13-star flag was used from the 1770s to the 1790s when two new states were added. Yes, slavery was legal in the US during that period in some of the states but not in the majority and slavery was also legal in most of the rest of the world at the time. It was not used by the Confederacy or any other uses beyond patriotism. So it's only a "symbol" of slavery because it's from the 18th century. 

Despite what Nike said, the real reason for Kaepernik's objection is probably a general dislike for the United States and its history. This is in contrast to when he first began sitting and then kneeling for the National Anthem. It was claimed then that he was objecting to the treatment of contemporary blacks and not showing disrespect for his country.

Regardless, this is part of a general trend in declaring American icons to be tainted. What started with Confederate statues has spread to Washington, Jefferson, Columbus, even General Grant because someone gave him a couple of slaves who he quickly sold (it was very difficult to free slaves at the time).

This also has the possibility to become another "Ok" symbol where some pranksters decided to start a rumor that it's used as a symbol of white supremacy and it spread. Now that the sainted Kaepernick has declared the Betsy Ross flag to be forbidden, trolls from the left will emerge to defend that, even if they have to make things up.

We need to take a stand and push back. We can't let the symbol of America's founding be tarnished by lies and a second-string quarterback.