[USA] hypocricy

Newsgroups 
Subject: [USA] hypocricy
From: rsw@therandymon.com (RS Wood)
Newsgroups: dictator.america
Organization: The Dictator's Handbook
Date: Oct 06 2017 19:00:17
Trump takes his opponents’ evils to staggering new heights
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-takes-his-opponents-evils-to-staggering-new-heights/2017/10/05/a769cb28-aa03-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html?utm_term=.bb3a3601078a

Based on media coverage, government email security seemed to be the No.
1 issue preoccupying the American public last year. In fact, you could
be forgiven for thinking the entire 2016 election was a referendum on
whether it’s okay for public servants to use private email, stored on a
private server, to conduct official government business.

The answer was clear: No, it’s not okay. Yet somehow, here we are again.

Thanks to enterprising reporters, we now know that President Trump’s
son-in-law and daughter, Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, used not one,
not two, but three private email accounts to conduct official White
House business.

They appear to have kept the existence of these accounts secret from
Senate and House investigators. After news of these emails broke last
week, USA Today reported, the couple even rerouted their accounts to
private servers maintained by the Trump Organization. If there’s a
non-fishy explanation for this, I’d love to hear it.

This is no isolated act of hypocrisy.

During the campaign, Team Trump cast itself as the antidote to nearly
every scandal and shortcoming (real or imagined) of the Obama
administration. Now, 10 months in, the Trump administration has instead
taken those sins to imaginative new heights.

Consider the complaint that deep-pocketed lobbyists and donors were
using their excessive influence in Washington to strong-arm
policymakers.

This accusation was heard incessantly during the 2016 campaign.
Then-candidate Donald Trump charged that the Obama administration —
especially alumna Hillary Clinton — was too cozy with donors, lobbyists
and corporate elites, too willing to let Goldman Sachs and other
companies buy influence.

 So what was Trump’s solution to donors, lobbyists and corporate elites
having too much influence?

Why, it was to put donors, lobbyists and corporate elites directly into
his Cabinet, and into lots of other executive branch jobs, too.

To be fair, cutting out the middleman does offer efficiencies.
Policymakers no longer have to do the bidding of Goldman Sachs if
Goldman Sachs is empowered to do its bidding itself.

Or consider our foreign policy failures, as portrayed by then-candidate
Trump.

Trump often rebuked Obama as a weakling. He was disrespected,
manipulated and laughed at by foreign leaders, or so Trump said. Unlike
earlier administrations, the Trump administration promised to stand up
to our adversaries and extract maximum concessions.

Yet every foreign leader who meets with Trump seems to get the whole
cookie jar.

Saudi Arabia has repeatedly played Trump, using bread and circuses to
get him on board with a sweetheart arms deal, and the Saudi side in a
Persian Gulf power struggle. China, the target of endless tough talk
during the campaign, has managed to escape threats of trade sanctions.
Chinese leadership has even somehow convinced Trump that he’s bossing
them around, rather than the reverse. Chinese state-run media openly
ridicules him.

And of course the Russian government, despite its work to undermine
U.S. democracy, has enjoyed audiences with the president, his family
and other confederates.

Trump also spent much of the campaign railing against Democratic fiscal
profligacy. He pilloried Clinton for proposing fiscally irresponsible
policies. He even promised to pay down the debt within eight years (an
impossible task).

Now in office, he’s pushing an unfunded, multi-trillion-dollar tax cut
and dismissing concerns about mounting U.S. debt.

Trump and fellow Republicans also faulted the Obama administration for
tyrannical executive branch overreach. On that, too, he’s found ways to
innovate. On Thursday he even called for a Senate investigation of
media coverage he doesn’t like.

There’s a sort of conventional wisdom among pundits that voters
overcorrect for the perceived flaws of incumbent politicians when
choosing the next crop. But voters are in for a lot of disappointment
if they chose Trump because they thought his administration would drain
the swamp, put America first, honor the Constitution, tighten the
government’s belt, respect states’ rights or otherwise avenge the many
evils Trump attributed to his predecessor.

Trump’s cures are not just worse than the diseases he diagnosed during
the campaign; they’re deadlier strains of the exact same diseases.

The question, then, is why Americans bought into his quackery in the
first place.

Maybe voters are just gullible and genuinely believed he’d fix all the
systemic problems they cared about. Maybe the Trump camp thought it
could do better than earlier presidents, and only belatedly determined
it needed to go native to succeed in the swamp.

 Or maybe it was all posturing, and no one ever cared about those
deficits or donors or even — gasp! — emails after all.
--
Dildo Baggins <dildo@gofuckyourself.gmail.invalid>


Date Subject  Author
06.10. * [USA] hypocricyRS Wood
09.10. `* Re: [USA] hypocricyRS Wood
09.10.  +- Re: [USA] hypocricyJAB
10.10.  `- Re: [USA] hypocricyJAB

This forum property of The Dictator's Handbook. Please read our charter.