As many of you know, I'm not a fan of the President.
Not really of his policies, as almost every President has their good and bad ideas along with pet projects that one can agree on some and think that others aren't so special, but it's a personal dislike going back to his younger days owning the New Jersey Generals of the defunct United States Football League.
In politics, so many of the various issues with politicians are personal, and anyone that says differently isn't being honest.
So many will comment that it's about honesty, but it's not so.
Imagine if a Democratic president claimed that they "fell in love" with a North Korean dictator?
Or if a Republican president would state that women "had the right to choose"?
Instantly a chunk of a voting bloc would be against what they supported for years because they didn't like the person in the office.
It's almost all personal and if you don't like a leader, you can find a reason to dislike something.
The current holder of the office recently signed a bill criminalizing animal cruelty as a federal crime and I am sure that there have to be people that have issues with it because of the person that signed the bill into law.
Who could be anti-animal cruelty after all?
Considering all of that beforehand, let's look at one topic.
Climate Change is a topic that many disagree on, but it is happening.
Those are facts- it's happening.
Now reasonable people can disagree on how much of this is man-made, what percentage of this isn't controllable, and especially how to go about slowing it down, but the numbers do not lie and if you cannot admit that point, then you aren't even trying to lift the veil.
The current leader of our nation doesn't believe in any of that, which is his right, but my point would be this- if he changed his mind today, three-quarters of his base would instantly become environmentalists and the opposite side would rip him for being late to the party or even have issues with a cause they supported.
However, hypocrisy is a cancer.
On one hand, a less than clever quip towards a thirteen-year-old brings out every person on one side to talk about how non-adults should not be ridiculed and mocked, etc and the First Lady and her "Be Best" agenda about stopping online bullying becomes a rallying cry for one side with the other discussing "the right" to comment openly.
BUT fast forward a week and the President, who openly covets the Time "Person of the Year" award to the point of making fake covers before his administration, was elated when he won in 2016 and sulks if he doesn't win every year, mocks a sixteen-year-old climate change activist for winning the award after which he released a cover with his picture superimposed over the actual winner.
Sure enough, there is his base that was so offended about an unfunny comment, suddenly are more than fine to "speak about an activist" and the flip side is shocked about "attacking a teenager".
To her credit, Greta Thunberg is arguably the most effective person in combating the President's Twitter game, but I find it ironic that it's always OK or not depending on your opinion of the person in the office.
I can only imagine the "outrage" had a President Hillary Clinton tweeted at a 16-year-old anti-abortion activist for them to "find a friend and watch a concert".
I've said several times that I am over 30 years ahead of the curve as far as disliking the President and I believe that his behavior is divisive, conduct is terrible representing our nation and has only made our country worse down the road.
However, let's keep in mind that the opposing side isn't morally perfect either, it was their decision to run a similarly unpopular candidate to allow this President to win an election and cause the sad state we are currently in.
I'll be around a lot over the next few days, catching up on what I have missed.
No comments:
Post a Comment