Why Do Liberals Hate Trump So Much?
The question in the title needs, I believe, critical examination. Why DOES the Left hate Trump so much?
The answer, as usual, can largely be found by analyzing history.
But first. Do they hate him because the average price of a gallon of gas in his administration was far lower than under Biden? Is it because inflation was low (around 2%) and trending downward? Is it that the USA was energy independent and didn’t need to beg our enemies for oil, deplete our strategic oil reserve or sell it to China? Is it because black and Hispanic unemployment was lower than at any time in history? Is it because Trump forced China into a fairer trade agreement, got a strong trade deal with Japan, and a solid peace in the Middle East?
Are these the reasons (more in a subsequent article) that the Left despises Trump so much?
These reasons may be symptoms, but don’t touch the main issue. If you ask a liberal why they hate DJT so much, they aren’t going to say, “Well, because gas prices and inflation were manageable, minority unemployment was at record low levels, America was energy independent” etc., etc. Those aren’t the answers you are going to receive. More likely, they might mention something about his “mean, hateful tweets” or maybe opposition to their Green God. Mr. Liberal, are you better off now than you were four years ago? “Trump is a Nazi racist!” Are you paying less for gasoline, groceries, and heating oil? “He is an insurrectionist and dictator!” I truly doubt any of them will respond, “I hate Trump because we now have to beg Saudi Arabia and Venezuela for oil.” I’ve just a hunch you’ll get a different reply.
But, we all know the Left’s hatred of Donald Trump is real. It is a visceral, vicious, primeval, vindictive, animal. Unending and never ceasing. To them, he is the worst President the country has ever had. The above accomplishments of Mr. Trump mean absolutely nothing to liberals. Theirs is a total, and blind, unreasoning hatred.
But, crucially, it isn’t just Mr. Trump they hate. He is simply the current target. If Mr. DeSantis, or some other conservative Republican, gets the nomination in 2024, the hatred will simply be transferred, and perhaps worse. They loathed George W. Bush, they especially despised Ronald Reagan, and you are deplorable.
Most “common” Leftists probably can’t tell you why hatred of the Right runs so deeply, and many would probably deny it does. But you and I know better. Most folks don’t understand the historical or ideological reasons why the leadership of the Left is so vindictive toward the Right. There is no one, single, simple explanation, but it starts with the leadership’s arrogance and lust for power, and their inherent belief in their right to have and exercise it. They are elitists, which makes them better than you, and thus, by right, they should rule and you should obey. It isn’t a new feature in human history; the current manifestation spins out of Darwinism and Marxism. But elitism itself isn’t recent.
Perhaps the best known (though certainly not the only) example of the same kind of bitter loathing is the rabbinical clique’s attitude toward Jesus. The scribes, Pharisees, and chief priests were the “elitists” in Palestine in Jesus’ day. They were the local “rulers” of the people, they controlled, they intimidated, they spoke for God, and the common people were expected to submit. They loved their power and the positions it gave them—the “Jerusalem Establishment.” Jesus, the outsider, represented a danger to all that. “The common people heard him gladly.” Abomination! Jesus constantly exposed the “establishment’s” failures and hypocrisies, and that drove them insane with venomous odium.
Thus, those religious leaders continually and viciously attacked him. They couldn’t answer his arguments, so they resorted to ad hominem assaults and name-calling, incessantly strove to destroy his reputation and belittle him and lower his esteem in the eyes of the people. He had to be removed. But being unsuccessful in their attempts, they sought help. They took him to the Romans (illegally in the middle of the night) and got him executed. For one reason, and one reason only.
Power.
Now, Donald Trump is not Jesus Christ, of course, far from it, but the parallels are intriguing. And the principle of corrupting power remains the same. Trump, more than any Republican since Reagan, is/was perceived as the greatest menace to the Establishment’s desire for continued dominance over the American people. Whatever Trump likes (America), they hate. His policies were enormously successful and beneficial to the American people, but that is 100%, wholly irrelevant to the Left. The people mean nothing to them, except as slaves who must submit to their masters or be removed. Mao Zedong’s 60-70 million slaughtered Chinese is a testament to this. The same with Stalin and every other Leftist thug. The American Left’s “love” for children is manifested in their willingness to let them be mutilated in the name of a perverted ideology that gives the Democratic Party its slavish devotion in return. Elitists hate Trump because, like Jesus, he exposes them for the hypocrites they are. They spent four years, every day, 24/7, trying to destroy the man. And, as we are now learning, evoked every shady practice they could concoct to deny him re-election in 2020. And should, for example, DeSantis receive the nomination in 2024, and be perceived as a similar threat (and he will be so perceived), they will shift all of their animosity and venom toward him. It isn’t Trump, per se. It’s that the Left worships power, and like every Torquemada who ever lived, elitists will do all they can to destroy anyone who opposes their insatiable lust for dominance.
They hate you because you stand in the way of the thing they love most. A mother bear defends her cubs. Viciously.
https://townhall.com/columnists/marklewis/2022/12/18/why-do-liberals-hate-trump-so-much-n2617265
****************************************************A gender war in Scotland
Last year, Mridul Wadhwa, the chief executive of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre – and a trans woman – argued that women who objected to being counselled by someone who was born a man should “expect to be challenged on your prejudices” as part of their journey towards building “a new relationship with your trauma”. Doing so would require women in distress to “reframe your trauma”.
That was the moment a seed was sown for J.K. Rowling. Last week, that seed flowered, as the author revealed she was funding a new crisis centre for women in Scotland’s capital. Beira’s Place – named after an ancient Scottish goddess of winter – will provide counselling and support for women in need. Trans women won’t be allowed in.
“We believe that women deserve to have certainty that, in using our services, they will not encounter anyone who is male.” Trauma is not for reframing.
For some, this was further evidence Rowling is a transphobic bigot; for others a reminder that she is one of the foremost feminist campaigners of our time.
The author is too successful to be cancelled and she is determined to use her platform to speak out against those people she considers a threat to women’s rights.
Foremost among her critics is Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the SNP and first minister of Scotland. Sturgeon is, in Rowling’s view, a “destroyer of women’s rights”, and her government’s proposed gender recognition reforms are “the single biggest assault on the rights of Scottish women and girls in my lifetime”.
Noting that most of the bill’s provisions were opposed by most voters, last week Rowling suggested that “this is Nicola Sturgeon’s poll tax”.
In the conflict between Scotland’s most famous woman and its most powerful, it appears celebrity will cede victory to pure politics.
Sturgeon’s bill is guaranteed to pass, albeit at some unusual cost to the first minister’s credibility. Although it has prompted the largest SNP rebellion since the party came to office in 2007, it also has the support of most Labour, Lib Dem and Green MSPs.
Scotland will, therefore, introduce self-identification for anyone who wishes to change gender. Previously a person seeking a gender-recognition certificate required a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, but they will now be entitled to become legally a man or a woman simply by declaring that this is who they are.
And whereas they were hitherto required to “live in” their new sex for two years, they will henceforth be required to do so for only three months. It will be a criminal offence to make a false declaration of this sort, but no means by how this might be determined has yet been outlined.
Sturgeon insists this is simply a means of tidying up and improving existing processes, ensuring that a marginalised and much put-upon minority have an easier path towards living their best, true lives. The bill, she says, grants no new rights to trans people.
“All it does is simplify existing processes,” she says.
Reform has progressed at a glacial pace. The bill has been the subject of two public consultations. Sturgeon insists that “there are significant safeguards in the bill”, even as her government has rejected almost every significant amendment.
She told the Scottish parliament last week that, “of course, there are concerns that men may abuse provisions relating to trans people to harm women” – a key concern for Rowling and other critics – before insisting: “The point is that if any man was to seek to do so, the bill does not increase their ability to do that.”
This is the kind of argument that infuriates Sturgeon’s opponents. In their view, this is precisely the basis for their objections to the proposals: predatory men will be enabled by this legislation to access previously single-sex spaces more easily.
They accuse Sturgeon of elevating the rights of trans people above those of women, with little to no regard for how these new entitlements might be abused by people who would not previously have been considered trans but, under the terms of the legislation, must be considered to have changed their sex.
In a slightly different world, Rowling and Sturgeon might have been allies. They are on the centre left and their political preferences are, for the most part, orthodox.
Sturgeon’s past insistence that much more needs to be done to improve the lot and life chances of young people in care chimes with much of Rowling’s charitable work. The author’s Volant Trust – a foundation with £75 million ($135.5 million) in assets – typically donates up to £10 million a year to charities, chiefly in Scotland, that work with and for women, single parents and children.
The first Minister insists she is “a feminist to my fingertips”, and there is no reason to doubt the sincerity of her self-identification, even if Rowling also sardonically refers to Sturgeon as “the first feminist”.
“It’s not a political thing to me; this is personal,” Rowling says, but the line between the personal and the political is, as feminist history demonstrates, precious thin.
And the politics of the controversy cannot be wished away. Rowling has previously donated significant sums to the Labour Party, but is unlikely to do so again until such time as the party ceases to be, at best, agnostic on the trans issue.
She admires Sir Keir Starmer, not least because his leadership has helped make a Labour government plausible but, like many others, wishes he could be clearer and more courageous in outlining what a Labour administration might actually do.
“I don’t like ideologies of any kind,” she told the journalist Suzanne Moore last week.
“I have never met an ideologue who wouldn’t suppress a little bit of truth.”
This is the fundamental basis of her disagreements with Sturgeon, and also the reason she is detested by some Scottish nationalists. They have not forgotten that Rowling donated £1 million to the Better Together campaign during the 2014 independence referendum. That money, one insider told me, came at a crucial moment: “JK Rowling saved the Union,” he said, not entirely joking.
When the Scotland rugby team lost to Australia in the quarter-final of the 2015 World Cup, Rowling, who is a frequent visitor to Murrayfield, tweeted her disappointment, only to be met with a barrage of abuse from Scottish nationalists, some of whom suggested she reconsider her place of residence.
“Have you ever heard the premise of overstaying your welcome?” one extremist said. Another said Rowling should “f*** off” because “you don’t think we’re a nation at all.”
The controversy flared up to such an extent that Sturgeon felt it necessary to tweet a “note” to “my fellow independence supporters”, advising them that “people who disagree are not anti-Scottish”, and it “does our cause no good to hurl abuse (and it’s wrong)”.
Rowling was not alone, however, in observing the order of the first minister’s priorities.
“I’ve spent much of my life campaigning for women’s rights,” Sturgeon has said. “We don’t have to look very far to see the real threats to women’s rights right now. They come from men who attack, sexually and violently, women; who try to abuse women in a misogynistic way.
“They come from lawmakers in parts of the world trying to take away reproductive rights and access to abortion. They come from oppressive regimes … These are the threats to women’s rights, and feminists should focus on them, not on trans women, who are not the threat to women’s rights.”
But Rowling, like many of Sturgeon’s critics, has never claimed trans women are a threat. She agrees with Sturgeon that men are the danger to women, but is convinced that making it easy for men to identify as women is in effect an invitation for some men to infiltrate spaces that were reserved for women born female.
More broadly, Rowling says, “I have no irrational fear of or hatred towards trans people in the slightest – as, God knows, I’ve said so many times. But if you’re going to say it’s ‘hate’ not to believe in a gendered soul then we cannot have a discussion. We can’t. There’s nowhere to go.”
Sturgeon has dismissed her critics’ views as “not valid”, echoing the “no debate” mantra beloved of trans-rights activists. No discussion; no compromise.
“I feel we’re currently waging a cultural war between what I would see as authoritarians and liberals,” Rowling says. “And those categories seem to me to cut across the old left/right divide.”
Sturgeon will win the immediate political battle, but the manner in which she will do so all but guarantees the gender wars in Scotland will rage for some time yet.
**********************************************
Lenient Soros prosecutors are a menace to society
Fairfax Commonwealth Attorney Steve Descano has entered into another plea deal, this time with a shooter who fired into a crowded bar and was facing six felony charges totaling 20 years in prison, according to reporting by the Washington Free Beacon’s Josh Christenson—and it could have disastrous consequences for the victim, and the community, and even the nation.
In 2021, Descano let a man accused of attempted rape go with just five months in another plea deal, and then the man went on a shooting spree in New York City for nine days, killing two homeless men and wounding three others.
Now Descano is being sued for deprivation of civil rights under federal law by the mother of an 11-year-old rape victim, whose attacker Descano let go on a lesser charge.
And this is just one of the local prosecutors who was funded by George Soros to push for less sentencing and fewer prosecutions, and more leniency for criminals. And it is having ripple effects across state lines.
Thanks to cashless bail, another “reform” by Soros-funded changes to law, which works in tandem with the lenient prosecutors, in New York, there has been 3.7 increase in violent crimes in the state since 2018 reported via the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, as violent crimes increased from 350.8 per 100,000 to 363.8 in 2020.
Data for 2021 and 2022 is not yet fully available, but it doesn’t look good.
According to a Times Union analysis of New York crime data, from July 2020 to June 2021, about 4 percent, or almost 3,500 of those 98,145 released under the law went on to commit violent crimes: “there were 3,460 cases in which adults were rearrested on violent felony charges, including 773 with a firearm.”
These included “cases in which adults were released after being charged with offenses for which judges previously could have set bail or ordered them held in custody.”
Even before the law’s implementation in 2020, New York state judges were letting criminals go in 2019, with 25,000 estimated to have been released beforehand according to PIX 11.
In his campaign for governor in 2022, U.S. Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) blasted New York State’s cashless bail reforms, enacted in 2020, calling for it to be overhauled. And with good reason, as the state and city governments were unleashing a crime wave upon their own people. It nearly put Zeldin into the Governor’s mansion in Albany—and in four years it might again, especially if things don’t improve.
If left unabated, these local changes in policy, being effected scores of municipalities throughout the nation and has the potential to increase local crime rates significantly. But they also have the potential to reshape American politics. The Zeldin case shows that, particularly in upscale suburban households on the outskirts of New York City that traditionally had voted Democratic suddenly switched to voting Republican.
The question politically is how much the American people, whether in a deep blue state like New York, or a more purple state like Virginia where a Republican can occasionally win statewide, are willing to put up with before taking action. These Soros prosecutors are a menace to society.
************************************************
How the mighty are fallen: Prominent Australian feminist seeks male approval
She has glammed up
Controversial feminist Clementine Ford has opened up about why she has drastically changed her looks since gaining a huge following.
Ford’s dramatic transformation means she has gone from having auburn hair to bleach blonde hair and had a complete style revolution. She started out looking like Andi at the beginning of Devil Wears Prada, and now she looks like Andi at the end of The Devil Wears Prada.
Ford has also lost weight and openly shared her journey online of getting Botox and falling in love with make-up and fashion.
She has gone from having an earthy, minimal, relaxed look to a more chic made-up look, and it is hard not to notice the stark difference.
Ford revealed the sad truth behind her makeover after someone on Instagram accused her of “falling victim to misogyny” by getting anti-ageing treatments and documenting the results online.
The follower said that she’d return to Ford’s Instagram “if you come back from this beauty and anti-ageing Influencer stuff that undermines the really important work you’ve done”.
In response, Ford opened up about why she’d altered her looks, and in a lengthy Instagram story, she wrote: “You can disagree with my thoughts and actions on cosmetic interventions, but please don’t waste my time by telling me you find it sad or disappointing that I, a woman who has spent almost her entire adult career being called ugly, who has been turned into memes, who has had her emotional and physical wellbeing put at risk because of the things I say about men’s violence against women, has found some kind of power in removing some of the means by which men can abuse me online.”
Ford shared with news.com.au that now her appearance has changed she’s less likely to get such horrible messages about how she looks. “For almost all of my public career, I was abused for being ugly, for being fat, for having freckles – even for having a diastema.
“As I’ve gotten older and begun to play more with my appearance, I’ve found the comments have shifted. Now the men who abuse me are more often to say I’ve had too much plastic surgery (I’ve had none), which is a welcome respite from the time someone said I was ‘uglier than a dead dog on the side of the road’.
In 2017 right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos during his Australian tour, projected an old photo of Ford with the word, “unf##ckable” on big screens during his talks in Adelaide and Perth and Ford has also faced constant online trolling.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment