By NanceGreggs
I have often seen Democrats being chastised, lectured, even vilified for stating that Republican voters are stupid.
You think that we think you are dumber-than-dumb. And the
fact is WE DO think exactly that. We don’t call you brainless idiots in
order to be provocative. We don’t refer to you as dumb-asses because
we are determined to anger you. We don’t label you as mindless, low-IQ
voters in an effort to be divisive or combative.
We do it because the evidence is in – and it invariably points to the fact that you are every bit as undeniably stupid as we think you are.
The election of Donald Trump is the perfect case in point.
You were stupid enough to vote for a man who has always outsourced
all of his own manufacturing jobs, because you believed he would bring
YOUR outsourced job back.
You were stupid enough to listen to your “Christian” pastors when
they told you a thrice-married, self-proclaimed pussy-grabber is an
upstanding moral man, chosen by God himself to lead a nation.
You were stupid enough to think a man who tweets incoherent nonsense
was intelligent enough to run an incredibly complex government in an
increasingly complicated world.
You were stupid enough to support a man who stated outright that he intends to take your healthcare coverage away from you.
You were stupid enough to believe that a billionaire – who has never in his entire life done anything for anyone other than himself – had suddenly become a champion of those of you struggling to make ends meet.
You were stupid enough to elect a man who has a very long history
of cheating hard-working Americans – people like yourselves – out of
their fees for materials delivered, and services rendered.
We Democrats are not – contrary to your stupidly-held beliefs – all
over-educated Ph.D.s who sip $24 lattes between Mensa meetings. We are
not ‘elitists’ who spend our time looking down our noses at the less
educated, especially in view of the fact that many of us are no better
educated, nor financially well-off, than you are.
The difference between us is that we Democrats look beyond the
political rhetoric in order to find the facts, while you simply swallow
whatever bullshit is spewed by FOX-News, or Rush Limbaugh – even Alex
Jones. We have the common sense to know that in today’s world, those
facts are as close as a mouse-click away. We understand that the truth is out there, if only you have the minimal intellectual capacity it takes to find it.
So, yes, we DO think you’re stupid – because you are. You
demonstrate it daily. You are the people who think Obama was president
on 9/11, the people who believe that illegals working 12-hour days in
the fields are stealing your six-figure-per-annum jobs, the people who
believe that the Bowling Green Massacre actually happened.
What else are we to think, other than that you are unbelievably,
mind-bogglingly, beyond-all-imagining, STUPID? How are we supposed to
ignore your incredible, self-imposed ignorance? Why should we pretend
that people who are still complaining about Obama’s botched response to
Katrina (which happened more than three years before he was in
office) are anything more than dumber-than-dumb ignoramuses who lack the
necessary skill to interpret something as complicated as a calendar?
Look, the truth is YOU ARE STUPID. And what’s worse, you are
actually proud of being stupid. So don’t blame us for pointing out what
you yourselves have gone out of your way to make obvious. Don't wave
your stupidity around like a neon flag if you don't want anyone to
notice it. Don't regurgitate quotes from people proven to be liars if
you want to be perceived as people capable of independent thought - or
even common sense.
There is, of course, a way to stop being called stupid. You can always try NOT being stupid.
It’s so crazy, it just might work.
As
the Guardian points out, this has an important and likely not
accidental effect: it leaves the State Department entirely unstaffed
during these critical first weeks, when orders like the Muslim ban
(which they would normally resist) are coming down.
The
article points out another point worth highlighting: “In the past, the
state department has been asked to set up early foreign contacts for an
incoming administration. This time however it has been bypassed, and
Trump’s immediate circle of Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, son-in-law
Jared Kushner and Reince Priebus are making their own calls.”
(5) On Inauguration Day, Trump apparently filed his candidacy
for 2020. Beyond being unusual, this opens up the ability for him to
start accepting “campaign contributions” right away. Given that a
sizable fraction of the campaign funds from the previous cycle were paid
directly to the Trump organization in exchange for building leases,
etc., at inflated rates, you can assume that those campaign coffers are a
mechanism by which US nationals can easily give cash bribes directly to
Trump. Non-US nationals can, of course, continue to use Trump’s hotels
and other businesses as a way to funnel money to him.
(6)
Finally, I want to highlight a story that many people haven’t noticed.
On Wednesday, Reuters reported (in great detail) how 19.5% of Rosneft,
Russia’s state oil company, has been sold to parties unknown.
This was done through a dizzying array of shell companies, so that the
most that can be said with certainty now is that the money “paying” for
it was originally loaned out to the shell layers by VTB (the
government’s official bank), even though it’s highly unclear who, if
anyone, would be paying that loan back; and the recipients have been
traced as far as some Cayman Islands shell companies.
Why is this interesting? Because the much-maligned Steele Dossier
(the one with the golden showers in it) included the statement that
Putin had offered Trump 19% of Rosneft if he became president and
removed sanctions. The reason this is so interesting is that the dossier
said this in July, and the sale didn’t happen until early December. And
19.5% sounds an awful lot like “19% plus a brokerage commission.”
Conclusive? No. But it raises some very interesting questions for journalists to investigate.
What does this all mean?
I
see a few key patterns here. First, the decision to first block, and
then allow, green card holders was meant to create chaos and pull out
opposition; they never intended to hold it for too long. It wouldn’t
surprise me if the goal is to create “resistance fatigue,” to get
Americans to the point where they’re more likely to say “Oh, another protest? Don’t you guys ever stop?” relatively quickly.
However, the conspicuous absence of provisions preventing them from executing any of the “next steps” I outlined yesterday,
such as bulk revocation of visas (including green cards) from nationals
of various countries, and then pursuing them using mechanisms being set
up for Latinos, highlights that this does not mean any sort of backing down on the part of the regime.
Note
also the most frightening escalation last night was that the DHS made
it fairly clear that they did not feel bound to obey any court orders. CBP continued to deny
all access to counsel, detain people, and deport them in direct
contravention to the court’s order, citing “upper management,” and the
DHS made a formal (but confusing) statement that they would continue to
follow the President’s orders. (See my updates from yesterday,
and the various links there, for details) Significant in today’s
updates is any lack of suggestion that the courts’ authority played a
role in the decision.
That
is to say, the administration is testing the extent to which the DHS
(and other executive agencies) can act and ignore orders from the other
branches of government. This is as serious as it can possibly get: all
of the arguments about whether order X or Y is unconstitutional mean
nothing if elements of the government are executing them and the courts
are being ignored.
Yesterday was the trial balloon for a coup d’état against the United States. It gave them useful information.
