We Can't Tell the Future
There's no way anyone can even presume to dismiss the turmoil that is happening within our nation at this time. Politicians and citizens, all with contradicting views on a multitude of issues, clash in what I like to call "verbal wars". Everyone has distinct approaches in mind on how to fix these governmental, social, international, and political problems, but nothing is being done, almost as if they care more about making their opponents look bad.
The one thing that most politicians can agree on is that one of our most trendy topics when it comes to American controversy is our 45th president, Donald Trump, who campaigned about the construction of a powerful wall between us and Mexico.
I have read many articles about Trump and his wall, but one that seized my consciousness significantly. It was entitled "Poll: Trump would lose to a bunch of Dems", written by columnist Phil Gianficaro. My reaction to it is as follows.
In this column, Phil insists that "he (Trump) would not win a second term regardless of the candidate the Democrats nominate. Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand. Doesn’t matter, Trump loses." If we still don't even know who's going to be nominated as the Democratic Presidential Candidate, how could we automatically be so sure that Trump's going to lose? We can't just assume that Trump's going to do nothing to improve the country, or that Trump's never going to persuade anyone to join his side. Predicting the future is very risky, especially when it comes to politics. It's better not to judge things too quickly because that makes the biasm factor a lot more obvious.
Later on, Phil quotes another Trump-despising friend of his. "Why on earth would anyone vote for him again? He can’t keep people in his administration any longer than a few months. The connections to Russia by Cohen and Flynn and Manafort, and maybe by him. The promises he made that he’s not kept; he just said things about the wall and illegals to feed his base and get elected. Now this shutdown, holding people hostage because he wants money for a wall we don’t need."
My dilemma with this excerpt is that it seems like Phil's compatriot won't accept the fact that not everyone sees things the same way he does. This is, in my opinion, a basic fact that everybody needs to know. No matter what one says, someone's always going to agree and someone else is always going to disagree.
And yes, Trump has kept multiple people in his administration longer than "a few months". For example, the vice president.
I will give Phil's friend some credit. Trump doesn't keep all of his promises (and neither do the Democrats). He swore to us that Mexico will pay for his border wall, and almost everybody should know that, at the very least, Mexico won't be readily convinced. And it is a little surprising when you think about this: only now, in Trump's second year in office, are we making plans to build the wall he was rambling about since over a year before he was even sworn in as president.
Nevertheless, Trump was not saying things about the wall and "illegals" just to "feed his bases and get elected". It may have taken him a while, but he is serious about this wall, and that's why he shut down the government.
Trump made a very (rare) wise statement during one of his speeches. He said something along the lines of "Why do wealthy politicians build walls around their homes? Not because they hate the people on the outside, but because they love the people on the inside." Well said. America is our home and only trusted people should be allowed into our home. If you think walls are immoral, you should let anyone come into your house whenever they want. And this is where I feel Democrats let contradicting statements and hypocritic remarks gleam the most.
Still, I never said I liked Trump. Like most politicians, he's a dishonest and careless braggart/bully for the most part. And when I say "most politicians", I am talking about both Republicans and Democrats.
Phil also talks about how "Trump’s victory represented some sort of catastrophic failure for the polls,". Keep in mind, these are the same Democrats who, before the 2016 election, went on and on about how we need to admit the effects of the election no matter what. Yet when they found out that Trump won, it's like they threw their own philosophy into the fire. This is double-standards and bigotry in its true character.
Phil also mentions the Mueller investigations, which had to do partially with disclosed emails illegally sent by Hillary Clinton. And in that same paragraph, he mentions how many people believe that "Trump has committed crimes since he began running for president". Yes, Trump has done many things that, at least to me, are undeniably preposterous, but the Democrats are the ones defending Hillary Clinton after she sent those illegal emails. Yes, for the most part, I disagree with making private stuff public, yet these are illegal emails we're talking about. Illegal actions should be recognized, and doing this is no crime. It's like someone getting arrested for telling the police about a crime they saw.
Phil ends his column with the following line: "Are you listening, my Lord?". Since when did religion play a role in this?
A column like this doesn't personally upset me. Unlike some people, I understand that all people see things a little (or a lot) differently. Yet I still feel bad for the ones who make themselves look like fools by offering approaches that act like fundamental logic is nonexistent. These kinds of columns are everywhere, and some may think that I'm currently writing one myself. But I hold no one against them for publicizing their train of thought when it comes to these debatable matters in our torn-up nation. We can say whatever we want, but that doesn't mean everyone's going to agree with what we say, and I think we should all at least strive to realize that.
Questions & Answers
© 2019 Gerry Kramer