The idea that the President, as the image to the world from our country should represent, at the least represent, some agreed morals and values is apparently dead. Or are we just making an exception? If Barack Obama performed like Don did at his first press conference he would have been labeled the angry black man. If Ted Cruz would have done it he would have been the angry white male. But apparently we are making an exception for orange.
Don has said and done things that no other person from Mike Pence and Ted Cruz to Bernie Sanders, would be allowed to get away with. Be it not liking soldiers who get captured to banning religions to killing terrorists families. But Don gets an exception. We even have to break the law to confirm his Defense Secretary(who actually might be one of his better choices otherwise). We are making an exception for Don. Seems the only way he can even operate is with exceptions. That is why I call Donald J. Trump the EXCEPTIONal President.
5 comments:
Sloppy start, Ron.
"The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities are accountable under the law.... Everybody shows their taxes so we can see where and who your beneficial interests are? Nope, we are making an exception."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/03/want-your-presidential-candidates-to-release-their-taxes-theres-a-bill-for-that/?utm_term=.67c569d7d67d#comments
Thank you for your comment but, no I'm buying no more excuses.
No, you're implying or just frankly stating that an Trump not showing his tax is an exception to some law when no law exists. Surely you see the difficulty in following your train of thought when your foundational statement is completely without merit.
As John Pierce rightly states, there is no law that requires any candidate show tax returns. Basically, one person did it to appear more palatable to voters, and others eventually took up the practice. But it was never required and it isn't now, except by those who are fishing for something by which they can denigrate an opposing candidate.
One can also reasonably and honestly argue against the charge that Trump violates the "Emoluments Clause", a clause that must have been painful to bring about as a bludgeon against Trump. This article gives some insight as to why that charge is weak at best.
Then of course is the nepotism charge. Here, too, one is on shaky ground as the courts themselves have not necessarily supported the notion that the president is not exempted from any law covering the practice. Indeed, it's far more likely that a president is well within his rights to appoint most anyone to his staff or admin. I can recall one president who appointed his own brother for Attorney General.
Even the notion that his Defense Secretary broke any law is a stretch.
None of this constitutes excuses, except as excuses for further anti-Trump demagoguery. My position is that there were many legitimate reasons to oppose Trump (as I did during the primaries) few of which matter now that he is president. Whether or not those legitimate reasons will manifest in problems for the nation remains to be seen. But to expend such effort to go beyond those legitimate reasons instead of merely awaiting an actual misstep or mistake is an indictment of whomever expends such effort. There are qualities both good and bad that make Trump exceptional. There is no need to make crap up.
My apologies. My second paragraph above was supposed to contain this link.
Post a Comment