Skip to main content

Further Thoughts on the Con Man in the White House


Further Thoughts on the Con Man in the White House


       Honest people are generally consistent.  If you are dishonest, there are a couple of ways to operate.  Either you remember all of your lies and work to sound as consistent as possible, or you take several positions on everything: when confronted, you quote whichever position clears you.  As an example, you can advocate relaxing mitigation policies to slow the spread of covid-19, tweeting to your followers to liberate particular states, then hours later claim that you are against Georgia's relaxation policy.  An added bonus is that if things go well in Georgia, you can take credit for encouraging the "liberation";  if things go badly, you can blame the governor.  Con men never stop conning.
     Similarly, you can repeat that you closed the borders to China as a defense against failing to do anything else.  (Note: even with the Chinese ban, thousands of Chinese still came to the U.S.; meanwhile, the virus was already here via Europe.)
      Interestingly, Trump has been consistent on some issues, and he's probably being honest about those.
His policies on banning immigration and asylum, although draconian, have been consistent.  Likewise, he claims to support the environment, Social Security, and health care, while quietly and consistently trying to dismantle them.  In these areas, his rhetoric and actions, while each is consistent, are entirely opposed.
     I suspect that from the beginning, Trump has recognized that covid-19 testing and tracing would produce data that exposes his complete lack of preparedness and the incompetence of his administration.  So, he continues to claim relentlessly that the U.S. leads the world in testing, while simultaneously doing everything he can to hinder testing (his press secretary says that testing the entire population is "nonsensical").  Meanwhile, he claims that the $25 billion designated for testing was a "concession" to Democrats.  He'll argue that it's the Democrats' fault if testing is inadequate, but take credit for signing the bill any time testing is helpful.  
     But we all know that talk is cheap, don't we (don't we)?  If only people would pay attention to things like what Trump has proposed in his budgets, rather than listening to what he says, the con could end.  There can be many interpretions of data, but sometimes the data is overwhelmingly illuminating.  For example, consider that the U.S. and South Korea both had their first deaths from covid-19 on the same day.  As of April 23rd, the death count in South Korea was 238.  Trump's death count: over 46,000, and as of this writing on May 8th, Trump's count is around 79,000 and expected to reach 165,000 at a minimum by the end of August. 
     Con men don't like facts, except, of course, "alternate facts".  I'm reminded of Lincoln, to whom Trump loves to compare himself.  You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool a virus.

- PeteBarkett.blogspot.com
  05/08/20  
    

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

 Bannon Up! This analogy is far from perfect, but it represents to me a futile mindset.   A sacrifice bunt in baseball involves giving up an out to advance a runner into a better position to score a run.   Occasionally, a pitcher tries so hard to throw pitches that are difficult to bunt, that he ends up walking the batter, which moves the lead runner into scoring position, gets no out, and puts another runner on base.   I’ve heard former coaches and players announcing games cry, “He’s trying to make an out.   Let him!”   I believe Steve Bannon wants to go to prison, to make himself a martyr and hero to the right-wing nuts who support him.   I say, let him.   I’ve heard some pundits worry that convicting him would further infuriate the right-wing nuts.   I think it’s time to abandon that type of thinking.   We have seen time after time that making concessions to appease these people is completely unproductive.   They see conces...

Musings

  Right-To-Lifers Don’t Go Far Enough       I was pro-choice, but I’ve changed my mind.   The problem is not that the State should govern what a woman does with her body, the problem is that the State has not gone far enough.   The argument is that to protect the life of a fetus, the State must overrule a woman’s privacy and bodily autonomy and regulate her body for her.   Fine.   If we want the State to be in the business of protecting life through bodily regulation, then go all in.   Stick to the prime directive.   Protect all life.   The State should govern both men and women to protect life.   The State should tell any healthy person what to do with their body in order to protect life.   So, if someone needs a kidney, liver, or any organ transplant to save their life, the State should find someone and take whatever parts are needed to save that life.   If not, then we are allowing organ-icide.   (...
Inspired by "Is religion a force for good in the world?" - the debates with Christopher Hitchens Let's compare general religious tenets with general humanistic tenets: I assert that to be a good humanist you must follow the rules.   To be a good religious person you must break the rules. Religious:                                             Humanistic: love thy neighbor                                   love thy neighbor do good works                                       do good works live according to the scriptures              live according to what can be drawn from evidence (science) try to follow the dictates of god       ...