MB wrote:I found Trump's inaugural speech extremely disturbing. His demagoguery on this occasion was a mix of fear mongering and stump speech material, with a profoundly nationalistic and violent streak that involved the terms "blood" "flag" and "total annihilation".
It sounds to me like you're bothered by strong leadership and patriotism. You'd rather have a weak leader. Weak and compliant — just as the special interest groups like our leaders to be. Any "leader" that does not wish to destroy the enemy — or refuses to acknowledge that he has any enemies — is a cuck, a weakling. He is unworthy leading a great nation.
The U.S. has had too many weak leaders. This is why the government was able to be overtaken by special interest groups in the first place. Cucks in the highest government offices — that's the underlying cause of so much political corruption in the U.S.
Weak leadership is why there have been so many wars in the last couple of decades. Weak leaders are the puppets of the special interest groups pushing for all of these wars.
Weakness is the problem. Strength and patriotism are the antidotes to political corruption.
let alone how he can, with a straight face, claim to be "returning American democracy to the people" when his cabinet is filled with hard-core Republicans and some of the richest people on the planet. The shocked faces of the people attending the rally seemed to convey a sense of sudden realization, that this man is in fact a ruthless demagogue, who will not mellow, who conned his way into the office with a massive voter deficit. Sanders, Hillary and Michelle Obama by far looked the most defeated, and Debbie Wasserman schultz looked as guilty as sin.
I am not bothered by people having billions of dollars in wealth so long as that wealth is contingent on the fulfillment of public duties. Wealthy people should contribute to society something of at least equal value as the amount of wealth in their possession.
If you're a billionaire, voluntarily transferring your wealth to the poor is definitely
one way that you could fulfill your responsibilities to the community. There are a lot of people in desperate need of financial aid because of the failure of government institutions to help them. While crackheads, degenerates, and illegal immigrants receive a tremendous amount of financial aid and government resources, actual poor people struggling with real poverty are neglected. So given the failure of government institutions to help the poor, I would be very happy if the billionaires in the world gave away all their money to those in need of it.
But giving your money away is only one way of fulfilling your public duties. Another way is to become the President of the United States and serve the country to the best of your ability; in fact, this is even better than giving away all your money, since you are in a position to produce a benefit that outweighs all of the wealth that you possess.
If Trump actually fulfills his promises (as outlined in his "100 Day Plan"), then he will have done
more for the American people than he could ever accomplish by giving away all of his money.
The same applies to any wealthy people he has appointed to high political offices. If they do their job right, they'll produce a real and material benefit to the country that exceeds their personal wealth.
Giving money to the poor is one way to give back to the community; leading the country and serving the people is another.