My thoughts on Trump's political objective now he has been elected
Note: I have had angry political and social cause types hurl abuse and insult my way because they cannot handle civil disagreement on any topic they hold dear. One of those simpering cowards even ran to FSTDT to make me look villainous because I disagreed with them politically instead of having the common courtesy to try to change my views with reason. The below is my personal views and I will not apologize for them in the slightest. I welcome any civil remarks, even those that disagree, and will respectfully acknowledge dissent so long as it's delivered as politely as I tried to phrase the below.
I've generally kept my mouth shut since Trump got elected because I wanted to see just what he had in mind exactly, and to be perfectly honest, I expected nigh all of his programs.
Here is an itemized list of what he implemented above, and while I'm not entirely sanguine on all of this because I think his ability to make a lot of it stick is dubious in some areas, I have a lot of friends who are on both sides of the political aisle, and while I'm taking a wait and see approach, this is my thoughts on what I've seen so far.
Immigration: I do think the platform is a tad hypocritical in some regards. Illegal immigration is bad, and from a legal perspective, I won't argue that. However, after seeing Elon Musk getting very salty about immigrants he considers valuable getting bad reception and silencing his critics on Twitter/X, now that leaves a foul taste in my mouth. As for genuinely illegal immigrants, I've always been a strong supporter of legal immigration and not a fan of the converse (but regardless of political opinions I've always held the rule of law should be upheld in that regard). I think yes, illegal immigration does need curbed, but at the same time, his approach comes off as using a cannon to swat flies.
Trade: I've always been a middle-of-the-road approach to this, mostly because I do think it's seriously stupid to use punitive measures like high tariffs like an idiot. Even William McKinley, a man Trump fanboys and who was known for his love of tariffs, even he agreed they had to adjusted for circumstances and should not be used as clubs, with many of McKinley's tariffs having "complementary" provisions included where it would be eased off on if the other side was willing to negotiate a fair arrangement. Protectionism is something I believe should be done carefully, and I worry Trump's policies, while unsurprising, are again him ignoring what his idol McKinley said was unwise, that is, using punitive tariffs as crude diplomatic clubs.
As for his free speech position, I've always been a supporter of that speech should be as legally unfettered as does not incite crime, but as seen on the immigration topic where Musk got butthurt, what is good for the goose should be good for the gander if he's serious, else it's hypocrisy.
Energy: Again, I have a middle-of-the-road approach, and to no one's shock, Trump wants to go full bore in reverse. Any green energy initiative that shows promise I don't believe should be penalized, and I do worry he's going to go too far to do just that. I do think some of them are a boondoggle and can cause more problems than they solve (wind farms can be dangerous to rare birds and become paperweights if not fueled by regular and consistent wind currents), but I'm not prepared to see every green energy initiative burnt to the ground because he deems them stupid.
Civil Rights: DEI getting axed I will shed no tears over. While I firmly support minorities not being discriminated against, I do think the bizarro world twin of it, that is, forcing equity over merit, and on the grounds of being a firm meritocracy fan, I think it dying is a good idea. On that, I just believe competence should be the highest thing that hiring should take in mind. To be fair, I do think that it should not be an excuse to just be the evil twin of DEI, as in, firing minorities just because they are minorities, and on those grounds, I do sympathize and would oppose that.
As for the whole civil rights of transgenderism, well, I've gone on record, and I will not apologize for this, that I personally don't believe transgenderism does what it claims, that is, turn a natal male or female into the other on a genetic level. At the same time, I am a live and let live type, and whatever someone personally does to be happy in their own skin is of no concern to me, they should be happy to be whatever they deem fit and I have no right to interfere. That said, I don't disagree with the idea of the idea of biological sex. On scientific grounds, it's unquestionable humans are, by overwhelming default, sexually dimorphic. Males and females have unarguable differences, as only natal males can produce motile sperm and only natal females can carry children from conception to birth. I also have gone on record, and again do not apologize for it, I do not personally believe in being nonbinary or whatever other made-up sex /gender term that goes beyond male and female. I consider them semantic word games and do not hold any personal stock in them as valid. I will politely accommodate those who do not force me to cater to them, and I even consider as friends a few people who know this and allow civil disagreement by honoring whatever language they wish for themselves without adverse comment.
With all that said, I personally lay the blame for the gender politics crowd getting such an adverse reaction at their own feet. They demanded people like me be a spineless simp for their whims and hurled abuse and called me a bigot if I refused, however politely I tried to do so. What happened to me is but a small example of the kind of emotional gaslighting they have tried to inflict on the American public. On those grounds, I have no sympathy for any further attempts. I was amenable to having my mind changed by reason long ago, but I consider that time long past at this point and thus whatever happens, I consider it a consequence of the parties I mentioned trying to gaslight me into believing men are women, biology does not matter, that the civil rights of natal women should make way for the feelings of those who were born men (and will die as such) claiming to be women, and from what I can tell, the few sane members of the transgender community who have been civil and respectful towards me and were civil in their disagreement are vastly outnumbered by those who demand capitulation or destruction if I didn't.
With that in mind, on that front, I will unreservedly give my approval of this being rolled back on the grounds of reality and my civil right to agree to disagree is vastly more important to me than the crowd who has hurled abuse at me for the most tepid dissent. I also have all sympathy for natal women who should not have to share bathrooms or rape shelters with men, no matter what they claim to be, and for reasons based on scientific knowledge of humanity as mammals and my personal religious beliefs, I will NEVER concede transgenderism as doing what it claims nor those who claim to be women when they are men or vice versa having any legitimate rights to tearing down the privacy or rights of those natally born male or female. There was a time I was quite accommodating because it did not personally bother me one way or the other, but that time is very long past. My sympathy is vastly overpowered by my disgust on this point, and on that, yes, the gender politics crowd must blame themselves.
A final caveat. If transgenderism ever does what it claims, and that is to change a natal male into a genuine woman on genetic and biological grounds and the converse for women, then it would have my unalloyed approval and acceptance because "transgenderism" would cease being a lie in and of itself as a concept. Until then, I fall firmly on the side of biological reality and reject any word games, hurled abuse, or pressure to pretend otherwise.
Federal workers and government: His program in that regard I generally approve of. I've always been a firm supporter of efficiency in government with trimming of all unnecessary expenses and ensuring federal employees are allowed to work so long as they do not maliciously not do their jobs properly because of political disagreement. The founders of the Constitution made clear in the document itself that they knew not all agreed with certain shifts in government, and many of them disagreed with each other, but none of them considered it lawful to punish the public just because they hated the direction of the government policy they were sworn to uphold.
Healthcare: On this, I'm a bit worried about some of the Medicare changes, I have family members on that service and hope this is implemented with tact and discretion and does not adversely affect them needlessly.
As to the withdrawal from the WHO, given their track record of late, I can't say I'm willing to defend them just because of their long pedigree and title.
Foreign policy: I have some reservations on this. I do agree AI is a tool that can be used for good or evil and don't entirely support all safeguards being taken out of watching it's development. I would, however, support reasonable regulations against doing things with AI programs that are obvious crimes, such as false impersonation (for clearly criminal ends, parody deserve protection for innocent purposes) and the making of realistic child pornography, those topics should be carefully guarded against.
As for the US-centric policy over foreign interests, well, that should be the default if you ask me. While citizens of the United States should never fall into the arrogance of assuming they are innately superior to all other nations (we are not, it is racist and ignorant to claim otherwise), we should never bind ourselves to foreign interests over our own. George Washington himself warned against that very thing, hence his aversion to any political alliances that would sacrifice our sovereignty.
Nationalism: First off, I admire President William McKinley myself, but I do think the Alaska renaming of Mount Denali back to McKinley is a tad petty. I'd be happy to leave that be.
The rest of it I have no strong opinions on either way.
Crime: On this topic, I am a firm supporter of the law, so long as it is administrated fairly and with the highest safeguards against abuse or tyranny. I do not believe the death penalty should be used capriciously, but at the same time, I do not oppose it as a lawful punishment, provided the crime is sufficiently heinous and it's undergirded by strict judicial review.
Other political stuff: Trump can pardon whoever he deems fit, the power of the pardon is an executive prerogative, and I don't believe he's any more hypocritical for his actions than Biden was for pardoning his entire family on the way out the door. As established by the Supreme Court, most famously codified by Nixon accepting a pardon, pardons are admissions of guilt and their acceptance is confirmation.
As to preventing domestic security agencies like the FBI and foreign ones like the CIA from having undue influence, I fully support that, they should, insofar as is possible, be politically neutral guardians of the American public, they should have no authority to censor lawful dissent nor manufacture false approval for any political side.
Conclusion: My only plans are to wait and see what happens. If his plans come to political naught or are seriously challenged, so be it. If not, I am also prepared to see that possibility and face it maturely.
This all said, I'm simply sitting here and watching to see how this goes. If there are those who oppose my stances, I fully support taking all lawful measures to challenge them, and prayers go with you on your success, lawful dissent with political changes is the right of everyone, even on the topics I strongly disagree with. As for me, I shall just sit here and see what happens and adapt as need be if so required in my daily life.
Finally, regardless what the future holds, I simply pray for the best possible result for all parties concerned, whatever that may turn out to be,
Comments
Post a Comment