Now ideally this issue would be one that focused on improving the state of the country, and helped with actual issues. They may actually think that is the case. So what has their ONE issue been for a long time now?
Trump.
Now you may be thinking they have other issues, as they talk about a lot of other things. In reality, what they speak about is only done if they can imagine some way to attack Trump.
If it doesn't attack Trump it is not news.
The earliest I can currently remember is the infamous outrage over "Trump's Muslim Ban" which was actually bans of specific countries and did not include many predominantly Muslim countries. If it was truly a Muslim ban then those other countries would need to be blocked as well. It's actually a large religion so if it was truly a Muslim ban they would need to ban people from everywhere if their religion was Muslim. That isn't what occurred. It was actually a ban from countries that have produced terrorists who struck the U.S. That isn't the real issue though. Here is what they didn't seem to want to share. This was Obama's list. His administration already took action on this list before Trump was in control. So if it was a "Muslim Ban" then it was not appropriate to call it "Trump's Muslim Ban" since he didn't create that list.
This trend becomes normal. Blame Trump for things that preexist him. Make it outrageous that Trump is doing things that have been laws and in action since long before him.
A week or so ago it was "Children in Cages" and the media was circulating photos talking about how horrible it is. Then it turns out those photos were taken while Obama was president. Why no outrage? Simple. They don't actually care about the issues. They just care about attacking Trump. That is their one issue.
This weekend the Children Separated from families exploded. It was of course blamed on Trump. Yet, this too is procedure and Laws that existed LONG BEFORE TRUMP. So why now? Attack Trump. Blame him for things he didn't implement.
Now the Democrats allegedly have no interest in fixing this, they would rather focus on Trump. The GOP didn't seem to focused on it either. So now it is said Trump is going to address this with an executive order.
I suspect when he addresses their complaint they will find some way to attack that. It is a damned if he does, damned if he doesn't type of situation. They don't actually care about the issues, they only care about attacking Trump.
You see those laws were originally created to protect the children. So if Trump gives in and changes this by executive order, then when something bad happens to the children due to this they can blame him for giving them what they wanted. Yet the truth is they don't care about this. They only care about attacking Trump.
If they cared about these things why didn't they complain about them when they were implemented and in some cases for the decades these things were occurring? They didn't care, because Trump was not president.
That law was passed by Democrats in 2002.
Now I noted yesterday that the news keeps calling them IMMIGRANTS. They drop the word ILLEGAL. They are not legally immigrating here. They are committing a crime. Those that are LEGAL immigrants are not separated from their children.
So even though this is NOT Trump's bill, law, etc. he would NOT be separating children from immigrant families. Without the word ILLEGAL that concept is a lie. If you add the word ILLEGAL in or call them TRESPASSERS then it would be an accurate statement. That isn't what is being stated. Yet it wasn't Trump who created this policy. It was something Obama did as well. Not a peep of complaint heard about that.
These are not the only issues targeting Trump that were not created by Trump and that were being done prior to his Presidency without complaint. These are just the ones that come to mind at the moment due to current events.
So let's assume the Democrats get what they want?
Then what?
They don't appear to have any actual plans for the country and doing their job beyond attacking Trump.
The sad thing is that largely it is a losing battle.
If they wanted to sway people they should do their job, do it well, and lead by example. If they actually help people rather than hurt them then those actions would be pretty convincing.
They speak about helping people, but their actions do otherwise and people are tired of words that don't correspond to the outcome of their actions.
There is a saying something like "If you live in a glass house you shouldn't throw stones".
The only reason they have any effect at all is because so many people are too lazy to actually research these things. It is easier to let their favorite Democrat talking head tell them what they should think.
Not a very intelligent plan.
Curated for #informationwar (by @truthforce)
Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation and other false narratives. We currently have over 7,500 Steem Power and 20+ people following the curation trail to support our mission.
Join our discord and chat with 150+ fellow Informationwar Activists.
Connect with fellow Informationwar writers in our Roll Call! InformationWar - Contributing Writers/Supporters: Roll Call Pt 8
Ways you can help the @informationwar
The democrats also had no plan for the actual elections aside from having Hilary ride the "I'm a woman and I could be the first female president of the United States" and people just went with it.
Yep. I think they LIKED Trump at first, because they figured his brash style of speaking would scare some of those sitting on the fence into voting for her.
That blew up in their face didn't it?
EDIT: I didn't vote for Trump or Hillary. I would vote for him now though. When I didn't have a decent 3rd party choice I voted 50/50 Democrat and GOP. If I were to vote now it is doubtful I'd vote for a single Democrat.
I heard that Dr. Jil Stein was a decent candidate, but I am no expert. She couldn't have been as bad as either Trump or Hilary, though. 2018 was the year of third parties, but that vote was lost for america because of a lack of education when it comes to its own election system.
I didn't think Trump was a good candidate then(Though I knew far too much about Hillary. She is the most corrupt person to ever run for office as far as I was concerned. Want a woman in office? Elect a random one off the street and it would likely be better than Hillary). I do now. I considered Jill Stein, though I voted Libertarian. Since then I've seen stuff from Jill Stein that makes her not so good.
The thing about Trump is he had never been a politician. There was nothing to judge him by in that regard. So he was brash (didn't bother me) and it was unknown if he'd do what he says, or do what normally happens say one thing, do another.
Like I said. I'd vote for him now. I haven't agreed with everything he has done (my issues have been primarily with regards to Syria), but I think he has done a lot of good things and he has done this while he has been under nonstop unprecedented attack. That is VERY impressive.
I don't agree with him completely. I don't agree with ANYONE completely.
Yet I do think his actions are showing he cares, and the big issue is those that have been able to act puppet master to the past presidents can't get their strings to attach to his limbs.
I also said that Trump is the lesser evil between Trump and Hilary around the time of the elections and was.....well, "glad" would be a tall word here to describe how I felt when I saw that he won.
Felt like I dodged having my knee being pierced by a serrated arrow only to have it being pierced by a non-serrated one.
Regarding good intentions, I heard that the road to hell is paved with them, so I take everything that implies that anyone or anything has or had the best intentions with a grain of salt.
That being said, Bernie Sanders was Americas guy. Not the steemit sanders, the other one. Heard a lot of good things about him and can't see why they would promote Hilary over hi......oh yeah, that woman thing.
He would have likely won.
Yet it would be a bad thing. He is a moron.
He promises all kinds of FREE THINGS which is why he would win.
The government cannot give you free anything.
Someone pays.
The government does not produce anything but laws, waste, and wars.
So to pay for these "Free" promises they have two mechanisms:
So this "FREE" stuff you end up getting FORCED to pay for via taxes or debt. It is worse though because, when they do it this way you pay for it even if it is not something you needed.
Socialism does not work. Unless your goal is to make life worse in the long run for people and collapse the country. It is really good at that.
EDIT: The top three wealthiest people in the U.S. are Socialists. Combined they are worth close to a quarter of a trillion dollars. They are all known for screwing people over. ;) They are Democrats too. They support forced redistribution of citizens income, and assets because they have positioned themselves to likely be the recipients of that redistribution. Socialism leads to ultimate forms of monopoly. Government forced monopoly.
People thought that being paid for voting on content would never be a thing, yet here we are.
There is a possibility that Bernie really would have ended up being a terrible president. But I think that the odds of him not being as questionable as either Trump or Hilary would have been fairly good.
Regarding money and finances, they are man made concepts, so it can take manmade power to shift the importance of those around in the favor of many.
Great post! This is all about their effort to oust Trump. There is no other strategy!
Check out my post from this morning regarding their playbook:
https://steemit.com/informationwar/@joelfriedman68/democrats-and-msm-go-back-to-their-playbook-701b06cf6cdc2
I did check it out. It made it into the @newsagg headlines. I was planning on writing this post, when I saw your post as I put together the @newsagg I thought it was interesting that you and I seemed to be having similar thoughts today.
Commies. They are always looking for more slaves. Thats why they want open borders.
I hope theTed Cruz plan happens but I know it will be voted out by the Democrats.