Attention Liberals: Trump Is Not Your Enemy

No democratic leader in modern times has faced the level of vitriol, anger and hatred that has been directed at Donald Trump since he was elected President of the United States last November. Protestors have taken to the streets to demonstrate their opposition to his agenda, and in the two short weeks since he was sworn into office there has been no let up; indeed, public anger has only intensified with every decision made by the 45th President. There are many reasons to be upset and angry at the current state of US politics, but the demonisation of President Trump demonstrates a serious double-standard prevalent amongst those on the left.

That isn’t to say that we should be afraid of holding the President to account or exposing his many flaws. After all, this is a man who is publicly racist and privately misogynistic, a bullying egomaniac who lies on a daily basis and is completely unfit for public office. During last year’s election campaign I criticised those in the media and the political establishment who refused to call him out for the racist that he is, and since entering the White House he has proven time and time again that he is either unwilling or unable to pivot towards a more presidential persona. His conduct has been erratic and inappropriate – just today, he used a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast to boast about the ratings he received as host of The Apprentice – whilst his early policies have been extreme and badly thought-out. Surely this is a man who deserves our scorn and vitriol?

In theory there is nothing wrong with protesting against Donald Trump; on the contrary, it is in many regards a totally rational and reasonable response to a grossly inept President. The problem lies in the way in which the protests have been carried out, and for what reason. After all, the first demonstrations occurred just hours after he legitimately won a free and fair election, before he even had a chance to introduce any of the malignant promises made on the campaign trail. Now, the protests are couched in the language of policy, of opposition to the measures being introduced by President Trump, but the reality is that the objectives are still the same; for many of the people taking to the streets, the problem lies not with Trump’s agenda, but with Trump himself. It therefore doesn’t really matter what the President chooses to do, as the protests will carry on regardless.

Nowhere was this more obvious than in Trump’s decision to nominate Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. It has been almost a year since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, and liberals are rightly angry that Republicans in the Senate refused to consider Barack Obama’s nominee for the empty seat, Merrick Garland. The argument that justices should not be appointed in an election year was not only constitutionally invalid, but it also lacked any historical precedent, and it is a travesty that Judge Garland was not even dignified with a confirmation hearing. However, too many on the left are converting that legitimate anger into illegitimate action by fighting fire with fire and lashing out against Trump’s nominee.

Protesters descended on Washington on the night of the Gorsuch announcement armed with ‘fill-in-the-blank’ placards so that they could add the name of whoever Trump nominated, proving that even the most moderate appointment would have attracted the ire of the demonstrators, tainted by their association with the President. Sadly, this attitude was not confined to those on the streets, as Senate Democrats indicated that they would use every trick in the book to block Gorsuch’s nomination. Yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced that he would insist on Gorsuch needing 60 votes in order to be confirmed, suggesting that the judge was insufficiently ‘mainstream’ to attract bipartisan support, despite the fact that Gorsuch was confirmed unanimously when nominated to the US Court of Appeals by George W Bush in 2006. Indeed, one of the Democrats who voted to confirm Gorsuch back then was none other than Chuck Schumer himself, as well as the current Minority Whip Dick Durbin. Therefore, any threats to oppose the same man they backed just a few years ago smack of cynical opportunism.

By opposing Donald Trump at every turn no matter what, the liberal left opens itself up to the same charges of obstructionism that were leveled against Republicans during the Obama years. Likewise, by building the President up as some kind of evil, illiberal bogeyman, we risk over-exaggerating the threat he poses to the very fabric of Western democracy. Admittedly, his race-baiting rhetoric should cause concern, and the temporary travel ban introduced last week was heavy-handed and poorly executed. Nevertheless, demonstrators conveniently forget that the list of countries whose citizens are now banned from entering the United States was originally drawn up by President Obama. Yes, it is bizarre that Saudi Arabia is not included despite having produced the perpetrators of 9/11, but Trump cannot be blamed for this. Likewise, Trump is not the first President to introduce a temporary travel ban; in 2011, Obama paused the processing of Iraqi refugees for six months after being presented with intelligence suggesting that terrorists were infiltrating the refugee programme. Trump’s ban may have been broader and introduced in a chaotic manner, but it was not completely without precedent.

Likewise, one does not have to be a supporter of either Trump or the travel ban to recognise that the measure was far from being a ‘Muslim ban’ as many in the media have labeled it. By making such false assertions, critics of the President find themselves bending the truth to suit their own agenda in exactly the same way as Trump; we cannot expose this post-truth President by stooping to his level. We must also be clear that whilst we may not like Donald Trump or his agenda, we must retain our sense of perspective. In Britain, an online petitioncalling for the cancellation of Trump’s upcoming state visit has received almost two million signatures, yet such demands overlook the host of unsavoury dignitaries that have been hosted by the Queen over the years. Few people condemned David Cameron for welcoming Chinese President Xi Jinping to Britain in 2015 despite China’s appalling human rights record; indeed, the two men even drank beer together during a chummy photo op in a village pub. Are we really meant to believe that President Trump is more of a threat to liberal values than an authoritarian Communist who imprisons, tortures and executes dissenters?

In the context of modern America, Donald Trump is an alarmingly different kind of President, one whose words and actions are a cause for legitimate concern. However, he deserves to be given a chance, and opposition for the sake of opposition will only ramp up the destructive partisanship that has dominated Washington in recent years. His first two weeks in the White House have been marked by policy blunders and bizarre behaviour, and one suspects that this will be the norm for the entirety of his presidency, but that doesn’t mean that he won’t sometimes get it right. After all, the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court was a shrewd pick, whilst his extension of federal protections for LGBT workers has gone largely unnoticed despite breaking with decades of Republican policy. President Trump may be a thin-skinned, lying xenophobe, but he is not an existential threat to Western values, and demonising him will only serve to embolden the very same forces that swept him to power in the first place.

George Reeves

George Reeves

Conservative Party member and activist, former Vice President of Birmingham University Conservative Future. Believer in free markets, free nations and free people. Proud Brexiteer and opponent of elitism, socialism and all forms of prejudice. Blog mainly on British and American politics. Find me on Twitter @georgereeves94

You May Also Like

4 thoughts on “Attention Liberals: Trump Is Not Your Enemy

  1. Dear George, I find your article needs some fact checking so I’m going to go through it statement by statement. 1) “No democratic leader in modern times has faced the level of vitriol, anger and hatred that has been directed at Donald Trump since he was elected President of the United States last November.”
    Nice of you to directly quote Trump here, didn’t know that he needed another person to act as his political mouthpiece. First of all I am going to assume that by “Modern Times” you mean post 1945, although a conceivable definition of modern would allow me to use any leader since the end of the Renaissance. While it is not easy to objectively measure “hatred and vitriol” I think virtually anyone would agree that Nelson Mandela probably faced more hatred than Mr Trump could even conceive of. Then there is Thatcher who was so hated that the song “Ding Dong! The Witch is Dead” got to number 2 in the charts when she died. Then there are multiple options available in the US, Obama received a palpable amount of racist sentiment, not to mention the birther movement and many claims that he was a muslim. Ted Cruz is so hated that even members of his own party have said he could be shot in a full senate session and no one would care. Hilary Clinton is so viciously hated that she managed to loose an election to a sentient Fanta can who can’t stop himself from assaulting women. Bill Clinton was so hated he had to resign, same for Nixon. Not to mention the slew of presidents who have been shot at and assassinated. So really, the fact that we pay attention to the bile and hatred that spews from Trump’s mouth and call him on it is less hatred, than it is a sign that we do not agree with the policies and ideas he represents. I don’t hate Trump, nor does the media, we just don’t think that an incompetent man who lacks experience should be able to lie to the American public without having someone point out that he is wrong. Maybe if he were correct more often then he and his supporters wouldn’t have to complain that the media is “mean” to him.

    2) “There are many reasons to be upset and angry at the current state of US politics, but the demonisation of President Trump demonstrates a serious double-standard prevalent amongst those on the left.”

    First of all, what demonisation, all any one is doing is pointing out the truly abhorrent bits of policy and ridiculous statements he has come out with. No one is trying to dissemble or change what he said, mainly because you couldn’t make up half the asinine crap that comes out of his mouth. No one is demonising him, they are just talking about what he is doing and are pretty pissed at how stupid it is. No one is making things up to make him appear threatening, he is threatening without any help from others. Maybe stop blaming the media or the left for the fact that the president is an idiot. Secondly, receiving a lecture on double standards from the right is down right irritating. I don’t know who invented hypocrisy, but I can be fairly certain they were a right-wing blow hard looking to deflect blame for their inadequacies onto somebody else. Also, what double standard specifically? The standard that people on the left generally don’t like rich billionaires giving themselves tax cuts, ruling through nepotism and cronyism and just generally not caring for any interests but their own? If anything that is ideological consistency. Don’t get me wrong, the left are morons in a lot of ways but at this point they aren’t morons who you can blame.

    3) “After all, this is a man who is publicly racist and privately misogynistic, a bullying egomaniac who lies on a daily basis and is completely unfit for public office.”

    I find your use of language here questionable, specifically the idea of “publically” and “privately”. A misogynist is a misogynist, I really don’t care whether he saves his misogyny up for when no one is looking, it is still unacceptable. Same goes for being a racist or anything else.

    4) “During last year’s election campaign I criticised those in the media and the political establishment who refused to call him out for the racist that he is, and since entering the White House he has proven time and time again that he is either unwilling or unable to pivot towards a more presidential persona. ”

    Yeah, I only skimmed your article but I agree, the GOP are hypocrites (see that right wing double standard I was talking about earlier). But one thing you’ve missed out here is that the “left wing media” you were railing against earlier for “demonising Trump” actually did call him out for being racist. Or is it only demonisation when the left does it and truth when the right does it? (This double standard thing really is tricky). This whole “presidential persona” bullshit is really starting to irritate me. He is the president, he is now the definition of presidential and the concept that he was just suddenly going to become anything different is ridiculous. Also, what the hell does a “presidential persona” even mean? It is such a useless buzzword designed to be just vague enough to mean exactly what the person who hears it wants it to mean, and as such is a pointless descriptor.

    5) “His conduct has been erratic and inappropriate – just today, he used a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast to boast about the ratings he received as host of The Apprentice – whilst his early policies have been extreme and badly thought-out. Surely this is a man who deserves our scorn and vitriol?”

    We got this from the “bullying egomaniac” bit from earlier, but kudos on the current affairs knowledge and patronising rhetorical question to show us you’re being “unpartisan” (PS. we know you aren’t, I read your blog sometimes.)

    6) “In theory there is nothing wrong with protesting against Donald Trump; on the contrary, it is in many regards a totally rational and reasonable response to a grossly inept President. The problem lies in the way in which the protests have been carried out, and for what reason. After all, the first demonstrations occurred just hours after he legitimately won a free and fair election, before he even had a chance to introduce any of the malignant promises made on the campaign trail. Now, the protests are couched in the language of policy, of opposition to the measures being introduced by President Trump, but the reality is that the objectives are still the same; for many of the people taking to the streets, the problem lies not with Trump’s agenda, but with Trump himself. It therefore doesn’t really matter what the President chooses to do, as the protests will carry on regardless.”

    This is a very typical right wing idea, the “You have free speech, now be glad about it a shut up” response. Both “in theory” and in practice there is nothing wrong with peaceful protest, for any reason, by any means. If people feel they have a genuine grievance they should protest. The massive numbers of people protesting Trump were protesting the fact that he “legitimately won” an election in which he lost the popular vote. Now I am aware your response will be that “that’s how the system works”, but the fact that a candidate is in office who the majority of people voted against is more than a genuine grievance. Nearly 66 million people voted for Hilary (3 million more than Trump), and those people may rightly have felt that there involvement in a democratic exercise was ignored. The system ignored them and sought to maintain itself. So tell me, what do you do when democracy fails you? Protest. What were they protesting? The fact that a man whose policies and ideas, as well as whose person they vehemently disagreed with won the highest office in the land on a technicality. Do they dislike Trump? Yes. Why? Because of the horrendous policies he has, one is connected with the other. Back when he was a democrat in 2008 did mind him, because his policies weren’t as abhorrent. (See how annoying these patronising rhetorical questions can be yet? Oops, I did it again.)

    7. “However, too many on the left are converting that legitimate anger into illegitimate action by fighting fire with fire and lashing out against Trump’s nominee.”

    But see, you’re comparing apples with oranges here. Obama’s nominee was a man who was well liked by both parties. Both Republicans and Democrats agreed that he fell right down the middle and was an ideal compromise candidate. Not confirming him was an illegitimate act by the right, as you have said and I agree. Trump’s nominee is quite different. He is very clearly not someone the Democrats would want on the court. He will be there for a long time, he is not moderate and he has very controversial views. As such, the Democrats protesting his nomination is a legitimate action as they have legitimate concerns over the damage he could do to their concept of the good of the country.

    8) “Sadly, this attitude was not confined to those on the streets, as Senate Democrats indicated that they would use every trick in the book to block Gorsuch’s nomination. Yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced that he would insist on Gorsuch needing 60 votes in order to be confirmed, suggesting that the judge was insufficiently ‘mainstream’ to attract bipartisan support, despite the fact that Gorsuch was confirmed unanimously when nominated to the US Court of Appeals by George W Bush in 2006.”

    In reference to what I have said above, this is hardly a reprehensible action. The Democrats believe Gorsuch will cause harm to their country and wanted to try to prevent his nomination in hope of getting a more moderate nominee, just as the Republicans would have done had Obama suggested a very liberal or progressive nominee. There is nothing wrong with this, the reason those powers exist is to prevent candidates who are sufficiently outside of the mainstream political ideology of the country from creating its laws. The only reason it irritates you is because you agree with Gorsuch’s views or appointment, but politically and morally the action of the Democrats to try to block his nomination is sound. A court which all believes the same thing, or that is weighted towards one side politically, will just lead to increasingly radical legislation which falls outside of the will of the people and only serves to satiate the political class.

    9) “By opposing Donald Trump at every turn no matter what, the liberal left opens itself up to the same charges of obstructionism that were leveled against Republicans during the Obama years. Likewise, by building the President up as some kind of evil, illiberal bogeyman, we risk over-exaggerating the threat he poses to the very fabric of Western democracy.”

    Again, no one is building him up into being anything, they are just quoting him and following his tweets. His policies make him terrifying enough without needing to add anything else. On the other hand, you saying that his race rhetoric and poorly executed policy is just something to be mildly concerned about is awful. You make it sound like these sorts of ideas are just a mild inconvenience when what the president says and how he implements policy is the bare bones of what a president does. Not being good at that is the definition of being a bad president. If anything, you’re aiding the class of people under-exaggerating how awful he is.

    10) “Admittedly, his race-baiting rhetoric should cause concern, and the temporary travel ban introduced last week was heavy-handed and poorly executed.”

    Firstly, call it what it is, a Muslim ban. That is what the president himself has called it, multiple times. All your trying to do is make it more politically palatable and stop it sounding like Trump is specifically targetting legislation against a religious group… which is exactly what he is doing. Again, right wing double standard, every year they create jumped up stories about the “war against Christianity” and how they are trying to “destroy Christmas”, but when there is a specific policy designed at targeting a religious group you don’t care, because it isn’t your religion and you can ignore it. Also, “heavy-handed” is an understatement, it was a cluster fuck of epic proportions. They didn’t even give the relevant authorities the heads up that they were going to implement it. As for his “race-baiting rhetoric” (by the by, you use a lot of dashes in the middle of words when I think they are unnecessary, but I’m not an expert on grammar so I could be wrong), as of now Trump has said inflammatory things about Women, Hispanics, Muslims, Black people and Jews. Add in all the things his direct staff and advisors have said about homosexuals, women who get abortions, non-christians generally and so on and so forth. By my estimation the only group who he dains to represent are white, heterosexual men. So, being such yourself, your lackadaisical attitude towards his racism is somewhat understandable as it doesn’t really effect you, nor have you or I any idea of what that sentiments feels like to live with. But, as of 2010, 12.6% of Americans are black, 0.9% are native American, 16.3% are Hispanic or Latino. Add that up and around a third of the country have been insulted by Trump on race basis alone. Add in half the population of the country who are women, which Trump has no respect for. Then about 4 million adults who are homosexual. What we find is that Trump’s rhetoric on race is much more than a simple “cause for concern” among the majority of Americans, especially considering the number of questionable people he has working under him who are quite clearly white supremacists such as Sebastian L v. Gorka, Steve Bannon, Jeff Sessions, Mike Pompeo and so on. This alone would be a legitimate reason to protest his presidency and for many Americans is the single most important issue.

    11) “Nevertheless, demonstrators conveniently forget that the list of countries whose citizens are now banned from entering the United States was originally drawn up by President Obama. Yes, it is bizarre that Saudi Arabia is not included despite having produced the perpetrators of 9/11, but Trump cannot be blamed for this. Likewise, Trump is not the first President to introduce a temporary travel ban; in 2011, Obama paused the processing of Iraqi refugees for six months after being presented with intelligence suggesting that terrorists were infiltrating the refugee programme. Trump’s ban may have been broader and introduced in a chaotic manner, but it was not completely without precedent.”

    As for the previous travel bans, all previous bans have been the result of direct action from a specific country against the US, such as Jimmy Carter blocking travel from Iran. They were not blanket bans from countries that have never attacked the US. Obama’s “ban” in 2011 was not a ban. Over a six month period their was a slow down of Iraqi refugees and greater vetting, not a complete stop, due to a specific terrorist threat in Kentucky involving Iraqi bomb makers. This ban was not directed at a specific religious group, unlike Trumps ban which during the campaign and his presidency he has explicitly stated is to prevent Muslims from coming into the country and he explicitly calls it a “Muslim ban” and stated that he aims to exclude Muslims and would be open to accepting Christians only. The countries which weren’t banned just so happen to be countries in which Trump has businesses.

    12. “Likewise, one does not have to be a supporter of either Trump or the travel ban to recognise that the measure was far from being a ‘Muslim ban’ as many in the media have labelled it. By making such false assertions, critics of the President find themselves bending the truth to suit their own agenda in exactly the same way as Trump; we cannot expose this post-truth President by stooping to his level.”

    I’ve already talked about this, but now you’re bending the truth. Interview after interview, rally after rally, tweet after tweet, Trump called it a Muslim ban and explicitly stated that it was designed to keep Muslims out of America. The level of irony of you telling people not to “bend the truth to suit their own agenda” is literally ridiculous. I can’t tell whether you are making an effort to spread misinformation or just misinformed but you really shouldn’t right articles with such easily fact checked nonsense. Add in them painfully superior tone and it really is a slam dunk for liberals like me to call you on your shit.

    There is almost certainly stuff I missed here, quite frankly I don’t want to read anymore. The truth is George, what you write has the exact same blind loyalty to a party and an ideology as what you criticise the leftist media of having. You’re right, the media is anti-Trump, no doubt, but you minimalise the fact that they have solid reasons for being against him. He is a scary figure in politics, if for no other reason than the fact that he is incompetent and easily lead. Both dangerous qualities for the most powerful man in the world surrounded by vicious white supremacist sharks. I’m not saying those are the only reasons, but they are bad enough. You are doing exactly what other media organisations do and glazing over the truly awful things, or even worse propagating misinformation (either knowingly or not) and half truths. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed reading my analysis, I’m sure you’ll disagree with it, but its always good to hear the other sides perspective. (PS. Your title looks like click bait for the Daily Mail)

  2. Oh, and one more thing, your writing style comes off a little pompous and know it all. Don’t get me wrong, you write well and your intelligent, but you’re hardly the only one in the world to have had this idea or written this article. Nor is your logic and better or more flawless than someone who would write the reverse. It just reads like an exercise in self-gratification and all in all is a little jarring to read. I’m not trying to be rude, just my two cents if you’re interested.

  3. Dear George, I find your article needs some fact checking so I’m going to go through it statement by statement. 1) “No democratic leader in modern times has faced the level of vitriol, anger and hatred that has been directed at Donald Trump since he was elected President of the United States last November.”
    Nice of you to directly quote Trump here, didn’t know that he needed another person to act as his political mouthpiece. First of all I am going to assume that by “Modern Times” you mean post 1945, although a conceivable definition of modern would allow me to use any leader since the end of the Renaissance. While it is not easy to objectively measure “hatred and vitriol” I think virtually anyone would agree that Nelson Mandela probably faced more hatred than Mr Trump could even conceive of. Then there is Thatcher who was so hated that the song “Ding Dong! The Witch is Dead” got to number 2 in the charts when she died. Then there are multiple options available in the US, Obama received a palpable amount of racist sentiment, not to mention the birther movement and many claims that he was a muslim. Ted Cruz is so hated that even members of his own party have said he could be shot in a full senate session and no one would care. Hilary Clinton is so viciously hated that she managed to loose an election to a sentient Fanta can who can’t stop himself from assaulting women. Bill Clinton was so hated he had to resign, same for Nixon. Not to mention the slew of presidents who have been shot at and assassinated. So really, the fact that we pay attention to the bile and hatred that spews from Trump’s mouth and call him on it is less hatred, than it is a sign that we do not agree with the policies and ideas he represents. I don’t hate Trump, nor does the media, we just don’t think that an incompetent man who lacks experience should be able to lie to the American public without having someone point out that he is wrong. Maybe if he were correct more often then he and his supporters wouldn’t have to complain that the media is “mean” to him.

    2) “There are many reasons to be upset and angry at the current state of US politics, but the demonisation of President Trump demonstrates a serious double-standard prevalent amongst those on the left.”

    First of all, what demonisation, all any one is doing is pointing out the truly abhorrent bits of policy and ridiculous statements he has come out with. No one is trying to dissemble or change what he said, mainly because you couldn’t make up half the asinine crap that comes out of his mouth. No one is demonising him, they are just talking about what he is doing and are pretty pissed at how stupid it is. No one is making things up to make him appear threatening, he is threatening without any help from others. Maybe stop blaming the media or the left for the fact that the president is an idiot. Secondly, receiving a lecture on double standards from the right is down right irritating. I don’t know who invented hypocrisy, but I can be fairly certain they were a right-wing blow hard looking to deflect blame for their inadequacies onto somebody else. Also, what double standard specifically? The standard that people on the left generally don’t like rich billionaires giving themselves tax cuts, ruling through nepotism and cronyism and just generally not caring for any interests but their own? If anything that is ideological consistency. Don’t get me wrong, the left are morons in a lot of ways but at this point they aren’t morons who you can blame.

    3) “After all, this is a man who is publicly racist and privately misogynistic, a bullying egomaniac who lies on a daily basis and is completely unfit for public office.”

    I find your use of language here questionable, specifically the idea of “publically” and “privately”. A misogynist is a misogynist, I really don’t care whether he saves his misogyny up for when no one is looking, it is still unacceptable. Same goes for being a racist or anything else.

    4) “During last year’s election campaign I criticised those in the media and the political establishment who refused to call him out for the racist that he is, and since entering the White House he has proven time and time again that he is either unwilling or unable to pivot towards a more presidential persona. ”

    Yeah, I only skimmed your article but I agree, the GOP are hypocrites (see that right wing double standard I was talking about earlier). But one thing you’ve missed out here is that the “left wing media” you were railing against earlier for “demonising Trump” actually did call him out for being racist. Or is it only demonisation when the left does it and truth when the right does it? (This double standard thing really is tricky). This whole “presidential persona” bullshit is really starting to irritate me. He is the president, he is now the definition of presidential and the concept that he was just suddenly going to become anything different is ridiculous. Also, what the hell does a “presidential persona” even mean? It is such a useless buzzword designed to be just vague enough to mean exactly what the person who hears it wants it to mean, and as such is a pointless descriptor.

    5) “His conduct has been erratic and inappropriate – just today, he used a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast to boast about the ratings he received as host of The Apprentice – whilst his early policies have been extreme and badly thought-out. Surely this is a man who deserves our scorn and vitriol?”

    We got this from the “bullying egomaniac” bit from earlier, but kudos on the current affairs knowledge and patronising rhetorical question to show us you’re being “unpartisan” (PS. we know you aren’t, I read your blog sometimes.)

    6) “In theory there is nothing wrong with protesting against Donald Trump; on the contrary, it is in many regards a totally rational and reasonable response to a grossly inept President. The problem lies in the way in which the protests have been carried out, and for what reason. After all, the first demonstrations occurred just hours after he legitimately won a free and fair election, before he even had a chance to introduce any of the malignant promises made on the campaign trail. Now, the protests are couched in the language of policy, of opposition to the measures being introduced by President Trump, but the reality is that the objectives are still the same; for many of the people taking to the streets, the problem lies not with Trump’s agenda, but with Trump himself. It therefore doesn’t really matter what the President chooses to do, as the protests will carry on regardless.”

    This is a very typical right wing idea, the “You have free speech, now be glad about it a shut up” response. Both “in theory” and in practice there is nothing wrong with peaceful protest, for any reason, by any means. If people feel they have a genuine grievance they should protest. The massive numbers of people protesting Trump were protesting the fact that he “legitimately won” an election in which he lost the popular vote. Now I am aware your response will be that “that’s how the system works”, but the fact that a candidate is in office who the majority of people voted against is more than a genuine grievance. Nearly 66 million people voted for Hilary (3 million more than Trump), and those people may rightly have felt that there involvement in a democratic exercise was ignored. The system ignored them and sought to maintain itself. So tell me, what do you do when democracy fails you? Protest. What were they protesting? The fact that a man whose policies and ideas, as well as whose person they vehemently disagreed with won the highest office in the land on a technicality. Do they dislike Trump? Yes. Why? Because of the horrendous policies he has, one is connected with the other. Back when he was a democrat in 2008 did mind him, because his policies weren’t as abhorrent. (See how annoying these patronising rhetorical questions can be yet? Oops, I did it again.)

    7. “However, too many on the left are converting that legitimate anger into illegitimate action by fighting fire with fire and lashing out against Trump’s nominee.”

    But see, you’re comparing apples with oranges here. Obama’s nominee was a man who was well liked by both parties. Both Republicans and Democrats agreed that he fell right down the middle and was an ideal compromise candidate. Not confirming him was an illegitimate act by the right, as you have said and I agree. Trump’s nominee is quite different. He is very clearly not someone the Democrats would want on the court. He will be there for a long time, he is not moderate and he has very controversial views. As such, the Democrats protesting his nomination is a legitimate action as they have legitimate concerns over the damage he could do to their concept of the good of the country.

    8) “Sadly, this attitude was not confined to those on the streets, as Senate Democrats indicated that they would use every trick in the book to block Gorsuch’s nomination. Yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced that he would insist on Gorsuch needing 60 votes in order to be confirmed, suggesting that the judge was insufficiently ‘mainstream’ to attract bipartisan support, despite the fact that Gorsuch was confirmed unanimously when nominated to the US Court of Appeals by George W Bush in 2006.”

    In reference to what I have said above, this is hardly a reprehensible action. The Democrats believe Gorsuch will cause harm to their country and wanted to try to prevent his nomination in hope of getting a more moderate nominee, just as the Republicans would have done had Obama suggested a very liberal or progressive nominee. There is nothing wrong with this, the reason those powers exist is to prevent candidates who are sufficiently outside of the mainstream political ideology of the country from creating its laws. The only reason it irritates you is because you agree with Gorsuch’s views or appointment, but politically and morally the action of the Democrats to try to block his nomination is sound. A court which all believes the same thing, or that is weighted towards one side politically, will just lead to increasingly radical legislation which falls outside of the will of the people and only serves to satiate the political class.

    9) “By opposing Donald Trump at every turn no matter what, the liberal left opens itself up to the same charges of obstructionism that were leveled against Republicans during the Obama years. Likewise, by building the President up as some kind of evil, illiberal bogeyman, we risk over-exaggerating the threat he poses to the very fabric of Western democracy.”

    Again, no one is building him up into being anything, they are just quoting him and following his tweets. His policies make him terrifying enough without needing to add anything else. On the other hand, you saying that his race rhetoric and poorly executed policy is just something to be mildly concerned about is awful. You make it sound like these sorts of ideas are just a mild inconvenience when what the president says and how he implements policy is the bare bones of what a president does. Not being good at that is the definition of being a bad president. If anything, you’re aiding the class of people under-exaggerating how awful he is.

    10) “Admittedly, his race-baiting rhetoric should cause concern, and the temporary travel ban introduced last week was heavy-handed and poorly executed.”

    Firstly, call it what it is, a Muslim ban. That is what the president himself has called it, multiple times. All your trying to do is make it more politically palatable and stop it sounding like Trump is specifically targetting legislation against a religious group… which is exactly what he is doing. Again, right wing double standard, every year they create jumped up stories about the “war against Christianity” and how they are trying to “destroy Christmas”, but when there is a specific policy designed at targeting a religious group you don’t care, because it isn’t your religion and you can ignore it. Also, “heavy-handed” is an understatement, it was a cluster fuck of epic proportions. They didn’t even give the relevant authorities the heads up that they were going to implement it. As for his “race-baiting rhetoric” (by the by, you use a lot of dashes in the middle of words when I think they are unnecessary, but I’m not an expert on grammar so I could be wrong), as of now Trump has said inflammatory things about Women, Hispanics, Muslims, Black people and Jews. Add in all the things his direct staff and advisors have said about homosexuals, women who get abortions, non-christians generally and so on and so forth. By my estimation the only group who he dains to represent are white, heterosexual men. So, being such yourself, your lackadaisical attitude towards his racism is somewhat understandable as it doesn’t really effect you, nor have you or I any idea of what that sentiments feels like to live with. But, as of 2010, 12.6% of Americans are black, 0.9% are native American, 16.3% are Hispanic or Latino. Add that up and around a third of the country have been insulted by Trump on race basis alone. Add in half the population of the country who are women, which Trump has no respect for. Then about 4 million adults who are homosexual. What we find is that Trump’s rhetoric on race is much more than a simple “cause for concern” among the majority of Americans, especially considering the number of questionable people he has working under him who are quite clearly white supremacists such as Sebastian L v. Gorka, Steve Bannon, Jeff Sessions, Mike Pompeo and so on. This alone would be a legitimate reason to protest his presidency and for many Americans is the single most important issue.

    11) “Nevertheless, demonstrators conveniently forget that the list of countries whose citizens are now banned from entering the United States was originally drawn up by President Obama. Yes, it is bizarre that Saudi Arabia is not included despite having produced the perpetrators of 9/11, but Trump cannot be blamed for this. Likewise, Trump is not the first President to introduce a temporary travel ban; in 2011, Obama paused the processing of Iraqi refugees for six months after being presented with intelligence suggesting that terrorists were infiltrating the refugee programme. Trump’s ban may have been broader and introduced in a chaotic manner, but it was not completely without precedent.”

    As for the previous travel bans, all previous bans have been the result of direct action from a specific country against the US, such as Jimmy Carter blocking travel from Iran. They were not blanket bans from countries that have never attacked the US. Obama’s “ban” in 2011 was not a ban. Over a six month period their was a slow down of Iraqi refugees and greater vetting, not a complete stop, due to a specific terrorist threat in Kentucky involving Iraqi bomb makers. This ban was not directed at a specific religious group, unlike Trumps ban which during the campaign and his presidency he has explicitly stated is to prevent Muslims from coming into the country and he explicitly calls it a “Muslim ban” and stated that he aims to exclude Muslims and would be open to accepting Christians only. The countries which weren’t banned just so happen to be countries in which Trump has businesses.

    12. “Likewise, one does not have to be a supporter of either Trump or the travel ban to recognise that the measure was far from being a ‘Muslim ban’ as many in the media have labelled it. By making such false assertions, critics of the President find themselves bending the truth to suit their own agenda in exactly the same way as Trump; we cannot expose this post-truth President by stooping to his level.”

    I’ve already talked about this, but now you’re bending the truth. Interview after interview, rally after rally, tweet after tweet, Trump called it a Muslim ban and explicitly stated that it was designed to keep Muslims out of America. The level of irony of you telling people not to “bend the truth to suit their own agenda” is literally ridiculous. I can’t tell whether you are making an effort to spread misinformation or just misinformed but you really shouldn’t right articles with such easily fact checked nonsense. Add in them painfully superior tone and it really is a slam dunk for liberals like me to call you on your shit.

    There is almost certainly stuff I missed here, quite frankly I don’t want to read anymore. The truth is George, what you write has the exact same blind loyalty to a party and an ideology as what you criticise the leftist media of having. You’re right, the media is anti-Trump, no doubt, but you minimalise the fact that they have solid reasons for being against him. He is a scary figure in politics, if for no other reason than the fact that he is incompetent and easily lead. Both dangerous qualities for the most powerful man in the world surrounded by vicious white supremacist sharks. I’m not saying those are the only reasons, but they are bad enough. You are doing exactly what other media organisations do and glazing over the truly awful things, or even worse propagating misinformation (either knowingly or not) and half truths. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed reading my analysis, I’m sure you’ll disagree with it, but its always good to hear the other sides perspective.

  4. While I am not going to re-post what I wrote earlier, as I don’t wish to badger or offend you, I would like to say that censoring your own website because you don’t wish to have someone disagree with you is weakness. You are using a public platform to give your ideas voice, I disagreed and thought it necessary to say why so as to provide a different view to the one you are providing. It is an incredibly sorry state of affairs in my mind that someone as intelligent as yourself can’t bare to have someone openly disagree with him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *