Candy-Coated Putrid (aka business as usual)
I’ve been trying to fathom how anyone with any kind sense of care and decency would support ~that~ person.
Yeah, ~that~ individual currently at the helm of our Nation. To put it this way as “~that~ person or individual” is the nearest to nice as I can put it with respect to the cultural edict that if one cannot say anything nice about another person, one ought not say anything at all. Well, since ~that~ individual’s actions need discussed in order to be dealt with, then there needs be some manner of reference. So, “~that~ individual/person” will have to do.
Anyway, it’s starting to become clearer how the “supporters” are going to continue to rally behind and in effect actually support ~that~ person.
I was speaking with a friend online the other day about the hurting put on the Veterans Administration by ~that~ person. They pointed out that the “supporters” will back ~that~ person. I replied, but surely the “supporters” have offspring and relatives in our Military as well that would also be negatively affected.
Most folks I’ve spoken with say the “supporters” are unreachable.
There was an article the other day on why they won’t drop ~that~ person.
Then I got in my email a letter from a Senator who happens to be Republican and a “supporter.” I read through their letter and I could see then one method they’re using to continue to support ~that~ person.
In this letter, the Senator was referring to one of the recent Orders handed out by ~that~ person. This is the Order that covers Sanctuary Cities, Refugees and includes discrimination against a specific people (which that last part, yes, is illegal). The Senator focused exclusively on and in fact extolled what they felt was the goodness in the Order’s dealing with Sanctuary Cities.
Just to get a basic idea of what are Sanctuary Cities, per Wikipedia: ” In the United States and Canada, a sanctuary city is a municipality that has adopted a policy of protecting undocumented immigrants by not prosecuting them for violating federal immigration laws in the country in which they are now living. Such a policy can be set out expressly in a law (de jure) or observed only in practice (de facto). The term applies generally to cities that do not use municipal funds or resources to enforce national immigration laws, and usually forbid police or municipal employees to inquire about a person’s immigration status. The designation has no precise legal meaning. ”
So, in the Senator’s letter I saw how the “supporters” are going to continue on their track. Candy-coated putrid. The “supporters” dig for and find of whatever ~that~ individual does those bits that are sugary, that is to say, the bits they like. They’ll eat that while they still consume the rest of the putrid bits which are connected to what they perceive as the sugary parts.
It’s a rather typical politic thing to do, mix the uncomfortable bits with nicer bits. Which makes ~that~ individual creating those candy-coated putrid bits as basically typical political as most any other politician.
So much for the “supporters” touting ~that~ person as different or even better than other politicians.
And so long as the “supporters” continue consuming the candy-coated putrid bits they find tasty, I would say my friend may be right, they are tragically unreachable. But will the “supporters” eat the candy-coated putrid bits if and when one or more of those actions ~that~ individual does negatively affects them directly and personally?
In a peculiar sort of way, I’m reminded of the Olympics and their Stadium locations, notably the site in Rio de Janeiro. Lots of focus on how pretty the Olympic Stadium is and how amazing the athletes are, carefully making believe that the sports venue will somehow benefit all the surrounding, massive, impoverished slums (which, by the way, despite hopes otherwise, receive little to no benefit from the Stadium) and completely losing from memory the Jaguar Animal-Kin that lost their life because of the humans singular focus and careless disregard.