Looking For The Best Candidate To Beat Trump
That theory holds true only if common sense is in fact common.
A large contingency of the voting public seems to have lowered the bar even further, specifically for a certain racial type (white) and gender (male) in a candidate that has historically vied and held the position of Commander-in-chief since the nation’s founding. There is plenty of doubt in all but one candidate seemingly standing in the way of Trump’s reelection in 2020. Based incredulously on just one out of the myriad of instances that would by precedent prompt the House to start impeachment hearings, we the voting public are being compelled to believe that Trump is far too formidable for anybody decent enough to run against him. How?
How did we arrive at such logic?
It is within this realm of cognitive bias that we find many in the Trump era succumbing to an irrational aversion to truth, competence, ethics, and morals during the impeachment hearings. During this president’s tumultuous time in Commander-in-chief, he has sullied the oath of being a statesman preceded by President Obama’s time in office, has denuded the republicans tolerance for racial and economic equality, and has turned our foreign policy into pay-for-play diplomacy. This is what resulted from draining the swamp and many seem proud of it. This misdirection has not only resulted in a number of incompetences on display, but it has been overlooked by the sheer schadenfreude emitted with our cogent annoyance.
The logic behind all of this biased reasoning enjoys such incredible benefit of the doubt for a president seen as making America great again — great at what in particular remains cognitively elusive for republicans as even the blatant political corruption evinced by the impeachment hearings is oddly defended.
It’s all in the intent
The crimes committed by President Trump here are forgivable either by executive privilege or due to an ineptitude to accomplish criminal wrong doings, even as his ill-advised intentions are laid bare. What seems to be above the heads of Trump’s base and support is how inchoate or incomplete Trump’s criminal wrongdoing has been as exposed by the media. In several instances the attempt, the conspiracy, and the aiding and abetting are all there, admittedly at times, and are of public record. There is an aspect of this that many can’t get their heads around when it comes to crimes that are also nearly impossible to complete, especially for a charlatan that craves loyalty, praise, and attention, the obverse of which also follows for those who despise his narcissism and callousness too and serves doubly as an impediment to the completion of these inchoate offenses:
“Conduct deemed criminal without actual harm being done, provided that the harm that would have occurred is one the law tries to prevent.”¹
The benefit of doubt bestowed is mired in Trump’s defense because he appears reckless in his attempts to the point of absurdity to achieve these criminal ends and his response seems to satisfy his narcissistic supply because he is simply doing it for them, or with them in mind — to make America great again.
Conservative pundit Ben Shapiro made similar arguments on his podcast, saying on October 7 that Trump would make a fantastic client for a defense attorney because “Trump doesn’t have requisite intent for anything. The man has the attention span of a gnat … if you are his defense lawyer, his best defense to ‘he had a plan in Ukraine to go after Joe Biden’ is ‘dude doesn’t have plans.’” And on November 11, Shapiro argued, “I don’t think he’s had the level of intent necessary to eat a hamburger.” ²
But many of these arguments are simply sarcastic and misleading in Trump’s defense. There’s intention there too but it is hidden in the assumption that the general public is uninformed or just as stupid and that is why the dismissiveness found in such cynicism holds this influential semblance of sway.
An impossibility defense is a criminal defense occasionally used when a defendant is accused of a criminal attempt that failed only because the crime was factually or legally impossible to commit.Factual impossibility is rarely an adequate defense at common law. In the United States, thirty-seven states have ruled out factual impossibility as a defense to the crime of attempt. This is not to be confused with a ‘mistake of fact’ defense, which may be a defense to a specific intent crime like larceny. ³
So what if the Ukranians eventually received the aid. They could not, not have received it due to the fact that there are several layers of personnel required to perform congressionally lawful duties. The delay alone raised flags and questions that must be answered.
[…]committing an offence under the US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act merely requires “knowing”, that is, recklessness. Facilitation also requires “believing”, yet another way of saying reckless.¹
Trump’s belief in his duty as president with the way he wields power, obstructs justice, tampering witnesses, and the general lack of or absence in his ability to perform his take care duties in accordance with Article Two of the U.S. Constitution is indicative of not only his stupidity but of his overarching malevolence.
Trump believes he is above the law — more above it than Obama ever was even though he never thought so as president — and any criminality found in his duty to take care is absolved by that absolutism, and in making America great again.
There Should Be Nothing Absolute About Being President of the United States
Republicans and Democrats should know this
Are we basing candidates running for president on whether she or he will be able to beat Trump at his “making America great again” game? What game is that? Whatever it is it surely ain’t legal. It’s immoral, crude, shallow and imbecilic.
Do we need somebody who is just as stupid, but more crass and overly vain to match Trump’s campaign style and semblance of debate — if you can call it that.
Becoming president shouldn’t have been that easy for an ignorant pompous ass. Trump is also an inept fabulist and this does not require much in the way of research and evidence. We bare witness to his idiocy everyday. And yet it warrants all sorts of dubious explanations as to why Trump became president in the first place. It’s neither here or there because it happened for reasons that are plain to see.
Our constitution, pertaining to how it was written, is a construct of governance that is susceptible to delusion, corruption, and inequality to name a few amongst a vast number of many other errors. We perpetuate those errors by thinking that decency could not win against Trump. We think that there isn’t a more knowledgeable and capable statesman other than Trump when we assume that the political debates should come down to WWE-style arguments and name calling.
It shouldn’t be that hard or even hard at all
But then again just like in the impeachment hearings, just like Trump’s handling of immigration, and the racism it is predicated on, just like the negligent withholding or concealment of his tax returns, and all his fabrications thus far to name a few, a lot of people just don’t care.