Before you start reading, I feel the need to advise you, the reader, that this article will be lengthy, in depth, and may require multiple sittings to read in its entirety. I will be covering a myriad of topics within this article. In particular, the main policies, controversies and 'fake news'. Furthermore, I am a conservative and that although I have my biases, I will try my best to be as objective as possible. Thank you.
Trump-bashing, i.e. hostility to an unnecessary degree, far exceeding the normal level that could then be considered satire, aimed towards Donald Trump appears to be the newest fad emerging from, and being popularised by late-night Left-wing TV shows. Bully techniques are also a well-known method that The Left espouses when interacting with anyone, particularly online, who disagrees with them. They can't sit down and engage in civil discussion; they bully, yell over, degrade and slander anyone they have political disagreements with. Everyone is sick of them doing this. This is also evident in the replies to all of Trump's tweets, they call him a baby and make fun of his hair and hands. Particularly, conservatives and libertarians, as their ideology and policies don't align. After they do so, friendships with those people are never amended, as they tend to think these friends (or even strangers) are now the worst people on Earth. Trust me, I know because it has happened to me personally. This isn't how conservatives handle disagreements though, we're civil, we try to really understand why they think the way they do, and how they got to think that way. To Left-wingers and Liberals though, if you even mention the fact you hold opinions that aren't the mainstream consensus, they yell in your face, call you names and tell others you're an awful person. They do this by mislabelling you, for example, the mainstream media has a habit of labelling Donald Trump, some of the most popular faces in Right-wing politics in America and all their supporters are labelled with misleading blanket terms Alt-Right, white supremacists, racists and anything else they can think of all the time, when most are harmless classical Liberals or Conservatives. In a way, it can also be a pathway to popularity, or being cool in the public eye, and helps one be accepted into mainstream society. It is almost like a "Hey, if you hate on this guy with us, we'll like you! If not, you're the enemy!" Celebrities in particular are taking the easy route by capitulating to society's demands by constantly apologising for stunts which I personally find to be funny and didn't think an apology was necessary for, as well as constantly conforming. The Left is ruining humour, and we need people like Donald Trump in charge to keep things funny and interesting. In a way, this is saving their career, because if they don't, they'll be exiled or their careers will turn ruinous. I find issue with this because it isn't being true to oneself. A vast majority of the time, the Trump-haters are doing it whilst being dangerously misinformed, perhaps having anti-Trump stances to be trendy. I wish to see more celebrities be brave and express their real political views, opinions and thoughts, and furthermore see a society that doesn't shun or shame people for their political stance. A major concern I have with these TV shows is rooted in their blending of 'fact' and entertainment. Many a viewer is oblivious to the fact that what they are consuming is treading a thin line between truths and falsehoods; those shows have a habit of flirting with that thin line for the sake of entertainment. TV entertainers have turned the public into docile and lazy zombies, not bothering to research if what they're hearing is true. Furthermore, are easily persuaded by media outlets who have histories of lying, and smear anyone who hold dissenting opinions.
I am reminded by a quote which I have fittingly interpreted to reflect the views and constant parroting of late-night entertainers and most Left-wing, mainstream celebrities who spout the same vacuous ideologies and beliefs as the entertainers, just to fit in. Which, by the way, there's nothing cool or edgy about conformity, and there's nothing avant-garde about group-think. Likewise, the entirety of the Clinton campaign was just constant pandering, and in particular, their goofy stunts. During 2016, there was a video uploaded onto YouTube that was essentially mocking Hillary's efforts to pander to young voters, but took it to a whole new level - and it was spot on. Every time I watch it, I cringe so hard. "How do you do, fellow kids?" is derived from a scene in an episode of 30 Rock, where Steve Buscemi appears as an undercover cop, part of a special task force of "very young-looking cops" who infiltrated a high school, aiming to fit in and obtain information. The gag behind it lays in the fact that, he doesn't look very young at all and doesn't fit in, and is rather an old man trying to maintain a facade. You could easily imagine someone like Mr. Burns from The Simpsons trying to act cool and fit in with young kids, and due to age difference and culture shift, the stunt failing. He enters into frame, where teenagers are sprawled throughout a locker area, with a skateboard slung over his right shoulder, a second under his left arm, a red hat, grey t-shirt with "music band" inscribed across the chest area in AC/DC font, a red jacket and blue jeans, with the entire operation backfiring. He clearly doesn't fit in, let alone, kids (or adults for that matter) typically don't talk to each other in such formal, archaic language; they are much more relaxed with their conversational language. Furthermore, the two look similar and would not hard to see straight through them and realise what is happening. You see the Trump-bashing in comedy routines all over the world, and yet none of those comedians know why he won. They are utterly clueless and I LOVE IT. I will admit, some Trump jokes are quite amusing, and I am positive Trump would also agree, but most are hostile attacks for the sole reason that he doesn't fit into the mainstream's open border, pro-choice, welfare system, anti-free speech and politically correct ideology. They often say something insulting and disguise it with a joke, only to continue constructing this Donald Trump smear sandwich which is fed to the masses. Not only is it grossly off-putting, but when a comedian becomes political, they lose their gift.
Within this article, I plan to reveal the fundamental reasons for his victory and debunk some of the most common beliefs about him. Additionally, this article wasn't written with the intention of swaying or persuading the reader to change their attitude towards him. I am completely okay with you still finding him inviting or utterly repulsive, where the cause is from his politics or basis in character. I will only be displaying facts and reasons for why we are currently in a Trump-Pence presidency. I welcome you to agree or disagree with me. Firstly, we will discuss the main campaign policies that each candidate espoused, and detail the stances the two held to create a distinguishable contrast between them, which was evident throughout the election cycle. Secondly, we will discuss the controversies which clung ever so tightly to their respective campaigns.
The first and perhaps most focal policy was regarding immigration. Trump and Clinton battled on this issue the most as Trump was in favour of building a wall to curb illegal immigration from Mexico to America, and Clinton wasn't (although, at one stage also was in favour of "physical barriers if necessary"). Because of Trump's pragmatic approach, being if they keep pouring into America, then put something in the way so they can't, he started to be called racist and xenophobic. This policy became quite the controversial topic during the election, as evident in how pivotal a stance it is now during political discourse. A positive aspect was how this policy elevated public consciousness of illegal immigration. The focus was placed particularly on illegal immigration (that is, entering and living in a new country without paperwork) and migration from countries that are havens of terrorism. Many would agree that Islam is a major problem that the world beholds today, due to the incompatible nature of their law system and culture, others not so much. Those people are also more favourable of open border policies. This is most evident in Europe, wherein migration from Muslim-majority countries have contributed to rising numbers in sexual assault and instances of terrorism. By enacting restrictions, and realistically, enforcing the law, Trump is not matching the mainstream, globalist agenda. Trump was in favour of a stricter vetting process and a three-month halt on immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries. A critical component that fails to be included into discussion regarding this somewhat controversial revelation is that for it to be a 'Muslim ban' as the media liked to label it (which coupled a negative connotation), a further 43 Muslim-majority countries would need to be added to the list. Casually labelling the travel ban, which is its real name, as a 'Muslim ban', makes as much sense as if they prohibited migration from six European countries out of the fifty-one existing independent states and called it a European ban. Or better yet, an example closer to home soil; temporarily banning travel from only two Australian states and labelling it an Australian ban. The media was being intellectually dishonest. If it isn't the totality of a country or religion, you cannot correctly label it a Muslim ban, European ban, or Australian ban. I personally think the media will do anything to smear Trump's image with all their devastating influence, and that they used Islam and Muslims as leverage to do so. Regarding the wall and illegal immigration from Mexico, I completely support him on this controversial issue. I cannot side with someone migrating illegally, despite the chance of them potentially having a better life. What if they're terrible with money? They'll be in the same situation, just in a different country. What if they arrive with cultural values that are incompatible with the culture of their new country? A physical barrier needs to be constructed to keep them out, because the fencing that is in place at the moment is doing nothing, and morality is a non-argument for the desperate. Additionally, those illegal immigrants are breaking the law and deserve no rights to vote or access to healthcare. If you wish to obtain said rights, then arrive legally and become a citizen like everyone else. How is Trump going to pay for the wall? It's obviously not going to be a written check. Well, Senator Ted Cruz proposes that we use the $14 Billion Seized from ‘El Chapo’ to fund the wall. Other than that, Trump could instate a border tax or by cutting off Mexico's number #1 export, remittances from illegals in the U.S. Makes sense, right? Furthermore, he was right about Mexico not sending their best people. Almost 50% of federal crimes are committed near the Mexico border, and nearly 22% of that crime was drug related. Illegals comprise a disproportionate percentage of the population of state prisons, compared to legals. For every 100,000 people, illegals made up 68.57 people compared to the legal 54.06 citizens in Arizona. In California, illegals made up 97.2 per 100,000 compared with the 74.1 legals. In Florida though, the positions flipped where legals composed 67.8 people per 100,000 imprisoned people, compared to 54.85 illegals. I personally think if you migrate legally and commit a felony, you ought to be deported. It may seem like a tough and cruel statement to make but following the law is not hard. It is in the best interests for American citizens' safety for their government to improve their immigration and protection policies to ensure illegals and criminals stay out, model citizens arrive and the future of America under Trump and his predecessors to be prosperous. In accordance to the Podesta email leaks released by WikiLeaks, Clinton delivered a paid speech on May 16th, 2013, for Brazilian bankers and divulged her vision of "a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, sometime in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” That's a stark contrast from Trump's stricter immigration policies involving extreme vetting procedures. Hillary's open border policies which could endanger the American way of life, as evident in Germany, and America isn't taking one bit of it, in fear of amnesty. A country without safety is a country which cannot function properly. This is essentially amnesty; opening the flood gates to all those who 'dream of being an American citizen'. Americans can't allow such recklessness; being careful of who enters, being critical of their intentions and allowing only those who will assimilate is paramount. At the end of the day, it's all about your perspective on the matter. One stance is there shouldn't be borders at all and that people should be able to roam the Earth freely, the second is valuing a nation's sovereignty and respecting that there should exist countries that are harder to enter because the opportunity for prosperity is more readily obtainable. It's not just Americans that feel this strongly about illegal immigration from Mexico. Hispanic and Latinos that migrated legally also feel this way. To them, it's not right for people to arrive illegally and possibly bring crime and not assimilate into the new culture. The legals stood in line with ticket in hand and entered through the front door. Migrants should move to countries legally and help that country's economy and way of life, not be a burden and leach off the welfare system.
Secondly, Americans love their guns, everyone knows it at this stage. But, the idea of compiling a gun registry list and/or enacting gun control laws, makes the American people feel very uneasy. This is due to the easy nature of a government to, one they know who has guns and how many, it'd be much easier to disarm the people from there onward. The second amendment, the right to bear arms, is designed to protect the rights of the people, in the event of a totalitarian government takeover. And no, it was not specifically written for hunting purposes, as so many people believe it to be. This is evident in Adolf Hitler's firearms law and the disarming of German Jews and political dissidents, through use of a gun registry list. Gun control is public enemy number one, but also an aspect of American life that Clinton feels strongly about. Hillary was in favour of enacting gun control laws, Donald was not. I believe that guns don't kill people, people do. While it's a good idea to enact stricter vetting procedures so mentally ill people cannot possess weapons, I disagree with Hillary's plan to ban “some of the most popular” firearms if elected. She then “reassures law-abiding Americans their firearms won’t be targeted”. Also, calling “for a reinstatement of the national assault weapons ban and a prohibition on high-capacity magazines.” This is a contradictory statement because the assault weapons ban would deprive citizens of arms, the very thing Clinton said she wouldn't do, as well as the high-capacity magazine ban would force law-abiding citizens to surrender their high capacity magazines. Who's to say that if Hillary became president and enacted these gun control laws, that she wouldn't go any further and completely disarm the American people? We don't know that she would or wouldn't, and I personally feel uneasy with that thought in mind considering how free a country America is. Furthermore, in the states where gun ownership is the lowest, the rate for gun murders are the highest.
The third issue was women's reproductive rights. This is one of those topics where people often tread lightly with, as any disagreements can be fatal for friendships. I'm personally not this way inclined, I tell people what I think without fear for losing them as a friend - if someone ends a friendship over something as trivial as an abortion stance, they're not the kind of friend you want to have. Donald Trump's stance on abortion is pro-life, with exceptions. Those being in the case of rape and incest and if the health of the mother or the child is at risk. This coincides with Ben Shapiro's and my own stance. I think abortion should only be performed if either the mother was suicidal, and not mentally fit to give birth, or if the baby will be born with a serious birth deformity or illness such as Downs Syndrome. Furthermore, if the mother is a victim or rape or incest, which statistically, is a very low percentage of all abortions, at less than 1%. Donald's stance didn't persuade or influence mine, as I had been influenced by Ben's stance during a talk he did at an American college. I had only found out Donald's stance on this turbulent issue upon doing research for this article. The conservative viewpoint on abortion is that abortion is murder, I would agree. I believe that life starts at conception, when the sperm and egg meet, forming the zygote; science dictates this. You have the choice and ability to be personally responsible when you have sex; whether you use protection or don't. I would argue most pro-life people hold this stance because abortion seems to be a new method of birth control, which in doing so, teaches couples that they don't need to be responsible for their actions. Almost like a "Fuck it, let's have unprotected sex. If I get pregnant I can just abort it." To them, a foetus isn't a life; but rather a clump of cells. If this is the case, then let me ask you, the reader, this, aren't you just a clump of cells too? The foetus may as well just be a kidney to them, where they can do away with it as they please. In 2016, Gallup polling conducted a poll regarding abortion. They found that a measly 1% more of people were pro-choice, at 47%. Furthermore, 50% of Americans in 2015 said that they think abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances. The two major polarising stances on abortion, that it should either be legal or illegal under all circumstances concluded at 19% for illegal, and 29% for legal; the majority believe it is necessary under certain conditions. Additionally, I support Donald Trump's executive order regarding abortion. This executive order gives the power of de-funding abortion clinics such as Planned Parenthood, to the individual states, allowing more freedom of control. This means that, if there's a state that is heavily pro-life, that state can then reduce the number of abortions performed. I heavily oppose abortion because, realistically, it's killing and ripping apart babies. I don't like that concept; it's quite repulsive and inhumane. If you have never seen the visual component to an abortion procedure, I urge you to click these links, wherein contain explanatory and educational videos by Dr. Anthony Levatino, a practising obstetrician-gynaecologist, who has performed over 1,200 abortions, on how abortions are performed during each trimester. I must warn you though, the scenes described in each are utterly violent, ugly and disgusting.
A normal, full-term pregnancy is 40 weeks, and can range from 37 to 42 weeks. It’s divided into three trimesters. Each trimester lasts between 12 and 14 weeks, or three months. During the First Trimester Surgical Abortion, called Suction (Aspiration) D & C, (Dilatation and Curettage), abortion is performed most frequently, and between 5 and 13 weeks of pregnancy. The baby at 11 weeks has a heartbeat, fingers, toes, arms and legs, but it's bones are still weak and fragile. After administrating anaesthesia, the abortionist uses a speculum and places it inside the vagina and opened it using the screw on the side. This allows the abortionist to see the cervix, the entrance to the uterus. The cervix acts as a gate that stays closed during pregnancy, protecting the baby until it is ready for birth. The abortionist uses a series of metal rods which increase in thickness, and inserts them into the cervix to dilate it, gaining access to the uterus, where the baby resides. The abortionist takes a suction catheter, which is clear plastic, about nine inches long and has a hole through the centre. It is then inserted through the cervix and into the uterus. The suction machine is then turned on and with a force 10 to 20 times more powerful than a household vacuum; the baby is rapidly torn apart by the force of the suction, and squeezed through the tubing into the suction machine, followed by the placenta. Although the suction is complete, one of the risks is an incomplete abortion, where pieces of the baby or placenta are left behind. This can lead to infection or bleeding. To prevent this, a curette is used to scrape the lining of the uterus. A curette is basically a long-handled curved blade. Once the uterus is empty, the speculum is removed and the abortion is complete. The risks of Suction D & C include perforation or laceration of the uterus or cervix, potentially damaging intestine, bladder, and nearby blood vessels, haemorrhage, infection, and in rare instances, even death. Future pregnancies are also at greater risk for loss or premature delivery, due to abortion-related trauma and injury to the cervix. In the Second Trimester Surgical Abortion, called Dilation and Evacuation (D & E). A D & E is performed between 13 and 24 weeks of pregnancy, and in my opinion, is the most gruesome. A baby at 20 weeks is as big as the length of a fully-grown man's hand, from head to rump, not including legs. A suction machine is turned on, and pale yellow amniotic fluid surrounding the baby is suctioned out through the catheters. But, at that time in pregnancy, babies don't fit through catheters. The baby's bones and skull are too strong to be torn apart by suction alone. A sopher clamp is used to perform the procedure. This clamp is made from stainless steel, is thirteen inches in length, and contains a 'business end', which is two inches long and a half inch wide, with rows of sharp teeth. It's a grasping instrument; when it grabs hold, it won't let go. The abortionist uses this instrument to grasp an arm or leg, with a firm grip they then pull hard and rip that limb off. One by one, the rest of the limbs are removed, along with the intestines, spine, heart and lungs. The hardest part is extracting the baby’s head which is the size of a large plum at 20 weeks. The head of the baby is grasped and crushed; the abortionist knows this has happened when a white substance comes out of the cervix - that is the baby’s brains. The abortionist then removes skull pieces, the placenta and any remaining parts of the baby with a curette, scraping the lining of the uterus for any remaining tissue. The baby’s parts are then reassembled to make sure there are two legs, two arms and all the necessary pieces. Once all the parts have been accounted for, the abortion is complete. For the woman, this procedure yet again carries with it a significant risk of major complications, including perforation or laceration of the uterus or cervix, with possible damage to the bowel, bladder or other maternal organs. Infection and haemorrhage can also occur, which can lead to death. Similarly, to the first trimester, future pregnancies are also at greater risk for loss or premature delivery, due to abortion-related trauma and injury to the cervix. The Third Trimester Inducted Abortion, called Injection and Stillbirth, is performed at 25 weeks to term (just before birth). At this point in the pregnancy, the baby is almost fully developed and viable, meaning he or she could survive outside the womb if the mother were to go into labour prematurely. Because the baby is so large and developed, the procedure takes 3 or 4 days to complete. On day one, the abortionist uses a large needle to inject a drug called Digoxin. Digoxin is generally used to treat heart problems, but a high enough dosage will cause fatal cardiac arrest. The abortionist inserts the needle with the Digoxin through the woman's abdomen or through her vagina and into the baby, targeting either the head, torso, or heart. The baby will feel it - babies at this stage feel pain. When the needle pierces the baby's body, and the Digoxin takes effect, the life of the baby will end. The abortionist then inserts multiple sticks of a seaweed called laminaria into the woman's cervix. They will slowly open the cervix for delivery of a stillborn baby. While the woman waits for the laminaria to dilate her cervix, she carries her dead baby inside of her for 2 to 3 days. On day 2, the abortionist replaces the laminaria, and may perform a second ultrasound to ensure the baby is dead. If the child is still alive, they administer another lethal dose of Digoxin. The woman then goes back to where she is staying while her cervix continues to dilate. If she goes into labour and is unable to arrive at the clinic in time, she will give birth at home or in a hotel. In this case, she may be advised to deliver her baby into a bathroom toilet. The abortionist then comes to remove the baby and clean up. If she can make it to the clinic, she will do so during her severest contractions and deliver her dead son or daughter. If the baby does not come out whole, then the procedure becomes a dilation and evacuation (D & E), and the abortionist uses clamps and forceps to dismember the baby, piece by piece. Once the placenta and all the body parts have been removed, the abortion is complete. Late-term abortions have an elevated risk for haemorrhage, lacerations, and uterine perforations, as well as a risk of maternal death. Future pregnancies are also at a greater risk for loss or premature delivery due to abortion-related trauma and injury to the cervix.
In 2014, Planned Parenthood performed 323,999 abortions. To put this into context, this was five million more than what the U.S. population during that same year; that's a lot of aborted babies. This has reached critical levels, where instead of having one because the woman was raped, victim of incest, suicidal or the child will be born with a deformity which will heavily impede its way of life, women are having them performed due to the baby being an inconvenience; and not putting the baby up for adoption. Planned Parenthood is American's leading abortion provider. Upon investigating the various aspects unto this article, I discovered that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a racist eugenicist. In a letter to Clarence Gamble in December of 1939, Sanger reiterated the need for black ministers to lead the project, arguing that: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Eugenics, in case you're unaware, is "a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population." So, if this was the case, why would Donald Trump continue to fund such an organisation? In fact, Planned Parenthood doesn't even offer prenatal care to women. Quite an unfitting name for an organisation called Planned Parenthood; where abortion is the only option. You would think that an organisation with such name would be adamant in allowing mothers to give birth, but this is not the case, unfortunately. A little-known fact: Adolf Hitler was also a eugenicist. The Nazi eugenics program strived to eliminate "prisoners, degenerates, dissidents, people with congenital cognitive and physical disabilities (including: feeble-minded, epileptic, schizophrenic, manic-depressive, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, deaf, blind), homosexuals, idle, insane, and the weak." I would also like to add that the executive order which aims to give power to each individual state to de-fund abortion clinics isn't removing women's rights; to have a right means to be able to access it. Women will still be able to access abortion clinics as many states are sure to not vote against it.
Finally, Trump spoke many times of how America shouldn't be the world's police force anymore, and should care about America and its people before they help any other countries. Which, to me, makes sense. To put it metaphorically, would you ensure your house and family are straightened out before you worry about what is happening in your neighbour’s house? I would think so, or at least I'd hope this would be the consensus. Donald Trump, being a Republican, focused heavily on ensuring the American people get their jobs back. Hillary Clinton on the other hand, being a Democrat, advocates for the welfare system. Trump also advocated for leaving events pertaining to the middle east alone. And yes, as I'm writing this, I am aware of the tomahawk missile launch situation - I don't agree with it and believe it was a false flag. The events that could transpire leave me feeling uneasy. I'll never hold war up to a positive light. The thought of innocent men and women travelling to other countries to their potential death? No thanks. Nonetheless, it is this emboldened beacon of improvement that made him distinct from Clinton; who mentioned on numerous occasions about going to war with Russia. To me, Hillary seems like a warmonger.
I'd like to now address this ever so prevalent lie about Trump that was spread from country to country. Contrary to popular belief, he's not racist. I'll just reiterate that quickly, he, Donald Trump, is not racist. I know, you don't believe me. Another white guy is claiming Trump isn't racist, what a shocker! Shoot him down and scream in his face! Also, Mexican isn't a race - it's a nationality. Furthermore, Islam also isn't a race - it's a religion. It's funny how people still don't realise this in this day and age. David Duke, the head of the Ku Klux Klan, endorsed President Trump in early November of 2016. You might ask “So what?” I asked that very same question to myself upon hearing about it. I have discovered that he hasn’t been relevant for the past 30 years, so he might be searching for his last 15 seconds of fame. Others may ask what does this signify though? Does Trump like the KKK and what they stand for? No. Donald Trump disavowed the KKK, and in fact, didn't know that David Duke had endorsed him until it was brought to his attention at a press conference. He also ejected a man from his Oklahoma rally because he was wearing a 'KKK endorses Trump' shirt. He does not tolerate such lunacy and blatant lying. Not satisfied? Still think he could secretly be racist? Well, allow me to present to the class a few pro-minority things Trump has done in the past, starting with this:
Trump insisted on including Jews and blacks at Palm Beach golf course in 1990s. In the 1990s, Donald Trump fought fervently against racism and anti-Semitism to ensure that Mar-a-Lago, a golfing resort located in Palm Beach, Florida, was open to the public, regardless of race. He realised what was happening and acted by sending each member of the town council a copy of two classic movies about discrimination. The first being 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner', which centres on a white couple's reaction to their daughter bringing home her black fiancé. Secondly, 'A Gentleman's Agreement', in which a reporter pretends to be Jewish and aims to expose anti-Semitism. So, not only did he open the resort to the public, but he saw the game they were trying to play and soon after filed a lawsuit against the resort after they refused to lift the restrictions.
Donald Trump worked with the Rainbow-PUSH coalition. The prevailing message here is that in 1999, Trump worked with Reverend Jesse Jackson to help empower minorities and give them a presence on Wall Street, as well as attending their business meeting in New York. Such meeting aimed to transform the crime-ridden inner cities with business development and middle class jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors through better trade deals and infrastructure projects.
Airline Couldn’t Help Sick Child, So Donald Trump CAME TO THE RESCUE! This article describes the recount of how Donald Trump flew a critically ill 3-year-old Jewish boy in his private jet from California to New York for medical treatment. He was refused entry onto commercial airlines because he was in a wheelchair and in the middle of chemotherapy, and couldn't fly without 'an elaborate life-support system, which includes a portable oxygen tank, a suction machine, a breathing bag and an adrenaline syringe'. Trump, after hearing about this, skipped a scheduled meeting to lend his private jet to them and help fly them to their destination.
This and the following article are both linked in the message they portray, and that is if he was truly racist, why would he bother donating large sums of his hard-earned money to minorities in America? If he was a racist wouldn't it make sense for him to not bother with these random acts of kindness? Trump donated $25,000 to a mostly black women's basketball league after the founder was killed in the 9/11 attack. If Trump was truly a racist like the mainstream media likes to spout off, why on Earth would he donate $25,000 to a mostly black women's basketball league? It just doesn't make sense damn it! Or, is this whole narrative based on a lie? Hmmm...
Last, but not least, Donald Trump offered $10,000 to a heroic bus driver (which, and I hate that I even need to state this, was a black man) in Buffalo, New York, who stopped the bus in attempt to coax the suicidal woman off the ledge of a busy overpass. Trump was reportedly so moved by the story, as anyone would be, that he decided to show Mr. Barton his appreciation. See, Trump isn't a monster. He's never been a monster. There are people out there who do beautiful things for the world, and Mr. Barton and Donald Trump are two of those people. The people who believe this narrative have been brainwashed by the mainstream media into thinking this, and haven't been bothered to research Trump's past.
Okay, now honestly, have a look at the following old pictures and tell me, does this guy really look like a racist? Or at least the stereotypical racist archetype? I don't think so. He looks like a classy business man. The photos below show a side of him that the mainstream media refuses to enlighten their viewers of. Even if you Google his name, the first few photos that you see aren't the most flattering, unlike Hillary's. It's also been said that he's a sociopath, I disagree. I could agree with people saying he has an ego, but this sentiment of him being a sociopath is utter vitriol. I believe he cares about the citizens of America in many ways: through immigration reform; he wants to ensure there is a secure border, repealing ObamaCare, standing up for their second amendment rights, bringing jobs back from overseas, as well as introducing more jobs for middle America; which he has. Also, the old white guy hatred shtick is getting old; it's boring and stagnating. I strongly believe he's been getting mingled within the toxic third-wave feminist agenda; promoting hate against men, and labelling old white men as racists and everything else. This crusade is dead. A favourite of mine is the constant complaining by feminists that old white men are deciding about women's rights. I mean, they are the only ones who are interested in holding these high political positions, in much higher numbers than women are.
We now arrive at the exit poll results. Surprisingly, a small percentage of people seem to also realise what I'm about to say. From 2012, Clinton lost a higher percent of the racial votes than what Obama had in 2012. This means that Donald Trump won more of the Black, White, Hispanic/Latino and Asian vote than what Mitt Romney did in 2012. Something also definitely changed and sparked the interest of young voters, in particular, as he attained a 5% raise from Romney's exit polls. My theory for the change in racial voting is that his message of bringing back jobs from overseas resonated with the black voters, and as infamous as the black vote is for voting Democrat for the welfare system, I would think the black American people are ready for a change. They are finished suckling on the government teat and want to restore some accountability into their lives, and to them, Donald Trump is the way. Being on welfare can be degrading and demeaning, I can sympathise with these people, and I recognise their desire for change. And no, I'm not talking about the change Obama promised with his poorly executed healthcare system which its premiums cost the American people in 2015 an average of $6,251 for an individual per year, or an average of $17,545 per year for families. Not to mention all the drone strikes, which under Obama, killed innocent people 90% of the time. So, to say that Trump represents white America and wants to make America racist again just isn't true, as evident in the previous examples and exit poll results. The American people are largely seeing straight through this lie, of which was constantly touted by the MSM. Ezra Levant, of the Rebel Media, has an excellent video explaining and breaking down the exit poll results, which you can watch here.
Trump is not sexist or misogynistic. In accordance to the exit polls sourced in the previous paragraph, Clinton only garnered a 1% women's vote increase than what Obama did. This, to me, doesn't seem like a 'sexist America'. Donald Trump has a proven track record of promoting and empowering women, often paying them more than men. Barbara Res at 33 years old became the first woman to ever be put in charge of supervising the construction of a skyscraper, when Trump hired her in 1980. In this video, you can observe Lynne Patton, a black female executive for the Trump family, describing their family as one of the most "generous, compassionate and philanthropic families" that she knows. During the election, Trump had appointed Katrina Pierson, a black woman, to be his spokesperson, and Kellyanne Conway to be his campaign manager; he clearly doesn't object to hiring women. I also think that the "Grab 'em by the pussy" comment controversy was a chronic over-reaction and was blown way out of proportion, as most controversies are these days, and that it was "locker room banter." None of the men in the van are serious about what they're saying. The mere nature of the conversation is so absurd that it's laughable. Women are probably as bad, if not, are worse. It's almost as if those people who went public to ridicule Trump for that comment have never in their lives sexualised someone. In the original video, all the other men in the van are contributing to the conversation in the same way as Donald, so why were they not ridiculed as much as Donald? Stature; they're not as famous as him. It's true that Billy Bush had lost tremendous amounts of credibility after the tape was leaked, but to this day, the only one facing such ridicule is Donald Trump. With that said, I'm not excusing what he said, but I think this controversy shouldn't have been as big of an issue as it was. I wish to see a future where political correctness is abolished, people aren't exiled because of things that are deemed offensive by easily offended people, and that if something is taboo, you can talk about it without making it into this huge public spectacle. You must note that he said those remarks over a decade ago when he a reality TV star, not a politician, and that he also said, "When you're a star they let you do anything." That is to say, when he 'grabs a woman's pussy', they consent to it, which is not "bragging about sexual assault" as The Left likes to frame it; this is a fundamental flaw of The Left's argument. Just think, 12 years ago, racism and sexism were alive and well in Australia; they were much different times in 2005. Also, Bill Clinton's past is much worse and wasn't just words, they were actions involving multiple women, yet the Left is so readily less critical of him and immediately shuts anyone down who states the fact. Behind closed doors, I believe everyone is capable of and is guilty of politically incorrect speech, regardless of gender. Additionally, Donald has also apologised for said remarks. We've come a long way in the meantime. Let me ask you though, are you perfect? Have you ever said something stupid in the past, in which you regret now? I'm willing to bet that everyone reading this article has. In fact, I have many times. Before we criticise others, we must look within ourselves and ask "Have I done what he has done before? Am I any better or worse than him?"
And finally, he's not homophobic or transphobic. You may be surprised to hear me say this, why is that? Well, as I've stated many times previously on this website, it's because the mainstream media deliberately paints him in this negative manner, and in addition to him, his supporters. I must emphasise that it's highly unlikely that the entirety of his fan-base throughout the election supported him because of his person and character. Some would've supported the ideas, policies and just what Trump represents for America, and others would've voted just for his boisterous nature. By reiterating the constant loop negative coverage of Trump, as mentioned in the study in previous paragraphs, the mainstream media, or as Sean Hannity describes it, the Alt-Left propaganda media is trying to delegitimise his presidency, even though he isn't actually a bad person; it is Hillary that has performed criminal acts in the past. Sadly, the effects and influence which the MSM can cause has prevailed, as evident in the #NotMyPresident movement.
In 2000, Trump declared that he supported gay anti-discrimination laws and the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell", a policy that was commanded by Bill Clinton and was issued on December 21, 1993 and lasting until September 20, 2011. Such policy would allow the United States military to not admit openly gay, bisexual and lesbian people as these people are prone to "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." Trump advocated for “a very strong domestic-partnership law that guarantees gay people the same legal protections and rights as married people." His book, “The America That We Deserve” released that same year, wistfully described his dream of an America “unencumbered by racism, discrimination against women, or discrimination against people based on sexual orientation.” The details of Trump’s gay rights views are even more impressive. Trump didn’t just want states to pass their own anti-discrimination laws: He supported amending the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 to ban sexual orientation discrimination. Like Trump’s other pro-gay positions, this stance was extremely liberal for its time. In fact, it’s strikingly progressive even today. In 2012, Donald Trump changed the Miss Universe pageant rules to allow transgender contestants like Jenna Talackova to compete. So, if this is the case, then why on Earth would Liberals lambaste and slander his name? Hmmm, I wonder... Furthermore, Trump was very accommodating to Caitlyn Jenner in April of 2016, when, as Jenner states, she "could take a pee anywhere in a Trump facility." Finally, Donald Trump does not want to overturn gay marriage, in an interview with 60 Minutes, he states that it's been settled in the Supreme Court and he's fine with it. He says, "It's done. It-- you have-- these cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They've been settled. And- I'm-- I'm fine with that." Despite previously saying that his values reflect for traditional marriages, as they would when you're in your 70s, he doesn't want to change it. This is the very same person who, during a rally in Colorado, unfurled an LGBT flag with the phrase 'LGBTs for Trump' inscribed on the front, and showed his support for the community.
Onto the final myth surrounding the outgoing presidential party and LGBT issues; the myth that Vice President Mike Pence supports electroshock conversion therapy. This myth began in 2000 when the language of his campaign website for Congress was misinterpreted. On the website, he talks to not fund clinics that engage in 'risky behaviour' and advocates 'changing sexual behaviour'. You'll notice how it says sexual behaviour and not sexual orientation. The reality behind this myth was that Pence supported abstinence programs and not gay conversion therapy. There is footage from a Congress house session bolstering this claim. He outlines that in Africa there, at the time, was an epidemic of aids and HIV and caused 8,500 deaths every day. You'd think that when something that was killing thousands of people per day, the best way to curb it would be either abstaining from intercourse or using condoms; which the latter, sadly, isn't an option for those in Africa. He maintained that the best way to curb this epidemic from reaching America was through abstaining from intercourse all together, and further bringing $15 billion, which would be saved from producing less condoms. Additionally, would put a priority on the values of the American people, namely abstinence and faithfulness to marriage over condom distribution. Whether you agree or disagree that abstinence is the right method or not, or agree with his stance on same-sex marriage is fit for discussion, but the notion he supported gay conversion is not only ridiculous, but an irrefutable falsehood.
Both presidential candidates each had their own controversies and concerns from the public throughout their respective campaign trails which I have mentioned in previous paragraphs and will also in later paragraphs to come, where they are better suited on the topics and issues. The most pervasive related to Clinton were hers, Podesta's, and the DNC email leaks, as well as controversies that arose whilst she was a senator. Furthermore, everything to do with Trump and Russia, false rape accusations, the dishonest media and Trump being called every buzzword under the sun. It is true that Hillary has more controversies, but that is only because she has been involved in politics longer than Donald has. Naturally, the longer you're in politics, the more scandals, controversies and public concerns will show their faces.
Throughout the election cycle, there were rumours put forth by the Democratic Party that Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin were involved in collusion to win the presidency. Such rumours were just that, rumours with no basis in fact. Admiral Michael S. Rogers, Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), was questioned by Rep. Devin Nunes during a meeting in Congress, if he had any evidence that Russian cyber actors changed vote tallies in the state of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina and Ohio, responded to all with "No, Sir." Nunes then directed the same question to Director James Comey, head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and responded with "No." So, not only was this a ploy to obtain votes from Trump, but was also a flat-out lie.
Katie Johnson accused Trump of allegedly raping her when the two attended a party held by billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, when she was 13 years old. Trump has categorically denied these allegations on multiple occasions. The lawsuit case had also been dropped after one of the accuser's attorneys, Thomas Meagher, filed a one-page voluntary dismissal on behalf of Katie. There had been no merit to such claims and had been labelled a sham lawsuit brought on by someone who sought to impact the results of the election. Upon leading to her request of a waiver of the filing fees, Katie disclosed her net worth is $278; quite suspicious if you ask me. In my honest opinion, I don't think it'd be wrong to question if this was merely a slanderous attempt to try and delegitimise Trump's campaign. Why not lodge this lawsuit earlier on? As a society, we should be more critical when it comes to rape allegations without any convincing evidence. Extraordinary assertions should be bolstered by extraordinary evidence.
One controversy that I'm indifferent on is Trump's constant shaming of celebrity women based on their appearance and weight. It is true that he has a history of fat shaming and the likes, but fat shaming be both a positive thing and a negative thing. It can be positive in how it confronts people with their weight problem. Supporting the fat acceptance movement is both incredibly stupid, and teaching people they don't have to be responsible for their actions; the same for when it comes to abortion and the pro-choice community. I don't condemn, nor support his actions as I don't really care if he does it or doesn't, he's a celebrity turned politician that does as he pleases - as many other celebrities and people in general do. Maybe it's a good thing that Trump is like this? He's vigorously involved in the destruction of political correctness and I love it.
It is true that Melania Trump's speech at the 2016 Republican National Convention contained a passage that was plagiarised from Michelle Obama's speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, as the two contain eerily similar wording and messages. I agree it's the wrong thing to do and that, given how easily a speech can be written, should not have been done in the first place. She deserves the criticism that she got. Overall, the speeches conveyed strong messages, but Melania's speech should have been written differently. Melania maintains that she wrote the speech herself, and with as little help as possible.
Donald Trump first called Senator Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas" during a rally in Virginia, on June 10th, 2016. In doing so, this sparked outrage from The Left because of how 'insulting' it supposedly was. On June 12th, 2016, Donald Trump posted a tweet, yet again calling Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas". The reason why he does this is because, despite claims from Warren, there is no evidence of her Cherokee heritage. This is just another example of political correctness gone too far. Why is it more insulting to give Elizabeth Warren a nickname such as "Pocahontas", but not insulting for her to lie about her heritage? Moreover, why were people defending Warren when she was lying?
Trump is said to be a hot-head at times and too offensive, which I can agree with; it's not his best quality. Although he's a smart man who has a habit of making enemies, he can definitely read a crowd. The average Joe wouldn't be able to become a billionaire businessman and television personality and then became President, without being smart. But, I see this hot-head and offensive nature as him just being honest and speaking his mind. I would agree that he's not perfect, as he has also stated previously, but would argue that he's one of the most transparent presidents the United States have ever had. He's constantly tweeting out who he's meeting with, laying out the plan for the day and what else is in store, leaving his followers well-informed of what he's doing at all times. I would personally rather have a president who is being honest and not putting on a facade or hiding under the guise of something they're not. Honesty is a virtue and it's something that Trump possesses. I would also wish to see Australian politics become this way, as Australian politics is quite under wraps and quiet. However, I don't agree with his risky tweets regarding North Korea. Anything war-related, I'm heavily against.
Through the WikiLeaks email leaks, which saw the publication of over 30,000 work-related emails, sent and received by Hillary Clinton on a private email server, which in doing so posed a higher risk of being hacked into, instead of using the State.gov server like she was supposed to have, and later deleted by Clinton using a program called BleachBit, the Clinton Campaign has demonstrated their corrupt and untruthful nature to the American public. Not only was this scandal extremely controversial, but Clinton lied under oath during her hearing on the WikiLeaks email leaks. She said she didn't send or mark any emails that were classified, this was a lie. Also, saying that she only used one device, she actually used multiple devices. Furthermore, saying that she turned over all the emails to the state department, the FBI found thousands of work-related emails that weren't returned. Those emails contained the truth behind the Benghazi incident, as well as suspicious language in relation to 'spirit cooking', and so many other things. One of those including the fact that Hillary received the questions that were going to be asked during the debates in advance from Donna Brazile, with answers to those questions. And yet, she still lost! Is there any level that Hillary won't sink to?
As a testament to how crooked she is, Hillary Clinton has gone on the record in numerous occasions blaming others for her controversies and lying. In particular the occasion where she blamed Donald Trump for being the originator of the birther movement pitted against Barack Obama, as well as blaming her election defeat on misogyny. Really. Not because she was an awful candidate who is corrupt and is a pathological liar. The reality of the birther movement is that it started in 2007 from a campaign memo in which Mark Penn started to question the very American-ness of the then-Senator Barack Obama, when she ran for president in 2008, Trump simply jumped on-board with her. Hillary's most ardent supporters then began to question Obama's birth by circulating anonymous emails.
Within Hillary's campaign staff, there cropped up many scandals. Some of which were undeniably true. For example, the fact that Bill Clinton is a rapist. During his time in office as the 42nd President of the United States (1993-2001), he was accused of sexual misconduct by three women and admitted to extramarital relationships with Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers. The first was by Juanita Broaddrick, who claims that Bill raped her in a hotel during the late 70s. Secondly, Kathleen Willey who accused Bill of groping her without consent. Finally, Paula Jones who accused Clinton of exposing himself and sexually harassing her. Hillary later went on the record to describe her husband's sexual assault victims as "Bimbo eruptions." Which, by the way, isn't the first time she has belittled and smeared Bill's rape victims. In an infamous Tweet of hers, she described how sexual assault victims "deserves to be heard, believed, and supported." That is unless they are of those multiple women who came to the foreground and accused her husband of raping them. It's different then, right? No. Moreover, Hillary did not file for divorce with Bill after he had admitted to an inappropriate sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, after lying to the public that he didn't, but later belittled and bullied the victims of her husband's sexual assault and rape. Great choices there, Hillary! Is this really the family you want to run the United States? One that lies so often?
The second scandal which was proven to be true was regarding Anthony Weiner, ex-husband of Huma Abedin (separated in 2016), the vice chair and top aide of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, and his involvement in sexting with a 15-year-old girl. The age gap between the two is 37 years, just let that sink in for a moment. Weiner has been charged with possession of child pornography. The 15-year-old from North Carolina in question has chosen to remain anonymous due to her age, but told police that she and the former Congressman maintained a relationship for several months starting in early 2016 via such mobile applications as Twitter, Facebook, Kik, Confide and Skype.
John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, was found to be connected to the practice of spirit cooking, after emails discovered by WikiLeaks were released to the public. This is not the only freaky practice or interest he has, Podesta is also known to have a strange obsession with UFOs. This is the furthest thing from normal; Hillary is connected to this though the two's work relationship, and many other strange practices, which we will discuss. Spirit cooking involves "an occult performance during which menstrual blood, breast milk, urine and sperm are used to create a 'painting'" as a sacrament to occult beliefs. In an email addressed to John Podesta's brother Tony in late June 2015, Marina Abramovic writes asking if his brother, John, would be attending the spirit cooking dinner at her place. Tony then forwarded the email to John; Abramovic went on to contact John directly. The entire practice smacks of satanism, cult-like beliefs and evilness. Abramovic is filmed writing the phrase "WITH A SHARP KNIFE CUT DEEPLY INTO THE MIDDLE FINGER OF YOUR LEFT HAND EAT THE PAIN" on a pale-yellow wall, with a child-sized effigy standing in the corner. That's not all, there's more! In that same video, she pours thick congealed blood over the effigy. She has also been spotted with Lady Gaga eating what appears to be a red liquid-like substance with a spoon that is smeared all over the body of a mock corpse. Hillary is also known to hold seances to contact the dead within the White House, in particular, contacting Eleanor Roosevelt and Mahatma Gandhi. Bill Clinton's book also mentions his and Hillary's involvement in practices of voodoo rituals in Haiti. Moreover, Hillary's mentor Saul Alinsky praises Lucifer in his book 'Rules for Radicals'. But how did the Clinton campaign respond to the spirit cooking allegations? They blamed Vladimir Putin. I'm not kidding, they were exposed and continued to blame Putin. Wow. Naturally, this would entail the American people to look inwards and think again if this is really the political party that they'd want in power, after discovering of Podesta's and Hillary's connections to such a bizarre and abnormal practices.
The Benghazi incident of 2012 remained a crucial thorn in the side of the Clinton campaign's journey to the White House. The incident involved a terrorist attack within Benghazi, Libya, taking the lives of four Americans, and injuring four other Americans who worked at U.S. government facilities in the city. The attack was staged by an Islamic militant group called Ansar al-Sharia, and targeted two U.S. facilities. The controversy though, revolved around the fact that, in a city where terrorist attacks were so prevalent, Clinton blamed the attack on a YouTube video, lied about it and handled information regarding the safety of the workers of the government facility poorly. The attacks raged on from September 11th, 2012, to September 12th, 2012. In Clinton's testimony hearings in front of Congress, members of Congress confronted Hillary with solid evidence regarding emails sent during the night, she's seen lying with a smirk on her face, not caring about the severity of the situation. The emails read that during the attack was in full flight, her and others were discussing how to politicise this, and blame it on something else. The public uproar came from this very thing, she wasn't calling it attack, but instead deflecting and blaming a YouTube video. A YouTube video for God's sake, I'm sure the American people aren't that stupid that they would fall for that, so why bother? That's really an insult to the American people's intellect. Perhaps she was trying to safeguard for the Muslim people by not having them be labelled as terrorists? With comments such as "What difference, at this point, does it make?" in reply to a question raised during the Benghazi hearings, where she was testifying before the Senate Committee on January 23rd, 2013, trying to get the facts straight and have her admit it was a planned attack, rather than a protest gone violent, really comes to question whether or not she really cares about the American people, in particular, those four dead Americans, or if she's more concerned with her career and her public image. Not to mention how according to the emails about Libya which were presented to Clinton by Rep. Susan Brooks during a House Benghazi Committee hearing, from February to December of 2011, Clinton sent and received 795 emails, compared to the 67 emails sent and received from early 2012 until the day of the attack. There is clearly a disparity as the change in emails had decreased radically. During 2011, Clinton would be sent daily, sometimes hourly updates about matters in Benghazi from her senior staff, but in 2012 she received only a handful of updates. Her senior advisers knew to send her important information, but didn't.
The American public had many concerns regarding Hillary Clinton; the most prevalent was her health. This is a fair point to be concerned over because she has been seen on many occasions with a nasty cough, which not even a glass of water could placate. A video of her fainting on the way to her motorcade was also in constant rotation as the end of the election campaigns came to a near close. Of course, the media came swooping to her aid by declaring she was "not feeling well." No. Implying she wasn't feeling well denotes a minor illness like a flew or a cold. In the video obtained by a member of the public, and thankfully so, she is swaying, leaning against a pillar, and even with the guidance of two or three people, she falls to the ground. That information is nowhere to be seen in the CNN report that covers up the story. The question of what's the use in electing someone whose health is in jeopardy also started to loom ominously over the election cycle.
Furthermore, that going to war with Russia would be a great inconvenience at this point in time. I see it as nothing but a positive thing to be on good terms with Russia, another nuclear powerhouse. Clinton was a strong advocate of going to war with Russia, whereas Trump wanted nothing more than getting along with Putin. He had been accused many times of being Putin's puppet, of which was completely blown out of the water when he launched a tomahawk missile strike onto a Syrian airbase. Throughout Trump's election cycle, he stated on multiple occasions that he would avoid war and military intervention in foreign countries, so this was a safer route to pursue. I view war as pointless, too many people die for stupid reasons. I, for the record, am against Trump's current feud with North Korea. If the two end up going to war, I will of course hope America reigns victorious, but that does not mean that I support him on this issue.
In accordance to a Fox News poll, 68% of people believe that the media has been tougher on Trump than what they were to Obama. The MRC conducted a study in which it sought to analyse evening news stories that discussed the presidential campaigns of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. In this study, 588 evening news stories were discussed from July 29th through to October 20th. The networks spent 1,191 minutes to the presidential campaign during this period, or nearly 29 percent of all news coverage. They concluded that Trump had received significantly more news coverage time than his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton; 91% of all the Trump coverage was hostile; despite both candidate's controversies being both deserving of equal air time. In addition, the networks ABC, CBS and NBC spent far more airtime focusing on the personal controversies involving Trump (440 minutes) than about similar controversies involving Clinton (185 minutes). So, it's no wonder Trump isn't liked by the mainstream after all this negative news coverage was constantly rammed down the throats of the viewers. Not only is the media biased towards Hillary and how their news coverage wasn't non-partisan, but the White House has ties to the mainstream media, as evident in the picture below. Liberals also dominate the culture wars, as they compose a resounding majority within the entertainment industry.
Now onto the most popular topic regarding Trump and the Right-wing political stance; fake news. On top of innumerable articles from Left-leaning political and news outlets, the first controversy involves Trump mocking a disabled reporter at his rally in South Carolina. In a video by the Rebel Media, Gavin McInnes explains why Trump didn't mock said disabled reporter. Only his hand was impaired, he can speak normally just like all the other reporters. Perhaps another example of The Left's victim-hood mentality? Gavin further demonstrates in the video that he has done it to many other people; not just the disabled. In a video by Project Veritas Action, members of the Clinton Campaign and Democratic National Committee (DNC) are filmed trying to organise and incite violence at Trump rallies, by using disabled people as pawns. A direct quote from the video is: "We have mentally ill people that we pay to do shit, make no mistake." This is quoted from Scott Foval. Foval and his people trained agitators to go to Trump rallies and cause conflict. He says within the video that there is a script, which is to start confrontations in the line and not inside the rally, that way tensions are rising before people get inside. Scott also kept track of wherever Trump and Pence are ahead of time, so that he can always send and have his pawns at the rallies. The whole endeavour behind this was to get negative coverage of Trump and his supporters. One last instance of this operation translating into fake news was that there was a lady with an oxygen tank at a rally who was punched by a Trump supporter; she was also a pawn. So, the idea that Trump supporters are violent is implanted in the minds of supporters of both candidates and make them re-evaluate who they were voting for. Of course, as this video was released in late October, this potentiality was mitigated. Quite disgusting behaviour if you ask me! I highly suggest you watch the video.
One of my favourite lies that came out of the Liberal elite mainstream media, was that Trump would never be president. In fact, the infamous Left-wing propaganda machine Huffington Post tweeted in early November of 2016 that Trump had an underwhelming 1.6% chance of winning. And boy, has that tweet not aged well or what? Not only was it an absurd figure, but thousands of people genuinely believed it too. Seriously though, 98.1%? That has to be the biggest piece of misinformation I've ever seen from the mainstream media, surely. Not only that, but BuzzFeed, one of the least reputable 'news' sites ever, published a dossier that was entirely baseless. This spawned the controversy, which many believed to be true, called "Pissgate". It was said that in that dossier, which originated from 4Chan, that Trump supposedly hired prostitutes to perform a "golden shower urination show" on a bed in the Moscow Ritz Carlton Hotel, where Barack and Michelle Obama had slept during their trip to Russia. Not only is this absurd, as he likely has OCD, but Trump responded to such claims that according to the dossier, Michael Cohen, Trump's personal attorney, was also in Prague for a meeting with Kremlin agents. Trump checked his passport and found that he didn't leave the country when that was happening, furthermore, that it was the wrong Michael Cohen - the one that was listed was a different Michael Cohen and wasn't even connected to Trump. Absolute fake news.
I strongly believe that the only people who were divisive in the presidential campaign of 2016 were the Clinton campaign and those involved in the He Will Not Divide Us movement. By the way, all elections are divisive - you pick a candidate you like, and are therefore divided into two sides. Donald Trump never attacked Hillary Clinton's supporters, in fact, even reached out to Bernie Sanders' supporters. Hillary was the one who described half of Trump's supporters as "deplorables" and there after labelled them a plethora of buzzwords, including "racists, sexists, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it..." By the way, Hillary, America is sick to death of this constant over-usage of buzzwords because it has been so over-done and is such a divisive blanket statement to throw over such a vast population of people, and let's be real, potential voters which you drove away by doing so. On another occasion, she described Sanders' supporters as "living in their parent's basement." Trump has always been inclusive, even offering to allow other Republican candidates to speak at his rallies; it was the other Republicans who turned their backs to him. By labelling others as Hillary has with Trump's and Sanders' supporters, and enacting the message in a way that describes that you are either with us or you're our enemy, is the very definition of divisiveness. He Will Not Divide Us was a toxic movement founded by Shia Labeouf. Initially starting out as an 'art project', a camera was mounted on a wall outside the Museum of the Moving Image in New York City, the public was invited to chant the words "He will not divide us" for as long as they want. This ended up slowly turning them into what could easily be described as zombie-like, brain-dead chanting. The 'He' in question obviously being Donald Trump. The movement became violent and in a way, a platform for fascism - real fascism, by the way - not this false labelling of conservatives in America. Fascism can be described in many ways. Google's definition is "An authoritarian and nationalistic Right-wing system of government and social organisation", which can be easily misconstrued with the support of the mainstream media's constant loop of negative coverage of Trump. Brainwashed youth will believe anything if it's repeated enough. The most commonly agreed upon definition is "the suppression of free speech through violence". This was evident throughout the life-cycle of the art project, where he became violent towards anyone who was trolling, even his own supporters; this led to his eventual arrest. The event was shut down by the museum due to violence. Status: divided. As I'll also state later in this article, Trump is no dictator, let alone any equivalence to Hitler, and his supporters cannot be fascists if he isn't a dictator and supports the right to free speech, as do his supporters.