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