And?
That's not why people voted for him.
Don't pretend that oath means anything to the bigoted trash who elected him.
Just remember, Exchemist, the American equivalent of
you is why he is president.
Anti-trans, anti-vax, misogyny, racism, that's why. These things were more important to a voter here, and a voter there there, until they all added up to a majority. Can't call a trans girl a man in a dress, so they vote for Trump to hire Musk and Lutnick, &c., in order to stick it to the elitists.
As I
said before↗, every cycle. Every election cycle, there's always a reason: Homosexuals, uppity women, scary black people, transgender, non-Christians, nonwhite migrants.
So, what I would really hope people understand, what I direly hope people are capable of learning, is that these little hatreds come with a cost. There's nothing to be done about the past, as such, or the immediate present moment it leads to, but looking forward, we can certainly make different choices about the future.
Meanwhile, it's not so much a matter of shutting your mouths, but the people who sympathize with right-wing bigotry need to decide what their hatred is worth, because every time they complain about Donald Trump, they're also complaining about what they traded away in order to take a swing at the man in the dress, the uppity Negro, and bitches, man, I mean, c'mon, bitches, amiright?
And no matter how much these people whine for their own selves, it's always fallacious. It's one thing if the white supremacist isn't a theocrat, or the misogynist supports gay marriage, but when you add up the anti-trans, the anti-vax, the creationists, the masculinists, and the while they may not want to be seen as similar to one another, they are all unified in their rejection of liberalism, and, when added to the supremacist, conspiracist conservative base, can add up to a majority. And in American history, one of the most common values is that these people's behavior is always, always,
always someone else's fault: The man in a dress, the uppity Negro, women who say no to sexual harassment, and so on.
It's a filthy history, and no wonder that the people who seek to benefit from it wouldn't want to be associated with it.
But you ask that question about the oath, for instance, as if it means anything.
It doesn't mean anything to those voters. The oath means
nothing to conservatives. Like anything else, it's just a sales pitch, and, caveat emptor, more fool the fool foolish enough to be fooled. And there is a reason why these hatreds gather together.
"Didn’t the guy swear a fucking
oath to uphold the constitution," you ask, as if that question means anything.
Of course he did, and if you think that oath means anything to him or his supporters,
¿why?
That's not what they voted for.
And that's just the kind of people they are: Devoted supremacists, an assembly of bigots.
So every time they complain about what they traded away, it seems reasonable to ask if they think the trade was worth it.
And that goes for their nonunion, overseas equivalent, too.
