logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo logo
star Bookmark: Tag Tag Tag Tag Tag
USA

Why are Trump's political donors so ashamed to be publicly known?

They bought him, they own him.

Donald Trump likes to believe he’s the most popular politician in the history of the universe, just as he likes to think the women he pays for sex are actually attracted to him. But his cultists are outraged that publicly available information is being used to boycott businesses associated with Trump’s political donors. These are the same principled geniuses who burned their Nike shoes because that corporation publicly supports athletes who protest against violent racism.

And of course, the perpetually gaslit Trump-enabling media play right along, wondering aloud if it is indeed wrong to publicize information that is already publicly available. They apparently believe it’s the job of ostensible news organizations to question the dissemination of publicly available information—news. And that would be the same media organizations that published lists of donors to the Clintons’ charitable foundation and spent an entire presidential campaign frothing over Hillary Clinton’s staffers illegally stolen emails. Emails that, it turns out, were stolen by a hostile foreign government with the deliberate intention of helping to elect as U.S. president a man they believed would best serve their hostile purposes against the United States. Mission accomplished.

And the media will not self-reflect on what they have done. They will continue to serve Trump’s—and Putin’s—purposes. And apparently hope that future historians either won’t be allowed to tell the truth or somehow won’t be capable of stating what already is obvious. But here’s the question about media-enabled right-wing outrage over Trump’s political donors being widely known to the public: What are they ashamed of?

If Trump is as beloved as he likes to pretend he is, he should be proud to have his donors known. They should be proud to be known. So, why aren’t they?

I have given money to the presidential campaigns of Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren, and I undoubtedly will give them more. And if neither wins the Democratic presidential nomination I certainly will give money to whomever does. I’m proud of my political support. Democrats are imperfect, and every Democratic candidate is imperfect, because humans are imperfect, but I have no doubt that whomever wins the Democratic presidential nomination will, as president, make the United States and the world better places.

Do Trump’s donors not feel the same about Trump? Do they know, as we know, that Trump is a toxic, pathological bigot who is undermining national security, tearing this nation apart from within, and hurting people for the sake of hurting them? Are they willing to accept all that for a tax and budget cut agenda that expands the already cruel, obscene, and dangerous wealth gap? Or do they actually like that Trump is a toxic, pathological bigot who is undermining national security, tearing this nation apart from within, and hurting people for the sake of hurting them? Who knows?

But their reticence at being publicly known speaks for itself. Trump’s donors are ashamed to be publicly associated with him. And that’s the story that the incompetent and complicit media should be telling. And that they aren’t telling it is the real outrage.

All rights and copyright belongs to author:
Themes
ICO