by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist
Scroll Down for Audio Version
The world may actually melt down due to Donald Trump’s harsh words of our intelligence community and at the same time, praise of Vladimir Putin.
As an aside – isn’t it funny how the left are all of the sudden the greatest boosters of the American intelligence community, when back in the Bush era the left couldn’t lambast them enough for dragging us into the Iraq war under false pretences. Yet now they’re unassailable. Just thought that illuminating.
Back to that fiend Trump.
There’s a TV commercial that’s been airing recently – either on Netflix or Amazon. Anywho, it’s for a candy. They call it Sour Patch candy. My kids used to eat it. The commercial describes the candy as, “first they’re sour, then they’re sweet.” First the candy, which is animated in the commercial, does something bad (sour), but then follows up by doing something good (sweet). That’s Trump.
And this silly candy analogy could very well have described the day between the two leaders. Trump could have taken Putin to the woodshed during their private meeting, and then followed up the lashing with effusive public praise. How the heck do we know?
If I were a betting man, I would put my money on that scenario. It’s what he does with all the leaders of various nations – friend and foe alike.
How is this any different than what he did regarding Kim Jong Un? First Trump slams Kim on several issues and calls him little Rocket Man. Then he meets with Kim and publically praises him as a smart guy. And the press jumped on Trump for both.
I wrote about this in June for World Net Daily, in an article entitled, “TRUMP’S DIPLOMACY: SMACK-EM DOWN, BUTTER-EM UP.”
Ben Shapiro wrote a piece for National Review that he thought Americans were beginning to tune Trump out.
“More than a year ago, I wrote in these pages that Americans were beginning to tune Trump out. ‘Many Americans have been treating Trump as a guy to ignore except when he bothers them, an approach that seems pretty reasonable at this point,’ I suggested. But could Trump’s rhetoric make a difference with regard to foreign policy? Over at The New Republic, Jeet Heer criticized that idea that it couldn’t, stating that ‘the very nature of our modern world, and the United States’ supremacy, makes it impossible to dismiss an American president’s word.’”
However Trump is like no president before him. He is literally rewriting the playbook. And whereas it may not work for another president, it works for him.
As a further aside – isn’t what Ben described the way the founders set it up? A relatively anonymous government. A government which we should actually be able to ignore unless it bothers us. Now wouldn’t that be wonderful.
At the end of the day, for Trump, it’s just words – it’s just rhetoric. And we should have learned after 2 years of the President spouting off that his words mean very little if anything. His speeches and Twitter rants rarely, if ever, match his actual policy.
Even the supreme Court, who the left used to love, could figure out that Trump’s words and policy rarely coincide, when, despite his rhetoric, they upheld his travel ban.
So frankly I don’t care if the President said that he was thinking about gifting Ukraine to Putin. It wouldn’t mean a darn thing to me. It’s all just bluster designed to bolster someone’s ego, or cut them down to size.
If I’d said it once, I’ve said it a hundred times already. People must find a way to separate Trump’s rhetoric from his policy. A lot of Americans have. Only those with an agenda have not and never will.