Characterizing Trump's Actions Amidst Leftist Control of the Media and Justice System
Trump Versus the Hive (Part 15)
The difference between a characterization and a fact
If you ask people who hate Trump why, they will often say he is a “racist”, a “misogynist”, “stupid”, “crazy”, a “criminal”, a “xenophobe”, “incited a riot on January 6th”, “tried to overturn the election”, used “fake electors”, “tried to overthrow the government”, “created an insurrection”, and is “a threat to democracy.”
If you ask people who like Trump for their best reasons, they might say he built much of the southern border fence, made a new trade deal with Canada and Mexico, made a trade deal with China, kept gas prices and inflation at historic lows, brought the troops home from endless “forever” wars in Iraq and Syria, kept Afghanistan peaceful with just a few thousand troops, brokered four Middle East peace deals, was nominated for three Nobel Prizes, signed a peace deal with North Korea, and was the only President this century under whom Russia did not invade another country.
So, who is right? If you notice, the first paragraph is all characterizations. Opinions. The second paragraph is all facts.
When you ask Trump’s opponents for facts, they have many, but there is no widespread or long-term agreement on the primary factual complaints against Trump. They change with the news cycle. Most people who hate Trump hate him because of emotional judgments, characterizations, and triggers; in other words, how the media painted him, not because of specific actions he took.
Some will say his recording on the bus, “grab em by the p****”, means he is a misogynist who doesn’t respect women. No, 50+ years in business working with and promoting women plus one verbal statement does not logically redefine that person. That’s why the Left uses anger. Nor does a couple of make-outs where the woman decides it was unwelcome 30 years later.
While legal scholars write detailed analysis of the difference between fact and opinion, generally, a fact is something provable by concrete scientific evidence. “The car was going really fast” is opinion. “The car was going 78 miles per hour” is a fact.
“Tried to overturn the election” is a characterization. It is opinion, not a fact. “Fake electors” and “bogus electors” is a characterization. Opinion. “Undermine the election” and “overthrow the government” are opinions. Your own media is manipulating you, and programming you with emotional triggers they, or a prosecutor in front of a jury, can press any time to control your feelings and behavior, and have your vote or verdict come out as they want.
“Fake” or “bogus” electors are not clear or court-recognized terms that have specifically provable criteria. The facts are, documentation was sent representing “alternate electors” – the correct legal term, as has been found the correct legal procedure by courts in the past, including for Democrats. “Undermine” and “overthrow” are opinions because they are not one specific act, step, or provable fact, let alone “tried to”. The fact is, Trump’s supporters “filed legal objections”, “filed administrative and court processes”, contesting the preliminary election results.
In the 1960 presidential election, Nixon was leading in the vote count with more votes than John F. Kennedy in Hawaii. While Nixon went to the State assembly with the official electors, Kennedy’s alternate set of electors also signed certificates, which said Kennedy won Hawaii, and both sets were sent to Washington for counting at election certification, including almost identical sworn certificates.[1] Kennedy ended up with the higher vote tally at the end.[2]
Attorneys Pierson and Gillen wrote to Fulton County D.A. Fanni Willis in March, 2023, stating, regarding Hawaii Judge Robbie Jamieson who finally held that Kennedy had won Hawaii, “Rather than suggest the uncertified Democratic electors had committed crimes, Judge Jamieson hailed them as heroes, describing their meeting as a critically important step that preserved their ability for their presidential ballots to be counted after the Democrats prevailed in their election contest and the Governor certified the Democratic contingent presidential electors as having been elected.”[3] Despite this precedent of legality, Willis indicted Trump and his associated anyway.
No matter what the media has emotionally programmed in minds to justify the indictments, Trump’s associates’ actions were following legal precedent regarding procedurally upheld “alternate electors.” Among Judge Jamieson’s conclusions, “Complainants were and are entitled to a recount of the ballots for the election of presidential electors and alternate presidential electors of the state of Hawaii.[4] The “alternate electors” appeared conditionally, in the event that ongoing legal cases and administrative procedures prevailed. Trump wasn’t asking Pence to make Trump President again, but to send the sets of electors back to the state legislators for confirmation after vote counting legal and procedural challenges had been completed.
Likewise, “Insurrection” and “insurgency” are emotionalized characterizations that have become triggers in the psyches of much of the Left. They are not facts. The fact is, President Trump gave a speech on January 6th, 2021, in which he told people to walking to the Capitol to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”, and then Tweeted for people to be “peaceful!” repeatedly. Whether Trump was trying to “overturn” or “correct” the election results is a matter of opinion. This will be important for why his actions were not inherently criminal.
Yes, trying to “overthrow the government” is bad. Yes, “unlawfully remaining in power” after your term in a democracy is bad. But Trump did none of those things. Nobody is accusing Trump of trying to use the military to seize Congress or the Supreme Court, or arrest politicians or judges, the path he might have chosen if that were his intent. There is no crime in filing legal procedures asking for recounts, challenging recent changes to election laws, and seeking to verify the accuracy of voting machines. Aggressive? Yes. Overthrow of the government? No.
Trump in a phone with Governor of Georgia, Trump asked, “I just want to find 11,780 votes…”, but the definition of “find” is to locate something that exists.[5] From listening to the phone call in full and in context, it is clear that Trump’s request to find votes is in the context of legitimately believing he won, by correcting what appears to be an incorrect initial count, and correcting rumors of irregularities. Based on the full call, Trump clearly believed that number of legitimate votes for Trump existed somewhere and were unaccounted for. If Trump had told anyone to fabricate votes, we would have heard it. If Trump had told anyone that he believed he lost but he wanted to stay in power anyway, believe me, we would have heard it.
In reality, while the Republicans did not find substantial evidence of fraud, the media bias, concealment of negative press on the Bidens and delays in their investigations, the Democrats made ensuring a secure election impossible. Democrats’ opposition to voter ID, use of drop boxes and unsecure collection points, ballot harvesting, and mail-in voting does not instill confidence in the outcome. While approximately 25% of voters voted by mail in 2016 and 2020, 43% or almost half the votes received were by mail.[6] While there is little evidence of significant fraud, practically speaking, it is impossible to know who returned millions of those. The Federal Election Reform Commission of Jimmy Carter and James Baker found that “absentee ballots remain the largest source of voter fraud.”[7] Saying “there’s no evidence” when removing the ballot from the envelope destroys what little evidence is created in the first place does not prove no fraud. Mail in just makes fraud undetectable, so Democrats can argue there's no evidence. This is especially the case after envelopes are separated from ballots, making them completely anonymous. A recount at that point is near useless. Not requiring voters to show up in person and show ID is asking for trouble. Not having clear verifiable chains of custody from the voter to the counter is too.
The problem with these words is that they are conditioned response stimuli, like Skinner, and Pavlov proved on the ability to associate and trigger an emotional response from a stimuli, in this case certain words. By watching thousands and thousands of negative, inflammatory, enraging accusations against “Trump”, “January 6th”, and “MAGA”, “insurgency”, it creates an emotional response in the programmed adherent; just like Nazi.