Donald Trump’s third “sin” is his speaking out his mind in a world of false pretences. We hear about diplomatic language; decent language; serious language; popular language; vulgar language and the list is unexhausted. Much as those distinctions may have their circumstantial relevance, the issue is bias rears up its ugly head when we arbitrarily pick and choose the victim and the circumstance.
We all learnt in school the difference between written and spoken language; the difference between formal and figurative language. The naked truth is that in the lighter mood we use words we would in public, under the cloak of decency, turn our backs on. And we do often take exception to the publication for consumption of our casual pronouncement in settings of camaraderie and privacy.
But when the enemy wants to crucify you, such limitations or selections are trampled underfoot. That is equally true in matters of discriminatory targeting. Fine distinctions take the centre stage, resulting in the exoneration of the some and the crucifixion of the others. If someone “temperamentally fit” as incumbent said “PUSSY” ten years before, it is considered as by-gone. But if the one marked with the sign of perdition used the exact term eleven years past, the mob irrationally yell “Crucify him!”
And those in the new immaculate saintly apparel contradict themselves in a manner most incomprehensible. The saint who passionately used crude lewd terms in defence of legalizing same-sex marriage seizes the key from Saint Peter and bars your entry into heaven for your even inadvertent use of lewd language. The woman who walks the street half naked, or even stark naked, facetiously turns round to pass capital sentence on you for mere jocular utterances in private intercourse.
Noting said here is said in defence of Donald Trump. I have the right so to do. But my point here is not in the exercise of that right. We are simply trying to argue the case for a level playground back home if America should think of asserting the existence of such environment elsewhere tomorrow. If Trump is “temperamentally unfit” to be the commander-in-chief, American voters should be led to vote the right person by that right person presenting a convincing manifesto.
Resorting to dirty tricks and/or invoking the same negative “trivialities” that had been glossed over elsewhere, or prompting the Republican Party to resort to unorthodox or even illegal means to stop Trump is clear evidence of apprehension, and the seeking to accede to the throne through a reprehensible shortcut!
We owe no apology to anyone foe vehemently calling such discriminatory and culpable conduct hypocrisy!