The Artful Dilettante is a native of Pittsburgh, PA, and a graduate of Penn State University. He is a lover of liberty and a lifelong and passionate student of the same. He is voracious reader of books on the Enlightenment and the American colonial and revolutionary periods. He is a student of libertarian and Objectivist philosophies. He collects revolutionary war and period currency, books, and newspapers. He is married and the father of one teenage son. He is kind, witty, generous to a fault, and unjustifiably proud of himself. He is the life of the party and an unparalleled raconteur.
In the event that Donald Trump actually becomes president again, I surely hope he engages in retribution.
Here’s the dictionary definition of “retribution”:
“ret·ri·bu·tion” noun punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for a wrong or criminal act. “employees asked not to be named, saying they feared retribution”. Works for me.
What’s the problem? Why be on the defensive?
The question isn’t whether it’s right or wrong to engage in retribution. The question is whether the person you’re holding accountable is actually guilty of anything.
The leftists and RINOs who rule us don’t care about whether or not someone is guilty. If they dislike you, then you’re guilty. And if you’re guilty, you’re going to jail. They’ve done it to Trump, they’ve done it to Steve Bannon and others, they’ve done it to January 6 “offenders” and they’re coming for everyone else they can, especially if we don’t remove them from power.
People who say, “Trump doesn’t dare punish Biden, Obama, Bill Barr, Merrick Garland, etc. because that would be retribution” are giving an after-the-fact, moral and legal blank check to the worst tyrants and sociopaths ever to be part of the American landscape.
Of course Trump, if he has the chance, should engage in retribution. The people he will hopefully go after are guilty of treason; of literal, open weaponization of America’s legal system and, with it, destruction of not only America’s Bill of Rights, but the entire idea of objective justice going back for centuries even before America.
Remember the terrorist group Black Lives Matter and its destruction of America’s once great cities? Remember COVID fascism? We’re still not over these catastrophes. These were inflicted by our own governments, federal and, in many cases, state and local. Why are every single one of the victimizers still in office? Why are not all of them on trial and in prison, right now?
The people who deserve to go to jail and even face execution for treason have literally ruined America — perhaps irreparably. They are not just scoundrels; they are worse than scum. Not only have they ruined our system; they have made billions of dollars in the process, in many cases. The Bidens, while just puppets, sit at the middle of that toxic tyranny. Yes, Trump should absolutely start with them.
I don’t know that it will or can happen. I can only say that it should. Stop apologizing; stop hesitating, conservatives. Grow a pair. These people deserve far worse than we will probably ever give them.
Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Charleston SC). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1, drmichaelhurd on Instagram, Michael Hurd Ph.D. on LinkedIn, @DrHurd on TruthSocial
“The most dangerous person is the one who thinks, listens, and observes.”–Bruce Lee
It doesn’t really matter how the Supreme Court ruled on presidential immunity and the use of presidential power. In a republic where the Constitution still is taken seriously, it would matter. But that’s not where we are. The fact remains that a president supported by the ruling elite (Obama, Biden, etc.) will have unlimited authority and unlimited immunity for whatever he wishes to do — so long as the ruling elite approves of his actions.
The Court can rule against any future vax mandates, but it does not matter. The minute the regime in power wishes to impose a medical mandate, a lockdown, or anything else it wishes in the name of “health” or “the environment” — we’re going to get it. The minute the regime in power wishes to transfer wealth — as in “student loan forgiveness” — or inflate the currency, it’s going to do so without consequence. The Biden regime has done everything it wanted, sometimes with court approval and in a few cases not — but so what? They do it anyway.
Court rulings matter in theoretical principle, perhaps, but not in practice — unless your country is an actual Constitutional republic, as opposed to a banana republic. So don’t get too excited about this latest Supreme Court decision. Biden or his elite-picked successor (Harris, Michelle, Gavin — it doesn’t matter) are all going to decimate our individual rights until enough people figure out a way to resist and/or fight back. It’s as simple — and as sad — as that.
Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Charleston SC). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1, drmichaelhurd on Instagram, Michael Hurd Ph.D. on LinkedIn, @DrHurd on TruthSocial
America’s cities and towns will soon fill with parades, fireworks, and barbecues. They will be celebrating the Fourth of July, the [246th] birthday of America. But one hopes that the speeches will contain fewer bromides and more attention to exactly what is being celebrated. The Fourth of July is Independence Day, but America’s leaders and intellectuals have been trying to move us further and further away from the meaning of Independence Day, away from the philosophy that created this country.
What we hear from politicians, intellectuals, and the media is that independence is passé, that we’ve reached a new age of “interdependence.” We hear demands for mandatory “volunteering” to serve others, for sacrifice to the nation. We hear demands from trust-busters that successful companies be punished for being “greedy” and not serving society. But this is not the message of America. It is the direct opposite of why America became a beacon of hope for the truly oppressed throughout the world. They have come here to escape poverty and dictatorship; they have come here to live their own lives, where they aren’t owned by the state, the community, or the tribe.
“Independence Day” is a critically important title. It signifies the fundamental meaning of this nation, not just of the holiday. The American Revolution remains unique in human history: a revolution–and a nation–founded on a moral principle, the principle of individual rights. Jefferson at Philadelphia, and Washington at Valley Forge, pledged their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.” For what? Not for mere separation from England, not–like most rebels–for the “freedom” to set up their own tyranny. In fact, Britain’s tyranny over the colonists was mild compared to what most current governments do to their citizens.
Jefferson and Washington fought a war for the principle of independence, meaning the moral right of an individual to live his own life as he sees fit. Independence was proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence as the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” What are these rights? The right to life means that every individual has a right to his own independent life, that one’s life belongs to oneself, not to others to use as they see fit.
The right to liberty means the right to freedom of action, to act on one’s own judgment, the right not to have a gun pointed at one’s head and be forced to do what someone else commands. And the right to the pursuit of happiness means that an individual may properly pursue his own happiness, e.g., his own career, friends, hobbies, and not exist as a mere tool to serve the goals of others. The Founding Fathers did not proclaim a right to the attainment of happiness, knowing full well that such a policy would carry with it the obligation of others to make one happy and result in the enslavement of all to all. The Declaration of Independence was a declaration against servitude, not just servitude to the Crown but servitude to anyone. (That some signers still owned slaves does not negate the fact that they established the philosophy that doomed slavery.)
Political independence is not a primary. It rests on a more fundamental type of independence: the independence of the human mind. It is the ability of a human being to think for himself and guide his own life that makes political independence possible and necessary. The government as envisaged by the Founding Fathers existed to protect the freedom to think and to act on one’s thinking. If human beings were unable to reason, to think for themselves, there would be no autonomy or independence for a government to protect. It is this independence that defines the American Revolution and the American spirit.
To the Founding Fathers, there was no authority higher than the individual mind, not King George, not God, not society. Reason, wrote Ethan Allen, is “the only oracle of man,” and Thomas Jefferson advised us to “fix reason firmly in her seat and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God.” That is the meaning of independence: trust in your own judgment, in reason; do not sacrifice your mind to the state, the church, the race, the nation, or your neighbors.
Independence is the foundation of America. Independence is what should be celebrated on Independence Day. That is the legacy our Founding Fathers left us. It is a legacy we should keep, not because it is a legacy, but because it is right and just. It has made America the freest and most prosperous country in history.
First published in Capitalism Magazine in 2007. Copyright 2007 Ayn Rand Institute. All rights reserved. A version of this article was first published in 2007. Capitalism Magazine is republishing it again because its message still remains relevant today.
Had Democrats and the media been honest about how obvious Biden’s condition was a year ago, they might have a winning candidate now.
Shortly after Biden’s disastrous debate ended Thursday, Ben Rhodes tweeted: “Just think about what that debate looked like to people and leaders around the world.” Rhodes, a loyal Democrat soldier, was careful not to say that everyone was far more concerned about how the current president came off than Donald Trump, but he didn’t have to.
Besides, the concern abroad over Biden’s mental state wasn’t exactly new. Just a few weeks ago, concern over Biden’s addled appearances at the G7 summit was reported on unsparingly by the foreign press without the repugnant “don’t believe your eyes and ears” qualifications applied by the turnspits in the American media.
The only reason anyone ever believed Biden was up to the job is that they were lied to, even though most Americans have always understood Biden has been exhibiting signs of dementia before he ever became president. At this point, it’s impossible to deny that Democrats and their media allies have betrayed and endangered America by spending the last few years lying to us about Biden’s age-related mental competency.
Of course, it’s only fitting that Rhodes would come around, however circumspectly, to admitting that as far as Biden’s concerned, the wheel’s turning but the hamster is dead. Rhodes, “the boy wonder of the Obama White House,” is chiefly famous for admitting in print that he openly manipulated reporters on behalf of the president to push Obama’s ill-advised Iran deal because the “average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.” Rhodes and his colleagues even bragged that certain reporters were so dedicated to helping them push their foreign policy narrative that they would just “find everything and retweet it.”
While this admission was briefly scandalous, it was only notable because Rhodes had merely said out loud what everyone knew to be true: The Beltway press corps will print whatever Democrat politicians tell them to, no matter how outrageous or even dangerous for America’s national security their policies are.
Indeed, in Thursday’s debate, Trump would rightfully hammer Biden for turning on the money spigot to the world’s leading state sponsor of terror after he turned it off during his presidency. Naturally, Iran was flowing money to Hamas, which helped trigger the current war in Israel, as well as the Houthis, whom Biden took off the terror watch list almost as soon as he took office as a sop to their paymasters in Tehran. The Houthis have now spent months attacking ships in the Red Sea, exacerbating America’s inflation woes as well as causing major environmental disasters.
But the media largely shrugged when Obama started flying planes to Iran with hundreds of millions in cash and Rhodes told them not to care about it. The media seemed to care even less when the Biden administration decided to give Iran access to $10 billion more a short time after they were responsible for killing American soldiers.
Yet the media narrative that has been landed on following the debate, which is more a matter of consolation than accuracy, is that while Biden appeared frail and incompetent, his character still shined through standing next to a serial liar like Donald Trump who lied throughout the debate. Oh and did we mention Donald Trump is a lying liar? He lies, you know.
One need not defend Trump’s aggrandizing rhetoric and personal peccadillos to acknowledge that it’s not obvious to most voters that Biden is the better or more honest person. Indeed, Biden’s own lies, immoral behavior, embrace of racists, and foreign corruption with his felonious, sex-trafficker of a son are plenty egregious even by Washington standards.
But for those who insist Biden is objectively more honest, particularly those in the media, here’s a question they should be forced to answer: What lie did Trump tell in Thursday’s debate more damnable than Biden’s claim that he’s “the only president this century” that did not have any troops “dying anywhere in the world”?
Just a few months ago, Biden’s State of the Union address was interrupted by the screaming of the anguished father of one of the 13 service members who were killed in Biden’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Yet this prostest barely registered in the media, when we all know such a heartrending display would be used as a cudgel against any Republican. And that’s wholly aside from the fact that there’s a merit to the argument that the reckless nature of the Afghanistan withdrawal means Biden bears real responsibility for their deaths.
Of course, don’t expect anyone to acknowledge the real problem here. It’s not just that voters are upset about Biden’s debate performance or are rightfully concerned the nation is in peril under his addled leadership. It’s that they feel lied to. A week ago, The New York Times was regurgitating the White House spin that “Misleading Videos Are Trailing Biden As He Battles Age Doubts,” as if the voluminous number of videos of Biden stumbling over his words and wandering off on stage were all “cheap fakes” per the White House’s talking points.
Following the debate, at least three of their op-ed columnists called for Biden to withdraw, and the paper has run an official editorial telling him to bow out. The dwindling number of people who still trust legacy media outlets such as the Times will no doubt insist their willingness to call out Joe’s problems is a sign of their integrity. However, this would only be a sign of integrity if they called for him to drop out after it became obvious Biden was senile, and that happened years ago. The about-face occurred only after they started to panic that he couldn’t win reelection.
Besides, the fact that it’s nearly impossible to recall another time when any big elitist media institution diverged with a Democratic White House on such a big issue is the exception that proves the rule. Biden may yet withdraw, but if he doesn’t, he need not worry whether the media will line up behind him.
Following Biden’s debate catastrophe, on MSNBC Jen Psaki asked California Gov. Gavin Newsom, “What should people out there who have social media platforms and like President Biden be pushing out there that was damaging and terrible from Donald Trump tonight?”
To be clear on what’s happening in this exchange, a woman who went straight from being the current president’s press secretary to joining a major news network with no real objection from her peers is asking Biden’s official debate surrogate how to send out literal talking points to damage the incumbent Democrat’s opponent on live television.
It’s not just that the debate made it impossible to deny Biden’s cognitive decline, it’s that the media’s desperation to defend him is also laying bare the total moral and ethical collapse of journalism.
It’s tempting for Trump supporters to revel in schadenfreude over this mess because Trump, who’s been leading in the polls since September, just saw his odds of winning jump even more, and the downballot effects for Dems of a lopsided victory could be devastating. But the reality is that there’s no good outcome for the country.
Democrats have spent years insisting Trump and the Republican Party were a threat to Democracy because of Jan. 6, 2021. But that threat may pale in comparison to having a non compos mentis man in the White House with two separate wars raging involving nuclear powers. If distrust between voters and our leadership class was already a problem, it’s about to get a lot worse.
Even if Dems do try to hot-swap the candidate in the middle of the election, Kamala Harris has the lowest approval ratings of any vice president in modern history. And the process for substituting any other candidate would likely cause so much strife within the Democratic coalition and legal turmoil that it would swallow the election. You think 2020 was divisive because people questioned the results? Just imagine heading into this election with active litigation about whether it’s against state law to take Biden’s name off the ballot in crucial swing states a couple of months before the election.
It didn’t have to be this way. All Democrat leaders and the media had to do was not be so craven in their desire to cling to power. In fact, had they been honest about how obvious Biden’s condition was a year ago, they might have a candidate who is winning the election.
Instead, they sowed distrust with citizens, empowered enemies who are taking advantage of an enfeebled leader, and brought the country to the brink of domestic turmoil. And still, they have no intention of accepting responsibility for what they’ve done.
They’re not actually upset to have just discovered the man in charge of our nuclear weapons is senile — they’re upset they can’t continue to hide this fact from you any longer.
The Democrats are desperate to win at any cost this November, despite the disastrous debate performance by Joe Biden. When has violating our Constitution, the law, or cultural norms ever stopped them?
The recent Obama-guiding-Poor-Old Joe-off-stage moment at a Los Angeles DNC fundraiser was more significant than some are making it out to be. We know this because the Left protested way too much about it, even going so far as to make up a new woke term, ‘cheap fake,’ to describe the viral video clips of it. Methinks they doth protest too much and may be considering replacing the old guy.
If that wasn’t enough to convince them, Old Joe’s poor debate performance on Thursday night surely is. A vacant-eyed Biden spent the 90-minute debate mumbling and spewing incoherent talking points. When he wasn’t speaking, he sometimes stood completely still with his mouth open.
The man is clearly unwell and all the world could see it. After the debate leftist pundit across the leftist mainstream media began to wonder out loud how exactly the Democratic Party could replace him on the 2024 ticket. The debate performance had them in full blown panic mode.
Keeping in mind that the Left never does anything that does not advance The Agenda, Obama’s quiet gesture coupled with Biden’s debate performance suddenly became heavily symbolic for many on the Left. It overtly signaling the end of Old Joe’s political shelf life to every Democratic Party donor.
The $64,000 question on voters’ minds is who Biden will pick as his vice president, or who will replace Biden altogether on the coveted Democratic Party ticket. My money is on Barack Obama as vice president.
How can Barack Obama replace Biden to become POTUS47?
No way, you say. Why would he even want the vice presidential slot after being president? The answer is: Power and legacy. But, surely the U.S. Constitution prohibits Obama from running again, right? Well, yes and no. The 22nd Amendment states, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” It says nothing about the office of the vice president.
In other words, two-term Obama is still eligible to be vice president. In addition, the 25th Amendment provides a path for a vice president or even a Speaker of the House to assume the presidency. This means in the event of the president’s death, resignation, or removal, the vice president is eligible to take office and finish the elected term. That, my friends, is wiggle room.
Some argue the U.S. Constitution prohibits former President Obama from becoming Vice President. While the 12th Amendment requires that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States,” it does not explicitly state that someone not eligible to be elected president could not also become vice president—more wiggle room.
Granted, I’m not a professional Constitutional scholar or lawyer; however, if I can read the Constitution and make this case, so, of course, can the Left. No matter how weak the case is, our Constitution’s language is unfortunately nonspecific enough to allow the Left plenty of wiggle room. Besides, when have our Constitution, laws, or cultural norms ever stopped the Left?
Unlike his presidential predecessors, Obama has remained a fixture in Washington, D.C., since his return to life as a private citizen. He has stayed in the shadows, strategically appearing when the Democratic ship needed a shove back on course. Still, it’s common knowledge that he and his administration’s holdovers are running the show at the White House and Old Joe, too.
But what about the messy problem of Kamala?
The DEI-hire and current sitting vice president was never going to be and will never be president. Even the sycophantic Left realized her incompetence and inability to win in November. After three years of Harris’ inappropriate cackling laugh, undignified behavior, and numerous word salad speeches, one need only watch her pathetic CNN interview after the debate where she repeated DNC talking points ad nauseam and was incapable of truthfully recognizing or even admitting her boss’s obvious declining cognitive abilities to know she’s unfit for the Oval Office. While those antics may win her Party loyalty points, they certainly do not increase voter confidence.
Harris has fulfilled her purpose of black female placeholder, and now the Left will move on. The DNC will, instead, entice her to step down with the promise of the California governorship. Unlike the vice-presidential spot, the governor of the state with the largest economy in the nation has some actual power—much more than Queen Word Salad could have ever hoped. And, after all, how much more harm could she possibly do to the failing deep blue state?
The question becomes whether Harris will step aside for Obama. She will. She may put up a fuss to save face. But like every good leftist, ultimately, she will put the Party before herself. Besides, would any Democrat not break his or her neck to step aside for the second coming of the Leftist Messiah? Replacing black Harris with black Obama puts to rest the difficulty of the race question. In fact, it reenergizes the coveted and long-fading so-called black vote for the DNC as well.
Kamala Harris will not replace Biden, nor will she remain on the ticket.
Ugh, what about Hillary Clinton?
Her Kaftan-Clad Highness has been making the rounds on MSM lately, whining about being robbed in 2020 and implying it is still her turn. The New York Post even published a trial balloon piece advocating for Hillary to replace Biden. But Hillary-on-parade is a typical leftist media head fake. Hillary wasn’t popular enough with voters to eke out a win in 2020, so what has changed since then? Not a thing.
So, no, Hillary Clinton will not replace Biden.
Can Gavin Newsom replace Biden?
What about him? According to a recent Rassmussen Reports survey, likely U.S. voters are not exactly excited by even “the suggestion that President Joe Biden could be replaced as the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate by California Gov. Gavin Newsom.” A whopping 90 percent of those surveyed either disapproved or strongly disapproved of Newsom replacing Biden.
As a long-suffering resident of the once-Golden State, I can testify that Newsom is even less popular here. His destructive policies are definitely not what the country wants or needs. Plus, he is handicapped by, you know, being a White Guy. Rumor has it that Newsom and Harris do not like each other, so the chances she would step down for him are nil.
No, Newsom will not replace Biden, nor will he be on the ticket.
How and when will the DNC replace Biden?
The Democratic National Convention held in Chicago on August 19-22 will be unlike any we have seen. Look for Obama to be nominated to replace Kamala. He will appear reluctant, and she will appear blindsided. They will do it regardless. They will make the replacement with much hype, production, and fanfare that appears overwhelmingly organic and demanded by the masses. That odd partnership with Steven Spielberg makes more sense now, does it not?
Having installed Obama as vice president, the Democratic Party will now have the ability to either replace Biden pre-election or, more likely, swiftly post-election for any number of reasons. Hello, four more years of Obamanonics and fundamental destruction.
The Left is desperate, which means they’re dangerous. The Right must prepare now. Everything is on the table from here to November: Activist chaos and threats, compliant lying MSM, cheap fakes (or laptopping), disinformation, gaslighting, election irregularities, the breaking of cultural norms … everything. The Left knows it must win in November or lose its power for many years to come. Will they go this far against the Constitution and American tradition? Yes, of course they will.
President Joe Biden is expected to discuss the future of his re-election campaign with family at Camp David on Sunday, following a nationally televised debate Thursday that left many fellow Democrats worried about his ability to beat former President Donald Trump in November, according to five people familiar with the matter.
So far, the party’s top leaders have offered public support for Biden, including in tweets posted by former presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. Senior congressional Democrats, including Reps. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, Jim Clyburn of South Carolina and Nancy Pelosi of California, have privately expressed concerns about his viability, said two sources apprised of those discussions, even as they all publicly back the president.
One Democratic House member who believes Biden should drop out of the race — but has yet to call for that publicly — told NBC News that three colleagues expressed the same sentiment to him during votes on the House floor Friday.
At the same time, there is an understanding among top Democrats that Biden should be given space to determine next steps. They believe only the president, in consultation with his family, can decide whether to move forward or to end his campaign early — and that he won’t respond well to being pushed.
“The decision-makers are two people — it’s the president and his wife,” one of the sources familiar with the discussions said, adding: “Anyone who doesn’t understand how deeply personal and familial this decision will be isn’t knowledgeable about the situation.”
“It’s a mess,” this person said.
Another person familiar with the dynamics said Biden will ultimately listen to only one adviser.
“The only person who has ultimate influence with him is the first lady,” this person said. “If she decides there should be a change of course, there will be a change of course.”
After publication of this report, a source familiar reached out to stress that the Camp David gathering was not a formal family meeting.
When you see ‘Biden Is Toast’ in a Politico headline, you know things are really, really bad for Joe Biden. That line was part of a title of a story in that periodical about Biden’s disastrous debate performance on Thursday which was originally published fifteen minutes before that event was even completed: “Dems freak out over Biden’s debate performance: ‘Biden is toast’.”
Lisa Kashinsky, Adam Cancryn, and Eugene Daniels, acting more like coroners providing a Biden campaign autopsy than as Politico reporters, had the sad task of laying out the brutal facts for the bereaved Democrats and their media allies.
…he stammered. He stumbled. And, with fewer than five months to November, he played straight into Democrats’ worst fears — that he’s fumbling away this election to Donald Trump.
The alarm bells for Democrats started ringing the second Biden started speaking in a haltingly hoarse voice. Minutes into the debate, he struggled to mount an effective defense of the economy on his watch and flubbed the description of key health initiatives he’s made central to his reelection bid, saying “we finally beat Medicare” and incorrectly stating how much his administration lowered the price of insulin. He talked himself into a corner on Afghanistan, bringing up his administration’s botched withdrawal unprompted. He repeatedly mixed up “billion” and “million,” and found himself stuck for long stretches of the 90-minute debate playing defense.
And when he wasn’t speaking, he stood frozen behind his podium, mouth agape, his eyes wide and unblinking for long stretches of time.
Reading this you could almost hear Howard Cosell yelling “DOWN GOES FRAZIER! DOWN GOES FRAZIER! DOWN GOES FRAZIER!” except substitute “Biden” for “Frazier.”
And now the Politico serving of toast followed by a heaping pile of sheer Democrat panic:
“Biden is toast — calling it now,” said Jay Surdukowski, an attorney and Democratic activist from New Hampshire who co-chaired former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley’s 2016 presidential campaign in the state.
In text messages with POLITICO, Democrats expressed confusion and concern as they watched the first minutes of the event. One former Biden White House and campaign aide called it “terrible,” adding that they have had to ask themselves over and over: “What did he just say? This is crazy.”
It seemed to be so bad for Biden that the Politico coroners/reporters even appeared to pronounce his campaign to be DOA:
Already, some Democrats were openly saying that Biden should end his campaign. One major Democratic donor and Biden supporter said simply: “Biden needs to drop out. No question about it.”
…Fergus Cullen, a former New Hampshire GOP chair and “Never Trumper” who is considering voting for Biden, had warned that Democrats would need to reconsider their ticket if the president delivered a poor performance on Thursday.
After the debate, Cullen said: “Anyone who has watched a parent grow old, frail, and foggy recognizes what they are seeing and knows it only gets worse, at an accelerating rate, from here.”
One beneficial side effect of this Politico panic attack over Biden’s presidential campaign future is that perhaps the media will finally drop its absurd “cheapfake” shtick to debunk videos of Biden acting as incoherent as he did during Thursday’s debate.
Here’s a type of person who’s usually toxic, but you will never know why: the kind of person who says yes to everyone, never considering his own needs or rights, and expects you to do the same.
If his subconscious were permitted to honestly speak it would say: “I accommodate everyone else, and always put myself last. So you had better do the same for me.”
This is the self-sacrificer who becomes the other-sacrificer. It’s a particularly nasty kind of person. Why? Because he’s fueled by what some call the Heaven’s Reward fallacy: “We’re all supposed to be good people. Being good means you’re always 100 percent selfless, always giving way to others. I’m doing it for everyone else. So I’m entitled to have you do it for me.” In other words: “I let everyone else walk all over me, and I’m their slave; so now you are obliged to reward my good deeds and be MY slave.” Beyond ridiculous.
It’s twisted and wrong, and if ever exposed to the rational light of day, this subconscious reasoning would not survive two seconds. But we’re talking SUBconscious here; we’re talking psychology, not conscious viewpoints.
The unspoken reasoning is wrong on its own terms. Even if you accept the idea that we all should sacrifice all the time for others, then — on that very premise — you have no business expecting someone else (your spouse, a family member, a friend or a stranger) to consider your self-interested needs. That would be selfish, and therefore (allegedly) wrong — by your own reasoning! Why? Because the minute that other person sacrifices for you, you’re gaining something — which, as a selfless person, you’re never supposed to do.
The conversation never gets this far, of course.
Whatever you do, please don’t marry or become seriously involved with a “nice,” toxic do-gooder. If someone seems nice and giving and all those things but then turns into a real SOB at the drop of a hat, then you can probably guess this will be the cause.
Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Charleston SC). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1, drmichaelhurd on Instagram, Michael Hurd Ph.D. on LinkedIn, @DrHurd on TruthSocial
THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE 