A review of my article on Donald J. Trump written on the eve of the 2016 U.S. election, previewing this one

I shall attempt to briefly review the article I wrote on the eve of the last U.S. presidential election in 2016, and see how my expectations of candidate Trump compare with president Trump. It was difficult to understand why I titled it "There is none that calleth upon justice, neither is there any one that judgeth truly...". However, it didn't take me long to realise that I was in the phase of titling all my articles after Bible quotes. That didn't last long, sadly, but I might well pick it up again.

The quotes seem to have been directed at the U.S. bishops, for their attempts to muddy what should have been quite a clear option between a candidate who professed a preference for very many good things and had no intrinsic evils in his campaign platform, and one who promised all sorts of intrinsic evils in her campain, with none of the goods that Trump had.

Everything I wrote about Hillary Clinton applies equally to Joe Biden, except with Biden we have the extra scandal of him being Catholic. He is, of course, not Catholic in any meaningful sense, but as he has not been excommunicated and was baptised Catholic, we have to live with the fact that he can identify as such, as indeed can Bergoglio. That is what makes both Biden's and Bergoglio's preferences for perversions and evils that much more condemnable, and damnable.

In the article was a list of top 10 reasons to vote for Donald J. Trump. He won the elections, as it turned out. I rather expected him to do it, and truth be told I am even more confident that he will win it this time, once again defying the polls which seem even more fake this time than they did the last. As little enthuasiasm as there was for Clinton, there virtually none for Biden. At least she had the novelty of being the first female presidential candidate. With Biden, all they can muster is "At least he's not Trump." I do not dismiss that those who hate Trump do it fervently, but it is difficult to see how it translates into waiting in line possibly for hours, and possibly in the rain, in order to vote for a man one more than likely finds distasteful. In just over a day or so, we shall see if the disgust for Trump among the anti-Trumper's translates into votes for creey Joe and his ghoulish running mate.

For full disclosure, I must preface this by writing that I am not a particularly big fan of Donald Trump, though I do find him amusing. I am definitely not a NeverTrumper, but nor am I an AlwaysTrumper. I am, however, a NeverBiden, and cannot fathom what would ever possess me to vote for a man as morally distasteful as Biden. In other words, I think I can offer a relatively dispassionate analysis of Trump's record.

So, what will follow is a walk-through of my 10 points with grades on how right I was compared to Donald Trump's actual record. Given Trump's erratic nature and lack of interest in details, it can be difficult to know just how much blame or credit we can give him for his record. Still, he appoints his underlings and signs off on the checks, the bombings and the priorities. His record belongs to him, and if nothing else, it allows us to see where his priorities lie, whether he has met success in his endeavours or not.

The points will be in bold text, with the score next, and the analysis below. Mind you, this is an analysis of how I predicted, or thought I understeood, candidate Trump's versus how president Trump has actually done. Of course, my analysis has do do with his campaign pledges, so it cannot be entirely divorced from what he actually pledged, but still, it is not a grade of how president Trump has succeeded versus some impeccable standard of perfection.

1. Donald Trump  is not a career politician. He is a man who has built a fortune on hard work and taking risks, and done a good job at it. In fact, he has managed doing what I would argue 99.999% of the world wants to do in a much better way than 99.999% of the world has managed. (7/10)

More of a statement of fact than anything else and hardly gradeable. I would define a career politician as someone willing to do anything and rid himself of any principle to get to the very top, regardless of whether it is good for his country or not. That would score a 0, so 7/10 means I think Trump has not behaved as a career politican would. Sadly, however, on many of the big decisions - big banking, military-industrial complex, continuing wars - he has toed the line of the political schemers.

He has still managed to incur the wrath of many of the right people, and often by being unconventional, so I'll give him a pretty high grade and conclude that I was right in claiming that he didn't behave as a career politican.

2. The man seems genuine. When he speaks, one gets the impression that he means what he says, and not that he is saying it because pollsters told him it would be good to do so. (5/10)

If Trump had not shut the country down in March, he would probably have got an 8 on this point. However, shutting down a country on account of a 'pandemic' he obviously did not believe was going around simply because he thought it more politically expedient to do so will in many ways come to become his defining moment - at least of his first term, if he should lose the re-election bid.

The one good thing about Trump is that he is not a particularly convincing liar when reading off a script. It has therefore been quite easy to tell that he does not buy into much of the Covid-19 narrative, so in a way this kind of reinforces the notion that "one gets the impression that he means what he says", but that is only when he is speaking off-script.

While I have little doubt that Trump means what he says when he speaks freely, it has also become very clear during these past 4 years that he has very little resolve to carry out what he actually believes in - examples would have to include the North Korea negotiations and him staffing his administration with people who seem to despise him. In many ways, one gets the impression that Trump is a controlled man, and Jared Kushner is there to make sure that Trump stays on script. It is anybody's guess whether Trump, if freed from a re-election bid, will be free to enforce his will, or whether he will even more forcefully comply with the diktats of his controllers, or his threateners, or whoever it is that makes Trump look like an idiot when he says one thing which is then contradicted by his underlings.

3. He has many children, which means he has a stake in the future of his country. (6/10)

For some reason, at the time, I thought he had 5 or 7 children. It turns out he has only 4. I am not a fan of Ivanka for obvious reasons. Donald Trump Jr. has been a disappointment - what with his divorce and the running around with the other woman at public events. The other one I don't know much about. Baron Trump seems decent enough. 

This point is also much more of a statement than a prediction. Still, the way in which Trump spoke out against those trying to pull down Confederate statues, and how he has spoken out against the mobs this summer, show that he is a man who want to leave to subsequent generations something resembling what he was brought into.

Against that must be weighed the fact that even before the Covid-19 hoax plandemic Trump had no problem piling on the U.S. debts in order to be able to brag of an economic recovery. If we compare to a real statesman, such as Vladimir Putin, and even Mahathir Mohammad (probably), these are people who saw debt as toxic and would absolutely not entertain the idea of saddling their countries with debts, whether for political purposes or potential long-term gain.

4. He is not a warmonger, unlike virtually all the other people who at one time or another have been on the campaign for the presidency. In fact, as far as I can tell, it is only  he and Rand Paul who were not warmongers out of all the candidates from all the parties. (2/10)

The grade, I suppose goes from 1-10 so I couldn't give him 1 as then there would be no room for the sodomite who came before him and George Bush. His defenders will say that Donald Trump has started no wars but that is only a half-truth. Certainly, his warmongering is up there with the best of them, and just 3 years ago many people dreaded nuclear war with North Korea which had been provoked by Trump and Trump alone with his arrogant and aggressive speech. His aggression towards Iran, for goodness knows what, is surpassed only by that of the B-team - Benjamin Netanyahu, Mohammed bin Salman and John Bolton. '

If Trump has not started any military confrontation it is only because nobody has been there to hit back. It was under him, after all, that the top Iranian general Soleimani was cowardly assasisnated while on a diplomatic mission. To be fair, I am not sure Trump was responsible for it, but he did take it on himself and nobody as far as I know has been reprimanded. He has, of course, bombed Syria twice. What we have is a large man going into a pub and slapping men on the around, and with nobody willing or able to fight back, his friends pointing out how peaceful he is. Meanwhile, he forced them to pay for his drinks and hand over their wallets.

Military war is only the most overt one and perhaps the most honest one. Trump's murderous sanctions on Iran have been designed to bring its people to their knees, as have those on Syria, Venezuela, Guatemala, Cuba and probably others which we do not know. Then there is his trade war with China and his sanctioning of Chinese companies, even getting the Canadians to kidnap a top Huawei official - the daughter of the founder. Then there are numerous sanctions against Russia - probably against his will, but still, he boasts of it - and even against supposed U.S. allies (in reality, the U.S. has serfs, not allies) such as Germany and Switzerland for participation in the Nord Stream 2 project. The less said about the genocidal war in Yemen, the better.

He only gets a 2 because I need one step lower for people even worse on this front.

5. The political elite - who have ruined virtually everything they have touched - hate the man. He is not beholden to special interests, which means he will be far more independent-minded than any president for a long while. His opponent meanwhile, probably owes a lot of people a lot simply for keeping her out of the long arms of the law. (5/10)

If only appearances mattered, Donald Trump would probably get an 8/10 here. However, I am not convinced that what we are witnessing in the U.S. is not some political show in which Trump and the political elites get to play enemies all the while the people are being fooled.

The banks have got bigger and richer. The military-industrial complex has got more funding than it ever has. The weapons' manufacturers have it as good as they can have short of major war. 

As someone once put it in a comment box, "The swamp has now become federally-protected marshlands". Still, he gets a 5 because at the very least he has exposed the corruption of the political elite, whether they are doing it as part of a charade or not.

6. The man is a convert. He is not a convert to Catholicism, of course, but for sure he is a convert from the decadence of the party he left behind. He is also a traitor to his political class, as he would probably gain far more financially from the policies he is running against. (8/10)

The truth is that Trump has not tried to pervert his base on sexual morals, or fused dystopian agendas with his Make America Great Again campaigns. To be fair, I am not sure how much of this is as a result of political calculation and how much of it is due to his own desires.

It is unlikely, for instance, that Trump could have compromised much on sexual deviancy - homosexuality, transgenderism, paedophilia and the rest - without losing enough of his base to lose an election. He has certainly done very little to oppose these things, barring a ban on transexuals in the military early in his presidency. The most important country to the U.S. in Europe is Germany, and to Germany he sent a sodomite as ambassador, so he has certainly done little to fight the culture war on that.

Still, he has been villified by the champagne-sipping crowd incessantly, and that earns him a high grade on this.

7. He has all the right enemies, and he has promised to elect good judges to his country's supreme court - which has become some sort of civilian junta, ubridled by the constitution, reason or common decency. Some do not believe Donald Trump's stance on opposing the culture of death, but the enemies certainly do. The media and the celebrities seem to be uniformly against the man, which is also a good sign. (9/10)

This is related to the point above. He has been the best U.S. resident so far on abortion, by a country mile. He could have done more had he been keener on details and a more serious character because sadly what he has done - outside appointing presumably solid judges - the next president of the opposition could whittle away in a day. Presidential executive orders can only get one so far and Donald Trump has not expended any political capital towards attempting to halt or overtun abortion laws.

The abortionists for some reason hate him with an intensity seldom seen, however, and thanks to 3 presumably solid supreme court judges - although one has already switched when it came time to defend common decency against transgenderism - he has been solid on the abortion front.  He has pulled funding for abortion more than any president has done before - most of the previous actions by Republican presidents have been largely symbolic, but Trump's withdrawal of funding has actually been substantive.

Let us also recall that he is the first president to speak at the March for Life. I happent to think that he did this partly as a response to the assassination of General Soleimani - after all, he only announce it with a day's notice or so, meaning he got a much smaller crowd at the rally than he would have been able to draw had he taken a serious approach to it.

Still, what both Trump and the U.S. under him has done at the U.N. deserves credit.

The cherry on top of this cake is that Bergoglio seems to hate him even more now than he did in 2016. After all, he released both an encyclical seemingly directed at Trump as well as a documentary in which he extolled sodomy, presumably to fool Catholics into thinking that it can be anything other than immoral to vote for an anti-moral a candidate as Biden. If nothing else, that proves he is doing something right.

8. He has taken political correctness head on. This is a man who has a sense of outrage, and one who is not afraid to speak his mind against the outrage industry. Many are the actions of political traitors which ought to cause a sense of outrage in any decent man, but political correctness has put a stop to this. The U.S. will better off for having been unchained this dangerous phenomenon which adversely affects everything in society. (7/10)

Had he once spoken out against the anti-semitism industry, or taken on the Covid-19 hoax head-on, then I might even have given him a 10. As it is, he has been content to hide behind the political correctness which plays to his base.

HIs attacks on Iran reek of political correctness, and his constant sniping at 'socialism' seems more designed to garner votes than it does the reasoned opinion of a considered man. This is, after all, a man who does not seem to have anything against spending big even at the cost if indebting his country, so we can't really claim he is against socialism on a matter of principle.

The less said about Trump's pandering to the zionist lobby, the better. In practice, Trump has been the MIGA - Make Israel Great Again - candidate, at the cost of the U.S., but to the applause of his evangelical base and zionist financiers. 

9. Under him, the Church will be unleashed to preach boldly. By proposing to get rid of the Johnson amendment, the Church will be able to take political positions. No doubt many bishops in the U.S. dread this as it will give them nowhere to hide, but this could surely be a game-changer in the culture war. (9/10)

He has done what he could have, it seems. That the Church in the U.S. has not taken the opportunity to proclaim the Gospel fearlessly cannot be attributed to Trump.

It is unlikely that Trump would have been able to get any bill throught he legislative route on this front, so the executive order he signed granting maximum leeway to religious institutions is the best he could possibly have done. 

The U.S. bishops, as the cowards and traitors they are, have not followed suit, which is a pity. It hasn't helped that they seem keener to be on the right side of the first atheist pope than they are on saving souls either.

10. Bergoglio is against him. In fact, he has twice intervened against Donald Trump in this election cycle, first in the primaries, and lately just a few days ago. It is fair to say that if Bergoglio is against you, chances are that you are not all that bad. (10/10)

I have already  alluded to this under point 7. Interestingly, since the list is in reverse order of importance, this is actually the most important point. It would seem as though Bergoglio hates Trump more now than he did in 2016, when he clearly intervened both for Bernie Sanders - by inviting him to a Vatican conference and then 'running into' him at the lobby of his hotel - and then for Hillary Clinton by speaking about how walls are un-Christian.

This time, he went even further. The Tutti Frutti encyclical which he titled Fratelli Tutti seems to be the same walls-are-bad and we-should-all-hold-hands and borders-are-evil nonsense that we have seen from Bergoglio ever since he became pope, or pseudo-pope or whatever he is. In truth, I don't think he wrote it specifically against Donald Trump, but he must have timed its release  to coincide with the elections. On that point, Trump battered him though, as Trump 'took ill' with Covid-19, or tested positive anyway, and virtually all headlines Bergoglio would have gotten, killing any anti-Trump narratives that might have arisen from that excremental before they could get out.

Then, of course, some 2 weeks ago we were treated to a documentary telling us that Bergoglio approves of sodomitical unions. That is not news, since he has said it before, and I am certain that he approves of virtually  perversions under the sun, the more ungodly the better. This release, however, I am certain was meant to garner support for Biden from lukewarm Catholics - i.e., your run-of-the-mill Novusordite - just in time for the election. In other words, Bergoglio managed to intervene even more forcefully this time than he did last time.

Pity for him that he has now largely become an irrelevance. The man has largely exhausted his ability to create headlines because hardly anybody can consider him Catholic anymore, and anybody who has spent any time following him considers him an utter fool. 


So, that is a pretty mcuh a review of how my view of candidate Trump fares against his actual record, and I leave it to you to judge whether the ratings reflect on his record or my (possibly wrongful) reading of his intentions and character as I had understood him on the eve of the elections of 2016.

There were 2 things which worried me about Trump before the 2016 elections, and that was his position on torture and that on Iran. The torture thing has hardly figured although I doubt he has become better on that point. I was, however, proved right to worry about his position towards Iran. 

Not long after getting elected, Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal - the JCPOA - probably the only thing his sodomite predecessor did right. I can almost assure you that if you had given Trump the very same deal and told him that it was a better deal he would have signed it - the man is totally uninterested in details, and what's worse, seems proud of this fact. What followed were murderous sanctions designed to cripple the economy of Iran and turn their people against their government, and he then went and killed an Iraian general to boot - the Iranian general who had fought alongside the U.S. against the U.S.-sponsored ISIS, I should add.

As anyone who has followed the U.S. campaign ever since the Covid-19 hoax was unleashed upon us will realise, it is quite obvious that the opposition in the U.S. has chosen to use Covid-19 as the excuse to wreck the U.S. economy to such an extent that Trump's base will abandon him and look for alternative solutions. I do not think this tactic will work, because even though Trump is largely to blame for imposing the shutdown, he has positioned himself as the anti-shutdown candidate, and the opposition as the shutdown candidates, which means Trump has been entirely absolved of blame.

It would indeed be ironic if Trump - the U.S. president who perhaps more than any other has used economic warfare as his weapon of choice - would be brought down by economic warfare declared upon him by the very deep state which he has funded so lavishly and supported in its coup attempts in other countries.

I wrote this back in 2016, a position I have long held:

In 2013, I boldy stated that I would not be surprised if the U.S. were to collapse within 10 years. If Clinton wins, I am almost tempted to bring that date forward. If Trump wins, there is still hope.

There is still hope, but it seems almost certain that there will be post-election chaos. The Democrats and the media have already sowed the seeds of claiming a stolen election by rigging the polls highly in Joe Biden's favour - a favourite tactic of regime change actors, and one which the U.S. has employed even under Trump. 

I also wrote this:

As I have been keen to say, however, the U.S. is a country with an idiocracy for an electorate. On with an idiocracy would Hillary Clinton be anywhere near the presidency...It is difficult to believe that even in the moral cesspool that is modern U.S.A., the people would elect a wicked woman whose only major achievement is sleeping with and being cheated on by a former president, a woman facing multiple criminal investigations even as the country heads to the vote. Then again, wicked people vote for wicked rulers.

I can only update that the U.S. is still an idiocracy - any country which chooses chaos over Christ will end up as one sooner or later. However, it is still difficult to believe that even in the moral cesspool that is modern U.S.A., the people would elect a wicked man who barely knows where he is half of the time, cannot speak in complete paragraphs, whose main religious quality is rejecting in the most heinous ways the faith he professes while still claiming to be a member of that religion, and who on top of all of this, promises to lock you up and prevent you from working as soon as he takes power! Surely not even the U.S. can elect such a character.

I would remiss if I failed to point out that any country and any political machine willing to fake polls is also likely to steal votes. In fact, oftentimes, the very purpose of rigging polls is rigging elections, and if that fails, then to deligitimse whoever wins when the results contradict the polling.

My closing remarks were summed up thus:

Idiocracy will kill the U.S., but if Donald Trump wins, that day of reckining will be postponed, and with any luck, completely averted.

We shall find out soon enough. 

In 2016 , I was aggrieved at Trump being labeled by some as the lesser of the two evils. There were no intrinsic evils in his campaign platform and he seemed decent enough, especially with all his enemies. I have not bothered to look at his campaign platform, but I would be surprised if there were any intrinsic evils. However, his past 4 years as president also include bombings of aggression, starvation blockades attempts at starvation through economic sanctions, continuing all the wars he inherited while expanding some of them - with troop reductions in others - and a multitude of threats of military annihilation. 

Had I been American, I would like to think that I would have voted for Trump in 2016 in good conscience. He promised much and there was the chance of a non-politician actually taking on the swamp. As it turns out, the swamp won out.

I would not vote for him now, given what he has done to the Palestinians and the Yemenis, for starters. It is not that his opponent will be any better, but were I to vote for him this time it would only be as the lesser of 2 evile, and for the entertainment value, given he is pretty much the best show in town much of the time. Like Mel Gibson said, and I paraphrase, "I need more than that in a candidate". It is unlikely that Americans will turn be freer in 4 years time, regardless of who wins. The same people who run the country will can the shots regardless.

Still, beggars can't be choosers, and I am under no illusion that there are better candidates. The U.S. is unlikely to find any president better than Trump any time soon, since nobody of a higher moral character would be given any media space, and nobody of a higher intellectual standard would be given time to explain his ideas. A country which has long killed unborn children in the millions and codified sexual deviancy as protected activity is not going to wake up and vote for a man in the mould of Gabriel García Moreno. What we shall have at best is a Trump-like candidate, with largely good instincts but devoid of the moral fortitude to follow through on them, only following through on his bad policies because that is the path of easiest applause.

The long-term trajectory of the decline of the U.S. will not change: That much is more certain now than it was 4 years ago granted. 

I hope he wins.  There are many people for whom I care deeply in the U.S., some of whom I love, and if a reprieve is all they can be granted, then it is for that we must hope.

We shall find out soon enough.