So, just how much does the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart love Donald Trump? The following commentary makes me wonder.
|Willis Hart: On the Fact that Donald Trump Supposedly Said that "Eminent Domain Is Great"... I've tried to be fair with Donald (the fact that I a) don't like being part of a bum's rush, b) find his critics every bit as obnoxious as he is, and c) appreciate the fact that the dude's deviated from the neocons on more than a few occasions). But this is a view that I cannot tolerate.|
The fact of the matter is that eminent domain is one of the most loathsome and abusive acts that the government engages in (the fact that it isn't being used just for roads and bridges anymore but for private enterprises as well, the fact that there's already an abundance of property that can be used for development, the fact that a lot of the property taken through eminent domain never gets developed, etc.) and if Trump considers it "great" a pox on him. There, how's that for fair and balanced? (2/2/2016 AT 5:06pm).
Notice that Willis doesn't differentiate between necessary uses of eminent domain and abuses. He does say "it isn't being used just for roads and bridges anymore", but does that mean he thinks using it for roads isn't an abuse? Trump has abused eminent domain when he tried to use it to steal some old woman's house because he wanted it for "a new limousine parking lot for the nearby Trump Plaza hotel and casino"... and Willis is talking about Trump... so perhaps we can assume it's only the abuses he objects to. But I think he might be opposed to the government using ED for ANY use.
In any case, according to a subsequent comment, Willis says "this is a deal-breaker for me". Figures that Trump's race-baiting WASN'T a deal-breaker, given the fact that Willis has this in common with Trump. Might this explain why Willis says that he finds Trump's "critics every bit as obnoxious as he is". Because it's really obnoxious when the Donald's critics go after him for his comments regarding Mexicans who illegally enter the US being rapists because "somebody's doing the raping"?
Maybe not. Willis called those comments "despicable" and "vile shit". Although I'm thinking he said that because (as a Libertarian) he's 100 percent in favor of there being as large a labor pool as possible (because this drives down wages). But, despite being "despicable" and "vile"... still NOT a deal-breaker.
Perhaps it outraged Willis when Trump was denounced for implying that Megyn Kelly was a bitch on her period who asked him unfair questions (during the first GOP debate)? Perhaps not. Willis did author a minor rebuke. Although he might believe that Trump's detractors went too far. Kelly is a chick, after all, and as we all know, the Willis thinks the primary purpose of Fox "news women" is ogling.
Maybe he thought Trump wasn't implying that Kelly was on the rag at all, and was majorily insulted that people who don't like Trump drew that conclusion? It is a fact that Willis poo-poos the (very real) Republican war on women. Anyway, this apparently was also not a deal breaker.
Is it possible that Willis finds the fact checkers claims that Donald is a liar in regards to his claim that he saw on TV "thousands and thousands" of Muslims cheering in New Jersey? Does Willis find these criticisms "obnoxious", because, as Breitbart has reported "Trump 100% Vindicated" (because "Police... found eight men celebrating". "Thousands" or eight. What's the big diff? Question is, why does the media lie?).
But the answer again appears to be no. Willis himself got "obnoxious" on Trump when he said Trump was "confusing Jersey with the West Bank and, so, yeah, he probably flunked geography as well". Although readers of Willis' blog all know how much he loaths Islam. So maybe that's the subject on which Trump's critics are "as obnoxious as he is"?
Yeah, I'm going to say that could be it, given the fact that the Hartster has defended Trump's proposed Muslim immigrant ban. By which I mean that Willis said it might not be a good idea, although legal. To which I ask - why not a good idea? Given how much Muslims suck (according to Willis), why not ban them?
Although Willis is wrong about the ban being legal.
|A flat ban on Muslim immigration would be unconstitutional under existing judicial doctrine, because it would flunk the basic doctrinal rule that every governmental action must have a legitimate purpose. Sure, such a law would be defended by the lawyer representing Trump's administration as having a valid purpose - presumably, the purpose of protecting national security. But just because a lawyer claims that a law is motivated by a certain purpose doesn't mean that the Court will accept the claim, even in areas where the Court gives Congress and the President a lot of deference. An outrageous claim can still be rejected as implausible. (Legal Experts Explain How Trump's Conservative Media-Backed "Ban Muslims" Proposal Is Unconstitutional by Nick Fernandez and Alex Kaplan. Media Matters 12/10/2015).|
THIS clearly has to be the "bum's rush". At least a significant part of it, given that it's Media Matters who is saying this. And Media Matters is part of the (according to WTNPH) "partisan cesspool". Part of the "cesspool" of partisans bum rushing the poor Donald.
So, just how much does Willis Hart love Donald Trump? I'm going to go with just a little bit. Willis does give the Donald props because he's "the only Republican candidate who doesn't appear hell-bent on a second cold war".
Although... why the hell is it not Trump's position on trade that is a "deal breaker" for Willis? Trump says "only Sanders and I know US [is] being ripped off in trade Deals". I mean, for me, all those other things are deal breakers... and I AGREE with Trump on trade (so this isn't a deal breaker for me). But, given Willis' strong support for destroying American jobs by shipping them out to low wage 3rd world countries (to further enrich the already wealthy), I'd have thought Trump's trade position on trade would have been the deal breaker. Yet I can't recall him EVER blogging on Trump/trade. Could it be because he doesn't want to bum rush the guy?
In closing I'd like to remind people that Willis called the accusations of rape against Bill Cosby a "possibly a bum's rush"... and we all know how that turned out. The dude has 51 accusers (as of 11/21/2014), making it extremely unlikely that he's an innocent victim who did nothing wrong.
Which is why I think the facts clearly show that the Hartster's use of the the "bum's rush" is as OFF in regards to Trump as it was in regards to Cosby (and as OFF as he is when he starts SO MANY of his posts with the words "on the fact"). Although Willis might believe that the 51 Cosby accusers all got drunk and consented to taking quaaludes? You know, given Willis' belief that drunk sluts be making false accusations all the time.