By Matt Underwood Sen. Mark Kelly says Trump, Hegseth are ‘not serious people’ – and honestly, it’s a sentiment that resonates. It’s hard to ignore the gravity of the situation when considering the potential consequences of their actions, yet the approach feels… unserious. The observation that they aren’t serious people, that they are not approaching their roles with the necessary gravitas, is a point of contention. The phrase “not serious” cuts deep, deeper than other criticisms. It suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of the responsibilities that come with their positions.
The assertion that they are “not serious” isn’t a dismissal; it’s a critical assessment. It’s not just about disagreeing with their politics; it’s about the manner in which they conduct themselves, the way they approach complex issues. There’s a certain immaturity, a lack of depth that is deeply concerning. The stakes are high, and yet the impression is often one of playing a game, of engaging in theatrics rather than serious deliberation. The comparison to children, to those who haven’t yet learned the weight of responsibility, is harsh but also pertinent.
Yet, despite this lack of seriousness, the potential damage they can inflict is undeniably serious. The comment sections are abuzz with the acknowledgement that they are indeed dangerous. They may be unserious in their approach, but the consequences of their actions are very, very real. The idea that their actions are harmful is echoed repeatedly. Their policies are causing serious harm, and the impact of their actions can be felt across the board. The impact of their choices isn’t something to be taken lightly.
Perhaps the most potent aspect of the claim is its implication that these figures are unfit to wield the power they possess. The comparison of Trump to a petulant child, and the idea that Hegseth is someone who is not even qualified to comment on the military are both examples of this. They are seen as criminals, people who are more interested in personal gain and the abuse of power. The implication is clear: their actions are not only damaging but also potentially criminal.
The “Succession” references speak volumes. It’s a cutting critique of those in power who are driven by ego and a thirst for control. The suggestion that they’re just in it for the graft. The phrase “just there for the grift” captures the essence of this sentiment – the idea that these individuals are primarily motivated by self-interest and personal gain. This isn’t just a political disagreement; it’s a fundamental questioning of their motivations and their fitness for office.
It’s tempting to dismiss them as irrelevant, as figures who simply don’t matter. But such a dismissal, even if warranted on some level, would be a mistake. The truth is, they are seriously powerful. They wield significant influence, and their words and actions have real-world consequences. To ignore the danger they pose would be a disservice to the seriousness of the situation. Their actions deserve attention, not just for what they say, but the impact they have on the world.
So, while the label of “not serious” might seem like an insult, it’s a stark reminder of the responsibilities that come with power. It’s a challenge to those who hold positions of authority to act with maturity, to consider the impact of their decisions. To act like adults, not children playing at being leaders. In a way, it’s a call for a return to professionalism, to a level of conduct that has seemingly been lost in the current political climate.
The real danger is that this lack of seriousness will lead to even greater problems down the road. It seems to be the central conflict, and it’s a valid concern. The idea of them “stripping every person of their rights” is extremely concerning, and a fear many hold. The comment section seems to be filled with the reality that what they are doing is a serious problem.