By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Trump called for Republicans to end the government shutdown and prioritize legislation focused on election security. His proposed measures included mandatory voter ID and the elimination of mail-in voting, arguing they would prevent cheating. This stance is contradicted by the fact that many Democratic victories came from states with existing voter ID laws, and that he himself has voted by mail in the past. Furthermore, Trump’s comparison of voting to purchasing goods at stores highlights a disconnect from reality.
Read the original article here
Trump Claims You Need ID to Buy Groceries in Post-Election Meltdown is a glaring example of the former president’s detachment from reality. This particular claim, that you need identification to purchase groceries, is just another chapter in a long history of demonstrably false statements. The fact that he continues to repeat this falsehood, even after numerous election losses for his party, reveals a lot about his current state of mind and his reaction to adversity.
This narrative of needing an ID for groceries has been a recurring theme in Trump’s public pronouncements. It’s almost as if he’s stuck in a time warp, perhaps harking back to an era when checks were the dominant form of payment, and identification was more frequently requested. However, in the modern world, especially in the US, paying for groceries doesn’t typically involve showing an ID unless alcohol or tobacco is involved. The lack of basic understanding of a common, everyday activity like grocery shopping, further underscores how insulated he is from the daily realities of the average American.
It’s abundantly clear that Trump has never personally experienced the act of buying groceries, at least not in any way that the average person understands it. This isn’t just a matter of ignorance; it reflects a profound disconnect from the lives of the people he claims to represent. It’s hard to imagine anyone who regularly buys groceries believing this statement, yet his core supporters seem unfazed, which is a perplexing phenomenon to many.
Furthermore, the lack of immediate pushback from the media is noticeable. One would think that any journalist worth their salt would seize the opportunity to politely, but firmly, ask him to clarify his claims. “Mr. President, aside from alcohol or tobacco, could you name any groceries that require an ID?” This simple question, which has never been asked by any major media outlet, would quickly expose the absurdity of his assertions, but there’s an unspoken agreement to avoid doing so.
This is not the only false narrative he has embraced. It appears he repeats these “talking points” at nearly every rally. The consistent claims of voter fraud, the condemnation of mail-in ballots, and the frequent use of the “Radical Left” boogeyman have all become hallmarks of his speeches. The insistence on the economy being “red hot” under his leadership, despite many sources showing otherwise, further reveals how little he is connected to the world around him.
The fact that the post-election period is marked by such outlandish statements is not surprising. The man has a history of not handling losses with grace. His responses to the election outcomes seem to be the result of a severe emotional reaction to the outcomes. His need to blame others, including swing voters, underscores a lack of accountability and a failure to accept responsibility for the Republican’s poor performance at the polls.
This behavior, sadly, seems to be the norm now. What’s even more concerning is that some of his supporters, seemingly ignoring their own experiences, choose to believe these demonstrably false claims. His detachment from reality, coupled with the seeming willingness of a segment of the population to embrace his falsehoods, is a serious matter. His actions can be seen as an indication of a man who is increasingly out of touch with the world around him, struggling to come to terms with the political landscape, and making decisions based on feelings more than facts.
The constant repetition of this claim is, in effect, a performance. He wants to portray himself as a victim of a system. He wants to sow mistrust and division. This is what you would expect from a man who has never bought groceries. He has little, or no, lived experience to base his statements on, and the lack of journalistic pushback against his statements is almost as disturbing as the statements themselves.
The core of the problem is that he is seemingly unwilling to learn or to correct his misstatements. This is likely, in part, because he’s insulated from the consequences. His wealth and status have allowed him to live a life far removed from the daily struggles of ordinary people, and his base seems more than willing to overlook these disparities.
It’s tempting to dismiss his comments as the ramblings of a man who’s lost touch with reality. However, it’s essential to remember the impact these pronouncements can have. By spreading misinformation, he undermines faith in democratic institutions and potentially stirs up social unrest. The only thing for certain is that this particular post-election period has once again revealed a great deal about the man, and the way in which he navigates adversity and truth.