By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Amidst record levels of Americans departing the country and the potential for population decline, the current political landscape is characterized by a series of national humiliations. These include international embarrassments, foreign influence in media, and heightened geopolitical tensions, all contributing to a climate of corruption and chaos. Recent polling further underscores public doubt regarding the honesty and competence of leadership, alongside concerns about the abuse of power.
Read the original article here
The assertion that 62% of Americans believe Donald Trump has been using the presidency as a personal piggy bank seems to resonate with a significant portion of public opinion. It’s presented as a rather obvious conclusion for many, almost to the point of being a “well, duh” moment. The sheer volume of perceived self-enrichment and ethically questionable dealings during his time in office makes it difficult for a majority to dismiss these claims.
The contrast between investigations into the Biden family and the relative lack of scrutiny directed at Trump’s own financial entanglements is frequently highlighted. When accusations were leveled against Joe Biden’s son, specifically concerning profiting off the Biden name, extensive investigations were launched. However, these probes reportedly yielded minimal substantive findings, often revolving around minor loans or seemingly innocuous phone calls. The narrative suggests that these investigations ultimately fizzled out, leaving a sense of hypocritical overreach.
Meanwhile, the perceived financial windfalls for Trump’s own family members are pointed to as direct consequences of his presidential position. Reports of Trump’s children securing substantial international deals, seemingly facilitated by their father’s access to global power, are a recurring theme. Furthermore, the appointment of billionaires with clear conflicts of interest to high-level cabinet positions is seen as an open invitation for personal gain, rather than public service.
The notion of Trump making billions through various schemes, from cryptocurrency ventures to charging the Secret Service for accommodations at his properties, is a central point of concern. The idea that he might be actively selling Trump-branded items or engaging in crypto schemes, generating personal wealth directly tied to his presidency, is presented as a factual observation by many. The subsequent proposal that taxpayers should reimburse him for billions of dollars is viewed as an audacious extension of this self-serving agenda.
The way federal funds are sometimes halted or redirected based on Trump’s personal whims is also cited as evidence of using the presidency for cash. The significant expenditure of resources and effort to ensure his name is emblazoned on everything, from buildings to government projects, is seen as another layer of this pervasive grift. Even seemingly small actions, like accepting a jet from Qatar, are interpreted through the lens of a presidency being leveraged for personal or familial financial benefit.
The persistent loyalty of a specific segment of the population, often referred to as approximately 38%, is a source of bewilderment for many. This group is often characterized as being either willfully blind to the evidence or perhaps too embarrassed to admit they supported a figure perceived as a conman. The idea that this unwavering support persists despite decades of examples of what is considered blatant dishonesty and self-serving behavior is a recurring point of frustration.
The effectiveness of Trump’s influence on the stock market and his family’s alleged participation in market manipulation are also brought up. The concept of a “stock market president” implies a presidency focused on financial gain rather than economic stability for the broader population. This perception is compounded by accusations of fraud and past convictions, which are seen by some as undeniable indicators of his character and motivations.
The idea that Trump is using the presidency primarily as a means to avoid personal legal entanglements, particularly prison time, is a deeply held belief for many. This perspective suggests that the pursuit of wealth and the protection of his own freedom are inextricably linked to his political actions. The self-enriching schemes are not just about accumulating more wealth, but about building a financial and political fortress to insulate himself from consequences.
The unwavering support from roughly 30-38% of the population is frequently framed as a cult of personality. This segment is seen as defending all his actions, even those perceived as blatant grifting. The lack of change in this percentage over time, despite accumulating evidence and escalating controversies, is striking. It suggests a deep-seated adherence that transcends rational evaluation of his conduct in office.
The comparison to historical methods of dealing with perceived corruption, like tarring and feathering, underscores the frustration and sense of helplessness felt by those who believe the country is being harmed by these practices. There’s a strong sentiment that those who supported Trump, even unknowingly, should not be absolved of responsibility for the damage they believe has been inflicted on the nation, particularly concerning economic well-being.
The sheer amount of money allegedly made during his presidency, far exceeding his pre-existing net worth, is presented as a stark indictment. This isn’t just about making more money; it’s about “robbing the country” with a significant portion of the populace either actively or passively condoning the act. The percentage of those who notice the “obvious” is considered a true reflection of a functioning democracy, while the rest are seen as either complicit or tragically misled.
The continued defense of his actions, even by those who might not fully endorse him, is seen as a testament to a pervasive messaging strategy that has been effective for decades. The argument that a wealthy individual wouldn’t need more money is presented as a naive belief that has been cultivated over time, making people more susceptible to the idea that the rich are somehow beyond the need for personal gain. This, in turn, makes it harder for many to accept that those in power might indeed be driven by insatiable avarice. The hope for some is that this cult of personality, like others, will eventually fade, but the immediate concern is the ongoing financial exploitation of the presidency.