Chuck Schumer

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search

I hate hypocrisy and duplicity. My mom's family was Italian, and they always had a loose relationship with the whole truth. It was more a fluid concept for them, where the truth was the best story you could sell -- or that if you repeated an embellishment long and hard enough, then success (acceptance) was proof of validity. From as long as I can remember, I recognized it and didn't like it. Not one bit. For me, the economics of a lie applied: in order for a lie to be valuable, it had to be trusted, or for that to happen, it had to be used as infrequently as possible. It helped form me into being a more honest person (with myself and others), and my self-righteous crusade against those who would fictionalize the past or present. Chuck Schumer is the antithesis of that, and everything I believe in.


All Politicians flip-fop and occasionally shift positions. I'm get that: People grow and thus their views must shift a little and Political winds change, so in order to represent your constituencies you have to adapt a little. Republicans and Democrats get caught in this, and I find it over-sensational to cry wolf on these adaptations. But with Chuck Schumer (and a few other Democrats), it's nothing like that, it's 180° pivots, almost immediately and in the most caustic, abrasive and insulting ways.

Complete Hypocrisy


Look at the following positions from the King of Clowns -- and I don't have to point to obscure articles, we have it on tape[1]

  • 2015, "Every Refugee needs to be vetted and any doubt of terrorism means they shouldn't be admitted."
    • 2 years later: "Trumps exec order was mean spirited (sniff, cue fake tears) and un-American."
  • "People who enter the U.S. illegally are illegal aliens. They should not be treated the same as people that obeyed our laws. Phrases like 'undocumented workers' encourages bad behavior and says we're not serious about combatting illegal aliens, which the American people overwhelmingly support."
    • Trump takes office and: "We're have 60 votes to block him and prevent Trump from 'building his wall' (and enforcing immigration laws)"
  • 2013, "Who doesn't think the President deserves his or her picks for who runs their agencies" (on the "nuclear option" for eliminate the senate filibuster.
    • 2017, "I will oppose Senator Sessions (as Trump's pick for his agency)"
  • 2013, "Stop the gridlock!"
    • 2017, "We can hold them up on the floor and waste 2 months just getting through their nomination"
  • 2013 "Refusing to confirm judges and leaders they deserve, and we NEED to change the rules" (wrt Nuclear Option)
    • 2017, "there's nothing to say they NEED to change the rules" (to do what we did, back to us). wrt Neil Gorsuch confirmation, and using the Nuclear option back at Dems.
  • 2013, "We much prefer up or down votes, no matter who is in power!" (as opposed to filibuster)
    • 2017, "We'd be derelict if we didn't delay an up and down vote".... then goes on to say he was for retaining the filibuster, and that there should be a 60 vote standard.

Charlie Daniels Letter on Trump

Opening Pandoras box:


📚 References