Rules Are For Suckers

Trump agreed with the rules for the first Presidential debate, including one that stated that he would not interrupt while Biden was speaking. He almost immediately broke that rule.

In one sense, that should tell everyone who and what he is. He’ll only follow rules, or laws, when he physically has to, or when they’re to his benefit, and even then he’ll twist them to his advantage, like when he paid his daughter something like $70,000 for consulting services – when she was already on the payroll. You can’t be both an employee and an independent contractor for a company at the same time, but that clearly didn’t faze the Donald.

For the Donald, rules are for suckers, just as dying for your country is for losers and suckers, and that’s why someone paid off a doctor to find the Donald unfit for the military because of bone spurs. That’s why he’s stiffed contractors.

He’s been in office for more than three and a half years, and he’s promised a better health plan since even before he was elected. He also promised a massive infrastructure program. So far, there’s no sign of either even having been drafted. He also promised that Mexico would pay for his wall. Mexico didn’t and won’t. Those are just the most obvious examples, but his failure to keep promises is because keeping promises is also for suckers.

He pushed through a tax bill that gave most of the population a short-term tiny tax cut and the millionaires and billionaires a huge tax cut, which dramatically increased the deficit and made it harder to fund existing government programs, and then he lied about what he’d actually done.

The Donald isn’t ever going to change. He is what he is.

What bothers me is that so many people not only don’t see that, but that they also don’t see that any successful society runs on rules, usually called laws. When people don’t obey the rules voluntarily, society goes downhill. When that occurs, three things can happen. Society can collapse into revolution or anarchy. Or an authoritarian strongman can take over, which is becoming more and more common in today’s world. Or people can decide that it’s better to do the right thing and obey the rules, and work cooperatively to make things better so that bad rules/laws are changed.

The real suckers are those people who believe rules are for suckers… because in the end, rules accepted by the majority are the only thing that holds a successful and free society together, and abiding by those rules and, where necessary, peacefully cooperating to improve them are the only way to remain free. And that’s something that the Donald will never accept… or understand, not surprisingly, since he wants to reintroduce the divine rights of kings, or in his case, the divine right of dictators.

13 thoughts on “Rules Are For Suckers”

  1. Christopher Robin says:

    “Demagogue” is an apt term for Trump. His entire campaign rests on playing to the fears of people who are typically conservative. “Proving the Anti-Federalists Right Since 2016” is a more appropriate slogan.

    The presidency, as envisioned by George Washington, was intended to be a unifying force. Unfortunately, the current trend has diverged from this. Trump has done more to divide the country and establish dangerous precedents than any other modern president.

  2. Tom says:

    The Soviet Union split apart when it could because it was made up of separate nations or societies forced together.

    The EU is having great difficulty forming a meaningful federation out of historically warring different societies and hence Brexit (with Russian help).

    The American civil war demonstrated the difficulty of breaking up a federal union because of its obvious advantage in advancing to the “sea to shining sea” dream.

    The US has the biggest economy; the highest standard of living; and the strongest defense organization on Earth at the moment.

    It will not do much for me but in my opinion Trump is demonstrating the obvious need for central government and the strength of Federalism. The citizens need to realize that and vote the anti-Federalists out with the Trump “administration”.

    1. Grey says:

      Wait, the EU is having difficulty forming a meaningful confederation?

      I’m not sure the populist Brexit plan is indicative of that, as it seems it was not much more than a vehicle for the egos of its backers, who I don’t think ever expected to win. (Hence the ‘dog catches car’ fiasco we have been watching the last four years.)

      1. Tim says:

        The Brexit referendum and then the second referendum (via proxy of a General Election) demonstrated democracy. It was not a populist movement per se.

        It was a move to separate the UK from EU control.

        The Remain movement fought every inch of the way after the first using both legal and essentially scare tactics in the media, supported by the legal establishment, business leaders and external input – such as from the then US president.

        The painting of Brexit supporters as under-informed, under-educated and racist as well as a relentless media campaign of ‘you got it wrong’ plainly reinforced Brexit belief.

        Clearly I support Brexit and if the virus has had any benefit at all, it is to force the Remain message off the BBC headlines.

        Oddly the Remain-oriented people I know feel that as I supported Brexit, I would naturally support Trump when he campaigned for US President.

        1. Tom says:

          So ‘Rules are for Suckers” won the Brexit debate in England.

          I am still waiting to see the replacement UK has for the EU. Re-assembling the Commonwealth will not work after the way the UK disassembled it.

          The multiple bilateral agreements are a start but a start of what?

          I do not see anything else that is likely to help the UK – Trump like business “contracts” are the equivalent of “Rules are for Suckers”.

          So … what is the Plan after achieving Independence? A reference would be nice.

          1. Tim says:

            You summed it up neatly. Independence.
            That is enough. And it was a democratic result which you seem to forget.

          2. Grey says:

            @ Tim, this exchange has summed up for me the overlap of Trumpism and Brexit quite nicely. Both were born of revanchist nostalgia with grandiose goals of casting off the elite. (In the US white-racial grievances had a role.)

            But, in both cases there doesn’t seem to actually have been a plan for what to do if they actually won. Thus, the UK sputters, drawing ever-tighter tautological circles (‘independence for the sake of independence’) and in the US Trump is running an insurgent campaign, pretending he hasn’t been President for the last 3.5 years.

            Dog catches car.

  3. Tom says:

    PS
    Obama and Brexit …

    ” Barack Obama: Brexit would put UK ‘back of the queue’ for trade talks.” Euronews/Associated Press etc.

    1. Tim says:

      That was the comment of a past President. And of little relevance now.

      If two countries or groups of counties decide there is benefit to have a free trade agreement, then one will be put into place. Otherwise WTO rules apply which is why the WTO exists.

  4. Ian Rowan says:

    Doesnt obey rules and laws, society goes downhill huh? you mean like when the dfl party wants to do away with the electoral college and relegate the USA to mob rule democracy? yes, lets have new york and california decide our progressive elitist masters.

    As for the “rules” of the debate, funny that the moderator was a rampant democrat and the next one is even more so. Nice neutral commenators you have going there. Also, i thought people werent supposed to have help, like the wire that biden obviously had? so much for rules.

    I wonder if anti federalists could be ascribed to cities that refuse to assist ice, refuse to arrest domestic terrorists who destroy businesses, cars, burn them down, attack people, rape people, oh i forgot, you wouldnt have heard about much of that since you get your information from corporate globalist news sources. I wonder at your tenacity in disliking trump when the top billionaires in the country are on the dfl side, and will undoubtedly control biden, who, realistically, has demential and wont be running anything, so my question is, who will be?

    As for what tells who someone is? the dfl side has antifa/ blm “brownshirts” terrorising neighborhoods, businesses, citizens, with a nod from the dfl politicians, DAs paid off by soros to not bring charges up against the terrorists, and yes the campaign donations are easily verified, and they have the progressive safe space/microaggression/intersectional victimhood/protected groups ideology illustrating the philosophy of the dfl party. In other words, an authoritative system that promotes tribalism, collectivism, racism and sexism,while stifling several amendments of the Bill of Rights. gee what can go wrong there?

    1. What can go wrong is that virtually all your “facts” are either incorrect or inaccurate, and that clearly you’re seeing what you want to see, rather than what is. While you certainly have the right to believe whatever you want, you’re not entitled to have your misinformation go unchallenged. And by the way, studies show that a significant percentage of billionaires are Republicans, not Democrats.

    2. Hanna says:

      Alt right-GOP-tRumptard talking points.
      Utter BS.
      So what else is new?

  5. Tom says:

    Hi Tim. I am all for Independence. However it seems to me that being independent needs a descriptor: independent from what? The UK is independent from the EU – ok but to what purpose or benefit is the answer I seek?

    In any society or group one forms relationships and then perhaps breaks them only to form or strengthen others but usually in order to achieve something better. The only true Independence is in the form of isolation from all others of the species. Most homo sapiens do not want that because we are social animals. So we are stuck with “rules”.

    Maybe the UK was going to form an alliance with China thru Hong Kong to replace the EU. Now that Hong Kong is no longer “independent” that has to be replaced by the other significant potential economic giant namely the US. Either is still just replacing one set of rules with another; hopefully to the UKs advantage.

Leave a Reply to L. E. Modesitt, Jr. Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.