When Criticizing Crosses Over The Line?


Have you seen someone on TV or read an article that the author says is just constructive criticism? But what you read was an all out, no hands barred attack of that person’s character? What’s the difference if the person being criticized (attacked) is a friend or a family member? Does it change anything? What if it’s a co-worker or maybe a fellow believer in Christ? What does it take to “flip that switch” from friendly or constructive criticism to an all out war with words? Have you ever thought about it? I mean seriously thought about it?


While you’re mulling that over, what if I told you that in certain circles there are rules for winning an argument no matter the costs involved?

Rules like PFPP:

P = picking a target

F = freezing it

P = personalize it and

P = polarize it

PFPP = A pretty straight forward rule. It cuts to the chase and goes for the juggler.

When you take that thought into the political realm and apply it to say your political opposition you can create a firestorm. You know you’ve hit a nerve when their supporters come out of the woodwork and line up like pees in a pod. You just zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack. Yes attack, because that’s exactly what it is and attack on that person’s character, their family, their livelihood and all they hold dear.

Politicians have a tendency to shift the blame and move the spotlight away from them to make someone else the target. Once you pick your target, look for their vulnerability. When the target says, “Don’t pick on me, there are others to blame”. You freeze your target and disregard their arguments as you continue to attack. One way to get out of the spotlight is to resign from public office or announce that you are no longer going to run for re-election. This has worked pretty well for the Democratic Party particularly in the last few general elections. Someone throws out an accusation and the person being attacked bails out, often without a parachute. How many politicians have simply disappeared in the past month or so?

That’s why the liberal left is so intent on removing statues (inanimate objects) by focusing on individual statues that have names like “Robert E. Lee” because he was a slave owner (doesn’t matter whether it’s true or not, just because of his name recognition). You have to choose a target that is a personification (personal), not something general or abstract.

The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Don’t let the enemy suddenly agree with your demand and say “You’re right – I don’t know what to do about this issue, why don’t you tell us?”

You have to keep them on the defensive. You have to press on with the attack, at all costs. Remember that power goes to two poles: to those who’ve got money and those who’ve got people.

This strategy has been very effective in keeping the “swamp” full of rats. Rats will scurry around this way and that way looking for dark holes in which to hide, allowing business as usual to continue.

Isn’t it interesting what has happened in American politics since the Reagan era? Republicans have lost in many cases because of some sort of scandal being raised by Democrats? Yet have gone on to commit some serious, in your face “Teflon” scandalous behavior that obtains barely a nod? Followed by another Republican who has to deal with accusation after accusation by some rather unscrupulous politicians on the left?

Look back into the not too distant past as in 2007 Senator Hillary Clinton was upstaged by a virtual unknown Senator Barack Obama to “clinch” (if that’s even the right word) the Democratic nomination.

Who was the opposition, Republican Senator John McCain, yet when the mudslinging began it was a comparison of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama against Governor Sarah Palin? As the attacks began it was all over the place, including her character, her family and specifically her children, yet the families of the Democrats were off limits and nobody questioned them.

The election ended up with people voting for change (for change sake) and the winner, pulled his closest rival into his inner circle and offered her a cabinet position (the closest she would come to returning to the white house).

The same thing happened in 2012 when it was Republican Mitt Romney challenging the incumbent. The attacks began on his religious convictions and when the smoke cleared it was once again Barack Obama in the winner’s circle, how convenient?

Did anybody notice the same rules or tactics being used throughout these elections? (I’ll let you in on a little secret, Hillary and Barack noticed. In fact they both were honing those rules for quite some time). So confident were they that in the 2016 election, they had it in the bag. In fact most of the Republican candidates were known political rivals (cut from the same cloth, so to speak).

Oh there were some in the pack who weren’t beltway insiders. They were corporate CEOs and professionals, but not much of a threat to the Democratic “Queen Bee”. Her campaign was ready to squash them like the little bugs that they were to her.

What nobody counted on was the jokester in the crowd, the man they called “The Donald” a real estate tycoon turned entertainer and the power behind the Trump Empire. What an easy take down, she must have thought. It was easy to employ the rules needed to bring him to his knees, wishing he’d not entered the presidential race.

The campaign was like a game of spades and Hillary had all of them. She had questions in advance of each debate and no way could she lose.  Her crowds were bigger, her appeal greater and her pockets were greased by oh so many rich and powerful “socialites”.

And still there was PFPP, a chance to bring out the big guns of accusations, sexual and collusion with RUSSIA! They would surely do the trick. Yet the aces of spades were the FBI, CIA and the DOJ all seemingly in her hip pocket.

Another rule was to push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counter side; the principle that every positive has its negative.

Yes she was America’s positive and he was the negative. Another thing she did was to keep the pressure on, different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for her purpose. The media was all too quick to accommodate and reinforce her tactics. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. She could demonize him and his blunt personality would surely become his downfall?

After the election was over, the shock was overpowering and unbelievable as was the backlash of all those who had put all their eggs into Hillary’s basket. The rules and tactics intensified and now all that was left was to get the election delegitimized and she could still move into the white house, or could she? She simply didn’t count on Trump’s reactions being different than other “fallen” politicians before him.

What she was doing was fishing with lures for a fish that goes for live bait. Her Clinton Machine just could not get thru to the master dealmaker. His vision for America didn’t include the underhanded methods which the Democrats used to undermine the US Constitution. More importantly he did not fall for their rumors and innuendos, but for the past year has methodically dismantled the faulty system that was rigged to bring America down, at the same time fighting harder and pressing forward to insure HIS agenda succeeds, for the good of America.

Over the first year of the Trump presidency there have been many flash points, each easy to distinguish as just another tactic which is simply full of hot air. It’s hard to argue against the fact that Donald Trump is a rude and crude individual. His mannerisms and sometimes his language are sometimes beneath the Office of the Presidency according to some individuals. His methods are certainly unorthodox and who ever heard of a “presidential fireside tweet”? Yet he is highly effective in getting his message out to fellow countrymen. And the world knows straight out what he stands for – America First. They know that he says what he thinks and means what he says, so don’t be too quick to take the word of someone who has declared their hatred for the president when they say “he said”!

There’s a 99.9% chance that someone is not telling the truth. Facing those odds my money is on “The Donald”! – I am the real truckmaster




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s