The Third Law of Trump Statements | or “for every Trump statement there’s an equal and opposite Trump statement”
Axioms, or Laws of Trump Statements.
For every Trump statement there’s an equal and opposite Trump statement.
To every definitive statement by a Donald J. Trump there is always opposed an equal and contradictory statement : or the mutual connotations of two Trump statements upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary ends.
Whatever a Trump states about his views on an issue, those views are contradicted by another statement by the same Trump. If a Trump criticizes an Obama for playing too much golf during his time in the Presidency, then the Trump plays significantly more golf during his first years in office than did the Obama. If a Trump boldly declares (see: “haphazardly tweets”) a change in strategy related to the crisis in Syria, he naturally criticized how the Obama Administration broadcasted their intentions w/r/t Syria in August of 2013.
If a Trump denounces a Rashida Tlaib’s profanity-laced calls for his impeachment, the Trump (if I may so say) will be equally revealed in an earlier video to offhandedly refer to the Chinese as “mother*****rs” : for the hatred of criticism and love of applause, by the same endeavor to defend or otherwise favorably represent itself, will draw the Trump as much towards profanity, as it does profane indictments towards the Trump, and will insult the character of one as much as it promotes that of the other.
If a Trump repeatedly makes a campaign promise to (1) build a wall and (2) that Mexico will pay for it, and by his promises forcibly inserts the concept of a border wall into national security conversations, the wall will undergo an equal change, in its own proposed funding source, towards the contrary source of funding. The Trump will then accuse the Democrats of endangering Americans by refusing to themselves fund the wall of his own promising. The changes made by these statements are equal, not in their meaning but in the intensity with which they are stated. For, because the contradictory statements are equally stated, the changes of the statements made towards contrary ends are reciprocally proportional to the statements. This law takes place also in retractions, as will be proved in the next scholium.