The big gripe, dear worst-reader. I mean. Come on. As bad as the obviousness of President Stupid and his ways can be, is it just as bad to use an analogy of a name–even President Stupid’s son’s name–and a monarchial title in order to make a constitutional legal argument? You know. #Americant is supposed to be a federal republic absent of all things monarchial. Yet it has become, for all practical purposes, a Neo-feudalist state reminiscent of 17th or 18th century Europe, psuedo titles n’all. Indeed. A pseudo aristocracy runs the show that is the #Americant wet-dream $hitshow of greed galore, don’t you know. Or? Am I wrong? #Nomatter.
What’s so wrong about making the comparison between a name (given to someone) and a title–that is also given to someone? I mean. Ain’t that the reason the so-called founding fathers of THE LAND OF FREE TO BE STUPID included such things in their grand document of $hitshow rules (the constitution￼)? Even though, obviously, President Stupid would gladly give the title of Barron to whomever pleases him, such a task does not belong to him. Why not call it out? And so. Only in THE LAND OF FREE TO BE STUPID is it possible for anti-intellectuals to make this connection simply because, well, a really, really, really stupid president named his son after an aristocratic title given to arseholes that history knows so well.
Or maybe not.
The only question that remains is: have you been dumbed down enough?