So what's President-elect Donald Trump been up to?
One thing I noticed right away is a major shift in tone. With the exception of some loony tweets (claiming those folks demonstrating against his election are professional agitators set loose by corrupt media), Trump seems way subdued. Reminds me of the rant-less public statement following his meeting with the president of Mexico.
In an interview on Sixty Minutes, he seemed to be backing off his blood-thirsty campaign to get Hillary and Bill Clinton jailed for crimes against the nation. Now he says those guys are "good people" and he doesn't want to hurt them.
(But is this apparent new stance just a secret assignment delivered to the more rabid [and gun-toting] members of his core supporters? I don't want to hurt them, Trump says, but you fellas should feel free to go hog-wild.)
Trump also seems okay if some of his signature border Wall is represented by mere fencing. He knows parts of it will be a legitimate wall, and that's good enough for him.
Mexico, of course, will never consent to pay for something built in the US. That would be silly.
(Besides, it might enrage the drug cartels, by making more difficult the distribution of all that good stuff Americans clamor for so strenuously. Members of a government that ponied up the dough to build a wall might well become targets for murder and beheading. Or worse.)
Trump has also quieted down on his promise to eliminate and replace Obamacare. He seems now ready to make only a few modifications to the program, not engage in its wholesale destruction. Still no way to know if his version will be better and cheaper than the original, as he has often promised.
Trump even met with vocal enemies, like Mitt Romney. Happy handshakes and back slapping for the man who famously called Trump a phony and a conman.
Before that happened, Trump spent an hour and a half with Barack Obama, said he'd be willing to take advice from the man he once called the stupidest American president and the worse president this country has ever had. Can Trump really not remember his own words from just a few months ago?
Has the man been kidnapped by space aliens? Did those gray-skinned rascals go up his butt and hollow out his skull?
Obama recently pointed out that campaigning is different from governing. The two activities apparently draw on different talents and "strengths." Perhaps that explains Trump's shifting positions.
I guess we'll have to wait and see if The Donald has really become a different guy, and a president this country can survive. There are a lot of people anxious to get the answer, nervous folks from all over the world.
Sunday, November 20, 2016
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
TRUMP WINS, WORLD ENDS
Maybe we dodged a bullet. Seriously.
There was really no way to tell what chaos might follow a win by Hillery Clinton. Would the nastier elements of the Deplorables take up arms to right the outrage of a rigged election?
The way it turned out, the country will get a chance to see Trump in action—and judge him harshly for it.
Here's how it might go:
After two years of Trump not getting his way (government is hard, man!), the Democrats might pick up some seats in the midterm elections. After two more years of Trump not slapping together all those many, many things he said he would accomplish "quickly and easily," he may get voted out. A one-termer.
With even more Demos landing in Congress.
Four years from now, with both the White House and Congress in Democratic hands, the gridlock should finally be broken. (Especially if a goodly number of Tea Party recalcitrants are swept away.)
Should this scenario came to pass, it might actually satisfy a significant portion of America.
In this election, the vast majority of voters wanted change in Washington above all, and Hillery was never going to be a viable choice.
Sure, the polls suggested she could pull it off, but in the end Trump may have picked up enough people who declined to support him in public, but who voted for him in secret. They wanted change, see? And were willing to ignore the man's obvious defects.
Even those Democrats who want to blame the FBI director for his last-minute email-investigation flip-flop will have to admit Hillery was just too Washington to please the frustrated mood of the current electorate.
Trump's victory speech demonstrated the quieter version of the man. He didn't mention the Wall or illegal immigrants, but concentrated on the one thing that might bring the country together: rebuilding the infrastructure.
So far, Republicans have ignored Obama's call for that action. Maybe now it can get some sort of start.
Trump seemed to suggest he was going to put American back to work doing that job. He made no mention of how it was going to be funded, but I'm pretty sure it won't be by lowering taxes on the rich and corporations.
It will be interesting to see if Democrats will try to block what they clamored for under Obama. (You can be sure Republicans would have made Hillery's path difficult at almost every turn.)
Trump also didn't mention killing Obamacare in his speech, one of his Day One promises. If he manages to actually get this one done, I have a feeling a lot of Americans will be disappointed with whatever the Republicans pony up to replace it.
In fact, it's likely there would be no replacement. Which may well seal Trump's exit from Washington in four years.
Maybe Hillery will be out of jail by then.
There was really no way to tell what chaos might follow a win by Hillery Clinton. Would the nastier elements of the Deplorables take up arms to right the outrage of a rigged election?
The way it turned out, the country will get a chance to see Trump in action—and judge him harshly for it.
Here's how it might go:
After two years of Trump not getting his way (government is hard, man!), the Democrats might pick up some seats in the midterm elections. After two more years of Trump not slapping together all those many, many things he said he would accomplish "quickly and easily," he may get voted out. A one-termer.
With even more Demos landing in Congress.
Four years from now, with both the White House and Congress in Democratic hands, the gridlock should finally be broken. (Especially if a goodly number of Tea Party recalcitrants are swept away.)
Should this scenario came to pass, it might actually satisfy a significant portion of America.
In this election, the vast majority of voters wanted change in Washington above all, and Hillery was never going to be a viable choice.
Sure, the polls suggested she could pull it off, but in the end Trump may have picked up enough people who declined to support him in public, but who voted for him in secret. They wanted change, see? And were willing to ignore the man's obvious defects.
Even those Democrats who want to blame the FBI director for his last-minute email-investigation flip-flop will have to admit Hillery was just too Washington to please the frustrated mood of the current electorate.
Trump's victory speech demonstrated the quieter version of the man. He didn't mention the Wall or illegal immigrants, but concentrated on the one thing that might bring the country together: rebuilding the infrastructure.
So far, Republicans have ignored Obama's call for that action. Maybe now it can get some sort of start.
Trump seemed to suggest he was going to put American back to work doing that job. He made no mention of how it was going to be funded, but I'm pretty sure it won't be by lowering taxes on the rich and corporations.
It will be interesting to see if Democrats will try to block what they clamored for under Obama. (You can be sure Republicans would have made Hillery's path difficult at almost every turn.)
Trump also didn't mention killing Obamacare in his speech, one of his Day One promises. If he manages to actually get this one done, I have a feeling a lot of Americans will be disappointed with whatever the Republicans pony up to replace it.
In fact, it's likely there would be no replacement. Which may well seal Trump's exit from Washington in four years.
Maybe Hillery will be out of jail by then.
Sunday, November 6, 2016
WHAT'S WRONG WITH US
Despite recent appearances, this is not a political blog. (And yes, I've said it before.)
This blog is meant to support the Kindle ebook whose cover is depicted to the right of these words: WHAT'S WRONG WITH US.
(I just discovered the book is available as a free bootleg download on the Internet. I'm not quite willing to tell you where, right now.)
The central thesis of the book is that the reason human beings are so difficult to live with is that they are basically stupid.
Too stupid, in fact, to realize how stupid they are.
Oh, sure, an individual can see that other people are idiots. They just don't see how that idiocy could also be applied to them.
Basically, if a thought exists inside a human brain, that thought is considered correct. Any attempt to overthrow a given notion is immediately labeled false. Much of this inviolable knowledge is pounded into children's heads when they're helpless to resist.
(Keep in mind, Christians, if you'd been born in Baghdad or Tehran, you'd be a Muslim now. And be careful—your attempt to squirm out from under this obvious fact may stretch you Idiot Quotient to the breaking point.)
Another problem: Humans can't tell the difference between what they know and what they think they know.
The brain is mainly a machine for producing acceptable reasons why it's okay to think whatever it is you already think or to do whatever it is you've already decided to do.
The brain literally makes up stories to support your position on any subject. It also edits the world to provide you with "facts" that back you up—no matter what crap is bouncing around inside your diseased gourd.
The current election process is a window into this madness.
Roughly five percent of voters support third party candidates. This is idiocy. America is a dedicated two-party system, and the only time you can even attempt to move that needle is to align a third party with one of the major parties during primaries.
Bernie Sanders is an Independent who aligned with the Demos and tried for the nomination there. Hillary's super delegates made his quest impossible. Maybe next time it will work. But even it it does, this will still be a two-party system.
The way it is right now, the only thing a third party candidate can hope to accomplish is to throw the election to one of the major parties. Thus, Ralph Nader messed up the Florida vote enough to put George W. Bush in the White House. With disastrous results we're still trying to get away from.
The majority of Americans say they will vote for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Some of them are enthusiastic about their choice. Others are only trying to block the other guy from getting elected. It's been said these are the most unpopular candidates ever put forward by the Big Two.
This blog has attacked Donald Trump many times. (Trump would, if he had any inkling of this backwater corner of the Internet, characterize those attacks as "vicious." He likes that word a lot.)
The man puts himself right out there. Supporters often cite his willingness to speak his mind as their favorite thing about him. I guess we have to assume he really is saying what he means to say.
And in the process he shows himself to be a bully and a thug and a demagogue. He behaves in public in ways few Presidents have behaved in private. And some people literally love him for that.
He either sexually assaults women, or wants men to think he does, and so lies about doing it. Forty-some percent of Americans applaud this position.
Almost everything Trump says is either a lie or a promise no president can make happen. Forty-some percent of Americans want to fight to make him their president.
(If he loses, there will be lawsuits—and maybe armed insurrection. Man the barricades!)
Folks want change in Washington. They see backbiting and infighting and lack of cooperation, and they want it stopped. Forty-some percent of Americans reason that Trump, being an outsider, can make that change.
In fact, Trump faces a Congress that may never cooperate with him. About half are Democrats, and of the other half (the Republicans), about half of them hate the man. At best, he's a guy who will probably not veto anything the majority manages to get through.
(Assuming it's possible to get anything through Congress. Some Republicans have vowed not to approve of any Supreme Court nominee Hillary Clinton might put forward.)
Presidents need the cooperation of Congress to get most things done. And neither candidate is likely to get much help there.
Why is that? People know what they know and they know they're right (as far as they know). Why would they compromise that excellent knowledge? Why would they give an inch to the other side?
You can't bargain with devils!
This all-or-nothing attitude has been building for years. Is there any way out? Sometimes, when an outside threat is big enough, it forces folks to get together to defeat it. Will something like that work today?
One of the greatest challenges facing the world right now is Global Warming, but one of the candidates has it in mind it's a hoax. If his supporters agree, this country is not likely to come together to defeat it.
We face increased threat from Russia, but one of the candidates is fighting a compliment war with Russia's president. Trump says: "If he says great things about me, I'm gonna say great things about him." Putin recently declared Trump "brilliant." (Perhaps he admires the way the man lies and lies and gets away with it.)
Acting on his own, Trump may not be able to get much done. The question is, how much trouble can he get us into? If he wins, we may need to set up back-channel connections to the world to remind everybody this man does not speak for us. Is that some kind of treason?
Of course, Hillary Clinton has her own problems. I don't give them much space here because Trump provides me with vastly more material.
I believe she set up her private email server when she was in the Senate. She decided to keep it going when she became Secretary of State. That has proved to be a monumental mistake, perhaps big enough to cost her the election. If she were the ruthless monster portrayed by Trump, she would have anticipated trouble, if only the requirement to release all her private emails—or face criticism for deleting them.
And if you have political power, it's probably not a good idea to also have a foundation folks can send money to—in the hope of siphoning off some of that power in their favor. If a motorcycle cop won't be bribed to let you off that speeding ticket, it's only human nature to think a donation to the Orphans and Widows Fund might help you out.
Even if Pay-to-play isn't happening, it looks bad for the one in power. If your bribe doesn't actually stop you from getting you what you want, you might conclude it helped you to succeed. And you might spread the word.
(Humans believe in prayer, too—because they know it works. Try getting that out of their wonky heads.)
Oddly, some folks might hold their noses and vote for Hillary, despite the fact they believe Trump's lies about her. They just hate him more.
Any way you slice it, the majority of Americans are going to vote for indefensible reasons. But they'll all know they're doing the right thing.
Lucky us! We get to live right in the middle of this dangerous nonsense.
This blog is meant to support the Kindle ebook whose cover is depicted to the right of these words: WHAT'S WRONG WITH US.
(I just discovered the book is available as a free bootleg download on the Internet. I'm not quite willing to tell you where, right now.)
The central thesis of the book is that the reason human beings are so difficult to live with is that they are basically stupid.
Too stupid, in fact, to realize how stupid they are.
Oh, sure, an individual can see that other people are idiots. They just don't see how that idiocy could also be applied to them.
Basically, if a thought exists inside a human brain, that thought is considered correct. Any attempt to overthrow a given notion is immediately labeled false. Much of this inviolable knowledge is pounded into children's heads when they're helpless to resist.
(Keep in mind, Christians, if you'd been born in Baghdad or Tehran, you'd be a Muslim now. And be careful—your attempt to squirm out from under this obvious fact may stretch you Idiot Quotient to the breaking point.)
Another problem: Humans can't tell the difference between what they know and what they think they know.
The brain is mainly a machine for producing acceptable reasons why it's okay to think whatever it is you already think or to do whatever it is you've already decided to do.
The brain literally makes up stories to support your position on any subject. It also edits the world to provide you with "facts" that back you up—no matter what crap is bouncing around inside your diseased gourd.
The current election process is a window into this madness.
Roughly five percent of voters support third party candidates. This is idiocy. America is a dedicated two-party system, and the only time you can even attempt to move that needle is to align a third party with one of the major parties during primaries.
Bernie Sanders is an Independent who aligned with the Demos and tried for the nomination there. Hillary's super delegates made his quest impossible. Maybe next time it will work. But even it it does, this will still be a two-party system.
The way it is right now, the only thing a third party candidate can hope to accomplish is to throw the election to one of the major parties. Thus, Ralph Nader messed up the Florida vote enough to put George W. Bush in the White House. With disastrous results we're still trying to get away from.
The majority of Americans say they will vote for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Some of them are enthusiastic about their choice. Others are only trying to block the other guy from getting elected. It's been said these are the most unpopular candidates ever put forward by the Big Two.
This blog has attacked Donald Trump many times. (Trump would, if he had any inkling of this backwater corner of the Internet, characterize those attacks as "vicious." He likes that word a lot.)
The man puts himself right out there. Supporters often cite his willingness to speak his mind as their favorite thing about him. I guess we have to assume he really is saying what he means to say.
And in the process he shows himself to be a bully and a thug and a demagogue. He behaves in public in ways few Presidents have behaved in private. And some people literally love him for that.
He either sexually assaults women, or wants men to think he does, and so lies about doing it. Forty-some percent of Americans applaud this position.
Almost everything Trump says is either a lie or a promise no president can make happen. Forty-some percent of Americans want to fight to make him their president.
(If he loses, there will be lawsuits—and maybe armed insurrection. Man the barricades!)
Folks want change in Washington. They see backbiting and infighting and lack of cooperation, and they want it stopped. Forty-some percent of Americans reason that Trump, being an outsider, can make that change.
In fact, Trump faces a Congress that may never cooperate with him. About half are Democrats, and of the other half (the Republicans), about half of them hate the man. At best, he's a guy who will probably not veto anything the majority manages to get through.
(Assuming it's possible to get anything through Congress. Some Republicans have vowed not to approve of any Supreme Court nominee Hillary Clinton might put forward.)
Presidents need the cooperation of Congress to get most things done. And neither candidate is likely to get much help there.
Why is that? People know what they know and they know they're right (as far as they know). Why would they compromise that excellent knowledge? Why would they give an inch to the other side?
You can't bargain with devils!
This all-or-nothing attitude has been building for years. Is there any way out? Sometimes, when an outside threat is big enough, it forces folks to get together to defeat it. Will something like that work today?
One of the greatest challenges facing the world right now is Global Warming, but one of the candidates has it in mind it's a hoax. If his supporters agree, this country is not likely to come together to defeat it.
We face increased threat from Russia, but one of the candidates is fighting a compliment war with Russia's president. Trump says: "If he says great things about me, I'm gonna say great things about him." Putin recently declared Trump "brilliant." (Perhaps he admires the way the man lies and lies and gets away with it.)
Acting on his own, Trump may not be able to get much done. The question is, how much trouble can he get us into? If he wins, we may need to set up back-channel connections to the world to remind everybody this man does not speak for us. Is that some kind of treason?
Of course, Hillary Clinton has her own problems. I don't give them much space here because Trump provides me with vastly more material.
I believe she set up her private email server when she was in the Senate. She decided to keep it going when she became Secretary of State. That has proved to be a monumental mistake, perhaps big enough to cost her the election. If she were the ruthless monster portrayed by Trump, she would have anticipated trouble, if only the requirement to release all her private emails—or face criticism for deleting them.
And if you have political power, it's probably not a good idea to also have a foundation folks can send money to—in the hope of siphoning off some of that power in their favor. If a motorcycle cop won't be bribed to let you off that speeding ticket, it's only human nature to think a donation to the Orphans and Widows Fund might help you out.
Even if Pay-to-play isn't happening, it looks bad for the one in power. If your bribe doesn't actually stop you from getting you what you want, you might conclude it helped you to succeed. And you might spread the word.
(Humans believe in prayer, too—because they know it works. Try getting that out of their wonky heads.)
Oddly, some folks might hold their noses and vote for Hillary, despite the fact they believe Trump's lies about her. They just hate him more.
Any way you slice it, the majority of Americans are going to vote for indefensible reasons. But they'll all know they're doing the right thing.
Lucky us! We get to live right in the middle of this dangerous nonsense.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)