By now, the votes are in....

By now the election results are in.  And given the third presidential debate, I am hoping that Trump did the right thing and conceded defeat.  

- - - - - -

At the time I wrote this entry, Trump said that he would only consider following a long standing tradition and concede the election (assuming Hillary wins at the polls).  This is a dangerous precedent. Part of the glory of this country is the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to another, including the times when the opposition party is voted into power.  Trump is a clear and present danger, as long as he does not honor the will of the people, as this could incite malcontents into starting a "Beer Hall Putsch".

Hillary did the honorable thing and said that she would respect the results of the election. Of course, I expect this would be easy for her, because, by most measures, she is likely to win the election.  As of the time of the debate, this was Hillary's election to lose, and I think that she avoided the big mistakes that would cause her to lose.

- - - - - -

Last week, a decade old recording of Trump talking about being a sexual predator made the news. And the fellow on the other end of the conversation (Billy Bush) was fired from the Today show.  Several Republicans revoked their endorsements of Trump, as they realized that the GOP needs the votes of white women to win future elections. With this week's pronouncement regarding election results, these Republicans, and more, should be saying that they will respect the results of the election, and will not support Trump is he challenges the election.

Gore had good reason to challenge Bush in 2000.  Voting machines did not accurately record the will of the voters. Yet, when the results were finalized, Gore conceded with grace. In his blog of the third presidential debate, Andrew Sullivan posted an image of the letter that George Bush wrote to Bill Clinton on 1/20/1993. It was an extremely gracious letter, saying that Bush truly wished Clinton the best fortune as president of our country.  I doubt that Trump can be this gracious.

- - - - - -

I strongly hope that Hillary wins this election, as I am afraid of how nasty Trump treats people perceived to be his enemies.  There is no place in being nasty and impolite when one is the most powerful person in the world. As Teddy Roosevelt once said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick."  Trump does neither.  In each of the debates, Hillary acted with class, and kept her cool. Trump, on the other hand, showed himself for the bully he is.  He is not qualified to stand at the most important bully pulpit in the world.  He is the clear and present danger to America, not Hillary. In nihilist rage, he would destroy the country if he doesn't get his way. Whereas Hillary will only keep a corrupt system in place, for lack of a better system to replace what we have now. 

So I ask a question - can one man, in isolation, "Make America Great Again?"  If Trump can, he doesn't need the cooperation of the American people to do so. And if not, it would be foolish to elect a person who believes he can accomplish miracles due to the "strength" of his personality.  Hopefully, America has voted rationally.

Don't be surprised

This year is one where the public is signaling that it wants a big change.  Both Trump and Sanders were the choices of people disgusted at the two-party duopoly's ability to prevent meaningful change, and allow the middle class to sink into poverty.  The GOP had no choice, except to accept Trump as its nominee. And the Democratic establishment found a way to gyp Sanders of the votes he needed to win the nomination. As a result, we have the two least favorite candidates being in a position to be elected president.

Many Democrats are now saying that a vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump.  This may be true, but only in the states where it's a toss up between Hillary and Trump.  In states such as New York, there there are 3 Democratic party voters for every 2 from the GOP. It is safe for me to vote for the Libertarian choice, since I see no risk that Trump can win in New York.

I am under no illusions that the Libertarians can win.  Johnson's total ignorance of world affairs shows him to be unqualified for the position of president.  His Vice Presidential nominee is better qualified than he is, as Weld knows much more about the world outside the 50 states.  Sadly, the Libertarians have way too many purists, and do not know how to compromise in order to gain power.

Yet, I see signs of hope for the long term.  For the first time ever, I've seen a campaign sign for the Libertarian candidates posted near my house.  They are slowly starting to get traction - after many years of wandering in the wilderness.  People are seeing the Libertarians as a party they can support, if only as a protest against the two-party power duopoly.

Don't be surprised that some time in the next 20 years that the Libertarians become a major power in their own right.  The Democrats have not been developing enough good leaders at the state level, and have ceded control of many states to the GOP.  The GOP has taken ever more extreme positions, and no longer represent mainstream America. Why did it take so long for Trump to repudiate David Duke? The answer is simple - they have courted white supremacists since Richard Nixon's day, and they don't know how to break the deal with this devil.  Please note that most Republicans are not racist.  They only made the mistake of absorbing this blighted voting bloc when the Democrats cast them off by LBJ's signing of civil rights legislation.

The Libertarians are closer to classic GOP values than the current GOP is.  Small government is a hallmark of the Libertarian party.  The GOP promotes an ever bigger government, in the form of our military and its civilian workforce. Contrast this with the Libertarians who want to pull back from international quagmires, and work on domestic problems.  I, for one, am afraid that if the GOP gets in control of the elected branches of government, that they will repeat the mistakes of Bush #43, and pay for military growth with debt - destroying the futures of our children and grandchildren, as they will be the ones who have to pay for our mistakes.

My advice: If you live in a state which is virtually guaranteed to vote Democratic, vote for the Libertarians if you can't stand Trump of Hillary. If you are in a state that is virtually guaranteed to vote Republican, vote for Libertarians if you can't stand Trump or Hillary.  But if you live in a state that's up for grabs, vote for the candidate who is least objectionable.  It's a terrible year in which to cast a vote. But we have a real choice, even though many of us will be holding our noses as we make it.

Many people think we have no choice, but we do.

I can't stand Trump, and you can't stand Clinton.  Who would be a logical choice for us if we could have only one person as president?  This is a big problem when both candidates are equally easy to hate?

Over the years, Clinton has been pilloried by the GOP and lied about at every turn.  But she had done little to make things better for herself, and has only reinforced the lies told about her. But Trump is no paragon of honor, as he has been in bed with foreign powers who are no friends of the USA.  Even in this paragraph, you can sense a very slight bias towards Clinton - but not a bias I'd have if the GOP put up a more honorable candidate.

Recently, Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia.  Her surrogates covered up for her instead of telling the truth and letting the chips fall where they may.  As a result, her health has become an issue for the campaign.  Gone are the days that Kennedy could hide his Addison's disease.  Gone are the days that Wilson could hide an almost fatal stroke. And gone are the days that FDR's polio related paralysis would be ignored by the press. The health of a potential president is very important to us.

Given Trump's doctor's note, I feel that the note was in effect written by Trump himself. Even a 12th grader would use more adult language than was on the note.  (Trump's speeches have been analyzed, and they are at a 4th grade level.  What does this say about the doctor's note?)  With Trump calling for full disclosure by Hillary, but not being willing to do so himself, there is little reason to consider him an honorable candidate for president.

So where does this leave us?  We do have a choice - the Libertarians and their candidate, Gary Johnson.  No, I don't expect him to win.  But I do expect him to be able to throw a monkey wrench into this election.  Voting Libertarian is the best way of saying "NO!" to both parties and their corruption.  Once they start getting some victories, it will be much harder for the duopoly to keep this third party off the ballot.  And with victories will come change.

Some people will say that Johnson should have known about Aleppo. Yet, how many of us remember that Syrian city unless it is in the news?  I can't fault him for being forgetful - he doesn't have the luxury of big staffs like the Democrats and the GOP can provide for their candidates.  At least, he has a coherent philosophy.  And if by some miracle he won our nation's highest office, I'm pretty sure that Willie Nelson, Snoop Dogg, and Bill Maher would be there at the swearing in ceremony - as well as the unofficial "after party".  (I'd love to be there for that one!)

We have a lot to think about before November 8th.  And I hope that either one of the major party candidates shows him/herself worthy of high office. Or I hope that the Libertarians would finally come of age and win something....

Mixed Nuts

As they say, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.  And Donald junior's quote about gas chambers says that he is just as crazy as his father. There is talk that Trump's wife worked here illegally before becoming a legal resident. The more I hear about Trump and his family, the more I feel like they all are a danger to this country in one form or another.

The Trump organization does business with a lot of shady characters. I'm far from certain if it is even possible for Trump to be president without a conflict of interest between him and the family corporation. Most presidents are able to put their private wealth into a blind trust, where they do not know what is in the trust, and that there is no conflict of interest between the president's actions and that of the people managing his money. Trump has only said that he will put his organization into the hands of his family. Can anyone say that this eliminates the potential for a conflict of interest? When I consider the business scams perpetuated by Trump and his minions, I get very disturbed.When I consider that the Trump Foundation may be a slush fund by another name, I get disgusted. When Trump claims that he gets audited every year because he's a good Christian, I know he's lying because the IRS (with the exception of TCMP audits) only flags returns for audits because they are very suspicious. Of course, when you consider the people that the Trump Organization does business with, I find that it will be highly likely that a President Trump will favor his business friends over the national interest.  Can we trust Trump to look out for the USA when his Modus operandi is to only look out for himself?

Of course, there are people who will be voting for Trump as a way to disrupt the national elites.  I have no truck with what they want to do, but with how they are doing it.  One does not throw out a government unless one has sane leaders to take over the reins when the old leaders are elected out of office.  In Britain, the opposition party has the equivalent of a cabinet in waiting. These ministers are specialists in their areas of competence, and would be ready to take the reins immediately once their party is voted in. In the USA, we have a deep bench of reasonably sane people to call upon for cabinet nominations during the 2 1/2 month period between Election Day and Inauguration Day. And all cabinet positions are vetted by the Legislative branch as a safeguard.  However, Trump wants to put the foxes in charge of the hen houses.  He has already tapped someone from "big oil" to be in charge of the EPA. He has also said that he wants some new limits on 1st amendment freedoms. In particular, he wants to gag the press. Given the Newsweek article liked to above, one can understand why he distrusts the press. This is a dangerous harbinger of things to come.

Given that I live in New York, I expect the Democrats to win my state by their usual margins. As a result, I feel safe in casting my vote for Gary Johnson and helping the Libertarian party grow.  If I lived in a state where the election would be a tossup, I'd be voting for Hillary. I do not like Hillary. But she seems like the lesser of evils, when one gets to know more about the two candidates.

Thoughts on the first presidential debate.

One speaks to our gut.  The other speaks to our mind.  Both are disliked by almost everyone. And yet, we have to choose one from these two candidates.  Either way, America loses.

- - - - - -

Everything Trump says is a lie - including the words "and" and "the". When Lester Holt (the debate's moderator) tried to fact check Trump on a ridiculous claim, Trump shouted over him. Given Trump's style, he showed that he'd bully anyone, everyone, and anything that got in his way - including the truth. (Hillary tends to be more in touch with reality.) Sadly, Hillary didn't go in for the kill where Trump was weakest - his tax returns.  It has been documented elsewhere that Trump is in bed with many unsavory characters, and she could have brought up the slavery in Dubai associated with one of Trump's partners.  In short, she could have gone a little loose with the facts and played Trump's game by her rules.  

Sadly, Hillary is too much of an intellectual type.  She's the type of nerdy girl who tried to impress people when young by studying everything in the town library. She is a fountain of facts fighting a tiger of lies. If one listened to the debate, as I did, one would have noticed Trump shouting over Hillary at least 20 times.  If Hillary had responded in the same way a man would, she would have seemed shrill and lost any of the gravitas she had.  There is a double standard applied to women, and Hillary does not have the vocal tools which Maggie Thatcher used to beat men at their own game.  (Over Thatcher's career, she gradually lowered her voice to take advantage of a human prejudice to assign gravitas to lower pitched voices.)

- - - - - -

Who won the debate?

If one listened to the debate and carefully parsed the questions and answers - Hillary.  But that's too easy an answer. Trump was not preaching to the public.  He was preaching to a base who already had their decisions made for them, and needed to avoid anything that smacked of defeat by a woman.  And that he did with his visual image. He is a dominant, bullying male. He used all the key tools of an emotional abuser to dominate the moderator and to dominate Hillary. If you were already supporting Trump, you'd have said that he won - especially, since neither Hillary nor the moderator could talk over his shouting.

I'm very afraid here.  Hillary needs better tools to use in her battles with Trump.  I've said it many times - Hillary needs a gag writer.  She needs appropriate insults she can throw at Trump and get the audience laughing at him.  (The audiences are instructed not to applaud or make any other vocal comment during the debate.)  If she can break that wall, Trump will lose, as he can't stand to be humiliated - especially by a woman.

Years ago, Charlie Chaplin said that he'd have never made "The Great Dictator" had he known how bad Hitler was. I am very thankful that Chaplin did make this movie, because he showed that humor was the one tool that can always be used to deflate the ego of a tyrant. Let's hope that the comics of today know that it is their turn to step up to the plate.

Abandon Ship!

And now the rats are fleeing the ship.  We now are hearing the clarion call from some of the most important conservative media that Trump should either play the game according to the rules, or the GOP will find a way to abandon him for its own survival.  Sadly for the GOP, the die was cast a long, long time ago.  And when they could have gotten rid of the cancer called Donald Trump, they dilly dallied until it was too late to do anything meaningful to stop Trump.

The soul of a political party is tested now and then.  The Democrats were tested when Bill Clinton was impeached by the house.  No one abandoned him, when he was guilty of a "petty" felony.  They were addicted to the money he knew how to bring to his party. The Democrats failed their test, but I'm not sure they could have passed it without tearing the party apart.  This season, it's the Republican's turn.  And they are failing with no excuse. When political leaders are saying that Trump is a con artist who has no business being president, but they support him anyway in the same breath - this is an example of the ethical and moral bankruptcy of the party. This is a colossal failure with no mitigating factors - and no excuses for their (expected) eventual loss in November.

This is a year where the GOP should have been able to easily win the presidency.  All they had to do was stop leaning towards the extreme right, and let Hillary's failings do her in.  In a news cycle that just reported that the Clinton Foundation placed a well heeled contributor in an important government security post, Trump kept making an ass out of himself, wasting another good chance to rightfully attack Hillary for "business as usual".

Trump is likely making a bogus claim that his taxes are being audited.  I'll bet that he doesn't release his taxes because he'll be shown to be a less than successful businessman who is engaged in many questionable deals.  Trump's history in making deals show that he knows how to prosper at the expense of others.  I can only imagine if this tendency holds true about a presidential run.  After losing miserably, he can set himself up as the ringmaster of another media circus, having a networked radio/TV show available over the air or on the internet, where he'll make more money than he ever did with NBC.  He'll continue to claim he was cheated, and people will pay to hear his nonsense.

Where does this leave the GOP?  The way I see it, they would be smart to abandon the racist wingnuts in their base, and go back to the honest conservatism of a William Buckley and Barry Goldwater.  If they also abandon the evangelicals, they might be a smaller party which fights for survival at first.  But they will be free to promote a more coherent and more palatable policy - something that could easily hurt the Democrats if presented by a charismatic leader like Ronald Reagan. 

By now, you may be wondering who I'm going to vote for.  And I think it will be the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson.  In New York, the Democrat running for president almost always wins the state. Since I don't like Hillary, and I am disgusted with Trump, I think it's a safe bet for me to give Johnson the vote - and hope that they get more votes than the GOP this year.  If this happens, all political hell will break loose - and maybe, just maybe, the political elite will realize that they have to do something for the rest of us, lest we vote them out....

Is the enemy of my enemy really my friend?

Recently, an open letter signed by 50 Republican national security experts has warned that nominee Donald Trump "would be the most reckless president" in US history. Trump dismissed the GOP "experts" as they were part of a "failed Washington elite" looking to hold on to power

The big question is: What should Hillary Clinton do with this GOP "gift"?

All of the people on this document were associated with Bush #43's Iraq war and the resulting destabilization of the Middle East.  Should Hillary be grateful to them, when they made some of the biggest mistakes in history?  They are just as incompetent as Trump is, but from the opposite direction.  Should Hillary use their statement as a weapon?  I doubt it, as Trump could use it against her.

Instead, she should say something that Trump wouldn't expect - agree with him.  They may be part of a failed Washington elite, but no elite should be destroyed without capable people ready to take on the reins of government.   She should be saying that just throwing the bums out isn't enough.  The people who replace the bums should know what to do when in office.  Just saying that we'll "Make America Great Again" isn't enough.  She should note that his so-called plans are mere slogans, and not backed up with thought.

Trump has gotten where he is, by pandering to peoples' baser nature.  He is a bully.  And weak people like bullies, as they can vicariously experience power by supporting a bully from their tribe.  This is dangerous, as this is the existential threat to any democracy or republic - the cult of. of personality.

We've seen this cult of personality many times in history.  We've seen it in the 1930's in Central Europe.  We've seen it in the 1960's with the Chinese Cultural Revolution.  And we can see it in North Korea - the only documented country where a dead person still is in charge of the government.  And now, America has a choice between Trump and Clinton.

Am I afraid?  I'd be a fool not to be a little bit scared. But I still have faith in America.  And given that the GOP seems to be falling apart at the seams, I feel in the end that America will learn to worry about cults of personality - and that is a good thing....

It's all about the Benjamins

If anyone thinks that this election is about anything other than money, then I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.  Both major party candidates are in it for the money, and both represent what is wrong about the system.

- - - - - -

Let's start with Donald Trump.  He represents what is most objectionable about the current GOP.  He acknowledges that he has bought and sold politicians in the past.  Reputable news sources state that his business deals have served to make himself rich at the expense of others - including his business partners.  And he suffers no embarrassment from making almost everything he says a lie - appealing to potential voters' more primitive brain functions, instead of their intellect.  When he says that he loves ignorant people - he means it!

We have a large number of people who have been lied to for years.  The political elite from the GOP has ignored the needs of the common people.  They have told us that cutting taxes will result in greater tax revenue as well as more jobs available to the common person - and we know this to be false (anecdotally) from recent experience.  (I'm not saying this can not be true, but we had no proof of where we were on the Laffer Curve, and whether our tax rates were high enough to slow down the economy.)  The GOP has not changed its tune, and the public has seen work move overseas or get automated out of existence.  To the GOP elite, the common people are serfs for whom they have no responsibility, and we have suffered because of this attitude.

- - - - - -

Before one gets to thinking that Hillary Clinton is that great, one has to examine her record. Even though she has advocated some good things (such as healthcare reform), she is equally corrupt.  For example, in this election cycle, she has changed her tune on TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership - a trade deal which could negatively affect American employment) from being for it to being against it, only to get the votes that might be cast by Bernie Sanders supporters.  Most people believe that once she is elected, she will change her tune on TPP without any significant changes being made to the deal.  In short, she will betray her supporters in order to get power.

What would Hillary do when she gets power?  Well, she has sucked on the teat of Wall Street for years.  It is no coincidence that the Clinton Family wealth has gone from a book value of almost zero (when Bill Clinton left office, as noted by the deal that gave him a mortgage on their Chappaqua, NY house) to over $100 million today (as estimated by the news outlets).  Does anyone think that she would support policies that benefit the common person over the lords of Wall Street?  I think not.

- - - - - -

So where does this leave us?  Do we vote for a revolution led by one of the people who gained the most from exploiting a corrupt system, and has never had to run a system of any size by himself? Or, do we vote to put a competent, but corrupt leader in charge - and defer the revolution to another day.  In the end, it's all about "the Benjamins" (slang for $100 bills). Do we want to run the economic risk posed by putting a potentially incompetent leader in charge? Or, do we accept the corruption we know from a competent leader?  Either way we're screwed.  The only difference is - how bad it may be for us. 

Disgust!

Yes, we are in danger.  Years ago, the GOP nominated David Duke for governor of Louisiana, because of the fouled up politics of that state.  And then, almost all of the GOP elite (including the sitting president, George Bush #41) rejected Duke, and many encouraged Louisianans to vote for a Democrat (who happened to be a crook).

Sadly, today's GOP will not disavow racists - because it sends a signal that there are democrats who are better qualified for office than anyone nominated by the GOP.  Why is this sad?  Well, it means that tribal loyalty now is valued more than national loyalty, or loyalty to any principle.

What would happen if Hillary Clinton wins in the fall?  Not much. The dysfunctional elite who have been running the this country into ruin for the past 50+ years would stay in power for another 4 years.  But what happens if Donald Trump wins?  Chaos. The financial markets already worry about Trump defaulting on the national debt. Whereas, I worry about things such as ignoring the Geneva Conventions on War, and saying that anything goes.  I wonder what our military thinks of that?

I am totally disgusted by today's GOP, as it no longer stands for true market based economic conservatism, and social restraint. One writer sees the Goldwater nomination as the root of today's GOP insanity - and I can't argue against him.  Today's GOP is willing to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich (it makes sense economically, but creates great social unrest), and radically affecting the freedoms most Americans love - all in the name of security and a "Forever War".

Does the Democratic party have much more to offer?  I doubt it.  As Will Rogers once put it, 

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."

Because they are less organized than the GOP, the Democrats usually cause much less trouble than the GOP does. Sometimes, they can do a lot of good - as in the case of setting up Obamacare. Obamacare with its flaws, is meant to be tinkered with.  So the GOP does have the ability to fix what's broken - but won't do so.  Will the Democrats fix Obamacare? No, because they keep playing defense to preserve it.  It will take a leader beholden to none of today's political factions to repair what's broken without removing access to affordable health care from people who currently have it.  (For this discussion, let's ignore the GOP states NOT accepting Medicaid expansion funds which would have kept health care affordable for the upper tier of the working poor.)  Are we better because of the GOP?  No. It took the Democrats to make it possible to tinker with America's health care system.

So who do I support?  I'm not sure, but I'm thinking that it might be good to see the Libertarians win a few electoral votes to force the presidential election to the House of Representatives, and see if the GOP blinks.  No one I know likes Trump or Hillary, but yet will hold their noses and vote for one or the other (unlike Jeb Bush - a worthless, spineless, gutless Republican who can't keep his promises).  But I do see people liking the Libertarians or the Greens - and I wouldn't mind either forcing the election into the House for the first time in over 200 years....


PS: On the evening this post was published, Donald Trump made a veiled statement regarding the assassination of the democratic nominee (assuming she were elected president) to prevent her from nominating leftist judges.  Many in the GOP still defend Trump, saying he was misunderstood. There is no excuse anymore for anyone in the GOP to support Trump in the general election, or in the House, if this unlikely scenario were to occur. If this threat doesn't turn people away from Trump and all of his apologists, then I feel very afraid for this country - very, very afraid..

What scares me about Trump....

This is a real photo!!!  And Trump's disrespect for our judiciary and of our constitution is a big potential problem. Why is it that "Conservatives are the ones most wanting to change the constitution instead of achieving their goals within it?  Aren't they smart enough to show that their goals are in the best interest of the American people?  My guess is that they don't really want the rule of law, but instead want the rule of and by their tribe.  There is a clear and present danger to our society, and the Washington Post articulates that threat much better than I can do.

- - - - - -

I find it interesting that Ted Cruz (at the time of writing this entry) has not yet endorsed Donald Trump.  He may actually have a small amount of principles he can stand on. (Although he has not enough principles for me to show him any respect.)  But what's most interesting is how many of the GOP elite stayed away from the convention, using the flimsiest of excuses to stay away. Normally, I find political conventions unwatchable, as they are only meant to stir the passions of their associated tribe.  But this year is even worse than usual, because the quality of "entertainers" (yes, this is political entertainment - the serious stuff is still being done outside the public view) is so totally amateur.

Next week (at the time I started to write this entry), it will be Hillary's turn to entertain the public, and the Democrats will throw their quadrennial party.  And, like the GOP, their entertainers will take the stage, make a lot of contentless speeches, and stir up the passions of their tribe.  Unlike the GOP's convention, I expect the entertainment to be much better than what is on the TV now.

- - - - - -

It is eerie to many that Trump has the same kind of charisma that a certain Central European had 85 years ago.  People respond to him in a more primitive way. He appeals to people's feelings and not their minds.  And they are being led like sheep.  I'm not saying bad things about these people - many want a real change, and are disgusted with the political elite of both parties. 

Hillary represents the "Nomenklatura" of America's political elite. Leaders of both parties have their lists of people who are in power, and those being groomed for power.  Like the Mafia, people have to pay dues to the system before the system takes care of them. And I am just as disgusted with this group of people as most of the public is.  But at least, much of the system functions, albeit poorly.

Trump, on the other hand, buys and sells Apparatchiks. Even though he hob nobs with the high and mighty, he knows which low level palms to grease to get things done. Yet, whatever business he touches turns to lead, while his bank account turns to gold.  He has no idea of how to run a business for the long tern, nor does he have an idea of how to manage a large bureaucracy.  If he were to do even a small fraction of what he proposes to do, he will likely cause the whole system to collapse.  (Imagine what would happen if he were to start trying to expel illegal immigrants - how many legal residents and citizens would get caught up in the INS sweeps?  It's bad enough now that many American citizens fear the INS.  But what would happen if this part of the bureaucracy were given extra power?) But then, he speaks to the fears of the public, and not to their aspirations.

- - - - - -

In short, this is an election that indicates whether America is a nation who fears the world, or whether America is a nation who stands up to the world.  America can be a beacon that inspires the world or one that terrifies the world.  Acting out of fear will create terror for everyone.  Acting out of courage will embolden others to be more like us.  We have a choice, and I hope America can make one in line with its better qualities.....

A seismic political shift may be underway

With the 2016 election cycle, we may be seeing a seismic change in American politics as we know it.  America saw it happen on the brink of the Civil War, when the Whig party collapsed, and the Republicans took their place.  In 1912, something similar almost happened, where the Reform (better known as "Bull Moose" party) under Teddy Roosevelt had a shot at disrupting the two party system.  And now, we had two major disruptors in the name of Trump and Sanders who almost emasculated the power of the political elites to control elections.

- - - - - -

Over the past 50 years or so, we've seen great cultural change.  Bill Maher commented "If you liked the 50's, you're a Republican. If you liked the 60's, you're a Democrat." In so many ways it is true - the cultural divide we have now comes from the conflict from that era. If you were a white male, the 1950's were the apex of White privilege in America. If you were a white male, you had virtually everything handed to you - as there were no challengers from other backgrounds, nor did any females pose a threat.  People of color (Blacks, Latinos, Asians) had yet to demand political inclusion, and women were expected to be at home. This started to change with the protest movements of the 1960's, and the extension of civil rights to most people upset those who formerly held all the power in our society.

During LBJ's presidency (1963-1969), the Democratic party sowed the seeds that would cause it to lose the American South as a voting bloc.  LBJ was forced to carry out JFK's promises (always meant to be hollow ones) to deliver civil rights to people of color and to women.  This did not go well in the South.  As a result, in the late 1960's / early 1970's, Richard Nixon developed a strategy to wrest the American South from the Democratic party. The "Party of Lincoln" sold its soul to gain these votes by putting every roadblock it could in the way of helping the groups LBJ helped, so urban dwellers who once voted for the GOP started to vote Democratic for the first time.  This tendency continued through the presidency of Ronald Reagan, where the South and rural areas of the country became solidly Republican, while the North and urban areas of the country became solidly Democrat.

- - - - - -

America became a culturally divided country from its beginning.  Rural areas of any country tend to be the most conservative in nature. In the United States, this meant that few people took chances to unionize their work forces in these areas, unless the work had become extremely dangerous (such as mine work).  For the most part, jobs were few, and people took work at whatever terms were offered by their employers.  It was only one step above slavery, save that the mill owner did not have to care for his employees once fired.  Contrast this with what happened in urban areas.  Jobs were plenty, and employees had greater bargaining power.  Unions formed both to provide better working conditions and to provide better pay. Corporate socialism evolved here, and prospered when America was the unchallenged economic power in the world.

With technological change, the globalization of world markets, and a greater concern for the environment, the old orders became threatened by pressures they could not control.  As technology eliminated many jobs, nothing was done for the displaced workers. As competitors from abroad forced American manufacturing to cut costs, many American workers lost good jobs and had nothing to fall back on. And as we slowly learned to stop polluting our local environment, we put local workers out of work as we shipped dirty businesses to places where they didn't care about their people and their land.  In short, the promises made by both business and government to the public at large were broken.  The elites didn't care what happened to the common person, as long as they stayed in power.

- - - - - -

The rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is an indication that the public is tired of an elite that makes promises every election cycle, and that never delivers on its promises. Trump lies in every speech that he is making, and his supporters don't give a damn.  He appeals to these voters on a more primitive level of thought.  The same might be said about Bernie Sanders, except that he is not peppering his speeches with falsehoods.  Instead, Bernie told the truth as he saw it - America hasn't been run for the benefit of "the people" for years, and made both an intellectual and emotional appeal to his base.  Bernie's supporters are young, and see that there is no way the elites can or will do anything for them.  So they gave the system a vote of no confidence by supporting Bernie.  In short, the insurgents from both extremes realized the same truth - it's time to replace the ruling elites.

Trump's nomination and Bernie's failure to be nominated pose a question that America has to answer.  Do we want to overthrow the elites and deal with the risks of the amateurs being in charge?  Or, do we want to allow them to stay in power (with a big warning) as long as they change their tune and start looking out for the people as a whole? This question gets complicated when rumors fly about Jeb Bush looking to support the Libertarian Party's candidate for the presidency.  Could the GOP establishment be looking to flee their old party, clean up its mess, and find a path to becoming a center-right party again?  If so, I see the old GOP becoming a populist party for a generation or two.  And I would also see the Libertarians becoming like the GOP of the 1950's. Could this be a harbinger of a potential three-party system?  Who knows?  But I'm looking forward to the ascendancy of the Libertarians the the collapse of the GOP.

- - - - - -

If the Libertarians become a political force to be reckoned with, the democrats will face attacks on two fronts - one social, and the other, economic.  In a way, this will be good for the Democratic party.  It has been around almost since the founding of the republic, and it has been good at adapting to change.  Will it adapt again?  Who knows? But all I can say is that I think we're seeing a political shift like we haven't seen in 150 years....

Lyin' Hillary!

The FBI results are in.  And Hillary has been shown to be a total liar regarding her server and emails.  She has not been indicted. Yet, the FBI director has hinted that her actions were one step short of being indictable.  Is there one law that affects the common people, and another for the elite? 

I've never felt any warmth towards Hillary Clinton.  Her recklessness in handling her State Department email was inexcusable, and should have resulted in her having charges brought against her. Sadly, this did not happen.  It appears that the FBI investigation may have been partially defanged because the political infrastructure is afraid of a President Trump.

Both Trump and Clinton are liars. Neither speaks a truth based on facts.  Yet, Trump speaks an emotional truth to people who have been neglected by the political infrastructure supporting Clinton.  Trump's language is emotional, and he connects with people on a level that resonates with the more primitive sections of the brain, and not that of the prefrontal cortex.  To me, this is much more dangerous, as the last politician this successful who resonated this way came from Central Europe in the 1930's.

I was rooting for the FBI to force the Attorney General to bring charges against Hillary. This would have triggered a series of actions which would have removed Hillary from the position of presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, and would have installed Bernie Sanders in her place. Trump could not win against him.  Bernie knows how to speak the truth and gain power from doing so.  Hillary does not, and her presence at the top of the ticket will make it a 50/50 chance that Trump will become president.

So the question becomes - who do we vote for?  If one leans Republican and hates Trump, vote for the Libertarian party's candidate, Gary Johnson.  If one leans Democrat and hates Hillary, vote for the Green party's candidate, Jill Stein.  We're getting screwed either way, and the only thing we can do about it is to help a third party get the votes that could disrupt the political system.

Elizabeth Warren

The more Elizabeth Warren speaks in favor of Hillary, the more that it is apparent that she, not Hillary, should be the woman running for the highest office in this country.  Hillary Clinton, fairly or not, has been tarred for years with the brush of dishonesty. Her detractors have said that she's a liar long enough for the fiction to become an apparent truth. People believe the slander, and Hillary has no way to show that she is an honest person.  Warren, however, is a fresh face, and someone more in tune with the people - and it shows!

Warren has the charisma that Hillary doesn't have, as well as the integrity that Trump lacks. She understands the economy better than many people on Wall Street, and yet, she sides with the common person.  This is a rarity...

As much as I wanted to have a Bernie Sanders led ticket, I can accept a Clinton-Warren ticket.  Only one problem - Hillary would be overshadowed by Warren, and this is unacceptable for any person wanting to become president - especially a woman.  So it is highly unlikely we'll see Elizabeth Warren run for anything other than her Senate seat.

- - - - - -

Warren would be smart NOT to take the offer of the vice presidential slot on the ballot.  She is one of the most influential people in the Senate, and would have great power when the Democrats eventually regain control of the chamber.   More importantly, her resignation from the Senate would allow a Republican governor to appoint a conservative to take her place.

Does it make sense for Warren to leave the Senate?  No.  But she may get caught up in this year's crazy presidential campaign.  And I'm afraid of that.  We need people like her in the Senate until America regains its sanity - and I don't see that happening anytime this year....

Brexit - and what it may mean for America

Nobody really believed it would happen.  But the "Brexit" vote proved eveyone on Wall Street wrong. Once the vote count was announced, the stock market dropped over 600 points.  Wall Street hates uncertainty, and the "Brexit" creates great uncertainty for all of us.

- - - - - -

The initial analysis of Britain's vote found that older people tended to vote to leave the EU, while the younger set voted to stay in the EU.  The old folks will not have to live with the results of their decision as long as their children and grandchildren.  But this is the last gasp of a generation who has been betrayed by its political elites, and who doesn't much care what happens after they cast their vote of "No Confidence" in the system.

Will Brexit really happen?  Although it looks like it will, this was a non-binding referendum. Once the costs for leaving the EU are known, I'm not sure if the Brits won't be given a second chance to vote on this issue - as a way of asking: "Do you really want this divorce? Your husband may have had an outside lover, but he has always been there for you when you needed him - and you needed him a lot."

- - - - - -

The same forces that have affected Britain are affecting the United States (and many other Western countries).  Old folk are feeling betrayed by their elites, and no one is addressing structural unemployment.  The West is being tasked to absorb millions of immigrants from failed countries, and are facing serious challenges in preserving its cultures in the face of poorly educated people who have different cultural values, and who are not easily absorbed into the work force.

Donald Trump is using this issue as a springboard to gain power.  However, he is not a trustworthy person.  When the Brexit vote result was announced, Trump took this to be an opportunity to promote one of his golf courses there.  Do you think he wouldn't use the presidency to line his pickets?  I wouldn't trust him to give me the correct time!

- - - - - -

To beat Trump, Hillary has to play to her strengths.  But she has to pay attention to Bernie Sanders' platform.  Why?  She needs the votes of America's youth.  She may have to lie to them (as she has done to many people in the past), but she has to get their votes, lest they get totally screwed by a Trump presidency.

There is one problem with the above approach - No one trusts Hillary. So she will need to pick someone who can be believed.  But she can't pick Bernie - it would destroy his reputation and not help hers.  But Elizabeth Warren may be a good choice, if she feels she should risk Wall Street's wrath to get elected.

Is Hillary able to work with Bernie for the greater good?  Can Bernie accept that his base must be lied to convincingly to get them to choose the lesser of evils and vote for Hillary? Does Bernie have enough smarts to be a smart loser, and extract as much from Hillary as possible for him to be a leader in one of the opposition wings against Trump? One thing I know.  I don't want my dad's generation making decisions that will harm my children's generation - and a vote for Trump will harm my children and grandchildren's generations, and maybe more after that....

Understanding our problems from a historical perspective

In order to understand what is going on with this year's election, one has to understand history. In short, one has to understand what led up to the Great Depression, what led up to Iraq War #1, the Bill Clinton presidency, the George Bush (#43) presidency (especially the response to 9/11), and the Obama presidency.  In the light of history, everything going on makes sense, and I'm still surprised that only the Libertarians have emerged to be a potential disruptor for this election.

Let's look at the Bush #43 presidency first.  He was elected with the mantra of "Compassionate Conservatism" infusing his campaign.  One would have expected him to be a president who focused on domestic affairs.  He did push a reactionary conservative agenda to appease the hard liners of the GOP base, and did appoint many conservatives to the courts. But 9/11 threw him and the rest of the country for a loop.  Politically, he couldn't allow another terrorist attack to occur without an appropriate amount of security theater - so we built up much of our dysfunctional security infrastructure in his reign.  But he also had to get us into a never-ending war, where we disrupted the power structure in Iraq, allowing ISIS to form.

Next, we have to look back at the Bill Clinton presidency.  Bill was a sex addict (no surprise, FDR and JFK also "suffered" from this affliction).  But Bill succeeded beyond anyone's expectations, leaving the US with a treasury that was spending less than it was taking in. Yet, his presidency was marred with scandals (something common in politics), and his wife was tarred with the same brush that tarred him.

Bush had a choice - should he borrow to pay America's bills for a war in Afghanistan, or should he raise taxes to pay for the war?  He chose to borrow AND decided to cut taxes - leaving whoever would following him with very tough choices - do we cut the military or social spending budgets, and which line items are sacred?  Luckily these tax cuts were temporary, and would expire after he left office.  They were designed to make a Democratic president look bad, as no Democrat would touch social spending - so he would have to let the tax cuts expire, allowing the GOP to claim he raised taxes.

The GOP has a mantra of "Less regulation brings on greater prosperity."  When the economy collapsed in 2008, a smart GOP candidate would have to ask the question: "What happens if we continue our dysfunctional policies?  Could we have another Great Depression?"  And I'll bet that John McClain realized this in 2008.  Could he tell his party's loyalists that they needed to pump money into the economy AND impose new regulations on the banking sector of the economy?  Of course not.  So he made a decision that he'll never admit making - to trash his chances of being elected President by nominating Sarah Palin for the office of Vice President.  (But he had to play dumb.  Any hint that he threw the election would damage his stature in the GOP - and he hasn't admitted that he did this yet, and I doubt he ever will....)  John McCain was very aware of what happened to Herbert Hoover.  His administration was blamed for the Great Depression, and the Democrats held the office of the President for 20 years under FDR and Truman.  I'm pretty sure that McCain figured that the GOP could brush Bush #43 under the rug, and possibly tarnish the Democrat (Obama) so the GOP could win in 2012.

Obama is elected in 2008.  We know from recent history that the GOP opposed everything he tried to do to prevent a Great Depression.  But both Bush #43's advisors and Obama's advisors were working to script legislation to prevent the worst from happening. And Obama was more successful than expected, in spite of the GOP.  He knew not to shred the social safety net while things were getting worse, and then to take away the extra support when things got better.  No matter what people did to find scandal in his administration, his was the cleanest we've had in decades.

During Obama's administration, the GOP regained control of congress.  And repealing Obamacare became a new mantra.  Hillary Clinton takes on the job of Secretary of State, dealing with many of the foreign policy decisions that Obama doesn't have the time to make, being involved in the domestic economy and its problems.  But this places her back in the cross hairs of the GOP's attacks on her.  If they could have convicted her of anything, they probably would have done so.  But the most they could do is to tarnish the reputation of a woman because she was married to a president of the opposition party who was very successful and very flawed.

The GOP congress was ineffectual in delivering on its many problems, and many in the base stopped believing in the lies told by its elite. So, Donald Trump became a great disruptor.  Voting for Trump was a vote against the GOP elite.  Sadly, Trump is a person who leaves anyone and anything he touches poorer for knowing him.  But one would have to know his history to think he's anything other than a successful entrepreneur.  

At the same time, the Democratic elite was also shown to be worthless, leaving fertile ground for Bernie Sanders' candidacy.  If it weren't for Bernie NOT realizing how powerful his message and candidacy would become, and how the Democratic party's elite structured things for Hillary to win, he might have just pulled up the upset of the century.

Now we have Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as our presumptive nominees.  They have the lowest approval ratings in decades.  And the Libertarian, Gary Johnson is polling in the double digit range.  Will he be able to keep polling this high and get into the debates?  I'm not sure, but he is another disruptor. If Johnson were to win any electoral votes, and if neither Trump or Clinton win a majority of electoral votes, the presidential election could go to the House of Representatives.  Would the majority GOP states vote for Trump, or would they do something embarrassing like voting for Clinton?  I suspect that neither candidate would be acceptable, and this would leave the Libertarian (who is, I believe, a former GOP governor) as the only palatable choice. 

Could this scenario happen?  It's highly unlikely, but we've seen the strangest things happen this year, and I'm not ruling out even stranger things from happening.....

Are people seeing what is going on?

The GOP has chosen the image of our destruction, and it is Donald Trump. For me, I'd support the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, but it's easy when you know how to use high power flame throwers. I can't support Trump, though I can still respect people who support him. My problem is his rise to power looks too much like Germany in the early 1930's for me to be comfortable.
With that being said, what is happening here?

Scott Adams has nailed it when he notes that Trump's lies and flip flopping has given his opposition nothing they can challenge - in the eyes of Trump supporters. Trump's labeling of his opponents: "Cheating Hillary", "Crazy Bernie", "Lying Ted", "Little Marco", et.al. has been a great way to create subconscious associations in peoples' minds that these candidates are defective.

The question is: How to beat Trump?

Hillary suffers from a double standard because she's a woman. She will look terrible trying to shout over Donald - and he will do so in any debate. So she should use props such as Whistles to interrupt Trump when he rants at a debate, then scold him like a stern mother. (Take advantage of being female for a change.)
But this doesn't address times not debating.

For these cases, her surrogates (ALL MALE) must use Trump's tactics against him. He gave a great opening with his comment about his daughter - if she weren't his daughter, he'd consider dating her..... Hmmm. Incest is one of our strongest taboos. So is child abuse. I'm pretty sure with the label of abuse, he'd look very bad among his unthinking supporters.

Then what about the rest of the voters?

Trump is an abusive businessman, as he makes money off the suffering of others. (Look at the Golf Course being built in Dubai for a good example of this.) He makes money while his partners take all the risks and get few of the rewards. (Look at his casino deals.) Then, he is just a lousy businessman. (Look at the "success" of Trump steaks, Trump Air, and the Trump clothing lines.) And would you even consider going to an uncredentialed "Trump University?" I'm pretty sure that a smart group of people can label Trump as a failure, use one word to describe him, and have Hillary use it in every speech.....

In short, to beat Trump, People have to play his game - but not let him play the Trump card.... I hope they pick up on this very soon.



PS: It looks like the Democrats have found another voice and tactic since I wrote this, while Trump is self destructing.  Elizabeth Warren is playing a stern schoolmarm disciplining an unruly child - and it is working!

Would you trust him with his finger on the button?

It's a little unfair to be using the image of Hitler.  But it's easy to understand Germany's acceptance of this man, given the humiliation that Germany endured after World War One. With riots in the streets, the German people could be easily seduced by any demagogue promising peace, order, and good government - none of which were delivered to the people of the Reich.

Today, we know more about how people choose authoritarians, and why people choose them.  An article in Vox describes how the Trump phenomenon came about, and why he is attracting support. Sadly, all the signs of another authoritarian government coming to power are there - people who value order above freedom, people who sacrifice liberty for security, in short - people who are afraid of the future, and want to restore the glory days of the past. It is no accident that Trump's motto is "Make America Great Again."  But when did it stop being great?  

Trump is known for making deals that benefit only himself.  Is there any evidence that his MO has changed?  A Trump administration is likely to be one of the most corrupt administrations America will have ever endured, as he has used questionable business practices to build his empire.  He is a con man, someone only interested in making his deal, and has no interest in seeing that the I's are dotted and T's are crossed.  

Recently, on Vice TV, they documented about the squalid working conditions that "guest workers" (read, defacto slaves) live in while building the Trump International Golf Club in Dubai.  Trump ignores laws that require we try to hire domestically first, and has staffed his exclusive resort, Mar-a-Lago mostly with imported labor. The man is a hypocrite and a total liar.  Yet, none of his supporters give a damn.

What frightens me is that this man is so fickle.  He has no consistency in pattern. He threatens to blow up any nation that doesn't bow to the power of a Trump America.  Can we trust him with "the Button?"  I doubt it.  I'm afraid that America will make the same mistake in the 2010's that Germany made in the 1930's - with the same disastrous results.  

How will we know this is happening?  Let's look at what happened in Germany.  In the 1930's they first rounded up the Homosexuals and Political Dissidents. Of course, we can not forget how many Jews were persecuted. Within 2 years of Hitler taking power, these people were persecuted.  If we change the nation to America, go after Homosexuals, Transgenders, Socialists, and Muslims, we'd have the same situation as Germany had roughly 80 years before.  We have already herded Indians onto reservations, and put Japanese Americans into internment camps, and lynched Blacks.  It's not such a big step, given the size of our prison system (which incarcerates over 1.25% of our population, the highest percentage in the world) to expand it further to hold "undesirables". And it would not be inconceivable to make the new prisoners engage in hard labor.  Does "Arbeit Macht Frei?"  I doubt it.

If you think that going to Canada will make you any safer, please remember that Canadians are also under attack from their own authoritarian politicians.  Could you imagine an "Anschluss" between the two countries?  Heck, we were once both part of a larger British North America.  I could see this happening.

Do I fear too much?  Maybe.  But stranger things have happened, and I am not comfortable (nor should you be) that Trump is running neck and neck with Hillary.  I once said that I want America to be scared shitless with Trump.  Sadly, I think that wish may just come true - and that Hillary may win a victory even closer than that won by Bush in November, 2000.