DON TRUMP ZERO

In an ill-conceived, poorly written op-ed piece, David Gelernter failed to get points across while trying to key on four issues. His trivality is titled, The Conservative Resistance is Futile, July 6 2017, and once again The Wall Street Journal has tossed a jumble of words onto its editorial page whilst asking readers to make sense of them.

What does Gelernter mean by culture? Good writing where sentences logically support one another and complete paragraphs is not present. Instead, he gives snippets, stuff that is populated from the Internet; his ideas are cluttered, the writing is cliched.

The biggest glob blocking Gelernter’s argument is Don Trump. He is anathema to the American people. He goes far beyond vulgar; he is rude and offensive so no right-minded American would invite Don Trump into his house, especially if females were present. Americans who like Don may learn that wives are cows, this opinion expressed by a guy having two scoops of ice cream bankrupting the country by adding calories to the national debt. Being fat and boisterous is not part of American culture.

An American cultural phenomenon prizes that which is said with humor, fun and understatement which is more penetrating and longer lasting than ideas presented in anger, hate and spite. Gelernter’s world is perverse; he believes Trump’s unAmerican ways preferable. Therefrom it’s easy to determine that Trump and Gekernter have no sense of humor. They’re from New York City. There’s no humor there. Don Trump seems to relish hate. New York City may need a public relations campaign to rid hate from the fabric of its existence.

Trump is a business guy who promised competence from Day One. Nope! Republicans have been hard at work on a Health Care Replacement bill, although the party had met and discussed the issues for six years. They have no idea what they are doing. Remaining permanently stupido, Don Trump has criticized Congress many times rather than attempt accommodations and facilitate the passage of new legislation. Compromise is not part of Don Trump’s universe. However, there are many deals he has to make with the Russians who don’t care if Don Trump hates.

The Republicans will eliminate any move to reform taxes and the tax code, yet they will try to give the rich more tax breaks. It is a formula to enlarge the public debt as much as President Obama did. The wealthy need more cash to support their greed. The Republicans should take heed. The last year of low taxes will be 2020. In 2021 a Democratic Congress and Executive will double taxes on the rich.

Should the Republicans resist Don Trump and his self-serving tax policies free-loading on the public treasury? One of 100 tweets from Don Trump makes sense. The remainder are evidence of a weak wandering mind incapable of logical thoughts and full of errant items of hate. That’s why Don Trump sticks to twitter, a form of speech and culture. Twitter Corporation may not be profitable and will fail, but it will be Don Trump’s cultural contribution to America. But the country has changed. Americans once believed what was good for General Motors was good for the country. No one believes today, what is good for Don Trump is good for any citizen of the United States of America and secondly, good for any human being on earth.

What sort of culture should Conservatives adopt? They apparently like the same music liberals do. Don Trump had difficulty hiring artists to perform at inauguration balls. Do Conservatives favor acoustical instruments over electronic instruments? Do they like partner dancing, or the free-lance stuff where you might see your date in the next county – Don Trump in search of his date might engage with four women as he goes. How about painting? Does Don Trump want a Hans Holbein version of the Duchess of Cleves, or is he like Oliver Cromwell, “paint worts and all?” It is likely any painting will liposuction off 150 pounds; Conservatives and Don Trump are vane. They know history never gets in the way: Everyone looks at Holbein’s painting today and considers Anne of Cleves a fair looking woman.

So what’s happened to Conservative versus Don Trump versus the Liberals? Don Trump figures he can make statements by portraying himself in tough guy situations, in cartoons. Like the good fat Kraut he is, Trump is a fighter pilot [too obese to be a pilot] shooting at a civilian airliner destroying CNN. In another he sucker-punches a figure representing CNN. During World War Two the German Army was manly when attacking women, children, old men and civilians, but they turned tail when facing British, Russian, American soldiers and others from freedom-loving nations. This fat Kraut should remember these historical facts.

So while Gelernter and others are admiring and on their prayer rugs hoping for the best, they are on their own. The American people will not be intimidated.

Advertisements

CONFIRMING A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

Five conditions must occur if Neil Gorsuch is going to receive votes from Senate Democrats for a position on the Supreme Court:

1. Roll and smoke a joint. Remember to inhale.
2. Be photographed before congressional hearings hugging trees.
3. Adjust your world outlook to the dream of Earth when only one billion humans lived on                 it.
4. Tell Charles Schumer that you will order that the New York Giants must win the Super Bowl. That should likewise get you in with Democratic senators from nearby states.
5, Lie as easily as you can tell the truth.

ANALYSTS, COLUMNISTS & EXPERTS

Why did the Democrats lose? Each analyst, columnist and expert reads the results and expresses good points, many of which are found in statistics of the election.

A compelling, overarching reason for the Democratic loss is their static view of the electorate and issues. The Democrats constructed a model, like a model guiding stock market trades. The Democrats enunciated the model and gave it support at every opportunity. The pre-election polls indicated the model was sound; the Democrats were favored.

The model included philosophy as well as philosophy of governing; where to spend money. It included psychology, how to react to things (insults), what to say, how to contact the electorate, etc. The model representing the theory of philosophy and the psychology was imprecise and incomplete. Bless her, Hillary Clinton stuck with the model.

What the model also overlooked was Hillary Clinton’s effectiveness as a candidate. At the beginning of the campaign the candidate and the Democrats knew of her flaws and ingrained behaviors. Hillary is bookish; her speech can be elevated to obscurity and incomprehension – she spoke in complete sentences; her movements and motions before a crowd can seem defensive. Hillary Clinton did improve as a campaigner, but she also lapsed into more familiar ways. There are things – Certainly if talk is in complete sentences, but talk in short sentences. Never say Motor Vehicle; say car. Use the Anglo-Saxon side of the language rather than the French (Latin). The grammar is Anglo-Saxon. Mark Twain also observed, At a dime a word, I never use metropolis when I can use city. [Note Metropolis is used in cartoons today.]

Hillary Clinton also had a public record that was known to the American people. Whether they believed she did some or all the things listed, her ratings on trustworthiness were very low. She never got a positive trustworthy rating, even in comparison to her opponent. She carried that load through the election but lost to another New Yorker whom Americans also did not trust. In the end Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate beaten by another flawed candidate.

Analysts, columnists and experts don’t talk about the best candidates. I am not referring to Bernie Sanders, who was incredibly sincere and seemingly honest in his campaign. He spoke well and had enthusiastic crowds, but the Democrats would have suffered the same fate. Bernie was more to the Left and easily placed there. The Democrats who came to Trump would not have gone elsewhere in large numbers.

A Sanders nomination, along with Trump, would have brought forth a real third party – Michael Bloomberg. He had the revenues, he had the ability, he had the resume, he had the ability and he had conducted polling. He could have taken the middle of America. Second Amendment people complain about him, but in California and especially in Nevada, his local, small-step gun control measures won in referenda. Bloomberg did not run.

The Democrats lost their best choice, Joe Biden. Certainly, he was part of the Obama Administration; he had that baggage. But he likes people and attracts crowds; he seems openly friendly. Despite a long public record, he had no glaring embarrassments to bite him.

Sanders’ supporters believed if Hillary Clinton were dropped or were rejected in the Winter 2016, Bernie would have gotten the nomination. Head to head with Biden, it is likely Sanders would have lost.

This speculation over candidates and each of their strengths is why columnists, analysts and experts forego looking at the Democratic nominee. Nobody wants to believe that Hillary Clinton lost one or two-tenths of a percent of the vote in Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin based upon perceptions of her earlier public life. The percentage of the vote lost in each state may be narrower.

Now, reporters, analysts and experts are coming from the woodwork for their year-end analyses. THIS IS WHY IT HAPPENED. In The Big Short, Michael Lewis, quotes a trader who sums up his trade and the after reaction from the financial community:
“I must say that I have been astonished by how many people now say they saw the subprime meltdown, the commodities boom and the fading economy coming…And if they don’t always say it in so many words, they do it by appearing on TV or extending interviews to journalists, stridently projecting their own confidence in what will happen next. And surely, these people would never have the nerve to tell what’s happening next, if they were so horribly wrong on what happened last, right? (p. 246)
Guess what journalists, experts, analysis’s and columnists are doing today, all without doing much thinking, doing no research, doing no analyses and failing to be trustworthy and honest. They’re just moving their mouthes because that’s all these jokers can do!

Looking at the entire election and asking about the substance and method to convey it, plus scrutinizing the candidates. is important. The whole thing did not need changing. Hillary Clinton won a majority of the popular vote; she came close to victory. Democrats now cannot turn off her voters. But the message of the Democratic Party should be more hopeful. For example,
the problem with Obamacare is Bill Clinton is correct: It’s crazy to double costs and cut in half services provided. As costs got worse over the years, the Democratic Party never announced solutions to address the issue. They stuck with the model; they adhered to theory. They worshipped Health Insurance figureheads that might be idolized. No one in Congress proposed anything resembling healthcare – paying for health insurance does not mean one has healthcare. Happily one roadblock is removed in January 2017. Old-timer, Harry Reid was a deceitful, detestful man whose slime trail leads to the flames of Hell.