Update no.764

Update from the Heartland

No.764

1.8.16 – 7.8.16

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,

            The latest Trump spew . . .

            “I always wanted to get the Purple Heart.  This was much easier.”  I do not know any sane person who “wants” to be wounded in combat.  There is a thin line between wounded and killed; that thin line is often moved one way or the other by outright luck of the moment.  He is quite like other draft and service dodgers, who have aged; they want credit for service without the potential sacrifice of standing to the line.  I doubt the Republican nominee has any clue what the Purple Heart medal stands for in our society.

            We like to note that Donald cannot help himself.  Well, I must say Hillary cannot help herself, either.  She has gone on for so many years being told she is special and reinforced that she is above the law, apparently now, she truly believes it.  This week, she was caught in a clear untruth.  She claimed her answers to the FBI were completely truthful and complete.  I guess she figured no one would ever dare re-watch the video record of FBI Director Comey’s sworn testimony to Congress.  When confronted with the reality of her erroneous statement, her response was, “I may have short-circuited it [apparently, her public contrarian statement], and for that I will try to clarify.”  When we use the necessary decoder ring for her words – a completely different version from the Donald’s decoder ring – her statement really means, OK, you caught me; now, let me wiggle out of this and allow me to explain why you did not hear what you heard.

            This is precisely why far too many citizens do not trust her.  She has consistently tried to parse reality with the typical ‘wordsmithing’ her husband used during his troubles.  We were not stupid 20 years ago.  We are not stupid now.  Most of us understand the meaning of English words.  The one saving grace, perhaps the only one, is she is not as narcissistic and ego-centric as the Donald, i.e., the lesser of two evils.

            “[E]xtremely careless” is a rather offensive understatement, I must say.

            Apparently, the Republican nominee has reached the conclusion that he cannot or will not win the November election, so in consistently typical form, he seeks to discredit the widely dispersed electoral system in this Grand Republic.  After all, he never, ever loses, so if he gets trounced, there must be nefarious processes at play.  News flash, Donald, if you lose, it will be a loss by your mouth.  I suspect the Republican nominee may have come to the realization he does not actually want the job, or that he may be handed an embarrassing, very public defeat.  I have wondered for some time now whether he was serious about the presidency, or just in it to pump up his ego even more and increased the sellability of his name.

            Further, if as the Republican nominee likes to proclaim, the Democratic nominee is not trustworthy, then he needs to point that crooked finger back at himself.  How many false claims has he made?  How many times has he applied misinformation, apparently thinking no one would check his claims?  How many times has he tried to deflect attention when his falsehoods were exposed?  The pot is black just like the kettle.  They both fly loose with words and parse the meaning of English words.

            I am not usually a fan of Charles Krauthammer’s opinions, although I often admire his writing.  This week, he offered his opinion on the Republican nominee that is, I respectfully must say, spot on, brother!  I do not know anyone who has captured the essence of this particular reality.  I urge everyone to read Krauthammer’s opinion regardless of your political perspective or whether you support the Republican nominee or not.

“Trump goes beyond narcissism”

by Charles Krauthammer – Washington Post

Wichita Eagle

Published: AUGUST 5, 2016; 3:52 PM

http://www.kansas.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/article93997932.html

One sentence captures the whole of the man.  “To understand Trump, you have to grasp the General Theory: He judges every action, every pronouncement, every person by a single criterion – whether or not it/he is ‘nice’ to Trump.”  Everything in the universe revolves around him . . . after all, he is more popular than God, at least in his mind and in his grotesquely inflated ego.

            Well, gosh darn it!  As I edit this week’s Update on Sunday – what I now refer to as Update Day – I recognized the Donald dominates the news items that struck me this week.  The recognition is a sad commentary on the reality we face these days.  Yet, the stone-cold fact is, both major party nominees are actually making me nauseous.  To be frank and forthright, it is way past time that we have a female president.  I want a female president.  BUT . . . this particular female candidate is actually making me ill.

            News from the economic front:

-- The Reserve Bank of Australia reduced its cash rate by 0.25% to 1.50%, in response to a slowing jobs market and continued low inflation – the first reduction since May.

-- The U.S. Labor Department reported nonfarm payrolls rose by a seasonally adjusted 255,000 in July, and revised the May and June payroll numbers upward by 18,000 more jobs.  The unemployment rate remained unchanged at 4.9% in July.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.763:

Comment from the Blog:

“I remain apprehensive about either candidate for President.

“You have done a good job of outlining the dangers of a Trump Presidency.  Your picture of needing a ‘decoder ring’ to understand what he means almost disguises the fact that he means nothing by most of what he says.  He markets his name and likeness. Meaning, for him, is messaging.  His constant attacks carry his messaging that ‘Trump is strong.’ His targeting conveys messaging of ‘Muslims/Mexicans/women/liberals/everyone else is a threat.’  Just as with any advertiser, Trump is not interested in the entertainment value of his presentation, or in fact and logic.  He just wants his chosen market segment to buy into his messaging so that he gets the result he wants, in this case votes rather than sales.  He is betting that his segment of the market (older white men with fears and resentments) will turn out more voters than anyone else.  Given his history of brilliant marketing, he could be right.

“Unfortunately for everyone but Trump, his opponent is a ‘business as usual’ candidate in a year of discontent. This bears some resemblance to Herbert Hoover’s run in 1932. Hoover supported Prohibition after it became obvious that it had failed, and his first term also included the stock market crash that kicked off the Great Depression. His response was moderate, and times were extreme. He lost to FDR, who promised a New Deal rather than more of the same. Secretary Clinton’s opponent is no FDR, as you point out. However, claiming ‘this is still the greatest country in the world’ rings hollow with people whose union jobs have been eliminated and who make half the money they once did.  The realities of part-time and contract work add to that.  We constantly hear of new threats to our civil liberties via court decisions and the likes of Westboro Baptist Church.  That ‘greatest nation’ claim also has to compete with a 24-hour news cycle featuring terrorism, wild rhetoric, natural disasters, cancers and other illnesses, and bizarre events that never made the 6 o’clock news in the past.  It’s also a dimwitted claim in marketing terms.  If this is ‘the greatest nation on earth,’ then why do we need her to fix it?  Maybe she doesn’t know it, but she’s trying to lose.

“It’s past time for a woman President, but not this woman. Elizabeth Warren, sure. Patty Murray might get them there. Maybe a lesser-known woman, such as Tammy Duckworth or Tulsi Gabbard.  Hillary Clinton is the ‘somebody’s wife’ candidate for those few who still like Bill Clinton.  She has not done well on her own despite the support of the entire Democrat Establishment and such Republican figures as Henry Kissinger.  Her term as Secretary of State was mostly about increasing military action.  I don’t remember much about her time in the Senate, which is not a good sign.  Her campaign financing and a large income for giving speeches (or whatever she's giving) comes from Wall Street and other corporate sources.  Her unfavorability is exceeded only by Trump’s own.  If there was ever a Democrat that an ignorant trust fund baby (Trump) could run against, Secretary Clinton is the one.”

My response to the Blog:

            I am far more apprehensive about the Republican candidate than the Democratic candidate.  In terms of apprehension, I am the least apprehensive about the Libertarian candidate . . . of the four top party candidates.

            Re: decoder ring.  You may well be correct.  I certainly cannot argue with your point.  I do agree he is attempting to portray an image of strength.  I will say he has missed the mark.  Instead of strength, in the vein of Teddy Roosevelt, he is projecting the image of a strong man dictator like Hitler or Stalin, with many of the same traits.

            Re: Clinton.  Hillary is certainly less dangerous than Trump, and she may well be the status quo candidate; however, I suspect she is more progressive than she lets on.  After all, she has a history of social activism.  She is an intelligent person.  Just as they all are, they are playing to those they believe will get them elected.  They walk a fine line trying to appeal to the widest segment of our population.

            While Jill Stein remains the Green Party presumptive nominee until next week, of the four top party candidates, Gary Johnson seems the most stable, least dangerous, and above all, the most respective of our individual freedom of choice.

 . . . Round two:

“I agree with much of this, but I will note that Secretary Clinton's social activism was long ago. The most recent sign of a liberal/progressive approach I have seen from her was in the early 1990s, when she was unfortunately given a leadership role in the healthcare debate.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Well, we must admit, whether her progressive side is still viable or buried too deep is a risk.  It seems to me that risk is far less than the risk of the Donald doing something really foolish that gets a lot of American patriots killed.

 . . . Round three:

“Certainly the Donald is a time bomb. Less obvious, apparently, is the inertia brought about by the combination of campaign corruption and climate change. Both proceed apace, and taken together they risk the well being of the entire planet. The corruption makes real action on climate almost impossible, and climate change is already doing serious damage. Considering the risks of that versus Mr. Trump just depresses me. I have no good answer unless one of those people stops campaigning altogether, which is unlikely but could happen via law enforcement.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            Interesting combination.  I must confess I had not imagined that combination.  You may have a case.

            The Republican candidate is already planting the seeds of discontent, just in case he loses the election.  He is all about fear, and he alone is the savior.  If that is not the definition of a demagogue, I don’t know what is.

            In this particular silly season and for the first time in my life, I am as concerned about what happens after the election as what is going to happen on our way to the election.  That is not a comforting thought.

Another contribution:

“We just returned from a Rhine River cruise and a week in the Netherlands.  Saw many artifacts from WWII including the Anne Frank house.  I never understood how on Earth Hitler rose to power.  The 2016 U.S. election is giving some real insight into that process.  There were Brits, Canadians, and a few Aussies on the ship.  The comparison was not lost on them. On the humorous side one American said, if Trump gets elected I'm moving to Canada.  A Canadian said, ‘Oh no, we're building a wall’”

My reply:

            The anger expressed by many U.S. citizens cannot compare with the dissatisfaction and anger of Germans in the aftermath of the Great War and terrible burdens and oppression of the Versailles Treaty.  However, you are quite correct, in my humble opinion.  The similarities between 1932/33 and 2016 have exceeded any realm of coincidence, which gives me ample reason for caution, suspicion and inquisitiveness.  You are not alone in seeing striking similarities with inter-war years Germany.  This kind a general anger leads far too many people to ignore the signs, set aside natural skepticism and embrace a strong man to “improve their lives.”  Many good Germans voted for the National Socialist German Worker’s Party.  Hitler was elected and won the chancellorship within the electoral system of that day in Germany.  What happened after that day [30.1.1933] was not by any democratic or parliamentary process, and in less than two months, the Enabling Act made him dictator “in order to remedy the misery of the people and the Empire.”  Sounds pretty familiar to me.

            Yeah, “The Wall” is equally nonsensical.

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)