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
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 :-)
