Monday, June 12, 2017

The Presidency... Who Won/Who Lost HINT: IT'S NOT ONE PERSON

Photo, from POLITCUS

     Well, I wasn't planning on doing a new post today, but here I am. 

     I've had this post in the works for a long time.  I started it long before the election season of 2016 got underway. 

      This is not about Hillary; nor is it about Donald; it's about the presidency.  That's not to say, their names won't come up from time to time. 

The title was, "Testicle Crushers UNITE!" Then I went with the one above.  Seemed a tad more appropriate. 

Perhaps I'll use the original for a future post.


This is a post that now, that's it's after the election, can be viewed more objectively.  Well, sorta.

     While people, predominantly men, run lengthly campaigns, there are times that I question anyone's motives as to why they're seeking the highest office in the land.

More to the point: Are they freaking insane?

For starters, let's look at some before and after photos, of our last three presidents.




     Given the previous three president's ages were: 47 for Barack Obama, 54 for George W. Bush, and 46, for Bill Clinton, when they first took office; it will be interesting to see how Donald Trump, who is 70, ages.

     Considering that Trump has already stated that he misses his old life, and the overwhelming daily drama of the administration; I don't think it bodes well for his looks.  Regardless of however long he's in office.

     The presidency on the whole is a thankless profession.  Of course it does come with perks.  Status, as the most powerful leader in the world.  "Leader of the Free World".  The plane, the helicopter and Camp David alone, are pretty sweet.

     But what no candidate ever acknowledges while they're campaigning is the undeniable fact that lives will be lost under their leadership.  Regardless of even the best intentions.

     Perhaps that is one aspect that adds to the pronounced aging signs.  To say that the current administration has been under an a great amount of stress, is undeniable.

     What is up for debate, is whether it has affected the 45th president, and to what degree.  But again, whether a president was to crack under the pressure, or to rise, and deal with each stressful situation as it occurs, is up to the person, that holds the office.  If the person is of a sociopathic/psychopathic nature, perhaps what may be stressful for others, may leave them unphased.   So if that person had an understanding of the responsibilities of the presidency, that might prove to be a positive trait.  On the other hand, if they have no clue; I doubt with such diagnosis, that person would see the incentive to change.  Especially if that personality has served them well for their life up to the presidency.

     Regardless of which personality holds office, one thing is clear; it's the American people who WIN or LOSE.

     But clearly, not all of the American people vote, and not all of the voters voted for one candidate.

There was one candidate who got more votes.

3 Million more votes than the candidate who was selected by the Electoral College.   And despite the reason for the Elector College's creation, no elector had the fortitude of integrity to ponder what consequence would follow if they complied with their gerrymandered voting base.  Even despite that gerrymandered base was not a complete picture.

     But, despite getting fewer votes, and being approved by a faulty, out of date, antiquated system, there are still those, who won, with the placement of Trump. 
   
     Back to that, in a moment.


      In a Gallup pole published in June of 2015, revealed the following:



Do you have any thoughts on qualities that are missing?

     Now that we're on TV 24/7; would we EVER AS A NATION ELECT A  SINGLE?  Frankly, I still have my doubts about America's readiness to elect a woman, much less a single one.   A widow; possibly.  A widower; even more plausible.  But one who'd never crossed the threshold?  I strongly doubt it.  Now, I can't help but wonder; who will be first?  A single man?  Or a woman, regardless of marital status?  More on this notion, at a later date.  Perhaps my next post on marriage


     In the new Ghostbusters, there's a moment towards the end, after Abby and Erin return from, their time trip (don't want to spoil anything) Jillian humorously replies when they ask what year it is, says, "2042, The president is a plant."

There are times I wonder how close we are.

Consider:

Trump's record-

This list was not gathered by me.  




I'm a Hillary Rodham Clinton fan.  (In case this is your first time here.)  Been so for more than 20 years.  Never been able to contribute financially as much as I'd like, but vocally and through social networks, I make up in supporting.

But I'm almost to the point of being glad she wasn't selected by the 19th Century relic.  In short, I don't think the country deserves her.

Despite, some claims, to my mind, the only place her campaign fell short, was to underestimate the opposition's effort.  And to overestimate the American voter's attention span.  More on that thought in a minute.    


When I first started this post, in February, I saw on AOL, this headline:

Hillary Clinton mocks President Trump over travel ban ruling.

then USA TODAY  had this headline:

Hillary Clinton takes to Twitter to gloat over court's immigration ruling. 

Here's her tweet:

"3-0"

     That's it.  Call me crazy, but considering our President will not hesitate to vent, gloat,  gripe, bully, lie, on Twitter; a stating of "3-0" does not strike me as gloating.  Certainly not mocking.  In the AOL  piece, it even had Hillary Clinton's tweets since the election.  One, posted on November 9th read,

"Donald Trump is going to be our president.  We owe him an open mind and a chance to lead."

That's a lot more gracious than I would have posted.

     Now, from the comments on the this post, which never cease to amuse me, there were several that claimed that she wasn't nearly that gracious the night of the election.  I'm not as in the know, as they are, so perhaps an aide, or someone else came up with the notion to give Trump a shot.  Well if I'd been through 20+ months of campaigning, I might let a steam of f bombs fly.  I've also been known to throw a few things, in a non sport scenario.

Still cracks me up that all the naysayers on that article, as well as commenters on another AOL post later in the day that stated:

Hillary wasn't surprised that Donald won, 

have nothing better to do than go on an article about one they didn't support, and post all they do.

     Now, months later, as Michelle Goldberg wrote in Slate, we're supposed to get the rage of Trump's supporters, but not the rage of the majority who did not vote for him.

     As Rebecca Traister astutely points out in her most recent New York Magazine article:

But postmortems offering rational explanations for how a pussy-grabbing goblin managed to gain the White House over an experienced woman have mostly glossed over one of the well-worn dynamics in play: 
A competent woman losing a job 
to an incompetent man is not 
an anomalous Election Day surprise; 
it is Tuesday in America. 

So, again, who won?  Besides an incompetent man, that is.

     Some, are more obvious than others.
     Of course the Trumps have benefitted.  A LOT.  EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.
   
     The wealthy.  The ones who are oblivious to the fact that eventually we all will be affected, and impervious because they believe as Heather McGhee eloquently stated, "If you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."  Even those who did not vote for Trump, with certain incomes will help those to stave off many of the consequences of Trump's bans, plans, and appointments.  However, with all due fairness, the wealthy who acknowledge climate science and social inequality, understand that ultimately we are all connected and will sooner or later be affected.

     Then there are those, whose names we may never know, who have been working since the days of NIXON.  This could be a long post in itself.  But when you consider the ratfu*king of the Nixon era, (I view Watergate, as a sort of umbrella term that only scratches the surface) and acknowledge the talents of Karl Rove and Colin Reed; add 40 years of ever evolving technical knowhow, and money, money, money, boggles the mind to how many people who've been served by the Trojan Horse that is Donald Trump. 


     The idea that Donald Trump is a metaphorical Trojan Horse first crossed my mind, during the primary season.  Then, in March of 2016, I suggested, with Donald as your host of your Three Ring Circus, featuring 18+ acts, with a whole lot of hot air, dramatics and razzle dazzle, is a great way to distract from otherwise dull as a spoon politics.  Who wants to think about policies and plans for the future when you have a clown car of razzle dazzle?  Then, a year  later, I visited the idea again in The Point.   I had heard radio host, Wayne Bessen  hypothesize that Trump was a Trojan Horse for many Republicans that had crazy conservative notions, like cutting Medicare; that they couldn't get across the line on their own merit.  As Speaker Paul Ryan laughingly suggested the other day, there is a learning curve to the presidency; or Senator Lindsey Graham's thought that the only thing stopping Trump from fixing immigration is his tweeting... I realize that despite such idiotic statements, that could otherwise cause voters to question their judgement, and jeopardize their political futures; that perhaps:
     THEY ARE STILL BENEFITTING. 
     Finally, the press and media.  
     As Les Moonves of CBS claimed in February of 2016, "It (Trump) may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS."  As I wrote in, "Press & Media, Can We Talk?" made for one, weird ass 'Catch 22".   Reading back over it now... NOW THAT WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO DIDN'T KNOW HOW MANY ARTICLES THERE WERE IN THE US CONSTITUTION, NOR DID HE MAKE AN EFFORT TO LEARN, WHEN HE WAS RUNNING FOR THE OFFICE, AND AGREED TO DO MATT LAUGHER'S COMMANDER IN CHIEF FORUM...  doesn't make me feel any better about the reality that we find ourselves in TODAY. 

     I will concede that I too was in bewildered, horrified awe of Donald Trump.  But I argue, that he did nothing for my ratings/readership/whatever, as he did for any of the media, that justifies the daily knot in my stomach.  I confess, I'm even not certain I'm over Trump hosting SNL.  

     Can't help but wonder, if Hillary had been elected, would we be tuning in to MSNBC nightly?  I know that there would be many, still concerned about her emails; but doubt if the 66 million voters would.  

     In a May 31st  interview of Hillary, with Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg,  Secretary Clinton stated that she thinks one of the aspects to consider, was the widespread certainty, by the press, and by many others was that, she was going win.  It, lulled many into a false sense of security. 

     NOW, all we can hope for is that we KEEP REMEMBERING.  Remember the polls?  Remember that it's not over until every vote... uhm... well no, not exactly... But if we remember all we know about Watergate, and the web and span of that cluster mess; if we remember Florida and the Bush/Gore Election fiasco of 2000; and if we remember, that an inexperienced, uninterested many times bankrupted trust fund baby got selected over a candidate who served more and traveled to more countries than any candidate in history; perhaps we will not take our democracy for granted in the future.

     I guess it's one of the bright points, as I wrote in The Bright Side of Trump, is that we're aware.  Although, there are times that it's exhausting.

     Right now, one matter that is going on is all about Comey, his testimony, and Mueller.  I for one, am ever so slightly suspicious of Comey.  Mainly, his October surprise.  Yes, I know, he's nauseous over the idea that he affected the election.  But you don't get to be head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation if you're not savvy.  One that savvy would get, what details matter.  Savvy?  So, my question: WHAT CHANGED?   Above my pay grade. 

     I've said it before; I'm no monument to justice, not a saint, and I'm not running for office.  I can write whatever I damn well please, because I'm not getting paid. (Thank you to those who have Donated!)  Before you choose to comment negatively, or try to explain something, you should know, I'm every bit as stubborn as you.  Also, consider, if Hillary had won, you would not find me on posts and articles about Donald, commenting and stating whatever.

     When I wrote, "Do We Have The Ovaries To Elect A Woman,"I knew that gender would come into play more often than naught.  To deny it, especially as a woman who's experienced her share of misogyny and sexism over her life; would be the epitome of cluelessness.

Let's be clear, nobody likes to think of themselves as a sexist, or misogynist.  Nobody likes to think of themselves as a racist for certain.

Think about on the other side of that proverbial coin.

Nobody likes to see themselves as being DUPED.  GULLIBLE. TAKEN.  

     As for who's lost.  That list will ever growing.  It's not easy to acknowledge, and admit, that you've been bamboozled.

      There are many who've been deceived and are in for a rude awakening.  One notion, singes my britches a tad more than some.
     I'm from West Virginia.  To me, bringing back coal jobs, is akin to bringing back the horse and buggy as a mode of transportation. 

More thoughts on who's lost, sure to come. 

To end on a lighthearted note, checkout this article-> 15 Quirks of US Presidents.

Would we do it all again, if we knew then what we know now?