Trump on Twitter

Recently I decided to follow Donald Trump on Twitter, not because I support Mr. Trump, but because I was interested in what he was saying. The schoolyard taunts that make up most of his tweets would be entertaining if they didn't come from someone who wants to be the leader of the free world. Here's a few of my observations on his Twitter feed.

A common theme of many tweets is reference to polls. Polls that show Mr. Trump ahead are celebrated, polls that show him behind are derided as "rigged" or "fake".

Tragedies are held up as examples of Trump being right. A Muslim kills somebody and he celebrates being right on terrorism, somebody's killed in Chicago and he crows about being right on law & order. Heroin overdoses in the Midwest prove that we must build a wall.

Schoolyard name-calling.

He points to a national problem, poverty, violence, trade etc and ends his tweet with "I will fix"

Attacks on individuals in the media (Joe Scarborough, Megyn Kelly)

And craziest of all, he takes the "I'm rubber and you're glue" approach, accusing Clinton of being a bigot to counter the widespread view of him as bigoted; he responds to suggestions that he is temperamentally unfit for the office by suggesting that Clinton isn't, throwing in conspiracy theories about Clinton's health after his doctor throws together a "medical report" that looks like it was done by a stoned high schooler

Pretty much this Twitter feed is somebody with a smart phone and no impulse control

Why Do People Support Trump?

Support for Donald Trump goes beyond a simple dislike for Hillary Clinton. After all, the Republican primaries were not particularly close, and there were other choices among the Republicans. First let's look at what was happening in the Republican party over the last eight years.

For whatever reason, the election of Barack Obama was seen by many on the right as the most horrible, devastating thing to ever happen to the United States. There was almost certainly an undertone of racist bigotry involved, but there was a perception among the social conservatives that Obama personified all that was wrong with the country and represented all the "evil" that liberals intended to visit upon the nation. I say "social" conservatives because, among ordinary voters, both conservative and liberal, those who understand even basic economics are quite thin on the ground. Many in the blue collar work force are seeing their jobs move overseas or disappear altogether and have  a resentment and suspicion of minorities and immigrants. Into this atmosphere the Tea Party movement was born. Basically the far right wing of the Republican Party, Tea Party groups started fielding candidates, often challenging and defeating incumbent Republicans in primaries. A fair number were elected in 2010 and 2012, including former Presidential candidate Ted Cruz. The problem with these newly-elected Tea Party people was that they didn't understand that they were now part of a system and that not everyone agreed with them. Most of the them did not believe in compromise, and stunts like threatening to shut down the government became commonplace. They did not believe in collaboration either, and many of them got little done because no one wanted to work with them. Few of them had anything beyond a middle school understanding of economics or of the vast size of the federal government. They eventually wakened to the reality that things just don't happen quickly in Washington; some, like Senator Cruz, made his name by doing nothing but complaining about the system that he was now a part of. The few who did adapt to the system were seen as traitors to the cause. The Tea Party revolution didn't happen.

So now it's time for the primaries. The angry Republicans don't want Jeb Bush or John Kasich and anyone with  experience of any kind because they were viewed as part of the broken system. Of the group of inexperienced outsiders, Trump stood out.

It didn't matter that most of what Trump said he would do was wildly improbable or that his "solutions" were ridiculous or that the statistics that he quoted were often simply made up; he was saying what a significant portion of the right wing electorate wanted to hear: that he would fix the immigrant problem, the welfare problem, the jobs problem. And he said it with conviction. And, to his advantage, few took him seriously. No one countered his attacks, no one pointed out the obvious flaws in his so-called solutions, no one pointed out the factual errors or outright lies in what he was saying, no one took him to task for his name-calling.

The way that primaries, caucuses and fund-raising work also helped to weed out some of his opponents. Most candidates do not have the private funds to mount a presidential campaign and have to rely on donations, so when a candidate does poorly in an early primary the funding dries up, severely limiting what they can do in the next round. Trump didn't have that problem. He had enough money from his various companies to keep him visible throughout the primaries. Seventeen candidates went quickly down to twelve, to six, to three; Kasich held on despite winning only one primary and Cruz was still kicking even during the convention, but it was money as much as actual support that put Trump in the lead and kept him there. Trump, with the support of his network of businesses, kept himself in the public eye, even gathering more press by skipping a debate than the other candidates did by participating in it.

Once Trump became the candidate, or perhaps as it became obvious that his candidacy was inevitable, rationales as to why he was the best choice for President had to be constructed. One that doesn't take a lot of thought is simply that he's not Hillary Clinton. To some extent I understand this one. Personally, it will be a long time before I ever vote for a Republican, even for local office. Even though Trump is in many ways an unknown quantity, it is a virtual certainty that Clinton will appoint liberal-leaning justices to the Supreme Court, and if you're a conservative, you don't want that. While Trump may not be as conservative as the conservatives hope he is, the safe bet to see the next Supreme Court appointment be a conservative is to not elect Clinton. Frankly, I believe that among reasonably intelligent people, that's the reason that they'll vote for Trump. They so dislike Clinton, whether it's for her actual policies, or because they're bedazzled by the propaganda against her, that they would vote for anybody but her. Connected to the visceral dislike of Clinton, is simple party loyalty. Most party leaders, elected officials and party die-hards will vote for their party's candidate no matter what. What's surprising is not that there are many Republican lawmakers who support Trump despite loathing him and what he stands for, but that so many have spoken up against him.

For a lot of people, Trump's pronouncements are very convincing, and they are behind him 100%; they want a wall built and all the immigrants deported, they want to keep Muslims out of the country and to restrict the free exercise of Islam, they want to carpet bomb the Middle East, and they admire Putin. These are people who really believe that Obama hates America and that he was born outside of the United States, supports terrorism and eats babies for breakfast. He's saying what they want to hear. as much as calling someone a racist can be a mindless rebuttal, there are racists in this country and many of them are happy that there's finally someone who's coming out and saying out loud what they have felt too intimidated to say themselves.

Other people, the 'I'm not a racist, but...' people, construct seemingly rational arguments for supporting Trump. One is that, as a successful businessman, Trump would have what it takes to put the country in order. But is Trump a successful businessman? The record would suggest that he is not. Oh sure, Trump is pretty good at enriching himself, but the Trump business record is a history of a wake of destruction. Time after time, Trump paid himself lucrative consulting or management fees while running the underlying businesses into the ground. Time after time he failed to pay his bills to small businesses and contractors, casting doubt on his claim to "have the back" of the little guy.

Even his teleprompter speeches reveal a disturbing lack of understanding of global economics, international relations and trade & industry. His solutions are vague and often based on faulty assumptions. Why do people believe what he has to say? Because they want to  believe that there are easy solutions to their problems. They want to believe that industries that are past their prime, or can't afford to operate in the United States anymore have been crippled because "the liberals hate America" and that they can be magically resurrected with rhetoric. They want to believe that the danger of Islamic terrorism can be wished away with tough guy talk.

They want to believe, and Trump has tapped into that desire, into the uncertainty, into the frustration and they don't want to think to deeply about whether Trump can achieve what he says he will achieve or even if it's a good thing.

So, it's not surprising that there's support for Mr. Trump. Scary and disturbing, but not surprising.

Go Ahead, Make My Day (That Day is Tuesday November 8th)

The fact that Hillary Clinton has been accused of many corrupt and "crooked" dealings is surely proof that she is corrupt and "crooked".

The fact that she has never been convicted or even charged with any of the crimes that she so surely has committed is proof that she is above the law and can get away with being corrupt and "crooked".

Does the cognitive dissonance that holding the above ideas cause blood vessels in your head to spontaneously explode?

I'm not saying that Hillary Clinton is as pure as the driven snow, or that she doesn't possess a healthy portion of arrogance, but why has that suddenly become a requirement for a Presidential candidate?

People have been gunning for Hillary Clinton for years, and yet nothing sticks. If she's guilty of all that she is accused of, then she apparently has control over the criminal justice system and the Republicans in Congress, because after the longest Congressional investigation in history, which followed seven other Congressional committee investigations, the purpose of which, the committee chairman admitted, was to bring down Hillary Clinton, they came up with nothing.

The idea that the Hillary Clinton is corrupt and "crooked" is part of the media narrative that has been stoked and lovingly nurtured over the last two decades with little or no real evidence, and latched upon by not only the Republicans, but by other Democrats to whom she isn't progressive enough. Everything she does is interpreted in light of this narrative...it makes a good story. And for most people, they dislike Hillary Clinton because they are told that they should.

Us vs. Them

It is possible to support the police and the job that they do without supporting the continued killing of unarmed men and boys.

I realize that there are circumstances when a police officer has to shoot someone, and yes, kill them. If someone is pointing a gun at an officer, or at a civilian; if someone is holding a gun and ignores an order to put it down; if a fleeing  armed suspect presents a threat if he escapes. Police officers are charged with protecting the lives and property of the people. I might even admit that someone trying to disarm a police officer, or charging at him (or her) with a weapon that isn't a gun could be acceptable.

But why do we think that it's acceptable to shoot someone if a police officer thinks that there's a gun, or thinks that someone is reaching for a weapon. Since when is it worthy of a summary execution to run away from a police officer? Sure, you can rationalize that someone wouldn't run if they hadn't committed some crime, and statistically, you'd probably be right, but is it really necessary to shoot a shoplifter who runs from a cop? Is resisting arrest by struggling to break free from a choke hold a capital offense?

My father and brother were both police officers. It makes me angry to hear people speaking hatefully or disrespectfully about the police. But anyone who thinks that the police are not profiling black people, poor people, inner-city people, is fooling themselves. I have never had any problem with the police, mainly because I didn't commit any crimes, but also because I don't look like someone who commits crimes. But about 15 years ago I moved into a little run-down apartment building downtown. The place was a dump; I was the only person there who actually went to work every day. Everyone else was doing drugs, selling drugs, thinking about drugs...you get the picture. The police were out there a lot. When I was in or around the apartment I found that the police treated me very differently. One example was the 3:00AM knock on the door by a cop with a police dog, shouting questions at me. The police assumed I was a criminal, or at least criminally inclined, because of where I lived. After that experience I find it hard to believe that it doesn't happen on a larger scale.

Despite the vicious circle nature of what's been happening: cop shoots unarmed black man, black people riot, loot and taunt the police, police are more on edge and shoot another unarmed black man, crazed black man shoots some cops, cops get very on edge - the onus lies with responsible people to stop the violence. And that starts with the police. The police cannot become "just another gang" as Commander Sam Vimes says in Terry Pratchett's Night Watch. The police are the representatives of civilization, of order, they cannot conduct vendettas and acts of revenge, large and small. They cannot close ranks and pretend some of their brothers haven't acted badly. They cannot use the actions of the criminal element among poor blacks to justify waging war on all poor blacks. We expect criminals to committ crimes, that's why they call them criminals. We expect the police to fight crime, not to participate as principals in a gang war.

Before you say it out loud, yes, black-on-black crime is a problem, and not a small one, but it's a different problem that has little or nothing to do with police killing of unarmed citizens. And yes, rioting following or during protests is wrong and makes things worse, but again, it's a different problem. None of these different problems justifies killing unarmed citizens, unprovoked. Black lives matter (too) - the only reason that it had to be said is that it often doesn't appear that black lives matter at all.

Third Party or Independent Candidates

There are more people running for President than the presumptive nominees of the two major parties. It is true that we have (and always have had) more than two choices. The problem is that, due to ballot access laws differing from state to state, there is no third party that is on the ballot in all 50 states (although the Libertarian Party is projected to be on the ballot in all 50 this November). Therefore a third party cadidate starts out behind right at the starting line, since he or she can receive no electoral votes in the states where his or her party does not appear on the ballot. But wait, what about write-in and independent (on the ballot, but not affiliated with a party) candidacies? According to Ballotpedia (https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates) a candidate must petition each state separately in order to appear on the ballot. The rules vary from state to state; Ballotpedia estimates almost 900,000 signatures would be required nationwide to ensure appearing on the ballot in all 50 states. Another option is write-in candidacies. This is something you hear a lot about. Many major party voters, unhappy with their party's nominee, muse about voting for their preferred candidate by writing in their name. The problem with this scenario is that in seven states write-in voting for President is prohibited. You jus can't do it, so even an organizeed write-in run would start out seven states behind before the voting even starts. 35 states require some kind of paperwork be filed before the election. The remaining 8 require no paperwork for a write-in candidates votes to count. So you can see why a vote for a third party, independent or write-in candidate is often derided as a wated vote. The system is designed to exclude these other choices. 

In many states, ballot access is granted when a party polls a certain percentage of total votes cast in a state election; in Nebraska it is the gubernatorial election. Exceed the benchmark and you have a spot on tyhe ballot for your party's nominee. The problem is that you have to do this every election. Years ago the Libertarian Party was on the ballot in Nebraska, but lost that spot when they failed to maintain the minimum numbers of votes in elections for governor. They are back on the ballot again, but staying there is not guaranteed. 

For those who want more choices for President, it should be obvious that much needs to change. 

Yes, I'm Voting for Clinton

There are some of you out there who would never vote for Hillary Clinton mainly because you think she's a liberal, some because she's not a liberal, some because you believe that she's a liar, or corrupt, or that you "feel" that she's untrustworthy, or because of Benghazi or the email server or because she "rigged" the Democratic primaries & caucuses. Some of you don't like her because she stood up for her husband, or just don't like her husband - or maybe you think she had Vince Foster killed.

The political things I won't address in this article. If you have a principled stand against her politics (not a strawman version of her politics, but her actual politics), good for you, you're thinking before you vote. But if you're of the opinion that's she's the only politician that's every shaded the truth, prevaricated, attempted to divert attention or outright lied, you sir or madam, are living in a fantasy land where enlightened rulers make everything alright...all hail King Ellasar! (had to work in the Lord of the Rings reference). She makes speeches and gets paid for it; I'm not too worked up about that either - is she the first politician to ever do that? She vilified as being crooked and corrupt, yet nothing manages to stick. Some of you believe that that's evidence of a massive conspiracy to allow the Clinton's to get away with what no one else could get away with, despite the seemingly never-ending "investigations", the goal of which the Republican committee chair admitted were to bring down Hillary Clinton...not to discover the truth.

Hillary Clinton's positions on most things are in line with where I sit on the political spectrum" left-leaning centrist-moderate. Although she's a little more hawkish than I would like, she does have the respect of many top generals and admirals and does understand the international situation. The fact is that Clinton has more relevant experience, not only than her Republican Party opponent, but than anyone else who was interested in the job. She would be a steady hand - she's not an idealogue. A criticism that I heard earlier this year was that no one was passionate about their support for Clinton. Is that such a bad thing? I'm not voting for someone who can raise hell and inflame the masses, I'm voting for someone who can reasonably and rationally lead our country as chief executive and represent our country abroad. I'm not worried about her supposed lack of charisma either - we're not electing a prom queen.

Parenthood

There's a lot of ways to be a good parent. There's lots of ways to be a bad parent. It's a given (at least in our Western culture) that you do your best to love your kids, protect them and give them every opportunity to succeed in life. Oh yeah, feed them and clothe them too! My main objectives as a parent where to guide my children toward the ultimate goal of being responsible adults. After all, for the majority of their lives they would be adults. Part of this long-range goal was to encourage them to think, to be able to figure out how to solve problems on their own and to take responsibility for their actions. One school of parenting thought is to do everything for your kids and cater to their every want and need; enroll them in every sport and activity, drop everything to drive them to parties, buy them whatever they want. There are definitely some long-range benefits to giving your children a wide variety of experiences and to allow them to enjoy their childhood, and I'd never fault a parent for sacrificing in order to provide a spectrum of opportunities for a child. But what I have observed is that in many cases a sense of entitlement develops in a child who is given everything. They see this as the natural order of things and have little or no appreciation for the lengths which their parents go through to give them this life. Parents are treated disrespectfully in private and in public. This entitlement and disrespect carries over into school and eventually into the wide world of employment.

Giving your child everything, without also teaching them to value what they have been given isn't doing them any favors. It's not the giving and the doing that is the problem, it's the failure to teach that a price is being paid  by someone for all that opportunity.