Trump: ‘em still missing out on the essence

I am most of all amazed about how many people found themselves so deeply shocked? “Establishment” is flowing over from all sides around us, and at least half of us are part of it and actively supporting it and thinking like it! :-O

I would have voted for Hillary, by the way – just to remind everyone here. Not that I have any right to, or any responsibility, but in my mind I would have voted for her, because for her work and experience she deserved that chance, the US probably deserves a well prepared president, and the women of the world deserve to have another top leader elected from among us, whose name everyone also can spell without a prompt.

In a previous and the only other blog post about these elections, I actually even voted for her in my mildly incorrect prediction:

Some time after I had written it, I remembered about the 2002 Nobel prize in economics*, and the theories on our gambling attitudes, and other such research showing that as humans our decisions are emotional more often than rational. And I realised I may be wrong. From the gambling perspective Hillary was the boring “keep the amount you already won”, while Trump was the exciting “double or nothing” alternative…

*[2002 Nobel laureates Kahneman and Tversky in their award-winning theory show, how people really make decisions in uncertain situations. We tend to use irrational guidelines such as perceived fairness and loss aversion, which are based on emotions, attitudes and memories, and not on logic.]

Half of me therefore also yearned to vote for Trump. Because a pioneer loves a pioneer, and a maverick knows a maverick, and Trump was the only one with even mild hopes for anything refreshing coming. Having Hillary for president must have felt like simply having more of the same, 12 years instead of 8, and then why even vote – going out for her must have felt like the most meaningless election effort ever. Because elections are held, after all, to gain  something new or fresh, and not the same, or they would have made it legal for the same to continue…

Hillary, for whatever she deserved, would have produced the most boring presidential change ever. Most or not most, but boring.

The people who stood with Hillary, I think – beside the feminists and other simply kind souls like me – were (most obviously) people well conditioned into politically correct thinking, i.e people who see the world not the way it really is, but the way we are supposed to see it, the “correct”, “trendy”, “within-establishment” idealistic way of seeing it. Like those who embrace the refugees with doubtful background and motives, for example (as long as it is the government taking care of them with help of money and resources that are not theirs, or perhaps some even would invest personally, and why not – they are affluent enough and do not work as waitresses or construction workers and therefore the immigrants are not a threat and not a competition). Or people with higher education who think “higher” is the operative word and serves as class denominator, too, and that learning anything from a book (learning it secondarily, from someone’s earlier experience) is for some reason a finer and more intelligent way of learning entitles one to a better expertise than hands-on learning by doing? Than experience-based, work-based learning. It is high time to equalize these two, btw, and at least the leading managements schools do it, sometimes, but quite exceptionally yet.

OK, so these are opposed to the hands-on, Trumpists, who (in this definition here) may not have had the time, or patience, or money for extensive education, or believed in doing over reading and unfortunately, with the existing examples that are available to them for comparison, may fail to see where the extensive studying comes to an advantage, if it also leads one so far off from the reality.

Hillary unfortunately was also very clearly “ungenuine” (or disingenuous, if you want). She must possess lots of experience, which must render her able to respond quite well even without a script; but she sounded mostly like she was repeating a script and a very well rehearsed script, too. When women do something, they do it well, ok! But try-hards are not always the popular darlings. An eager beaver… But what does she really think? What does she say and how does she talk when she is truly herself? We do not know… Very murky

We all heard how Trump talked and what he said… and although that too may have been his screen persona talking and behaving, then at the same time it was much closer to an average person being caught into a presidential race and doing things for the first time. A flop after flop after flop – makes you feel really sorry for him, because it could be you there and look at those horrible other people and how they are treating him and what they are saying….

He was like one of them out there, saying exactly what they think and behaving the way they might behave, one like them there on the way to becoming a president! …and what’s so wrong about grabbing a anyway, there are plenty of women who seem to enjoy that!? I am serious. If it is between consenting adults then should we criticize one’s sexual drive or limit the ways of free expression of one’s sexuality? It is about who you let to grab you or who not, and who you grab in response, but that is simply free choice and sexual play.

In a side note, and mind that as a woman I am borderline interested, but I am also forever struggling with those -ismists being so sexually liberal that with my preferences I hardly feel sufficiently modern enough. Yet at some point every so often they are forbidding all this liberty to someone else??? I am listening and listening but at least half the time I do not get it.  Like also in this case. Talking is NOT acting and in most cases, therefore, talking is actually endorsed in way of a lesser evil. This is why we have the freedom of speech in many places in the world.

Further, almost all great teachers, textbooks, etc, on rhetoric say that it (basically) does not matter what you are talking about when you talk in the public and, especially, when you talk on the tv.

You have this tiny small attention span to catch where the easy slogans and simple ideas win every time.

We will build a wall!

We will close the doors to this or that!

It catches the attention and people will remember. While I do not remember a single thing from Hillary’s speeches – not a single thing believe me, and  I am somewhat let’s say like within top 0.1…1.0% in my countryship, probably, by cognitive capacity.

But even my subconscious mind did not select out anything to remember from her. Part of it may be due to the channels being obsessed with Trump, which is interesting, because everyone was thinking they side – they were supposed to side – with Hillary… But in their actions they were promoting Trump because they were simply talking of him all the time, all day long.

I am still astonished also, that the world media indeed were taking Trump’s speeches so seriously, the serious international channels, on-screen chat-rooms methodically dissecting every word, ever promise??? To me it sounded just a verbal roar… For the first, he is obviously less experienced and less confident as a public speaker, so he simply stumbled ahead the best he could. Not sure why his team let him, but maybe it was the strategy or also some people simply do not take advice. For the second, as a businessman, he may know that words are not deeds. A deed is what you sign, and until you do, it can be changed in any way you want, if you really want to.

So what we heard was simply a lot of barking, and the public marginally chose an earnestly barking dog over a slyly silent one; though very marginally indeed.

I was quite sure that Trump’s behaviour will change when he wins: it is already changing. He is already feeling the weight of responsibility and has toned down accordingly. What the first presidents were like, who also did not have the long political pedigree? They did not have the media eye following them on an hourly basis either, but I guess we have chance to see and follow now.

There is only one clear trend with most presidents and other comets in the sky – what goes up, must go down. Prepare to be very dissatisfied with your own choice some time after 2.5 years, because the anticipated magic did not materialise. The pumpkins did not change into chariots at a snap and perhaps better so, because then there is no fear of them changing back when the bell tolls and the time is over.

I am not very afraid about the red button thing and even not of the fate of the international foreign politics. Indeed, a politician is far more often an idealist willing to place principles over materialism and willing to sacrifice the material to the ideal. While I do not think Trump is willing to sacrifice the Trump Tower. He must know and care about what kind of money went into it.

He also seems to care about his family and they about him, you cannot fake these things on camera forever.

An interesting outcry has came from the climate fighters, too. Apparently, the whole world will reverberate when the US stops the financial support to some kind of environmental… programs? I always thought the climate change is what we all cause with our wrong actions, and also with our actions, internationally and everywhere in the world we could improve it, and not that the US causes the climate change or also that it is their task single-handedly to improve things for us?

A president also is not someone who acts in a complete vacuum, thankfully it has been already noted and pointed out.

In conclusion: I am still astonished about the post-election display of conditioned thinking and inflated emotions, that were also so superficial they were not more than a copypaste of copypaste. Half of a very large country, and not ending at the borders either, seemed to be thinking that their intelligence is superior enough to allow them to dictate how the whole country should be led, yet they do not seem to see, to recognise, to understand, and are clearly unable to in any way engage or connect with, the other half??

This must be the biggest  f a i l  of the interconnected international “higher” educational system, ever, if it produces this kind of illusory thinking, and in so large numbers, t0o.

Plenty to think about here, what to augment for the future; but it has to start with recognition, and learning. Thank you!

The United States Constitution has never formally addressed the issue of political parties. The Founding Fathers did not originally intend for American politics to be partisan. In Federalist Papers No. 9 and No. 10, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, respectively, wrote specifically about the dangers of domestic political factions. In addition, the first President of the United States, George Washington, was not a member of any political party at the time of his election or throughout his tenure as president. Furthermore, he hoped that political parties would not be formed, fearing conflict and stagnation, as outlined in his Farewell Address.[6] Nevertheless, the beginnings of the American two-party system emerged from his immediate circle of advisers. Hamilton and Madison, who wrote the aforementioned Federalist Papers against political factions, ended up being the core leaders in this emerging party system. It was the split camps of Federalists, given rise with Hamilton as a leader, and Democratic-Republicans, with Madison and Thomas Jefferson helming this political faction, that created the environment in which partisanship, once distasteful, came to being.[7][8]

Lisa kommentaar

Täida nõutavad väljad või kliki ikoonile, et sisse logida: Logo

Sa kommenteerid kasutades oma kontot. Logi välja /  Muuda )

Google photo

Sa kommenteerid kasutades oma Google kontot. Logi välja /  Muuda )

Twitter picture

Sa kommenteerid kasutades oma Twitter kontot. Logi välja /  Muuda )

Facebook photo

Sa kommenteerid kasutades oma Facebook kontot. Logi välja /  Muuda )

Connecting to %s