One of the things I find so disheartening about Trump’s campaign is how his “message” is resonating with so many people. It’s not just that he’s managed to tap into the anger that so many disenfranchised people feel. That’s bad enough, particularly when I can’t see how he can truly believe any of it himself, but is just cynically manipulating people to get them to vote for him. He’s been a Democrat in the past when it suited him, professed to be pro-women’s rights and clearly has no clue about the Christian Right and what’s important to them (he couldn’t quote a scripture as his favorite and cited “Two Corinthians” which anyone familiar even remotely with the Bible knows is called “Second Corinthians.”) If he gets into office, it’s impossible to know what he really plans to do, as he’s been notably sparse in policy statements. No, the real issue from my perspective is summed up nicely in a commentary by Sophia McClennen and published in Salon. Now before we go any farther, I recognize that Salon is a “progressive/liberal” website, and I’ve written about the dangers of echo chambers and how easy it is to only hear what supports your own viewpoint, but in this case I think the facts that underpin McClennen’s positions are clear. Furthermore, she skewers both Republicans and Democrats, although truth be told the Right presents a much bigger target.
Her title is “I’m with stupid: The entire 2016 election has been an insult to our intelligence.” I’ve written several rants posted here about the importance of critical thinking and the unfortunate dearth of its application, particularly in our political process. For years the Republicans have been taking an anti-science position on climate change, claiming against all evidence to the contrary that global warming is not an issue to be concerned about, and further stating there is not yet even a consensus in the scientific community that it’s caused by human activity (a complete lie).
There are three stages to the acceptance of an idea by someone initially opposed to it:
1) It’s completely untrue.
2) OK, there may be some truth to it, but it’s irrelevant.
3) Of course it’s true, and I’ve said so from the very beginning.
So we find ourselves somewhere around (1) or (2) when we look at the Republican position, and I can only conclude it’s because doing anything significant to change it would hurt a variety of bottom lines in the world of Big Republican Donors.
This has been reflected throughout the current and last couple of election cycles. Starting with Dan Quayle, Dubya and then with that pinnacle of incomprehensible prose, Sarah Palin, we appear to have gone from dumb to dumber. There was an attempt to portray Quayle and Dubya as fairly intelligent guys whose public “good ol’ boy” persona was misinterpreted as stupidity. Although I don’t agree with that, it’s hard to see Palin as anything but stupid. Her speeches are impossible to follow, full of incomplete sentences, tortured syntax and no logical progression. She jumps from topic to topic without any connection; in short, if you read them they seem like the ravings of a lunatic. Yet somehow she “clicked” with millions of voters, all on the far right, of course.
And now we have Trump. I read the other day that he has something like a 200-work lexicon (this from his co-author in “The Art of the Deal”). Evidently Trump didn’t have the attention span to string a sentence together on his own, let alone contribute significantly to the book; it was written virtually 100 percent by the “co-author.” I would think that if Trump actually claims to have co-authored his book he should have, I don’t know, maybe actually written a little bit of it. But hey, that’s just me.
Take a listen for yourself if you question these observations. Trump’s speeches are worse than Palin’s (a feat I wouldn’t have thought possible). I cannot believe this guy is the Republican nominee. And I’m not just referring to his incredibly poor language skills or style; when you get past how he says it and come up against what he is saying, it’s even worse. Let’s take a couple of examples.
“I’m going to build a huge wall between the US and Mexico, and Mexico is going to pay for it.”
OK, this is a classic. First, the simple fact is that it’s impossible to do that from an engineering standpoint. Or next to impossible; take a look at a map sometime. A river makes up the border through most of Texas, so is he saying he’s going to build his wall down the middle of the Rio Grande? Engineers say it couldn’t be done. In any case the cost would be astronomical.
But Mexico is going to pay for it. Oh really? And just how are we going to get them to do that? In his one and only meeting with the President of Mexico, that little detail “didn’t come up.” Yeah, I bet. The simple fact is that Mexico is a sovereign nation and can tell Trump to go pound sand down a rat hole. He can bluster and bully all he wants and they wouldn’t pony up a nickel.
But most important of all, does anyone really think that building a wall between the US and Mexico is going to solve our illegal immigration problem? The fact that we already have a wall in a significant part of California has somehow escaped his notice? (Which, by the way, does almost nothing to slow the current flood)).
The point is that he has proposed a stupidly simplistic solution to a highly complex problem. What’s disconcerting is that anyone takes it seriously. Evidently his supporters are either idiots or naïve.
Another one is Trump’s statement early on that he had seen “thousands of Muslims in the streets of New Jersey cheering when the twin towers collapsed.”
He stuck to that ridiculous statement even after it became clear it was a lie; to this day not one shred of evidence, newsreel or report supports it. Again, the worst part is not that he said it (bad enough on its own), but that a large segment of our population continues to believe it.
And last (but by no means all) is his recent hot microphone debacle with the subsequent accusations and his denials.
This bozo is caught on tape bragging about sexual assault and how he gets away with it because he’s a “star,” and when a dozen women come forward with their experiences of him doing exactly that, he denies it and says “everyone who knows him knows that how he acts!! He should get a prize for sheer hubris. And yet again, the worst part is how many people profess to believe him.
Put this in perspective. Substitute any nine year-old child for Trump. They’d be grounded or sent to bed without supper for saying this nonsense, yet a large segment of our population is accepting it as truth because it’s coming from this excuse for a leader.
I could go on. And on. And to be fair, Democrats have their own skeletons. Not nearly as many nor as egregious, but some nonetheless. The real issue is how we as a society have been unwilling to hold people like Trump to a standard of truth. Or even to simple logic.
It does not bode well for us, methinks.
This stupid election
Her title is “I’m with stupid: The entire 2016 election has been an insult to our intelligence.” I’ve written several rants posted here about the importance of critical thinking and the unfortunate dearth of its application, particularly in our political process. For years the Republicans have been taking an anti-science position on climate change, claiming against all evidence to the contrary that global warming is not an issue to be concerned about, and further stating there is not yet even a consensus in the scientific community that it’s caused by human activity (a complete lie).
There are three stages to the acceptance of an idea by someone initially opposed to it:
So we find ourselves somewhere around (1) or (2) when we look at the Republican position, and I can only conclude it’s because doing anything significant to change it would hurt a variety of bottom lines in the world of Big Republican Donors.
This has been reflected throughout the current and last couple of election cycles. Starting with Dan Quayle, Dubya and then with that pinnacle of incomprehensible prose, Sarah Palin, we appear to have gone from dumb to dumber. There was an attempt to portray Quayle and Dubya as fairly intelligent guys whose public “good ol’ boy” persona was misinterpreted as stupidity. Although I don’t agree with that, it’s hard to see Palin as anything but stupid. Her speeches are impossible to follow, full of incomplete sentences, tortured syntax and no logical progression. She jumps from topic to topic without any connection; in short, if you read them they seem like the ravings of a lunatic. Yet somehow she “clicked” with millions of voters, all on the far right, of course.
And now we have Trump. I read the other day that he has something like a 200-work lexicon (this from his co-author in “The Art of the Deal”). Evidently Trump didn’t have the attention span to string a sentence together on his own, let alone contribute significantly to the book; it was written virtually 100 percent by the “co-author.” I would think that if Trump actually claims to have co-authored his book he should have, I don’t know, maybe actually written a little bit of it. But hey, that’s just me.
Take a listen for yourself if you question these observations. Trump’s speeches are worse than Palin’s (a feat I wouldn’t have thought possible). I cannot believe this guy is the Republican nominee. And I’m not just referring to his incredibly poor language skills or style; when you get past how he says it and come up against what he is saying, it’s even worse. Let’s take a couple of examples.
OK, this is a classic. First, the simple fact is that it’s impossible to do that from an engineering standpoint. Or next to impossible; take a look at a map sometime. A river makes up the border through most of Texas, so is he saying he’s going to build his wall down the middle of the Rio Grande? Engineers say it couldn’t be done. In any case the cost would be astronomical.
But Mexico is going to pay for it. Oh really? And just how are we going to get them to do that? In his one and only meeting with the President of Mexico, that little detail “didn’t come up.” Yeah, I bet. The simple fact is that Mexico is a sovereign nation and can tell Trump to go pound sand down a rat hole. He can bluster and bully all he wants and they wouldn’t pony up a nickel.
But most important of all, does anyone really think that building a wall between the US and Mexico is going to solve our illegal immigration problem? The fact that we already have a wall in a significant part of California has somehow escaped his notice? (Which, by the way, does almost nothing to slow the current flood)).
The point is that he has proposed a stupidly simplistic solution to a highly complex problem. What’s disconcerting is that anyone takes it seriously. Evidently his supporters are either idiots or naïve.
He stuck to that ridiculous statement even after it became clear it was a lie; to this day not one shred of evidence, newsreel or report supports it. Again, the worst part is not that he said it (bad enough on its own), but that a large segment of our population continues to believe it.
This bozo is caught on tape bragging about sexual assault and how he gets away with it because he’s a “star,” and when a dozen women come forward with their experiences of him doing exactly that, he denies it and says “everyone who knows him knows that how he acts!! He should get a prize for sheer hubris. And yet again, the worst part is how many people profess to believe him.
Put this in perspective. Substitute any nine year-old child for Trump. They’d be grounded or sent to bed without supper for saying this nonsense, yet a large segment of our population is accepting it as truth because it’s coming from this excuse for a leader.
I could go on. And on. And to be fair, Democrats have their own skeletons. Not nearly as many nor as egregious, but some nonetheless. The real issue is how we as a society have been unwilling to hold people like Trump to a standard of truth. Or even to simple logic.
It does not bode well for us, methinks.
About BigBill
Stats: Married male boomer. Hobbies: Hiking, woodworking, reading, philosophy, good conversation.