Jester,
Okay. I'm not as certain as I was before, but I still would give
80% odds at the least that Hilary makes it before the west coast
totals have finalized. So, let's see - if I bet you a pint of
Guiness (yes, Irish, not Brit, I know), If I win, I get 1 pint. If
you win, you get 4 pints, or, using the Finnish system of currency
exchange and the tax on liquors and exports, you get 5 pints. But
I'm also betting that by the time you've finished the 3rd pint,
you'll be too trashed to remember what the deal was, so I won't
need to layout for the 4th and 5th pints.
Okay, back to reality. Why does Clinton get more scrutiny. My
own thought is that part of it is, she's so goddamn paranoid,
including not being sure if she's totally reversing her 12th
position change on a topic, she denies everything, and that just
increases the distrust she gets. You lied about having pneumonia
for chrissakes? What *won't* you lie about? Whereas Trump just
repeats the lie over and over again, with some sliding around
(well, a lot of sliding around) on exactly what he did say.
The fact that he rejects the whole political system, and all
it's protocols (Inlcuding that politicians are supposed to tell the
truth at least *some* of the time), is part of his appeal,
perversely.
So the mystery is: Why is Hilary held to account most of the
time, and Trump not? I think perhaps you stated it in your
post: 'let's throw the country away out of spite!' For people who
feel marginalized, no power, no attention to their real needs, get
their vote 'stolen' by (broken) promises, and play that game of '3
card Monte' every election year, yeah, they're probably, out of
spite, saying, 'You live like a queen, while I live like a beggar.
Here - let's 'equalize' the process and then you'll *really* know
how I feel, rather than just mouthing the words'
I don't want to 'get Biblical' on you, lol, but I'd just say
that, as part of what's going on, is that the 'Sampson complex' is
becoming popular again after all these centuries, as far as a lot
of voters go.
So, to revise my 'Trump' thesis: Part Sampson, part that he's
been treated like the buffoon that he is - so few people expect him
to be honest, and lastly, unfortunately, he's become the 'vehicle'
by which disempowered people vent their rage at being ignored. I'd
much rather it be done by someone more 'savory' figure that wasn't
a politician - Jesse Ventura - wrestler turned gov of Minnesota.
Ah-nuld/California. Even Dylan, as long as he's already picked up
his Nobel (or refused it, figuring that giving it to Obama for
nothing cheapens it :-) But in some semi-mysterious way, Trump may
well represent the 'perverse' ugly 'underbelly' of American society
and politics. Did we create this guy, or.............?
And lastly, when Hilary wins, I'm incredibly curious to see if
any of the pols learn a lesson from all this. Or whether we have to
repeat it. I think the democrats probably will treat Hilary's win
as a mandate. Well, at least she will. The Republicans have the
chance to rebuild the party, because they're going to *have* to
bring it into the modern age, or watch it vaporize and fall apart.
And that's going to be a tough task, given they need to unite right
wing yahoos with LGBT pride. I doubt they can pull it off. And I've
not voted Republican in my life. But when I watch David Brooks of
the NY times on NPR news, or read his articles in the Times -
intelligent, kind, thoughtful, almost amazing - if the Republicans
listened to him, they might get a clue. But Republicans don't
generally subscribe to the socialist Times, so it's a problem.
0
0
