Trump is not inevitable

As of this week, with Trump 7 points behind,  it is likely that he will lose the election to Hillary. I hardly know what to think. I am torn between my liking for Trump as a goad to the opinion-shaping classes, and for his policies towards Islam, political correctness and trade deals, on the one hand, and my concern that the man is not up to the job.

[I am not going to discuss Hillary here, beyond noting she ought to be on trial for various crimes and malfeasances. Corrupt only gets to the edges of her nullity].

In the past few weeks I have seen otherwise sensible conservatives become enraged at the thought of Trump. I do not mean Republicans in Name Only; I mean sensible church-going conservatives, people whose opinions are usually reliable. People have been outraged at the idiocy of the American working classes and lower orders for supporting Trump, and have been nearly able to contemplate denying them the vote.

I have read social science bloviation that Trump supporters are authoritarians, which I dismiss out of hand. This is the usual leftist prattling that anyone who dares disagree with their Narrative must have something wrong with their souls.  Outside the 1%, American incomes have stagnated for several decades. There is no reason to believe that free trade will induce technological progress in advanced economies. Free trade has meant that your clothing and consumer goods have been made more cheaply, over time, and roughly in order, in the following countries: Japan, Taiwan, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and now Cambodia, as the great uplift of human wealth proceeds to work its magic. But the redistribution of wealth from the first world to the third has brought with it stagnation of incomes and closing opportunities for the working classes here and for the children of people who are inclined to read this blog.

I am not sure if a high tariff policy can fix this, but at least Trump is talking about the world we are experiencing.

What bothers me about Trump is the gracelessness, the inability to strike a conciliatory note, the inability to court the undecided. Trump has already got the 45% of people who are pissed off. He needs another 5, 6, or 7% to ensure his victory.

He will not achieve this victory unless unless he maintains decorum, and minds his manners. Americans are ready for a policy change, and a personnel change, but they need to be wooed, not bludgeoned.

He frightens a lot of people, some of whom need to be frightened, but others of whom need a little reassurance that he can act like an adult, like a President of the United States. Unless he can do this, I am concerned that the tired old Democratic/1%/bankers’ regime, with its anti-white, anti-Christian and anti-male bias,  will continue under  Hillary Clinton.

I  await a storm of protest from those who think I have gone soft. I have not. There is far too much truth is Donald and Hobbes, a sample of which is below.

donald and hobbes

I wan Trump to win, but I am concerned that the Trump I want is a figment of my imagination.

 

 

Bookmark and Share
Bill Elder

Dal- I have stated that Trump (with all his warts) is a populist candidate and Hillary is not – if we are going to compare warts, Hillary’s are more plentiful and malignant, and impossible to ignore.

I simply look at the spin – the US effete power structure (embodied in the MSM) is on a obsessed maniacal spin mode to scrub the huge warts off their candidate and to stifle populist momentum/spirit with false narratives and rigged polling – remember how the yes side was unanimously certain to lose in all UK media and “expert” opinion? Remember the huge lead the ‘Stay’ side enjoyed for months in MSM “polling”? Remember how these same Media and experts were “shocked” by the results? I think they were shocked the electorate were savvy enough to see through their propaganda. Well, the same negative media campaign is aligned against Trump.

I did a little investigating about Hillary’s amazing popularity bump after trump had led her 10 points after the DNC. I have 30yrs experience in stat analysis and I can tell for a fact the polling that put Clinton ahead was: A) done by partisan sources, B) employed skewed data source points that resulted in faulty (biased) data sets. IOW, these polls were rigged – but it’s the ‘why’ which is more interesting.

Why would the MSM propagate easily confuted polling results? I think it has to do with the Dino media ego. They see how they literally created the Obama legend and cleansed all his social malice and rank ineptitude – they literally feel like king-makers. Repropagating faulty polls favoring one candidate or another is a kind of psycho-condition method called “predictive programming” – it’s a disgusting endeavor for the 4th estate to engage in a free democracy – if you tell people a certain candidate cannot possibly win, repeat it enough and attach so called expertise to the lie, they believe it and either don’t vote or vote for the other guy because they don’t want to be attached to a loser. But in the info age the electorate is a bit more astute than the dino-media believe them to be and these blatant fixes to sway opinion disgusts them as much as the effete oligarchy it serves disgusts them – Well it didn’t work in the UK, it is crumbling in France, Germany and Scandanavia and I believe that that the populist wave Trump has tapped into can’t be fooled either. I think if the media BS dumps on their candidate, it’s the same as the media dumping on them (that’s the attachment the populist movement have to their champions) -they will double down on getting the vote out. At the start of this POTUS dog fight, I called Trump as the GOP candidate and against Hillary I said it would be either a close race due to MSM spinning, or Trump would get a landslide as a populist reaction to MSM spinning.

Populism is a force of nature, a cleansing wave that, hopefully, will hit Washington with force. If it is denied a political voice, if it is stifled with rigging electoral systems, populist angst will backlash on the elite. After roughly a half century of elitist-left ownership of international geopolitics, most notably in France, Sweden, Germany, Canada, and the United States, it appears that we now have one more thing in common: The electorate are absolutely sick of the direction their countries have turned and the effete attitudes of their leaders to their own policy failures. A large silent majority are now sick and angry at having their concerns with faulty ineffectual policy dismissed as “racist, Islamaphobic, homophobic, or bitter clingers” – particularly when their concerns about the negative effect of globalist policies is blowing up/shooting up their neighborhood as it bankrupts their nation.
The worm has turned, the majority are fed up with efficacy politics and the MSM as well as the political establishment better bend with it or be broken in the wave of populism sweeping western democracies..

We live in interesting times.

monkey

Not sure I would put Canada in here, if recent election results suggest anything, Canadians seem to like the left wing elitist. That being said Donald Trump is way too extreme and simply has a bad temperament to be president. As for political correctness, I think it is important to be respectful of all groups and not single out anyone particular group. There are conservatives in all demographics so trying to alienate any particular is just plain stupid. As for the polls, they may be wrong, although Hillary Clinton’s convention bounce was actually not that large by historical standards, only compared to the last few years. In 1988 Dukakis had a 17 point lead before the conventions while after George HW Bush pulled into the lead and never looked back. In 1992, Bill Clinton was in third before the conventions behind Perot and Bush but then pulled into a large lead although that was partly due to Perot dropping out at the same time and things tightened up a bit. In 2000, George W. Bush had 15 point + lead over Al Gore, but after the convention things were tied up and although Al Gore lost the election, he did win the popular vote so Clinton’s bounce is only large compared to the past two or three election cycles.

As for the references to global free trade, I happen to support it as for all its problems I believe it provides more benefits than drawbacks. Yes in the developing world wages are much lower, but firms from Western countries that employ people there pay them a lot more than they were otherwise thus raising their standard of living and as the standard of living rises in the third world, more people can afford to buy the products we produce. Not too long ago few in China could afford to buy Canadian goods, but now many can. Also if you slapped high tariffs on imports from the developing world it would just drive up prices dramatically which would hurt the poor and middle class the most. I agree more needs to be done to help those who have lost out on free trade, but the gains from free trade exceed the losses so in economics its generally said in such case the winners can compensate the losers and they are still better off and the losers no worse off if compensated.

Dalwhinnie

Bill: Thanks always for your comments. I hope there are enough of us to get rid of this incubus of PC and its myrmidons.

Eric Doll

Monkey says, “Donald Trump is way too extreme and simply has a bad temperament to be president.” If there were examples of this in his life-before-politics there might be reason to swallow this characterisation despite success in business indicating otherwise. I’m amazed and saddened by so many conservatives using leftist smear tactics against any candidate who doesn’t fit into their (losing) mould. Trump is no more and no less than the correct balance of showman and anti-PC champion that these times call for. Hopefully, the Nervous-Nellie right won’t mess up his chance to do the job they have failed at so often. And even if it turns out that he isn’t the right person for the job, what will we have lost by turning to him in desperation, all the alternatives considered?

Bill Elder

If Trump is “too extreme with a bad temperament” the alternative is a candidate with provably the most scandal-ridden record in American political history. Hillary has spend as much time in courtrooms dodging criminal charges as she has in office (re read the testimonies of the Whitewater rose indictments, now the Benghazi and state security hearings). The Clintons are Dixie Mafia/ Dixiecrat bosses, they have left a long trail of robbed/bankrupt businesses, destitute associates and conveniently incapacitated witnesses – that is disturbing to say the least. Many security branch big wigs believe the Clinton wealth is built on selling state secrets to Korea, China and Russia. Trump’s politically incorrect mouth pales in comparison to this level of rank criminality.

I had a casual off hand conversation about the “suitability” of the POTUS candidates with with a self-proclaimed “progressive” at a social function recently. All the facts came from my side and all the “feelings” came from his side – the end result is all my facts about Clinton malfeasance and malevolent underhanded dealing fell on deaf ears and all I got back from this fellow was – ” I’d rather have a crook than a clown”.

And there you have the whole Trump acceptability question in a nutshell – – selection between them comes down to a moral question of how comfortable you are with open criminal malfeasance in government as opposed to whatever benefit/entitlement you feel you are getting from it while it is malfeasant.

Frankly, I personally think anyone who could deem Hillary a “suitable” candidate is either as ethically compromised as she is or has lived in a cave for the past 3 decades – then again, what’s the old saying? Oh ya, you get the government you deserve – ethicless dissolute electors get ethicless dissolute leaders/government.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *