A disclaimer: the add for this post was banned by Facebook.
_____
America is in a dreadful state. Has been for awhile. That is why 2020 election will be pivotal for American future.
In 2016 I didn't want to vote for Donald J. Trump.
But now I do.
Why?
I want to start from an old joke (used on July 7, 2017 in “When will the Democrats make the first step of the 12-step program (admitting!)? Seems - never!”).
To study the development of
intellectual abilities in a monkey researchers designed a cage with a tree and
hanged a banana on a branch to keep the banana high enough. Monkey enters the
cage and sees the banana. He tries to jump, but the banana is too high. He
tries to clime the tree, but it is covered with plastic, so the monkey just
slides back. Monkey looks around and sees a stick. He takes the stick and hits
the banana down. Success!
Researcher prepared the cage for the
next run, placed a new banana and left for a lunch. Suddenly a hungry physics graduate gets
in the cage. He sees banana. He jumps, but the banana is too high. He tries to
clime the tree but slides back. He starts to shake the tree, but the banana
holds tightly to the branch. He keeps shaking the tree. Nothing happens. Researches returned from lunch and see the student shaking the tree. Finally,
one researcher gets tired of watching, switches on an intercom and says: “Hey,
take a second, think it through.” “F@#k thinking”, says the student, “All I
need - just shake it, shake it harder”.
__________
I
want to vote for Donald Trump.
Will I vote for him?
Will I vote for him?
My
heart does not want to let me to vote for such a person.
By
my mind wants me to vote for him. So, it's a struggle.
My
reason is not the same reason that every Trump-bro supporter has: “He may be a racists misogynist bigot, a liar, a thief, a
narcissistic psychopath with a dying brain, and a traitor, but as long as he
keeps kicking the Democrats in the nuts and filling offices with our people,
HE'S MY GUY!”
No.
My
mind tells me that in 2020 all Americans will have to chose between a bad
choice and a very bad choice. And my reason tells me that Trump is bad. But he
is the lesser of the two evils. In a long run, if in 2020 a Democrat will take
the White House, he/she will do more damage than four more years of Trump.
Because
none of the Democrats has any idea about what has gone wrong with the country
and what to do about it. Moderates (e.g. Biden) simply have no vision of what
needs to be done; hence, in four years there will be no serious changes in
politics and economy; people will not get what they been promised; people will
get even more disappointed, and America will enter the era of Trump-2.0. If an
extremist (e.g. Sanders) takes the WH, American economy will fall into a state
of permanent chaos; progressive extremists wants to drastically alter the
fabric of American economy making it government-based; the fight will consume
all the energy; people will not get what they been promised; people will get
even more disappointed, and America will enter the era of Trump-2.0.
By
my calculations, the chance that in 2020 a Democrat will win is very small.
Progressive extremists will lose the electoral college because they are blinded
by their own ideas, and do not see that those American voters who will make the
difference do not want any “free stuff” promised by the progressive extremists.
Americans want to feel proud of their lives, and for that they do not want
charity, they want decent jobs, they want decent wages that would let them pay
for things they need (including food, college, and healthcare), not be handed
down by a government.
The
most vocal and energetic support for the progressive extremists comes from
youngsters. There is nothing wrong, or strange, or new about it. Young people
inherently are prone to extreme ideas. For example, review the history of the
Cultural Revolution in China. If you don’t know that history, but you care
about politics – search it and read about it. If you don’t know that history,
and do not care about politics – you deserve Trump.
Anyway,
the point is, none of the progressive extremists will be able to win over enough
voters in the swing states. The #1 question that progressive extremists should
ask themselves but don’t is “why did people who voted for Obama then voted for
Trump?” Hence, they will not get those votes.
A
moderate Democratic candidate also will not have an appeal strong enough to
attract voters who in 2016 switched to Trump from Obama. In 2020 the psychology
of that voter will be “Yes, Trump is awful, but economy seems fine, I'm doing OK, why shake it?”. Minority voters could swing the victory to a Democrat, but they do not want to use their own power.
My
personal vote for Trump or against him will not make any difference. He will
almost certainly win. Even though, there is
a strategy that would guaranty the
victory for the Democrats. But in order to develop and to pursue that strategy
Democrats need to have people who have all
four following traits: smart (to recognize and accept the most important
aspects of economic and political reality), visionary (to be able to design a
long-term multi-step poly-version plan of actions), bold (“having balls” to
make risky decisions), powerful. Evidently, such people don’t exist. I’ve been writing about such a strategy
for three years, and so far, no Democratic political strategist would even have
mentioned something in that venue. And this is the most important reason a
Democrat in the WH would be even worse than Trump – Democrats are not ready for the Presidency; they don’t have powerful
people who are smart, visionary, and bold. It's bad when people cannot produce any original idea. It is even more sad when they even can't steal one from someone else.
NOTE:
offering people policies that have been tried and failed in other countries is
not smart or visionary, but still can be considered as bold. Governmental
takeover a la “socialism” in such a country like U.S. cannot be any similar to
Finland or Switzerland due the huge structural differences between the U.S. and
Finland or Switzerland. Governmental takeover a la “socialism” in such a
country like U.S. would be more similar to the USSR, and we all know how did it go.
People
say: “Fooled me once, shame on you; fooled me twice – shame on me”. Democrats
do not want to accept/believe that they have been fooled, and because of that they
keep using the same foolish strategy that failed in 2016. Folk wisdom teaches - it's got to get worse before it gets better. Only when the Democrats lose
again, they may finally take a hard look in a mirror and start asking hard
questions, like – what did I do wrong, again?
That
is why Trump’s victory in 2020 will be the best thing that will happen to the
Democrats. It at least then they will begin to rethink their old playbook.
I know that using a third-party candidate for a switch is unconventional and hence seems risky (and America has lost the ability to take risk - in politics, management and in business). But Democrats had another (but kind of a similar) winning strategy in 2016, and still have it for 2020. Imagine that Bernie and Hillary would flip a coin - who will be the President and who will be VP. And ran together. Trump would had no chance. Now, Bernie and Joe could do the same (as I suggested three years ago). But they will not. Why? Because at the bottom, the Democratic party suffers from illiteracy, and at the top from arrogance and ignorance. I assume Biden could offer a hand to Sanders, but Bernie has ego matching Trump's. He would need a strong push from his base, but that is not going to happen.
And why, when marketing, are they stuck on the pictures of only two people - P, and VP? Joe and Bernie could announce their "shadow cabinet" (Harris for the Secretary of State, Booker for ..., etc.) and plaster all faces everywhere - WE ARE THE TEAM! Even Stalin has posters where he was the fourth - after Marx, Engels, and Lenin.
I know that using a third-party candidate for a switch is unconventional and hence seems risky (and America has lost the ability to take risk - in politics, management and in business). But Democrats had another (but kind of a similar) winning strategy in 2016, and still have it for 2020. Imagine that Bernie and Hillary would flip a coin - who will be the President and who will be VP. And ran together. Trump would had no chance. Now, Bernie and Joe could do the same (as I suggested three years ago). But they will not. Why? Because at the bottom, the Democratic party suffers from illiteracy, and at the top from arrogance and ignorance. I assume Biden could offer a hand to Sanders, but Bernie has ego matching Trump's. He would need a strong push from his base, but that is not going to happen.
And why, when marketing, are they stuck on the pictures of only two people - P, and VP? Joe and Bernie could announce their "shadow cabinet" (Harris for the Secretary of State, Booker for ..., etc.) and plaster all faces everywhere - WE ARE THE TEAM! Even Stalin has posters where he was the fourth - after Marx, Engels, and Lenin.
In
full disclosure, three years ago I wrote that Trump’s victory was the best
thing that happened to the Democrats, but the Democrats succeeded in proving me
wrong. Well, let’s hope that the Democrats aren’t people who – in order to
start thinking “outside of the bubble” –
need to be taught a hard lesson three or even more times.
Although,
who knows?
People
on the conservative side of politics do act like they are insane.
Democrats may not be immune to the insanity, as well.
Albert
Einstein said: “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different results is insanity”. And that is what the Democrats have been doing
so far for all three years.
In
three years after the loss, democrats did only two smart/visionary/boldly
things. The first was the initiation of the impeachment
hearings. And the second one just recently happened.
This
is what I wrote on July 6th, 2017 in my post Peering through the fog of
brainwashing: “Conservatives
have been quietly building up a brainwashing media machine. If
you think FOX News, or Breitbart – you are wrong. Those guys are not quiet. Think
Sinclair; and check
the latest John Oliver’s piece on it (https://youtu.be/GvtNyOzGogc). BTW:
what do Democrats do about it? Nothing. They do not have any vision.”
The
point was that republicans have been quietly building a propaganda machine on a
local level, not just via national broadcasting venues. And democrats did
nothing beyond screaming to each other from one national network to another
one. What’s the point of screaming if people who need to hear it do not even listen
to you?
But three days ago
my eyes caught this title: “The Left’s Plan To Counter Trump In Swing States:
Fake Newspapers”. If a right-wing paper uses a degrading or
dismissive language, it means they are scared, it means they know that whatever
they write about may matter, may make a difference. So, I checked it out.
Finally, a national level Democrat turned toward a local level news production.
If they have read my piece two years ago, they could have started earlier, but
better late than never. Probably, too late, but still, better than never.
It
also means, there is a chance that some top-level democrat may mull on the
winning strategy I have been explaining for three years. I know, it requires
such difficult actions like reading, thinking, and that takes time, and the
dominant acting stile (or ability?) is the opposite of that.
But, since things are not looking good for any Democratic candidate, maybe it’s
time to stop fidgeting and take a pause for the cause?
The
latest polls show no definite frontrunner among the Democratic candidates.
None. This can’t be good for the Democrats. It rises the uncertainty to the
dangerous level. Way too dangerous.
But
why did it happen? Why people cannot yet agree mostly on one person?
Because
the #1 quality people are looking for in a candidate is an ability to beat
Trump. And evidently, they do not see the one. They don’t see anyone who in
their eyes is strong enough to win. That is why they look for secondary
features – charisma , familiarity, age, proposals, etc. And everyone finds
something here and there, hence – no front-runner, everyone is good for someone.
Political
strategists, pundits, analysts, operators, donors think – let’s double-down on promoting
candidates, eventually people will choose the one. Of course, eventually it
will happen; someone will eventually get 50% + 1 vote on the convention. But as
I described before, there is no democratic candidate who can beat Trump in
2020.
But
there is a strategy that will bring the Democrats to the victory in 2020.
The
strategy is not about one specific candidate.
On
the contrary, because no candidate can win, the strategy has to be name-independent. This is when all political
strategists, pundits, analysts, operators, donors make an immediate decision
that I am insane. “It’s never about a strategy! It’s always about a candidate!
All we need is a good candidate!” And how has it been working out for you?
This
is my absolute belief.
Whoever democrat will
get the nomination on the convention will not be able to win – alone.
Democrats
want Trump removed, beaten, out.
Who
will do it is secondary. How it’ll be done is secondary.
Now,
hear me out. As the ultimate goal, “beating
Trump” is NOT the same as “wining the WH by my guy”. If this sentence
confuses you – retake 5th grade math (from a good teacher). If this sentence upsets you - Grow up!
“Beating
Trump” can only happen if (1) not only democrats will vote for a Democratic candidate, but (2) also un-enrolled, independent,
third party voters will vote against
Trump.
And
for that they – un-enrolled,
independent, third party voters – will need their own candidate.
Who?
Does
not matter as much as how will that candidate end his/her run.
One
possible scenario (there are many).
Democratic
convention is over. Whoever comes the second or third makes an announcement
that he/she will run as an independent.
Now I want to repeat my own words from another post: “Anyone who thinks that a third-party candidate can become the President is an idiot. But everyone who thinks that because of this the third-political party (including independents) is irrelevant is even a bugger idiot”.
So, this guy - who was not elected as a presidential contender, becomes an independent, runs as an independent and says:
Now I want to repeat my own words from another post: “Anyone who thinks that a third-party candidate can become the President is an idiot. But everyone who thinks that because of this the third-political party (including independents) is irrelevant is even a bugger idiot”.
So, this guy - who was not elected as a presidential contender, becomes an independent, runs as an independent and says:
“I
still believe that I am a better choice. And I will do my best to beat Donald
Trump. But I am not suicidal, and not an arrogant jerk. My Country is more
important for me than anything else. If I see that people do not support me as
much as needed for a victory. If I see that me running may help Trump to win, I
will step aside. But that will not happen until people will tell me to do so” (e.g. see my tweet at the end of this post).
And
about a month before the election day he/she steps aside and tells the
supporters: “We had a good run, we did everything we could to beat Trump. But
the odds are not in our favor. If we keep going, we may help Trump stay and we don’t want to have this on our conscious.
Let’s give all our votes to …”
Done.
However,
as I said before, there is almost no chance that Democrats would even consider
this scenario. For that they would need to have people who are smart,
visionary, bold, and powerful. And they don’t. That is why I can share this
strategy despite my own belief that Democrats are not ready to have the WH. On
another hand, if by a weird stroke of good luck, they will use my strategy and
win, there is a chance they will also be open to revise some of their economic
policies making those less extreme (how I described in several of my publications).
So, I want to vote for Donald Trump.
Will I vote for him?
So, I want to vote for Donald Trump.
Will I vote for him?
My
heart will not allow me to vote for such a person. My heart will stop me,
because I have a belief that the President of one of the most important
countries in the world should be a decent person. He or she should be
knowledgeable, educated, intelligent, smart, visionary and a decisive person, too. But above all
– decent. And Donald Trump is not. That is why my heart will make me vote
against him.
BTW: in 2020 primaries I voted for Sanders (again). He is not ready to be the President, but no Democrat is, anyway. Plus, as it clear now, he will not be the nominee. However, he still has a chance to make history.
Note: I believe that when Albert Einstein said what he said, he meant a different word, not “insanity”. He was just too polite to say “idiocy” or “stupidity”. Those both are terms with a specific clinical meaning. Insanity is acting against the reason, meaning, be able to reason but choosing not to follow it. Idiocy and stupidity are terms for describing people who (due to different reasons) are not capable of logical thinking.Idiocy means the ability to reason exist but one chooses not to use it (hence, inability to reason due to psychological reasons). Stupidity means inability to reason due to genetic or cultural reasons. The top of the Democratic party has been regularly demonstrating all three. They could not even to exploit a natural tendency of Americans to decency (at least of the undecided ones). For three years they should have been running a general campaign “Americans are decent people” - no political names, just making sure that terms “an American” and “a decadent person” would become synonymous. Then they should have started adding examples of decent actions by previous Presidents, imprinting the idea “the President is a decent persons”. And in 2020 - the next stage - “Trump is no a decent person”, thankfully, there are plenty of examples of that.
Note: I believe that when Albert Einstein said what he said, he meant a different word, not “insanity”. He was just too polite to say “idiocy” or “stupidity”. Those both are terms with a specific clinical meaning. Insanity is acting against the reason, meaning, be able to reason but choosing not to follow it. Idiocy and stupidity are terms for describing people who (due to different reasons) are not capable of logical thinking.Idiocy means the ability to reason exist but one chooses not to use it (hence, inability to reason due to psychological reasons). Stupidity means inability to reason due to genetic or cultural reasons. The top of the Democratic party has been regularly demonstrating all three. They could not even to exploit a natural tendency of Americans to decency (at least of the undecided ones). For three years they should have been running a general campaign “Americans are decent people” - no political names, just making sure that terms “an American” and “a decadent person” would become synonymous. Then they should have started adding examples of decent actions by previous Presidents, imprinting the idea “the President is a decent persons”. And in 2020 - the next stage - “Trump is no a decent person”, thankfully, there are plenty of examples of that.
Note:
My motto (one of several) says: “Be ready to the worst-case scenario, but be happy
if it doesn’t happen”. Climate change is happening but not everyone is on board
with it. Climate scientists and proponents blame climate change deniers for not
taking things seriously. For example, in a recent interview Noam
Chomsky said “With regard to the climate crisis, yes, it’s time
to panic. We are in deep trouble.” These should be the defining terms of the
2020 election”. What he and others do not realize that under the cloak of a climate
change denier there often may be hiding a climate change greeter, meaning, a person
who wants the climate to change in such a way that people would get hurt hard. In
“1984” George Orwell explains a meaning of a war as a tool for preserving a hierarchical
society. But a war is just one of the possible instruments for that. The
general term for any hierarchical social structure to be strong and “needed” is
“tough times”. Because “tough times” require “a strong hand”. The existence
of powerful people who sabotage any actions directed at slowing down climate changes
is my “worst-case scenario”. And I’m afraid, progressives, democrats do not
take this scenario into an account.
Note: What is the function of money?
Left or right, conservatives or democrats – they all give the same answer to
this question, not difference there. Money is the measure of purchasing power. Who
has more money can buy more stuff. Simple! The Federal Reserve may have its own
theory of economic development, and economists of progressive politicians may
push for another theory (MMT, for example), but their theories only differ by how to use money (different rules for
distribution), the fundamental basis is the same: money is the measure of purchasing
power. What is good about a theory, any theory – it’s a theory, meaning, people
wrote it. Anyone who had an encounter with science, any science, knows that
theories evolve. They have a structure and that structure may change. And
sometimes, a new theory replaces on old one. I believe, it is time to reexamine
the answer to the question about money. Money should be considered as the
measure for productive power. If money is used to just make more money it
violates its function. Unfortunately, this is how money has been seen for decades – just a source of
more money. This view distorts economy and skews it more and more in a
favor of people who already have more money. However, if money is the measure
of a productive power, it changes the criteria of how money is being used. It
also affects the rules of money distribution. For example, if money is
concentrated in one place, it negatively affects production in the form of
overproduction. There are many questions that may need to be revisited and the answers
to which may be revised.
For example:
Where does money come from?
Who, how and why decides how much money is needed to be printed?
What is the purpose of taxes?
Why do people have to work?
Do people have to work?
Where does money come from?
Who, how and why decides how much money is needed to be printed?
What is the purpose of taxes?
Why do people have to work?
Do people have to work?
How to establish the value of a person?
Who establishes the value of a person?
Is wealth and money the same thing?
How to decide what is a fair?
Who decides what is fair?
Is wealth and money the same thing?
How to decide what is a fair?
Who decides what is fair?