The North Korean System

ScottAdams blogged a very inspiring and creative solution to the Korean conflict crisis here.


How To Structure a Deal With North Korea

While it is thoughtful and reasonable, here is why it won't work. As a businessman, Scott doesn't have a rounded military experience to understand for international deal-making money isn't the end goal in most negotiations and for a powerful national organization real estate sits far lower on the list than strategic concerns. 

The smart media refers to North Korea as a regime - which literally means an authoritarian government.  It's important to understand why some words are different and why they matter.  Regime means something unique.   North Korea is a regime like an Italian mob is a mafia. Of course Italian American mobsters want to be known as businessmen, even if they are an "organized group using extortion and other criminal methods" - what businessman wouldn't want access to that kind of negotiation leverage? In either case, regime or mafia, there is a small group of powerful people operating by their own rules under a brutal code of conduct. While Scott comes up with some novel solutions that should work with reasonable people, this single factor is why Scott's novel deal conditions can't work; Scott's deal will make North Korea leadership look weak and lose face and that would undermine the "Kim Family System".

I like Scott Adams book, How to fail at almost everything and still win big, it's a good read for both enjoyment and to percolate some new ideas into your work ethos. In it, he explains one key money making technique is to have a system; a consistent pattern of doing things that ends up getting you ahead in life.

The Kim family set up post-war North Korea as a family-run brutal regime; ruling by fear of the evil Americans returning, and that the only salvation for the people is the mythically talented, and suspiciously mortal, Kim family.  You can tell it's a dictatorship because like every other regime they tell you they are democratic by putting "Democratic" and "People's"  in the nation's name ( Democratic People's Republic of Korea ) as if by telling you one thing negates the fact they act opposite.  But if you don't agree with them on this or any other point, they won't hesitate to unleash wild dogs or aim anti-aircraft guns at you. They even kill family members when it supports their goals - the family's not the peoples.

The Kim Family System - the system that keeps them in power and keeps them unkilled by the masses- is that only they can help North Korea defeat decadent Western enemies of South Korea, Japan, and the evil empire America. In return for their magnificence, the North Korean people must pledge absolute loyalty to the commands of the Kim family. Loyalty enforced by the dogs and guns aforementioned. Propaganda keeps up the pressure and the mythical abilities of the Kim family and their invincibility as the last salvation of the people. They restrict access to real information, control every aspect of life, and yes even restrict food supply to keep people from getting too happy and safe.  When the regime does fall, you will see the most angry hateful display of vengeance against any vestige of the regime. Those fat cats and autocrats that supported the Kim Family will be dragged through the streets worse than the most shameful displays from Somalia, and Iraq. For three generations, the people have suffered more at the hands of their benefactors than the enemy.

So long as the North Korea isn't attacked the Kim Family can keep claiming victory and keep ruling as they like. But in order for the scheme to be successful they need the real threat of impending war to keep doubters in check and resistance quelled. The Kim Family System won't survive peace, and prosperity. It's why they keep building nukes, it's why they run air raid drills, and it's why they shoot down US planes when they get the chance.  Grandfather and Father taught Kim Jong Un that the price of control is eternal savagery against their own people to protect the family legacy. To protect the Family System. In their minds, they are protecting the people from disaster - yet 60 years of no attack would make a reasonable person reconsider the utility of continuing this strategy. Secretly, the Kim Family System probably knows the US is occupied elsewhere but they can't let the threat disappear. Their safety depends on it.

My whole theory is backed up by Trump's bluff-blunder of extolling an "armada" approaching North Korean waters backed up by threatening talk, while the USS Carl Vinson was sailing in the wrong direction.  People who don't understand are focussing on the wrong events. Those working to make money off smearing Trump mocked him for his Mister Magoo-like precision in getting his facts wrong with a sprinkle of posturing silliness added for best effect. What makes my theory credible is that the Kim Family response to the armada was exactly as predicted if they operate like I claim; North Korea warned of a nuclear counter-strike against the United States if provoked. They held a big parade full of decoy missiles ( if you only have 20 nukes you don't put them all on display in one place you hide them in caves for a counter offensive). Then North Korea tried to launch a missile as a retaliation. It may have been defective or it may have been hacked, in any case that missile launch was symbolic. The Kim Family System gets to say, "See, we told you so, they are coming for your children - bravery comrades!", and continue to arm to defend the family interests.  North Korean newspapers sound more deluded than I could smear them:

“In the case of our super-mighty preemptive strike being launched, it will completely and immediately wipe out not only U.S. imperialists’ invasion forces in South Korea and its surrounding areas but the U.S. mainland and reduce them to ashes,” it said.

Sounds like someone else you may be familiar with threatening the "Mother of all battles"? How well did that go for him?


Trump's headfake - no matter what it's comical origin is - has exposed North Korea for what it really is - a REAL fascist regime in need of perpetual warmongering.



People can mock Trump for a rookie mistake, but young people today forget it was Eisenhower's bluff - the stated threat to use nuclear weapons in North Korea to prevent any more casualties in the Korean War, that probably started the Kim Family System down the dead-end path they are on now. The old people that could remind them are playing Canasta in retirement homes. Few Koreans even remember that time so they shouldn't be so quick to judgement. Americans have had their back for 60+ years.

The best course of action for Trump is to let China try to handle the problem - to save face - and if and when that fails do one of two things: tactical strike to kill Kim Jong Un and/or impose 50% tariffs on Chinese goods UNTIL North Korea dismantles their nuclear arms and program. He could even give China the choice of which they want. Let them fail and then pointedly act because time is running out.  If the Kim Family System ever gets threatened internally they won't hesitate to distract their own people by sending them to annihilation in a war. But in a regime no one can act without approval of the boss, otherwise they turn the dogs and guns on you. While Kim Jong Un's men claim they would carry out his dying orders I doubt that, they live in a world where lying to the boss is how you survive. Few Americans have lived in a post-Communist regime as I did for six months - they don't understand that under Communism it's Orwellian double think that keeps their sanity. North Korea and North Korean leadership especially doesn't want a war either as they would end up losing everything they have. As with most strongmen Kim's family has killed all potential rivals so the moment he is dead, like Tito, North Korea will descend into a political vaccuum, infighting, and maybe civil war.

Even if they believe that America wants a war they are in precarious times. Fresh in the mind of the struggle victor would be how he got his job. And the old boss just pissed off China by not cooperating, maybe China won't answer the call to arms.  As far as I can tell Premier Xi Jin Ping is a smart leader, that plays in favour of a decisive move after all real diplomatic means are exhausted and leaves him to return the insult at the end to North Korea. How likely could North Korea beat South Korea? Even they know they wouldn't last long with all the nuclear missiles incoming.

The way to solve this Gordian knot is with the sword, after the pen.

How #Trump won

How #Trump Won

For those of you still catching up to reality of President-elect @realDonaldTrump, let me (as someone that predicted his victory in August 2015) enlighten you to how it really happened (vice how he did it which is false because he did not know he was going to win until late in the campaign). I will make a two page argument based on objective outside observation. I favored neither Trump nor Clinton and I argued they were both dangerous candidates. I hoped @GovGaryJohnson would make the debate stage and then at least have a chance at winning.

The first question to address is can you win if you lose popular vote? This is the stupidest question; popular vote versus electoral college is pointless until election law is changed. If you win the electoral college you win, no special mention nor extra value to winning the vote total. That is how you win. Remember the Clinton campaign mocking Trump's misunderstanding of how to win, they should have heeded their own advice. They didn't make swing states a priority. The goal of an electoral college is to prevent New York and California from deciding all elections. If you live outside these two areas you want to make sure large population centres, and all the big city priorities, don't swamp other concerns. State electoral voting demands that candidates make every state a part of the strategy rather than allowing them to ignore flyover states.

Consider all the possible, if somewhat far fetched, election outcomes against a crude timeline. If you make a matrix of all possible outcomes like so:

Candidate	Decided during Primary	Decided before Nov 8	Decided on Nov 8
Trump
Clinton
Johnson
Stein

And you consider the most likely reasons for candidate choice:

Candidate	For Candidate	Against Opponent	Change vice Status Quo
Trump
Clinton
Johnson
Stein

You don't need to fill them in, just consider how the results align with these possible causes. The reason for the timing as in primary, before election day, and on election day considers the impact of media, scandals, coverage, debates and so on as the likely turning points for people to decide which they would vote for. These are arbitrary and fuzzy but generally align with major information thresholds. The people that decided earliest had the least information, the people that decided later had the most. Did having more information change the result? Both sides expected revelations against the other candidate would change the outcome. The election outcome suggests that both GOP and DNC solidified large portions of the electorate that decided on one candidate early. But that wasn't the difference.

The deciding factor was disenfranchised voters returned to politics, unemployed/desperate needed change, or otherwise opponents of the status quo wanted change. The preponderance of new voters went to Trump. It was people that turned off politics over many years that realized there was a real chance for change with a candidate that owed no debts to anyone. He proposed economic relief and policy restructuring – even without detail – that convinced enough voters he might change the status quo. That was the election decision. Logically, more people decided, in the primaries, to vote Trump than decided to vote Clinton. That included voters that don't partake in elections in general that changed behaviour because this election was different. Information didn't matter and as I describe below information against Trump didn't work for this very reason. They didn't care what he did or said, they convinced themselves with the LEAST information that he was the best chance for change. Does the proposition that normal/average people decided with the least information at the earliest moment and then stubbornly defended their choice sound more or less likely than alternatives? To me, this is the simplest explanation.

This explanation fits the most possible outcomes and the events leading up to the election; most voters decided early. Without Gov. Gary Johnson or Dr. Jill Stein on the debate stage to alter the visibility / give attention to 3^rd party alternatives the vote came down to who wanted change over who wanted status quo. Both Trump and Clinton negative ratings negated each other just like most of the scandals. Neither is pious nor perfect.

The fact that famous, even pious people like the @Pontifex, people took turns insulting or criticizing @realDonaldTrump and all those pleadings did not change the outcome means that liberals did not anticipate all outcomes nor did they understand voters. The Clinton campaign truly believed they had won, in part because they were taking biased / skewed samples, but also because they deluded themselves into thinking they COULD change enough voters to win. 

There was no chance of that. That is the reward for hubris!

What really happened was most voters in the electoral majority, most average normal voters, believed and could see first hand from a lack of good paying jobs, that the USA needed to change directions. They were paying too high a price for globalization and the evidence is ready for all to see: the empty rusting factories that used to give voters a good living. In fact, "change voters" have been voting for hope and change since at least George Bush II. Bush II was the new sheriff in town, a street smart governor that wasn't a beltway insider. He promised them a stop to globalization, to make economic changes that kept jobs, but instead got distracted by 9/11 and wars. The same with Obama over McCain and Romney. He was the hope and change candidate. The underlying belief is that the rules aren't fair and the people wanted globalization to stop, if that means trade wars and tariffs then so be it.

The point is Obama, Bush, and now Trump were the more plausible change candidates than their opponents. This is a direct rebuke of free trade policy. Capitalism is choking as it swallows the world and these victims of the rise and fall of prosperity wanted another change November 8 2016, a promised dropped 16 years in a row by other promisers.

Most of the normal, average voters must have decided on Trump early on. The way that famous person after famous person failed to dent Trump's popularity, the way that $1.2 billion Clinton marketing did nothing to sway voters, it means that simple people whom decided for Trump felt shame or anger about their choice when it was rubbed in their faces. Whenever something embarrassing or ridiculous was revealed about Trump they took it PERSONALLY that the accuser was insulting them for being allied to Trump. They were being personally mocked for their choice. That made them even angrier and more determined, Trump supporters were like rabid dogs whereas Clinton supporters – because she is an odious candidate despite the varnish – were like fickle cats. Clintonites were not sanguine enough about their choice to match that level, including cheated / defeated Sanders supporters that felt (rightly) betrayed by the Democratic party. The delicious irony is, the more that sanctimonious elites lined up with Clinton, the more President +BarackObama talked, the more Bush-era apparatchiks lined up with Clinton, the more media made fun of Trump's many failings, the more comics and actors mocked Trump, it was all electing Trump in the process and demoralizing Clinton supporters at the same time. How could this buffoon even be in the running Clintonites thought, and yet the roots of their hubris lie in the fact they were so quick to judge, so quick to dismiss normal voters, that they did not attack the most important economic assumptions of Trump. 

Clintonites were too busy yelling “Racist!”, “Hitler!”, “Sexist!”, and “Misogynist!” (why they would hurl this one for normal voters who probably don't know the definition, this by itself proves their disconnection). Some of these attacks didn't even make sense to Clinton supporters. The power of their attacks dropped as they repeated them. It made decided voters LESS likely to change their minds.  Doubling down on more baseless personal attacks made themselves worse off. It was like struggling with a boa constrictor; the more you writhe the more the coils expose your weaker spots and the deeper becomes the pull of death. The voters were angry at the elites, at the Clintons, at the Obamas, at the media so more proved detrimental.

The Clinton campaign was in a death spiral from May 2016 and no one was brave enough to warn the boss. All this loss proves is that if she can't even get this right, she wasn't a good candidate in the first place and the world is better off without her.

Add to that the appalling lack of integrity of pollsters to bias the very polls they were taking, and there was no way to realize how wrong the establishment was. The “hidden” Trump voters were in plain sight but tired of the mockery from media. They stayed silent or lied about their choice because the media were nonstop nonsense and voters were sick of intrusion and condescension.

This interpretation fits with Professor Norpoth's model that predicted Trump would win based on the primary results. The primaries are the biggest sample poll run before the election so therefore a better determinant than daily sub sub sampling. The radical difference in  Trump's versus Clinton's primary numbers were all that was needed to predict the outcome no matter what self-interested political people tell you. That was the indicator of new / returning voters that wanted change.

The only way to change the outcome was if +GovGaryJohnson would have made the debate stage. He would have sounded like a sane alternative to the two hated candidates and might have tipped the balance to a tie and into a Congress-determined Libertarian victory.

Hard Truth to the MSNBC power - this is why Trump won.

Finally a MSM pundit is able to break through the bullshit, the fake outrage, the, "racist", and "misogynistic" smears of the left denialists and explain why middle America voted against the establishment and for a real change.  Ignore the spin.

People didn't vote for Trump because he is polished, they voted for him because he isn't varnished - he sees the plight and had a credible shot at taking on the oligarchs.  A man outside the plutocracy they could rely on to NOT be diplomatic.

Someone that could deliver a thermonuclear enema to Washington DC the way that DC policies had decimated Middle America.

"At the heart of every major political upheaval lies a fiscal revolution,"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/brexit-political-economy-lessons-1.3655931

"At the heart of every major political upheaval lies a fiscal revolution," Piketty wrote.

 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/unlike-marx-thomas-piketty-wants-to-save-capitalism-don-pittis-1.2652404

People wonder why #Trump is winning even though he is just as odious as #Clinton. Most people don't understand that most things we go along with, which we believe are in our best interests, are things revolving around money. Even if we convince ourselves it isn't, we keep one eye on the prize because short of life and death it's the one thing we know is certain: the need to get and use resources affects every aspect of our lives.

Trump is offering to turn Wall Street over, which really means massive debt spending, and most voters are that desperate they want to believe him.

At 11:07PM, #DonaldTrump became weaponized

I watched the Fox News "Townhall" for #DonaldTrump hosted by Sean Hannity yesterday, and at 11:07 the candidate became weaponized.

What I say was a raw raw cheer show organized by obviously biased interests - letting people speak exactly how long their scripted responses were timed to last, I saw flags and freedom and all the stuff that appeals to emotions. I saw modified policies that made more sense and seemed more reasonable. And it was all aimed at Clinton.

And then I saw the most shocking, most eventual, galvanized, weaponized, worst thing of all: a reasonable-sounding Trump. Of course the transformation has been coming a long time, but he's now weaponized - his calm and demeanor attached to real facts about Clintons now make his effective range far greater and his denial-piercing attacks unstoppable against Clinton.

Clinton supporters are like fickle friends, they are going to hold their noses and vote in fear of Trump. +Dilbert Scott Adams is voting Clinton for his safety. But if she wavers too much or gets a political body blow they may just sit on the sidelines rather than vote. They will think their position will ride out 4 years.

Trump supporters are like rabid dogs. They won't just get in your face and yell at you to vote they might try to use your hand to vote for their guy if they could.

I predicted before +Dilbert Scott Adams that Trump would win. But what I see now makes it more likely he won't just win, he's going to paste her into a dark smoking spot on the carpet.

Here are the factors behind this prediction:

1. Trump listened to angry voters and adopted their causes.
2. Trump is malleable yet acceptable to Christian Conservatives. He is malleable and that also appeals to Centrists who just want results.
3. Trump was all over the map and people didn't care.
4. The fact Trump is more idealogically Democratic makes him less scary and more acceptable to people that just want jobs. Democrats may think they are winning but Clinton is more odious to right wingers than Trump is to left wingers. Polls are off ( see below).
5. Trump's elliptical and plain speaking teflon-coated him against media salvos.
6. Both Trump and Clinton are accomplished liars - that's a wash with most voters.
7. Trump's got angry on his side.
8. Trump has hidden voters - lots of people won't tell a pollster but they are voting for him. 
9. Trump has new voters - the previous polls and number don't account for this and any poll of 1000 people is meaningless because they don't account for skewed reality, and those pollsters are lying.
10. The DNC has been lying about their primaries numbers.  Go back to Iowa, go back to the first state before the hysteria and before things got serious. The DNC and RNC reported the same numbers. And yet look at social media, look at rallies, and look at how many more voters turned up for Trump. It's impossible they rallied the same number, it's unlikely they had that many people when Trump had not even won one state. He was a phantom threat no one took seriously, remember?  When the DNC went second, they lied- they ginned their numbers - to make them even with Trump. They are so lost now they are lying as much to themselves as the public.    Big mistake.
11. To my surprise, the Clinton team went straight into buying and using TV commercials right after the conventions. Why? Because they are seeing numbers far far worse than what's reported. Because they wanted to shape the conversation and define their opponent. They thought it would work - they used the right strategy and right messaging. All executed perfectly.  And - and this gets better - all that money is moving the needle zero. Why? Because it can't make a dent. Clinton needs to be ahead so far she can survive a mistake in the debates. But that's not appeared. That money didn't buy her a chance.

So here comes weaponized Trump.

While Clinton seems to think she's been smarter, calling Trump a racist and  unstable instead of driving home issues that's about to change.  The problem is that off-handed divisiveness plays to the same people that are in denial of reality, they think those arguments are making a dent. Are they?

Clinton has set herself up for total failure: her campaign made this about how capable she is: she's the most experienced, more venerable, more grandmotherly, more nuanced candidate than Trump. They have framed Trump as not capable.

But if anything goes wrong, if she makes one mistake then she can't make that bar she just set for herself.

If riots continue, if the stock market crashes, if the terrorists attack on US soil her capability is tied right to the Obama White House. If she stumbles her words or - god forbid - refuses to answer those same straight questions about her corruption, her emails, her servers, etc. in a debate he will catch her in a lie and she will be done.

Her bar of credibility is set way, way high. Trump's bar is set at he reads from a teleprompter and stays on message. The right wing party of Canada (Conservatives) tried this in the last election and lost handily to a non-capable guy that showed up with his tie on straight. This strategy is not going to win you anything if you frame yourself as fully capable like that, but if your opponent exceeds the non compos mentis bar you've made the argument for him.

What if Trump looks like a reasonable manager? What then? You don't think Trump who's managed lots of workers for many years can't show up and look respectable for a 1 hour debate?

And worse, worse is that Clinton is an amoral liar that avoids all reasonable questions about her corruption; her standard response is it's all part of a smear campaign from the right. She and Bill have been besmirched for their many tireless deeds of the poor and downtrodden. She has been persecuted, not that's she's done wrong. This might play to her voters, but will it play to reasonable centrist voters?  NO. The electorate is far larger and more mainstream than either the GOP or the DNC.

Look at Clinton Foundation tax returns they spend more on travel than they do on charities. It's not going to take long to expose her corruption. She hasn't held a news conference because she can't handle the questions. The drip drip drip water torture of corruption is going to start spilling out. What exactly does she think those debates are going to be?

In sum, Clinton is going to lose and lose big. There is only one way to stop Trump now, and that's if enough people switch from Hillary to Governor Gary Johnson and maybe that will stop the tide of misfortune that comes next.

I am posting on Twitter

Some people may find even shorter discourse interesting.  I find a challenge in compressing many complicated ideas in a single tweet. Most professional people / professionals are not very good at it. Trump is the worst.

If you want some stylistic tips to emulate, here is my Twitter handle. Read how much I can cram in a tweet that's writing practice.

https://twitter.com/daemondave

I will follow you back!

Pax Trumpiana: How Dr. Paul Krugman has it backwards

I read this article, Pax Trumpiana by Dr. Paul Krugman, and I replied with a comment at the bottom.

My comment was not approved by the reviewers, so to anyone wondering if the New York Times is more democratic that Russian Television - which also removed my offensive comments - don't kid yourself. They censor ideas that offend them just as much.  It's a wonder Liberals claim Trumpians are dogmatic when they can't avoid that label themselves.

These sentences are a paraphrase of what I wrote since I thought they would be used:

Dr. Krugman you have it backwards, and normally I don't expect to say that about your viewpoints, generally I agree with them.

Most economic-political problems in the Western World are not a result of America acting as a non-Roman power, they exist precisely because America doesn't act exactly like an Imperial power. To conquer and crush opponents means they are removed political dynamics from the power struggle. Vanquished leave the field and that brings peace and stability because they are no longer contestants. To partially-defeat enemies - in a "civilized" way - means to allow the remains to fester and foment which lengthens the struggle immensely. As we see every day now with radical islamic terrorists. America is too smart by half expecting hating enemies to just retire after defeat - they just wait it out and reconstitute.

The problem is America is a Schizophrenic Empire - that oscillates from isolationist to imperialist and back - wreaking havoc for allies and enemies alike all in the name of "progress". You are the architects of your own tragedy. When America realizes - as it once did - to stamp out and defeat real enemies totally means to bring lasting peace.

A Sociopath as President

So I've been AWOL from blogging as I explore Twitter as another media outlet one can use/abuse/misuse your time with. I find it hilarious that people follow you/ unfollow you based on one -often too short - 144 character idea. It is a demonstration of the fatuousness and shallow wisdom of the average person that can hear one unfavourable idea, not chew it over for the real deeper meaning, and reflect on the reality within which that idea was presented, and thus reject the speaker outright. When I read other people's ideas, the last thing I am is dismissive.  If you are that shallow, I can assure you any great thoughts you think you have are no deeper than a kiddie wading pool.

“Great minds think alike, small minds rarely differ”

On Twitter, as here, I have posited from a state of objectivity towards US presidential candidates my views on both Hillary Clinton@HillaryClinton and Donald J Drumpf /@realDonaldTrump . In each of them, I see a looming disaster for the rest of us on the planet. That disaster comes from the very nature of their sociopathy and their personal pre-emption to others' needs. They have no problem lying to get what they want, and they will sleep well at night whether they succeed or not. That is concerning.

If you want to understand what I find so alarming about both major candidates, read this

Andrew Newton's :Sociopaths – Ten Tell Tale Signs

and tell me if they aren't worrying.  I predicted Trump would win before +Dilbert Scott Adams  because I saw how effectively Trump cleaved workers from the status quo Democrats. He did his research- or had research done by smarter people - that exploited the FoxNewsTruthiness angst.

Even stalwart leftists like Michael Moore now see the writing on the wall:

Clinton has lost and doesn't even realize it. She is sleepwalking into disaster; assuming her massive self-worth is so redeeming that most dumb bastards will agree with her.

The main problems I see with Trump are: he is a thin-skinned reactionary that has been sheltered from real performance disaster by wilful better people so much that he overestimates his own worth. Trump would start a war he didn't prepare for and he wouldn't suffer the indignity of failure. Therein lies hubris.  Remember the fever to war in Iraq, remember the buyer's remorse and the disaster afterwards. Hysteria feels great, the consequences not so much. Many Trump supporters will rue the day.

The main problems I see with Hillary Clinton; she is a self-important amoral liar more obsessed with self-image so much that the taint of failure will be obliterated along with the poor hapless victims in the way. The cost to others may be incalculable but she is certain she won't bear it. Clinton supporters are blinded to what they accept along with the candidate. Clinton would use a war to avoid admitting she made a mistake. How the Clintons conned the Left I will never understand.

I can't help it, this is what I see when Clinton speaks:

Neither is a bright hope for change.

After many months, I would much rather see https://twitter.com/GovGaryJohnson @GovGaryJohnson as the president because I think he has the right mix of policies and sanity that won't make a bad situation worse. The USA needs to be a stabilizing force and not a destabilizer. 

Back to my main thesis;  I need to make clear that doesn't mean in total I don't agree with the idea of a sociopath being the president.  That's right, because I've lived in the real world long enough to know the job of a societal leader is to be willing to make choices no sane human being can make because the decision requires what is in the best interest of a wider need, the need of a people. Human emotions are the enemy of tough decisions. Sociopaths are free from that empathy that might distract and defeat a people.

I will give you an example I've used before of a president I admire greatly. I will introduce him by reputation first and then by name.
Here is an excerpt from his wikipedia page:

_____________'s main goals in office were to keep pressure on the Soviet Union and reduce federal deficits. In the first year of his presidency, he threatened the use of nuclear weapons in an effort to conclude the Korean War; his New Look policy of nuclear deterrence prioritized inexpensive nuclear weapons while reducing funding for conventional military forces. He ordered coups in Iran and Guatemala. _____________ gave major aid to help France in Vietnam. He gave strong financial support to the new nation of South Vietnam. Congress agreed to his request in 1955 for the Formosa Resolution, which obliged the U.S. to militarily support the pro-Western Republic of China in Taiwan and continue the isolation of the People's Republic of China.

It seems from first glance this was a bloodthirsty sort of man, a Dracula, willing to inflict the severest indignity upon defeated foes, that he would annihilate groups of men in a nuclear explosion as a "cheaper" way to avoid casualties. Intimidating enemies with assured destruction like hanging the severed heads and mutilated bodies as a warning to their kin of what horrors one finds when they enter this foreign dukedom. This leader seems a narcissistic despot, a Hitler-like vanity, slaying foes for the sake of his new Reich.


Take away the name from the strategy, history, and accomplishments and to any sane person it would appear the man at the centre (given that in 1955 a woman president was unthinkable) is true tyrannical villainy. I doubt you realized he warned people he was prepared to use nuclear weapons, but back in that day it was not seen as abhorrent conduct but a means to saving many soldiers' lives, and he was dedicated to that end with all he had done in WWII.

Eisenhower

I do not claim to know whether or not Eisenhower was a sociopathic type personality. I doubt it. I would extrapolate that as a soldier that knew and endured and regretted many unspeakable tragedies in pursuit of total victory in WWII Europe, he was made to act in this manner. He learned what wins in war. I like to think it was for him, like most soldiers, the pragmatism of utility hard learned in battle that makes one act as if incapable - to the outside world - of feeling for those that sacrifice. And those vanquished. A man capable of ordering good people to their death without concern and without regret. Order them to sacrifice one does in pursuit of society's goals. That cannot be indistinguishable - by deed alone - from any other single-minded sociopath.

And while Clinton and Trump have all the psychological traits that might make them practical stand-ins for the job, does anyone think they will be as great as an Eisenhower?

The fundamental difference between these two and Eisenhower comes down to a simple factor: Eisenhower was not in it for anything other than serving the people. His people. His stubborn ruthlessness in war was driven by his singular main purpose; to defeat enemies of American interests no matter what the cost.

But if either Trump or Clinton cannot rise to the level of an Eisenhower, then should you risk handing them the keys to the kingdom? Think of all the other ways they might wreak havoc amongst their own people?

The sane choice this election is https://twitter.com/GovGaryJohnson @GovGaryJohnson.

So the Americans aren't the only fed-up antiglobalization people...

This is a warning sign for voters in the USA, and especially the ruling plutocrat class.  The people that started the globalization movement - the people of the British Empire and then the people of the American Empire surrogate - are not benefiting enough from continuing the free and "fair" trade treaties with allies and poorer nations. That's basically the truth, it is hard to stay rich when your work can be done cheaper by cheaper workers in cheaper and cheaper nations.

I am reminded of what Adam Smith stated in  The Wealth of Nations:

“The interest of [businessmen] is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public ... The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ... ought never to be adopted, till after having been long and carefully examined ... with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men ... who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public”

The people are fed up with losing ground, while corporations reap bigger profits. The businessmen eventually lose to the will of the people This sounds doom for complacency and the status quo.

Yet one more reason why Trump will win.

Certain Words mean Certain Things

It was my august infantry instructor who commanded that we understand what words mean (by august he meant venerable not regal).  After all, you don't want someone setting up an ambush if you said delaying position because that implies two different things. It is important in society to spend as much time understanding the words people use as much as it is to spend time.

His credo was, "certain words mean certain things". I altered that slightly to consider and understand the definitions of words so I can understand better what people meant.

I just wrote a blog post calling Clinton and Obama plutocrats. Here is the wiktionary word definition - not meaning because people can intend many meanings.

plutocrat ‎(plural plutocrats)
Someone who rules by virtue of his or her wealth.

In this revealing article below, it explains why that applies to Democrats;

Thomas Frank on How Democrats Went From Being the ‘Party of the People’ to the Party of Rich Elites Democrats have gone from the party of the New Deal to a party that is defending mass inequality.

Today's Democrats are the party of professional, well-off, elites and not of labor. They went to school and that's how they got ahead. In their mind, everyone should go to school like they did and they will succeed.  Job seekers today know different.  While they intend that everyone can get to the top if they go to school, the reality is they can't all make it. That makes them plutocrats because they believe they got their by earning it in a meritocracy; which in reality was part other factors including luck.   I could have called them oligarchs but that's an even less used term and it makes me sound more gauche and elitist. Nothing is further from the truth.

Now, I don't use big words to demean people that don't know them, this is not an ego trip. I use the words because they fit the pattern and behavior of the person or thing I am commenting on.  I am an INTJ on the Briggs-Meyer test, a mastermind, I describe things accurately to make sense of my world. But I also learn the words. Rather than spending time on emotional reactions, I go and look up the new word people used I don't know and then think carefully about how that applied to the situation at hand.

So go and look up words it's never cheaper and easier at wiktionary. And if you stare at Obama and Clinton long enough, you will not say that annoying person didn't know what he was talking about, you will realize there was a specific reason why that word was used. And whole new worlds will open up to you, as you increase your deeper understanding.

Certain words mean certain things.

Who made Donald Trump? CNN

Who made Donald Trump into a media monster? CNN did. 

When the story about the Libertarian Party frames the Libertarian party as an "also ran" alternative to the main parties of Democrats and Republicans, this demonstrates they have lost all objectivity and credibility.  The observer bias is obvious when they use the power of persuasion, suggesting that there is no chance for an alternative, to impugn a party instead of presenting them fairly.

Who says people in a democracy need to vote for one of two options? Like Coke or Pepsi, even when there are plenty of other soft drink makers, they are not the only choice.  If only one of the two main parties wins, one could easily say why didn't the loser party run they didn't have a shot at winning either.

It underlines just how biased the reporting is that it can't treat alternatives fairly. Roger Stone has argued that CNN is pro-Clinton, but you can't argue that and agree with the coverage of Trump as well. They have been far too trusting of both parties and their rhetoric. They presume the answers before the questions, and they spend more time monologuing their opinions rather than holding the candidates to account.  CNN and other corporate news teams made Trump by not making clear fair reporting. They have abrogated their responsibility to voters by treating the important role of government as a profit driven entertainment story. They don't want Trump to be president, but they can't help themselves because they have lost all perspective.

Then comes an alternative that gives a third option, one that essentially combines the two majority viewpoints of left and right in a different way - the libertarian fiscally conservative and socially liberal party not like the other two, and the news media will not give them the same fair hearing.

Maybe the Republicans and Democrats need to sit out an election cycle. Maybe that is what they need to do for the good of their parties.  The establishment has so totally corrupted the parties that an outsider like Trump can win because the majority don't trust the establishment.

#WhatDeliciousIrony

#WhatDeliciousIrony: #DonaldJTrump encircles #HillaryClinton

How unfortunate Clinton is unaware she has been encircled...Billionaire Donald Trump is appealing to the masses by suggesting he might re-negotiate debt with US Federal creditors.  When you look at who actually owns the American debt, it may shock you to learn it is fellow Americans more than any other.

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/10/news/economy/us-debt-ownership/index.html

This means hedge funds, state workers pension funds, teacher's pensions funds, private professional citizens like doctors and lawyers who have spare cash, wealthy Americans, rich politicians, and so on.  In other words, those that are doing well in American society. The establishment owes and owns the nation's debt. Not China. Not Japan. Americans to Americans.

Now Hillary Clinton, millionaire (sorry multi-millionaire), must defend the haves of American society, the status quo, the decaying economy, and those that have money in the USA from the poor masses and one smart billionaire.

Exactly whom is she fighting for? The working poor are doing worse and the middle class is disappearing...

The majority of American households feel poorer because they are poorer. Real (i.e. adjusted for inflation) median household income has declined for decades, and income gains are concentrated in the top 5%:
Read more at http://www.maxkeiser.com/2016/05/no-wonder-were-poorer-wages-share-of-gdp-has-fallen-for-46-years/#mOTY31Qzi7moyco1.99

http://www.maxkeiser.com/2016/05/no-wonder-were-poorer-wages-share-of-gdp-has-fallen-for-46-years/

As if proving the point, Donald J Trump draws even with Clinton and November is 6 months away...

Trump / Putin Alliance to take on Islam

As Russians endorse Trump's policy speech more than Americans do, and Putin favours a willing partner,  it is entirely possible that this is the moment that radical Islam has a true enemy; one that isn't half-hearted in approach and merciless in response to savagery.  The USA hoped for a real partner in Europe, and perhaps it has an ally in the form of a former enemy.


As the proxy backers in the Middle East, all sides would be put on notice.

If so, Saudi Arabia and Iran must consider long and hard how they operate in the future. 

#PlayingIntoTrumpsHands Bill Maher is playing right into Trump's hands

If #DonaldTrump is a Democratic plant, then is #BillMaher a crypto-supporter of Donald Trump? 

This is exactly what Bill Maher should be saying if he wants to elect Donald Trump. All those stupid American voters that don't agree with Bill Maher on a good day will turn around and vote against a dictation from the left.  Maher thinks he is supporting #Clinton, but what's he's actually doing is making political ads for Trump.  The people that attack Trump lose, the Pope (Il Papi), President Obama, George Bush, Jeb Bush, Barbara Bush, and so on.  Hasn't he been paying attention.

When Trump responds "If Mexico doesn't want to pay for the wall, then the wall just got 10 feet taller" and the crowds cheer it means that emotion and not reason is driving his popularity Meeting anger with insults is fuel on the fire. So Bill Maher if you really don't want #TheFullTrumpian, then stop insulting the Republican base.

Stark language leads to stark contrasts in politics.

Political correctness is the enemy of free choice; language meant to deaden emotional reaction also dampens the distinction between choices.

I just read Bring on the Mud, by Christopher Hitchens describing the 2004 Kerry - Bush election times.  Hitchens reminds us of the value of political antagonism in more than entertainment value is to make the choices of alternatives - even between no choice alternatives - as clearer through distinction. 

So while we may recoil at the hysterical language and insults, bringing out the real intent from hidden language is the goal as well.

Trump knows how to manipulate people

#DonaldJTrump does not know how to build walls and buildings; he knows how to fund them. He didn't get ahead by writing laws; he bought politicians. He didn't study and research all the building codes and regulations; he hired people to do that for him. He doesn't know how to run a TV show; he lets people set it up for him.

Trump knows how to manipulate people.

In this video Matt Lewis points out how Trump mimics Mussolini's body language and Matt proposes that Trump must have studied demagogues.

Trump is an expert on using people, not knowledge, personal skill, or other qualities. He has tapped into anger the right way and he is slowly pushing people towards a deal: his deal.

Early on when Trump was brash and rude, he was going for attention and he was so successful the other candidates got no air.  Even today, the media asks every candidate what Donald would do rather than treating them individually. It must be insufferable for other candidates they can't be judged on their own merits without a comparison to only one candidate. It must be debilitating to get pushed off message by what they thought about what Donald J Trump was doing.

This situation seems to confound the politicians and the media but they don't understand they are being manipulated to get Trump what he wants. He is rude but they still cover him.  He is offensive but his opponents still respond to what he is doing. They don't understand how popularity works. He does.

Remember, Trump had two dry runs on presidential races. He has watched the media and learned how to work them. He watched the voters and how disaffected they became. He gave many interviews over the years. When he says he could shoot someone dead in the street and people would still support him he is not joking his intuition is correct.

WE laughed at him last time and didn't take him seriously because he stepped down last time. That is why people couldn't accept Trump the idea and Trump the leader.

Trump started out being outrageous on purpose to get the attention. He knew the media have become sensation whores that can't help themselves losing perspective and covering beyond the pale rhetoric. They all did what he wanted and turned towards him. And now they are in a ratings bonanza and can't help themselves because for once cable news about politics is getting massive ratings. They are Trump-locked on high volume campaign rhetoric. They have turned ridiculous up to eleven. They can't stop even if they wanted to so now they are attacking Trump for his hysterics but not for their own lack of objectivity. They even make money attacking other journalists for their unprofessionalism.

Back when he started, voters listened to the loudest voice that was displaying their frustration. He said things they accepted despite the nonsense because they wanted a change and wanted a different kind of person.  Trump is not a politician, he is a business man and that appeals as successful; he gets things done. They don't think Trump is actually going to bomb ISIS's families but whatever he does it's better than what the politicians are proposing. They see it as rhetoric; just like the lies politicians tell them so why is the media so shocked?

I thought to myself Trump was either a moron or a genius.  When he started tirades I thought he is either clever or he's going to do himself in within a month.  The factor that makes me suspect he is playing a strategy is that he has started to soften his language. I thought back in August 2015, if he comes out strong and then moderates his ideas with more reasonable sounding language he is playing for time against the general election. He knows that when the real race begins people will have forgotten the sound bites and silly quotes. That's old news. By the time November arrives he will be into policies and out of nonsense.

Stephen Colbert knows a hell of a lot more about playing a demagogue on TV. He understands the media, he understands the public. He plays to them and is popular with them night after night. He thinks Trump will be the nominee.

This campaign works because he has become so popular that attacking him causes voters to rally behind him. It reinforces the narrative that if people are attacking Trump; then even Obama and the Pope don't get that attacking him is the worst idea.

Trump's support is actually increasing despite his negative ratings, that should tell you more about his strategy than anything else.  The longer this campaign goes, the more rational he will morph. He may not win but he played a very good game, with a winning strategy.

Why #DonaldTrump is winning, and why Clinton's won't win against #DonaldTrump

Roger Stone was an ascerbic outspoken dilettante the first time I saw him on CNN.  Then I read some of his work on The Stone Zone and some of his books.  He has a real inside view of US politics.  And he has real insight into Trump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwrLsqXgir4

If you want to know why Trump is winning but defies all the pollsters and pundits, it is because they are all playing from a pro-Clinton viewpoint; they allow Clinton to get away with claiming she is pro-women but not address her record.  At the same time, Clinton claims she is pro-minority but she and Bill Clinton enacted the laws that put more minorities in jail for non-violent drug crimes.

What is interesting about the Clinton attacks on Trump, is that they are trying to shift the problems onto Trump ("he is a racist, he is a misogynist") whereas it is the Clintons that have a proven record - public policy and track record - of anti-women and anti-minority behaviour.

Roger Stone even lays out the direct strategy to defeat Clinton.

I don't follow most of Alex Jones because he's not that bright nor insightful, perhaps because he's overly scratchy and overly common, but Roger Stone had some interesting points in this video below.

Clinton has just completed a political role reversal.

Clinton has just adopted a strategy that takes on the viewpoint of Republicans, while at the same time Trump is the change agent demanding to wreck the Republican establishment and take back the government for the disenfranchised. 

Clinton has just proclaimed that most things are good in the nation and she will work to break down barriers as a minor change to the status quo.

Trump is bent on crushing the current status quo and making America great again.

Clinton is running as a Republican. Trump is running as a Democrat.  The cycle is complete.

The Pope proves fallibility and overreach are his prerogative.

While Pope Francis exudes charm and grace, at the core he's still deluded by a sense of otherworldly grandeur.  His job description is the Vicar of Christ on Earth, so anything he does should be preconsidered against "what would Jesus do?" and not riffed with popular intent.

His latest attack at a temporal figure Donald J Trump, while seen as justified by faithful throngs, demonstrated just how far power goes to the head, even in an infallible and pious person like a Pope. The Pope knows that scoring on a pious politician - not excommunication but with satire - is unbecoming of the Vicar of Christ. It is playing to the mob like a political leader would.  I don't say Trump doesn't deserve rebuke for some of his many missteps.  But for the POPE to do it - not his bishops nor his cardinals - is unbecoming of the office. It is a human mistake for an "unfallible" person. This demonstrates just how wrong that reverence is.

Wars were fought for and by the insistence of Popes, a Reformation battled assumed pre-eminence, and still they do not understand that we don't want the interference in the temporal plane.

This demonstrates yet again they can't be trusted to butt out of politics and stay on the spiritual plane.

The only good news is that the fatihful are aging and no one else listens to him in any case; the greatest irony is those pious politicians are the first to reject what the Pope preaches when they feel like it in any case.

Update: The Pope has blinked. 

Senor Calderon, no wall can be stupid.

If Presidente Calderon wants to get Trump elected, then he should continue to attack Trump. From the story:

"Mexican people, we are not going to pay any single cent for such a stupid wall! And it's going to be completely useless," Calderon said.

"The first loser of such a policy would be the United States," he said. "If this guy pretends that closing the borders to anywhere either for trade (or) for people is going to provide prosperity to the United States, he is completely crazy."

 
Firstly, Senor Calderon, no wall can be stupid. While a wall may be poorly placed for a number of reasons, they cannot, in general, think.  You are projecting your ideas of Trump onto a proposed inanimate object.  Secondly, while you are talking to Mexicans for the purposes of local political objectives, what you are doing is in fact stoking up and justifying the rhetoric of Trumpian Logic which his voters find appealing.   Anytime someone attacks Trump's emotional ideas - emotional because they can't possibly be based in reason - you are attacking the emotional voters that are pro-Trump.  Even if you laid out a coherent argument to the effect of nullifying the wall. they would act irrationally and vote that he double his \$8billion US wall into \$16billion US.

So any reason will be met with antagonism from an angry and unhappy mob. In fact, by attacking him, you are legitimizing his positions and making his voters believe that Trump might be onto something despite its' total lack of coherence. Or cost benefit analysis. Or even justification. 



In other words, if foreigners want to elect Trump - go ahead and stick your neck in the noose and criticize him publicly. Even Obama falls short of directly criticizing Trump BECAUSE he understands the moods of these voters.