The more things change, the more they stay the same

It's no mystery that Trump got elected. People were simply doing what they do in most election years: they were looking for a savior who would magically change their lives for the better.

I've watched this go on since 1960. Kennedy's slogan was "A time for greatness." Nixon used (among others) "This time, vote like your whole world depended on it." Carter claimed "A Leader, for a Change." Reagan hinted at better times with "Are You Better Off Than You Were Four Years Ago?" Clinton told us "It's Time to Change America." Bush Jr. advertised himself as a "Reformer with Results." Obama promised "Hope and Change." And The Most Unavoidable Man on the Planet touted "Make America Great Again." All were elections in which the White House changed parties, and each winning candidate promised change for the better. Enough of the country bought it on each occasion to get that candidate elected to office.

Of course, things didn't change much, nor is that ever likely to happen in the future. The faces change, the parties in power change, and perhaps some policies change, but human nature doesn't change. It's all about money and power, and it's been that way throughout all of recorded history.

The Alt-Right Ranters.

Trump haters: read on for an amusing and true anecdote.

A mover who I call when I need something heavy moved had a new helper along when delivering a new bed.  The helper had disheveled hair, a growth of beard, and somewhat dirty old clothes. He obviously didn't care about his appearance.  He muttered to himself frequently.  While they were removing the old bedroom set (to be donated to charity), I turned on the TV and tuned to CNN.  As is all too often the case nowadays, there was something on about the most unavoidable man on the planet: Trump.  As they were hauling out the mattress, the man glanced at the 55" set.  His eyes narrowed, and he began muttering to himself.  Among other things, I heard "Liberal Media," "Socialists," and "Sheeple."   As the helper went out of sight, the owner made a face at me and shook his head before continuing in.

When the men had finished, I paid the owner and tipped him two $10 bills.  "Just in time for lunch," he told me, handing one to the helper. "Do you know a good place to eat around here?"  I recommended the local buffet, realized that it might be a bit pricier than the helper wanted to spend, and offered to buy them lunch.  After refusing once, and my insistence, the owner accepted the invitation.  He instructed the helper to head on down to the truck.

After the man had gone, he told me: "Tom, whatever you do, don't mention politics at lunch.  Bill is a good worker on the few days that I use him --- and believe me, it's as few as possible --- but he will rant for hours about some of the wildest conspiracy theories available."

At lunch, Bill brought in a cheap tablet, of the kind that you can get at Walmart for about $60.  All through lunch, he was pounding away on the tablet, muttering to himself.  I can read things just fine upside down, and I saw what two sites he was on: Facebook and Twitter (briefly), and Yahoo.  I made note of his Facebook and Twitter accounts, which were the same and roughly along the line of "TheAmericanTruth) and some numbers.  I also made note of his Yahoo username, about the same as the others (without numbers) and the fact that it had 45,000 comments.  At least four times he said: "Just wait 'til I get home."

Two days later, I found Bill on Yahoo. He was a busy beaver, making about 100 comments per day.  One person had dressed him down; he stalked that person (through GMA, Finance, or Sports (Yahoo doesn't link up usernames on its main news page anymore), replying to at least 30 of the user's posts with spewed hatred and name calling.

I remembered Bill's Twitter and Facebook names.  The Twitter acccount was more of the same.  On Facebook, I found a link to another user's video, which had Bill in it.  The two looked a lot a like (meaning unkempt and rough).  They were in some kind of boarding house or sleeping room.  The walls looked dirty, and paint was chipped.  The whole room could have been furnished for less than $200. The two spent 5 minutes ranting and raving about how the whole world was in a conspiracy to surpress "the truth" and how everybody who didn't believe "the truth" was a Socialist, a Libtard Sheeple, a drinker of Kool-Aid, etc.  They praised Trump to no end and cackled with glee about how their hero had won, "The Libtards" had lost and were crying about it, and how Trump would make life great for them again.  The video ended abruptly; apparently the free version of the software they were using to record their video (the watermark showed the entire time) had a five minute limit.  There were links to more videos, but I'd seen enough.

Now when I read the rants of the Alt-Right, I see Bill and thank my Liberal (I'm actually a moderate, but to the Alt-Right, everybody who doesn't speak Fox is a "Libtard") self that I didn't end up the same way, sitting at a cheap desk in a rundown rooming house, devoting all of my free waking time to forcing distorted views about an alternate reality that doesn't exist down everybody's throat, and stalking and bullying people who didn't agree.

I believe that most of the ranters and ravers on here are, sadly, in just about the same boat Bill is in.  Some may be a bit more literate, but rooming houses are full of college-educated literate people.  I know that because I lived in one for a year back in the late 1970s, before I decided that I was going to do better and make a life for myself.  I managed to stay ahead, through several presidents and several economic swings.  Those of us who have done well generally did so because we went out and got things done, instead of wasting our time complaining about how bad things were.

"Fair and Balanced"

I came across this URL   You may read it if you like.  I've gleamed the salient points in this article, without removing context.  They are the views of the author.  If you want to read the entire article, you may do so.

http://yellowhammernews.com/politics-2/andrews-trump-clinton-will-president-heres-decide-vote/

The article deals with the fact that the new president is very likely to decide which direction the Supreme Court will take, Liberal or Conservative.  In each case she deems that each candidate has promised to appoint judges who will make the respective views into laws, and that we will have to live with these laws for the rest of our life

Do you believe that guns are inherently bad, that gun manufacturers should be held responsible for what individuals do with them, and that the government needs to further restrict the public’s right to own and use guns? If so, you must vote for her. 

Or do you believe strongly in the “right to bear arms”? Do you believe that further gun restrictions will only restrict the access honest citizens have to firearms and ammunition?If so, you must vote for him. 

---

Do you believe that the fetus inside a pregnant woman is a tissue mass and that a woman should be able to rid her body of that tissue mass at any time during the nine months prior to that tissue mass being born? Do you believe that tissue mass only becomes a human being once it is outside the woman’s body? Do you believe that your tax dollars should be used to allow anyone who chooses, for whatever reason, to rid their body of that tissue mass?  If so, you must vote for her.

Or do you believe that the baby inside a mother is a human being? Do you believe that life has a purpose and that, from the moment of conception, each and every child is unique and valuable?   If so, you must vote for him. 

---

Do you believe the United States should move toward a policy of “open borders”? Do you believe undocumented persons in the United States illegally should not only be allowed to stay, but issued driver’s licenses, food stamps, and provided medical care? Do you believe that if someone wishes to enter our country, they have every right to do so without explanation? If so, you must vote for her.

Or do you believe that America’s borders are her first line of defense? Do you believe that the word “illegal” means just that? Do you believe that only legally recognized citizens of America have a right to her benefits and protection as provided by your tax dollars? Do you believe America has not only the right, but the responsibility to carefully vet those who seek to enter our country? If so, you must vote for him.
---

The last point she made, she managed to get the two sides of the aisle confused.

----

Now the same two issues from a different perspective:

-----------------
Do you believe that guns should be regulated so that everybody, including potential criminals and the mentally disturbed, can freely buy as many as pleased and that anybody can carry one if he/she so desires?  If so, you must vote for her.
Or do you believe that everybody who wants to buy a gun should freely be able to purchase as many as desired and should be able to freely carry them, even if this means that criminals may do so?  If so, you must vote for him. 

---

Do you believe that a woman should have the right to determine whether or not she has control of her body and her reproductive process, and that she has the right to abort such reproductive process under any circumstances, such as if she were in danger of dying if she completed the reproductive process?  If so, you must vote for her.

Or do you believe that an unborn fetus/embryo should have the same right to life as a human being who (in almost all cases) has a functioning mind, a personality, emotions, plans, dreams, hopes, and that the mother should be forced to bear the child against her own will and in violation of so many Amendments that it's mind-boggling, even if continuing the pregnancy and/or bearing the child puts her life in danger?  If so, you must vote for him.

---

 Do you believe that America should continue the policy that's made us who we are and accept refugees from other countries, so that these people have the same opportunities as we do?  Do you believe that those who have entered our country without going through the proper channels and who have been useful, contributing members of society who obeyed the laws should have the chance to become citizens?  If so, you must vote for her.

Or do you believe that our country should become selfish and isolationist, uproot 11 million people and toss them out on their behinds, even though many will perish if this is done?  Do you believe that all aliens, legal or not should have all rights removed and be ejected and that only citizens should be allowed to remain (my note: she chose the wording of "citizens" and not "citizens and legal aliens"; I'm presenting the opposing view)?  If so, you must vote for him.

----

The first version is Ult-Right; the second is Ult-Left.   The first version didn't deal with such issues as how Trump plans to pay for all of his promises; several economists, including many Conservative-leaning ones, have estimated that his plans will add $20 trillion to our national debt in ten years, while Clinton's plans will trim $5 trillion over the same period.    Why not? Because it doesn't suit her views.

Getting back to the point:  Almost every comment, article, talk show, etc. that deals with anything remotely political is polarized.  It's the main flaw in the Age of Information. We have become human computers, who can only see things as 1/0, yes/no, right/wrong, positive/negative, black/white (nothing racial meant there).  There is no neutral zone, no middle ground, no grey area.  We are at the point where we HAVE to view everything one way or the other, and a FRIGHTENINGLY LARGE NUMBER OF US are at the point where we feel obligated to embrace EVERY view that one side of the aisle (or the other side) takes, or there's something wrong with us.  It's gotten to the point where it's become a game of Clan Wars or World of Warcraft: our side vs. their side.  Anybody who doesn't believe every single view that we embrace becomes "one of them": a figure to be bullied, stalked, harassed, and even beaten up until he/she agrees with us.

Now, I want you to read the following as many times as necessary, until it sinks into your head.  Take a minute, an hour, or a week.  Read it once, 10 times, 100 times, or 10,000 times, until you understand it.

WE MUST WORK WITH EACH OTHER, NOT AGAINST EACH OTHER.

Got it?  Good.  One of the finest things that President Lyndon Johnson said was "Let us reason together."   Note that last word: "together."  Reasoning in opposition causes conflict, it causes wars, it causes hatred, it causes racism and bigotry, it causes fighting, and in some cases it causes death.

Now, a few points to the article:

The Supreme Court makes no laws.  The Supreme Court is solely there for "judicial review"; it decides if various rulings and decisions have followed existing law.   Nor is it's ruling final and forever binding; over history, the court has often reversed its decisions.  But they perfectly illustrate one point: there's no one rule that fits all.  Few decisions are 9-0.  There are usually dissenters.  There is an alarming tendency in the past 60 years for the Court to polarize itself to the Liberal or Conservative sides of the aisle, but by-and-large they usually get it right.  

Now I'm going to rewrite the questions in what's hopefully a fair and impartial manner:
---
Do you believe that guns should be regulated to some degree? Do you believe that there should be some effort to restrict them and keep them out of the hands of criminals?

Or do you believe that everybody should be allowed to own and carry guns, and that if everybody is carrying one, we will self-police ourselves?

Or do you believe that there is a middle ground, such as a mandatory prison sentence for anybody convicted of certain (i.e. violent) crimes who are in possession of guns, even if they aren't currently committing crimes with those guns? 
---
Do you believe that a woman should have control of her body and whether or not she continues a pregnancy?

Or do you believe that a fetus has equal rights as the mother?

Or do you believe that there are exceptions to either of the above and that it may need to be handled on a case-by-case basis?
---
Do you believe that America should make a path available for those who have entered this country outside of the proper procedure?

Or do you believe that all who have illegally entered should be shown to the borders?

Or do you believe that there's a middle ground that can set a standard that must be met and/or weigh each on a case-by-case basis?
-----------

This is a moderated (read-only) blog.  Don't bother posting comments or replies: they won't be read or published, even if they agree with what I've said.

In late 2012, a company commissioned by an unknown source researched the feasibility of launching a cable network that was dedicated to political commentary, or "talk shows with video."   At the time, such only existed as subsets of networks like Fox, CNN, and the other news networks.   The goal of the proposed network would be not to have something for the masses, as Fox and CNN did and do, but to appeal to a certain niche of the population, as online sites Mother Jones and Drudge did and do.  It was decided that such a network would need a flagship show and persona to make it work.  All such well-known personalities and shows were bound to long-term radio exclusive contracts or to other cable networks (i.e. Fox News).     In April of 2013, One America News Network was launched.  OANN has a markedly Conservative slant, but OANN also has news shows and other content.   The network hasn't grown as it wished, but it's available to about 15 million homes, but it has its followers.  The problem is that there are already several established Conservative sources on various networks.  The network appealed to a group that was already saturated by radio, websites, bloggers, news sources, and talk shows on cable TV networks (i.e. Fox).

(The rest is my opinion, and not proven fact, although my beliefs are  being shared by more and more people.)

Enter Donald Trump.  Here was a charismatic entertainer who was an established personality ("The Apprentice") and known to be outspoken and brash.  In other words, here was the flagship personality for a potential flagship network.   Last year, after much advance hinting, "The Donald" decided to launch a presidential bid.  Trump studied the landscape and found his own niche: people who were very active in political discussions (i.e. on Yahoo news comments, Facebook, etc.) and who followed politics closely all day and every day.  While most were Far Right Conservatives by nature, some were converted from moderate Republicans, independents, and even long-time Democrats.   This group typically shared many of the common denominators: easily-influenced, easily angered, male, white, sexist,  racist, bigoted, ethnic hatred for non-European Whites, angry at the government, angry at big business, and generally angry at the world, who believe that the whole world is out to get them and that this world controls what they call "The Liberal Media", who believe themselves to be politically educated, while those who have opposing views are "sheeple" or "Kool Aid drinkers."   While most of these people were already Far-Right Conservatives, there were also many moderate Republicans, independents, and even several longtime Democrats.

So Trump took the biggest issues that appealed to this group.  The main one was illegal immigrants (racism, bigotry, jobs taken for citizens) with Mexico as the target.  ISIS (bigotry), Obama (racism and bigotry), Clinton (sexism), and others.  Trump knew well that such people angered easily and that people in general fed on controversy.  Thus his persona was launched in a Presidential bid.  To get constant media coverage, Trump used the strategy that many celebrities used to keep their name in the media: do something outrageous and often.   Trump knew that he couldn't win the Presidency by being outrageous.  That was never his goal.  His goal was to win the nomination, and to do that, he had to appeal to voters who would turn out for the primaries: in other words his focus group --- those who lived and breathed politics 24/7/365.  He was brash, boorish, crude, and outright nasty (all under the guise of "speaking the truth"), And it worked.  They turned out in droves and gathered him over 13 million votes in the primaries.  The problem, of course, was that 13 million votes are only about 10% of the total voting population on Election Day in a Presidential Election year.  That didn't matter to Trump.  He now had the limelight until Election Day.

Trump then flirted briefly with the idea of appealing to a broader base of voters.  He quickly realized that: 1) He wasn't going to win the election anyway, 2) He'd appear to be faithless to his followers, a "sellout" so to speak, and 3) he'd lose his persona in the process.  Enter Stephen Bannon, the CEO of conservative political site Breitbart.  Bannon convinced Trump to continue as he had been doing: to be brash and controversial and to appear to do as he pleased.   Being removed from the Republican ticket was a possibility,a and that was fine with Trump:  he never wanted to be President anyway.   A candidate who wants to be president does not go around offending most Liberals, most independents, most moderate Republicans, most Latinos/Hispanics, Muslims, blacks, women, and those who believe that a President should have a certain amount of dignity (to be "Presidential"). When those people are removed from the equation, there aren't many voters left, and certainly nowhere near enough to be elected.  The polls are bearing this out: according to most polls, Clinton already has enough Electoral votes to win, even if the current somewhat-close states are excluded from the totals.

But as often stated, being elected wasn't Trump's ambition.   His ambition is to solidify his personality for his fan base.  When Election Day has come and gone, Trump will be planning the next phase: opening his own cable network and radio talk show, and becoming the next Rush Limbaugh type.  I would be surprised if Bannon and Breitbart weren't part of that, and several others will join in.   The niche is already there: Trump has his loyal fan base of about 15 million who nod their heads in unison at everything that comes out of his mouth.

But wait!  Doesn't OANN also have 15 million viewers?  No, OANN is available in 15 million homes, but that doesn't mean that most of the 15 million homes view OANN.  There are roughly 100 million homes that have some form of Pay TV, and Trump's network will probably be available in at least 80% of them, as well as over-the-top services such as Sling, and possibly as an ala-carte streaming service such as a Roku channel, with on-site web streaming likely.  Since Trump's group lives and breathes politics nonstop, his network will have a very dedicated viewership, with steady ratings.  It will make Mr. Trump a lot of money and give him a lot of attention.  Of course, it will come at the expense of the Republican party, hundreds of politicians who will lose because of the party's association with Trump,  and at the expense of the many millions that he's been using with his promises of "Make America Great Again,"   but those things are unimportant to Mr. Trump.