Underpinned: Trump

I think there are two types of Anarchisms, constructive Anarchism for example and destructive Anarchism.

I think most people want constructive Anarchism but the devil is in the details, it then becomes destructive very quickly. This isn’t to say that Anarchism in itself is inherently destructive; it’s actually that most present systems are so involved in society that it’s scandalous.

Case in point: Even something simple like protecting our border; we have roughly 92 million people of working age that are unemployed. The leader of Ecuador decided to weigh in on our President-elects call for mass deportation of violent criminal illegals in a way that was on the American lefts political talking point bulletin board. He conflated illegal immigrants which should be deported as well in my view with what Trump intends to do. Now I don’t know why or to whom he was speaking but it was obviously meant for the ears of the American people as well. He then said Americans economically rely on illegals to function financially. The reality is that we have possibly six times the amount of unemployed citizens as we do illegals. Even if we deported all the working illegals and employed all the unemployed citizens we’d still have a real number of about 16% unemployment rate. That’s assuming the number of illegals working is near 15 million.

The whole issue in the case above has now spun out whack anyway since those people have put roots into America. They’ve dropped seeds as well and those seeds have taken root as well. There is a right answer but no easy answer and of course there is a wrong answer that has very real long term problems that can aptly be described as scandalous.

I can honestly say I chose well to throw my chips in on the right side of politics, I disagree with much of the Rights social programming, this idea that porn is denigrating and stigmatizing precludes said denigration and causes stigmatization. Now I’m not advocating porn, the same thing is applied to violent movies and games, the thing the political left did was get ahead on these topics to redefine what “progressive” can be interpreted as. The reality is that the ideology just doesn’t sell well. It’s too pro-elitism. In fact the reason they lost this election so badly and everyone before it for the last 6 years is because of *drumroll* arrogance. It’s the same arrogance that they capitalized on when the right had gone after the culture back in the 80’s. It wasn’t that the left simply had the wrong message and it wasn’t that they thought people were interested in the message. No it’s simply that they didn’t think it mattered, they had an agenda, and said to the electorate; deal with it.

The culture always defeats policy is what I’m learning, culture is very important but business is what makes culture and government can augment business… it’s a cycle fueled by unpredictable consequences, the only good thing I can note is the irony that’s usually involved.

Case in point the government invests tax dollars into research for driver less cars… okay now companies are putting out driver less cars… that will remove actual drivers who pay taxes from the work force, it’s delicious.

To be fair about it though, driving was one of the last I could say real jobs out there, anyone could get into it and you get back what you put in.  I think the immense pain this “investment of tax dollars” will bring is a direct result of both arrogance and ignorance.

I talk to cabbies who are vehemently pro-Obama , I wonder if they will blame Trump when the replacements start? Actually no I know they will.

Finally, I'm not sure if anyone protested Obama's inauguration, I'm sure someone somewhere did... anyway it appears to me one of two things are true.

1. The protestors are very fringe but have a very large microphone.

or

2. The fringe of the left is very popular.

To those sympathetic to either I say... pick your poison wisely.

In the end I'm left wondering why this whole situation feels familiar... I feel like I'm watching a national level moment of good parenting. On one hand you have a parent leading the family along and you have two good children one reluctant but going about her own business, the other eager and willing and the last being totally childish; kicking and screaming and falling to the ground forcing the parent to pick him up.

I'm beginning to think that not only is Trump attempting to fix politics by getting rid of the processes that leads to an "establishment". Not only is he attempting to "make America great again" (and all that means) for the American people. But he's also scolding entities that for too long have gotten away with the same old games.

These issues I am reading about; the potential first amendment struggles various bruised news outlets, their proxies and backers are expecting is really just bellyaching that the tools they used to win every argument before seem largely ineffective. From Beyonce to not giving air time to people they libel when they request to be interviewed and have an opportunity to defend themselves; nothing seems to work against a parent who has put his foot down.

The DNC Introspects And Finds Russia

As a fan of some pretty prolific writers and debaters I have some experience in language and the accompanying tools under my belt. With much of this Russian Hacking flag waving nearly everyone seems to agree that there is no argument about the question being asked, and in fact the divide seems to be about the answers. Below you will find a conversation between me and the talking points of others in a normal assembly of how the conversation breaks down. Mind you this is a synopsis as normally the conversation collapses to baser content and some self-evidentiary use of red herrings, ad hominem and/or ad populous.

Myself (M) – “Wow, Trump won.”

Concerned Citizen (CC) – “Yea, but the Russians hacked and tried to influence our election.”

M – “Oh? That’s pretty big, did it succeed?”

CC – “I don’t know, but they did it to get Trump elected.”

M - “That’s a pretty bold statement considering you don’t know, but why don’t you know?”

CC – “Well it’s obvious they hacked, look at the DNC and the Podesta e-mails, those were what caused it.”

M – “Yes, okay but if it’s obvious then what don’t you know?”

CC – “There is some top secret stuff that can’t be revealed to the public, the intelligence community would have to burn its sources which is why the Russians are denying the hacking; to get them to do that.”

M – “Okay, but regardless of the source was the information true?”

CC – “That really isn’t the point though, the Russians hacked American data and that information by default is illegally got.”

M – “So has the DNC or Podesta come out to denounce the information on veracity?”

CC – “Like I said it doesn’t matter the information was bad because of how it was claimed.”

M – “But you said you don’t know the motive, there could have been information there that was flattering to the DNC and/or Podesta but there wasn’t; is that the fault of the Russians?”

CC – “You’re missing the point, the Russians hacked out data, that’s why the President responded the way he did with sanctions and kicking out their ambassadors.”

M – “The Chinese hacked about 20 million Americans for information used to black mail some of them, shut down our White House computers and have been generally nasty for a while now, other groups do it too… so why now start a new policy to something so minor as telling the truth?”

That is the conversation generally… as I said no one I talked to lasted that long, usually the conversation gets derailed into another topic but the totality of the conversations I’ve had with different people sounds like that.

No one argues the question on: “is the information truthful?” They argue a separate question: “Where did the information come from?” It seems to be the answer to the question I pose (Is the information truthful?) that people have an issue with is why the conversation goes everywhere else. Since if the information is truthful then two points must logically be made.

One – The source and the method doesn’t matter, unless we no longer protect source identity.

Two – The voters were accurately educated before making their decision.

The only reason  for reluctance to recognize that answer as a possibility is because the arguments against it sound infantile, boiling down to: “why me?” – A perfectly legitimate question, the answer to which is deep and varied; from a heavy baggage carrying candidate that had to defend arguable policies to yes, informed voters.