Trump v Biden

 An article from Deroy Murdoch        Fox News

(incidentally, we used to be able to get Fox News in the UK on Sky TV.  You may well wonder, as I have, why they decided to discontinue it?)

Para four points out some attractive features to the voter of a Biden President, but asks us to examine the issues.  Spot on.

Next para asserts that a Biden government would be a disaster for schools.  I confess to not being sufficiently acquainted with the American educational system to be able to comment very sensibly.  From what I gather the argument is very similar to the British Academy schools system – championed by and implemented by the Conservative government.  Schools are encouraged to leave the control of the local authorities and become academies under the direct control, through funding, of the central government.  In Britain this is essentially an ideological argument. Successive Tory governments have been convinced that the teaching profession is overwhelmingly left-wing.  (they may be correct) so, the Academy system provides a counter-point to the local left-wing school boards.  It seems the Trump “school choice for every parent” seems to be similar.

(aside) How does this square with Brown v the Board?  Separate but equal is not constitutional.

Next para he contends that Biden would grant citizenship to 11 million illegal aliens, most of whom would vote Democrat.  Supposition.  Free healthcare for illegal aliens?  I’d like to see the proposals.  Seems no more daft that no healthcare for poor citizens who cannot afford insurance.  

(aside) Trump’s attempts to abolish or defuse Obamacare seems to have stopped.  Or am I misinformed?  I’ve no heard him commenting on this issue at rallies.  Have I missed it?)

Fracking.  Not an issue.  Reliance on fossil fuels will inevitably fall.  Fracking merely provides Americans with obscenely low energy prices and to that extent it’s good election policy for Trump to highlight the issue.

The Sandia Laboratories story is beyond the pale -  “According to Breitbart News and as reported on Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” the men were forced to attend a training course titled, “White Men’s Caucus on Eliminating Racism, Sexism, and Homophobia in Organizations,” according to Christopher F. Rufo, an author, writer, and researcher.” - not exactly a balanced viewpoint, from a variety of sources.  

This sort of media sensationalism just reinforces prejudice.  The key word here is “forced”  on what compunction?  Discussing eliminating racism, sexism and homophobia in organisations is surely a good thing.  Or, are we free to be as racist, sexist and homophobic as we like in our private lives?  I suggest we are and the attendees were just trying to save their jobs.  Daft policy by the employer.  

The conclusion concentrates on the far-left agenda of Biden.  My suspicion is that this is overblown.  In the UK the policies discussed here would be seen as fairly mainstream.  The American obsession with labeling (particularly as socialist) shines through. I well remember when I used to teach Animal Farm to 15 year olds.  At the end of the first week the whole class were ready to man the barricades and march on Parliament.  When I asked them why we need Coke and Pepsi, why not just have State Cola Number One and use the millions, maybe billions of dollars, those corporations use to try to generate a 000.1 percent advantage in the buying habits of millions of Cola drinkers they were appalled by the wasted resources.  After reading Orwell’s critique of socialism (or more specifically Soviet Communism) they had all returned to the fold and were able to examine the issues with a critical focus.  That’s education.  He idea that teachers inculcate left-wing ideas in unknowing and unthinking children is a fantasy.  Tell kids how they must think and they will cheerfully tell you to get lost.  Fact.

Why Some British People Don't like Donald Trump

Trump - George Floyd - the NFL

I found this whilst rummaging around in my saved files, and just had to share it. There must be another side to the story, but the premise that the Donald's unique brand of communication leaves a lot to be desired seems almost irrefutable. 

Someone asked "Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?" 

Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England, wrote this magnificent response:

"A few things spring to mind.

Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.

For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace - all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.

So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing - not once, ever.

I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility - for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.

But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is - his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.

And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults - he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.

Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.

Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.

And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.

Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.

He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.

He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.

That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.

There are unspoken rules to this stuff - the Queensberry rules of basic decency - and he breaks them all. He punches downwards - which a gentleman should, would, could never do - and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless - and he kicks them when they are down.

So the fact that a significant minority - perhaps a third - of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think 'Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:

* Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.

* You don't need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.

After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.

God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.

He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.

In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws - he would make a Trump.

And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish:

'My God… what… have… I… created?

If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set."

There is a lot here to like. Problem is: the dyed in the wool Trump fanatics just turn off, disengage and go their merry way. The concept of considered political debate (not that this piece is a good example of that) is alien to them. Not surprisingly they have so bought into the idea that he is not a professional politician they have become immune to rational discourse. His failings both as a politician and as a human being are sublimated to their wild - eyed devotion to what they perceive as the cause. They are, in concert with Trump, against things, never actually for anything. 

Fortunately, these people will not decide the next election - this coming November. Elections are won by the voters in the middle. Last time they decided to let the amateur have a go. They were perfectly entitled to do so. And, those who oppose the President are handicapped by the need to win the middle back without alienating them by pointing out the idiocy of their choice four years ago. 

Human nature doesn't change all that much. To overcome the advantages given to the incumbent, the opposition will have to present an agenda for change:  and do it in such a way as to avoid the traps Trump will surely spring along the way. They may be helped by the death of George Floyd and a virus. 

For my entertainment I usually record and watch Pro Football Talk with Mike Florio and Chris Simms.  They devoted an entire two hour session yesterday to discussing the impact on the NFL (whose players are largely black) of the events in Minneapolis.  They conclude that things have to change.  And change, now. Like today.

We have heard this before and the number of false dawns is only surpassed by the number of black Americans who have died whilst in the hands of the police.  There will be an NFL season - whether it will be a tribute to improving race relations remains to be seen.

President Trump can still win in November, no matter how unlikely that may seem today