Skip to main content

Further Thoughts on the Con Man in the White House


Further Thoughts on the Con Man in the White House


       Honest people are generally consistent.  If you are dishonest, there are a couple of ways to operate.  Either you remember all of your lies and work to sound as consistent as possible, or you take several positions on everything: when confronted, you quote whichever position clears you.  As an example, you can advocate relaxing mitigation policies to slow the spread of covid-19, tweeting to your followers to liberate particular states, then hours later claim that you are against Georgia's relaxation policy.  An added bonus is that if things go well in Georgia, you can take credit for encouraging the "liberation";  if things go badly, you can blame the governor.  Con men never stop conning.
     Similarly, you can repeat that you closed the borders to China as a defense against failing to do anything else.  (Note: even with the Chinese ban, thousands of Chinese still came to the U.S.; meanwhile, the virus was already here via Europe.)
      Interestingly, Trump has been consistent on some issues, and he's probably being honest about those.
His policies on banning immigration and asylum, although draconian, have been consistent.  Likewise, he claims to support the environment, Social Security, and health care, while quietly and consistently trying to dismantle them.  In these areas, his rhetoric and actions, while each is consistent, are entirely opposed.
     I suspect that from the beginning, Trump has recognized that covid-19 testing and tracing would produce data that exposes his complete lack of preparedness and the incompetence of his administration.  So, he continues to claim relentlessly that the U.S. leads the world in testing, while simultaneously doing everything he can to hinder testing (his press secretary says that testing the entire population is "nonsensical").  Meanwhile, he claims that the $25 billion designated for testing was a "concession" to Democrats.  He'll argue that it's the Democrats' fault if testing is inadequate, but take credit for signing the bill any time testing is helpful.  
     But we all know that talk is cheap, don't we (don't we)?  If only people would pay attention to things like what Trump has proposed in his budgets, rather than listening to what he says, the con could end.  There can be many interpretions of data, but sometimes the data is overwhelmingly illuminating.  For example, consider that the U.S. and South Korea both had their first deaths from covid-19 on the same day.  As of April 23rd, the death count in South Korea was 238.  Trump's death count: over 46,000, and as of this writing on May 8th, Trump's count is around 79,000 and expected to reach 165,000 at a minimum by the end of August. 
     Con men don't like facts, except, of course, "alternate facts".  I'm reminded of Lincoln, to whom Trump loves to compare himself.  You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool a virus.

- PeteBarkett.blogspot.com
  05/08/20  
    

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

That's How the Light Gets In On Economic Perspective $Million per day My argument in today's blog is that the rich, especially the ultra-rich do not need protection from people advocating redistribution of wealth downward.   I'm recalling "Joe, the Plumber", (who was not named Joe and was not a plumber) who was used by a conservative Presidential candidate to exemplify that liberals would try to tax away the opportunity to start a business and become wealthy.  Also, I've been accused of being a conspiracy theorist when I've complained that the ultra-wealthy collude to protect and increase their massive wealth.    So, I'll address three issues at once: 1.  Are we trying to deprive the wealthy of their lifestyle? 2.  Do ultra-wealthy have the time, resources, and inclination to conspire to strongly influence politics and economics? 3.  To get an idea of economics in general, it helps to have an understanding of wealth. My ans
 Bannon Up! This analogy is far from perfect, but it represents to me a futile mindset.   A sacrifice bunt in baseball involves giving up an out to advance a runner into a better position to score a run.   Occasionally, a pitcher tries so hard to throw pitches that are difficult to bunt, that he ends up walking the batter, which moves the lead runner into scoring position, gets no out, and puts another runner on base.   I’ve heard former coaches and players announcing games cry, “He’s trying to make an out.   Let him!”   I believe Steve Bannon wants to go to prison, to make himself a martyr and hero to the right-wing nuts who support him.   I say, let him.   I’ve heard some pundits worry that convicting him would further infuriate the right-wing nuts.   I think it’s time to abandon that type of thinking.   We have seen time after time that making concessions to appease these people is completely unproductive.   They see concessions only as weakness.   Even so-called reasonable

grooming

  Political parties have long used wedge issues to encourage their members to turn out to vote.   Sometimes these issues are inflammatory, employing demonization, occasionally to the point of being dangerous.   I fear that this year, we are witnessing such an issue: the accusations of pedophilia.   I realize that the Q-Anon conspiracy theorists have made this an issue for a couple of years now, but there is a new, and much more dangerous twist, that is surfacing that may turn out to be far more insidious.   Rather than merely accusing all Democrats and liberals of being child-trafficking pedophiles who drink children’s blood, they have broadened out the accusation to include grooming children for pedophiles.   A bit of background:   you may remember the ardent believer who took a gun into a New York pizza parlor where he was told children were being kept in the basement by a cabal of pedophiles led by Hillary Clinton among others.   Fortunately, when he arrived, he was persuaded th