Friday, November 9, 2018

Not That Anyone Asked Me, But...

If I were Trump, here's what I'd do.

Call together the most supportive Republicans, along with the leadership of the Senate. Let them know what your most urgent priorities are; make them a part of getting these things done. If they have their own pet projects, they can submit them in writing at a later time. You'll consider them individually.

Lay down the law - the entire team has to stick together - no "side deals" with the Democrats, period.

No meetings that are not official business, or STRICTLY social. No more talking to them behind the party's back - they will try to co-opt anyone they can.

When they talk about bipartisanship, listen, and reply, "Great! What are you prepared to give up?" Make no promises, but agree to take their offer back to the leadership.

No definite compromises, no deal - don't even bother the other guys with that.

If there is anyone on your staff who is halfway in the pocket of the other party, living with them, socializing with them, or related to them - let them go. Don't make it ugly, send them off with nice recommendations, severance, whatever.

But, get rid of them. I don't care how gifted they are at their assigned duties. Job ONE is loyalty.

As far as immigration for the next few years. Probably the most important thing any of us can do is to wear down those not understanding the situation (the majority, who support immigration primarily on humanitarian grounds). This is best done, one fact at a time.

Memes can come in handy here. They don't attempt to argue ALL the facts; they just focus on giving one tiny bit of information, preferably with a picture that hits people emotionally.

Or, a graph, with a link to more information, like the one at the link.

You want them to focus on ONE thing, such as this take-away:

The Atlantic has yet another article bemoaning the "fact" that the Republican Party - particularly those that support Trump, as ignorant hicks.

Oh, that's not exactly what he says - he refers to it as "The Education Divide", but that's clearly what he means. He cites statistics:
According to exit polls, 61 percent of non-college-educated white voters cast their ballots for Republicans while just 45 percent of college-educated white voters did so. Meanwhile 53 percent of college-educated white voters cast their votes for Democrats compared with 37 percent of those without a degree.
The diploma divide, as it’s often called, is not occurring across the electorate; it is primarily a phenomenon among white voters. It’s an unprecedented divide, and is in fact a complete departure from the diploma divide of the past. Non-college-educated white voters used to solidly belong to Democrats, and college-educated white voters to Republicans. Several events over the past six decades have caused these allegiances to switch, the most recent being the candidacy, election, and presidency of Donald Trump.
Hmmm. The "past six decades"? I wonder what could have caused that switch? Let's think about it:

Sixty years ago would be roughly 1960. Richard Nixon was the GOP candidate, Kennedy the Dem one. Let's face it, many of today's Democratic voters became imprinted on Kennedy, rather like ducklings do on their mother. They personally identified with the style and apparent intellectualism of the Kennedys and their followers.

I write "apparent", because it's pretty clear that Kennedy was not much of a thinker. He had considerable charisma, and an ability to deliver speeches that was unparalleled, until Reagan showed up. His Pulitzer-winning book, Profiles in Courage, has been admitted to have been written by Sorensen.

Mike Wallace interviewed Drew Pearson, and the story hit the news. ABC apologized, but Wallace never backed off.

The authorship was clarified in Sorensen's autobiography,
In May 2008, Sorensen clarified in his autobiography, Counselor, how he collaborated with Kennedy on the book: "While in Washington, I received from Florida almost daily instructions and requests by letter and telephone – books to send, memoranda to draft, sources to check, materials to assemble, and Dictaphone drafts or revisions of early chapters." (Sorensen, p. 146) Sorensen wrote that Kennedy "worked particularly hard and long on the first and last chapters, setting the tone and philosophy of the book" and that "I did a first draft of most chapters" and "helped choose the words of many of its sentences". JFK "publicly acknowledged in his introduction to the book my extensive role in its composition" (p. 147) Sorensen claimed that in May 1957, Kennedy "unexpectedly and generously offered, and I happily accepted, a sum to be spread over several years, that I regarded as more than fair" for his work on the book. Indeed, this supported a long-standing recognition of the collaborative effort that Kennedy and Sorensen had developed since 1953.
But, WAIT! Yet another ghostwriter may have contributed to the book. That person, a professor, has a letter from JFK to back up his assertion of having written at least a portion of the book that got JFK a Pulitzer.

 Why is this important today?

Because so much of the supposed intellectual association with the Democratic Party, and its politicians, derives from this fraud. Many of the Democratic Elite function like Kennedys - their attendance at an Elite school, that Daddums paid for, is taken to be evidence of their superior brainpower.

What is NOT mentioned in the Atlantic article is what kind of degree a college graduate held. Women are notorious about selecting majors that don't require advanced math skills - the Liberal Arts, and "Studies" majors are predominantly female enrollment.

Men attending college are more likely to study the hard sciences, engineering, or business (particularly accounting, economics, and finance). The level of rigor in those courses is higher by a wide margin.

What is also not shown in that study is college study not ending in a degree - those that attended, but dropped out. Many successful people have not completed their degrees - Bill Gates is just one example.

For today's graduates, attendance in college has little relationship to intellectual curiosity or academic skills.

No comments: