Guest Post by Juggernaut: How I learned to Love Donald Trump.

Life is much better with a variety of opinions.  Juggernaut, my young friend, certainly has a great man well thought out opinions.  Since I have been a bit away as of lately (a number of meat-space issues have kept me away for much too long), he has offered to share with us his opinions on the recent US election of God Emperor Trump, Kek be praised!

How I Learned to Love the Donald

by Juggernaut

My stance

I’m not inherently a liberal or a conservative.  I look at things objectively and look at evidence before making conclusions.  On this subject, many people like using data to support their own preconcieved conclusion.  I guess Im not good on the theatrics of politics.

Clinton is the ugly status quo we all hate and Trump is an alternative offering some improvements coupled with lots of troubling positions too.  Johnson was the lesser evil.

I was wrong.

Most thought Clinton would win, especially the left leaning media of course.  In my projection, I predicted 46 out of 50 states correctly: more accurate than most pundits.

I was wrong on Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.  Florida was a tossup and most didn’t think he  would win the other 3 states.  Three weeks ago, even his own supporters believed winning via Nevada, Colorado and New Hampshire was more feasible.

Even him and his own supporters were prematurely calling it rigged.  He won all 4 of those states by a margin of ~2%.

My error was in assuming the rust belt was out of his reach because both Democrats and Republicans were blindly partisan.  I was half right.  Many Democrats only vote for charismatic candidates like Obama and the rust belt only leaned slightly blue to begin with.

Electoral College

Before the election, I had lamented the fact that only 15 states matter electorally while your vote doesn’t really matter in the other 35 states.  But in this election we saw 3 solid blue states turn red.  Millions of forgotten invisible rust belt workers have had their say, and that’s great. It’s what the EC was built for.  Really, there’s no perfect system.  Popular vote gives less populous regions a disadvantage, and EC gives an advantage to swing states.  No easy answers here.

Why Clinton lost.

I could name a number of bad decisions she made in her campaign:
She attacked Donald but never made a strong case for herself
“America is already great” = complacency.
Starting a weird anti-Russia obsession to court hawkish Republicans
Campaigning in solid-red states like Arizona
Ignoring Wisconsin and Michigan, taking them for granted.
Picking Kaine as a running mate (he added nothing to the ticket)

Plus, lots of other baggage: scandals, Iraq, etc.

Why Donald won.

In the primaries, it was simple.  He had 17 opponents, and that meant he was able to win even if 60% of the party didn’t like him.  He didn’t have to debate any single candidate in depth, and in a crowded field, the loudest person gets the most attention.  Republicans were tired of Bush’s RINO/neo-con policies.  Also, they were tired of their polite establishment candidates like Romney and McCain losing.

Let’s make it simpler.  Charisma always wins.  McCain, Romney, Kerry, Dole, HW Bush, Mondale and Carter all fit in the same category.  Intelligent and qualified, but boring and tone-deaf.  Donald was by far the most charismatic.  Opponents don’t want to admit it but he got endless coverage due to the fact that he was entertaining and knew how to trigger emotions.

I care about logic and the issues but most voters vote on emotion.  Donald was by far superior in tapping into the emotions of the voters.  People were angry and felt the establishment was a joke, and he provided that.

Trump supporters are not monolithic

Biased media outlets wanted to paint a monolith of his supporters largely being racist rednecks, but really it’s a more complicated picture.

If I were to construct a pie-chart of his supporters, it would look something like this:
10% – racist / xenophobic
10% – isolationists / protectionist / rust-belt
20% – fiscal conservatives
20% – people who view Clinton as a greater evil
20% – partisan Republicans
20% – people who are angry at the establishment

Obama’s failings.

Much of this election result was due to Obama failure to communicate.  He was great at the motivational speeches, but a laid off factory worker with an almost-empty refridgerator and a daughter wearing the same pair of shoes for 5 years isn’t as optimistic.

Obama exists in a professorial Harvard bubble with some Chicago sensibilites, but the same sobriety that gives him a good temperment has resulted in him being too afraid to express condemnation and frustration where appropriate.  Donald is the anti-Obama.  Obama is cautious, business-casual, overly politically correct, mild-mannered.  Donald is brash, bold, loud, angry and blunt.

Trump is the establishment

Many of Trump’s supporters are echoing the same kind of naive optimism of Obama’s win in 2008.  Obama was a stock Democrat, not much different than Kerry in policy, but he convinced people via marketing that he represented change despite having conventional policies.

Trump was a billionaire political donor, friend of the Clintons, to begin with.  He already backpedaled on most of his hardlined positions last week.

In a way, he’s our first third paety president, but he appointed mostly establishments Republicans.  From his perspective its brilliant.  He can silence opposition.  If you work for an administration, its harder to criticise it.

Trump is not revolutionary

The only thing thats revolution is his rhetoric.  Its not unthinkable for America to elect Trump.  Hes a demogogue and second world countries are full of Trumps.

Fiscally, Hes a liberal Republican who likes taxes low, spending high and debt high.  On foreign policy, hes keeping most of the old guard in place.  On immigration and trade, hes different, but he backpedaled on that.

Anti establishment doesn’t exist

There will always be an establishment.  Anti establishmenr politicians only want to replace the current establishment with their own.  Certain groups of people will be favored and certain groups will be left out, and it will always be that way.

97% of Congressional incumbents were re-elected, and Congress holds most of the government’s power.

Trump’s moral character is condemnable, his anti intellectual populism is repugnant, but his ability to defy the odds, defy big money interests, galvanize millions and be a leader in that regard is admirable.  No matter how many asterisks we can place next to it, Trump is synonymous with success.

If his run, results in more people questioning our government and culture, it could be consequentially good.  But most other discussion will be theatrics.

Democrats don’t get it

They’re going to nominate a more progressive and more moralistic Democrat in 2020, make more “you dont care about ____ people” argument, and theyll lose anyway.

Donald will be endlessly parodied on SNL, he will become America’s most endearing but oafish cartoon character.  He’ll take the route of political convenience and offer purely cosmetic changes.

And americans will likely re elect him again in 2020 because he is a born leader.

A guest post by Juggernaut: “Thoughts on feminism”

The following is a guest post by Juggernaut, where he shares his thoughts on feminism.  While I may not agree with all he says, I do think it is thought-provoking:

I think feminism is often misunderstood, and no matter what stance you take on feminism, there is a degree of controversy. Hardcore feminists will probably see me as a chauvinist or misogynist. Hardcore anti-feminists will probably see me as an emasculate wuss indoctrinated by leftist propaganda. In the end though, there are merits to feminism, but some feminists do go to unhealthy extremes in their beliefs.

There does seem to be an aura of belittlement and disrespect toward women in our culture (a.k.a. much of our movies and music). When feminists mention a human history where males have forcefully dominated and cultural barriers have prevented women from excelling in careers by giving them the expectation to be stay-at-home mothers, I listen and openly accept these criticisms. The guys who automatically write off feminists and see these concerns as silly, do seem to be in an overall state of justified ignorance. A person who doesn’t feel threatened or guilty will gladly welcome even more questioning and probing.

Men, instead of taking offense and immediately jumping to conclusions and saying something like “well, if it were a man, then ____”. Openly listen, and who knows, you two may actually be on the same page.  This is in the same way that some feminists need to be more open in taking criticism.

There are gender roles in our society. And there are two kinds of traditions. Some traditions are useful. Other traditions are not so useful. My belief is to adopt the useful traditions and abandon the less useful traditions. Everyone has different needs and a different lifestyle. If women want to adopt male gender roles and men want to adopt feminine gender roles, I have no problem with that. In some cases, it’s best for a woman to work and in other cases, it is best for a woman to be a stay-at-home mom. In the end, it’s a woman’s choice (as well as a man), in what she wants to be and what she wants to do with her life. Whether the traditional gender roles of women cooking/cleaning and men doing handiwork are adopted into a family or not adopted into a family, I respect their decision. Live and let live. Everyone has their own choice, and I won’t judge them.

Keep in mind that feminism is not a church. There is not one set of tenets you have to believe in order to be a feminist. And there are different kinds of feminists. Some of them happen to be the most extreme feminists (and I’m not condemning their lifestyles at all; but I will start to ask questions when they start condemning others). Some people believe in feminism and support feminism, but it isn’t their entire life. Other people eat sleep and breathe feminism. They spend a lot of their spare time protesting and they study feminism in school. A good amount (but not most) of the latter kind are found in colleges. And some of them are very extreme. If you go to college, you may hear a lot of feminist protests and feminist professors, and therefore conclude that most or a lot of women are like that.

But the most hardcore feminists are only a minority, and don’t represent most women at all!

I have a lot of respect for feminism, but not the extremists. That is in the same way I have respect for people in pursuit of their religion, but not the extremists.

Here is what I don’t like about the most hardcore extreme feminists:

1. They are more judgmental on women than men are. If a woman likes to live a lifestyle that is in line with what women have traditionally living, they will see those women as being brainwashed, as if they didn’t have the capacity to make a decision themselves. Basically “all women should be like ____. if you aren’t like ____, then there is something wrong with you.”

So, if a woman actually likes living within the gender roles, and actuallys want to be a stay-at-home mom, she should not be seen as brainwashed or too intellectually inferior to make her own decision. Her decision should be respected because she is intelligent enough to decide what she personally wants.

2. They are overly politically correct, take things too literally, and have no sense of humor. If they hear a joke that is mildly inappropriate, they will act uptight and decide the joke to be misogynistic. These people are much harder to have fun with, especially if you have a broader sense of humor. You can’t have casual small talk with them about having a long philosophical discussion about feminism. Everything leads to feminism and they sound like a johnny one-note. You can’t listen to the radio without them giving you a complete dissection of every lyric.

They don’t grasp the difference between words and actions. Actions matter more than words. If you say an off-color joke, it doesn’t represent who you are or what you think of women. It’s how you treat people that truly matters.

Again, these aren’t all feminists. Just maybe the minority of the most extreme feminists, who are ironically the most vocal. Most people who believe in feminism, believe in it, but they don’t commit the time to attend feminism events every week, they don’t study feminism and they don’t talk about feminism constantly.

Why is this bugging me?

Because some men are being trained to tailor themselves to the most hardcore feminists, thinking that those extreme beliefs represent ALL women.

Generally, I’d say dedicated feminists are no more than 10% of women, but 90% of women don’t subscribe to all of the things that hardcore feminists believe. That’s what angers me. A minority of women can’t speak for all women! The same way a minority of black people can’t speak for all black people. Or the same way a minority of muslims don’t speak for all muslims.

Most women do generally believe in feminism, but they are far from the hardcore extreme branch of feminism.

Most women actually don’t feel like them being a woman is restricting them in any way.

Most women actually like an inappropriate joke now and then. A lot of women will laugh hard at them. They can laugh at a “thats what she said” joke. They like being teased every once in a while. They do not mind at all having the passive role of waiting for the man to call and wanting the man to set up the date. Most women expect all of that! They don’t want a man who is boring, play-it-safe, over-apologetic or politically correct all of the time.

When it comes to sexuality, some women are more sexual than others. Some women resent the idea of pre-marital sex (and the idea of one night stands). Some women are perfectly okay with pre-marital, if it is with a guy they are attracted to. Women neither deserve to be labeled as a slut or a prude.

I say this to both men and women, don’t ever feel like you are doing something wrong by feeling attracted to someone. Don’t ever feel guilty about wanting sex, if that’s truly what you want. There is a huge difference between treating someone like a sex object (with no regard to anything else) and appreciating someone as a whole (including sex).

Most women WANT a man who is traditionally masculine, rather than boring, neutral or effeminate. They want a masculine man who is assertive and acts in a leadership role. This does not mean bossy, intrusive and manipulative. What I’m saying is that they want men to be the initiator, a protector that can provide a feeling of security.

A guy may talk to or get to know a woman who is a die-hard feminist, and therefore tone down his masculine qualities, in belief that he is belittling or insulting a woman by being traditionally masculine. But in the end, that is what most women like and are attracted to.

If you are surrounded in an isolated atmosphere of a vocal minority, it is easy to see a distorted view of what women are like. But in the end, each woman is different. There is no one formula that can be agreeable with all women. Some women are non-traditional and other women are more traditional.

In the end, accept people for who they are and let them make their own choices. And don’t get pressured into making a lifestyle choice just because someone doesn’t like what you are doing.