Definition of Trumpism (n): Failed neo-fascist fringe political ideology peddled by former reality TV star and former real estate billionaire Donald Trump

I have to write this. I had been working on an amusing analysis piece of Donald Trump's chances and motivations. Then he said his most vile statements yet (that Muslims should not be allowed entry into the USA) and it crossed the line for me. Me, who tries to be as tolerant as I possibly can and open to as many wild varied viewpoints as possible. Me the bastion of freedom to speak and freedom of the press. Now Trump went too far. So instead. This is from my heart.

ME AS A CHILD

As the best friend much of my youth I had the son of the Israeli Ambassador to Finland. He obviously is a Jew. I went to a Catholic high school in Helsinki, yes run by nuns. I had a Muslim as my first room mate for a semester in college in the USA and a Hindu as a room mate for another semester. Both of my parents were atheists and inspite of that, I found God by myself, perhaps partly guided by my strong interest in the boy scouts movement and I turned out a Protestant (ie Christian) myself. Its not every religion by any means but its a nice cross-section of several of the most common religions on the planet.

I also have always admired the USA from a very small boy. And please, understand that one can admire something that also has its faults. The first American President I can remember was Richard Nixon, so don't remind me that there are faults in that nation, in particular its government. The Nixonian era included not just Watergate but war crimes levels of terror bombing of North Vietnam such as the Christmas bombings and various CIA assassination plots of democratically elected leaders of other countries such as Salvador Allende of Chile etc. I am not naive and the USA is not perfect by any means. But I always have admired the nation. Not as much for the affluence and big cars and houses and tall skyscrapers or strong military - even as those also mattered yes - but the strongest reason why I always admired the USA was its fundamental ideology. Americanism. What it was to be an American - something I was not, as a Finn. But something deeply inspiring. That magical thing coming out of its Constitution. Since I first read that document I have been in awe of it and truly moved. With such beautiful poetic language as 'in order to form a more perfect union'. A magnificent sentiment. The founders of the USA knew they were not creating perfection, and even after years, decades, centuries of improvements, it would not be perfect but would strive for that, a more perfect union. What inspiring beautiful language. And then that Declaration of Independence, a masterpiece of writing, more the emotions than the mechanisms. Like 'we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...' and the part about 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.' I always love that part that the US system doesn't guarantee happiness, but it promises the freedom to pursue happiness. What a noble concept and how astonishing that the founders of the USA felt this was what the nation should be created for. For life, for liberty, and for the pursuit of happiness. For everyone.

And again some personal context. The United States is 240 years old, Finland while also one of the older democracies on the planet is only nearing its 100th birthday in two years. While the USA was not the first democracy, in some ways democratic principles were first adopted to some degree by the Greeks (where the word comes from) and the oldest 'true' democracy I believe is actually in Iceland, and many parts of the US system especially its legal system comes from the British, but that US Constitution with its founding principles, that is kind of the genesis for modern democracy. Essentially all other democracies borrowed more or less from that idea, including our Finnish Constitution and our system. Not identical but a sibling of American democracy. And I have always been mindful of how lucky I was in a kind of 'statistical sense'. When I was born in 1960, the Soviet Union was alive and well, with its authoritarian dictatorship as our neighbor. The families of both my father's side and my mothers's side came from that area of Finland called Karelia, which was handed over to the Soviet Union in the peace treaty that ended the second world war only 15 years before I was born. It was totally by chance that I was born into Finland and freedom. A mere 200 kilometers more to the East (130 miles) and I'd have been born a Soviet citizen and if you know me from my writings here, you can see that I was always a rebel and had I been born into the Soviet Union, no doubt I would have been in jail already as a teenager as a juvenile delinquent radical protester troublemaker. Freedom to me has always felt very personal and real, while I have never lived under authoritarian systems of government.

FREEDOM

Which brings me to my favorite part of the US founding documents, the Bill or Rights. The original Ten Amendments to the Constitution. The wonderful concept that the founding fathers of the United States felt so strongly about liberty, that they codified the principle freedoms that all Americans (ok initially only white men landowners) would have as a birthright. Being born an American the Bill of Rights guarantees those rights. And of those impressive rights the primus inter pares, the first among equals, is the First Amendment. Freedom to gather, freedom to speak, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. Again, I've obviously mellowed with age and still am a boisterous grumpy old man loudmouth as a 55 year old. Can you imagine how loud and obnoxious I was as a kid? I had an opinion on anything and I was not afraid to say it out loud. I was always in trouble, at the principal's office and having arguments with everybody. And I learned that in the USA, the Constitution includes those 10 Amendments, the Bill of Rights, which STARTS with the freedom of speech. What a glorious place America has to be, if freedom of speech (and of the press) is so guaranteed. 

To this day I hold the highest human value to be freedom. I do value honesty and justice and peace and integrity but to me, the highest possible human value is freedom. Like American patriot Patrick Henry proclaimed, give me liberty or give me death. Or as Evelyn Beatrice Hall (aka S.G. Tallenture) wrote in his biography about Voltaire "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (that is BTW often mistakenly attributed to Voltaire). This is how I think. Freedom is the greatest value and even life is secondary to freedom. Which brings me to the vile neo-fascist Donald Trump.

TRUMP THE BIGOTED RACIST

Up to now, I have observed Donald Trump's run for the US Presidency with bemusement and occasional worry. Not that he might win the election (he might win the nomination yes) but that he is arousing bigotry and hatred. And his candidacy has exposed surprisingly large elements of the Republican voter base who are racist xenophobes. I worry that his inflammatory rhetoric can incite some thugs to act on his hateful words and attack the various groups he's demonized from Mexicans to war veterans to women to journalists to the disabled and now Muslims. I have chronicled some of his nonsense here on this blog when I have written about the US election. But I try to be tolerant and I value freedom, especially freedom of speech. Even hateful speech should be allowed. And if there is voter support for such an extreme view, then in a democracy, those voices also should be heard. I have great confidence in the American system, however never fearing that Donald Trump might win the election (but as I said, he might win the Republican nomination, if things go his way; he has zero chance of winning the general election in 2016).

Trump's vitriol has gotten worse. First he demonized in general terms with name-calling. Calling Mexicans rapists and murderers. And hurling insults at various people and groups from John McCain war hero status to Megyn Kelly's menstrual cycle to mocking a friend journalist who is handicapped, about his handicap. This is bullying behavior but it doesn't suggest specific action. I was more troubled when Trump sent his bodyguard to beat up on Univision journalist Jorge Ramos, but that was not still in any way systematic. Other than that, as far as I know, Trump has only demonized the media and not suggested they should be beaten up. Again, on that slippery slope, is the next instance which was the Black Lives Matter protester who was beaten up at one of Trump's rallies, and Trump's alarming comments suggesting maybe he should be roughed up. That to me crossed over from being acceptable free speech, and becoming the kind that even the US Constitution does not protect from, which is causing harm, like yelling fire in a crowded theater. But again, the protester was interrupting a political event, and Trump only said about the possible violence afterwards. A border-line call. I felt he was playing with fire and have worried every day since that one of these days the news will be from a Trump political event where someone pulls a gun or knife and a protester is in critical condition; and the Trump supporter says in his defense: Trump told us to rough them up. But that hasn't happened (thank God). So we get to the Muslims. Next up was the Muslim database. This to me is a parallel of the Star of David that Hitler made Jews wear in Nazi Germany. This is going definitely FAR too far. But Trump said he never suggested it, he was asked about it by a journalist. So if its not Trump's official position or his proposal, I can't really fault him for it. He's a dangerous bigoted racists obviously but ok, he didn't call for a national database. And then came the San Bernardino shooting, and Trump said he wants to punish the families.

COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT IS BARBARIC

That is where Trump went over the line for me. I have been sleeping very badly since that statement and been troubled by it immensely. This is what is called 'collective punishment' and it is considered BARBARIC. It is what the hated Kings and Emperors and Czars of the past did, to their populations when they were absolute rulers. Its how Roman Emperors punished villages where for whatever reason the Emperor felt that village - or someone from that village - was not doing what the Emperor wanted. It is what truly horrible modern despots did, regularly, like Idi Amin, like Pol Pot, like Saddam Hussein, like Joseph Stalin and yes, like Adolf Hitler. For example Hitler. In Greece during WW2 when some partisans attacked German soldiers, the Gestapo would round up the villagers and shoot some number of the villagers as revenge. Like shooting all men and half of boys and half of women. That kind of revenge. Collective punishment. Not punishing the CRIMINAL (if you want to think of a freedom-fighter partisan as a criminal, from the German occupier's standpoint they were criminals) but punishing their relatives and friends. This is UTTERLY BARBARIC.

History is full of these horrible instances and they only happen with totalitarian despotic rulers. Collective punishment doesn't happen in democracies. So yes, like Stalin, like Saddam Hussein and like Hitler. It is not a stretch of the analogy to make that comparison. It is what those rulers REGULARLY did. Not just punish the guilty party but kill their wife and kids too. Or send their parents to a labor camp to die. This was Stalin's way so much he would even move whole nationalities if he was displeased with them. Off to Siberia as collective punishment! It goes to the very heart of justice. The Western principles of justice that are at the heart of the US system (inherited from the British) is that idea, that you are innocent until you are proven guilty. You cannot be thrown into jail without proof that you ARE guilty. You don't have to prove your innocence. The 'state' ie the police and the prosecuting attorneys have to prove that you are guilty. Nowhere in modern jurisprudence does it say 'innocent until proven guilty or if any of your relatives is proven guilty'. So any one of our crazy cousins or wacky uncles might cause us to be thrown into Guantanamo for the rest of our lives. Because Trump wants to go after the families of the guilty, as collective punishment. This is utterly comprehensively wrong and BARBARIC. But... it is difficult to explain and its easy to say - lets get their family members too, Get the wives of the terrorists! That will work (no it won't). But this was now Trump going over the line but its a very difficult idea to explain and to argue effectively WHY it is barbaric and why all modern Western judicial systems totally reject the idea of collective punishment. (oh, if those 'Tea Party' supporters of Trump only knew the very basics of the US history, then the very event that they took their name, the Boston Tea Party - was a violent reaction to .. collective punishment by the British King. That is how hated collective punishment is, it is one of the very events that triggered the whole American Revolution. Collective punishment. And Trump thinks the King's tyrannical way is better than the American judicial system of the past 240 years).

MUSLIMS NOT ALLOWED

So we got to Monday and Trump's edict that he wants all Muslims to be prevented to enter the United States. Not just immigration but any entry including tourists on visas, businessmen, athletes, artists, etc. And any US CITIZENS who happen to be abroad for whatever reason should not be allowed back into the United States if they are Muslims. Including yes, American military who have been risking their lives for Trump's freedom to say such horrible words. I was in tears when I heard that. I first thought of revising my intended Trump article, then could not get it in any way to a suitable tone. I knew I had to write this blog. I must register my protest. This is wrong. I don't care that it also is unconstitutional and illegal and utterly impractical (and that even if he was President, Trump could not enact this kind of decision). For any would-be terrorist it would be child's play to claim not to be a Muslim, so its utterly ridiculously useless. Only a scare tactic and rallying cry. Build fear and hatred. Scapegoat all Muslims. This is MORALLY wrong. The United States was founded on FREEDOM. One of the CODIFIED freedoms, in the FIRST AMENDMENT is the Freedom of Religion. You know how it is written in that Bill of Rights? The Freedom of Press, the Freedom of Assembly, the Freedom of Speech? The very first thing they say is.. Freedom of Religion. The very first protection. The First Amendment starts off by saying "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It is literally the 'first of the first' before Freedom to say anything or to have a meeting or to write a newspaper article. The very first codified freedom of all Americans - as rights they are born into - is the freedom of religion. The very very core of what is wonderful and admirable about the United States of America is that they protect the right of freedom of religion - for all religions. Including Muslims. 

It sickens me to see on TV that Trump got a standing ovation from the crowd at his rally after he said that. But essentially everybody that is even partially sane on both sides of the aisle has already condemned that position. I am by no means a fan to any degree of the war-criminal Dick Cheney who thought warrantless wiretapping of all Americans, of assassination of people by drone, and of torture by waterboarding were all perfectly ok as 'American' values. So when Dick Cheney says Donald Trump's idea of forbidding entry to the USA based on religion is UnAmerican, and also against the Republican party, then yes. Trump is a Nazi. He is a fascist. He is off the reservation. He is in loonieville. So I decided now I have had enough. I have to take a stand. This is totally unacceptable. He is a disgrace not only to Americans but to all Christians and to the human race. So I have a moral duty to act. I have but my words and writing and this blog. But I will put Trump on my forever-shit-list.

THE DEFINITION OF TRUMPISM

I promise this blog will take the permanent view to fight Trump and Trumpism long past the day he has expired (I expect to live way longer than he as he's far older than me and looks rather frail). So Trump is now formally added to the enemies list of this blog, alongside former Nokia CEO Stephen Elop (worst CEO of all time) and Microsoft (the Evil Empire) and a few others. In that spirit, let me propose to you a Definition of Trumpism, which is likely to come to full meaning during next year and partly the few years thereafter:

Definition:
Trumpism (noun) - Failed neo-fascist fringe political ideology, peddled by former reality TV star and former real estate billonaire Donald Trump who lost most of his fortune and all his fame in his failed bid for the US Presidency in 2016 .Trumpism used racial slurs, ridicule, stereotyping, fearmongering, hate speech and vilification with bombastic language to demonize various political subgroups. Trumpism also included repeated claims of greatness from affluence to any standing in surveys and polls. Trumpism featured repeated attacks on all political rivals by school-yard level taunts. Trumpism used serial lying and whenever confronted by lies, steadfast denial of such lies. If shown facts to expose lies, resorting to Cheney-Rumsfeldian insistence that the lies still hold true. After failing in the run for President, Trump was ousted from the Republican party and buildings and golf courses that once bore his name had the Trump name removed after the name caused severe devaluation of the properties and numerous worldwide boycotts against his name.

The above definition may be freely shared - in fact please do.
I don't care if any Trumps are hurt or damaged in the creation of that definition, in fact I hope they are.

So yeah. I hope that Trump's fall is so huuuuuge and a global backlash follows against his name and any properties with his name, that the Trump name faces a global collapse of its prestige and value and people will be ashamed to live in, visit or be associated with any properties that display the Trump name. And that soon after his failed run at President ends, various Trump properties will end all association with Trump and rename their properties removing that poisonous name. I personally will never accept any paid consulting work or speaking engagements by Trump related companies. I also pledge never to enter any building or other property that has a Trump name on it, including refusing to speak at any conference or event held at a Trump venue.

Also I hope that all his remaining businesses fail and he soon is pronounced to be worth less than one Billion dollars and that his name will have zero value. Finally that Trump's name itself, as Trumpism, will be as toxic as say McCarthyism and that Trump as politician will be seen as failed as a Republican as say Nixon, that no conservatives or Republicans hark back to anything 'positive' about the xenophobic misogynistic bigoted racsist duchebag asshole. As a small bit of poetic justice I'd love for Trump's grandkids to hate him and his name so much, they select another surname for themselves and for Trump to live to see that happen. And maybe one of them to marry a Muslim, or a Mexican; or maybe Mexican-Muslim.

I WALK WITH MUSLIMS TONIGHT

I used to live in the USA for 12 years. Most of that time I lived there in Trump's hometown of New York City. If I was there on Manhattan today, I would call up a few of my Jewish friends, and a few of my Catholic friends, and I'd call a few of my Hindu friends, and a few of my Protestant friends, and I'd call up a few of my agnostic or atheist friends. And I'd suggest we go visit some of our dear Muslim friends, tonight. Bring them some cake and coffees from Starbucks and go just say hi, keep them a bit of company and show solidarity. That there will never be a day when their names go into a database. That there will never be a day they have to fear collective punishment. That there will never be a day when they are abroad and they suddenly cannot return back home, because of their religion. That we are there with them. That America is the best country to celebrate any religion. That Americans will not let this kind of bigotry stand. Not on our watch. I know my friends would all come.

And I kind of hope and expect there will be demonstrations of solidarity where Christians and Jews and Mormons and Hindus and Sikhs and Buddhists and Taoists and agnostics and atheists will go march hand-in-hand with Muslims. If I was living in the USA, that is where I would spend my night, on such a march, making sure I get to hold hands with some Muslims who cannot feel all too loved and safe right now. I know a foreigner is not allowed to join protests or might result in trouble with Immigration and I am not the kind of guy who joins every 99% protest happening around the block, but this is one protest I would march in. All night.

This blog stands for freedom. Freedom of press. Freedom of assembly. Freedom of speech. And in this case particularly, for freedom of religion. To all my Muslim friends reading this blog, trust me, what Trump is saying is not what most Americans feel. He will never become the President. Do not judge that nation by the worst of the bad apples we've seen. Trump is a monster.

(I hope this comes close to correctly spelled..) Yadhhab fi silaman, qad Allah himayatak.

Comments

[Millard Filmore]

@GlobalWarming. Several commenters here have expressed the view that the current global temperature average is nothing to worry about. All other things being equal, the current global rise in temperature is well within the statistical noise of however far back into the last ice age you find convenient.

Unfortunately not all other things are equal. CO2 levels are most certainly NOT within statistical noise of any recent times.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=earth+history+co2+levels
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi Catriona, millard and Winter

Catriona - onto the last point in you response to Winter. Big Data operation. Yes, this makes Cruz possibly a far stronger general-election rival to Hillary than most in the field (and we can rather safely agree Jeb Bush is not going to win the nomination). In a 'tech arms race' the newcomer has a distinct opportunity, by using the very latest tech and its competence, even four years can be eclipsed if the timing is right. And Hillary's 'machine' is in many ways the third evolution of Obama's 2008 datamining and social media operation, but via the massive jump in its capacity to 2012. In some ways, its kind of 'one decade old' stuff but highly turbocharged. Now, in other ways, Messina did start from zero with the Obama 2012 project and that one was a genuine Big Data system while Obama 2008 was not. Still, there is at least technically an opening, where even with less money and resources, Cruz might be able to 'leapfrog' the tech race ahead of Hillary. Then theoretically it could be that Hillary 2016 could be the Romney 2012 equivalent, where they do a massive upgrade of what they'd done in the past, and then trust its outcome and be lulled into a false sense of security thinking they are winning when they in fact were not. I do not think this is a high probability, but certainly Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and Ted Cruz have/had data teams that hope to achieve just that. And Messina and gang over at Hillaryland hope that they can stay ahead or at least keep abreast of what the rivals are doing. History is full of tech giants falling by attempting to hold on too long to the older way and keep doing that better.. I do not think this is yet the cycle when the 'Obama Big Data' concept (as massively upgraded again) could be overthrown but it is a distinct possibility. I hope we will hear more about both sides as time goes on.

But in the PRIMARY race, Cruz now has a superweapon his rivals do not have (and/or, Bush and Walker were unable to utilize well enough to save their hopeless campaigns). Note, partly then Cruz's current surge is a 'mirage' his real support isn't quite as strong has he is illustrating but he has been able to maximize his potential better than others. Partly this means he can easily pulverize rivals and GREATLY optimize his tactics. Who to attack and when AND WITH WHAT arguments. This war now with Rubio seems to be going far too easily for Cruz rather than Rubio. It would seem to be, that just like how Obama used Narwhal in 2012 to select his arguments and his timing (and his PLACE of where to make a given political argument) Cruz is doing that now to damage his political rivals. Imagine if Cruz actually used his full debating powers, his Big Data operation and his large campaign funds in advertising - against Trump... There is something fishy between those two haha. And as Cruz only thinks of himself, this must be something REALLY gravy for Cruz, in why he is not attacking Trump. Have they plotted to break the Tea Party away from the Republicans (with Ben Carson in the mix). Or has Trump promised he will step aside once he has demolished all rivals from Ted's path, and what is the quid-pro-quo for Trump then. What will he get from Cruz, certainly Trump doesn't want to be his VP haha or to be promised a Secretary of State or Commerce Secretary posting in a Cruz cabinet where Trump can easily see that Hillary will demolish Cruz in the general election. What is Trump's game?

Catriona - great point about Cruz as VP for Rubio, something I hadn't thought of - that this would bring Cruz's Big Data operation to Rubio's gain. Hey, great point there! And its one reason why Rubio could be more willing to accept Cruz as his VP. But in the general election then both candidates would be like the movie 'Dumb and Dumber' - these would be 'Extreme and Extremer' making it far harder for Rubio to win the general election. His best bet for that would be to pick a moderate and if Carly Fiorina can stay away from imagining things like seeing brain harvesting haha, Carly could make the ideal VP for Rubio. Kasich the other best possible running mate. Anyone as extreme or more (Cruz the most extreme of the bunch) would only highlight all of Rubio's extreme views and reinforce them. Easy for Hillary's populist campaign to exploit.

millard - haha yeah great point. Cruz is not being attacked much in the primaries on his absurd filibuster for default. The reason is that many Tea Party extremists wanted that and applauded Cruz for that idiotic stunt. But it would be featured prominently in the general election - with almost all of Cruz's colleages in the Senate - Republicans - ridiculing him on that contemporaneously and how bad it would be/is for the USA credibility. Not a 'Presidential' gambit by Cruz but it played well with his base. Its part of the many faults Cruz has which make him utterly unelectable in the general election.

Catriona - Cruz's stunt was irresponsible. Not so says your 'liberal friend' Tomi here on this blog. So said almost all REPUBLICAN SENATORS. This point is beyond argument now Catriona stop it. You expressed you view. We heard it. You won't bring this back, because all of Cruz's OWN PARTY members said it was foolish and damaging and could not work. That was maybe good politics for Tea Party supporters. It damaged the nation and it damaged the Senate and it damaged the Republican party. If Cruz is nominated or is the VP pick, that silly filibuster will be featured in anti-Cruz ads and all those Republicans will be quoted with videotape condemning Cruz. Catriona. This issue is CLOSED. Don't bring it up again. If all Cruz's OWN PARTY SENATORS condemn that action, it was dumb.

Then on Hillary's Benghazi witch-hunt. Did you SEE the inquisition? That issue was asked and answered. But if you are so simple you do not get it, here it is again. Hillary heard that Benghazi was attacked. She was not there. She relied on WHAT SHE WAS TOLD. When Hillary told Chelsea what was going on, she had been told one thing. Later she got newer, better information - as always happens in such cases - so by the time she spoke to the nation, she knew better. Now what part of that don't you understand? It was VERY clear in the hearing. It was OBVIOUS from the time-line covering TWO DAYS of confusion out of Benghazi. If this was ANY ISSUE, they would have more on it. Everybody except some delusional right wingers, has dropped Benghazi totally as worthwhile to fight Hillary on. There is nothing there, Catriona. She was not lying to the public. Hillary learned more and then of course changed her understanding as she learned more. Duh. But feel free to believe there will be an indictment on Hillary, Catriona. Feel free to believe that fantasy. I was here before telling you there is nothing in it. I am still here today to talk on facts and reality. When your mind gets past Benghazi, I will still be here and welcome you back to discuss the real world, when you are ready for it. I don't mind. But if you have any doubt, please just watch that part of the Benghazi questions again. And listen to Hillary's patient response going over the time-line. Is that not totally consistent with everything else reported at the time? The story CHANGED not because Hillary was in Libya somehow fabricating false evidence. She was in Washington DC. The story changed BECAUSE AMERICAN EXPERTS on the ground sent newer, better information including eventually video footage. But again, if you want to believe Benghazi is an issue that will matter in 2016, feel free to do so. I am here telling you now, when the exit polls come out, none of the Independents will vote on Benghazi. Only die-hard Republicans who already hate Hillary, will list Benghazi as the reason they voted against her. Its not an issue. But the Hillary campaign LOVES it when that issue is kept alive by clueless conservatives because its not going to matter, but it reminds all Democrats and many Independents about the witch-hunt, and about how well Hillary stood up to 11 hours of that. It even goes to the Trump campaign where Trump can't take 3 hours of debate. So who has the 'best health of any candidate ever to run for office' haha.

Catriona - now on 'American Exceptionalism' - that is pure Republican propaganda. I get it that any nation wants to be proud of itself. I am an internationalist and believe nation-states need to be vanished. I welcome the gradual integration of the world, and the various political unions such as the European Union, which hopefully in a couple of hundred years can eliminate the nationalistic feelings and bring about a general European mentality rather then being French or German or Italian or Belgian or Finnish. But we no doubt disagree here strongly. On that 'exceptionalism' it is a ridiculous claim on the face of it, as the USA is not a historic nation, it is an amalgamation of other countries. The exceptional nation is that of the native Americans. That hardly is represented by the USA. And if you say 'melting pot' then we have far more melted pots which on that degree of 'exceptionalism' are more 'American' (melting pot) than the USA. Take Singapore for example far far more melted pot than the USA. Take Malaysia. Plenty other countries more melted than the USA.

As to the haha, that was funny, claim that only the USA protects freedom of speech in its constitution. Seriously Catriona? Look at most modern democracies. Look at the constitution of say Kenya. Or yes, Malaysia. Or the Philippines. Or what about the largest democracy on the planet? Yes the constitution of India guarantees all citizens freedom of speech. Its in the Canadian constitution, its in most European constitutions (like we have in Finland), its all over the planet but a few of America's allies do not have it - like Australia does not expressly guarantee a freedom of speech. Britain has very specific limits on freedom of speech. Some democracies do not have it, but many do. Its utter hogwash to suggest that the USA is 'exceptional' because its constitution protects freedom of speech. The USA WAS innovative, when it was the FIRST nation to guarantee that freedom two hundred and forty years ago. You could argue that in 1776 the USA was 'exceptional' but not today. Today at best it was a 'front-runnner' or 'leader' in that aspect.

Again Catriona, trouble here on the CDB blog is that I do take a global view, some of the nationalistic bullshit does not fly here and we deal with facts, not fantasies. Americans have a particularly hard part accepting they are mere humans and not perfect in every aspect haha. But when compared internationally, occasional faults do emerge - such as that silly claim of 'exceptionalism' haha but that plays very well with Tea Party fanatics and delusional dimwits who follow Fox News the most error-ridden news network and now find support by the three politicians who lie the most: On top Trump who lies 76% of the time according to PolitiFact. Second is Ted Cruz who lies 66% of the time. Third or fourth depending on polls is Ben Carson the worst liar who lies 84% of the time. Note for comparison same PolitiFact finds serial liar Dick Cheney only lies 59% of the time, hated socialist-Kenyan-Muslim-will-take-your-guns-and-invade-Texas Obama lies 26% of the time and 'untrustworthy' Hillary Clinton lies 28% of the time. The MOST HONEST of the current field of Republicans lie more than Hillary ie at least 32% of the time. The only way voters will accept serial liars as their candidates is, if they've been brainwashed by a network that lies consistently - Fox News. So there, this mess is in many ways the creation of Fox News. Congratulations. Incidentially, it won't be able to be cured, until Fox News changes its ways too... else the Tea Party disease will linger on, preventing Republican victories into perpetuity. Good luck with that. I will be here when that is finally changed and the Republicans return to their moderate centrist ways like with Bush 2, Bush 1 and even Ronald Reagan who spoke like a conservative but governed domestically like a moderate including raising taxes 11 times and passing gun control.. but whose counting :-)

Catriona, that response from you seemed to come as a gut reaction and you no doubt believed it. Now please just go google it, you will see that dozens of other democracies not just protect freedom of speech, they have codified it into their constitutions. Maybe the USA is exceptional, you may still be correct, but the evidence you sited, that its because of USA being the only country to protect that freedom in its constitution, is pure Fox News propaganda bullshit. Doesn't fly on the CDB blog. But don't take my word for it, please go check for yourself. I told you I admired that in the USA, but its no longer the only country to have that protection.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi Winter, Millard and Catriona

Winter - yeah social issues will matter in any election but are not necessarily the top item. Sometimes they are. This time I am pretty sure this will be a more rare foreign policy election where terrorism and Putin will overshadow all other issues including the economy. But time will tell, a week is a long time in politics. Imagine a civil war breaking out in Saudi Arabia and its oilfields on fire, next martial law in the Emirates, then some (Al Quada, ISIS, Taliban, Whoever) terrorists manage to sink some oil tanker in the Straight of Hormuz and the world is suddenly in oil crisis. The price of oil skyrockets, airlines start to go bankrupt, Putin finds nationalistic euphoria supporting him again as the Russian oil-driven economy powers up, and Putin goes on another invasion like grabbing the Azerbayan oil fields... If Americans were forced to line up to get rationed gasoline again, then Obama would not just be blamed, he'd be hated. Sarah Palin would be on on TV yelling 'drill baby drill' and Romney would be saying about Putin 'told you so' and Dick Cheney would be screaming - invade Saudi Arabia now to defend the King - etc etc etc.. total worldwide chaos and ... economic crisis of the fourth oil shock. Note that the previous third oil shock is one of the main reasons Jimmy Carter lost in 1980.

But I do think it will be foreign policy especially ISIS and terrorism, with Putin doing something nasty, that will be the main worry of US electorate in 2016. And then competence in foreign policy - where Hillary totally rules over the Republican field this time - will be of course one more factor sealing the fate of the Republicans (like I predicted last year).

But on the social issues - regardless of what is the biggest issue, social issues always matter. Obamacare will be on the table. Abortion will be debated. Gun control will be argued as will education and social security. The Republicans, all of them, are vulnerable on those issues. The reason we aren't seeing direct attacks from Hillary yet on those points, is that she is smartly waiting to see who it will be and not waste her political attack ads on an issue that doesn't apply to the final rival. But all of the current field have untenable positions on social issues because they have been pandering to the Tea Party base (or are truly real conservatives like Ted Cruz or Rick Santorrum or Mike Huckabee etc).

Millard - agree totally on the default and you can see I already told Catriona that the issue is closed. Nobody apart from the Tea Party thinks it is wise and we won't bother to debate such silliness further here. You win :-)

As to Bush-Cheney haha, Catriona, would you care to respond to Millard on that. Do you think Bush and Cheney (or maybe just Cheney) should be put on trial - is there a 'prima facie' case against them that they should stand in front of a jury and defend themselves? After all many including Americans, not just foreigners, have called on them to be tried on war crimes? And many of their rulings were found to be wrong or have been changed since. The unlawful detentions in Guantanamo Bay. The warrantless wire-tapping that was recently ended. The use of torture to try to get confessoins. The use of drone strikes to kill AMERICANS without warrant. I am not asking did Obama continue some of these things. I am asking, do you think its fair to put Bush 2 and Cheney on trial for this. They would get fair competent councel that both millionaires can afford to hire the best attorneys to defend them. Would you see that potential crimes were committed and should the two stand trial. Or is it just that when Hillary 'promised to prosecute someone on YouTube' but hasn't done that 'crime' yet - is it only that laws apply to Hillary but not to Republicans?

Catriona - one, the YouTube guy captured on 'trumped up probation violation' - it WAS a probation violation. So was not against the constitution. There was a crime, he went back to prison. Good. Now how about Catriona answering Millard's question. I am not asking you if Bush 2 and Cheney are criminals, I ask do you think there is enough evidence they should stand trial, or is torture, warrantless wiretaps, decade-long detention, and drone-killings of American citizens without trial - is that all ok for the Kings of the USA when they happen to be Republicans?

(my view is that both should be indicted, prosecuted and found guilty as charged. The President then in power - ie Hillary - should pardon Bush 2 but let Cheney and gang like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others then rot in jail)

(more coming..)

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Catriona (on your reply to me)

So on the gerrymandering, your response is that Congress won't do it. But I take it, that you accept, Congress could do it. Legally its totally within their domain and they could do it. Now with that, consider first the Democrats. Its true that the Voting Rights Act protected some constituents and has allowed gerrymandering for minority protection. How long would Hillary need to negotiate with the Black caucus, to convince them that a Tea Party mad Republican House is the worst thing imaginable for Blacks, and its only enduring power is gerrymandering. That only gerrymandering prevents moderate - blacks-friendly - Republicans from entering Congress and is actually tossing moderate Republicans out. The Blacks will all vote in a block to support the legislation to end gerrymandering.

The rest of Democrats have no problem whatsoever voting for a law outlawing gerrymandering. Instantly and totally and forever. And what about Republicans? Many Republicans (probably most) KNOW that gerrymandering is what enables being 'primaried' out of office, the threat from the right. Tea Parties will love gerrymandering and will scream bloody murder when talk of making it illegal is floated. The moderate Republicans will find the end of gerrymandering a lifeline they will privately love. Most will be afraid to be seen to support it. But a few will be brave enough to break with their party and vote for it - as long as the anti-gerrymandering law actually passes. Else they would be murdered and truly primaried like none have ever been, if the anti-gerrymandering law were to fail haha. But a few honest, moderate, fair-minded Republicans, who will RETIRE by 2018, they would not have any problem ridding the nation of this cancer, because they will hate what the Tea Party did to their party and legacy, and some retiring Republicans will vote with the Democrats for ending gerrymandering (as long as the law has enough votes to pass).

If Hillary gets both the Senate and the House, I promise you, a law to end gerrymandering will be on the agenda. And if the Senate is not filibuster-proof, at least the first version of that law (the most extreme and instant version) will be then filibustered by the Tea Party Senators like ahem Ted Cruz. And then a milder version with probably longer lead time to take effect, will be made that will eventually pass. Its not just that gerrymandering is inherently unfair and one-sided, it steals votes. Its patently anti-democratic. A Supreme Court will strike it down as unconstitutional. Maybe not this Court but once the balance of the Court switches to slightly liberal, then gerrymandering comes up in the first season and will be ruled unconstitutional instantly. Might get a 6-3 vote even if the balance of the Court is only 5-4 for the liberals. It is that obviously unconstitutional and anti-democratic. Its moronic. That a state can vote 55-45 for Democrats, and yet send 9 Republicans and 4 Democrats to the House. Thats just mad. It will end. If Hillary gets both houses, she'll end it in her first term. If she gets a filibuster-proof Senate, she'll end it before the 2018 mid-terms take place.

Catriona this is all the process. Natural improvement. A 'more perfect union'. The USA is not perfect today. It has faults. All countries have faults. But the USA systematically works to remove the faults. Its a slow process and its not always moving in a direct line and sometimes there are setbacks, but the long term path is clearly to the better. At first democracy was only for men, white men, landowners and over the age of 24 I think. Now women can also vote. Blacks and other minorities can vote. Poor people can vote. And the voting age is down to 18. There is much more democracy today than when the USA was founded in 1776. And the work is not done. Gerrymandering is a ridiculously unAmerican and unDemocratic and unConstitutional concept. Idiotic. It is good tactics and both sides have used it. But now in 2010 the Republicans did that tactic so well, it now is poisoning the process. It is time to end it and it will be ended, because both sides can see it is damaging the very basis of democracy. But will the right wing talk shows go ape-shit angry about it. Sure they will. And will Hillary ram this through anyway? Of course she will. And will moderate Republicans love her for it, but mostly stay silent about it until they have retired - of course they will. The Tea Party cancer needs gerrymandering. And gerrymandering maintains the Tea Party. When gerrymandering is removed, most 'competivive' regions become moderate again and most moderate conservatives cannot be 'primaried'. In some very red states like Kansas, Utah, Alabama, yes there will still be extremists but most moderate states, most moderate districts, the moderate conservatives will be electable and the lunatic Tea Partiers will be extinguished.

Now on liberal SCOTUS... What do the liberals want? Voting for all, fair elections for all, more voters, wider voting. Conservatives want to limit voting and restrict voting and use tricks to maintain their hold on power. Feel free to think a liberal SCOTUS won't rule on gerrymandering being illegal. Its time has gone. Even the current CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court might rule against gerrymandering as Hillary raises the issue in the general election next year (she's already talked about it a lot). It is inherently undemocratic. And say what you will about the how politicized the Supreme Court has become, they are still judges and they mostly make sensible rulings. This is one where the interests and will of voters is being denied. The election is being stolen. I would not be surprised if the Supreme Court independently rules on it before Hillary even takes office and find that gerrymandering is inherently unconstitutional and bans it totally. But if not this Court, the moment it flips to liberal balance during Hillary's 8 years, then that decision will be made (unless that is unnecessary by a new law passed by Congress). Separately, yes, the red states will almost on a united front challenge the new anti-gerrymandering law - and you know what? That will FURTHER alienate Independent Moderate voters who will see clearly that the Republicans are trying to steal elections with rigging the game...

The exact timing of when the current Republican advantage of Congressional vote gerrymandering worth 7 points in the general election, is ended, is up in the air. It could be ended as soon as in Hillary's first year/s and for the 2018 mid-terms. It might not be ended until after the 2022 election for the 2024 election. The longer it takes to happen, the more the EFFECTS of gerrymandering will be diluted by things such as the independent redistricting commissions and various court challenges and the census of 2020 plus Democratic counter-measures to take State Governorships and legislatures. We've seen 'peak gerrymandering' and it will now be in decline and ends somewhere between the election of 2018 and 2024. And when gerrymandering is removed, the Republicans cannot win a House majority for at least a decade, because of the enormous damage they've done to themselves in the recent years. Before they ever get the House back, they will before that win the Senate. And before they win the Senate, they will first win the Presidency. And they won't win the Presidency before 2024, more likely 2028. The reason is that the current 'strong farm team' of Republicans are similar to Ted Cruz the fiery wrecking balls that want to destroy everything. They talk a good game. They can win when they are in a tilted game that favors that kind of extremism. But once gerrymandering is removed, it will be again moderation that wins. COMPROMISE. And that requires a whole new generation of moderate COMPROMISING Republicans, where today compromise is a dirty word on Fox News and the right wing talk shows. Yeah, good luck with that too. So its very clear, gerrymandering will end, its only a question of time. But the longer that takes, the more DAMAGE the current Tea Party inflected politicians can do to the Republican brand. If you remember 1984, it was a disgrace to be called a Democrat and the word liberal was so poisonous, Bill Clinton had to come in with the term 'progressive' instead of liberal haha. But this is the natural ying-and-yang of politics. Barry Goldwater poisoned the Republican brand in 1964 and lost a whole generation of voters. This is not permanent damage but gerrymandering is PROLONGING the pain for the Republicans. However it will pass and after 8 years of Hillary, the Republican answer to the old angry vengeful secretive vindictive grandma, will be a young fresh-faced optimistic moderate Republican, who will promise a clean sweep of the nation. Maybe not winning in 2024 but such a candidate (the next one) should be the frontrunner by 2028... by then it would be a Hispanic woman pro-choice anti-guns moderate Republican. She could win in 2028 haha..

But I'll be here on this blog still in 2024. Thats only 9 years from now. By then lets come back Catriona and see is gerrymandering still legal and giving Republicans the House in 2024 or were Hillary and the Democrats (and Supremes) able to eliminate that parasite form the political system. Wanna come back in 9 years and we'll see? This is one of those things that as an outsider and foreigner, is PERFECTLY visible. Its an obvious fault that will be cured, like that silly idea that there should be no limits to gun ownership or the silly idea that there should be no health safety net. Yes, by the end of Hillary's second term there will be socialized medicine too, ie the 'Canadian model' which will be part of Hillary's second term election promise - to evolve Obamacare into Hillarycare. That too is inevitable. Just like how women in the miliatry was inevitable, like how gay rights are inevitable like how a raise in minimum wage is inevitable. The Republicans now are standing on the wrong side of history.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi Catriona, Per and Winter

Catriona - on Trump the moderate on social issues. Yes. Very true. And remarkably bizarre for his supporters. The current support is to a large degree the fringe (his early support, the later support includes moderates). And they tend to be very conservative. If they knew what all moderate positions Trump has stood for, some must have concerns. But they are now truly delusional. They have drunk the cool aid. They have been convinced anything bad said about Trump is the nasty lies by mainstream media. And then as Trump feeds them 76% lies they all lap it up and believe it - simply because Fox News itself is the most untrustworthy news channel but its viewers are convinced its the most honest network haha. They have been BRAINWASHED. Nice for Trump. He has a kind of impenetrable force field shielding his voters from the truth. So yeah. Trump in reality is a moderate, OBVIOUSLY. And some of his solutions - if Trump ever become the nominee then for the general election Trump HAS to run on those moderate positions - will freak out the conservatives like nothing seen before. What? To take Obamacare and evolve it into total socialized medicine ie HILLARYCARE? To go from the conservative Romneycare to HILLARYCARE? And this is 'their guy'??? But if Trump gets his nomination next summer, there is no way for the party to rid itself of that candidate. They will be furious and some will truly stay home or sleep late and they will be incredibly furious about their party and nominee, about the ultimate con-job. And will Trump care? Not in the least bit.

But I agree, most of Trump's positions from taxes to abortion to drugs to gays to guns are moderate. Its only his fascist racist views on VOTER DEMOGRAPHICS that are dooming his campaign. Because if his gender gap is worse than Romney's or his Hispanic gap is worse than Romney's he cannot win in any scenario. Not possible. And his gender gap AND his Hispanic gap are FAR worse vs Hillary, than Romney. Trump has turned whole voter blocks against himself and now Hillary is working hard to paint all Republicans on that ugly brush, to ensure that if its not Trump, then the other nominee would also be seen as being as horrible; and in any case, Hillary needs to flip the Senate and the House - she needs all sitting Republicans to be seen to be as evil as Trump. So yeah. I agree with you Catriona, the real Trump is a moderate. He hasn't campaigned yet on that angle. If he wins the nomination, he will pivot (flipflop) so much he will make Romney seem as solid as a block of granite. And Hillary will crucify Trump for being the weather vane that he'd seem like. And especially that illusion of a sleeping giant Republican conservative voter - will feel the greatest betrayal ever seen in US politics - many will stay at home, some most angry will go vote for Hillary out of spite. Trump would lose to Hillary by 20 points.

On climate change. The time has come and gone on that too. I am sure you accept cigarette smoking is harmful. But there were TV ads still in the 1960s with doctors claiming that cigarette smoking improved your health! Then when doctors started to notice serious health issues, the tobacco industry studied the matter and found yes, its a deadly drug, but they then hid that research and sent an army of lobbyists to deny the science - and commissioned bogus 'research' to counter the science - which they KNEW was valid that cigarettes cause death. Now we see the same evidence coming from the petroleum giants. They've known for years that they are causing climate change but they've hidden that research, commissioned fake research to try to deny climate change. This is YET ANOTHER area where Republicans stand on the wrong side of history. And here the US conservatives stand alone GLOBALLY. Even conservatives in Europe and Asia admit that climate change is real and something has to be done. And slowly some of the Republicans are taking moderate positions within their party, to try to change that view. But much of the party is in the pockets of big oil - Dick Cheney, Halliburton, and several of the Texas oil Billionaires (or pipeline Billionaires) who are funding many of the candidates this year. Plus of course the biggest polluters, the Koch Brothers.

The good thing is, that the total denial is now being breached. That means sense and sanity is STARTING to appear in the Republican party. They have damaged the YOUTH loyalty immensely with this, because saving the planet is the youth's mission. But the Republicans didn't see that as they were not the youth-oriented party recently. So take Rubio the 'young guy' against grandma Clinton. So Rubio says the USA should put its own economy first, ahead of the planet, and haha, a free-market system should be in place rather than say a carbon tax or off-setting. And grandma Clinton? In the pocket of climate change crowd. Now, one is the young dude but has the ancient hated Republican position on the most important issue for the youth; the other is the much older woman but who has the youth's fave position on their most important issue. Who wins? It won't be the babyfaced young guy from Florida. Sorry. Again sitting on the wrong side of history, but at least on this issue there has been some movement since 2012 and some candidates now are approaching sensible climate change positions. And yeah, living in Florida, you gotta be pretty concerned if your house is under water by the time you wanted to leave it in your will to your kids...

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[dubai visa agents in hyderabad]

The book includes insightful and immediately usable theories. I particularly liked the Four C's the Alpha Users, Engagement Marketing and Generation-C. To top it off, the book includes 13 revealing case studies. I suggest you read Oh My News Korea, Twins Hong Kong and Habbo travel agents in hyderabad for dubai visa Hotel Finland to really see the future impacting traditional businesses. I thoroughly enjoyed the book, am now rereading it, and recommend it to anyone in business.