“Words carry oceans on their small backs.”
“The casualties our tongues have caused …”
“Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment.”
“For all things we want to say there is an inexpressible center.”
I have written about the weight of words maybe a dozen times.
There are currently a gazillion articles online with regard to the existing false equivalence between Trump & Clinton. My version is slightly different … it is about words themselves.
To me … there is an odd thing happening.
There seems to be an accepted equivalence between the words of one candidate versus the other. We treat both candidates words as if they are of … well … equal sense, logic and weight.
We treat the words of both as if one were Shakespeare and the other Marlowe.
Or maybe because it is politics … one is Buckley and the other Vidal.
We place the words of each side by side and rate the poetic articulation, the nuanced word selection, the literalness <or lack of literalness> as well as the artistry of dialectic prose.
Why assume equivalence?
One is more like a teenage boy penning poetic angst and the other is Sylvia Plath pondering the insightful thoughts of Life.
One uses words as if they are sheets of single ply toilet paper easily used and easily flushed while the other parses out words as if they carry an ocean within each syllable.
One shares words as if out of chaos one can find their own meaning while the other shares words from an inexpressible center.
One relies on a torrent of relentless lies from which no truth about what will actually be done arises while the other relies on a series of relentless truths on what will actually be done which is being suffocated by a cloak of innuendoes & speculative conspiracy-driven word salads.
One relentlessly bludgeons us with words bare of anything but blunt steel while the other parries with a sharp point seeking openings to make a point.
I imagine both are offering words carrying oceans but one’s ocean is not the same as the other ocean <albeit Trump would like everyone to believe his ocean is not only similar to Clinton’s but bigger, deeper, with more fish and more naval ships cruising on it>.
We cannot afford this false equivalence which is actually cloaked in a double standard. There shouldn’t be a double standard where she’s treated as a grown-up and he gets indulged as a surly teenager with poor emotional control.
We cannot afford a double standard because they are both running for the same job … which, by the way, is the most powerful job and responsibility in the world.
Let’s face it.
Whether you trust Clinton or not, or whether you think she is crooked or not, the policies that she offers are … well … real policies. They are real programs thought out with a real plan of action.
Ignore everything else and strip away the conspiracies & beliefs … and she offers plans.
He not only has no real policies <most he offers are empty of important aspects of reality> and he absolutely has a dubious relationship with truth as well as conviction, therefore, his words offer oceans of … well … lies and stability.
And he does all of this on such a grand scale I actually believe no one can actually believe the ocean he is offering truly exists … but, at the same time, it seems so large … well … doesn’t it have to exist?
Long ago, you-know-who suggested that propagandists should apply the “big lie” technique: make their falsehoods so huge, so egregious, that they would be widely accepted because nobody would believe they were lying on that grand a scale. And the technique has worked well for despots and would-be despots ever since.
But Donald Trump has come up with something new, which we can call the “big liar” technique. Taken one at a time, his lies are medium-size—not trivial, but mostly not rising to the level of blood libel. But the lies are constant, coming in a steady torrent, and are never acknowledged, simply repeated. He evidently believes that this strategy will keep the news media flummoxed, unable to believe, or at least say openly, that the candidate of a major party lies that much.
I imagine that the true difference between their words and how they use them resides within the center of who and what they are. By the way … this is the truth of anyone’s words.
Like Clinton or not she has principles to get the right things done, a strong belief in God and a centered focus on getting shit done with a plan in mind. Her ocean is deep with strong tides and calm surface.
Trump … well … I cannot find his center. I cannot find the principles which would center his words <I do not consider ‘winning’ a principle>. His ocean is restless in constant turmoil and riddled with hurricanes.
How did I think about the Trump non-principles thing?
If you have no principles you build a business on the backs of low wage earners offering no benefits and no opportunities to grow … and espouse your own personal wealth growth.
If you have no principles you win at any cost … well … at the cost of anyone but yourself. And if you lose it was not your fault and you are willing to claim bankruptcy to protect your own wealth but sacrifice the wealth of the players you had hired at the same time.
If you have no principles “I” will always trump “we” in decision making. This false premise ignores that “I” can be successful by making the “we” tide rise higher <this is also his biggest incompetency when it comes to “America first” which sounds good but misunderstands the complexity of global success benefiting America>.
Note: I encourage everyone to watch “who killed the USFL.” His business style and narcissism destroyed a good business model and idea. And he did so unflinchingly and unapologetically <as counter point John Bassett of the Tampa Bay Bandits was the kind of business leader we need more of>.
If you have no principles you expound on conspiracy theories and use the National Enquirer, Alex Jones <infowars> & Breitbart as a viable source for proof.
If you have no principles you make white black and black white. It is sometimes like he lives in some alternative universe.
For example he recently said ““Our vision of hope stands in stark contrast to my opponent’s campaign of hate. Hillary Clinton has been running a hate-filled and negative campaign, with no policy, no solutions and no ideas. By contrast, I’ve been going around the country offering very detailed plans for reform and change.”
That is a head scratcher if there ever was one. Nobody has ever suggested Trump has offered the public anything close to a positive campaign or offered any real hope or any specific policies <excepting himself of course>.
He calls people liars and that he only tells the truth and … well … <I am speechless here>.
And it seems like every other day he not only criticizes an everyday citizen <he is running for president, isn’t he?>, the most recent a pastor, and at the same time describes an event that … well … never occurred the way he outlined it.
It appear like he uses words not really caring that his alternative universe didn’t match with the reality universe.
This is the mark of a true principled liar … calling black white and white black.
I would like to believe he does have some principles and is simply doing “whatever serves his purpose” but even with that said I want a business leader whose platform isn’t a torrent of out-and-out lies mixed up with some half truths which seem to reside in some alternative universe <which is only in his head> combined with a lot of made up shit. I want words that offer sound thinking, sound plans and a sound belief that there is no larger conspiracy stopping s from being great … that no one is holding us back other than ourselves. I want words that carry oceans of future hope.
I would even like to think that given his business background that he would at least offer words of economic growth and ‘greatness.’ And even there I find his ocean flawed.
All you have to do is to look at their respective policies to judge.
The Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution has done the analysis on both contenders. Here are the conclusions:
Clinton: Hillary Clinton proposes raising taxes on high-income taxpayers, modifying taxation of multinational corporations, repealing fossil fuel tax incentives, and increasing estate and gift taxes. Her proposals would increase revenue by $1.1 trillion over the next decade. Nearly all of the tax increases would fall on the top 1 percent; the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers would see little or no change in their taxes. Marginal tax rates would increase, reducing incentives to work, save, and invest, and the tax code would become more complex. The analysis does not address a forthcoming proposal to cut taxes for low- and middle-income families.
Trump: This paper analyzes presidential candidate Donald Trump’s tax proposal. His plan would significantly reduce marginal tax rates on individuals and businesses, increase standard deduction amounts to nearly four times current levels, and curtail many tax expenditures. His proposal would cut taxes at all income levels, although the largest benefits, in dollar and percentage terms, would go to the highest-income households. The plan would reduce federal revenues by $9.5 trillion over its first decade before accounting for added interest costs or considering macroeconomic feedback effects. The plan would improve incentives to work, save, and invest. However, unless it is accompanied by very large spending cuts, it could increase the national debt by nearly 80 percent of gross domestic product by 2036, offsetting some or all of the incentive effects of the tax cuts.
<note: to be fair … this was Trump’s 1st economic policy and he just shared his 3rd version the other day … which has received mixed reviews … but everyone agrees it increases debt and is less budget friendly than Clinton’s>
Most economists that have analyzed Trumps half assed economic proposals <all three now> have concluded that, if enacted, they would increase the deficit, increase the debt and potentially put the economy into a recession <by the way … that is not only bad for the wealthy but also for hard working middle class workers>.
But here is the other absurd thing happening.
While Clinton has her own oceans of words … Clinton actually has enough ‘Trump truths’ <things he has actually done or said> to use from now until the election without repeating themselves to drain his ocean of any truth & integrity <and morality>. And she has been using them … only to have them appear lie drops of water falling into this Trump typhoon-strewn ocean.
While I abhor him as a business person <and would tell him to his face> I, personally, judge him as a “high risk choice” … which, of course, could also translate into some people’s minds as “potential high return.” But the highest risk resides for any and all to see … his vagueness … the fact his words carry puddles and not oceans.
His main dubious relationship with truth resides in his vagueness <for which many suggest he can’t be nailed for being untrue because they don’t know what he actually wants to do>:
Trump’s policies summary <as done by an online commenter>:
- Foreign Affairs – We will close it monitor it and make the decision later after you idiots vote me in.
- Immigration – We will close it monitor it and make the decision later after you idiots vote me in. Except we will build a wall, and Mexico will pay for it or we will go to war to make them do so. Ah yes we will try to include an amendment to the constitution and make xenophobia and scapegoating part of being a patriotic American ( we are also looking at including nativism somewhere in there)
- Job creation – We will bring jobs back from overseas but not the people and offer you jobs you do not have skills for … and close it monitor it and make the decision later after you idiots vote me in.
- Health – We will do this and that and then we will close it monitor it and make the decision later after you idiots vote me in.
- Education – I love the uneducated people and I hate common core and I love if education can make money so we will close it monitor it and never make a decision.
- Infrastructure: all the plans are in place for my companies to take over this arduous and expensive task, out of the goodness of my heart, being American and all I will save money by a) only have a 50% mark up and b) employing “illegals” before we organize their deportation.
- Communications and intelligence – The former will be outsourced to Russia at a great price, and, on the latter, we will be firing many of the intelligence people because they are not intelligent and we will close it monitor it and make the decision later after you idiots vote me in.
- Taxation – we have a clear and decisive plan proven to have failed many times but TRUMP does not fail at anything, people tell me I am the less failing person they have ever seen. Further the policy will save me, family and friends billions of dollars which we will put back into the economy in the fullness of time.
He says all this dubiously believable stuff, stands smiling self absorbed with self pleasure, states he has a ‘good brain’ and knows ‘good words’ and then sends some nasty tweet to someone somewhere for suggesting he is making shit up.
Trump has said some words with regard to some specific things and they should carry oceans of thoughts for people to consider:
Donald Trump’s religious test for migrants
In December 2015, Trump called for “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”. Since then his position has shifted somewhat; in June he said “I want people that have bad thoughts out” and his finance chairman explained: “It is about Muslims from countries that support terrorism.” The RNC chairman, Reince Priebus, has denied that this would amount to a religious test.
Donald Trump’s support of torture
In February, Trump said “Torture works. OK, folks?” and has endorsed waterboarding, which was banned by George W Bush in 2006, saying: “I like it a lot. I don’t think it’s tough enough.”
Donald Trump’s attitude towards freedom of the press
He argued that libel laws should be expanded, so that “when the New York Times or the Washington Post writes a hit piece, we can sue them”. He bans them from events and tweets them when he is displeased.
Donald Trump’s attitude towards women
Trump has written that “Women have one of the great acts of all time. The smart ones act very feminine and needy, but inside they are real killers.” He has criticized female public figures for their appearance and retweeted the question: “If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?” before deleting it. He also stated that “there has to be some form of punishment” for women who have abortions (he subsequently released a statement that, where abortion was illegal, doctors, not women, should bear criminal responsibility).
The prospect of Donald Trump as commander in chief
Retired General John Allen has warned of a “civil military crisis where the military could be ordered to conduct illegal activities” if Trump is elected. Former CIA director, Michael Hayden, has expressed concern about how “erratic” Trump is, saying: “He’s inconsistent. And when you’re the head of a global superpower, inconsistency, unpredictability, those are dangerous things. They frighten your friends and they tempt your enemies. And so I would be very, very concerned.” The Trump campaign denies reports that, referring to nuclear weapons, he asked a foreign policy expert, “If we have them, why can’t we use them?” three times during a briefing.
Donald Trump’s attitude to climate change
The Republican candidate has said he would withdraw from the Paris deal on cutting emissions, and in 2014 referred to the scientific consensus on global warming as “bullshit”, stating that “our planet is freezing”. <note: the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998>
While Trump not only lies and makes shit up … what he does articulate clearly & truthfully is … well … carries oceans of concerns.
On the other hand … Clinton can be evasive but never makes shit up.
Or … as one journalist states:
Clinton is as expert as anyone in politics at eluding or avoiding parts of her history. It takes dogged determination to pierce her well-honed messages.
And Trump often packs more lies into a minute than one thought humanly possible. It is no small feat to fact-check him.
There is a significant difference between the two <yet, unfortunately for her, it all gets lumped together>.
To think Hillary Clinton’s words are more dishonest than Trump’s is really kind of absurd.
Do I really believe Trump believes all the shit he says? No. I do not.
But words carry oceans … and in this case … oceans of people on their backs.
He will say anything he needs to say to win the approval of whomever is standing, sitting or lying in front of him getting away with “raw, consequential lies” <while Clinton tends to get skewered “over minor misstatements and exaggerations”>
But, more importantly, Trump uses words like drops of water … Chinese water torture in other words while Clinton weighs each word like … well … they carry oceans.
Choose your ocean wisely.
“Always dream and shoot higher than you know you can do.
Do not bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors.
Try to be better than yourself.”