Thoughts on the 2016 Presidential election

Its no secret that the 2016 Presidential election has become a joke and a farce.  Here are some of my thoughts on it (of course, since this is politics everything I say can be proven wrong):


Everyone seems to focus on the candidates themselves but I have always felt that people are leaving out a big player in all this:

The media!

I tend to feel that media is largely responsible for turning this election into a big joke.  In fact, I often feel that the media, as a whole, should apologize to the whole country for turning this election into a farce.  The reason for this is simple:  this is a Presidential election.  It seems, to me, that this makes this a serious and critical issue . . . and not some joke.  This isn’t like reporting how some movie star was busted for drugs yet that is exactly how they have treated it.  We need the media to report things accurately and in an unbiased way, which they have not done.  The media has failed miserably.

Some of the ways the media has turned this election into a joke include:

  • They have primarily focused on small and trivial details . . . anything that causes a scandal.  This has been most of what I have seen.  It seems like it has all been about nonsense about what someone says or did that has no bearing on anything the President does.  The only news that the media deems important enough to report is what can cause a scandal, not what’s important or relevant.  I see little, if any, evidence of that in this election.
  • There seems a neglect of pertinent and serious issues.  I’ve hardly seen any mention of the important issues.  I should point out that I am not a person who actively seeks the news as I tend to view the media as something that distorts news (and this situation has proven this to be true).  As a result, most of the news I have seen is “casually observed”.  That is to say, I happen to see the newspaper headlines, or the headlines on the internet, or I see the news as I walk by people who are watching it, or hear it from what people say.  In other words, I see news “as it appears” at the time not as something I deliberately seek .  Seeing news this way, during this whole election, I could probably count the amount of times I heard any pertinent and serious issues on one hand!  This means that what the news is reporting is all hype-stuff.  A person has to deliberately seek the issues to discover what they are.  This is what I ended up doing.
  • They have displayed biased viewpoints, interpretations, and opinions to endorse their views.  Many people in the news have used the media to endorse their viewpoints.  In so doing they have distorted things to their way of thinking.  I know one paper, for example, that actually endorsed one of the candidates.  It was in big letters on the front page!  A newspaper telling people who to vote for?  Wow!
  • There appears to have been many false fabrications and deliberate distortions of things.   For example, I was stunned how an article would say something like “Trump makes a racist remark” and, when I read the article, I see no association between what he said and the supposed “racist” remark.  More than once have I said, “where are they getting this stuff from?” or “how are they making this association?”  I’ve even talked with other people who have made similar observations.  I often would joke, “if Trump was passing some people and his arm rubbed against some ladies breast the media would say it was another ‘groping incident’ and have a half hour special on it!”  They probably would too.
  • Being that the media is liberal-oriented in this country, it almost seems as if there has been a “campaign” to discredit Trump and, sometimes, to glorify Clinton.  I have been appalled how the media has done almost everything in their power to make Trump look bad.  Its sickening.  I’m not the only person to say that the media is “against” Trump.  I saw one news report that had a whole article about how a “Trump supporter” had assaulted someone . . . so are we not supposed to vote for him because of that?  Utterly ridiculous!  My God, can you guys make him look even worse?
  • The media has taken Trumps poor ability at public speaking and turned it into a joke.  I have been nothing but at appalled by this.  Trump is not the best public speaker.  I have never held that against him as most people aren’t and that’s not a measure of how well they will do either.  But the way the media has used this to turn this whole thing into a circus is completely unacceptable!  Its as if his poor ability just gave them something they could mock and ridicule and report in the news, to create more hype and maybe another scandal . . . all to increase sales, huh?

The way the media has acted in this election has devastated my belief and faith in the media.  Before, I looked at the media as just “distorted” . . . now I don’t think I can trust it at all.  I used to jokingly call newspapers the “propaganda sheets” . . . now I know it is.  I’ve even started to call the news the “comics”, meaning that you can’t take it seriously.  When someone says they “heard it from the new” I, for years, have replied, “that’s the worst place to get the news” . . . that’s definitely true now.

The circus-like nature the media created was so powerful that even the candidates began to follow the lead of the media and, in so doing, began to turn it even more into a circus.  Its as if the ridiculous attitude of the media began to infect everything.  For example, I couldn’t believe that a trivial and nonsensical issue such as Trump calling a girl “overweight” could even get into a Presidential debate as a “legitimate argument”.  How could something like that even get into the debate?  I can’t believe it.  And, as expected, the media blew it out of proportion.  I saw a news report about this debate and couldn’t believe how the media portrayed it.  Of the whole report it seems that a third to almost half was directed to this issue alone!  In other words, the media apparently saw this as one of the “big issues” of this debate.  Can you believe it?  Not only that, they had a side-line story over the girl that was called “overweight”.  Are you kidding?!

Good going media!

I don’t see how any descent person could ever trust the media after nonsense like this. Its because of this that I think that THE MEDIA SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ITS ACTIONS.  How that is to be done I don’t know but I think its about time that the media be held accountable for how it portrays, and interprets, the news.  This whole thing has gone far enough.  I’ve even started to call the people in the media the “hype-masters”.  They probably take classes on how to turn things into hype.

The media has so destroyed this election that I have even said that we should declare a “miselection”, much like a mistrial, and start all over again.  You can’t believe anything from this election, nor what the media says about it.  I’ve already accepted that, whatever happens, this election has been “botched” and, therefore, invalid.


As I look at it closer, though, it seems to me that the media actually brought out deeper social and historical issue in the U.S. today.  In other words, the media didn’t just “cause” on its own.  It actually touched a sensitive nerve in the population.  This is because the media, by its influence of popular opinion and exposure to the masses, has much power and influence.  In fact, the media has been the “power” in this election which is why it has been so impactful and why its behavior has been so critical.  Because of this power, the media circus brought at deeper issues that were in the population, of a deep unconscious worry, uncertainty, and fear that people are not overtly aware of.  In other words, the real issue behind this Presidential election is not the Presidency at all.  This election became, with especial prompting from the media circus, an avenue for these feelings.  To put it another way, the Presidential election was a “doorway” that opened and exposed these deeper feelings and issues.

Not only that, these are issues that the President has no power over.  In fact, in many cases, they have absolutely nothing to do with the Presidency at all.  In this way, this Presidential election went beyond the Presidential election and touched upon far greater issues.  In my opinion, these issues are more interesting than anything involving the President, as they are concerns over the times we live in.

These feelings tends to be unconscious, not acknowledged, and unexpressed which is one reason why they come out through “some other means” like the Presidential election.  In some respects, these feelings have become “bottled up” through the years and neglected.  The circus of the Presidential election has become a means for them to come out.  Despite this, they will probably never be acknowledged for what they are and what they mean.

Overall, these feelings have caused what can be described as a “general sense of helplessness, discontent, and worry“, reflective of the times, that permeates much of the election and which people are wanting relief.  I tend to feel that the deeper issues include themes such as:

The awareness that the U.S. is in decline

As it appears to me, the U.S. is in decline.  The U.S. has had its time . . . its glory time is over.  The U.S. is no longer the “great” nation it was.  In addition, many Americans no longer feel that they are the “great” nation anymore.  The glory time of the U.S. appears to be WWII to the end of the Cold War (about 1990).  In many ways, the end of the Cold War was the end of America’s glory time.  This shows that what made America “great” was not really achievement, business, and such but the unity that WWII and the Cold War created.  Once these disappeared the unity disappeared and, along with it, the “greatness” of America.

Many Americans, though, won’t admit that America is in decline (but many people know it as I hear people mention it all the time).  If one looks at the behavior of Americans one can see that there are great attempts at trying to “regain America’s greatness”.  This is even stated in Trump’s slogan:  “Make America great again”.  It appears in many ways.  Oftentimes, it appears in ways such as a persistent arrogance and over-glorification.  Other people take on a quality of a “living in the past” quality, as if they are still living in the glory time.  In political matters, the U.S. tends to remain in a “stuck in the 70’s” orientation as a way to maintain its greatness (as that was the height of the cold war).  In so doing, it refuses to see existing conditions and problems (such as that the U.S. is in serious debt) and, accordingly, not doing anything about it.

This desire to regain American “greatness” is probably even reflected in the choosing of the candidates:

  • Clinton is chosen because she’s a female.  This emphasizes the “greatness” of America, of how “anyone can become President”.  Since they just had a black President, a female is the next best representative of this idea.  This attitude fits well into the mentality of the Democrats.  I always joke that, with the ridiculous mentality of this country today, the next President will HAVE TO BE someone who’s gay and the one after that a transgender person.  This is what will get them voted . . . not whether they are qualified or not.
  • Trump is chosen because he is a successful businessman.  Remember that much of the “greatness” of America is based in business success and making money.  For the Republicans, especially, this is something that especially matters (not if they are a minority or female as with the Democrats) which is probably why he had so much appeal.

If these are true then it would mean that they were chosen not because of their political qualifications but who they were, that they reflected the “greatness” of the American system in one way or another.  This may be a good example that shows how America has become “desperate” to regain their former “greatness”.  In many ways, this election may show that the U.S. has become a little bit too desperate and is having a hard time admitting that the glory days are over.

Interestingly, many of the few relevant issues I’ve heard, from either candidate, tend to revolve around this idea of regaining “greatness” in some way or another.  I’m particularly worried about the extent either candidate is willing to go to achieve this.  It seems that, if many are implanted, they may undermine us even more.  It seems, to me, that America needs to accept that the glory days are over and not try to regain the “greatness” but deal with the problems we are now in.

The feeling that no one knows who this country represents and the hidden war for “preferred treatment”

My observation is that there is a growing sense that no one knows who this country represents anymore.  The effect of this is that it has caused, in many people, a great discontentment, confusion, and an inability to believe in the society.  It also makes people feel that they do not belong.  As a result, it has made many people feel that there is no “country” to belong to and that America is just a “place to live”.

This feeling, of course, is largely unconscious and never spoken of . . . but its referred to all the time.  One reason why its unconscious is because this subject involves a “taboo” subject in this country:  subjects dealing with “race” or a specific “people”, especially when it involves “preferential” treatment.  You see, theoretically, the U.S. is not supposed to favor any specific “people” or “race”.  No one should be “preferred”.  The problem is that it does do this.  In actuality, the U.S. is always playing “preferred treatment”, in some for or another, but pretending that it isn’t.  One day its the blacks, the next the females, the next gay people, and so on.  Its interesting that these people tend to profess that they are neglected and forgotten (often saying that they are oppressed, enslaved, etc.) but when they become “preferred” the result is that some other group begins to feel excluded and forgotten.  They then seek to be “preferred” and try to knock the former group off and take their place.  Its like an endless “king of the mountain” game that goes on and on year after year.

One effect of this continual cycling of “who is preferred” is that there is a sense of “. . . and so, who does this country represent then?”  Many of us feel that and, frankly, no one can truly answer it.  Even now not even I can answer that.  I have no idea who the U.S. represents exactly or who its “for”.  Theoretically, its supposed to be me, as a citizen, but I do not feel that.  This, it seems to me, is a growing feeling in this country and seems to figure in the discontentment of this election.

This hidden war for “preferred treatment” is referred to in this election, especially with Clinton, who is supposed to represent females, minorities, and the lower classes (and, supposedly, Trump is not supposed to).  This belief will be a determining factor why many people will vote for her.  This shows that this hidden war for “preferred treatment” is no small potatoes in this election.

The growing feeling of being detached and disconnected

All the social media, technology, and such has created a strong feeling of being detached and disconnected in life.  This causes feelings of anxiety, being unfulfilled, frustration, unhappiness, and such.  It seems, to me, that all the stuff which seems to impress everyone, has another side to it, the “other effects” of what they cause and which have largely gone unconscious.  In other words, they have created two reactions:

  1. Being “technologically dazzled”.  This tends to be conscious and one is aware of it.  This is what people talk about and thinks great.
  2. Being “technologically detached and disconnected”.  This is largely unconscious and one is not overtly aware of its effects.

In other words, though a person may find these things “wonderful” it tends to leave a detached and disconnected sense deep down.  For many people it sits there and simmers like a pot of stew.   In this way, it casts something like a “shadow” over their life which they often can’t “pinpoint”.  Ironically, the thing they think is helping them is working against them but in another way.

It seems, to me, that these feelings of being detached and disconnected have come out in this Presidential election.  It has contributed to a general sense of being unhappy and a discontentment that motivates many peoples opinions and points of view.

Worry over the future and the awareness that we are now in a “new world”

Because of the world situation there is great worry over the future, I’ve found.  With the world economy, technology, and such we are walking into uncharted territory . . . the world is walking into uncharted territory.  Despite how many people think this uncharted territory is “great”, and all that, my observation is that it has caused great worry in much of the people.  No one knows what to expect or where things are headed.  For most people, it seems, the question of “where the world is headed” is more of a worrisome concern than anything else.  In short, there is a growing awareness that we are moving into a “new world”.  In other words, the world is not what it was and people perceive that this century is going to be different.  I jokingly call this the “new world blues” as it creates feelings such as

  • No one knows what to expect.
  • There’s no direction.
  • There’s no certainty.
  • No one knows where they are going to stand in the scheme of themes.

In short, the “new world” is actually causing more worry than hope or optimism.  I don’t think people are pessimistic but they are “concerned” which causes a “worry”.  This worry, it seems to me, plays a great role in this election.

The lack of anything to believe in

In general, people have nothing to believe in nowadays.  There are many ways that the lack of anything to believe in appears:

The effect of these is that people are just “sitting there” and “alone” creating feelings such as:

  • There is nothing to hope for.
  • There is absence of support.

Some of the reactions to this include:

  • A “longing” or “wishing” for something.
  • A sense of discontent and unhappiness.
  • A feeling of being alone or helpless.

Overall, one could say it creates a sense of “emptiness”.  A lot of people will spend their lives trying to fill this up, in some way, but never succeed.  Many people are seeking relief from these feelings in this election.  Really, people just want something to believe in.  Some people think the President will offer this.

Excessive and out-dated liberalism

I tend to feel that the effects of all the liberal nonsense, particularly since the 1970’s, has played a far more critical role than it may at first seem.  It tends to create a generalized disgust in the population, I’ve found.  I see people refer to it all the time.  I say “refer” as I do not get the impression that people know what they are disgusted about.  Usually, people get disgusted with some event but very few people realize, I think, that what they are actually disgusted with is liberalism and its effects. Many liberal policies now infests our daily lives and affects us whether we like or not.  It has infested the political system, the legal system, work, and even into our private lives.  Much of this liberalism originates from the 1970’s and is part of the reaction to the Vietnam War and “hippi movement” (see my article “Thoughts on liberalism, with remarks about “70’s liberalism”“).  Being based in an event from about 45 years ago it is now out-dated but it has become firmly entrenched in the society and system and continues to play a part in things.

Since it has origin in the Vietnam War, which is a product of the Cold War, the liberalism from the 1970’s has maniacal qualities as the Cold War created a hysterical panic type of quality beginning in the late 1950’s.  This mania escalated during the Vietnam War creating its own type of liberalism.  It would be very much associated with hippi’s and “peace and love” and all that.

One of the effects of this mania is that it created points of view that are absurd and ridiculous, which have defined much of liberalism.  In this way, it has infested our lives, public and private, with absurd and ridiculous things.  Its created a whole world which has qualities like:

  • Unrealistic fears (such as, “people hate other people because their skin color is different”).
  • Imaginary abuse (such as, everything violates my rights).
  • Blind accusation and blame (such as, the male oppresses the female).
  • Self-righteous cause (such as, our cause is going to “save the world”).
  • Using the U.S. Constitution as justification for everything (such as, “my Constitutional rights have been violated because a white person was hired”).  This, in my opinion, has been done so extensively that they have basically distorted the meaning of the Constitution.
  • The creation of a controlled world (such as, you can’t spank your kids).
  • The villainizing of innocent people (such as that we are “bad people” for spanking our kids).  Often, they even develop special names to describe this, such as “sexist”.

Many of these themes can be seen in the media circus of this election.

A lot of people have felt the effects of liberalism in their lives, which have created a general sense of disgust.  In fact, I would say that there has developed a generalized “liberalism-disgust” in this country, though no one seems to be overtly aware of it.  This is because one of the problems of liberalism is that no one can fully define what it is.  Its an attitude and point of view not an organized philosophy.  In addition, it uses national ideals, as well as the Constitution, as justification for what it does.  This makes it hard to localize and attack.  As a result of this inability to define it, this “liberalism-disgust” has not developed a “voice” to express opposition or even express itself.  It seems that this lack of “voice” figures in this election.  The fact is that a lot of people out there don’t want liberalism dictating their lives.

Added December 31, 2016

In recent conversations with people I have found myself saying something interesting.  I stated that many people were getting sick of the mentality of the 1970’s, hippi movement, Vietnam War protests, liberalism, and such.  It seems to primarily appear as a “dissatisfaction”, which is growing, but people can’t seem to define it exactly, its origin, or manifestation.  As a result, it has a quality of something like a “grumbling for some reason”.   I seem to think that this feeling came out in this election and reflected itself in the attitudes surrounding the candidates.  Basically, we see this association:

Clinton – She represents the 1970’s, Vietnam War protests, hippi movement, and liberalism.  As a result, the people who supported her support the “status quo” and want things to remain as they were in the 1970’s with everyone loving each other, and all that.  In other words, she represents “no change”.  This appealed to many people, I think, who are scared of any change to things.  In addition, she was associated with the “dissatisfaction” and “grumbling” that has surrounded that mentality, as well as “liberalism-disgust” and these people were against her.

Trump – He represents getting out of 1970’s liberal mentality.  As a result, the people who supported him wanted change and something new as well as to get out of the old American mentality of the last century.  People who are scared of change and something new were against him.  The people who wanted the status quo to remain the same have the benefit that their point of view is existing.  As a result, the idea of change has to fight against the existing condition of the status quo.  I think that this “having to push through the status quo” was seen in Trump’s great expressions and statements.  Personally, I think the force of this scared people, particularly liberal-minded people.

This shows a number of things:

  • It would mean that there has became something like a battle, in the U.S., between people who wanted a change from last century thinking (Trump) and people who did not want a change (Clinton). 
  • It shows that there is a growing feeling that the old American point of view of things, coming from the last century, is getting old and needs to be changed.  I still feel, though, that this is one of those feelings that has not been “given a voice” yet.  As a result, its just “hanging out there” at this time.
  • It also points out the importance of how people are scared of change and this fear affected their view of the candidates.  Trump was particularly condemned for this.
  • That the idea of change has to “fight” with great force to change the status quo.  This came out in Trump’s behavior, I think, which was very forceful, criticizing, and blunt.  I have a feeling that he knows this is going to be a fight, though he may not be overtly aware of it.  Interestingly, he expressed this with such force that it scared many people which, in many ways, is one of the great commotions this election caused.

Added January 25, 2016

It doesn’t take a genius to see that the liberals, or any group associated with liberalism (such as the Democratic party and media), are having difficulty with losing this election.  I’ve found myself saying that this has a lot to do with the self-righteousness of liberalism which is actually quite bad, as I think this situation shows.  Basically, the liberals seem to think that THEY represent this country, its people, its ideals, and its government.  I’ve seen many examples of this over the years, to the point of being disgusted.

The reason for this attitude originates in the Vietnam War protests of about 1970, which means it is a trait of “70’s liberalism”.  During these protests they justified all their viewpoints with the Constitution, American idealism, and political theory.  This was, of course, in opposition to the “existing establishment and society”, so they saw themselves as this great new saving philosophy for the country which they thought “truly” reflected America’s ideals.  In this way, they used political theory as if to build a “foundation of right” to justify their “cause” over the existing social system and beliefs.  In this way, they tend to have an “us versus them” point of view.

Since it is based in a “popular reaction” to the Vietnam War it went largely uncontested and unchallenged in the greater scheme of things.  This fact only reinforced this idea that they were right.  As the decades passed they became increasingly self-righteous, thinking that their view was the correct one.  I, myself, was often disgusted how many liberals pranced around like they were “right”, wielding the Constitution like it was some sort of a weapon.

Because they believed they were “right”, and truly represented America, they believed that they would automatically win this election.  There are a number of reasons, it seems, for this:

  • The fact that a black president was elected previously.  This is the “female and minority” issue, a big theme in “70’s liberalism” and is associated with the Civil Rights Movement.  The fact that one was elected made them think that their point of view was correct.
  • The fact that Hillary was female.  Again, the “female and minority” issue.
  • The fact that Trump said some “inappropriate” things.  He was “politically incorrect” . . . God help us!  The idea of “politically correct” is a liberal invention to promote their viewpoints or to condemn things not of their viewpoint.  This made him look all the more bad and “wrong” in their eyes.  Besides, Trump is a white male.

These all confirmed, in their mind, that they were “right” and will obviously win.  When they didn’t win it was a blow to their view of themselves being “right” and the representatives of America.  I get the impression that it took many of them by surprise and that many are having difficulty gripping with the fact that there may be other points of views other than their own.  In fact, I think some of them are so self-righteous that they can see no other point of view than their own.  As a result, they don’t know how to react at their losing.  Their only response is to try and “debunk” Trump in any way they can, even to the point of fabricating stories and ridiculous villainizing.

Added January 30, 2017

Several days ago I watched all the nonsensical, ridiculous, and asinine attacks on Trump (which is have gone past a joke and have gone way farther than they need to) and found myself saying that “this all looks like a temper tantrum from the liberals“.  I believe that this is exactly what it is.  As I said above, the liberals have had their way for so long, believing that they are the representative of the U.S., and so forth, that because things are not going the way they want they are all kicking up a fuss just like a spoiled kids temper tantrum.  Its for this reason that I now speak of all this as the “PEOPLES TEMPER TANTRUM”.

The ‘failed sex’ – the females loss of identity and value

Over the past several hundred years the female has lost her identity and value in society.  This has caused a lot of problems for the American female (though it began in England).  Its for this reason that I call the American female the ‘failed sex’.  I have mentioned much of the origin of this in previous articles such as “Thoughts on the ‘failed sex’ – how many female traits have failed – a hidden crisis of the American female“.  To put it simply, my inquiry has shown that a significant part of this is that the females began to undermine their identity and social value in the early-mid 1800’s, and it has gotten progressively worse since.  Its almost as if a big snowball was created that got bigger and bigger over the years.  The origin of this snowball?  Trying to be like a noble lady.  In short, the common English female abandoned all their previous identity, with all its social value, and “play acted” a noble lady.  In so doing, they took up a false, and shallow, identity which had little actual social value and which did not really reflect them.  This got progressively worse by the late 1800’s and, soon, females were having mental problems as a result (such as neurosis) and the began to develop really poor and bad views of the female.  As time went on the female identity was eroded and their social value dwindled, among other things. The effect of this problem has appeared in many ways, such as:

  • A common one, and one which figures prominently in this election, is what I call the ‘female-as-victim’.  Basically, they tend to become particularly preoccupied with the female being a victim in some way or another.  I’ve seen this so bad that they see victimizing in everything and are all-to-eager to see themselves as victims.  Trump says one small word, for example, and the females are on it playing the “victim”.
  • They develop a really bad view of the female.  I was often stunned how bad females viewed the female.  In fact, I had to start defending the female at one point (see my article “Thoughts on appreciation – how the feminists taught me to respect the male, the female, and myself“).  This bad view of the female is at the base of a lot of what they do and feel.
  • They try to be like men.  This is really a “cover-up” for their female identity problem.  They will even use politics to justify it by using words like “equality”.
  • Another common theme is accusation and blame.  They basically accuse and blame other people for their problems.  The male, especially, has been quite a target.  In fact, I have been nothing but appalled how the male has been blamed for all their problems.
  • There is also a tendency where they glorify themselves.  This is as if to “compensate” for the bad feelings they have about themselves . . . by making themselves “great” they no longer feel “bad”, so to speak.  Its not uncommon that they glorify themselves in respect to social ideals often to the point of painting an unrealistic picture of themselves.

One of the reactions to the ‘failed sex’, in the 1800’s, was the development of a ridiculous and oddball philosophy called ‘feminism’ (such as, see my article “More thoughts on that destructive philosophy called feminism – my overall impression after almost three decades of observation“).   The claims these people have said have been almost unreal and still rank as some of the most absurd I’ve ever heard (see my article “Thoughts on the absurd claims of feminists” and “On how I was insulted by a statement by Hillary Clinton – feminist egocentrism – feminist equality“).  Typically, the basic premise of the ‘feminists’ is a political version of the ‘female-as-victim’, as well as accusation and blame, often amounting to “the female is a victim of the oppressive tyrant male who enslaves and oppresses them”.  That’s ridiculous!  And what’s even more ridiculous is that they seem to think that using political theory somehow makes their claims right.  In actuality, their actual problem is with the female identity, which is a problem THEY have.

The problems associated with the ‘failed sex’ have appeared a little bit too much in this election.  This has mostly appeared in the ‘female-as-victim’ point of view.  I’ve seen many females turn Trump into the “oppressive male tyrant”, for example, over the stupidest of reasons.  My personal favorite is his so-called “war on women” which are mostly statements of how he doesn’t like this person or that person, that a female is “overweight”, or “looks like a pig”, and such.  A “war on women”?  You got to be kidding.  This is just another example of the all-so-familiar feminist paranoia as, according to many of them, the male has conspired to oppress them since the beginning of time (see my article on the absurd claims of feminists above).

No doubt the fact that there is a female as one of the candidates that has helped to promote, and exaggerate, these feelings in this election.  This is a good example of another deeper issue that really has nothing to do with the Presidency but figures prominently in it.

Added January 23, 2o17

Even after the inauguration the females are persisting in the themes I mentioned above in the “women’s march”.  For example, see these articles: and

We see some familiar themes:

  • The ‘female-as-victim’.
  • Accusation and blame – the “tyrant male”.
  • The use of politics as justification.

I was worried that, if Hillary had gotten the presidency, we would of been inundated with these themes to the point of nausea.  We could very well of gone through four years of listening to all the supposed “abuses” against females and, of course, we know who’s to blame (the male, obviously) and it would of been Constitution that, freedom this, rights that, etc.  In fact, I noticed that, after the election, I saw an increase in various news stories about supposed “abuses” against females.   I took this as a “residue” of the ‘female-as-victim’ tendency that the election created.  It slowly disappeared over time.  But it has resurfaced and has appeared after the inauguration.

What they are really complaining about revolve around their feelings of being “victims”, in one form or another, which is a hallmark trait of the ‘failed sex’ problem.  Trumps statements just give them a “cause” to complain and vent this feeling.  Using political jargon makes it sound legitimate.  This is an all-so-familiar scenario.

From what I have so far seen I see several main “complaints” in this march:

  1. Political paranoia.  They claim that their “freedoms” are being threatened, or their “fighting for their rights”, etc.  My reaction to this is “are these even being threatened at all?”  I don’t see any evidence of that these are being threatened.  It looks like the ever-so-familiar American political paranoia.  But as long as they cite American political jargon it sounds like its real and we’re all supposed to believe it.
  2. They are upset with statements Trump has said.  They complain about various statements he’s said but what a march is supposed to do about it I simply do not know.
  3. They are upset with the problems of life.  Many statements I heard were of this sort.  The best example is a statement I heard which went something like “I want a new relationship, I want a new job, I want a new life”.  What this has to do with Trump and a march I don’t know.  Anyone can make these complaints . . . me, the guy down the street, the guy who drives the bus . . .
  4. Social hysteria.  These are girls that got “swept up” and “carried away” with all the commotion, hype, and hysteria of it all.  These girls tended to state these almost garbled disconnected statements about their motive.  In many cases, I couldn’t make out what they were saying.  Sometimes it was a garbled combination of some of the three above.  The reason for this is that they, in actuality, did not have a motive.  Their main motive was participating in the social hysteria.
  5. Self-glorification.  They use it as a way to make themselves these great people, often to the point of vanity.  They say things, such as how they are “so proud” and such, often making this march out as some great display of the “power” of females.  Often, this self-glorification is associated with social and nationalistic ideals.  For example, they speak of all the “love” that it this march is supposed to display and how they are all so “strong”.  I know enough about things to know that this only hides their feelings of being insignificant deep down.

None of these justify a march, or a protest, in my opinion.  After all, what is the march supposed to do?  Not only that, what exactly are they complaining about?  To me, it only showed that there was a dissatisfaction in many females over life.  Much of these feelings, it seems to me, are a result of the problems of the ‘failed sex’.  In fact, its an example of how serious a problem the ‘failed sex’ is.  As far as I know I’m the only person who has acknowledged this problem and that it is a serious problem.  I’m the only person who looks at it as a problem with the femalehood itself, that it is actually a psychological problem, and that it is not a “political issue”, which is what they have been dishing out.  Accordingly, politics isn’t going to solve this problem (also my remarks in this article:  “Thoughts on some aspects of female identity problems“).  They can sit and protest, have marches, accuse, blame, villainize, cite the Constitution, claim freedom, believe they are oppressed, and so on but the problem will still remain.  In all the years females have been claiming and doing these things what has any of it done to help females with this problem?  They’re still complaining.  Not only that, it seems to be getting worse!  In fact, some females are creating “abuses” like a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat.  Hasn’t it ever occurred to anyone that there might be another origin than what they are saying?  I think this is something that should be considered.


What a lot of this reveals is that people have a mistaken view of the President.   Its as if, in atheist America, the President is being given the role similar to God.  That is, that the President has these qualities:

  • Immense power to do anything.
  • Can solve all the problems.

The President has neither, in actuality.  Many of these ideas originate from Kingship which assumes all this power that isn’t there (see my article “Thoughts on the stages of kingship“).  It originates from the idea that the King is half-man, half-god.  This was very prevalent in Western Europe and in England.  Its basic premise would carry over into the government and was passed over here to the U.S. (see my article “Thoughts on the myth of the ‘mysterious and miraculous power of the government’“).  Its because of this that I always found it comical how Americans profess democracy, people rule, and the importance of the individual but unknowingly persist in the idea that the President (the “American King”) is like a half-god, who can do miraculous things.

Manifestations of this belief in the power of the President include:

  • That he can solve all the problems.  Many people are looking for the President to end all their worries, discontent, and unhappiness in life (such as the deeper issues described above).  There is this belief that the President will wave his magic wand and it will all end.
  • That the President, once elected, will have all this power to do miraculous things.  Some people anticipate the good side of this imagined power, that it will be beneficial (which usually means the President reflects their point of view).  Other people are worried over the bad side of this imagined power, that it will harm them or create problems for them (which usually means the President will not reflect their point of view).  In short, they overestimate the power of the President and either anticipate or worry over what he can do.
  • Because of the imagined power of the President anything that goes wrong will be blamed on him, whether he is the cause of it or not.  I’ve often jokingly said that the “main purpose of the President is to be the scapegoat for the countries problems”.  There is some truth to this.  No matter what happens, the President is viewed as the cause.

In short, then, a lot of the feelings in this Presidential election are over a mistaken belief that the President has all this power.  In actuality, the President does not have this type of power, has no magic wand, and can do little or nothing about many things (see my article “Thoughts on the myth of the power of the U.S. President – government stagnation, the “tyranny of blame”, and other things“).  The fact is that the President is not half-god, nor a King.


I tend to feel that, when its all said and done, this election will be a “much ado about nothing”.  In ten years we will probably being saying, “remember that election in 2016 that everyone was so concerned about? . . .”  That, I think, is the most likely scenario.  It will probably be no different than any other Presidency, having good and bad qualities (depending on where you stand, of course).

But I do think that there are things to worry about that make this Presidency different.  First of all, both candidates have a “point to prove” and will probably do extra effort to force their points into action.  This is particularly so because of the circus that this election has become.  In fact, its made it all the more important.  I see several concerns:

  • The idea that they must “make their mark” and make their Presidency something special.  This means they may put forth special effort to endorse their special viewpoints, whether good or bad.  More than likely, they will probably be more dramatic than usual.
  • They are trying to make America great again.  In this way, they are going to “force” a condition to happen that isn’t there.  This may lead to great problems.

Because of these, its possible that there is a greater probability that they may cause something that may become adverse and not in the best interests of the country. In addition, they are dealing with a country with a lot of problems.  I am getting this impression that American politicians, in general, are not fully aware of this problem and are not intent on solving it at this time.  The belief of the “American invulnerability” is still too strong in politics.  As a result, there will probably be more of a tendency to neglect this issue which means nothing will be solved or dealt with.  In this way, either candidate will probably actually do little to solve the actual problems of the US which may sink us further into problems.

If Clinton gets into office I am worried about the liberal and feminist reaction.  They may use her as a “platform” to promote their agenda’s.  Both of these (liberalism and feminism) have been destructive to this country, in my opinion.  We don’t need more of it shoved down our throats at this time.

Despite these worries, which may or may not become an issue, I’m more inclined to think that this election is more likely to be a lot of commotion over nothing.  As I said above, I tend to feel that a lot of this commotion is really over deeper issues that the President has no control over and which do not involve him.

That’s how it appears to me at this time.

Added January 25, 2o17

To me, a significant aspect of this election is the influence of social hysteria.  In fact, in my opinion, social hysteria has defined this election and is the main reason why it has become something like a joke.  By social hysteria I mean a frenzy or mob mentality in the people.

I have repetitively compared it to the frenzy and mania surrounding the Vietnam War in about 1970, which I think it resembles.  To go even further, I believe it is a direct descendant of it, a continuation of the mentality that started back then.  This is primarily because of the influence of liberalism in this election, most of which originated during the Vietnam War (see above).  Basically, the hysteria of the cold war caused a hysteria of the Vietnam War which created “70’s liberalism” which has passed down to today and has affected this election.  In short, the hysteria of this election has origin in the hysteria of the Vietnam War protests.

In addition, the media has had a major impact on this hysteria which is why I call this a media-induced social hysteria.  From what it appears to me, the media is largely responsible not only for starting it but also in maintaining it.

I started to notice this social hysteria months before the election.  Some of the signs of social hysteria, that I saw, include:

  • Claiming things that don’t exist.
  • A distortion of facts.
  • The putting of words into peoples mouths.
  • The conjuring up of motives that don’t exist.
  • Making out small things as if they were big.
  • Getting “carried away” with emotions and claims.

Most of this frenzy revolve around statements Trump has said.  But, in actuality, if you stand back and look at it, he has actually done and said very little.  Almost everything I hear originates from the media and people, which is where all the commotion is at.  In other words, the media and people took statements he’s said and blown them out of all proportion.  Some of the things people are claiming is utterly ridiculous.  Where some people are getting their points of view I have no idea.  I’m wondering when someone is going to claim that he is actually an alien and he is preparing the earth for an alien invasion!

I understand that he has said some “inappropriate” things, and things that have bothered people, but the response is totally and absolutely ridiculous.  In other words, the response is what this election is about.  My experience is that the response is more important than the thing that instigated the response.  There is a belief, in the U.S. anyways, that the people are like “holy relics” and have no accountability.  In short, the people don’t have to account for their response . . . they think they can respond however they want in whatever they want.  I do not agree with this.  The media and people should have accountability in how they respond to a situation.  I believe this to be the case in this situation and I demand an accountability from the media and people.  Just because Trump said some “inappropriate” things does not give the media and people the right to respond by blowing things out of proportion, villainizing, condemning, fabricating false stories, etc.  That is totally unacceptable and, in my opinion, has destroyed a believability in the media and people.

People sit and condemn Trump for what he has said but what does the response by the media and people tell us about the media and people?  Do you think it says anything good?  Their response reveals a number of qualities about the media and people to me:

  • They are too impulsive and over-reactive.
  • They are self-righteous and think they are right.
  • They are not understanding or forgiving.
  • They are too easy to condemn.
  • They find the worst in things.
  • They are easy to fabricate stories.
  • They lack self-restraint, meaning they get out of control too easily.
  • They are too easily insulted and “traumatized”.

In short, it doesn’t paint a picture of a great people to me.

After seeing what the media and people have done my only reaction is:  “what’s next?”    

To be frank, I eagerly await looking at the next news report to see what new stupid way the media, and the people, villainize or criticize Trump.  It would be a ridiculous comedy if it wasn’t over something so serious.  All Trump has to do is say something and they’ll find something wrong with it . . . give me a break!

Overall, the reaction of the media and people, with their ridiculous claims and statements, make anything Trump said look insignificant!  In short, the media and the people have made this into a joke, not what Trump said.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

This entry was posted in Current affairs and events, Government and politics, Historical stuff, Mass communication: media, social media, and the news, The 2016 Presidential election and things associated with it, The U.S. and American society and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s