The Bill Clinton Factor
Let's start with an established principle: The Republican party is of the rich, while the Democrat is of the poor. All that changed with Bill Clinton, he transformed the people's party into the party of titled intellectuals.
This is not bad, but in the long run it would have consequences. Bill Clinton, while he wanted to professionalize his electoral base, should not have left behind the historical base that always voted for the Democratic Party.
.
.
It already happened once
People think that there was only one massive extinction with the dinosaurs, it was about six. It happened once and had to happen again.
People rip off their clothes with Donald Trump, saying that the electorate had never before chosen so badly. Excuse me, but I still remember the headlines from around the world in prestigious newspapers when George Bush (son) was elected for a second term, one said and I quote,"I can't believe Americans are so stupid".
Donald Trump "won" the elections because already other "pestering" people had won it, he was not the monster that came out of nowhere by driving away potential voters, the man is only part of the electoral system in Washintong DC, a system that is not bad in itself, but should be improved like any democracy in the world.
.
.
Arrogance
582Please respect copyright.ＰＥＮＡＮＡoMlBt7tYPB
Donald Trump, is a jerk, nobody denies it, the tragic mistake however, was that everyone was arrogant with him and underestimated him.
Ann Coulter, a blonde whose position or profession is now irrelevant, said the orange man was going to be the winner, everyone laughed in her face.
The Art of War, that book that everyone believes was written in Japan, but actually it came from China, is very clear in that sense. I have not read such a work so far, but I am sure it has a part in which it says that one should not underestimate the adversary, and another where it says that the main thing is to know oneself.
They saw Donald Trump as some kind of exotic figure, a joke, a clown, a man with the color of an umpalumpa... and they paid the price, they didn't take measures to stop the guy from the beginning and what had to happen happened: The moral of the hare and the turtle.
"Ah, arrogance, causing more defeats than all the abilities of the enemies put together,"I don't remember who said it, but he said it very well.
.
.
.
In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king
The Republican pre-candidates who accompanied Donald Trump were pathetic. All of them seemed clones not only in appearance, but in their pre-campaign proposals.
It was logical that Donald Trump would stand out with his umpalumpa coloration among other things, in addition to his wild and discriminatory campaign politics.
So low were the rivals that we take an example, Marco Rubio, was running to face Trump, but years before, the descendant of Latinos, signed a law so that New Orleans would not receive help after Hurricane Katrina. And then they wonder why the orange guy beat their Republican adversaries!
.
.
Advantageous orange guy
Donald Trump has been campaigning for over 30 years!!
He may not have intended to be President, but he promoted his image for decades unlike his rivals in the hope that someday he would bring him benefits with whatever he came up with.
Hillary Clinton was immersed in politics for 30 years, but her promotion in political campaigns against Obama first and then Donald Trump is not even a year away.
In politics, not the best wins, but the one that has been on screen for the longest time. The umpalumpa, was in infinity of cameos that gave him a LOT of advantage in the elections against the other Republican candidates and against Hillary.
.
.
Anti-Zionism
I still remember the TV show: Across the fence. A show many years before the previous election, in it, a lawyer of Jewish origin was running for mayor of the town, but even though he made a great campaign, he still lost.
The Democratic Party sabotaged Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton's rival in the primaries, and not for political interests because the old man was rampaging everywhere, no, the thing was racism... since we're talking about a party that led an Afro-descendent to the presidency! Oops, I guess I was wrong.
Then what was it?.... Hum, if it wasn't racism, then there's anti-Zionism, and I don't say it.
Even Donald Trump said and I quote,"I feel sorry for the way the Democratic Party is treating Bernie Sanders."
For all those who believe that there is a Zionist conspiracy that wants to rule the world... so I ask why doesn't Sanders win?
.
.
If it's a matter of charisma...
Charisma and physical appearance do not go hand in hand. What is charism? For it is the gift by which a person manages to be admired and followed by others, whether this is a good speaker or a different one from the Halo effect.
Donald Trump, generates charisma that earned him at least 30% of his final vote. Perhaps his charisma comes from the fact that he resembles an umpalumpa from Willy Wonka's film... or having participated in so many cameos on TV or cinema.
Hillary "I turn a blind eye" Clinton, well, how to put it mildly... THAT WOMAN HAVE THE SAME CHARISM THAT TEACHER UMBRIDGE IN THE BOOKS OF HARRY POTTER, or as I prefer to call the saga of books: Hermione Granger and her two loose associates.
Let's not be naive, part of the electorate though tiny, it is based more on the halo effect or charisma, and Hillary Clinton did not have, has and will not have both, at least not enough to defeat Donald Trump.
"When you have, you have, when you don't have... what a fucking shit" - said someone, who? It doesn't matter now.
.
.
Bureaucratic vs. business system
There were a lot of campaigners in both the states and counties who warned Hillary Clinton that she was losing voters in places that had always voted for Democrats. the problem was that they could not immediately communicate with Clinton, but that their written complaints had to go through an endless bureaucratic chain. Here it looks like Hillay Clinton's campaign had political logistics.
With the Republicans things were different, very different. Donald Trump used to score a goal against himself every time he opened his mouth, however, the bases in charge of carrying out his campaigns in the States and Counties did very well, and if there were complaints, they reached their addressee in a much faster and more efficient way, so that what had to be corrected was corrected in time.
Let us remember that the elections in the United States of America are not the same as we have in Latin America. People in the northern country do not vote for the president, they vote instead for a group of people (electoral college) who just voted for the president.
Many people supported Hillary Clinton, but her candidates in the states and counties did very badly.
Thus, the umpalumpa could say fol things because his vote was in the people of the counties, not himself, at least in a good percentage.
.
.
The English effect
A few months before the U. S. election. the United Kingdom decided to leave the European Union, you know, the famous brexit. This fact gave a lot of impetus to the Republican campaigners, who along with Trump were in favor of winning the disconnect of the motherland (for the gringos) from the rest of Europe.
The psychology of the masses is interesting, humans are like the mythical suicidal lemmings, with so little time for elections many voted following the trend. And what current was this? The one that defended the orange guy of the impossible hair.
Hillary Clinton and company only lamented the decision taken on the other side of the pond but did not propose a psychological campaign aimed at convincing them that following the same path as the United Kingdom would be catastrophic for the United States.
The Netherlands (Holland) and France had more time in their elections so that the English effect did not influence them so much, the moderates won in the end and the right-extremists lost.+
.
.
Rage vote
What is the Rage Vote? For it is a phenomenon by which a person votes for the candidate who gives him the most anger.
"My life is shitty so fuck them all up with me": this is the thought of the people who apply the rage vote, what they don't realize is that they believe that only he is voting that way, when the next-door neighbor votes the same way and the subsequent one too, and so on.
This fact was scientifically proven in the United Kingdom with the famous Brexit. After the elections many people confessed that they did not want the United Kingdom to separate from the European Union, but that they voted for Brexit, believing that they would be the only ones to vote in this way and that they were now very sorry.
The same applied to the United States, many took the rage vote.
.
.
Influencers, suck my balls
The print media are experts at putting athletes, singers and others on a pedestal. It was they who created the term: Influencers, which refers to famous people who have millions of followers in social networks and who supposedly influence their followers.
There's no such thing as influencers!
In the vote that decided the Brexit, JK Rowling, the writer of the book series: Hermione Granger and her two lazy associates, called for people to vote for the United Kingdom not to separate from the European Union. The same thing happened with several so-called influencers, and in the end the United Kingdom voted in favour of Brexit.
In the United States the same thing happened, a lot of influencers campaigned for people not to vote for Donald Trump, but the orange guy "won" the elections (they actually won votes in the electoral college, but I will not analyze that aspect because of its complexity).
Democrats fell asleep at the thought that the inluencers' supporters, like sheep, would vote for Hillary Clinton, thanks to the support she had from a multitude of celebrities.
There are no influencers, masters of the press or any other media, do not invent things that do not exist, because they cause these people, in the end believe that they seriously influence millions of people, so stupid is the humanity.
.
.
Battle horse
Did you know that 63% of Americans want to stop teaching evolutionary theory in schools and return to creationist theory?!
I'm not going to discuss which position is right or wrong, that's not the case here, my point is that the society of the northern country is very conservative, in the government of Barack Obama aka. "lots of barack and little bite." a mockery of the motto: much barks and little bites, like never before the issue of abortion was never discussed and Hillary Clinton promised to revise the legislation to pass the abortion issue on ALL of the American union.
Many people, regardless of whether they were Republican or not, were frightened by this and their vote was for Donald Trump. After the election, many Democratic voters confessed that they did not vote for Hillay Clinton because the issue of abortion: either they voted for the orange guy, or they simply did not go to vote, remember that in the USA, voting is NOT mandatory.
The issue of abortion was always the Republican's battle horse, an aspect that the Democrats did not take into account.
.
.
Anti Castro
I will not discuss here whether or not you agree with the position of former President Barack Obama aka. "a lot of barack and a little bite", regarding that the US should soften its relations with Cuba.
Miami was a key state for the election, unlike others who always decided their vote beforehand, both Democrats and Republicans had to fight it at that place until the last minute.
Hillary Clinton believed that with so many Latin Americans in that state, her victory was assured. It was that unparalleled posture of arrogance and ignorance that kept her from seeing the danger coming.
The majority of the Latin American population in Miami are either refugees or descendants of refugees because of Fidel Castro's Communist government, such refugees and descendants would never accept the reopening of negotiations with the Castro family.
Trump won the Latino vote in Miami by promising that he would be tougher with Cuba's communist government.
What irony, it was said that Latinos were going to define the election and in the end they did, but not for the candidate that the very wise and learned "experts" political analysts expected. Miami was so important that Donald Trump won 29 voters from the electoral college, while other states like Pennsylvania, one of the most important, barely reached 20 from the electoral college.
Maybe Hillary Clinton believed that in Miami there were only Hispanic voters of Mexican origin, for her all Central and South America is Mexico, there are no countries like Bolivia or Chile. She should have told Obama to reverse his policy of approaching Cuba, at least until the elections passed.
.
.
She doesn't like to travel
Donald Trump traveled to Mexico to tell the corrupt of Peña Nieto that he was going to build the wall and that he better be quiet... and Peña Nieto in fact, did not say a word!
We are not going to discuss this aspect of the shameful "seagull" husband's interview with Trump, but I am going to focus on the journey.
Irrespective of whether the Trump-Nieto match was a good one or not, Donald Trump was able to get a wide media coverage, you know, as I said in a previous section: not the one who has the best proposal wins, but the one who appears on screen for the longest time.
Hillary Clinton didn't want to travel to Mexico, which was a mistake. I will not discern about the motives that the woman could have had the strange logo of the H with arrows to one side instead of upwards (heavens, not even a fucking good logo could make her), had not to travel to the Aztec country. I'll just say that this decision added to the dislike the voters already had for her.
Latin America is said to be the backyard of the USA (something some US congressmen say), but Hillary's attitude made Hispanic voters think that for her the Spanish-speaking region would not be even that.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, showed interest in the region on the subject of drugs, Cuba and Venezuela. It may not be much, but something is something, unlike the woman, rival of the orange guy, who seemed totally unfamiliar to the region.
.
.
Like M. Night Shyamalan
M Night Shyamalan is one of the three worst modern filmmakers along with Michael Bay and Uwe Boll. In what characterizes the spawn coming from India, he published a book justifying himself by saying that his films are the best while his detractors are moronic.
I bring up the above because Hillary Clinton is a very arrogant person according to her own campaign supporters. This is not a mere rumor, since in the middle of the election campaign some people close to her and in charge of making the campaign said it very clearly:"Her decisions are not the most successful".
Hillary didn't see or rather, she didn't want to see her campaign go to waste and didn't pay attention to the reports given by professional people or in contact with the electoral mass in the American union that didn't adjoin the oceans, hell, not even with states that did like Miami or Northern California! The latter voted for Trump.
Like Shyamalan's grotesque, Hillary Clinton has just published a book "explaining" why she lost the election. Tilds the thick orange guy to be an idiot and incapable, along with other epithets that may or may not be true, yet by attacking the orange guy in this way, is she not insulting herself because she did not win the election against such a pathetic rival according to her?
Oh Hillary, before you see your opponent's mistakes, see your own horns... sorry I say, your own fouls, and kick your husband out of here at once! Last year he went to Argentina and was caught with a "Miss of doubtful origin".
.
.
Internal racism
Donald Trump, who resorted to the issue of racism to gain more voters, wanted this election to be white people versus people of Latin American, Asian or Afro-descendent.
It is always advantageous to polarize an election, especially knowing beforehand that the majority of voters are Caucasian. What sure surprised even the orange guy himself was that there were many Latin Americans who voted for Trump, because they themselves are racists against their own people.
Believe me, there were many people of Spanish-speaking descent, who no longer want to see more Latin Americans not even in painting. This sector of the population may not be large, but for the previous election in particular, each vote counted.
.
.
The Bill Clinton Factor 2
On a previous occasion I spoke about good old Bill, the only president who broke the hegemony of pet dogs in the White House (hip, hip, hooray for Bill). Now I'm going to touch on another subject.
Hillary Clinton throughout her campaign was accompanied by the "mischief" of her husband, this was a mistake.
The next most incredible thing is true: Many Democratic women withdrew Hillary's vote for the following reasons.
First, they felt that Hillary should not have used her husband's figure to promote herself. They said it looked like she was asking them to vote for Bill Clinton's wife, instead of just voting for Hillary Clinton.
Second, Bill Clinton continues to make his own with other women, going with his wife who apparently turns a blind eye, undermined Hillary's credibility.
Third, and here things get weird, they didn't vote for Hillary, because of envy! They can't stand the fact that the woman of the Umbridge teacher-style charisma, with the smile of Jack the killer, married such a handsome man.
I assure you that this section does not contain any comedy, I have spoken to people who live in the USA, and they confirmed the three previous points. If I think it's right or fair? Of course not, but that's life, sometimes voters aren't guided by logic.
.
.
They´re not Top Cat and his gang.
In past decades, the U. S. had lost the war against organized crime, then the authorities got up to speed (put more money in) and cornered the continental mafia.
Then came the attack on the twin towers and the budget had to be reallocated to fight terrorism abroad. This gave an impulse to organized crime, and to a worrying phenomenon: violent gangs from Mexico and Central America entered the United States.
Many Democrats and Latin Americans voted for Donald Trump, as he promised to be tougher on gangs of undocumented immigrants. Believe me, this factor was the most decisive factor along with the abortion issue for Latinos to vote for the orange guy.
.
.
Milenians and Dreamers
The current generation is called Milenians and grew up using social networks among other things, while the Dreamers are the children of illegal immigrants who are in college and expect to be U. S. citizens.
Most of these two groups did not vote for Donald Trump, but there was a good percentage who did, and worse, of all eligible voters, about half did not go to the polls because these two groups were very supportive of Bernie Sanders, rather than Hillary Clinton.
.
.
If it's not for the old man, I don't vote.
Bernie Sanders, despite his advanced age, won the vote of countless young people and people from the lower middle class, along with other sectors of the population.
When the Democratic Party sabotaged the old man and made Hillary Clinton win, they lost a lot of votes. It wasn't enough for Sanders himself to ask his followers to vote for Hillary, people didn't vote in the end.
I remember when the Democratic base learned that Sanders lost to Hillary because of the support of top Democratic leaders, one voter said, "The Democratic party lost its way, I will not vote for Hillary."
.
.
The "experts" suck.
Before and during and even after the primaries in the northern country, no political or statistical analyst gave a penny for Donald Trump.
They saw him as a joke in the primaries, but what's worse: they saw him as a joke AFTER the primaries.
Much of the defeat of the Democrats, it was because of these "experts and educated individuals", they were all confident and when they saw the danger posed by the orange guy, it was difficult to devise new campaign strategies.
Now they apologize with a thousand and one apologies or, as in the case of statistical gurus, they excuse themselves by saying: "the three percent error was in our forecasts, so we were wrong, but we were wrong less than anyone else". THEY' LL BE JERKS!!!
.
.
The showmans are asholes
The United States has a lot of entertainment programs, the audience's favorites are from people who make fun of politicians, the entertainment world, whatever.
These individuals brainwashed the people in charge of the Democratic campaign by telling them with their jokes against Donald Trump that the orange guy would never win the primary, at first, and then the election against Hillary.
Democratic campaign leaders and Hillary Clinton believed them, and when they saw the danger of the umpalumpa, it was too late to make citizens change their vote.
.
.
Employment vs. relocation
No-one doubts that Donald Trump's speeches had a strong demagogic hue, however, he focused on selling his proposal, which was EMPLOYMENT, which had shrunk in recent years, especially in the center and northeast of the country.
Hillary Clinton, for her part, a much more prepared woman, wanted to sell a reality, which consisted of relocating people who had lost their jobs, for which they had to be educated or prepared to aspire to a new source of work outside their former job.
Whether we like it or not, the strategy of selling illusions to Donald Trump worked. Hillary Clinton didn't have to lie, but she and her campaign team must have had another strategy to recruit voters.
.
.
Hungry Heart
No, it's not that football guy's anime title.
Despite his money, power and influence, Donald Trump was never accepted as part of American high society, more specifically, Manhattan's circles of prestige.
It is said that the parties offered by the orange guy were dressed in ostentatious but not very good taste, where the garbage of the entertainment world was the only one who attended.
For the orange guy, these elections were not another "competition"but rather a personal one. He was responsible for naming the best people to campaign in the counties, key men and women who had to clean up any potential disasters their boss went to, and they did it many times!
Hillary, on the other hand, no longer had a rival like Barack Obama, saw the road clear and believed that she alone could sustain the entire campaign strategy. Fatal error due to the pride and arrogance that many say that women have.
.
.
From golden toilets to Colonel Sanders
Everyone knows that money doesn't buy good taste, a proof of this is Donald Trump, who among the many extravagances that he possesses, is to have a stupendous golden toilet... WTF!
How is it that a man with a golden toilet has won the vote of the upper middle class, middle class, lower middle class and the poor?
The orange guy can be accused of many things, but he is not foolish, at least he was not in the next election ploy:
In a flight he made on his private plane, the one that seemed more imposing than the Air Force One (the presidential plane), Donald Trump, was photographed with chicken broaster, as if it were any urban or rural countryman, nothing more or less. Photo he later shared on social networks.
At first glance we may feel like tiny things, but in reality it was something that had a lot of impact on voters.
People saw, not an eccentric millionaire, but a human being like them. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, always had such an elitist image and far away from the common American population.
.
.
Lol, WTF and asdfghjkl
In the primaries it looked how Bernie Sanders smash Hillary Clinton in terms of keeping up with the language and tastes of young people, while Hillary was quite far away from what the American people see, feel and participate.
Once with the old man out of the way, she thought it would all be sewing and singing, however, she could not see the tsunami of twitters sent to her by Donald Trump, which kind of orange Poseidon.
Hllary Clinton forgot that it was precisely Obama who won the previous election eight years ago, thanks in large part to the use of social networking and somewhat demagogue discourse. She wanted to make a very technical and professional campaign, so she paid the price.
Trump's twitters were too many, and they aimed to keep the press and comedy presenters talking about him all the time. When one twitt went out of fashion, another twitt came in and so on.
.
.
Internet vs. ethics
In a previous section we saw how Trump flooded the electoral campaign with his twitts, but now let's see how he used social networks in an efficient way (which is not necessarily linked to ethics).
In his twitts, it has been statistically proven that the orange guy used these words much more than others: We won, winner, victory; loser, losers.
This indicates a higher level of psychological counseling, designed to make people believe that it was best to be with Trump, after all, who doesn't want to be part of the winning team, and who wants to be a loser?
Hillary Clinton set up her own channel for Spanish-speaking people to connect with them, while Donald Trump and his platforms were only looking for confrontation with the issue of Latinos. The funny thing is that in real life he had his teams to connect with the minorities: Latinos for Trump, Afroamericans for Trump, etc.
The Art of War is a book that can easily be applied to the business world, and Trump, as a businessman, applied the philosophy of this book. The previous paragraph shows what is known in war as: Surrounding Maneuvering.
On the one hand (flanco), in social networks it appeals to hatred and divisionism; on the other hand (flanco) it appeals to communication and understanding.
Contradictory ways that have a strong risk of colliding and destroying everything, but to be careful and use them very well, give good results.
.
.
Mark Zuckerberg, you screwed the world.
The problem of false news on social networks dates back to years before the election in the USA, however, it is only recently studied how to stop this problem after the victory of Donald Trump aka. "I do travel to places where Spanish is spoken."
It is scientifically proven that not only young people, but older people no longer know about the news through traditional media such as TV or newspapers, but even radio, instead, trusts what they read on social networks.
Many of these information platforms in cyberspace are neither certified nor regulated, so they are an unreliable source to know the events in today's world or even as a reference to past events.
The false news that favored umpalumpa and discredited Hillary was a tsunami that drowned everyone, for example, the news that said that Pope Francis supported Trump because of the abortion issue.
.
.
Obama and Immigration
Many Latinos were dissatisfied with the Obama administration regarding immigration. In his two terms as President, the long-awaited Immigration Reform could not be realized, in fact, in the first four years of Obama's administration, more Latinos were expelled than in the eight years of George Bush's (son) administration.
If immigration reform had passed, millions of Latino citizens would have been eligible to vote, and with all this strength Donald Trump might not have won. At least that's what statistical scholars say, or amateur opinion.
For my part, I do not think this would have been feasible and I will use the following analogy:
If Japan had destroyed the American fleet in Pearl Harbor, won at Midway and triumphed at Guadalcanal, it would have lost the war anyway, it would only have won from six months to a year before losing to the USA. The capacity of the gringos to manufacture various war materials was absurdly colossal.
The same goes for the Latino vote, but I will look at that in the next section.
.
.
The myth of the Latino vote
Let's start from the following facts:
First, Obama won by the Latino vote.
Second, In Obama's first four years, more Latinos were expelled than in George W. Bush's eight years.
Third, Latinos in the USA are fucking conservative about religion.
Fourth, Anti-Castro, anti-immigrant and anti-gang movements on the part of the same LATINS are strong.
Fifth, Africanamericans, Latinos and Asians, ARE the minority
Sixth - It is NOT mandatory to vote in the USA, which if it is mandatory is to REGISTER to vote, an abysmal difference.
Now, suppose the miracle that ALL Latinos were united and not separated, and that the same thing happened with blacks and Asians, and all together voted for Hillary Clinton. Would this have represented Hillary Clinton's victory? The answer is NO.
But why?! If it was just the Latino vote eight years ago that gave Obama the victory.
Easy, eight years ago, what's more, four years ago, when Obama won for the second time, an important fact happened: The whites did not go to vote en masse.
In the last elections, the Caucasian population, who for various reasons ALWAYS register to vote, but who NEVER vote when the time comes, lifted their fat white asses, stopped watching TV while stuffing themselves with chicken, hamburger or pizza, and went to vote.
The Latino vote is a myth, for some reason we are MINORITY. Our vote only influences the extent to which the majority of the white population in the USA is ABSENT.
.
.
Northeast and education
Barack Obama inherited a country on the brink of economic collapse due to the 2008 stock market crash that brought the entire planet to the brink of a second major depression. Measures that injected capital into the economy, financial bailouts, nationalizations and others in the last months of George W. Bush's administration, saved the world at a price that is not yet very clear to analyze.
Obama managed to reduce unemployment caused by the 2008 Wall Street debacle, however, throughout his term in charge this would be increased especially in the central USA and the northeast that bordered the great lakes. He knew that things were not going well and therefore he even ordered quite controversial action at the level of international diplomacy by ordering the death of Osama bin Laden.
When Donald Trump ran for primary candidate had the advantage of seducing sections of the population that Obama had defrauded.
The orange guy promised education to the northeast, where schools for Afro-descendants had been closed, with the excuse that these places and those students were not worth investing money in! You can believe it! A government that was presided over by an Afrodescendant said such a shit!
I don't think Donald Trump cares much about the black population in the northeast of the great lakes, but his speech focused on that population's discontent with Obama.
.
.
Steel and northeast
Many steel smelting companies in the center of the American Union closed their doors because they were no longer profitable, leaving millions of people living directly and indirectly from those smelting centers unemployed.
Not only did the level of unemployment soar, but there was a very strong displacement in an important sector of the population, which was formerly middle class, they had their own house and barbecue in the garden; then they became poor and lived in trailers and no longer shared with friends.
As for the Great Lakes region, where the U. S. automotive industry is centered, the factories closed down. Cities like Detroit, Chicago and others felt the coup like no other major city group.
Hillary's answer was already stated in a previous section: the relocation based on a labor education policy so that they can opt (be careful, not to get) a different labor source from the one they had in other regions of the country, that is, the states and cities that were already in economic crisis, would continue in economic crisis.
While Trump's was: shutting down American companies in China and abroad to bring them back home, that is, they would return to work.
The funny thing is that Trump has with his daughter Ivanka, manufactures in China, even, despite his hate speech towards China, his own granddaughter is a viral phenomenon on social networks when singing a song! in Mandarin!
That's why Trump won so many votes: people trusted Trump's promises instead of Hillary's plan, and those who knew about the orange guy's double talk still voted for the man, because he was the only lifesaver there was!
.
.
Deep America
It is curious to note one fact: the only superhero that came from a state in the center of the American Union is Superman, all the others come from big cities like New York.
Like the previous data, there are others where technology, fashion, music and others have their sources in coastal cities. People living in "deep America" felt like the Obama administration set them aside and the policies proposed by Hillary Clinton did not set out strategies to connect all those regions not only with the work, but also with the cultural contribution to the country where they lived.
"Make America Great Again," is not only a slogan applicable to improving the macro and micro national economy, but also involved taking into account the potential of regions forgotten by both Democratic and Republican governments. That was at least what Trump's candidates for the polling station in each of the states and counties of the United States were proposing.
The resentment of the people of deep America along with other forgotten sectors of North America such as Northern California was exploited by Donald Trump.
.
.
More papist than the Pope
Obama always wanted to be above Donald Trump, considered himself a better man and politician, so he didn't want to participate in the Hillary Clinton campaign because he considered it unethical.
However, now that the campaign process was about to end and just days before the vote, Obama decided to speak in favor of Hillary, saying: "No one in the history of this country has been better prepared to govern us, neither Bill Clinton, nor me, nor anyone else."
This help came at a very untimely time, not succeeding in getting much of the electorate, especially Afro-descendants, to vote for Hillary.
.
.
Anti nerds
Believe it or not, Americans don't like nerds, people who live in "deep America," don't like people with college degrees such as lawyers, engineers, doctors and so on.
Hillary Clinton did not know how to get away from the image of "titled" that she had, she never stopped projecting that image of elitism throughout her campaign.
This is not a bad thing, but her campaign advisors should have advised her to also show other aspects that would link her more to the common denominator of people.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, is known more as a wrestling showman, various cameos and reality shows than someone with college education.
This part may sound like a bad vibe to us, but it is the idiosyncrasy of the gringo, something that favored Trump to Clinton's detriment.
.
.
Idiosyncracy
In Latin America, people with wealth and powerful businessmen are poorly viewed, associated with corruption and others. This appreciation is greater or lesser depending on each country.
In the USA, there is the opposite figure, businessmen of wealth and power, are seen as capable people, intelligent, enterprising, able to carry out any project in which they are put in charge.
Hillary Clinton had a campaign policy aimed at publicizing her government's plan, while Donald Trump only said he was going to bring back jobs, without being very specific on this point, except to tax American products that return to the country as consumer products.
Donald Trump never had a government plan except for protectionism and isolationism, but people for the idiosyncrasy they have preferred to rely on the slogans the man sent.
.
.
American Pride
Americans are proud, and that feeling was hurt when they saw their country no longer had an international preponderance in the Pacific and Middle East.
The Arab Spring, which ended in the overthrow of several dictators until the death of Gaddafi, was not capitalized by the USA, but rather by Russia especially in Syria.
The same thing happened with China, its influence spread to the Pacific and nearby countries.
Donald Trump, with his slogan of Make America great again, proposed that the USA should once again gain international prominence and revise certain international treaties that did not favor the country, such as the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with Iran.
Hillary, on the other hand, only focused on his attacks on Vladimir Putin, leaving much of American foreign policy aside.
.
.
30 years vs. 1 year
When Hillary competed against Obama for the presidency, she underlined the fact that she had been in politics for decades, while Obama was an upstart.
Eight years later and the woman didn't learn from her mistakes, again highlighting her more than thirty years of experience in Washington DC, while Trump had not a year in politics.
Both in one election and the other, people preferred to vote for a man that did not come from the establishment. Politics is very discredited in the USA, so Hillary's strategy of promoting herself due to her long political career was not the most successful, in fact, even went against her.
.
.
The excuse
Past elections were a roller coaster, both opponents had their good and bad. Hillary lost a lot of points when she vanished because of a cold, but then went way beyond Trump when he made his misogyny statements known, that time the woman was six points ahead of him and just days after the end of the campaign, it seemed that everything was decided.
So why did people decide to vote for the orange guy?
People didn't want to publicly admit that they liked Trump, needed an excuse (not a reason) to vote for him, and the excuse was Hillary Clinton's e-mail scandal. Something that wasn't so bad compared to Trump's scandals.
.
.
Statistics x 2
Despite what the statistics gurus said in the last election, they did not tell anyone about certain statistics that are public information. They kept insisting that the woman would win and that the orange guy wouldn't be popular.
I'm not going to go into this further, I'll just mention them:
For decades, no party, whether Democratic or Republican, has won for a third consecutive period.
Second: Also for decades, the winner was always the one who caused most sympathy in the electorate, that is to say, voted for the clown.
The good thing about math is, they don't lie. Hillary was running against it from the start.
.
.
Health and Omabacare
One of the great disappointments of both Democrats and Republicans with the Obama administration was the health issue and the so-called Obamacare, which is a kind of universal health insurance for its citizens.
Obama said, "The main reason a middle-class family enters the poor is because of the expenses it incurs when one of its members gets sick." Health in the USA is too expensive, Obamacare tried to solve this, but to the detriment of those who already had insurance who were forced to pay more.
Donald Trump never had a plan to replace Obamacare, he just said he would replace it with something better. His intention from the beginning was to polarize the choice using this theme.
Hillary Clinton should have said she would make amendments to Obama's health insurance (not take it down), so she would even things out, but she didn't do it. Obamacare was an important factor in the defeat of that woman.
.
.
Taxes
Hillary proposed raising taxes to the richest, while Donald Trump proposed lowering them, but not only that, he also proposed a new restructuring of all taxes in the American Union, that is, it would make them less complicated.
If you think that filling out a monthly or annual tax form is complicated in your country, you should see how gringos suffer to do the same, in the U. S., the subject of taxes is very complicated, so much so that people must hire accountants to do this job, and the worst thing is that if you make a mistake not only run with the fines, but you are liable to go to jail. The tax issue is very strict in the northern country.
Of course the orange guy did not have a plan to do this, but the demagogue speech endures everything and many voted in favour of the orange guy.
.
.
From Russia with love
No, it's not the title of the acclaimed James Bond movie. I am referring to the most powerful man in the world for the fourth consecutive year according to Forbes Magazine: Vladimir Putin.
The Kremlin's interference in the US elections is an open secret, but the curious thing was that Putin himself made previous statements, announcing that he was indifferent to both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
Then why did Putin support the orange guy?
The answer was found in the Arab Spring, the old allies of the USA fell and Putin was positioned as a strategic player in the region. Hillary Clinton attacked Putin, telling him that he was also a dictator and even that, and I quote, "he had no soul because he was a former KGB agent."
Some say that such statements not only disturbed Putin, but frightened him, he believed that the woman was threatening him with overthrow as it happened in the form of dominoes throughout the Middle East.
The Russian government hacked into American servers and helped expose the scandal of Hillary Clinton and her electronic emails, which served as an excuse to vote for Trump, as I said in a previous paragraph.
There was no challenge in this from the Kremlin, American protection systems are laughable and furthermore, Russia had already made a computer "invasion" of Latvia. Something that the rest of the world cared about a shit and had no news coverage.
It's easy to check Russian attacks on the USA, as in the anime Death Note, just follow the hacking schedule and check that these were done in government office hours. And the idiots in Congress are still investigating whether it was really Russia who intervened in the USA through servers in Macedonia! They're morons!
+
.
.
Too big to fall
"Too big to fall" was a phrase coined in 2008 when the New York wallstreet fell and threatened the whole world with a new Great Depression like the one that occurred in the 1930s.
In the thirties, the consequences were felt all over the planet, and when I want to say ALL OF THE PLANET, I mean just that. The economy plummeted as in Chile and the copper market, creating unemployment as never seen before and were the trigger of several wars around the globe as Bolivia and Paraguay had, until the end of World War II.
Those responsible for the disaster were rescued with more than 700 BILLION dollars (during the George Bush Jr. government) and to date not only maintained their positions, but became richer, much richer. In eight years of the Obama administration, these guys were untouchable.
Americans' discontent with the Democrats, Wall Street and the big banks is very evident.
Both candidates spoke out against those responsible who could have led us to an economic apocalypse, but it was the orange guy, who pronounced the strongest, most forcefully and promised severe actions against these individuals.
Of course this speech was strange coming from a party that always listened to the Wall Street lobby, but they still believed it. Hillary should have made more emphasis on this point, as the MILLION Americans who lost their homes demanded sanctions from those responsible. Hillary was always very soft in this regard.
.
.
Weapons control
Donald Trump always defended the possession of firearms (whether personal or assault) by the American population, unlike Hillary Clinton, who promised to review it.
The massacres using assault weapons and their problematic regarding their easy acquisition, comes since the Columbine Massacre in 1999, is a problem that comes dragging legislatures both Democrats and Republicans, and for a good reason: No one wants to address this problem that would result in regulating the possession of weapons, which is an aberration from the American point of view, who LOVE weapons.
Before the massacre in Las Vegas, I remember that there was a very serious one in a cinema made by a subject dressed as Batman, that time I remember that both Democratic and Republican congressmen said and I quote: "the massacre would have been avoided if everyone in the cinema had carried weapons".
The American's mentality is very different from that of the Latin American, they repudiate the massacres with firearms, but they would never tolerate the government to meddle with their precious weapons. Firearms in the USA are part of the essence of being American, period.
We see them as crazy for so many deaths produced by weapons, but they see us as crazy for not having weapons to defend ourselves against dictatorial democratic governments. I personally believe that people should not have weapons, but I am not going to discuss that here.
When Hillary Clinton proposed regulating the weapons issue, she lost a lot of votes in "deep America" and important states like Texas.
.
.
Climate Change
Throughout the election campaign, the media always made fun of the orange guy and his attitude of scepticism about Climate Change, which he calls "Chinese tales".
Attempts were made to point out that Donald Trump was a kind of madman who was the only person in the whole world who did not believe what environmental scientists said.
If you travel to "Deep America,"you will see that people do not believe in climate change. The scene of the simpsons (the film) where Lisa S. gets shut in the face when she tries to talk about climate change, is no exaggeration.
In the documentary The Five Phases of Climate Change (Bill Nye's Global Meltdown), with scientist Bill Nye, we see how he explains to the American population about deforestation on American soil and its effects such as sandstorms and so on. No one believes him, all the villagers say that disasters are caused and I quote: "Jesus, he is the one who brings all these things, but he does it thinking of a later plan". Look, I do believe in climate change, but here I'm not going to debate whether the previous religious position is correct or not, I just note that millions of people in the USA shared the same view as Donald Trump.
.
.
Butts, vaginas and pockets
Trump's worst moment was undoubtedly just a short time before the election was over. The media leaked a private conversation of his where he said and I quote: "When you're famous, women let you do anything to them, you can touch their vagina...".
Overnight the orange guy lost six points to Hillary, but in the end it was the misogynist man who won the game and not Clinton.
So the Americans are misogynistic? Don't women have unity? The results of the elections could indicate some strong ones: Yes and Yes, but the answer is not so easy.
Neither Americans are misogynistic, nor women have no unity, the answer is focused on one aspect: microeconomics.
Life is difficult, you have to pay bills, take the kids to school and make sure that the pay lasts until the end of the month. That's why America voted for the orange guy, Donald Trump, promised economic security and microeconomic sovereignty, Clinton on the other hand promised relocation and training.
I couldn't express it better than a certain woman who said she was going to vote for Trump, and I quote, "I don't care if Trump touches butts, as long as he doesn't touch my pocket.
.
.
The Trump that time forgot
Not all old people are the same, Bernie Sanders won the hearts of young people by sharing his aspirations and hobbies. Trump, however, is on the other side of the spectrum (yes, the orange guy is old, don't be fooled by his hairstyle that is so wonderful).
Donald Trump is a man who is nostalgic for the U. S. of the 1950s, and for that reason his country ideal is one in which there are no following things.
First, he wants no more immigrants because they bring about cultural change. He misses the times when women didn't leave the kitchen and warm the bed... and they were very grateful for it with the typical smile of the housewives of the 50s!
Second, strong opposition to the legalization of marijuana. Let's remember that the drug problem only shot up in the' 90s. Neither in the 1960s with LSD nor in the 1980s with cocaine, there was an increase in the number of dependents and non-dependents who used an absurd variety of synthetic drugs or not, Nixon and Reagan, who believed that in their times the drug problem was overwhelmed, would surely faint when they saw how badly things are at present.
Third, ignorance of the rights of the LGTB community. A stance not only of Trump, but of the Republican party itself.
"Make America Great Again," that means, back to the idealized past. A psychologist would conclude that Trump is nothing more than a crying child who fears change, pathetic.
.
.
Well, that concludes my "How Donald Trump won?!" series.", at first I thought that I would only expose a couple of things, never thought that I would list so many, but beware, that tomorrow I will put a kind of extra or plus.
What will the orange guy government be like?
will he run for another four years?
Will he win again?
These and other disturbing questions will be answered in the next section.
.
.
Buruju's kitten predicts...
I remember an old film with Charlos Heston, the pope comes to Rome and his bootlicker throw coins at the population and they throw themselves on them. The pontifice, seeing such a pitiful scene, tells his lackey to stop doing that, which is in very bad taste. Surely Trump didn't see that film, since when he arrived in Puerto Rico, he threw people not money, but toilet paper!
I have already said that money does not buy good taste, or in his case, common sense politeness rules, such as not throwing toilet paper at people, but in short. What will the government of the orange guy be like? The government of Oz the mighty?
Donald Trump is a man who will be in permanent campaign these four years. Man is not a politician, he will not make politics or government management, he will only campaign for the whole of the American Union. He will continue to twit and keep talking nonsense that his spokespeople tried to justify with the classic: "what he really meant..." or the one I like best: "journalists misinterpreted the president.
Now, will Trump run for a second term? Will he win again?
The answer, whether we like it or not, is a resounding YES and YES. Trump is a man used to taking advantage of the system, he's not going to miss an opportunity like this.
The economy that Trump inherited, while not among the best, is in full recovery (more because of private than government incentives), as long as the orange guy doesn't do something like regulate firearms or legalize abortion, it will win a second term. In addition, he will have the advantage of four years of uninterrupted campaigning, unlike any opponents who come forward. Even George W Bush won a second period when no one gave a penny for him.
Which party will win the third election? What will that candidate be like?
I don't think Republicans will win the presidency for the third time in a row, I don't know who they could put as a candidate after Trump's two terms, but they won't win anyway. This is because this man or woman will go against historical statistics, which tell us that no party, whether Democrat or Republican, won three times in a row, that was for decades and I don't think the situation will change. Sociologically speaking, people get tired of a government and prefer alternation.
The Democratic candidate who wins the election will be a man or woman who belongs to the LGBT congregation, i. e. will be gay or lesbian, etc. This is because of the harsh policies against this segment of the population and voters will choose on the basis of a stance contrary to the ideology of the orange guy government.
ns 15.158.61.51da2
