If a man and a woman each act stupidly, which will be President?

gYou may expect this article to be about the “glass ceiling,” i.e.the unfair disadvantage women have in business and other pursuits. Or, you may believe this article is about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

You’d be right — and wrong.

The 5/16/16 edition of the Chicago Tribune had this excellent article by Dana Milbank. I’ll give you a few excerpts, but I recommend you find and read the full article, by purchasing a Tribune or by going online:

Sarah Palin, the political mother of Donald Trump
Dana Milbank

Sarah Palin: “You can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.”
Donald Trump: “I know Russia well. I had a major event in Russia two or three years ago, Miss Universe contest.”

Palin is, politically, the Mother of Trump.

Trump, asked by NBC’s Chuck Todd where he gets his military advice, said: “Well, I watch the shows. You know, when you watch your show and all of the other shows.”

Palin’s reply to Katie Couric in 2008 about which newspapers or magazines she reads: “Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years.”

But the likenesses go much deeper:
–The attacks on the media.
–The demonization of a supposed “establishment.”
–The huge and sometimes violent crowds.
–The prominent platforms given both candidates by Fox News.
–The racist responses among supporters.
–The suspicion of science.
–The scapegoating of Muslims.
–The portrayal of President Barack Obama as something other than American.

Well before Trump built his national political reputation by questioning the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate, Palin called it a “fair question” and “fair game” and said “the public rightfully is still making it an issue.”

In 2011, after Trump said he was sending investigators to Hawaii to probe Obama’s birth, Palin responded, “More power to him.”

Before Trump said he would bring back waterboarding and “a hell of a lot worse,” Palin (said) “if I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.”

Before Trump talk(ed) about banning Muslim immigration (a stance Palin supports) and forced registration of Muslims, Palin said, “Let Allah sort it out,” in her 2013 response to the Syrian civil war.

Palin justified her accusation that Obama “pals around with terrorists” by saying that Obama isn’t “a man who sees America the way you and I see America”.

She stirred the crowd to turn against the press in a manner similar to Trump’s rallying of supporters against penned-in reporters at his events: “Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thundersticks and shouting abuse. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African-American soundman for a network and told him, ‘Sit down, boy.'”

Nicolle Wallace, a former top official on the McCain 2008 campaign, observed the parallel in The New York Times in January after Palin endorsed Trump: “Mr. Trump is riding the wave of anxiety that Ms. Palin first gave voice to as Sen. John McCain’s running mate. Mr. Trump has now usurped and vastly expanded upon Ms. Palin’s constituency, but the connection between the two movements is undeniable.”

Sarah Palin is well engraved in America’s consciousness as being a raving loony, who is completely ignorant about world and domestic politics. She appeals to fringe mentalities, followers whose primary emotion is hatred of anyone or anything different from them, especially the poor and people of color.

Palin’s rants rightfully are dismissed with laughter and scorn by anyone with a brain. And, though she has had some experience in politics, her image as an “idiot shouting” has made her unelectable.

Donald Trump is even more extreme and has less political experience than Palin. His rants about deporting 11 million Mexicans and building a wall he will force Mexico to buy, and torturing prisoners, and his Islamophobia are dismissed with laughter and scorn by anyone with a brain, even by his own party.

His judgement is seriously lacking. Trump shrugged off widespread allegations that Russian President Putin has ordered the killing of journalists and political dissidents.

Trump: “He’s running his country and at least he’s a leader, unlike what we have in this country. I think our country does plenty of killing also.”

(Presumably, Trump feels the same way about Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, and Kim Jong-un.)

Trump’s answering of questions with questions, generalities, irrelevancies, and innuendo is Palinesque. To defend Trump’s banning of Muslims, Palin said, “As governor of Alaska, I banned Muslims from entering my daughter Bristol, and that ban is still enforced to this day.”

A typical Trumpian/Palinian non sequitur.

Trump explained to Bill O’Reilly on Fox News, why he wants to ban all Muslims from America: “Many, many, most Muslims are wonderful people, but is there a Muslim problem? Look what’s happening. Look what happened right here in my city with the World Trade Center and lots of other places.

Yes, the billion Muslims in the world are represented by the dozen guys on the 9/11 planes in the world of Palin/Trump.

Like Palin, Trump is an “idiot shouting,” but unlike her, he just might be elected President.

Why the difference?

Palin/Trump are famous, glib, entertaining, white, Christian, and reasonably attractive. Both appeal to the same angry, “anti-everything,” hatred-spread-wide mentality. Both criticize everything, but have no solid plans for anything.

So why is she a joke, and he might be President?

And here comes Hillary Clinton. Her primary sins are:
–She took two whole weeks to reveal that Benghazi was not the result of a movie, but rather was a planned terrorist activity.
–She used her private server for Emails
–And isn’t there is something vaguely wrong with the Clinton Foundation?
–And wasn’t there something about Whitewater and Kenneth Starr that after years of investigation and millions in costs, and many conspiracy theories, never came to anything?

Considering Clinton has been in politics for many years, that’s a relatively puny list. Compare her scandals with Trump’s numerous scandals, failed businesses like Trump University, Trump Steaks, Trump Vodka, Trump Shuttle, and four bankruptcies for which the perpetrator boasts about cheating lenders (and suggests the U.S. government do the same).

Speaking of cheating, Hillary was cheated on by her husband. She stood by her man. The Donald cheated on his wife and divorced her.

Hillary remains married, while Donald is a two-time loser, working on his third wife.

But Hillary can’t be trusted while the Donald can??

Yes, Hillary is criticized for her husband’s unfaithfulness, while Donald’s own unfaithfulness barely is mentioned.


Hillary has broad experience in government, both domestic and international. Sarah has experience in domestic government.

Donald not only has no experience (other than funding a beauty contest in Russia) — even less experience than Sarah Palin — but he doesn’t seem to understand any need for experience to be hired for the most important job in the world.

It’s doubtful he would hire an inexperienced accountant or lawyer, but he wants America to hire an inexperienced President.

Yet somehow he, not Palin, is the Republican candidate for President.


I suspect there are two differences:

For reasons only a psychologist might be able to identify, Hillary has a likability problem. Perhaps it’s her voice, or her wide-eyed enthusiasm or her unstylish pantsuits, but for many people, she seems to be cursed with the “Dr. Fell syndrome.” 

And this may relate to the other reason: She is a woman, and men can get away with far more bullsh*t than can women.

Palin/Trump are kindred spirits, espousing the same mixture of ignorance, bigotry and outright lies, that appeal to ignorant, bigoted and gullible people.

Ah, but Mrs. Palin, she is an unelectable, Tina Fey comedy sketch, while Mr. Trump, the notorious misogynist, so infantile he feels compelled to surround himself with beautiful women — he is in danger of winning the Presidency.

Bill Clinton scandalized the Oval office. Imagine what Trump will do in there.

Advice to Melania Trump: Don’t get old.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich afford better health care than the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE AN ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefiting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-tranferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.
Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be an good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt


Recessions begin an average of 2 years after the blue line first dips below zero. A common phenomenon is for the line briefly to dip below zero, then rise above zero, before falling dramatically below zero. There was a brief dip below zero in 2015, followed by another dip – the familiar pre-recession pattern.
Recessions are cured by a rising red line.

Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.


Mitchell’s laws:
•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money.
•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes..

•No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.
•Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.
•A growing economy requires a growing supply of money (GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
•Deficit spending grows the supply of money
•The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
•The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.

•The single most important problem in economics is the Gap between rich and the rest..
•Austerity is the government’s method for widening
the Gap between rich and poor.
•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..


4 thoughts on “If a man and a woman each act stupidly, which will be President?

  1. More Trump fakery you’ve not heard about. This you simply have to hear!



    Bizarre fakery scandal hurts Trump character

    Donald Trump’s weird history of pretending to be someone else while speaking to the media about himself or on his own behalf, and the return of an embarrassing scandal with the publication of previously unheard audio tapes.

    Here is Trump on the issue of banning Muslims: “I’m not the President. I don’t make proposals. Everything I say is just a suggestion. I am totally flexible on all issues.

    No proposals? Just suggestions? Totally flexible? Everything is subject to change.

    Clearly, a man without any policy at all, and who stands for nothing, and who calls the media, pretending to be someone else, so he can brag about his female conquests, is just the man you can trust to be President of the United States.

    Trump denied it. Then admitted it. Then denied it. Now won’t talk about it. Trump for President!!


    But Trump isn’t the only con artist on the Republican ballot:

    Forged signatures could take GOP Senate candidate, Jon Keyser, off ballot


    “It’s whatever the government definition is. I’m not going to get into semantics.”
    — Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski on how the candidate defined income in his new financial disclosure

    As first reported by Fortune, Trump’s 2015 disclosure appeared to conflate income and revenue for 20 income-producing properties that are among his largest, including golf courses and hotels. Federal disclosure requirements say a candidate must disclose income, which would be a smaller number than revenue — after accounting for business expenses.



  2. “We got it and intend to Keep it” We the 1%

    It does matter what political party is in power or what President holds the reins of office. They are not politicians or public thinkers:;they are the rich; (they say to “We the People” we are the rich and the 1% and we own America; we got it, God knows how, but we intend to keep it if we can by throwing our tremendous
    Weight of our support, our influence, our money; our political connections, our purchased senators, our hungry
    Congressmen our public-speaking demagogues into the scale against any legislature, any political platform, any presidential campaign that threatens the dignity of our estate.

    We will do this by the “Living Constitution” (that is the Constitution politicians and judges make up as they go along, to serve our immediate interests), political-cum-economic “partnerships” between government and influential private interests “ours” and comprehensive political” “management” of the market (what used to be
    Called “ central planning,” before the collapse of the East bloc finally discredited that rubric)


  3. Three months ago Hilary has double digit lead in a match-up against Trump. Today it’s just a statistical tie.

    Why is the Dem establishment still hell bent on anointing Wall Street prostituted Hilary when Bernie Sanders is a stronger candidate against Trump?


  4. I totally miscalculated Trumps ability to win the Republican nomination. Like you, I used logic and reasoned he would quickly burn out becoming just another clown in the nominating process in the style of 2012. After all, who would vote for a candidate totally unqualified and lacking in temperament for the most powerful public office in the world?

    Wrong! What I failed to realize is voting has become an emotional, not logical, response in this age of social media and reality TV. Trump is a master at this new form of piloting an election campaign, as Obama was in 2008, mastering email to directly address his supporter.

    Trump knows that the more outrageous the comment the more clicks, radio, and TV coverage he gets – facts be damned, as the American public has not only short memories, their attention span is limited to 144 Twitter characters, deprived of any nuanced examination.

    His ostentatious rhetoric inspires his base, much like Obama did in 2008 promising hope and change (but never delivering), or as Sanders does with his political revolution, whereas, Clinton’s “no we can’t” offers up more of the same old, same old. Realistically, what chance does Sanders platform have of succeeding while Republicans have the majority in the House? It’s his message that inspires. Hillary’s not so much, conceding the fact that it is more realistic in the present political makeup of Congress.

    Trump has turned this election cycle on its head, albeit it’s the politics of hate, bigotry, and resentment.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s