Hopeful Loser

   It's possible that Donald Trump expects to lose the coming election, so he can  use his allegation of falsity to justify his takeover by force.
   That was the apparent plan eight years ago, when he talked so much about a "rigged" election.
   Even before any votes were counted.
   But after a series of challenges that went all the way to a Supreme Court referee, Trump took the presidency.
   So who did the rigging?
   Now we hear similar warnings, and again they come from Trump himself, but now the warning is of a "dictatorship."
   That's the word he used himself, even as he added the claim that it would be "only on day one."
   But where is the guarantee that day one would be the only day?
   Promises, promises.

   Meanwhile, time is passing. Election day is nearing. Candidates are expanding the volume and number of their claims, both how good they are and how their opponents behave.
   Plus, they warn of how bad things will become if their opponent takes office.
   So what else is new? said the resident cynic.

   Of the main guidelines for journalism -- Who, What, Where, When and Why -- the first four are relatively easy to gather. The final W, however, can be difficult, so it is left out of daily news reports, leaving it to opinion writers or weekly analysts.
   It comes down to this: Why do politicians do what they choose to do?
   Some will say they had no choice; they were forced by circumstances beyond their control.
   Or some will blame it on an evil spirit. "The devil made me do it," they insist.
   Others will say there is always a choice, and they should follow the dictates of their conscience, or of their religious teaching to help resist temptation.
   But is following someone else's dictates really a choice? Where is personal responsibility?
   As for the first option -- "forced by circumstances beyond their control" -- what happened to personal responsibility?
   Politicians repeat this claim, but this time the personal responsibility is on someone else.
   You can't have it both ways.

Election Nearing

   The closer we get to election day, the louder and more boisterous candidates and their supporters behave.
   With the advent of television and national networks, the boisterousity becomes louder and more aggressive daily, even to the level of ignoring truth.
   Not that truth was ever crucial in political campaigning.
   But before television and its nationwide networks, false claims or even those of questionable value, were mostly regional -- if that much.
   Moreover, early regulation of broadcast licensing was more critical of half-truth, lies or even biased reports.
   That was back in the day when many regions had only one or two -- if any -- TV stations accessible, and they were based in the largest nearby city. In addition, their programming  reflected the interests and preferences of urban believers. Suburban and rural viewers saw mostly programs aimed at the majority of viewers -- those who had enough money to respond to advertising.
   Politics has not changed, and corruption remains a problem, especially in cities. In addition, bigotry causes violence.
   In past decades, newcomers struggled for acceptance, often because of prejudice from those whose ancestors came to America much earlier.
   "We were here first," was the motto and justification for demands that they were entitled to seniority and preferential treatment.
   But we don't hear that from the Algonquin, the Lenape and people of the many other tribes who were here before European pilgrims.

Political Biology

   Republicans now claim that Democratic candidate and current Vice President Kamala Harris should not be elected president because she has never had a child.
   But no other U.S. president, going all the way back to George Washington, has ever had a child.
   They were all men.
   Quick biology lesson: Only women can have children. Men cannot.
   Moreover, some presidents never married. Washington married a widow and adopted her children, but sired none of his own.

Word Play

    VP Candidate JD Vance says he is willing to "create stories" to get news media attention.
   Translation: "Tell lies."
   Journalists have a duty to report what politicians say.
   But what if the claim is false?
   Moreover, the claim is provably false?
   Bottom line: It's a lie.
   Not just a mistake in rhetoric, but a full-blown, flat-out lie.
   Time was, reporters did not use such comments but dismissed them as errors n speaking. But when such "errors in speaking" occur often and repeatedly, the conclusion is that such things are either deliberate or examples of incompetence.
   If either is true, the speaker is not a good candidate for any public office. Sadly, such behavior often resonates well with some voters, enough so that they become avid followers of the "creative story" teller.
   A liar.

Gun Happy

"A well regulated militia -- "

   A major problem in America today is that the so-called "militia" is not well regulated or controlled. Therefore, the free cities and states of America are not secure, because there are too many guns, and little control of unregulated civilians pretending to be part of a "militia."
   With the exception of the National Guard -- a well regulated organization supervised by each state -- there are no militias in America states. There may be civilian groups calling themselves militia, but as for being organized, that's another issue.
   Individuals acting on their own and killing others do not qualify as militia. They are criminals.
   Some defend their membership in the National Rifle Association (NRA) as part of a national defense force. It is true that the NRA was formed with the help of the U.S. Army during wartime many decades ago, driven by fears of an invasion. But the odds of invasion are somewhere between slim and none, and in either case we have a well organized national Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Coast Guard and National Guard to protect America from invasion.
   That raises the question of invasion from where -- Canada? Not likely. Nor Mexico.
   Moreover, the U.S. Army canceled its formal relationship with the gun industry long ago, driven in part by a lack of need as well as the industry's desire for profit every year, regardless of wartime conflict.
   Now, there are more guns in America than there are people. And that does not count military weapons.
   Gun lobbyists cite the Second Amendment as their guarantee that they can have as many firearms as they please, with little or no regulation. And they cite the last phrase of the Amendment, that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
   This ignores the first phrase: "A well regulated militia."
  Therefore, government does indeed have the right to regulate gun ownership.
   The issue then becomes an argument over who can own a gun, and how many.
   Is there or should there be a limit to the number of firearms a civilian can own? Many lobbyist insist there should not be any limits.
   Nor should there be a limit on the type of gun a civilian can possess, they claim.
   Many gun owners insist they "need" a high-caliber, multi-shot, long-distance weapon when hunting wildlife.
   In New Jersey?
   And is that fair to Bambi?

True Believers

    Weekend days are light, newswise. That partly depends on politics and whether candidates are active in seeking office. Otherwise, crime takes the headlines. 

   This weekend was typical of election year, but only because of candidate activity. The difference is in their behavior and that of their followers.

   Or should I say, "true believers." 

   This year borders on  near religious devotion to their favored candidate. 

   That's not really unusual. Politics is religious in that way. Followers believe so strongly in their leader that they accept everything the leaders says without doubt or question.

   But there comes a time when people must decide on whom they prefer as a leader. That's when potential leaders must show their abilities to voters.

   The problem then becomes whether voters are willing to accept a political candidate as a government leader. This is where salesmanship comes in.

   So which would you rather have, a salesman of a politician? How about both in one? Or perhaps neither of the above?

   Or a lawyer.

   Or a candidate who is all of the above.

Loser

"Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing."  -- Vince Lombardi

   Why do you suppose Donald Trump rejects the idea of another debate with Kamala Harris?
   From here, the answer is a fear of losing.
   By his standards, winning is the only thing of value. And since that can be usually measured by money, that means money is the only real measure of value.
   Therefore, winning equals money. And for him, that equation goes all the way to the White House.
   There has long been a standard among American politicians and government officials that they should not use their offices as a way to increase their wealth.
   At least, that's what they say. What they actually do is another issue.
   Many deny they do such a thing, that could be a road to prison. Even so, many do just that, in the hope they won't get caught.
   Oddly, all the publicity wrought by news reports about the recent debate conflict generates more money from devoted supporters.
   So even when he loses, his followers send more money, to compensate him for his efforts.
   Even thought he lost.
   Does this suggest he may deliberately lose in order to attract more cash?  Or just that he uses his loss to generate more income?
   Either way, he gains financially.

Debate or Not Debate

    Debate or not debate. That is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to ignore the stings and errors of obnoxious insults, or to reply in kind.
   Will one candidate reply in kind to the personal insults launched by her opponent or will she ignore them and focus on political and economic issues?
   We shall see. An encounter labeled "debate" is on schedule, but whether it comes across as "civil" is an open question.
   At the core of the question is the issue of control. Who's in charge? One of the candidates or the moderator?
   Will the encounter be a "debate" or will one side take the bait and suffer the stings and errors of an outraged opponent?
   If so, who will that be? An outraged real estate salesman or an experienced prosecutor of legal challenges?
   You decide.
   The ultimate winner will be determined after Election Day in November. Will that be decided by the popular vote -- citizens in general -- or will it be decided by a few state-selected members of the Electoral College, who are influenced or controlled by one of the candidates?
   It has happened before.
   Several times.
   You can look it up.

Policy Matters

   When it comes time to set a policy on what to do and how to do it, government leaders should rely on the Five Ws of journalism: Who, What, Where, When and Why.
   Plus, of course, the sixth guideline set by H -- How to do whatever the other guidelines suggest. And that, of course, is the most difficult, even after agreeing on the Why.
   This is when social and religious backgrounds intervene, as people  try to impose their core beliefs on others, who are just as firm in their beliefs.
   For example, many True Believers insist there is only senior deity, and attach the name their culture provides as the only valid one. However, other cultures have similar but different names for any one or several major spiritual leaders.
   That's where trouble starts, and often leads to war.
   But what if all are right? Do the major deities care? Or is there  indeed only one Boss Deity, and He/She controls all the other lesser deities/angels/spirits?
   Pick a name or a language. They differ across cultures and nations, and each builds on the concept of a controlling deity. Or several.
   Is there only one true belief system, and all others are, by definition, phony?
   Or are they all true?
   This is where politics comes in and clashes with spiritual beliefs.
   Perhaps there really is only one Boss God (Dominant Deity) -- or in Latin phrasing, a Domine Deus -- and all other spirits answer to the Boss.
   People use whatever term their language supplies to honor Him/Her.