MONDAY, JUNE 27, 2016
The Meaning of Trumpery
Today we hear from our Disagreeable DemocRAT, who says his
Disingenuous DemocRAT Dictionary defines Trumpery as: n. 1. worthless thing – something worthless or useless, often showy, that seems appealing at first glance. 2. nonsense – empty or ridiculous talk.
Is there any better word to describe “The Donald,” and also what comes out of his mouth, than Trumpery? He may be the most appropriately named politician ever.
The fallout from the Brexit, also known as the U.K. economic suicide, (formerly the world’s 5th largest economy) continues to reverberate. It is not only Scotland threatening to leave the U.K. over the Brexit, but now Northern Ireland is talking about going away too, possibly joining the rest of Ireland (still part of the EU) If so, the U.K. will be no more and England will go back to being nothing more than half of a small island. Looks like the sun is finally setting on the British Empire.
Friday, markets around the world lost about 2 Trillion Dollars – And that was just the first day. If this keeps up, it could become serious. As they say, – two trillion here, two trillion there – pretty soon you’re talking about real money. Couple that with a Trump victory in November, expected to create much worse problems, and trillions will seem like pocket change, especially if it manages to bring down the world’s number one economy. Of course, Trump will claim that it is all for the better, as the decimated dollar will allow more people from China to be able to afford to come here to stay in his hotels. Stiffing employees will be easier too, because they will be willing to work for a lot less during the expected recession or depression.
The latest news on Trump’s campaign finances is that he has converted about 50 million in “loans” to his campaign into “gifts.” This is probably because few people would donate money to a self-proclaimed billionaire’s campaign if they knew it would just go back into his pocket. Actually, why would anyone decide to give money to a billionaire anyway? If a billionaire decides to take up a new hobby, running for political office, why would working people want to give him their own hard-earned money? He has gone back and forth several times on claiming he is self-funded to claiming he is not. That is kind of the way he has done on many other issues. It is an old political trick to try to be on both sides of an issue so you can always claim to different groups that you were on their side. That doesn’t work very well anymore though, in the days of video and the internet, where everything you ever said is saved forever.
