How you feel, of course, has validity and I don't dismiss it. There is something somewhat grotesque in the manner of Donald Trump. I wrote about that in my
second bulleted post.
But at the same time how you feel means nothing to those who feel and think differently. I always make an effort to try to see how they see him, and of course by 'they' I refer to approximately half of the nation that you-plural refer to as citizens of Dumbf***kistan and someone else here referred to as 'rubes'. What interests me -- sociologically -- is this radically different perception, a radically different way of seeing, a radically different interpretation.
I came across
this video presentation and watched it last night. What I find interesting in it is that the view that it offers, the glimpse into the activity of Donald Trump, does not appear in 'the legacy media', though perhaps I should limit what I say to the NYTs, for the simple reason that, like you, they have deliberately allowed themselves and their reporting and seeing to become clouded by their hysterical rage and focused hatred.
What I assume you cannot understand, because you have willed not to understand, is that what this man talks about, and what is important to him, though absolutely irrelevant to you and totally
unimportant, indeed a sign of ignorance and rubishness, nevertheless is a substantial part of Dumbf***kistan's and
those rube's value-system. And in my own case -- though I am deeply suspicious of American political machinations generally and am chary to invest in handing over confidence to them -- I have gotten the impression that Donald Trump as a man has grown and changed during the course of his presidency. I think he 'rose to the occasion'. I assume that the weight of the responsibility moved him in certain ways. Donald Trump is a flawed man, no doubt of this, yet he has done many things that seem to me -- within the context of American presidencies -- very worthy.
If we are to be honest and if we were to speak honestly about perceptions of Americans in a general sense, we might have to stop and linger over your running description: petty and small-minded, rude, ignorant, arrogant, and ill-mannered. All that I want to point out is that these are national *character defects*. As you know I have written about 'the dumbing-down of America'. And I believe that I am clear and on the mark if I refer, with some compassion and empathy, to the
malnutrition of America's working class (and of course with special focus on those regions Michael Moore has been concerned with through his entire neo-journalistic career, and those regions which determined DT's election). So, where I have set my stake, as it were, is in defending and appreciating that class of person -- those people -- that you refer to as Dumbf***kistan.
[cont. next]