Even Barack Obama seemed content telling the world that he worked harder than Hillary Clinton and her esteemed celebrity supporters that seemed to mock American voters. Obama mentioned, “I won Iowa not because the demographics dictated that I would win Iowa, it was because I spent 87 days going to every small town, and fair, and fish fry, and VFW Hall.” Barack simply felt comfortable spending time with American voters.
His dig against Hillary brought forth a slue of other figures keen on getting into the action. Oprah Winfrey was happy with the conciliatory tone of the meeting between Trump and Obama. Oprah stated, “Hope lives and we all should take a deep breath.” Barack Obama came to the realization that celebrity endorsements mean absolutely nothing unless they’re willing to eat some fries and grits with American voters instead of standing on the stage trashing voters with profanity.
Obama may have rubbed shoulders with the celebrities, however at the back of his mind he knew that this type of behavior would not win over the population. He was thinking about the widows and orphans struggling to find identity in the United States. He was very comfortable going to retirements homes, hugging people, and charming widows. Hillary was not, instead she chose to sidestep her campaign by allowing celebrities to do the bidding for her.
On his way to presidency, Barack Obama simply possessed common sense and animal instincts. He soldiered on to the most disenfranchised areas of American society to win votes. Once again, Hillary did not and her defeat is the proof. Barack built his victory in Florida as a blueprint to the White House. He changed the tone of the country and his movement was symbolic in the evolution of a nation.
Upon John McCain’s defeat, he offered a concession speech to the general public. McCain stated, “Senator Obama has achieved a great thing for himself and for his country.” He even gave condolence to Obama’s late grandmother who raised him as a teenager, mentioning that he wished she could’ve witnessed Obama’s success. No wonder Obama’s fighting for some semblance of his legacy by providing Trump with goodwill to collectively realize what is good for America.
North of the border, Justin Trudeau the Great sat peacefully in his throne. However one of Trudeau’s logistical staffers told him that Trump wants to renegotiate a NAFTA deal. This was quite puzzling; there was no preconditioned NAFTA deal on the table from Mr. Trump. There lies a sneaking suspicion that Trudeau wants to join Xi Jinping’s ambitious strategic initiative: The Economic Silk Road Development Initiative.
One would imagine that Mexico would be the first to jump ship in partnering with China, followed by Canada of course. If NAFTA is dismantled, many countries will begin running to the hills to partner with countries meeting their criteria of international trade. Developing a strong partnership with China would be a good pivot for channeling Canada’s resources towards the emerging Asia Pacific region.
There is some backlash, especially from Rosie DiManno of the Toronto Star. DiManno stated, “Trump has evinced no skill of persuasion, prudence, or tack.” The problem with that statement is that Trump did in fact produce the desired results in winning an election and orchestrated leadership without subjecting the voters to boredom. DiManno believes that Trump doesn’t have the applicable skills in running a nation.
Rosie refers to Trump as a ghost writer, grubby entrepreneur, and now an apprentice to the White House. It is my understanding that a newly elected president is an apprentice. DiManno fails to understand that the polls showed a long slide in public confidence in the financial and public institutions of North America. Trump came to the District of Columbia to bury the political elites, not to praise them.
Ironically, Trump wanted to preside over the restoration of international trust and the competence of American national leadership in the geopolitical world. It is the public approval of the President and not the media that plays a critical role in determining the President’s power and policy success. A President’s rhetoric is only substantiated by their own approval that dynamically changes over time and is evaluated by the public.
Referring to Trump, Rosie DiManno stated, “Watching the convulsion of recent days across the nation, the anomie he’s unleashed, the unprecedented protests that have tilted into riot, might he think of himself as outmatched and singularly ill-equipped to quell a domestic insurgency on the boil, sensing within the marrow of his bones the artifice of the deal with America? Donald, you’re fired.”
With the word “insurgency”, does DiManno mean an organized attempt to bring about structural changes by thrusting new voters and interests in the outcome of the election? Or does she mean internal characteristics that brought about the rise of Donald Trump? Protesters have a right to protest in any true democracy, but insurgency is antithetical to the interest of the electors that voted for Trump.
If DiManno can not accept the decency of the American electorate, then she has fundamental problems with herself. The rival inequality was referenced by the media’s conventional wisdom between the educated and uneducated. This only attributed awareness to greater income inequality.
What’s disturbing is DiManno’s reference to America, “Destruction and desecration of a great country by an un-great barbarian inside the White House.” Little does she realize that there are barbarians at the gate; they’re called terrorists.
The monetary aspect of terrorism has changed. Justin Trudeau will become a great leader in the geopolitical world because he understands where the barbarians are situated.