Let's, please, at least try to communicate above Trump-level

Donald Trump certainly has his own special way of communicating, to say the least:

Are his statements in any way funny, interesting or relevant? None of these, I would think.
Schwarzennegger, now among Trump's most prominent adversaries concerning political stance and action on the matter of climate-change, is certainly more charming and eloquent in his reactions to Trump than the man himself:


Chris Uhlmann summarizes the boorish and Trumpish ways of the present U.S. president rather well and to the point:

ABC’s political editor Chris Uhlmann didn’t pull any punches when he delivered his wrap-up of Trump’s appearance at the conference, calling him an “uneasy, lonely, awkward figure” who was left “isolated and friendless” with “no desire and no capacity to lead the world”.

“He has a particular skill set: he’s identified an illness in Western democracies, but he has no cure for it and seems intent on exploiting it,” the veteran journalist said.

And according to Uhlmann, we all need to give up on any hope that the speeches written for Trump and delivered by the man himself are any reflection of his true thoughts.

“It’s the unscripted Trump that’s real: a man who barks out bile in 140 characters, who wastes his precious days as President at war with the West’s institutions like the judiciary, independent government agencies, and the free press.”

The reporter added: “Mr Trump is a man who craves power because it burnishes his celebrity. To be constantly talking and talked about is all that really matters... and there is no value placed on the meaning of words, so what is said one day can be discarded the next.”

I have really no idea what he's trying 'to make great again' but it certainly isn't the cooperative political intent to address the world's most pressing problems of the day.
Question is: if we can't do it with him, are we going forward without him and do we leave (or laugh at) the emperor in his new clothes?

see this fb-page

Does anything here still rhyme?

According to Gilbert O' Sullivan not too much:


Although the man himself seems to be without any reason or rhyme, Google tells me there still are words to be found that rhyme with Trump. Enough anyway for a good limerick or a nursery rhyme, as that might well be the only poetry he will be able to grasp apart from an endless string of $$$$$$$$$$$igns.
Eh...., but nay, I am not going try my hand at that; the man might think it not funny as he continually seems to feel being mocked at and treated very badly while all he wants and yearns for is to be admired.
And any which way I certainly wouldn't do any better than the rhymegenerators of Twisted Satire did way before he actually was elected:

Words of the Poem for Your Reflection and Enjoyment

Philosophy like Socra-tee
To Donald Trump I make a case
You see

Make America great again
Motto of a President wannabe
Policies written short and long
A simple claim - Trust me

I lay my plea
Thru words of the great Tee - rump

Trump the philosopher
Strong Skin thin
No sticks or stones
Name calling brings wins<
br/> Bullied the bully Fights back
Eye for an eye Limb and throat
Thousands cheer
The Donald’s on track

Pocahontas Lizzy
Lying Crooked Corrupt Hill - a - ree
Reporters are sleazy
Why? Believe me

Look at my African American
Over there
Words of, with? Conviction seems fair

Muslims Syrians
Go away
Mexicans
Rapists
Aren’t they the say-mmm

Build a wall
Nukes for all
The KKK
Who? Next question y’all

To the terrorists
Slaughter your families
a must
Waterboarding, torture
Not nearly enough

Unfairly treated
By Judges and Press
Disagree – then you’re wrong
And all stupid I guess)

The World laughs at us
Claims the man in a hat
Frequently reminding us
Rosie O’Donnell is fat

Travel the globe
Make Nato obsolete
I know Russia well
Thru pageants he keeps

US Forces - a disaster
Weak to boot
Dictatorship defines leadership
For it’s Kim and Putin
I salute

Back to China let's go
Creators of Global Warming
Don’t ya know
Trade war who cares
Raping our Country
China's unfair

In conclusion I say
Believe me, Trust me
Words of wisdom that stay
Forty fifth President
Donald Trump
Let us pray.

Satire or not ...
concerning the matter of 'being twisted'
I would think that Twisted Satire would
have to gracefully acknowledge the superiority of
The Donald

Thinking about (un)equality; a matter of science or of politics?

A matter of both of course!
A matter of politics as it puts in place the policies that steer in either direction; and a matter of science whether it succeeds in its mission to paint a clear picture of what the tangible and actual results of those policies are.
And it may surprise you that scientific inquiry can do quite a good job in that respect as this website will proof to those who can see:

The Equality Trust

(In)equality is defined here in terms of income inequalities within a society.
These studies originated from an inquiry into the parameters of physical health in various societies.
The amount of (in)equality appeared to be a key-factor.
And so it is regarding ten more social and health problems ranging from mental health to drug abuse and from obesity to violence.
The figures presented here are rather consistent and telling.
One would almost thank Friedman, Reagan and Tatcher for letting it show so obviously that their socio-economic ideas are flawed, fraudulent and in the end harmfull to society.
Alas as yet we cannot thank their liberal and social-democratic counterparts for pin-pointing these correlations and reversing the trend to more equal and coherent societies.

As for critical questions you may find some thoughts and answers here:
FAQs on Inequality

In the last decade running up to the present financial and subsequent economical crisis we have seen a steady increase in income inequalities throughout the Western world. The number of millionaires was ever increasing though not as fast as the number of people now being poorer than before, top-managers through their bonusses and hedgefunds through their perverse activities have drained billions of dollars out of the economy and continue to do so on a more modest scale.
If this immense amount of money had gone to the poorest 20% of the population it would now be flowing through the economy and so create a healthy and robust economy. While now the rich mainly sit on it afraid they will become a little poorer or spending it on outrageous luxury thus creating a sick and vulnerable economy.
I must yet hear the first economist elaborate on this obvious assumption, but then economy is not really or has ever been a science, wouldn't you agree?

.