Election day is finally here, and I think we're ready for it to be over with, for the most part, because we are done with Donald Trump. He has been the subject of every news outlet, discussion, and Saturday night sketch comedy show for the past few months, and we are ready to focus on Christmas and the upcoming Oscar season. If Hillary wins, of course we'll get the constant complaints about her, just as we have for President Obama's tenure, but it sure wouldn't be as irritating as a President that gives that irritation himself.

So, just as we're all tired of talking about Trump, I just wanted to give my last bit about him that I could. Over the past few months, I've written three articles on the guy, and, in those, respectively, I tackled three topics: the selling out of patriotism, the true meaning of political correctness, and his outsider perspective. As you can see, these topics aren't too talked about. Most writers on this website, I feel, have been talking about Trump being prejudice, and, although there's nothing wrong with that, there are two reasons why I didn't do that.

For one, it's already been covered dozens of times over. Re-writing what's already been written, even if it's true, doesn't make it any more true or thought-provoking. It's not going to change any opinions, especially for his supporters, which brings me to my second reason why.

I've found that, when you're trying to sway someone's opinion on something, you don't look at the most criticized upon arguments from the opposing side but, instead, on the most praised upon aspects of them. All Trump's supporters know about all of Trump's weaknesses, just as Hillary's supporters do; they've been trashed about it all election season. If someone were to say "I'm voting for Hillary," the counterpoint would immediately be "but she's a criminal." These things are weaknesses, and these people understand it, but, if these weaknesses are so steeped, wouldn't their strengths been so peaked that supporters would overlook those weaknesses to get the strengths?

People don't support a candidate because their weaknesses aren't that bad. They support a candidate because their strenghts are great. "I love Trump. He's an outsider, and he tells it like it is." "I love Hillary. She's the most qualified for the job." This is what the media should have gone after if they really wanted to waver Trump supporters, but instead they stooped low. I went high, going right after what people like and making them see it from a different light. I went "listen. I know you like that he's an outsider, and I understand the appeal, but the kind of outsider he is doesn't apply. The guy is part of the 1%, making him more of an insider than ever."

So, with those two ideas in mind, I wanted to write my election day article simply on something that hasn't really been covered and supplement it with fallacies that supporters like about Donald Trump. As an artist, I want to give you my perspective.

Trump's most bipartisan positive adjective is probably "entertaining." You have politicians like Al Gore and even Hillary Clinton who are monotone and roundabout, trying to avoid headlines and promises, and it's banal for the watcher. We want our entertainment from everything now; satirical news is gaining more popularity than actual news. Many circles have said Trump is an incarnation of their creation; one could say he's the incarnation of our need for entertainment.

But I don't necessarily see the guy as entertainment myself. I'd consider him more of a spectacle. He's like a car crash. He's not a good thing, he stands out, and he grabs your attention, but, sooner or later, he loses your attention because he doesn't change. It's bad enough that Trump is very repetitive in his demeanor. How much over the past month have you heard him, in person or on twitter, say "drain the swamp"? Then again, he has found a way to get by in the headlines without reinventing himself. Several times, he has said something that provokes us in a way that he hasn't before.

Picking a favorite candidate is, in a few ways, similar to something like picking a favorite movie. Sure, movies are much more cathartic and in-the-moment, but they both have to reach similar quality criteria. There have to be benchmarks that make or break them, and, with Trump, I feel like much of his appeal sounds very "cinematic." A phrase I've heard is that he really says what the american people is thinking. Maybe not so unanimous, but I agree. Some things I've heard him say in debates were also things I've heard said in person at the most grounded of levels.

Despite this fathom of populism, a word that has been used more as of recently has popped up: "demagogue." Google calls this word "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument." Something like this is a strict dichotomy for an artist. Artists are all about expression and not commercializing the messages they're going to convey, whereas businessmen, in their craft, are about proficiency. Profit. Trump is using his experience and conveying his message to this grand amount of people. Now, in many circles, people could say he's achieved the equivalent success in art. To reach the hearts of so many people seems to be an artist's dream. And while many mainstream directors like Christopher Nolan and Steven Spielberg can do this, Trump is exploiting the public, not opening up to it. It's the lowest common denominator. Funny enough, the New Yorker did an satirical article earlier this year saying that Trump chose Michael Bay to be his running mate, a filmmaker that exploits the lowest common denominator of the american people and getting millions of dollars out of it.

Speaking about lowest common denominator, I think the most technical thing we can examination about Trump through and artistic lens is how he talks. Trump has a very distinct way of talking, both in accent and in speech; can you think of someone who has been the most impersonated other than him this decade? The way he talks, from an artist's perspective, is a nightmare. Imagine his fiction writing. He uses adjectives, simple words, and he repeats himself incessantly. Not to mention, despite being called a "straight shooter", he talks very roundabout very often. In the second presidential debate, he was asked about the released tapes that exposed him bragging about sexually assaulting woman, and, within a minute, he wound up talking about defeating ISIS.

But he does straight shoot often, especially in his rallies. People use the mentality as a strength. My idea is that the guy is a straight shooter, but maybe because that's because that's the only way he can shoot. Despite all his talks, I hadn't seen anything poetic or linguistically unique about his language, and his plans reciprocate that void. His simple plans have simple answers. America's not doing well? Literally BUILD A GIANT WALL. His existence lacks nuance. Trump could not function in a Hemingway story because the Iceberg method of having 90% under the surface could never apply to him. Not to mention, under a Trump presidency, the iceberg would melt even though climate change is a hoax fabricated by China.

Going back to movies, I found an interesting development in the movie and political spheres that coincide: people like what they know. According to the Boxofficemojo.com, eight of the top ten grossing films of 2016 so far are either from sequels or adaptations. People never see a movie if it looks good anymore; they see it if they know about it. They want the security, I guess, but, above all, they want what they know.

Likewise, this election has shaped up to be like that. Before the primaries even started, out of the whole field of candidates, the two that America knew the best were Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The last two candidates standing?

So call Trump a product of that, too. If we had a random Junior senator or even a random Joe Shmoe spouting off the same thing Trump has done, he or she would not be given a second thought. However, the name recognition just makes it that much more attractive, and people like what they know.

So what was the purpose of this article? What were you supposed to get out of it? Like any good artist, I want this to be up to your interpretation. Maybe it could also be up to your friend's interpretation if you could share this to. No. Wait. Me pleading you to share this would be just too commercial.