Bad Press

When the media and political establishment gang up against Donald Trump by calling him out for racism, idiocy and promoting violence, they’re absolutely right. Given how unpopular and discredited they are, however, they may be pushing some voters into Trump’s column.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on RedditDigg thisShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

25 thoughts on “Bad Press

  1. Here’s the thing.

    Back in 1975, Mo Udall (in)famously said, upon losing an election, “The voters have spoken–the bastards.” That may have been the last time a politician was honest about his feelings.

    And the people know that these preening jackasses on the podiums aren’t telling them the truth.

    Run through all the candidates in your head. Exactly two of them said anything during the campaign cycle that is easily and clearly remembered by anyone. Can you recall anything Ted Cruz said? Or whatshisname? That other guy who dropped out? Or that third guy? It was all just vague feel-good shit about ‘Merica and jobs that everyone knew was boilerplate.

    The only two people who said anything that wasn’t just noise? Sanders said that the system is rigged. And you had Trump saying a bunch of batshit crazy stuff: Build a wall. His hands are huge. And so forth.

    Go on. Tell me anything HRC said that wasn’t about how she’ll be the first woman president and about how she can get things done (unless it’s releasing transcripts, running a secure e-mail server, or not riding her husband’s name to a victory she earned by the skin of her teeth). It’s all just words.

    That’s why Trump is successful. It’s the same gimmick Reagan used: fake concern. Sanders’ campaign took too long to get going. HRC and the DNC were able to get the front-loaded south out of the way first. Sanders just might still get the nomination if HRC gets arrested or if the Democrats come to their senses and realize that four years of Clinton means a four-year shutdown of the government. But Trump? He will ooze right on into the White House. And I think the media will go broke in that four years of his first term because it will become unavoidably obvious to everyone how corrupt the mainstream media must be to have enabled this by their slavish devotion to every idiotic thing Trump said or did while real issues were not discussed.

  2. When comparing the rotten apples of Hillary to T-rump’s fruit-fly mangled orangeness, Besides being entirely incorrect politically, what kind of evil, vicious shit has ferrit-head accomplished that overshadows the sexually predatory, Clinton Foundation-racketeering, murder-incorporated history of Billary?
    https://thisisthenewnormal.wordpress.com/tag/clinton-foundation-a-racketeering-enterprise/
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/judge-orders-clinton-foundation-racketeering-case-to-trial/article/2565272

    http://www.govtslaves.info/hillary-clintons-vow-to-college-grads-ill-outsource-your-jobs-to-foreign-graduates/
    http://www.westernjournalism.com/website-exposes-this-gigantic-list-of-clinton-scandals/
    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.php

    I mean it, which one has so far proven to be a greater evil? Does anybody believe that Trump is in some kind of competition with her?
    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bill+clinton+pedophile+problem&ia=web
    http://investmentwatchblog.com/bill-clinton-and-the-pedophile-the-sex-scandal-that-could-destroy-hillarys-presidential-ambitions/

    Yeah, let’s have a “greater-evil” contest here … somehow, I can’t see Trump winning that award over Billary.

    DanD

  3. The Trump phenomenon is amazing. Saying the most outrageous things got him 1/3 of the vote in the Republican primaries and caucuses, and that 1/3 of the vote got him a majority of the delegates. Trump has alienated African-Americans, Hispanics, and women. And, after all his opponents for the Republican nomination dropped out and he was free to ignore the Republicans and move to the center, he remained just as alienating, pushing all but WASP men away from him, and guaranteeing Secretary Clinton the election. Which I think was the plan all along, Trump is a Candidate from Northeast China who is only running to preclude the disaster that befell Hillary in ’08.

    MEANWHILE, Secretary Clinton is running the exact same ads Johnson used in ’64 to crush Goldwater, and they’re working every bit as well today as they did back then. Billary is running on three planks: 1) If you’re a woman over 40 who knows it’s time for a woman president, you MUST vote for Billary; and 2) if you hate Hillary because she has a very unpleasant personality, but you loved the charismatic Bill, Hillary is just Bill’s way of circumventing term limits, and he’s the one you’re really electing, so you MUST vote for Billary; and 3) if you hate Hillary AND Bill, just think ‘President Trump,’ and you’ll know you MUST vote for Billary.

    Those three planks capture about 60% of the general election voters.

    Putin has said Russia’s sole Med port is a vital strategic resource for Russia. Billary has promised to liberate that port and transform it into a strictly US/UK/French/Turkish/Saudi port, so Putin had better meekly back down. Or else.

    As Johnson said, voting for Goldwater would get the US entangled in an unwinnable war that would cost far too much in American lives and resources. Sure enough, 1/3 of the voters voted for Goldwater, and got the US entangled in an unwinnable war that cost far too much in American lives and resources.

    It’s 1964 all over again!

    • «Billary has promised to liberate that port [i e, Tartus] and transform it into a strictly US/UK/French/Turkish/Saudi port, so Putin had better meekly back down. Or else.» Not to worry, Michael, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin will indeed cave when faced by the ultimate threat : i e, that Ms Clinton will cackle at him : «We came, we saw, he died !»

      Henri

    • “…consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires.”

      – Heinlein. (who else?)

      • «“…consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way.» As befits the greater amount of time they have had to consider the matter, Jon Link and Mick Bunnage’s advice seems to me to better take into account the complexity of most such situations than does Mr Heinlein’s. After all, fools – well-meaning or not, as the case may be – are usually to be found on both sides of a binary choice (Remain or Leave, Mr Trump or Ms Clinton), so seeking out just one to ask for advice is not a satisfactory algorithm. «[T]otting up the side which has the biggest amount of total idiots supporting it», while hardly perfect, ought to be less prone to error and give better results in the long run (in which, as John Maynard Keynes observed, «we are all dead» – the question being whether we shall die sooner with Ms Clinton than with Mr Trump, or the other way ’round)….

        Henri

      • Well, one circumstance alone — that being Hillary’s insistence that her dick is stretched by a heavier ball-sac while being more dangerous than Vladimir’s (or T-rump’s, for that matter) — seems to imply then that his Ferrit-headed-ness’s neo-Chamberlain attitude may be the better plan, this time around.

        Also, when it comes to racketeering, the Clintons have much more politically-connected, international experience.

        This ultimately begs the question of which camp of cacophony-broadcasting fools we should be voting in opposition to. The smooth-operators of Billary, or the quasi-soccer hooligans hoo-rawing for Trump?

        The whole system has been repulsively designed to induce overload.

        DanD

      • Henri – so more idiots produce better results? Or are idiots better than fools? Heinlein’s got an answer for that one as well…

        “Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How’s that again? I missed something. Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let’s play that over again too. Who decides?”

      • «“Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How’s that again? I missed something. Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let’s play that over again too. Who decides?”» As I understand it, CrazyH, the point behind so-called «representative democracy» is not that it automatically leads to wiser decisions – history is rife with counter-examples – but rather that by involving the electorate in decisions, its individual members will be more likely to accept decisions they disagree with and attempt to change these via the ballot box, rather than revolting, thus leading to greater political stability….

        Mr Heinlein, as is his wont, here sets up a straw man, which he proceeds to knock down by means of ridicule, which allows him and the reader to share a feeling of superiority – they’ve discovered something which hoi polloi is too stupid to understand. I’m not convinced that that feeling of superiority is justified….

        If you’re interested, I can give you a concrete example of how this plays out in Swedish politics….

        Henri

      • Henri, my man – when you overanalyze a humorous quote, you miss out on all the fun.

        “Don’t joke with me, son, I’m not funny” – Dean Vernon Wormer. (er, from memory – can’t find reference)

      • You nailed me, CrazyH, I must admit that I didn’t find Mr Heinlein’s quote funny, but rather the épitomé of his elitist and anti-popular political philosophy (as detailed in Starship Troopers. But then I am notorious for my lack of a sense of humour…. 😉

        Henri

      • Troopers is oft misunderstood, remember – it was written during the cold war when people expected the bombs to start falling any day. The protagonist is a Hispanic (shocking, for the time) with humble roots – hardly an example of ‘the elite’

        Suggested reading: “Friday” and “Job: a comedy of Justice”

      • I hope, CrazyH, that other denizens of these threads will not be put off by our interchange on this matter, as it deals with substantive issues which, I submit, play a not unimportant role in the current US presidential campaign. Let us return to your Heinlein citation : «“Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How’s that again? I missed something. Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let’s play that over again too. Who decides?”» As I read it, it shows Mr Heinlein’s distrust of both democracy and (hereditary) aristocracy, something which he exhibits not least in Starship Troopers. Against this, you mention that the Trooper protagonist «is a Hispanic (shocking, for the time) with humble roots – hardly an example of ‘the elite’. I submit that our disagreement here is based on a conflation of «elite» with «aristocracy» ; while Juan Rico is hardly the scion of an aristocratic family, he does, in the course of this Bildungsroman, become a member of an elite – a military elite,, which possesses privileges which other members of society do not possess, such as the franchise. As I understand Mr Heinlein, in his ideal society all soldiers are to start at the bottom – no military academies training officers for him ! – and work their way up, proving their worth by their achievements in the field. As a certain di Buonaparte famously expressed it, «Tout soldat français porte dans sa giberne le bâton de maréchal de France». I suspect that Heinlein was greatly influenced by idealised versions of Spartan and pre-Meiji Japanese society, versions which ignored the fact that the first thing those who have risen through the ranks generally do is attempt to ensure that their children – or more specifically, their sons – do not have to climb the same dangerous ladder, but rather do everything in their power to see to it that their military meritocracy turns into a military aristocracy in the next generation. Ironically enough, It take civilian control of the military to prevent this from happening…..

        The best easily accessible work on the Japanese code of Bushidō (武士道) I know of is Kobayashi Masaki’s film from 1962, Seppuku (切腹) (released in English under the title Harakiri, which shows what a load of horse manure the whole thing was. Check it out, and I promise to read – or reread – the Heinlein stories you mention above ; the public library here has a fairly good collection of science fiction works, both in the original languages and in Swedish translation….

        Henri

      • Henri –

        Troopers is *one* book out of many, in RAH’s writings we find democracies, empires, and theocracies, among others. Shall we assume he approves of all of them? Shall we likewise assume that Orwell approved of Oceania and Animal Farm? Or are they are merely appropriate backgrounds for the stories the writers wanted to tell?

        Juan Rico earns his citizenship through service to his species in the military – but that’s not the only way to earn the franchise in that society. They key is “service” not “military.” Frankly, I approve of the idea – I’ve repeatedly asked our favorite troll what he’s done to earn his citizenship.

        In Troopers, we see humanity at war for its very survival. Might that affect how a society is run?
        Heinlein was a pioneer in science fiction for just that reason. While other golden age authors felt that a future society would look a lot like this one, he suggested that changes in technology or other future events might shape a different society.

        Moreover, Heinlein has stated that he was ‘politically naive’ when he wrote Troopers.

        Here we are, deciding between Killary and Hair Furor – that’s a darn fine example of the wisdom of the million men. So near as I can tell – you believe that you are wiser than the majority of them. I posted the quote above in response to a very similar punchline in the cartoon that you posted – so I am rather perplexed that you would seek to argue with what appears to be your own position. (But then again, in the quote I posted – he does examine both sides of that particular coin.)

        Here are two more quotes from RAH, specifically on the subject of democracy. If you were unaware of the author – would you agree or disagree with them?

        “Democracy is a poor system of government at best; the only thing that can honestly be said in it is favor is that it is about eight times as good as any other method the human race has ever tried. Democracy’s worst fault is that its leaders are likely to reflect the faults and virtues of their constituents.”

        ““The America of my time line is a laboratory example of what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout all histories. A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens… which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’”

        Suggested reading, This I believe

      • «A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens… which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’”» CrazyH, once again you choose to ignore the point I made above ; viz that «the point behind so-called «representative democracy» is not that it automatically leads to wiser decisions – history is rife with counter-examples – but rather that by involving the electorate in decisions, its individual members will be more likely to accept decisions they disagree with and attempt to change these via the ballot box, rather than revolting, thus leading to greater political stability….» The same stricture, that people will vote/work/conspire/rule for «[their] own self-interest as [they] see it» is true of all political systems – recall that in a monarchy, screwing the King’s wife (if one is not the King) is «treason» (unless, of course, the King can’t get it up and one is asked to help him get an heir, as is said to be the case with good old Gustav III here in Sweden a couple of centuries ago)….

        «Despite shortcomings, from lynchings to bad faith in high places, our nation [i e, the USA] has had the most decent and kindly internal practices and foreign policies to be found anywhere in history.» No doubt Ms Clinton also subscribes to that feel-good «indispensable nation» bullshit, which has been and continues to be used to justify so many wars of foreign aggression since long before Mr Heinlein penned those lines, so there’s nothing in the way of voting for her – or Mr Trump, for that matter – irrespective of whether Ms Warren is on the ticket or not….

        Henri

    • Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

      As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

      —H. L. Mencken

      • There is some merit to a geniocracy (Government by the smart folks) except for that one piddling problem: who decides who is ‘smart’?

        IMnsHO – it was Ambrose Bierce who captured our current form of government the best:

        “PLUTOCRACY, n. A republican form of government deriving its powers from the conceit of the governed — in thinking they govern.”

      • I am not a big fan of Mencken.

        In a world where people are specialized they can be pretty ignorant outside of their specialty.

        People used to buy tubes at the hardware store to repair their own televisions. More and more the average person is capable of doing less and less in a complex world.

        But you don’t have to know how to make a shoe(or a car, or a TV) to know when it needs repair.

        The duopoly, finance, the economy, etc., by all appearances doesn’t work—except for the few.

        Being ignorant is not the same as being stupid; unless one thinks its smart to be ignorant, that ignorance is bliss and that you will never be lost if you just follow the crowd (wisdom of crowds?).

      • Your point on buying vacuum tubes is interesting. I recently bought two pairs of shoes. One has the synthetic heels that are not replaceable. Once they wear out, the shoe cannot be reheeled. It is a disposable shoe. The other pair has heels that can be replaced.

        The first pair cost me $25 (they were on discount at Macy’s). I like ’em. They look good, but I know they’re cheap. The second pair (also on discount) cost $85 (they were the floor model — the only ones in my size). I will have the latter (assuming I don’t step into lava) for decades.

        I mention all this because I genuinely think that as we left the mindset of “get a replacement tube for the TV” and moved into the mindset of “Oh, the new iPhone is 8% thinner and has a 4% longer battery life, let’s throw away the old one and upgrade” we concurrently began to stop being sufficiently (and actively) skeptical of business/government in a way by which we could effectively control them.

        Too many people are too dumb to realize they’re being swindled in so many ways. It’s like the sheep are being bred for stupidity. Soon, we’ll be too dumb to even reproduce.

  4. The stenographers to power call out Trump only after Hillary does.

    What authority’s permission are these stenographers awaiting before calling out Hillary?

    Does not the high unfavorable ratings of both candidates grant sufficient authority to the political media to explore the inadequacies of both candidates before the present situation?

    Doesn’t the sentiment of the people count as sufficient authority in a system that is constantly referred to as the oldest and greatest democracy?

Leave a Reply