“Mainstream” Republican presidential candidates complain that Donald Trump refuses to pretend to be serious.
Take It Seriously
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
15 Comments. Leave new
Half white / half black – yeah, that makes grey. Kinda odd, though.
Yeah – the first thing that I noticed was the odd color used for a colored person, but aside from that, I agree that it must really irritate the other candidhates is that his carnival barker style is getting more response than their “measured sincerity” bullshit. Still, his style of lying is pretty much along the lines of his book, The Fart of the Heel, which has served him fairly well over his pock-marked career. The scariest thing is that I have acquaintances that support him, and I’ve found that they truly support him for saying many things that they truly espouse deep inside them – racism, discrimination, anger, hatred, etc. They know he’s outright lying about some things, but what he’s saying feeds their hatreds and anger, so they figure his “truth stretching” is merely the same kin of “truth stretching” some liberals practice, and so it is par for the course in this process. The sad thing is that if the Democrats don’t show up to vote, we may actually get someone like him, and a coat of gold paint on Air Force One won’t be the only bizarre crap that might happen. Gold boots on the ground, etc.
It doesn’t matter who wins, they all must answer to the same masters. They’re all vying for the same job and they know just what that job entails. The winning employee, I mean candidate, has probably already been selected, but the show must go on.
We’re so oppressed in that we still have some small say in who our leaders will be. We’d have much more freedom if the government would only tell us who our leaders are!
Do you disagree, CrazyH, with prolecenter’s observation that no matter to which political party those who run the US government belong – and which promises they make to the electorate during the electoral process – they answer to the same group of masters ?…
Henri
> they answer to the same group of masters?
For the most part, yes.
We have a limited field to choose from, and TPTB do help along those of whom they approve. They don’t have full control or we’d never have even heard of either Sanders or Trump.
The actual voting process has not yet been completely corrupted either. Some states, most assuredly so – think Dubya’s surprising wins.
The only good thing I can say about the two-party system is that it beats the hell out of a one-party system. Those that cheat the vote on the left counteract those who cheat on the right.
«The actual voting process has not yet been completely corrupted either.» From what I read, Crazy H, the voting process in the US has indeed been significantly (if not «completely») corrupted – in the event corruption here refers to distortion of the principal one person of voting age, one vote. Those wishing to vote in the US have to register ahead of time, and in certain of jurisdictions, those convicted of certain crimes are disenfranchised not merely while serving prison sentences but also afterward, while at the same time those serving sentences are counted as residents of the district in which the prisons in which they are incarcerated are located – I doubt that I’m the only one who here is reminded of the US Constitution’s infamous 3/5 rule, by which, for the purpose of apportioning representatives, slaves, who of course had no vote, were counted as residents of the districts in which they were held as slaves. Moreover, even if one has overcome the registration hurdle, one is confronted by the fact that polling places are often few and far between in minority districts, causing long lines and long waiting times for those who would vote, which may render voting impossible in practice….
Were there a genuine desire to enfranchise everybody, things could be done very differently, as, indeed, the are here in Sweden. My impression, however, is that such a desire is lacking among a large part of those holding political office in the United States….
Henri
@henri – granted that everything you say is true, I still believe that overall the count comes up pretty close to what We The People have said. We are, however, losing ground – and Bush’s “win” in Florida shows just how little tweaking it takes to throw the vote the other way. But still, that was a matter of a percentage point or two – they couldn’t have pulled it off 80% of the Florida electorate had made a better choice.
So in the end, it comes down to the fine definition of ‘significantly’ and ‘completely.’
I believe that the gullibility and ignorance of the majority of the voters has a far greater effect than the Illuminati playing games with the vote itself. (regardless of Stalin’s famous quote on the subject)
Personally, I’d be delirious with joy – or near enough as makes no never minds – were US presidents to confine themselves to «silence and inaction». It’s their talk and action which scares the shit out of me….
Henri
CrazyH, the American public has absolutely NO say in who their leaders are.
Yeah, we’re following the Russian model of rigged elections. Pretty soon we’ll be just as free as North Korea and China!
There are half a million or more homeless people in America who I’m sure would be glad to have the freedom of being guaranteed a roof over their head like the people of North Korea.
And no one can match the US and its CIA when it comes to rigging elections.
> And no one can match the US and its CIA when it comes to rigging elections.
Just one more example of how we beat the USSR and the KGB. Go team!
“They don’t have full control or we’d never have even heard of either Sanders or Trump.”
– Are you sure about that? How dangerously naive.
“The only good thing I can say about the two-party system is that it beats the hell out of a one-party system. Those that cheat the vote on the left counteract those who cheat on the right.”
– Can anyone else make sense of this? It seems completely illogical to me.
How much choice do North Koreans get in their beloved leader? “Some control” is infinitely better than “none whatsoever.” And yeah, TPTB are scared shitless of both my examples, as neither one of ’em are sticking to the script.
I notice how you repeatedly move the conversation to the top of the column. Did they teach you that in shill school? It does get more exposure that way, but it makes it harder to follow a conversation.