Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts

Monday, December 12, 2022

Twitter Files: The internal decision-making and journos skewing it

I wasn't a fan of Twitter until Elon Musk threatened to buy it back in March 2022. Then I started thinking of how convenient Twitter is to disseminate brief information or point people in a direction. So I have no interest in writing on Twitter or have a feed to look at or ignore, but I'm very happy to click on a Twitter link and find out the scoop in a limited number of characters and an easy-to-read format. 

So Twitter proved its value to me. I started thinking of it as a compact version of the internet. 

So what should the rules be for a compact version of the internet? We have to consider that Twitter is a private company, not the whole internet. It's here not because a bunch of countries got together and figured out how to do it and finance it, but because someone started up a company, and they are trying to stay in business. There are going to be business considerations, so they can't be as open as the entire internet. I strongly support media companies having standards, and that applies to social media as well. 

So the Twitter files were supposed to show how fucked up Twitter is. That message is favored by Musk, Twitter's new owner who is successfully soliciting adulation from conservatives. It's written by journalists with axes to grind with mainstream media, much of it warranted because mainstream media has got a ton of problems. They use journalistic methods, such as quoting primary sources like text communication between Twitter executives. However, they aren't exactly evenhanded in presenting the situation, particularly the decision to permanently suspend Trump's Twitter account. 

They focus on the internal decision-making, and ignore that Trump rallied thousands of people and got them to surround, break into, and intimidate Congress on the day that Joe Biden's election was to be certified. They seem to have zero problem whatsoever ignoring these extreme circumstances. It's so funny when Bari Weiss points to the words of others leaders and their threats, and leaves it at words. She doesn't mention if those other leaders managed to mass a mob that attacked a seat of government. Wow, just the words are a fair comparison.

That's the shoddiness of the Twitter files. 

Image: twitter.com


Twitter did screw up on its blockage of the NY Post article about the discovery of Hunter Biden's laptop, and they have admitted it. I agree it was wrong. Twitter also has left-leaning biases. However, I suspect that most if not all suspended accounts deserved it. Misinformation (lies) are a huge problem in media, and even larger if you do nothing about them but just let them propagate. 

The files misrepresent the reasons for permanently suspending Trump's account. Here is twitter's explanation, which the journalist somehow never link to.

My rant. Here is my stream of consciousness rant about the twitter files. Getting it out of drafts and making it available to all. 

The first big series of the twitter files has finished. I'm going to focus what was written about Trump being permanently banned from twitter after the Jan. 6 riot/insurrection/attempted coup. 

When you read about this in the twitter files, almost the entire focus is on the internal decision-making of twitter execs, and not what was happening on the ground in DC. How is it fair or realistic to isolate those? Twitter is criticized for not following the rules and procedures they had established, but what was happening in DC then? Well, for the first time ever, thousands of Americans surrounded the capitol to intimidate Congress into not doing its legislative and Constitutional duty. Those events were unique, but somehow twitter is supposed to ignore all that and continue with the same rules and procedures it had.

Bari Weiss repeats Trump's tweets of Jan. 8. They are:

“The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

Then she focuses for most of the next 27 tweets on the twitter internal deliberations, especially how different work groups and officials in twitter can't find specific rule violations in those two Trump tweets. 

Weiss also goes into the violent rhetoric of leaders of other countries, and how they weren't thrown off of twitter for that rhetoric.

That all sounds logical, doesn't it? And it is logical......EXCEPT that some very major developments are completely ignored in that telling. And it's not logical to ignore major relevant developments unless you want a skewed argument to justify a skewed decision or viewpoint. 

So what are the major relevant developments? 

1. Trump encouraged thousands of his supporters to march to the capitol and intimidate Congress. And they did so with much violence. 

2. Trump did not call his supporters to cease for over 3 hours once the violence started. That is an extremely slow response when Congress was surrounded and violently threatened.

3. Trump did not condemn the violence that day. 

4. Trump made a conciliatory video and released in on the morning of Jan. 8. 

5. Trump backed away from his conciliatory tone with his two tweets, and again began to stoke anger. 

That is why Trump deserved to be permanently suspended. He wasn't ready or willing to give up his angry rhetoric even though it had already incited a high level of violence and threat to the legal processes of government. Twitter gave Trump the chance to back away from that kind of rhetoric, but Trump blew that chance. 

Weiss also didn't bother to quote twitter's explanation for the suspension that was published on Jan. 8.

Due to the ongoing tensions in the United States, and an uptick in the global conversation in regards to the people who violently stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, these two Tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behavior from this account in recent weeks......

We assessed the two Tweets referenced above under our Glorification of Violence policy, which aims to prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Based on this, twitter determined that the user @realDonaldTrump should be immediately permanently suspended from the service.

I have to wonder why Weiss didn't bother to quote this readily available explanation in her twitter thread. Biased much? As a journalist, Bari Weiss should have considered this context too, but she didn't, probably because her biased viewpoint was the plan. Ignoring the reasons Trump deserved to be suspended was the plan.

There is also this info from a CNBC report: Twitter said it feared Trump’s most recent tweets were being interpreted as supporting the rioters and that plans for future armed protests had already been proliferating both on and off the platform, including a proposed attack on the U.S. Capitol and state capitol buildings on Jan. 17. 

The journalist writing that installment of the twitter files ignores all this context with a straight face and no apology. Definitely don't distract her with those pressing events----she's a watchdog on whether twitter is staying true to its rules.

Well, too fucking bad. For all the claims that Trump deserved to maintain his access to twitter, we really need to consider what Trump did on Jan. 6 and beyond. And the journalist, Bari Weiss, should have considered it too, but she didn't, probably because her slanted treatment was the plan. Ignoring the reasons Trump deserved to be suspended was the plan.

Monday, November 7, 2016

Anti-Trump conservatives

I've been neglecting this story for too long. Some conservatives, and not the usual suspects, have been clearly against Trump. Eric Erickson of RedState makes an impassioned argument against Trump as a wicked person lacking morals. Another writer at RedState blasts Jerry Falwell Jr for supporting Trump. Glenn Beck is also making a moral argument against Trump.

Image: theinsurgent.com

Related Extras. Erickson tells of Trump supporters harassing him, and the deeply difficult decision not to support Trump at a time of great stress in his family. This article lists several prominent conservatives who are against Trump. However, I will never give Mark Levin credit for his stand because I've never known him to do something for the right reason. He's one of the biggest liars I ever seen, including doctoring evidence.

Unrelated Extras. Unbelievable theory that the Trump video was a fake. Why Trump's charges of voter fraud are unbelievable. A prediction that the GOP will continue on a white nationalist course. Former conservative Andrew Sullivan argues that Trump is a fascist.

Friday, October 14, 2016

Sexual predators--You are one

Buzzfeed has video of Trump on the Howard Stern show:

Stern: You know about sexual predators...
Off camera woman's voice: You are one. [laughs]

[Trump nods his head and smiles.]

Image: theatlantic.com

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Short: Dilemma of GOP women

The dilemma is intensified if you happen to be a woman senator running for election in a swing state. That's the position New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte is in. She was the loyal partisan... until it became untenable, or until she saw she was losing too many voters and embarrassing herself too much.

Good articles from the Boston Globe and BBC.

Image: cnn.com

Punks everywhere

A few weeks ago, before Trump started his slide, he punked the national media by saying that he was going to make a statement about Obama's birth certificate. Media outlets gave him live coverage as he walked around his new Washington DC hotels and pointed out its wonderful features. Eventually he got to the statement where (naturally) he took credit for ended the controversy.

Then Trump was punked when someone sent three pages of his 1995 tax return to the New York Times, which revealed that Trump has nearly $1 billion loss and probably didn't have to pay federal income tax for 18 years (the moocher).

Then conservatives were punked when Julian Assange corrected their impression that he was going to provide an October surprise that would deeply wound Hillary. There actually was a release, which was a nothingburger ... unless you're under the impression that Hillary is usually extremely candid in all her speeches, avoiding all spin.

Then it was Trump's turn to be punked again, as his favorite journalist at the Washington Post received a video of Trump talking about going after women sexually, "Grab them by the pussy" may be the most famous words in this campaign. Trump had a very rocky weekend after that Friday news story. Even his VP choice, Mike Pence, announced that he was suspending his appearances.

However, NBC was also punked because they had copies of the video, but were letting the lawyers figure out how to handle it (according to the New York Times).

In lesser punk news, the Russian passed on some erroneous information supposedly showing Hillary ally Sidney Blumenthal did something that was just awful (if you're in the conservative media bubble) or inconsequential and hard to follow if you're a normal person. And though Donald didn't melt down during the second debate, he was still punked by Hillary who knows more and fabricates less than he does.

Not the only girl he touched
Image: thehollywoodgossip.com

Extras. Three options for the GOP after Trump loses. None are rosy. Report of some friction inside the Clinton foundation. Sounds like a soap opera. The Wall Street Journal complaining that Clinton has "no core" as though the core of Trump isn't a sewage pipe of epic proportions. Nothing new in their reporting, just as there's nothing unexpected in all the reports of Trump being a handsy lecher. Some conservative media is trying to make a lot about the internal comments about Catholicism being conservative and backward of gender relations (nothing new there either unless you are outraged that people have opinions). Politico on today's crop of charges of inappropriate touching by Trump--again no surprise. From Vox, a survey of conservative media.

Update 10/14/16. Via Sarah Posner, the NYT lawyer, in response of Trump's claim of being defamed, essentially says "You've made your own reputation as lecherous scum. There is no reputation to ruin."

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Short: GOP woman cusses out the GOP

This is great. A conservative woman went on a twitter tirade. Here is the capstone:
"If you can’t stand up for women & unendorse this piece of human garbage, you deserve every charge of sexism thrown at you."
 And, for posterity:

Trump women learn to protect the pussy
Image: elleuk.com

Update 10/13/16. It's interesting to see where this twitter tirade is covered as news. MSNBC, NPR, Raw Story, Richocet, Elle UK, and down from there.

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

There's still time...

... for Donald Trump to leave the campaign in a huff.

I'd like to see this more than any other outcome I can think of. I would hope that some GOPers would learn a lesson from that kind of embarrassment.

Image: twitter.com

Extra. Currently reading "Pence under pressure to stabilize reeling Trump campaign."

Sunday, October 2, 2016

Stupid campaigns, stupid candidates

I haven't been writing much about politics because there's nothing positive to inspire me. It's the same stupidity that we've had since 2012. Republicans still don't know how to negotiate on appropriations, so they end up caving and sticking with the status quo.

This year some of the actors on the stage are different and worse. Hillary is still secretive and having trouble admitting her mistakes. Maybe she learned a lesson from her poorly received comments about how the FBI 'exonerated' her, because she was straightforwardly apologetic about her email server during the first presidential debate. However, secrecy does seem to be her to-go method to handle any information that shows her being less than perfect, including the human trait of susceptibility to illness. Hillary and her campaign didn't acknowledge that she was ill with pneumonia until she collapsed at an event. She could have shared the truth, but chose not to. We'll have to see how frequently she hides the truth during the rest of the campaign and in her administration if she's elected.

Although Hillary has a secrecy problem, Donald Trump has more problems than I can count, and they've been erupting despite his campaign's efforts to keep him in check and help him act presidential. Trump is a braggart who is temperamentally unable to back down from a challenge. He claims to be the best in all things so he can't admit or learn from his mistakes. This was clearly on display during the first presidential debate, when Trump was able to temper his comments during the first 30 minutes, but then slid further and further into his reactive mode, being accusatory, interrupting, disrespectful, petulant, and whining (about 'not nice' anti-Trump ads).

Since the debate, Trump has feuded about his treatment of a beauty contest winner (why he was justified in calling her names) and threatened to ramp up his criticism of Clinton into new areas. Some of his comments have come as tweets in the middle of the night, so probably weren't vetted by his campaign advisers. So far Trump hasn't increased his criticism of the Clintons that much. He questioned Hillary's loyalty to Bill and her sanity, but this isn't much of an increase in rhetoric considering what Trump has said about other people.

Yet I sense that Trump could blow at any time, and start spewing all kinds of conspiracy nonsense about the Clintons from the deep well that conservative media has filled for over 20 years. I really think this will happen because Trump has met my low expectations every time. He's fundamentally remained the egotistic blowhard who can't and won't learn to be better than what he already is. He may be able to be rational for a few minutes, hours, or days, but not for an entire week or 5 weeks until the election. I have to wonder what extreme anger Hillary or the media will goad him into. I feel certain there will be more, but I can't predict the direction Trump will spew at. But I am almost certain he will erupt with devastating results.

Image: mirrorspectrum.com

Sunday, August 21, 2016

Trump Shitstorm Warning

Trump had a meeting with some Hispanic supporters (snark--it must have been a very small meeting). One of the supporters reported that Trump "regretted having made those comments." Which comments? Oh, just the ones about Mexicans being rapists and drug dealers.

The article is a must-read. Supposedly Trump promised a fair and humane policy concerning illegal immigrants currently in the US.

What is going to happen when Trump is asked about this? Is he going to repeat that his policy will be fair and humane? Allow me to express my doubts. If he were to repeat that his policies for the illegal immigrants already in this country will be fair and humane, that is when the shitstorm will occur. I think it should be here by midweek unless Trump reiterates his opposition to any kind of amnesty and any 'humane' policies. That is my prediction. Stay tuned for updates. (I may have to eat crow.)

Image: dailycaller.com

Friday, August 12, 2016

Short: More GOPers think Donald is dead

Donald Trump continues to provide most of the fodder for my commentary. Today there's an article about how little hope GOP insiders have, based on surveys of said insiders. Half of them think he's lost already. One question that wasn't asked is whether it would take a miracle for Trump to win--but that's not a very scientific type of question. Nonetheless, Bernstein thinks he's in 'needs a miracle' territory

Good discussion of whether Trump should do the debates and on what conditions.

Image: townhall.com

Update 8/22/16. A ray of hope for Trump and the GOP. More new voters are registering as Republicans than Democrats.

Monday, August 8, 2016

Who is the good American?

It looks like the speech by Khizr Khan at the Democratic national convention was a turning point in the presidential campaign. Here is my speculation as to why it was a turning point.

Trump likes to pretend he is the greatest at everything. Khan showed very specifically some ways in which Trump is a faker as a good American.

  • Khan's son was so patriotic that he joined the military, put his life at risk, and in fact lost his life. Trump was a coddled rich boy with draft deferments. None of his children joined the military. Most children of liberals don't join the military either. So who is the good American?
  • Khan had been married to the same woman, who has grown old and rather homely. She is a dedicated to her family, grieves for her son, and isn't vain, self-centered, and focused on her own appearance. In contrast, Trump is currently married to his third trophy wife, a former model who is over 20 years younger than him. So who is the good American?
  • Khan credits this country for his success and the ability of their sons to follow their dreams. He declares: "that with hard work and goodness of this country, we could share in and contribute to its blessings..." Contrast this with Donald Trump, who gives credit only to himself and his awesome abilities, and doesn't acknowledge the blessings that have come from others. So who is the good American?
  • Khan lists the people/groups Donald Trumps smears and disrespects: women, Muslims, other minorities, judges, and even the GOP leadership. So who is the good American?
  • Khan asks: "Have you even read the United States Constitution?" Trump, who doesn't acknowledge reading, but only watching TV. He probably doesn't carry a pocket copy of the Constitution in his expensive suits (and neither do most Americans, especially liberals). So who is the good American? 
  • Khan asks "Have you ever been to Arlington Cemetery?" All faiths, genders, ethnicities are found there. Trump has made no sacrifices. Perhaps this was the most scathing of the accusations. But it rings so true. So who is the good American?
Did Khizr Khan finally gets stalling voters/undecideds to see that Trump has no clothes, and is an ugly, empty, grasping fake? Perhaps he did. 

So who is the good American?

Image: abcnews.go.com



Extra. Backstory on how the Clinton campaign learned about the Khan family.

Friday, August 5, 2016

Short: Analysis of Trump's campaign strategy

I've written about Trump's ridiculous political strategy that worked to secure him the GOP nomination. This view is from a different angle, which is how Trump is going to keep voters interested in him. So it's more a media strategy than a political strategy. Short, pithy, informative, and funny in a gut-wrenching way.

Image: salon.com

Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Crazy week for The Donald

Matt Glassman (via twitter): Is this the stupidest week ever in American politics?

Jonathan Bernstein (via twitter): It's Monday.
_____________________________________________________

Yes, it's been a crazy week. Last Thursday, the father of a Muslim-American US Army captain who was killed in Iraq spoke at the Democratic Convention and attacked Trump for his prejudice against Muslims. Trump unwisely has launched attack upon attack back at this family.

Attacking the grieving families of fallen soldiers--not a good tactic. Has Donald Trump adopted the tactics of the reviled Westboro Baptist Church? So it seems. And the conservative media is supporting him in these tactics.

Last night my sweetie was kept awake following myriad tweets about Trump's campaign falling apart. Campaign aides are suicidal. Paul Manafort, his campaign manager, is 'mailing' it in. Trump is feuding with GOP heavyweights John McCain, Kelly Ayotte, and Paul Ryan. The head of the Republican National Committee  (RNC) has called Trump to complain about how he handled the Khan family, and then leaked this information. The RNC has even checked on the official procedure for selecting a new nominee if Trump quits the race. (Source for part of this info.)

Then this morning on Morning Joe, Scarborough revealed that Trump has questioned advisers on why we can't use nuclear weapons since we have them. This is astounding, and the people on Morning Joe were certainly distressed. This is the most terrifying aspect of Trump. He doesn't understand that as president, he needs to be careful not to trigger a chain reaction of nuclear missile launches Because if we start using them, other countries will follow.
______________________________________________________

Hillary hasn't fared that well this week either. She went on Fox News and doubled-down on some claims that the head of the FBI already said weren't true. However, she also repeated that she wouldn't handle email that way again.

And it was uncovered that the US government sent $400 million to Iran on the same day that they released four American prisoners. Though this looks like a ransom, it wasn't a straight ransom, but part of a series of large deals with Iran settling old issues while setting up a new nuclear agreement.

However, any comparison of Hillary's week and Donald's week has Hillary is the big winner. Will it matter on Election Day? I certainly don't know.

Image: @MEMRIReports

Extras. Lots of other sources. Other Republicans support the Khan family. Trump seeks support from Congress, gets little. GOPers trying to talk sense into Trump. Detailed discussion about Khan from Snopes. Trump against Kelly Ayotte. Campaign woes from Vanity Fair:
"The problem is that Trump watches TV every minute that he isn’t actually on his phone, either talking or tweeting. And then he gets angry at what he sees on TV and reacts."
Update 8/4/16. Was there or wasn't there an intervention of the few GOP leaders that Trump might listen to? Maybe there was, because Trump didn't insult the Khan family in the past 24 hours. However, Gingrich is now sadly admitting that Trump is blowing the campaign. Guiliani says "What intervention? There was no such thing. Trump is a great candidate." Well, something like that.

Update 8/7/16. The Huffington Post has a timeline of Trump's week, including additional gaffes and missteps that are too numerous for me to cover. It's rather stilted, and doesn't note the Trump toed the line on Friday. Still, a fun recounting of the many Donald blunders in an amazing week.

Update 8/8/16. A letter signed by 50 former national security officials says Trump "would be the most reckless President in American history." Maybe he'll retaliate by saying he's 'not there yet' in deciding whether these former officials deserve tickets to the next Miss World contest. This deserves to be a big issue. I wonder if/when it will become so.

Update 8/10/16. Here's a CNN article on GOPers who have declared that they don't support Trump. The list goes on and on. I did eventually get to the end.

Friday, July 22, 2016

Apologizing for the US

This concept is so clear and easy in retrospect, that it's strange that I didn't realize it before.

It's traitorous, unpatriotic, or evil for US citizens to apologize for or acknowledge:

  • Unsavory business practices of some US companies, past or present.
  • Gingoistic claims by Americans.
  • Covert operations by Americans that have resulting in coups  and/or deaths in other countries.
  • Military actions by American troops that have resulted in civilian casualties and/or coups in other countries.
  • Torture that had been called 'enhanced interrogation.'
On the other hand, it's reasonable to apologize or express shame or remorse for:
  • Civil unrest by US minorities.
  • Shootings of police by US civilians.
  • Previous administrations asking other countries to recognize and honor human rights.
  • Any actions by those evil anti-American presidents, Democrats, liberals, pinkos, and (what the hell) fags. 
What prompted this observation? Donald Trump said this:
"I think right now when it comes to civil liberties, our country has a lot of problems, and I think it’s very hard for us to get involved in other countries when we don’t know what we are doing and we can’t see straight in our own country. We have tremendous problems when you have policemen being shot in the streets, when you have riots, when you have Ferguson. When you have Baltimore... When the world looks at how bad the United States is, and then we go and talk about civil liberties, I don’t think we’re a very good messenger."

Edit, then cut and paste.
Image: 56packardman.wordpress.com

Thursday, July 21, 2016

Cruz's splash at the GOP convention

In a nutshell, Ted Cruz, the runner-up in the GOP primary, was slated to speak at the convention. The big question was would he or wouldn't he endorse Trump. Or maybe that wasn't the big question. Maybe no one knew what he was going to do. Cruz has been overshadowed by other events lately: many ghastly shootings of and by police, the countdown to Trump's VP pick announcement, and plagiarism and clumsy denial by the Trump campaign.

So perhaps Cruz was flying under the radar, and people weren't thinking that he might do something dramatic. However, Cruz is Cruz, and he is a drama queen. His speech (per reports--I won't risk vomiting by watching it) was long and full of this usual appeals to righteous conservatism. The delegates, expecting an endorsement, were getting restless. Some started shouting for the endorsement. When Cruz finished the speech without giving an endorsement, he was widely and loudly booed.

It was interesting to me to read various speculations about this incident. Megan McArdle (whom I don't like) thinks that both Cruz and Trump will be hurt by this. Allahpundit at HotAir has a detailed analysis. Key people in Trump's campaign are going to wreak vengeance on Cruz, and it started with the show of him being vociferously booed. Today there are stories that Ted Cruz will be primaried for his senate seat.

I've read a bunch of opinions, and I can't remember them all. I certainly don't agree with those who think it was a masterful turn by Cruz, showing how he's brave and principled. It's certainly believable that Cruz was still angry over Trump's accusations against his wife and his father (the ludicrous story that Cruz's father was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald). I wouldn't forgive insults like that, but then I'm not an opportunist politician.

However, Cruz will suffer because he has again been aggressive and insufferable. He spit in the eye of the GOP delegates, and smiled as he walked away. He's done that before. (At a conference of Arab Christians, he ordered them to support Israel, and then ran out to thunderous booing.) With that kind of character flaw, Cruz will probably never round up enough support to win the presidency. Thank God for that!

Image: kwwl.com

Extras. All the links above are well worth reading. Here are a few others. The Federalist luvs Ted Cruz. Bernstein writes mostly about the chaos at the convention, but this is a great observation:
"Trump doesn't want to unite his party. He wants to bully it into submission. As Ted Cruz's performance showed, the Texas senator yields to no one in the bullying department."

Monday, July 18, 2016

Rant on our horrific choices

How crappy are the political conditions in the US that our choices are Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

In one corner, we have battered Hillary Clinton. She and Bill wanted both money and political power, and they've cut lots of corners to get the money. While there are innumerable false complaints about them, there is plenty slime that they created and sticks to them. Here are some: Vince Foster (FALSE), cattle futures (LIKELY), monetarily motivated pardons (LIKELY), rapes by Bill (HYPED by GOP operatives), State Department favors in exchange for Clinton charity donations (SERIOUS AND PLAUSIBLE).

In the other corner, we have Donald Trump, a modern-day ringmaster with a circus of his own follies. One of his follies is starting to believe his own hype. He's said he's the only one who can fix the problems in the US, the Mideast, and probably the world. Who actually believes that kind of talk? Too many Americans, for one. Maybe half of Trump's supporters believe he has something special. Maybe the other half hope and pray that he'll bring some change to the constipated, blocked, inefficient government we now have. Yes, they hope Trump is the enema that the US needs.

What's especially sad is that these two were picked in competitive primaries. That means the other choices were too weak, too unpopular, or too weird to be chosen. Or perhaps our parties and our politics are frightening away the better candidates, or suppressing them, muzzling them, or turning them into cookie cutter clones.

I hope sometime in the next 10 years to have a candidate I really respect. At the rate we're going, that isn't going to happen, and the US will continue its slow slide down the tubes into mediocrity.

Complete Trump enema kit, backed by Trump University
Image: enemakit.com


Sunday, July 10, 2016

The way of a charlatan

This is from the book I'm currently reading on my kindle. It's about growing up in Nazi Germany:

"Smart question, my boy. Our beloved Fuehrer employs the technique of all charlatans who never produce anything. He could not produce a simple salami... So, he does what?"

... Karl ventured a guess, "He promises something?"

"Correct...When you are unable to deliver, you start promising."

For those who haven't gotten the meaning yet, I'm thinking about a presidential candidate who promises to build a border wall, make Mexico pay for it, bring back good jobs to the US, and we will win, WIN, WIN.

Now, in a book about Nazism, I've found the simple words to show what he is and whose footsteps he follows. I think I'll be repeating this on comment pages on the internet. For me, it was electrifying to read this.

Image: crowsnestpolitics.com



Saturday, July 9, 2016

Headline that breaks its promise

Should we hope? Here was the headline:

GOP Close To Dumping Trump As Coup Plotters Near Votes Needed To Cause Nomination Chaos

Then I read the article, and found out that it's about how many members of the rules committee were considering submitting a rule change to unlock delegates. Twenty said they were considering it, and they need 28 to get the rules committee to discuss the change.

That doesn't sound close to 'dumping Trump' to me.

 Image: thedailybeast.com

Sunday, July 3, 2016

Trump finally starts running against Hillary--SPLAT!

Donald, with his usual grandiose bragging and blather,' implied that he was beating Hillary, and that he hadn't "even started yet."

As of June 22, he has now started. He gave a speech about Hillary and "the stakes in this election." It was the usual bragging from Donald. The country's a mess, but it can be fixed, but "only by [him]." Yes, he actually claimed that, but it's so typical that he thinks he is the savior. (Look here at the transcript.) Too bad he's so unclear how he'll do this without causing trade wars-- possibly even global instability on the order of our last massive recession.

What's funny about his speech is how many of his complaints about Hillary also apply to him:

  • "Hillary Clinton who, as most people know, is a world class liar..." (Trump thinks he's world class in everything, so just add 'liar' to the list, since he's deserving.)
  • "Hillary Clinton has perfected the politics of personal profit and theft." (Trump has done with with his various businesses, including casinos, real estate developments where he cashed in and others lost their investments, and, of course, Trump U.)
  • "She made $21.6 million giving speeches to Wall Street banks and other special interests – in less than 2 years – secret speeches that she does not want to reveal to the public. (How about Trump and his secret tax returns?)
  • "But she doesn't have the temperament or ... the judgement, to be president." (Trump talking about temperament and judgment? Hahahaha.)
  • "Hillary Clinton gave China millions of our best jobs, and effectively let China completely rebuild itself." (Oh my God! It wasn't the corporations who shipped jobs overseas, it was Hillary!)
  • "But Hillary Clinton learned nothing from Iraq, because when she got into power,she couldn’t wait to rush us off to war in Libya." (First, the war in Libya started as a revolt by Libyans, Second, Trump claims to have a different way to fight wars, and win oil, that's so much better--if you believe in him and fairy dust.)

I can't wait for the commercials blasting Trump. He provides so much ammunition. We'll probably get a dozen reasons not to support him each week, and still not run out of fodder.

Image: slate.com


Extra. Another author's take on the same speech. Very readable and worthwhile.

Sunday, June 19, 2016

IF--the unlikely upside if Hillary loses

Is it already too late to write about the possibility of Donald Trump winning the presidency? Trump has had some miserable weeks where he's said stupid shit for the whole country to hear and process. But before that happened, he and Hillary were nearly tied in the conglomerate poll average. At that time I started thinking about the benefits of a Trump presidency.

OK, I came up with one advantage. It would signal the end of the Clinton era. We wouldn't have to worry about Hillary running for another office, or listening to the infuriating reports of all the sleazy things she and Bill have done over the years. There has been a fair amount of sleaze. Off the top of my head, I can recall: cattle futures trading, travel office firings, Bill's sexual escapades, Bill lying about his sexual escapades, questionable pardons, private email server for personal secrecy reasons, and Clinton foundation payola.

Not too many other Democrats have a list that long. I started wondering whether I would have preferred Hillary to sit out this presidency race and instead go into a quiet retirement. Unfortunately, I still think she might have been the best candidate available this time. The likely alternative, if Hillary hadn't run, would have been Elizabeth Warren, who isn't exactly my favorite.

I'm still hoping that there are centrists in the Democratic Party and one of them will run for president at the next opportunity. But it isn't very likely. The centrists like Ron Wyden have been sidelined for so many years that few know about them. If anything, the party is split between progressives like Nancy Pelosi and even-further-left progressives like Bernie Sanders. Ugh. In a situation like this, Hillary is better, which a very sad commentary indeed.

Image: realclearpolitics.com