He That is Without Sin Among You, Let Him
I can bring home the bacon.
Fry it up in a pan
And never, never let you forget you're a man
--Enjoli advert
To all the girls I've loved before
Who traveled in and out my door
I'm glad they came along
I dedicate this song
To all the girls I've loved before
--To All the Girls I've Loved Before,
Willie Nelson
Men don't have platonic friends okay?
We just have women we haven't f*cked yet
--Chris Rock
I got more liquor, more ladies, more drugs and no cases
With jobs and no babies
I hope no phone's taping if so you gon' hate me
--Open Wide, Calvin Harris
_____________________
So the powers situated to emplace She That Will Not Be Denied on the Presidential throne feel they can finally wipe the sweat from their brow.
We have learned from yesterday's Great Debate that Mr. Trump objectifies and covets women's lady parts. Shocked, you say? Much like Capt. Renault, I s'pect. Puh-leeze.
Anderson Cooper -- that greatly underwhelming talking head who could not even win a round of dumbed-down celebrity Jeopardy! (Ranger had even a SEAL reader -- God bless you, Stevie -- who won a real Jeopardy! contest) -- came out of the gate like a snorting bull about Trump's sexcapades 20 years ago.
A real "gotcha" moment, eh? News worthy of being "broken" by a national paper like The Washington Post (not). Kinda makes you proud to be an American, no?
But how does Mr. Trump's macho ways disqualify him from the Presidency? Are we riding some sort of crest of female empowerment of which I am unaware?
Less than 100 years ago, the 19th Amendment (1920) gave women the right to vote. (The 15th Amendment granting black males that right was ratified 50 years earlier.) In the first blush of that voting rights victory, the Equal Rights Amendment, designed to guarantee equal rights for women across the board, was introduced to Congress in 1923.
Ninety-three years on, it has yet to be ratified.
Females currently compose a little over 4% of Fortune 500 company's CEO's. Women earn 80 cents for every dollar earned by a man, a gender wage gap of 20%. Intimate partner violence shows no signs of abating, and 20% of women report having been raped in their lifetime.
Forty percent of Americans are regular viewers of online pornography, and 20% of men say they have viewed porn online at work.
Candidate Trump is not accused of rape. Powerful and monied men are an aphrodisiac for some women (news flash, right?) Trump does not hide his proclivities ("I just start kissing them.") To be in the stable of a man like Trump is not to be surprised by his track record.
If we were honest, we would acknowledge that powerful men throughout history take their just desserts. Italy's Silvio Berlusconi, Dominique Strauss-Kahn ("DSK") and Russia's Vladimir Putin, are but a few. But let us look at ourselves first.
Innumerable United States Presidents have pussyfooted about with women to whom they were not married. Among these were Thomas Jefferson, Warren G. Harding, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Woodrow Wilson, FDR (who died in the presence of his mistress), JFK and Bill Clinton (both with teenage White House interns, among others) and LBJ. And the beat goes on.
These were all Gropers-in-Chief, yet we turned a polite eye to their dalliances provided they steered the ship of state with some skill and attention. Their inability to be emancipated men -- whatever that means -- and overmaster their heady and hormonal drives did not disqualify them from their job. Their opponents attempted, to a greater or lesser extent, to utilize their actions against them.
Thing is, reporters -- when that was an actual profession -- used to enjoy habitual relationships with the Presidents. They had entree to the actual news, while agreeing to keep the sordid stuff out of the headlines. Nod, nod - wink, wink.
Make no mistake: The people who slandered these men did not do so on any chivalric grounds of protecting women's honor. Any muck-racking was done with the sheer intent of toppling these men's presidencies.
Neither people nor the societal structures which house and instruct them, have changed in the mere 2,0000 years when we wrote down some rules about what we should and shouldn't so. (One might go so far back as almost 4,000 years with Hammurabi's Code; in any event, we have not been operating under rules approximately equable to all for very long, and the rules were certainly not equally applied to women.)
Sadly today, the smut has become the kernel. Rather than a ship of the state, the next President will steer a ship of fools. Our behaviors have not regressed; we are the same nutty sexual monkeys.
What has changed is that voyeurism and exhibitionism have moved from the edge to the center. Representative Weiner can send an image of his over a cell phone, and someone like Anderson Cooper can make us think that the voyeuristic "bust" is actual news.
The move to accept the LGBTQQIP2SSA communities got you thinking the sky's the limit in terms of gender enlightenment? You may pat your smiling liberal self on the back, but think again.
Last Monday's BBC America featured a two-minute story on the travails of newly-robbed multi-millionairess Kim Kardashian and her husband Kanye's end-of-show response -- approximately 7% of the network's world news broadcast for that day. Now ask yourself a question: what makes Mrs. Kardashian newsworthy?
It is one thing alone, to wit: her massive tits and arse. You can't have it both ways, people.
Seen another way, what makes candidate Clinton preferable? Is it because she is monastic? Is she consistent?
In 1992 in the face of sexual misconduct charges against her husband, President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton told CBS anchor Steve Croft that she was not a "stand by your man" kind of woman. She also asked the news media not to turn the 1992 campaign into "a game of 'gotcha'."
But she ended up standing beside her man for future political returns and "gotcha" is now her game. Even then, her feminist creds were decaying as she worked hard to discredit every woman associated with Mr. Clinton.
This is the Caesarean Secretary of State Clinton who said of Libya's President's death by mob, "We came, we saw, he died." Today, she is Lady Macbeth silently screaming, "Out, out, damned spot!"
She has now morphed into Grandma Hillary, a safe and sexless white woman with a milquetoast running mate in Mr. Kaine (an acceptable white male.). But Grandma Hillary is not toothless.
She is Jung's archetypal Old Crone, and she may subvert or conform to the power structure at will; she has nothing left to lose. She will not usher in an Age of Aquarius because she will have to be (as Ranger puts it) a "Billy Badass" as the first United States female head of state.
If one believes what one reads, it seems that despite the amazing support that elected a Republican candidate not even backed by his own party, Mrs. Clinton must win. It is somehow cognitive dissonance to think otherwise.
She is the politician between the two, and politicians become Presidents. You couldn't have a haberdasher, or a community organizer or a peanut farmer, fer gawdssakes.
But back to the sex story. It is unlikely that Mr. Trump would grab for Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel's vajayjay for any reason, and is not she the only one who really matters? And did not our own President G. W. Bush err by attempting a back rub of the Frosty One?
The only one to watch out for would be Denmark's Prime Minister Helle-Thorning Schmidt, with whom President Obama and England's David Cameron enjoyed a selfie (to the apparent disdain of Mrs. Obama). But the lovely Mrs. Trump should provide eye-candy enough to keep her husband's little hands at home.
But as Donovan sang, this may be the Season of the Witch. No het white male today is immune from excoriation at the press's whim. Secretary of State John Kerry was lambasted for his effete Spandex-wearing, Francophile ways. Now, Mr. Trump for his machismo.
So Trump wants to grab and kiss women? BFD. In a Don Draper sort of way, he is like a rib-eye steak in a world of crepe-y raw vegans. As it is written of the Big Macher in the Sky, so it could be said of Mr. Trump, "I am that I am". (As for the shape-shifter Mrs. Clinton, there is no declarative "I AM" in her "I" -- only a reflection of her audience du jour.)
We could watch no more after this October Surprise. Such thin gruel for such a glutted audience
{FINAL UPDATE @ 11:31 PM, 10.11.2016.}
We have learned from yesterday's Great Debate that Mr. Trump objectifies and covets women's lady parts. Shocked, you say? Much like Capt. Renault, I s'pect. Puh-leeze.
Anderson Cooper -- that greatly underwhelming talking head who could not even win a round of dumbed-down celebrity Jeopardy! (Ranger had even a SEAL reader -- God bless you, Stevie -- who won a real Jeopardy! contest) -- came out of the gate like a snorting bull about Trump's sexcapades 20 years ago.
A real "gotcha" moment, eh? News worthy of being "broken" by a national paper like The Washington Post (not). Kinda makes you proud to be an American, no?
But how does Mr. Trump's macho ways disqualify him from the Presidency? Are we riding some sort of crest of female empowerment of which I am unaware?
Less than 100 years ago, the 19th Amendment (1920) gave women the right to vote. (The 15th Amendment granting black males that right was ratified 50 years earlier.) In the first blush of that voting rights victory, the Equal Rights Amendment, designed to guarantee equal rights for women across the board, was introduced to Congress in 1923.
Ninety-three years on, it has yet to be ratified.
Females currently compose a little over 4% of Fortune 500 company's CEO's. Women earn 80 cents for every dollar earned by a man, a gender wage gap of 20%. Intimate partner violence shows no signs of abating, and 20% of women report having been raped in their lifetime.
Forty percent of Americans are regular viewers of online pornography, and 20% of men say they have viewed porn online at work.
Candidate Trump is not accused of rape. Powerful and monied men are an aphrodisiac for some women (news flash, right?) Trump does not hide his proclivities ("I just start kissing them.") To be in the stable of a man like Trump is not to be surprised by his track record.
If we were honest, we would acknowledge that powerful men throughout history take their just desserts. Italy's Silvio Berlusconi, Dominique Strauss-Kahn ("DSK") and Russia's Vladimir Putin, are but a few. But let us look at ourselves first.
Innumerable United States Presidents have pussyfooted about with women to whom they were not married. Among these were Thomas Jefferson, Warren G. Harding, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Woodrow Wilson, FDR (who died in the presence of his mistress), JFK and Bill Clinton (both with teenage White House interns, among others) and LBJ. And the beat goes on.
These were all Gropers-in-Chief, yet we turned a polite eye to their dalliances provided they steered the ship of state with some skill and attention. Their inability to be emancipated men -- whatever that means -- and overmaster their heady and hormonal drives did not disqualify them from their job. Their opponents attempted, to a greater or lesser extent, to utilize their actions against them.
Thing is, reporters -- when that was an actual profession -- used to enjoy habitual relationships with the Presidents. They had entree to the actual news, while agreeing to keep the sordid stuff out of the headlines. Nod, nod - wink, wink.
Make no mistake: The people who slandered these men did not do so on any chivalric grounds of protecting women's honor. Any muck-racking was done with the sheer intent of toppling these men's presidencies.
Neither people nor the societal structures which house and instruct them, have changed in the mere 2,0000 years when we wrote down some rules about what we should and shouldn't so. (One might go so far back as almost 4,000 years with Hammurabi's Code; in any event, we have not been operating under rules approximately equable to all for very long, and the rules were certainly not equally applied to women.)
Sadly today, the smut has become the kernel. Rather than a ship of the state, the next President will steer a ship of fools. Our behaviors have not regressed; we are the same nutty sexual monkeys.
What has changed is that voyeurism and exhibitionism have moved from the edge to the center. Representative Weiner can send an image of his over a cell phone, and someone like Anderson Cooper can make us think that the voyeuristic "bust" is actual news.
The move to accept the LGBTQQIP2SSA communities got you thinking the sky's the limit in terms of gender enlightenment? You may pat your smiling liberal self on the back, but think again.
Last Monday's BBC America featured a two-minute story on the travails of newly-robbed multi-millionairess Kim Kardashian and her husband Kanye's end-of-show response -- approximately 7% of the network's world news broadcast for that day. Now ask yourself a question: what makes Mrs. Kardashian newsworthy?
It is one thing alone, to wit: her massive tits and arse. You can't have it both ways, people.
Seen another way, what makes candidate Clinton preferable? Is it because she is monastic? Is she consistent?
In 1992 in the face of sexual misconduct charges against her husband, President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton told CBS anchor Steve Croft that she was not a "stand by your man" kind of woman. She also asked the news media not to turn the 1992 campaign into "a game of 'gotcha'."
But she ended up standing beside her man for future political returns and "gotcha" is now her game. Even then, her feminist creds were decaying as she worked hard to discredit every woman associated with Mr. Clinton.
This is the Caesarean Secretary of State Clinton who said of Libya's President's death by mob, "We came, we saw, he died." Today, she is Lady Macbeth silently screaming, "Out, out, damned spot!"
She has now morphed into Grandma Hillary, a safe and sexless white woman with a milquetoast running mate in Mr. Kaine (an acceptable white male.). But Grandma Hillary is not toothless.
She is Jung's archetypal Old Crone, and she may subvert or conform to the power structure at will; she has nothing left to lose. She will not usher in an Age of Aquarius because she will have to be (as Ranger puts it) a "Billy Badass" as the first United States female head of state.
If one believes what one reads, it seems that despite the amazing support that elected a Republican candidate not even backed by his own party, Mrs. Clinton must win. It is somehow cognitive dissonance to think otherwise.
She is the politician between the two, and politicians become Presidents. You couldn't have a haberdasher, or a community organizer or a peanut farmer, fer gawdssakes.
But back to the sex story. It is unlikely that Mr. Trump would grab for Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel's vajayjay for any reason, and is not she the only one who really matters? And did not our own President G. W. Bush err by attempting a back rub of the Frosty One?
The only one to watch out for would be Denmark's Prime Minister Helle-Thorning Schmidt, with whom President Obama and England's David Cameron enjoyed a selfie (to the apparent disdain of Mrs. Obama). But the lovely Mrs. Trump should provide eye-candy enough to keep her husband's little hands at home.
But as Donovan sang, this may be the Season of the Witch. No het white male today is immune from excoriation at the press's whim. Secretary of State John Kerry was lambasted for his effete Spandex-wearing, Francophile ways. Now, Mr. Trump for his machismo.
So Trump wants to grab and kiss women? BFD. In a Don Draper sort of way, he is like a rib-eye steak in a world of crepe-y raw vegans. As it is written of the Big Macher in the Sky, so it could be said of Mr. Trump, "I am that I am". (As for the shape-shifter Mrs. Clinton, there is no declarative "I AM" in her "I" -- only a reflection of her audience du jour.)
We could watch no more after this October Surprise. Such thin gruel for such a glutted audience
{FINAL UPDATE @ 11:31 PM, 10.11.2016.}
Labels: Clinton - Trump debates, Donald Trump, Donald Trump and women, hypocritical press, people are hypocrites
posted by Lisa at 11:58 PM
27 Comments:
A few questions;
1. It seems that the same people so offended by Trump's locker room/barracks banter are the ones that want women in infantry units and in combat. How will these delicate flowers handle combat if they get a case of the vapors over Trump's juvenile silliness?
2. Are we electing a chief executive who can get things done and done right - for us - in the rough and tumble world of cut throat politics, big money and innate corruption, or some kind of saintly spiritual leader?
3. Why is casual killing deemed socially acceptable behavior, but being a raging heterosexual is deemed vulgar (I'm thinking about Hillary's "We came, we saw, he died.....giggle giggle" moment. For chrissakes, Kaddafi, who wasn't bothering anyone good, was brutally sodomized before being finished off. So not funny).
4. Just who are these media people? What sort parenting or institutional situation generates such a uniform product of mean spirited, petty, incurious, hypocritical ass holes?
avedis
My guess is that the overwhelming majority of people who are now upset at Trump's comments weren't going to vote for him anyways. I'm not casting aspersions on whether they "genuinely" feel any of these things, just observing that at this point in time nobody with at least functioning ear or eye can possibly be shocked by this. If it wasn't an impeachable offence in the 1990s, presumably it isn't a disqualification in 2016.
You'll notice that an absurdly large portion of the left has gotten their knickers in such a twist over this that they seem to think it trumps (har) the fact that during the same debate Trump also said he will jail Clinton, that he hasn't bothered to talk to his running mate about Syria yet, and that he opposed the war in Iraq, yet a lot more lives are involved in the rule of law and foreign wars than in some crude and misogynist joking from back in 2005. And that's even before asking why same people aren't willing to ask some tough questions about Clinton's own support for these foolish wars and her own disregard for the rule of law.
No matter who wins, come January, the elites will still be in control of the White House, and they will still support foreign military adventures, and they will still be the direct beneficiaries of free-trade globalism, all the while millions of each party's supporters clash pointlessly. At this point in the campaign, that much is clear. I suppose it should have been all along.
avedis -- My guesses are:
1 - They don't plan on serving anyways. There are many more people who hold very strong opinions on military policy than have any interest in serving in the military.
2 - The question is irrelevant because you already know the answer. We live in a celebrity culture now. I'd wager that's true for most Trump supporters as well as most Clinton supporters. Policy and leadership skills are irrelevant.
Although I will say that electing a strongman to "get things done" is not normally how weak representative political systems are supposed to work. Like it or not, negotiation and compromise are baked into the system.
3 - See answer 2. Sex scandals get people excited on Twitter and Facebook and the like. Probably the same reason generals are punished more for sex scandals than for losing wars.
4 - I think the media has gotten itself so frightened that Trump will be the next Hitler that they see themselves as righteous crusaders for "real" America. I can't say for certain because I don't know any journalists, but I do know a lot of Clinton supporters, and that is certainly true for a lot of them. Any scandal will do!
Per, "No matter who wins, come January, the elites will still be in control of the White House, and they will still support foreign military adventures", Trump is actually less inclined to use and expand military force.
I guess I'll have to write about that, cos no other "liberals" seems inclined to do so.
Yeah, the whole casting T. as Hitler really escapes me, for Clinton has shown herself to be far more fearful in her actions thus far. The few views into her psyche which her very controlled demeanor has allowed betray the mind of a Machiavellian politician who will do and say whatever is needed to climb through he ranks.
Correct regarding people's pleasure with being "Twitter"-pated and amused into oblivion.
I have listened to three of Mr Trump's rallies in Florida. All filled with wrong information. I was laid off from KSC BOC 18 years ago. At that time, it was known that the shuttle needed to be cancelled. Trump stated Obama cancelled it. Actually, Bush II wisely did. He and Obama were pressured into 4 more launched. My fingers were crossed with each on, a massive risk. Another, for his resorts in Miami he prefers bringing in temporary foreign workers. Miami Job Service countered with over 1000 people qualified for the positions he wanted. Many Americans were bi and tri lingulare. Third point, his law suit to prevent aircraft from flying over his resort. To rearrange flight paths, one of the airports would need to close. That could be Miami International West Palm, Lauderdale, West Florida or the USAF base. That doesn't include what Coltish friends have told me about his golf course or a frien, a major builder in New England. He no bid an RFQ to refurb some of his property. Why, he wanted to be paid.
I look forward to more of your thoughts on that topic, Lisa. Possibly my cynicism is excessive, although I try not to let it run too far out of control.
It is Fred's comments that spark much of my concern, not the "Trump is the next Hitler" silliness. So far, Trump has behaved as the economic elite that he is. Now, he promises that he will fight for the people who have been left out by globalism. Maybe he will, but there is nothing in his past that would suggest anything like that, which is why I suspect he is just another in a very, very long line of populist flimflam men. That concern would be mitigated if his many claims were accurate, but frequently they are gross misrepresentations, especially of his own business record, which is his only public track record to date.
On the military side, Trump's record is that he supported the invasion of Iraq, although he now falsely claims that he does not, and that he will somehow expand the war against ISIS, although he declines to say precisely how. Again, I'd welcome your thoughts on this topic.
Against this one has to balance who Trump is running against, of course. My opinion isn't that Clinton would be a great president, just that Trump will not be either. Eight years ago, I watched many friends on the left lose their heads over the hope and change Obama was going to bring. They were let down, too.
David,
IMO, neither factual correctness nor morality apply to Trump. It isn't his role in all this. He is the trickster, the jester whose role is to poke fun and flip the bird to a ridiculously insultingly corrupt political/media/elitist borg that many feel excluded from and hated by.
The only people that like Clinton are those who are borg members or aspire to be or wish to be groupies and thus vicariously be "right".
Hillary, otoh, is trying to be taken seriously in a traditional way. It isn't working so well b/c she is so obviously corrupt. And No. I don't want to hear the propaganda defending the indefensible.
All this, but Trump said, tu quoque , argumentation against Trump misses the point entirely. There's something happening here and to some of us, it's exactly clear. Others are wearing blinkers and haven't noticed the game has changed.
avedis
Historically, when people take charge of governments by claiming that neither factual correctness nor morality apply to them, it rarely ends well. What you are describing would be a dictator, not a jester.
Especially in a case like this, where at least to this point in his life, and despite all the liberal hysteria going on, Trump has been a card-carrying member of this "ridiculously insulting corrupt elite" class that you speak of.
If you're referring to the fact that Trump's "sex tape" moment should be totally irrelevant, I agree with you, but if you've got a broader point there, I would also love to hear you say more about it. Obviously it is not "exactly clear" to my thick-headed self, and I'm sorry for being slow on the uptake.
Fred,
You are speaking of facts, but the media is not interested in those. It is the media's behavior which I am addressing.
I am not talking policy here, but rather the things about which the newscasters are interested. It is THAT which I am calling foul.
I am also not so interested in minor factual errors make by politicians while stumping. They all exaggerate, lie and misunderstand certain things. I am comforted to know that any President has a cabinet of smart people informing him.
David,
Per, "Trump's record is that he supported the invasion of Iraq", he was not involved in that fiasco, so it is moot point. Democrat Clinton, however, DID vote for the invasion. Per the rhetoric on balance, she is by far the more hawkish.
As a Republican, Trump is quite middle-of-the-road, militarily.
avedis,
I believe that you alone, thus far, get where I am coming from. While I am grateful to all of our readers, most are too serious or too emotional to hear me.
You do.
The only reason Trump's support for the invasion of Iraq is relevant is because (a) he claimed he didn't support it, and (b) because given his lack of public service history we only have his rhetoric to go by in judging how he would approach the military or for that matter anything else.
Middle-of-the-road sounds fair to me. I wonder if we're going to end up arguing about semantics here. I don't see Trump as particularly hawkish or particularly dove-ish, if that makes sense. I just don't expect any departures from what now passes for the norm.
Although there does seem to be a hyperventilating contingent of the press who believes Trump's first action in office will be to start a nuclear war, which I guess would be hawkish.
Candidate Trump is not accused of rape.
Yes, he is. Multiple times. And with other criminal sexual behavior but, hey anything to stop Hitlery
David,
You are still assuming some level of sacredness and respectability to the politico/media institutions. Therefore you believe that the sanctity can be violated. That is your mistake.
avedis
More white nationalist poppycock. How did a blog that used to provide reasoned outside the box analysis deteriorate into an envy driven megaphone for the corrosive bretbart world view...a real shame to lose this voice.
Hippie punching is always in vogue, e.g. Trump wants to grab and kiss women? BFD. In a Don Draper sort of way, he is like a rib-eye steak in a world of crepe-y raw vegans.
Trump is red meat not a limp piece of kale. Woman feel his power and if they don't want to he says, 'Suck on this!'
David,
The grammarian in me is at the gates:
You say, Although there does seem to be a hyperventilating contingent of the press who believes Trump's first action in office will be to start a nuclear war, which I guess would be hawkish.
I shall change "Although there does seem to be" to "There is . . ."
And who is "hawkish"? Since it is not candidate Trump, it must be the press (?)
"If it bleeds, it leads" sort of thing?
Dearest Anthony,
(have you been drinking those nice drinks with the little paper umbrellas . . .?)
I am so far outside of the box you can't see it. But I don't spin and do the innuendo, which has become the dance of all good liberals. Sadly.
Gene,
Trump has not been accused of rape, and these vague accusations of "other criminal behavior" has become so tiring, no?
I will grumpily concede to poor sentence structure if that is the ticket price for reasoned conversation.
In my opinion hawk and dove are relative terms on a continuum. Notwithstanding some of the more agitated editorializing, Trump doesn't really seem far out of step in one direction or the other, although in part because he's been all over the map in terms of his positions. Clinton seems more hawkish than Trump. The press is mostly pro-Clinton and anti-Trump. I don't know if that makes them hawkish or not, since their critique is that Trump is a crazed warmonger. (Somehow, they criticize him for this at the same time as they criticize him for calling for a greater peace with Russia, which seems like the opposite of hawkishness to my obviously unenlightened eye.)
That's as clear as mud, I hope.
avedis - Whatever violations may have occurred, they are hardly new or unique to a particular candidate. I'm afraid I'm left as unenlightened as before.
Trump is a corrupt, dishonest elite. Putting a corrupt elite in the White House seems like a fantastically counterproductive way to stick it to corrupt, dishonest elites.
This has nothing to do with Hillary or "propaganda defending the indefensible." Barring a clear case for Trump, my opinion has all along been simply that this would-be revolution is a bust. Perhaps in 2020 a more plausible route forward will occur.
No...self-absorbed whining about the establishment media is the textbook definition of orthodox white nationalism..
David, Trump is NOT an elite. He is very wealthy and he enjoys the things money can buy, but that is not elitism. Elitism involves believing that one is correct and superior and that others that don't share one's outlook are wrong, stupid and in need of conversion; untermeschen - and then having a social/political network that supports and reinforces these beliefs and affords the opportunity to act on whatever impulses the beliefs give rise to, with protection from the repercussions.
You're still arguing about who is right and who is wrong, still making judgments, etc. You don't have the facts to make sound judgments. All you know (or think you know) has been fed to you by elites. Sometimes elites break into competing factions and they allow some dirt to be released concerning the other faction, but it's carefully tailored to not blow the lid off the whole thing. The illusion that truth has been revealed is created in these instances, but it's just a mirage.
Trump has basically decided to win or blow the lid off to the extent he is capable. The elites are freaking out. That's all there is to this.
All this left/right division is just so much BS that the elites drilled into us and then use to manipulate for their benefit. It's ludicrous. Arguing about it is even stupider. We are all deplorables in their eyes. We should all - black, white, red, yellow - should be getting together, working together, praying together, fighting together for the opportunity to live in freedom and to have our voices heard. It's the elites that keep us separate and they have a lot of techniques to keep it that way.
avedis
First you tell me that elitism is a belief that others are wrong or stupid and in need of conversion, and then you tell me I'm an ignorant patsy. I trust you see the irony in this.
Your last paragraph is bang on. The only difference between you and me is that I simply don't believe Trump stands apart from that system. He comes from a wealthy family where $14 million was considered a "very small loan." He was educated at private school, including one of the top business schools in the world. He has spent most of his life successfully developing what he says is a multi-billion-dollar real estate firm, and less successfully trying to turn it into a multi-billion-dollar conglomerate with holdings in food, publishing, etc. He cheerfully admits to handing out political "donations" to grease the wheels of his business and padding his own pockets with billions of dollars in tax credits targeted to the elites. In what way is he not an elite?
Merely because he now says he isn't? Whatever. There will always be power competitions among elites, and when they happen, they will always appeal to the rest of us for help.
I sincerely hope that is all there is to it, because yesterday, you told me that you and other Trump supporters regard him as beyond the realm of mere morality or factual accuracy. If that's true, then the hysterical liberals are correct, because that really would be a textbook case for authoritarianism. In the end I doubt either you or Trump would sink to that bar.
David, You're trying to use reason and logic. That won't work. Western people value reason above all other modes of perception. It's a curse b/c sometimes it produces better material outcomes (air conditioning and French fries). That is, itself, elitist. It's dummies with ivy league degrees get respect. Supposedly they can reason better. You're putting everything into that perspective and that's why you're off base, IMO. There is much much more to life than reason. This other mode(s) are more effective when applied to certain situations.
You're being like the generals that are always fighting the previous war.
Only an idiot doesn't know that 1+1=2. Right? That's an academic basic. But if you've ever been in a deep long term relationship you know, in your heart that 1+1 = infinity.
I'm not trying to reason with you. Unfortunately, words, outside of poetry, are mostly tools of reason. So I apologize for mudding the waters.
Trump is not Trump. He is the focus point for something much bigger, beyond him and his little foibles. That is what scares people. That is why reason fails. He is us, the deplorables. His sins are ours. His our thoughts.
Like you never saw an attractive woman and felt desire and said some naughty things to yourself, if not to your buddy. I'll be disappointed if you lie and tell me "never". So what's the fuss?
avedis
David,
Thank you for your gentle humor in the midst of a very angry topic for so many. I am at a loss for the purely hateful vitriol which has been dripping from the press's fangs for over a year.
To me, I observe this race with fascination. Trump is an outsider whom the Republican party cannot even decide to get behind, and yet -- he won his party's nomination, against all odds
And, the press refuses to acknowledge him as the viable candidate he is. All must have Hillary, lest one be on the "lunatic fringe".
Why can people not see that it cannot be a fringe which delivered the electoral mandate?
We should be celebrating this efflorescence of the democratic process. The elitism is all on the side of a paternalistic press who would feign to know what's "right" or "best" for us.
It is just AMAZING to me how many of my (once?) fellows go along with this contrived shtick. I am embarrassed to be an American, for the first time in my life.
You are spot-on re. Russia ("Somehow, they criticize him for this at the same time as they criticize him for calling for a greater peace with Russia, which seems like the opposite of hawkishness to my obviously unenlightened eye.") It makes no sense. Russia is a legitimate world power -- what is the sense in this constant agitation against them?
Anthony,
What is this "white nationalism"? I am far from any orthodoxy. If you read my words, you will see that.
Too much time on the Dark Continent . . . (?)
Lisa, Here are a couple of the virtuous media accusers of Trump. Allegedly, One from the left and one from the right. I don't know which one makes me want to vomit more...well I do, the homo, but that's because I'm hetro, but, really....
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/trump-media-bashing-objectifying-women-truth-megyn-kelly-anderson-cooper/
avedis
Well, I will say one thing for your campaign against reason, avedis: this is the first time in my life I've heard French fries called elitist.
When political movements start saying truth and logic and morality are obsolete, I get suspicious. Call me conservative for that, if you want, but historically, it rarely ends well. How do you suppose this will translate into actual government? I'll grant you it's evidently going great as reality show-style entertainment, but at some point, reality intervenes, and then you're left, as I said, with yet another corrupt, dishonest elite in the White House, because at the end of the day, that's all he has ever been.
I'll take that charge of hypocrisy head-on. No, I've never said what Trump said to a stranger on a bus, although also I've never been either rich or a celebrity. Nor does it seem to be relevant to anything in particular. If chasing after women didn't disqualify you from the presidency in the 1990s, then I suppose it doesn't today, either. But there I go using that pesky obsolete logic again!
If you're a feminist who's concerned about having a leader who respects gender equality, then I would imagine that you might have a different feeling about Trump's suitability for president after hearing that recording. Although to be frank, I doubt there were many feminists who were voting for Trump to begin with. Still, it's good fodder to post to your Facebook/Twitter page so that you and your like-minded friends can remind each other how smart you are, I suppose.
Lisa - the self-serving smugness is the part that gets me.
There was a point in this last couple years where it was at least plausible that Sanders could have won the Democratic nomination, and a more mainstream candidate the Republican nomination.
I doubt Sanders would fare as well as Trump, but the point is, in that scenario it would be the leftists howling about the vast media conspiracy against their darling candidate instead of congratulating themselves for striking a blown against Trump-Hitler, and then the media would be lining up behind the Republican candidate and warning us about the dangers of communism or some such. Columnists are as predictable as moths sometimes.
The really tragic thing about all this is that Trump's campaign has proved there are plenty of people on the left and the right who agree on some of the basic problems of political economy affecting the world, but who can't agree to do anything about it because partisan politics and trivialities are sucking up all the oxygen.
David, Guess I'm not expressing myself well. I said French fries were a product of the mind's ability to reason.
We've had corrupt dishonest elitists in the WH for a long time. Trump is just making that clear, He's being honest about it. At least he appears to be a voice of The People. To argue against him on moral ground is ridiculous; or blind.
avedis
avedis,
Both talking heads are highly unsavory and holier-than thou, so I couldn't stomach it.
David,
Yes -- it is the smugness which bites.
Your last graph spells out the sadness of this thing:
Trump's campaign has proved there are plenty of people on the left and the right who agree on some of the basic problems of political economy affecting the world ...
That Trump is wealthy should not be an issue; anyone who runs for President in the U.S. today must have wealth. (Clinton is very wealthy.) He is ostentatious, however, and that is a great sin in a Puritanical country, such as it is.
Bunch of hypocrites, all.
Post a Comment
<< Home