Tag Archives: Donald Trump

The Fat Lady Has a Sore Throat, by James Howard Kunstler

Once America gets past the election and all the scandal, it still has a dysfunctional financial system and an unsustainable way of life based on cheap oil to address…or ignore until it can do so for no longer. From James Howard Kunstler at kunstler.com:

A mighty nausea wells up across the land as the awful day cometh. Who will receive the black spot of fate on Tuesday? I wouldn’t want to be him or her on that dreadful day. The flagship of Modernity has lost its vaunted mojo and nobody knows what to do about it as the USS-USA pitches and yaws into the maelstrom.

Much opinion “out there” contends that we will have to suffer an election overtime, with the results contested on every hill and molehill from sea to shining sea. That scenario suggests various outcomes, all of them pretty bad: 1) the election is once again relegated to a Supreme Court case, only this time it ends up a 4-4 tie. Constitutional crisis time. 2) Perhaps as a function of No. 1, it ends up in the US House of Representatives. The catch is: members aren’t limited to Trump or HRC. They can vote for whoever they like. 3) A lot of web chatter has President Obama invoking some sort of emergency with the election postponed until some conclave of political viziers can figure a way out of it. Unlikely, but possible.

FBI Director James Comey’s eleventh hour reprieve of Hillary in the email server case sent an odor of rotting carp wafting across the political landscape. Like, his peeps actually vetted 650,000 emails in a week? I’m sure. Of course, the FBI does not issue indictments; that’s AG Loretta Lynch’s job over at the Department of Justice. The FBI only makes criminal referrals to such. But this puts too fine a point on the matter because the much more serious issue is the Clinton Foundation case, and the arrant sale of influence while HRC ran the State Department.

That currently overshadowed case is not closed. It sends up the odor not of a single rotting carp but of an entire whale pod dead on the beach. Half the emirs in Arabia dropped millions on the foundation to facilitate arms deals or to influence policy at State, and that was only part of what looks exactly like a classic racketeering operation. The Clinton Foundation story is not going away anytime soon and it will suck all the air out of the public arena for as far ahead as anyone can see when Hillary is in the oval office.

All of that obscures the gathering calamity in banking and finance that drives the waiting, whirling maelstrom. Thanks to eight years of central bank experiments, the engines of capital are hopelessly gunked up with political additives like QE and ZIRP™. Nothing is priced correctly, especially money. It’s all kept running on an ether of accounting fraud. We can’t come to grips with the resource realities behind the fraud, especially the end of cheap oil. And the bottom line is the already-manifest slowdown of global business. The poobahs of banking pretend to be confounded by all this because everything — their reputations, their jobs, their fortunes — depends on the Potemkin narrative that ever-greater economic expansion lies just around the corner.

To continue reading: The Fat Lady Has a Sore Throat

Bringing Down the Globalist Monster, by Justin Raimondo

It is a monstrous philosophical and empirical error to think that ever larger collectives and governments do anything but reduce the human race’s chances for survival. The non-powers that be are catching on; the powers that be are still smitten with ever larger and more intrusive governments. From Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com:

The main issue in the world today is globalism versus national sovereignty, and it is playing out in the politics of countries on every continent.

In the United States, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump’s critique of globalism – encapsulated in his campaign theme of “America First” – has galvanized a mass movement opposed to the internationalism of the regnant elites, their transnational allegiances and their foreign wars.

In Britain, the opposition to the European Union culminated in a referendum which – against all odds, and against all the Powers That Be – repudiated the EU in a stunning blow to the political class.

As the refugees from globalist wars in the Middle East stream into Europe, Hungary’s nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orban declares war on the “fanatical internationalism” of the European Union – and is denounced as a “fascist” by those he calls “today’s enemies of freedom.” These new authoritarians, he avers, “are cut from a different cloth than the royal and imperial rulers of old, or those who ran the Soviet system.” Sounding like Trump, Orban sets his sights on the enemy:

“They use a different set of tools to force us into submission. Today they do not imprison us, they do not transport us to concentration camps, and they do not send in tanks to occupy countries loyal to freedom. Today the international media’s artillery bombardments, denunciations, threats and blackmail are enough – or rather, have been enough so far.”

To be sure, nationalism has often been the instrument of authoritarians, and warmongers, but what we are seeing today is a reaction to an aggressive anti-democratic internationalism that doesn’t care about the consent of the governed. That’s why a British court has effectively overturned the results of the Brexit vote – in a lawsuit brought by a hedge fund manager and former model – and thrown the fate of the country into the hands of pro-EU Tories, and their Labor and Liberal Democrat collaborators.

This stunning reversal was baked in to the legislation that enabled the referendum to begin with, and is par for the course as far as EU referenda are concerned: in 1992, Danish voters rejected the EU, only to have the Euro-crats demand a rematch with a “modified” EU treaty which won narrowly. There have been repeated attempts to modify the modifications, which have all failed. Ireland voted against both the Lisbon Treaty and the Nice Treaty, only to have the issue brought up again until the “right” result was achieved.

“Remainers” accuse Brexiters of being economic “isolationists,” and yet there is nothing to prevent the free flow of trade between a sovereign Britain and the continent except the trade-bloc mentality of the EU. The globalist agenda makes use of “free trade” propaganda, but in reality their trade policies amount to managed trade: real free trade doesn’t require thousand-page treaties. The result of such treaties has been the creation of trade blocs, i.e. a form of regional protectionism married to outright imperialism. Take the cases of Japan and South Korea: in exchange for allowing the de facto military occupation of their respective counties, both US satellites are given a free pass for their goods to cross our borders unimpeded. So in exchange for the “benefit” of having our industrial core hollowed out by cheap overseas products, we are required to not only pay billions for the defense of these countries, but also must risk the prospect of having to go to war to fulfill our “obligations.”

To continue reading: Bringing Down the Globalist Monster

 

This Election Has Disgraced the Entire Profession of Journalism, by Ken Silverstein

Journalism has not just disgraced itself this election, the mainstream branch has destroyed itself. From Ken Silverstein at observer.com:

We still don’t know the outcome of the 2016 election, in which our “democratic process” has produced two candidates widely despised by the American people, but we do know the race’s biggest loser: reporters and the profession of journalism, which has been reduced to surrogacy, largely on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

Before going further, let me state that my own politics are on the left but I won’t be voting in this election. Both parties have collaborated to rig the system so that’s it’s virtually impossible for an independent candidate to compete given the financial and institutional hurdles that have been put in place to block such a possibility. We live in an oligarchy where democracy is virtually meaningless; I’m not debasing myself by participating in this charade.

Several studies rank electoral integrity in the United States as the worst among Western democracies — for example, the one discussed here — and this year’s campaign has made the United States an international embarrassment. I’ve personally witnessed elections in Africa and Latin America that had more legitimacy than the charade that will culminate here next Tuesday. The idea of the United States lecturing foreign countries about holding fair elections has long been dubious and is now grotesque.

We have two unbelievably shitty candidates, neither of whom is fit to lead the country. Donald Trump is a reckless narcissist who, as his debate performances indicated, cannot string together more than two sentences, let alone articulate a coherent vision for the country’s future. His remarks about women, Latinos and African-Americans are reprehensible and, whether he believes his own statements or is merely trying to stir up anger for his electoral benefit, have emboldened people who hold retrograde and genuinely scary views.

Then there is Hillary Clinton, who has been in public life for decades and who grows more and more unpopular upon exposure —and for good reason. Whatever one thinks of the so-called “Servergate” scandal —and I personally find it troubling that she put classified information on a private server that was almost certainly obtained by foreign intelligence services — she stonewalled and lied to the FBI during its investigation, which has now been reopened. She and her family run a foundation that aggressively solicited donations from corporations, wealthy individuals and foreign governments that have interests before the government, and in some cases Clinton, as secretary of state, took actions that can only be seen as quid pro quo for big donors. These facts alone should disqualify her from political life and make her the legitimate target of criminal investigations.

After the FBI reopened its investigation, John Kass, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune, cogently wrote in an opinion piece titled “Democrats should ask Clinton to step aside”:

Think of a nation suffering a bad economy and continuing chaos in the Middle East, and now also facing a criminal investigation of a president. Add to that congressional investigations and a public vision of Clinton as a Nixonian figure wandering the halls, wringing her hands. The best thing would be for Democrats to ask her to step down now. It would be the most responsible thing to do, if the nation were more important to them than power. And the American news media — fairly or not firmly identified in the public mind as Mrs. Clinton’s political action committee — should begin demanding it.

To continue reading: This Election Has Disgraced the Entire Profession of Journalism

She Said That? 11/7/16

From Brigitte Gabriel, for those who still think Hillary Clinton is the pro-woman candidate:

 

I Don’t Want a Government Job, by Scott Adams

Scott Adams thinks the 75 percent or so of his earnings that are going to end up in government hands makes him a government employee. Actually it makes him a government slave. From Adams on a guest post at theburningplatform.com:

My current tax rate is about half of my income when you add up all of the various taxes. I don’t have many deductions. Clinton proposes an estate tax that would take about half of what is left. In effect, Clinton wants my tax rate to be around 75% for every dollar I earn today.

That level of taxation would make me feel like a government employee. The vast majority of my time and energy would go toward making money that politicians would decide how to spend. That doesn’t feel like a rewarding life. If Clinton wins, I would think hard about retiring early and becoming a user of resources instead of a creator of resources. Because I don’t want a government job.

A Trump presidency, on the the other hand, makes me want to do something useful for the country that is good for me too. That’s a big part of why I have been blogging about Trump’s persuasion skills. I want voters to have a clear view of their options. If voters choose Clinton, I can live with that for six months until Kaine takes over. But I wouldn’t feel good about myself if I didn’t at least try to help people see the Trump option for what it is – an opportunity to “drain the swamp” as he says.

By the way, Clinton supporters can stop telling me about Trump’s flaws. I am aware of them. Both of the leading candidates are flawed. You don’t get to pick the unflawed option. But you do get to pick more of the same versus something probably different. That’s a rich choice, and we should be grateful to both candidates for what they have done to give us that choice.

Ironically, we have the two “worst” candidates of all time, according to their favorability ratings. But those two worst candidates have given us two of the best (clearest) choices we have ever had as a country. Thomas Jefferson and the other founders did a good job. Their system allowed us to do just about everything wrong and still end up with two clear choices that make perfect sense.

Sure, both candidates are flawed, but both have the capability to deliver on their main propositions. Clinton probably can give you a third term of Obama(ish) and Trump probably can drain at least some of the swamp. If you step back from the negativity of the election for a moment, you can be grateful that our Republic served up these two options. That’s how it is supposed to work.

On election day, should Trump win as I predict, I ask for Trump supporters to stay cool when the predictable riots erupt. And keep in mind that if you vote for Trump, you own it. If you aren’t helping him get it right after he wins, you haven’t done enough. Trump is a group-participation president by design. He is directly asking for voters’ help in “draining the swamp.” In the short run, the best way to help Trump is by avoiding trouble on election day and by reassuring Clinton voters that you have always been on their side as Americans. Then act that way.

The fight ends Tuesday. After that, let’s try to be useful. No matter what happens.

http://www.theburningplatform.com/2016/11/06/i-dont-want-a-government-job/

Much More Than Trump (Repost), by Robert Gore

 

This article was first published on SLL March 3. It received more comments than almost any article SLL has posted. Two days before the election, a repost is appropriate.

It started in Vietnam. The men who chose to fight for America on Vietnam’s front lines did so for honorable reasons. While there was no immediate threat to the US, some were concerned about falling dominoes and the march of communism. Some were animated by an idealistic desire to secure democracy and liberty in a land that had never known those blessings. Some went believing that if the leaders of the country said this war was in America’s best interests, it must be so. For those who were drafted, they did, perhaps reluctantly, what they perceived to be their duty.

Whatever their motivations, those who fought found their idealism shattered. Many of the South Vietnamese they thought they were fighting “for” despised the US as the latest in a succession of imperial powers using a corrupt, puppet government as the cat’s paw for its domination. Short of total immolation of both friend and foe—it was often impossible to differentiate the two—there was no effective strategy against guerrilla warfare waged by the enemy fighting on its home turf. The Viet Cong proved as difficult to vanquish as hordes of ants and mosquitos at a picnic. The victory the generals and politicians insisted was just another few months and troop deployments down the road never came, and the soldiers knew it never would, long before reality was acknowledged and the troops brought home.

Brutal disillusionment gave way to abject disgust when they returned stateside. They cynically, but understandably, concluded that the antiwar protests had more to do with fear of the draft (there were no major protests after Nixon ended it), and readily available sex and drugs than heartfelt opposition to the war. That conclusion was buttressed by their reception from the antiwar crowd. If they were expecting support and understanding, they didn’t get it. The US victims of the war, those who fought it—the wounded, the physically and psychologically maimed, the dead—were branded as subhuman thugs and baby killers. It was the first time in the history of the US that a substantial swath of the population turned on those who had fought its wars. Those who fought regarded (or, in the case of the dead, would have regarded) those doing the branding as preening, posturing, spoiled children. A subterranean fault line split into a gaping fissure, since widened to a yawning chasm.

The idea that the elite—by dint of their education, intelligence, rarified social circle, and moral sensibility— should rule had reached full florescence during the New Deal, when FDR and his so-called brain trust promised change that most Americans could believe in. Although the elite failed, prolonging the Great Depression, it seemingly redeemed itself directing World War II, leaving the US at an unprecedented pinnacle of global power. Forgetting the failures of the Depression and basking in the hubristic glow, a bipartisan coterie from Washington, Wall Street, industry, the military, and the Ivy League set out to order the world according to their dictates. The US would lead a confederated empire opposing the Soviet alliance. The epochal nature of the struggle justified, in their minds, whatever means were necessary to wage it, including propaganda, espionage, subversion, regime change, and war.

While the Kennedy assassination offered the American public a glimpse into the heart of darkness, only a few independent-minded skeptics challenged the Warren Commission whitewash. Vietnam was different; hundreds of thousands returned knowing not just that the so-called best and brightest couldn’t win the war, but that for years they had lied to the American public. In the following decades, it had to have been especially galling for the Vietnam veterans that the hippies, draft-deferred campus protesters, the “fortunate sons” (google Credence Clearwater Revival) whose numbers never came up, and the mockers of the values they held dear ended up among the elite. The Clintons, of course, became the prime example.

Disaffected veterans were the core of a group that would grow to millions, their “faith” in government and the people who ran it obliterated by its repeated failures and lies. Revolutions dawn when an appreciable number of the ruled realize their rulers are intellectual and moral inferiors. The mainstream media is filled with vituperative, patronizing, and insulting explanations of what’s “behind” the Trump phenomenon. It all boils down to revulsion with the self-anointed, incompetent, pretentious, hypocritical, corrupt, prevaricating elite that presumes to rule this country. It is, in a word, inferior to the populace on the other side of the yawning chasm, the ones they have patronized and insulted for decades, and the other side knows it.

Peggy Noonan is one of the few mainstream writers who has tried to understand, rather than insult or condemn, the Trump phenomenon. In a widely cited article, she ascribed it to the split between the “protected,” those who run the government and its allied institutions, and the “unprotected,” the government’s and its allies’ victims (“Trump and the Rise of the Unprotected,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/25/16). It was a nice try, but Ms. Noonan is attempting to straddle a chasm that cannot be straddled. She writes for the Journal, an establishment organ, some of whose writers have been either so clueless or disingenuous that they have denied the existence of an establishment. And ultimately, the protected-unprotected differentiation doesn’t fly.

Most Trump supporters don’t want the government to do something for them; they want the government to quit doing things to them. They viscerally revile the elite—it’s personal—and they want no part of that class or its government. They know how to take care of themselves, and many know the government hurts the most those whom it ostensibly protects.

Elite sons and daughters have not been in the ranks of front line military that have fought the elite’s disastrous wars. The top and bottom of the service economy swell—lobbyists, political operatives, debt merchants, Internet wizards, lawyers, bureaucrats, waiters, bartenders, nurses, orderlies, sales clerks—while what used to be the heart of the economy—manufacturing—shrinks. The bailouts from the last financial crisis went to Wall Street, not the homeowners with underwater mortgages facing foreclosure. Whose pockets were picked to fund those bailouts? And whose pockets were picked to pay the higher insurance premiums necessary to fund the Obamacare disaster?

It doesn’t take an Ivy League degree to know that the national debt, $19 trillion and counting, is a big, scary number, and that the unfunded Social Security and medical care liabilities coming due are even bigger, scarier numbers. It does, apparently, take an Ivy League degree to believe that more debt is the answer to our economic problems, or that microscopic or negative interest rates will do anything but fund carry-trade speculators and screw those trying to fund their own postponed retirements, or that the limping economy since the financial crisis has “recovered.” Idiotic blather fills the elite, mainstream media, while much truth is suppressed and debate stifled in the name of political correctness.

Not much has changed since Vietnam. The decent besieged are taking fire from all sides, valiantly fighting their way through it, while preening, posturing, spoiled idiots congratulate themselves for running a once great country into the ground. It is a mark of the decent besieged’s decency that they are turning to the ballot box, the politically correct way to change a democratic government. The idiot class should be grateful for their forbearance. Instead, it resorts to means fair and foul to subvert them and maintain its power. Whether Trump does or does not make it all the way to the White House, the wave he’s riding will only grow stronger, tsunami-strength when the economy collapses and the world descends into war. If the idiot class and its rabble subvert him, a quote from John F. Kennedy, recently featured on SLL, will surely come back to haunt them.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

ANOTHER KIND OF REVOLUTION,

ANOTHER KIND OF NOVEL 

TGP_photo 2 FB

AMAZON

KINDLE

NOOK

Trump the Closer, by Scott Adams

It’s a toss-up which is better: Trump’s advertisement or Scott Adam’s analysis of it. From Trump and Adams at theburningplatform.com:

I had been wondering if Trump was planning some sort of special closing argument. He did not disappoint. In my opinion, his final ad is the political ad of the year, if not the best ever.

Here’s what makes this ad so special:

1. Trump delivers his lines perfectly, like an experienced actor. We haven’t heard him like this before. You probably didn’t think he had this in him. He stays calm and assured, but not cocky. That is an effective counter-framing to Clinton’s framing of Trump as an unpredictable madman. Here Trump comes off as perfectly reasonable and deeply empathetic.

2. The timing is perfect. This race went so low that even the trolls were starting to gasp for oxygen. Trump made us wait for relief – Hollywood style. He made us crave civility and sanity. And just when we thought it was out of reach, he goes ultra-positive.

But here’s the best part. Clinton has no good options to counter this message. If she stays dark, Trump finishes as the inspirational one. If she tries to match his positive message, she has little chance of doing it this well.

3. While Obama is out talking about his legacy, and Clinton is out talking about making history as the first woman president, Trump (the narcissist) asks for the American people’s help in draining the swamp and making America great again. That’s one heckuva contrast to end on.

4. The writing for Trump’s speech is great. The editing is great. The production is great. The visual artistry is fantastic. This one will be studied for a long time, not only for its persuasion excellence and production values but also for its strategic timing.

5. Trump’s strongest message at this point is that Clinton is corrupt in a variety of hard-to-explain ways. People don’t need to understand the details. They just have to hear the message enough. This video uses visual persuasion perfectly to portray the halls of power and corruption versus the people united. The color red is exceptionally well-used. It activates us.

You just witnessed something special.

http://www.theburningplatform.com/2016/11/05/secret-world-of-us-election-julian-assange-talks-to-john-pilger-full-interview/

Elections Are Also About Issues, by Robert Gore

There would be a certain justice if Hillary Clinton won the election. In its unprincipled arrogance and lust for domination, the kleptocratic class to which she has ascended, and which so fulsomely supports her candidacy, has erected an unsustainable, teetering edifice. Built as it is on an inherently flawed foundation—belief in US government omnipotence—the structure must fall. Nothing would be more fitting than its collapse during her prospective tenure as president, which would expose not just her felonious personality and policies, but the criminality of her class.

That possibility has led some commentators, notably Brandon Smith at alt-market.com, to conclude that the fix is in and Trump will win the election. Trump and his supporters, who have virtually no responsibility for the parlous state of the world and who have in many cases resisted, to the best of their abilities, those who are responsible, will be the scapegoats for the impending collapse. Opposition to kleptocracy discredited and the masses crying out for someone to do something (always interpreted as a clarion call for more government), the malevolent cabal and its supranational organizations will attempt to assume control of the planet.

PRIME DECEIT

prime-deceit-final-cover

COMING SOON

Trump may well win, but the risks are enormous. Teetering edifices eventually fall. It would be more surprising than not if this one stood for the next four years. Effecting collapse is probably well within the power of the cabal. If central banks take their thumbs off the interest rate scales and allow their balance sheets to shrink, pop goes history’s greatest financial bubble. Nominal heads of the world’s governments will be blamed unfairly for that bubble—blown over decades—and for failures stemming from centuries of philosophical muddle. Fairness will be the last thing on the minds of those blaming Trump.

Enormous as the risks of scapegoating are for Trump, they are outweighed by the risks of a Clinton victory. The dangers of Clinton’s hawkish record and views have been extensively reviewed (see “The Most Dangerous Candidate,” SLL), but several considerations bear repeating.

She has been a full-throated supporter of US interventionism and cannot escape blame for the Libya, Syria, and Ukraine fiascos. More importantly, the US-Russian relationship deteriorated dangerously during her tenure. Fomenting rebellion and making an issue of Russian doorstep Ukraine, labelling Vladimir Putin a “Hitler,” proposing a no-fly zone in Syria, which would put the US in direct combat with Russia, and blaming Russia for email disclosures without a shred of proof are rank idiocies. Trump’s willingness to engage and negotiate with the leader of the second most militarily powerful nation is rational; Clinton’s adversarial posture is not. Nuclear war being the ultimate downside of that posture, the difference is sufficient reason to vote for Trump.

Not to be overlooked, however, are the other substantial reasons. The Clintons have defenestrated impartial justice and the rule of law. FBI Director Comey’s decision to recommend against prosecuting Hillary for her emails was the latest in a long line of scandals whereby Clintons are granted a more lenient legal standard than everyone else. Reopening the investigation had to have been in part motivated by recognition that his concession to Hillary was indefensible. It had subjected him and the FBI to an unprecedented barrage of justified criticism, and the newly discovered emails give him a do-over.

In a Trump presidency, that might serve as the first step back to impartial justice and the rule of law. During the second debate, he vowed to appoint a special prosecutor. Who knows where a vigorous investigation of Hillary Clinton might lead? There is never just one cockroach, and nobody can predict which cockroaches skedaddle upon exposure or give up their fellow vermin to avoid prosecution and jail. The powers that be can accommodate themselves to a superficial squirt of pesticide, but if Trump attacks the infestation no holds barred, it could upend a very comfortable status quo. Nothing would be better for America and its government. Beneficiaries of the present corruption will fight Trump with everything they’ve got.

Trump appears to be less beholden to the existing power structure than any major party presidential candidate in the last fifty years. He has his own money and has been refreshingly fearless in his public utterances. One can make fun of some of those utterances, but even without the threat of investigations, a man who can’t be bought and says what he thinks may be a man capable of resisting Washington’s army of interest groups, lobbyists, contractors, and captive media. No surprise that he’s received almost no support from them.

Filling the open Supreme Court vacancy is more momentous than usual because of the current ideological cleft in the court. There may be more than one vacancy. The next appointees will hold the deciding votes on a variety of key issues, including the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Justin Antonin Scalia’s caustic dissent in the King v. Burwell Obamacare case ensures his place in the pantheon of great justices. Trump admires Scalia and has promised to pick jurists in that mold.

Importantly, Trump appears to believe, with Scalia, that words, especially the words found in the Constitution, mean what they say. The Constitution is not a perfect document, but it specifies its own amendment process. That process does not involve judges inventing new rights. Nor does it involve judicially disregarding the clearly specified rights of the people and the constraints put on government. (The only good thing that can be said about the idiocy known as the income tax is that the people inflicted it on themselves via the amendment process.)

The latest round of Obamacare premium increases are upon us. Fulfilling a campaign pledge and repealing that odious legislation will have a place on Trump’s to do list. So too will immigration reform, and not the “reform” that is Washington-speak for virtually open borders, amnesty, non-assimilation, and a Democratic registration drive. Trump has mortified the elite, insisting that the US has a right to control its own borders, who gains admittance to it, and on what terms. They were dismissive until Trump defeated their Washington-speak candidates. Supporters grasped easy truths that the elite had sought to make politically unmentionable: the welfare state and open borders are incompatible; hand-out and criminal immigrants adversely affect America’s quality of life. Throw in the Muslim tide washing over Europe and many Americans are quite receptive to either rolling up the Welcome mat or putting it out much more selectively.

Trump can be an offensive, loudmouth blowhard, but he is not stupid. Much of the wailing about the candidates’ deficiencies and the “circus” election casts offensive, loudmouth, and blowhard as equivalent to incompetent and criminal. Whom does such equivalence benefit? Trump’s policies and personality offer Americans an opportunity to challenge the status quo. Many Trump supporters are animated by the middle-finger desire, but Trump would have been long forgotten political roadkill if he didn’t offer a clear-cut departure from the “way things are” and the powers that be.

YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’VE LOST

IF YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU HAD

TGP_photo 2 FB

AMAZON

KINDLE

NOOK

The Office of the President of the United States, by Raúl Ilargi Meijer

A Hillary Clinton presidency would drag that office so far into the muck that restoration would probably be impossible. From Raúl Ilargi Meijer an antiwar.com:

Amidst the epic flood of political statements and media commentary that keeps on rolling in and on, there’s something that doesn’t seem to occur to most people, and it should. That is, the unfortunate but apparently inevitable discussion about all the unfortunate and/or illegal things that either candidate may or may not have done, must be seen in the light of the capacity in which -perceived- errors or even crimes are committed. It is essential to this issue.

What far too many people are far too eager to ignore is that everything Donald Trump may have done that may have been illegal or on the edge, he did as a private person, and most of what Hillary Clinton has done in that same category was as a representative of the American government and hence the American people. The demands and standards when it comes to behavior are much higher for people in representative government positions than they are for private citizens, and they are so for good reason.

One may try and argue that this is not fair, but that’s a moot argument. One may also argue that everyday news strongly suggests that Washington is the very place where moral standards seem to count least, but that is also moot. What others do today, or have done in the past, can never be an excuse for eroding the standards to which government officials should be held. If anything, it should be reason to hold all of them to higher standards going forward.

This is the only way The Office of the President of the United States, and the US political system as a whole, can be expected to retain, or regain, the respect it badly needs to command, both domestically and on the international front. It is for this very reason that on the political scene, actors need to “do the right thing”, or “draw the consequences”, when the situation so demands. Respect for the office must always come before personal gain, or the whole edifice will crumble.

This also means that a president and his secretaries have much less room to move on their public statements on issues than ‘civilians’ do. And in that regard President Obama, though he seemed to be doing well, is now moving onto dangerous ground. On Monday, Obama seemed to back FBI director Jim Comey, or at least he refused to join his party in attacking Comey.

Note that the president can’t do anything even remotely perceived as attacking the head of the FBI. Not in public. And that would be true even if Comey were not his own appointment. The NY Post wrote:

While top Democrats are attacking James Comey, President Obama’s spokesman on Monday described the FBI director as a man of “integrity” and “good character” and said he is not trying to tilt the election. “I’ll neither defend nor criticize Director Comey,” said White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest. “The president doesn’t believe that Director Comey is intentionally trying to influence the outcome of an election. He doesn’t believe he’s secretly strategizing to benefit one candidate or one political party. He is in a tough spot.”

To continue reading: The Office of the President of the United States

 

The Persuasion Scorecard Update – One Week Out, by Scott Adams

Dilbert creator Scott Adams thinks Hillary Clinton’s focus in this last week of the election on Trump’s views on women is a mistake, big time. From Adams on a guest post at theburningplatform.com:

As I have taught you over the past year, the strongest form of persuasion involves fear. And the stronger the fear, the better the persuasion. For example, in the primaries, the biggest physical-fear story on the Republican side was terrorism and immigration risks, and that favored Trump’s bad-ass messaging. Result: Trump got the nomination.

For Democrats the biggest fear was that Trump might become president. That favored Clinton over Sanders in the primaries because it was believed she had the best chance against Trump in the general election.

Once the contest became Trump versus Clinton, Trump had the early fear advantage because Clinton was talking about her policies and experiences while Trump was talking about rapists, terrorists, and ISIS drowning people in cages. If that matchup had stayed the same, Trump would have coasted to victory. We saw him briefly pull ahead earlier in the summer.

Then Clinton went “full fear” in her messaging, cleverly framing Trump himself as the biggest risk to humanity. While Trump was scaring the public about crimes and atrocities that might affect some of us, Clinton was talking about Trump’s “temperament” leading to nuclear war, and his “dog whistles” leading to a new American racism. That would affect all of us. You can’t top that kind of fear message. And so we saw Clinton’s poll number zoom ahead of Trump’s later in the summer.

Then came the Wikileaks. And Project Veritas. And the FBI’s latest announcement about the emails on Weiner’s computer. We watched Clinton physically collapse in public. Individually, none of that news was big enough to make a difference. But collectively it framed Clinton as a drinker in dubious health, who hired bullies to start violence at Trump rallies, and runs a Mafia-like shadow-government called The Clinton Foundation, funded in part by companies that benefit from war. Add that to Clinton’s confrontational language about Russia, and suddenly Clinton looks as dangerous as Trump. The fear persuasion was approaching a tie.

Then the Access Hollywood tape dropped. Our brains forgot about fear for awhile and concentrated on the appalling things Trump said and – according to several women – actually did. Voters abandoned Trump and put his poll numbers in a big hole.

But here’s the catch. You might be disgusted by Trump’s interactions with women. You might think he is a terrible role model. You might think it is an insult to the women you know and love to even consider such a person for President of the United States. You might think a dozen different bad things about Trump. But – and here is the important part – you probably are not afraid he will try to kiss you personally, or grab your p*ssy. And given his busy schedule, there is not much chance he will get around to acting inappropriate with anyone you know. Fear-wise, Trump’s interactions with women don’t have much impact on you as an individual. Your brain took a vacation from “Trump has a bad temperament and might destroy the Earth” to “Trump is a p*ssy-grabber.” The new frame is the less scary version of Trump, albeit icky.

To continue reading: The Persuasion Scorecard Update – One Week Out