Life is much better with a variety of opinions. Juggernaut, my young friend, certainly has a great man well thought out opinions. Since I have been a bit away as of lately (a number of meat-space issues have kept me away for much too long), he has offered to share with us his opinions on the recent US election of God Emperor Trump, Kek be praised!
How I Learned to Love the Donald
I’m not inherently a liberal or a conservative. I look at things objectively and look at evidence before making conclusions. On this subject, many people like using data to support their own preconcieved conclusion. I guess Im not good on the theatrics of politics.
Clinton is the ugly status quo we all hate and Trump is an alternative offering some improvements coupled with lots of troubling positions too. Johnson was the lesser evil.
I was wrong.
Most thought Clinton would win, especially the left leaning media of course. In my projection, I predicted 46 out of 50 states correctly: more accurate than most pundits.
I was wrong on Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Florida was a tossup and most didn’t think he would win the other 3 states. Three weeks ago, even his own supporters believed winning via Nevada, Colorado and New Hampshire was more feasible.
Even him and his own supporters were prematurely calling it rigged. He won all 4 of those states by a margin of ~2%.
My error was in assuming the rust belt was out of his reach because both Democrats and Republicans were blindly partisan. I was half right. Many Democrats only vote for charismatic candidates like Obama and the rust belt only leaned slightly blue to begin with.
Before the election, I had lamented the fact that only 15 states matter electorally while your vote doesn’t really matter in the other 35 states. But in this election we saw 3 solid blue states turn red. Millions of forgotten invisible rust belt workers have had their say, and that’s great. It’s what the EC was built for. Really, there’s no perfect system. Popular vote gives less populous regions a disadvantage, and EC gives an advantage to swing states. No easy answers here.
Why Clinton lost.
I could name a number of bad decisions she made in her campaign:
She attacked Donald but never made a strong case for herself
“America is already great” = complacency.
Starting a weird anti-Russia obsession to court hawkish Republicans
Campaigning in solid-red states like Arizona
Ignoring Wisconsin and Michigan, taking them for granted.
Picking Kaine as a running mate (he added nothing to the ticket)
Plus, lots of other baggage: scandals, Iraq, etc.
Why Donald won.
In the primaries, it was simple. He had 17 opponents, and that meant he was able to win even if 60% of the party didn’t like him. He didn’t have to debate any single candidate in depth, and in a crowded field, the loudest person gets the most attention. Republicans were tired of Bush’s RINO/neo-con policies. Also, they were tired of their polite establishment candidates like Romney and McCain losing.
Let’s make it simpler. Charisma always wins. McCain, Romney, Kerry, Dole, HW Bush, Mondale and Carter all fit in the same category. Intelligent and qualified, but boring and tone-deaf. Donald was by far the most charismatic. Opponents don’t want to admit it but he got endless coverage due to the fact that he was entertaining and knew how to trigger emotions.
I care about logic and the issues but most voters vote on emotion. Donald was by far superior in tapping into the emotions of the voters. People were angry and felt the establishment was a joke, and he provided that.
Trump supporters are not monolithic
Biased media outlets wanted to paint a monolith of his supporters largely being racist rednecks, but really it’s a more complicated picture.
If I were to construct a pie-chart of his supporters, it would look something like this:
10% – racist / xenophobic
10% – isolationists / protectionist / rust-belt
20% – fiscal conservatives
20% – people who view Clinton as a greater evil
20% – partisan Republicans
20% – people who are angry at the establishment
Much of this election result was due to Obama failure to communicate. He was great at the motivational speeches, but a laid off factory worker with an almost-empty refridgerator and a daughter wearing the same pair of shoes for 5 years isn’t as optimistic.
Obama exists in a professorial Harvard bubble with some Chicago sensibilites, but the same sobriety that gives him a good temperment has resulted in him being too afraid to express condemnation and frustration where appropriate. Donald is the anti-Obama. Obama is cautious, business-casual, overly politically correct, mild-mannered. Donald is brash, bold, loud, angry and blunt.
Trump is the establishment
Many of Trump’s supporters are echoing the same kind of naive optimism of Obama’s win in 2008. Obama was a stock Democrat, not much different than Kerry in policy, but he convinced people via marketing that he represented change despite having conventional policies.
Trump was a billionaire political donor, friend of the Clintons, to begin with. He already backpedaled on most of his hardlined positions last week.
In a way, he’s our first third paety president, but he appointed mostly establishments Republicans. From his perspective its brilliant. He can silence opposition. If you work for an administration, its harder to criticise it.
Trump is not revolutionary
The only thing thats revolution is his rhetoric. Its not unthinkable for America to elect Trump. Hes a demogogue and second world countries are full of Trumps.
Fiscally, Hes a liberal Republican who likes taxes low, spending high and debt high. On foreign policy, hes keeping most of the old guard in place. On immigration and trade, hes different, but he backpedaled on that.
Anti establishment doesn’t exist
There will always be an establishment. Anti establishmenr politicians only want to replace the current establishment with their own. Certain groups of people will be favored and certain groups will be left out, and it will always be that way.
97% of Congressional incumbents were re-elected, and Congress holds most of the government’s power.
Trump’s moral character is condemnable, his anti intellectual populism is repugnant, but his ability to defy the odds, defy big money interests, galvanize millions and be a leader in that regard is admirable. No matter how many asterisks we can place next to it, Trump is synonymous with success.
If his run, results in more people questioning our government and culture, it could be consequentially good. But most other discussion will be theatrics.
Democrats don’t get it
They’re going to nominate a more progressive and more moralistic Democrat in 2020, make more “you dont care about ____ people” argument, and theyll lose anyway.
Donald will be endlessly parodied on SNL, he will become America’s most endearing but oafish cartoon character. He’ll take the route of political convenience and offer purely cosmetic changes.
And americans will likely re elect him again in 2020 because he is a born leader.
—Notes from NorseRadish—
Or: How the Democratic Party Machine Elected Trump
Over eight years ago, few people were willing to accept my (seemingly counter-intuitive) insistence that the most vigorous campaigners for Obama’s 2008 election as this nation’s President were Bush 2.0 and John McCain.
From the outset of that year’s presidential election cycle, Bush’s abject failure to sense (much less avoid) conflicts of interest—which he was unable to identify, even when they bit him on the neck—thoroughly neutralized his projected “aw-shucks” image of a cowboy-hat-wearing, pork-rind-eating, broccoli-hating, down-to-earth Texan. None of this was helped by the dichotomy of a Yale graduate who persisted in making the sort of embarrassing linguistic gaffes one might normally associate with Professor William Archibald Spooner.
Equally catastrophic to that year’s Republican Party hopes were perceptions gathered by two or three generations of young voters, few of whom could either conceive of McCain’s truly admirable Vietnam Conflict-era sacrifices (e.g., intentionally declining early release from a Viet Cong prisoner-of-war camp), nor realize just how incredibly damaging it was for him to admit (in the face of an emailing, Blackberry-addict, Social Media fluent, glib-tongued huckster) his total lack of understanding about how email and the internet worked. McCain’s message may as well have been, “Elect your Grandpa!!!”
Faced with a smooth and tech-savvy Democratic Party nominee—whom many Liberals extolled as nothing less than the second-coming of Jimmy Hendrix—this disastrous combination of Bush 2.0’s radioactive political legacy and McCain’s high-tech ineptitude rendered both of them as nothing other than walking billboards for (what should otherwise have been) an otherwise intensely vulnerable and thoroughly unproven opponent.
Nevertheless, this totally inexperienced, anti-American, Black Liberation Theology dilettante of questionable birthright managed—despite being an actual mulatto—to play the Negro Race Card with all the finesse of a slum-dwelling, street corner, three-card-molly-playing con artist. Few, if any, ever even managed to twig on the fact that this supremely coddled, pretentious Ivy League wanker was summoning forth some of the most racist and discriminatory codicils of Jim Crow doctrine (i.e., the “One Drop” rule) in order to label himself as being authentically “Black”.
For the better part of a decade—not only did this consummate partisan charlatan bow before (and bare our nation’s collective neck to) its very worst ideological enemies—he also managed to erode the political and racial fabric of America in ways which will require, not just time, but a degree of labour-intensive reconciliation that will always be awkward for those who didn’t instigate the initial transgression.
Fast forward to November 2016:
Much like my counter-intuitive assessment of 2008’s campaign influences, this year’s election cycle saw President-elect, Donald Trump, propelled into office by none other than Barack Hussein 0bama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. The only significant difference being that it was candidate Hillary’s political legacy which glowed with gamma ray radioactivity, whilst 0bama merely exuded the sort of command-level incompetence normally associated with Gomer Pyle.
Below is a laundry list of the Democratic Party’s preposterous blunders—any one of which could have been fatal. When taken in combination, they assume almost unimaginably toxic proportions.
Nominating a deeply flawed candidate like Hillary
With more accumulated political baggage than Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon combined, the notion that gender bias (akin to the racial bias that helped carry 0bama to victory) would, somehow, sweep Hillary into the Oval Office amounted to fantasy-level statistical projection. Subsequent demographic analysis showed that Hillary received a meager one percent more votes than 0bama did from women voters. All of which goes to show that having a vagina is not a presidential qualification.
Institutionalized persecution of political dissenters
Using the Internal Revenue Service as part of enacting a partisan witch-hunt represents such an abuse of power that it could only sharpen all further election-year sensitivity to any other sort of foul play. Preexisting public mistrust (if not outright hatred) for the IRS only served to further heighten accompanying outrage and perception of wrongdoing. This tainted the White House in ways that only reduced its ability to sway public opinion in favor of an already unpopular Hillary.
Not once but TWICE derailing legitimate FBI investigations of an already favored candidate
Director James Comey could not possibly have ignored how preposterous it would appear to open a second investigation into Hillary Clinton right before Election Day and then—just as promptly—quash it, citing lack of evidence. This is especially so when a federal Judge balks at [a] five-year timeline for release of Clinton emails. U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg (nominated by 0bama) stated how he was “not satisfied with saying, ‘Fine, go ahead and take five years to do this,'”. Yet, magically, Comey’s investigators reviewed some 650,000 emails in just a few days’ time.
Through demonizing Conservatives the Democratic Party poisoned its own ability to gather accurate polling data
Whether it was demonizing Trump himself or lumping together his supporters in a “basket of deplorables”, Hillary and the Democratic Party both alienated many undecided voters—or Bernie Sanders fans—and infuriated America’s Republican base in ways that probably galvanized even reluctant Conservatives. As an aside, there were likely a large number of hesitant voters that were activated by the insane spectacle of “Never Trump” Republicans essentially propelling Hillary Clinton’s campaign numbers. However, far more damaging was how the media effectively forced people (afraid of censure) to avoid revealing their true voting intentions to pollsters. This allowed the press to “breathe its own exhaust” (less politely termed: “sucking its own butt”). All of which resulted in one of the most unexpected underdog wins since Truman and Dewey.
Externalizing Hillary’s popularity with Hollywood stars cost her own (already negligible) charisma
Videos like the uproarious, “Thank you Famous Actors“, were an expectable response to the smarmy and condescending tone so often encountered when our supposed (celebrity) betters sought to lecture us on how to make the right political decisions. Even Trump’s most pompous rantings imbued him with a human touch that went missing every time Hillary stepped in front of a microphone. Her wooden personality, nagging voice, and total lack of a life outside of politics suffused her with all the appeal of a proctology exam.
Anti-White mentality encouraged by present administration harmed both candidates
The constant torrent of anti-White message spewing forth from the White House and Justice department damaged the minority appeal of both candidates. However, Hillary’s blend of condescension and her soft bigotry of lowered expectations worked against her to an extent that Trump’s own flagrant missteps could not hope to surpass. This is revealed in Ezra Levant’s superb video about how, “Blacks, women, Hispanics voted for “racist, sexist” Trump“. Once again, 0bama was one of Trump’s most vigorous campaigners.
Clinton was unable to survive a descent into demonization (as in: too many of her own demons)
The storm of media-based demonizing that perpetually swirled around Trump probably allowed Hillary to delude herself with a sense of invulnerability. All by itself, her own arrogance certainly would have created such a psychological carapace. Be that as it may, a serious deficit in personal warmth and likeability slowly revealed Hillary as an imperious scold whose ability to attract popular sympathy rapidly declined into negative numbers. No amount of deliberate media-bias could conceal her obvious disdain for the common voter.
Concealment of health issues magnified an already damaging reputation for dishonesty
The above-mentioned deceit vis a vis her public and private personae, received even greater scrutiny once serious issues surfaced regarding Hillary’s personal health. There emerged a mottled aura of physical and mental ill-health that only served to highlight her already objectionable behavior. This was augmented by revelations from previous Secret Service details about Hillary’s profanity-laced, abusive treatment of staff in general.
A surfeit of questionable acts long prior to the presidential campaign
Be it Whitewater real estate deals, near-continuous issues of marital infidelity, the supposed “suicide” of Hillary-aid, Vince Foster“, the more recent Benghazi attack or her (totally illegal) private email servers, like used toilet paper stuck to her heel, allegations of (serious) impropriety trailed Hillary and Bill wherever they went. See: “From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer“. Far more shocking is the stack of corpses that have piled up around these two over the course of their political careers. See: “The Clinton Body Count” (scroll down to mid-page). Cohabiting with a serial killer appears to be less dangerous than befriending the Clintons.
Voluntary admission of differing public and private personae too at odds with Trump’s (however erratic) candor
The unsteadiness of Hillary’s already tottering reputation was exacerbated by revelations of her own duplicitous self-portrayal. From: “Hillary Admits Public Persona ‘Is Fake’ In Leaked Wall Street Speech”
“If everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least, … So, you need both a public and a private position.”
The valuable role that Wikileaks played in counterbalancing Hillary’s numerous and deliberate efforts to evade accountability (especially with respect to Freedom of Information Act requests) cannot be overstated. Julian Assange’s otherwise questionable breaches of America’s national security took on an aspect of heroic proportions that could only be made possible when contrasted with the Clinton crime family. For a last sampling of how extensive Bill and Hillary’s corruption continues to be, please read, “Clinton Foundation: Inurement“. From: The Inurement Prohibition & Non-Profit Organizations
Non-profit organizations are subject to what is known as the nondistribution constraint. Simply stated, this means that non-profit organizations cannot distribute profits to those who control it. The nondistribution constraint is the fundamental distinction between non-profit organizations from for-profit organizations.
In the Internal Revenue Code, the nondistribution constraint is embodied in the prohibition against inurement. “Inurement” is an arcane term for “benefit.” The inurement prohibition forbids the use of the income or assets of a tax-exempt organization to directly or indirectly unduly benefit an individual or other person that has a close relationship with the organization or is able to exercise significant control over the organization.
Regardless of whether or not you are a fan of Donald Trump, his victory represents one of America’s most narrow misses in terms of installing a well-developed criminal enterprise in this nation’s chief executive office.
The final question has been answered and now can be met with a sense of relief. A Juan Williams asked, “Indicted as president … impeached as president?” Regardless of personal admiration or animosity towards Trump, that we have no need to ask such a deeply disturbing question is something which America, as a nation, can only be immensely thankful for.
Oh, this brings back so many flashbacks!!!
Including using ‘wheat paste’ – a type of ‘glue’ (if you can call it that) that is made up from mixing wheat flour with water.
As kids behind the iron curtain, this was the ‘go to’ home-made recipe for glue when no real glue could be bought in the stores. It is temporary at best and dissolves at the first rain…without making any mark whatsoever on the material it had been pasted on.
And, it would also ‘flake off’ if it dried out too much – say about 12 hours after being applied in a low humidity environment.
In other words, using ‘wheat paste’ glue is proof that no property damage was intended or inflicted. Yet, the arrest and charges and potential jail sentence remain. To be served in mosly Islamic part of the prison, no doubt…
Viktor Orbán: naive and self destructive immigration politics rules in the EU
by Dalma Tóth
2016 September 16.
He believes the next opportunity to attempt any change in the EU politics is in Vienna on September 24, where the countries of the “Balkan route” are going to meet. He will suggest a correction of the existing failing migration politics there, but he is not sure it will achieve any success.Hungary can do one thing: have a successful referendum to support our efforts to change the immigration politics of Brussels.
Viktor Orbán at the same time stated it is a success that the EU countries agreed, Bulgaria must receive financial help. They made concrete headways about the assistance, which is good news as the costs of defense is significant and the pressure continues to increase on their southern border.The Prime Minister expressed that the best news of the summit was: the V4 group (Visegrad Four: Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary) were the only countries, that brought concrete suggestions how to reform the EU, what should happen and explored how to make nation level cooperation more successful while keeping it voluntary with less friction. It shows – he explained – the meeting between the V4 Prime Ministers was very successful.
He stated the members of the summit accepted a schedule which shows the main stages of the process which will crystalise in a document next year in Rome and will end the self-evaluation process after BREXIT. In this document the V4 will represent a strong and clear opinion – he added.
According to Viktor Orbán, Germany and Greece are the two key countries which are crucial to solving the present crisis. Until Germany does not have an upper limit for accepting migrants, it will continue to draw masses there. Greece should finally show its compliance with the Schengen rules and stop all the illegals entering Europe. Until these two countries change their politics, we can only do one thing: continue to work within the Schengen/Dublin regulations and stop all the illegals with the use of law and force.
He touched on: Hungary suggested new policies for non-EU member states to handle the increasing tensions in the area and to compensate for EU’s failing influence.
Viktor Orbán said: today the registration centers and camps lack of military support outside of the EU and that is why Hungary supports a unified EU Army. Multiple countries supported the notion to coordinate better between the armies of the state members.
The PM emphasized: For many in Brussels are not clear on the issue that the case of the migrants are not simply a humanitarian question, but there is a serious consequence about the identity of the destination countries and that applies for the ones just transit states too. Hungary wants to keep its identity!Viktor Orbán, answering a question, explained that in the summit Prime Minister of Luxembourg Xavier Bettel stated his government has a different opinion than Jean Asselborn, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Luxembourg, and he is not representing the official point of view of his country. Asselborn on Tuesday made a statement to the media, suggesting Hungary temporally or permanently should be excluded from the European Union because this is the only way to keep the values of the European community.
Also in an answer another question, he said that conservative political thinking means the return to our roots, the old European values we left behind and this distance is what causing our failures.