Image and video hosting by TinyPic














Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Seriously: Is Trump nuts?



Is anyone truly surprised that Donald Trump has taken back his pledge to support the GOP nominee no matter what? I'd have been surprised if Trump had acted otherwise. The man's narcissism is the stuff of myth.

This is why Bill Maher recently declared for Ted Cruz over Trump. Cruz may be one of the most despicable human beings ever to run for high office, but he is not nuts. Trump, I am persuaded, is not a sane man.

There is no point in arguing over whether he is for or against neoconservatism, for or against free trade, for or against anything. The man is not rational. He must not being given the nuclear launch codes.

To prove the point, look at the video embedded at the bottom of this post. Trump, stung from the many articles about his failed businesses, used a victory speech as a kind of infomercial in which he displayed various allegedly successful Trump product lines. The problem: None of those products were real; it was all a delusion.

He pretended that Trump Steaks -- a brand that went under years ago, due to appalling customer reviews -- is still operational. In his madness, Trump even displayed someone else's beef as his own.

(Little known fact: Trump's failed meat line also included hot dogs. He charged a pretty penny for these weiners, even though the quality was, by all reports, somewhere well south of Oscar Meyerland. Yes, it's true: Donald Trump is an unsuccessful hot dog salesman.)

All of the other Trump-brand products he displayed on that occasion were similarly fictitious. This was nothing less than a full-scale mental breakdown. On camera.

I can't believe that Trump's descent into psychopathology has not destroyed his candidacy. It wasn't that long ago when Joe Biden's candidacy imploded simply because he had cribbed a few lines from a speech by Neil Kinnock, and forgot to give attribution. Remember that incident? Boy, things have changed a lot since then.

Do you recall the literary trope (often encountered in popular fiction from the 1930s) in which we meet two elderly southern ladies who think that the year is still 1860, and that they are both still in their teens? They perpetually argue as to which of the two sisters was asked to the cotillion by that handsome young lieutenant.

Trump reminds me of those two spinsters. The man is a fantasist. Whatever he wants to be, is. And if reality refuses to shape itself to fit his delusions -- god help us all.

I really think that Trump is capable of pushing the button. He really is that crazy.

I'll tell you who is even crazier: The Clintonphobe pseudo-progressives who prefer The Donald to Hillary. God forbid we relive the nightmare years of 1992-2000, what with all of that horrible peace and prosperity. God forbid we relive a time when the government got out of the red, wages were rising, tax rates gradually became more progressive, and America was respected throughout the world.

I know how progressives reason: If Trump screws up, and he will, this country will embrace the Revolution.

Ah yes! The great and glorious revolution. This myth has always ignited the progressive imagination.

The myth is beloved by the same ninnies who also think that a Sanders presidency will result in a wave of socialists being sent to Congress. (No less a personage than Robert Reich has fallen for that delusion. I bet he could feel full after "eating" one of Trump's imaginary steaks.)

In the first place, any revolution likely to occur in this country is not one that progressives would want to see. The far-rightists have the guns, the training, the over-abundant testosterone, and the willingness to kill thousands of people in order to bring about their Dominionist/ultra-libertarian "utopia."

You say you want a revolution? You must be as nutty as Donald Trump.

In the second place -- well, to reiterate a point made above, Trump is so sick that he would use nuclear weaponry rather than admit failure.

If your Clintonphobia is such that you would rather have Trump than Hillary, then you are no progressive. You must be as nutty as Donald Trump.

The anti-Clinton pseudo-progs have compiled a hideously high death count. I blame them -- in part -- for giving us the Bush administration.

Before you scoff, let me ask you one question: Can you recall why, back in 2000, so many progs said that they considered Al Gore toxic? Of course not. No-one can.

Nevertheless, the progs of that year felt obligated to prove their hipster credentials by supporting Ralph Nader -- and by spreading lies about Al Gore at every opportunity. These Gore-loathing progs pretended that they were anti-Establishment -- yet they did precisely what the Establishment wanted them to do, and repeated every hallucination about Al Gore promulgated by the mainstream press.

And as these Naderites expressed their progressive purity, they smirked. Boy howdy, did they smirk. Smirk smirk smirk. They achieved full-body smirkgasm.

These debauched, decadent, self-satisfied progs were so fucking full of themselves that even Gandhi would have been tempted to make them eat their own teeth.

You see, the anti-Gore progs knew that they were helping Dubya. That outcome was the easiest thing in the world to predict. They deliberately chose to elect Bush by telling liberals to vote for Nader.

Why? For one reason only: Al Gore had Clinton Cooties and was therefore unacceptable. There really was no other argument against Gore.

These pseudoprogs hated all things Clinton soooooooo much that they were willing to hand the presidency over to a dimwitted, "born again" rich snot like George W. Bush. The same things we hear now were said then: "If Bush screws up, good! The worse things get, the better things will be for the True Left! The people will rise up in a progressive revolution! Free health care! Free college! Free pony rides!"

Then as now, progs were misled by the toxic myth of revolution.

And so these progs voted for Nader. In other words, they voted for Bush. Allow me to quote from an earlier post:
Number of people who voted for "purist" candidate Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000: 97,421

"Official" difference between the Bush vote and the Gore vote in 2000: 537.

Before proceeding, let me issue fair warning: Do not even try to foist on me the obnoxious, oft-heard lie that the Nader factor was insignificant in Florida because the Republicans controlled the voting machines. The last person who tried to sell me that falsehood was none other than Cynthia McKinney -- yes, we corresponded -- and I let her have it with both figurative barrels. She didn't have a comeback. What could she say? The facts simply do not support that position.

I probably know more about election rigging than you do, dear reader, so don't think you can take me to school. 97,000 is a lot of votes, certainly a lot more than 537.
Bush became president because anti-Clinton progressives just had to prove their purity. Anti-Clintonites such as Michael Moore bear direct -- not indirect -- responsibilty for the Iraq war, for the 2008 financial meltdown, and for all of the subsequent madness. Michael Moore had no right to make Fahrenheit 9/11, since Moore (like all other Nader supporters) did his best to make the Iraq war happen.

If you want to prove your anti-Clinton purity, war is a small price to pay. After all, war won't affect you, you privileged asshole.

In 2008, the Anti-Clintonites gave us the Obama presidency. Result: War in Syria, a failed state in Libya, a neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine.

I know what you are about to say: "But Hillary...!"

Fuck you, assholes.

It was all on Obama's watch. His signature is on the painting. None of the above events happened without his say-so. His foreign policy worsened after Hillary left the State Department.

Come on. Do you truly believe that the Ukraine coup occurred entirely without Obama's knowledge? Do you truly think that the president read about these events for the first time in the Washington Post, and that he sadly shook his head while muttering "Hillary, Hillary, what on earth did you do this time...?"

If you think that, then I have some invisible Trump Steaks that I'd love to sell you.

Obama's foreign policy belongs to Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton was the employee; Obama was the employer. When you work for McDonalds, you make burgers the McDonalds way; you don't make them your way.

Obama proved to be a huge disappointment to the left (though not to me, since I expected worse). The Obama presidency proved, once and for all, that the anti-Clinton progressive purists are always, always, always wrong. ALWAYS.

Yes, I am convinced that, had Hillary won in 2008, our foreign policy would have been more deliberate, more thoughtful, less imperialistic. Undoubtedly, she would have done a lot to piss me off, but she still would have done a better job than Obama did.

Why do I believe this? Because Bill Clinton's foreign policy, though imperfect, was much better than the foreign policies pursued by his predecessor and his successors.

When Hillary Clinton was a senator, she compiled one of the most liberal records in the history of that institution. The oft-heard claim that she was a "corporate Democrat" is a complete lie, as is proven here and here and here.

Hit those links. Read her record. Read the facts that neither the mainstream press nor the left-wing press will discuss.

You'd rather have have Trump than that?

Fuck you, nut.



Comments:
Trump is just a huckster. Cruz is the one that's nuts.
 
But but but Gore is...wooden! And Tipper! And Tipper! I had an entertaining few minutes last night watching a BernieBot twist himself in knots explaining how Nader did not cost Gore FL. They are as delusional as Trump. I have been pleasantly surprised at Obama of late but I still imagine what could have happened with Clinton in office and a Democratic legislative majority.
 
Right you are, Joe. That full-throated condemnation of all things Trump is absolutely warranted and frankly, long over due from our stumbling media. I've thought for the last 6 months that Trump was not simply a narcissist (which he is) but a man unhinged. The Man Who Would Be King's reaction to any and all criticism or analysis is that of a 5 year old's: that's not fair, he did it first, I'll get you back (sue your pants off).

The psychotic Hillary hate has been churned by the right-wing but promoted by the far left. Susan Sarandon's comment on the Chris Hayes' show was the height of madness. But then Sarandon is a multimillionaire as is Michael Moore. They could survive a Trump presidency, insulated by their money.

For the rest of us? Not so much.

Particularly those dealing with economic hardships, healthcare disasters, criminal injustices, bigotry, sexism, etc. Ya think Trump is prepared to deal with any domestic or foreign policy issues? Think again. The only thing The Donald is prepared for is promoting whatever is good for Donald Trump. When questioned about his behavior as 'not presidential.' he responded with: The only thing Presidential is victory.

So the stupidity of a Susan Sarandon is matched by The Donald in a world of absolutes, where winning and Revolution are the only worthy ends. What happens after is beside the point.

I would recommend people read the open letter penned by Trump's former Communications Director. She had a front row seat in Donald watching. She was a True Believer. Until she wasn't. Reporting what she saw and heard, she says basically this: The Donald is for Donald. Period, full stop.

We're living in dangerous times. The last thing we need is a psychopath as President. Or a delusional socialist for that matter, making a thousand promises he cannot keep. The latter is less harmful but just as ill-equipped for the Office of the President.

Despite all cries to the contrary, Hillary Clinton will secure the Democratic nomination. And then, we better hope & pray she wins in November.

Because the alternative is unthinkable. And Ted Cruz? He's a snake dressed as a man.

Peggysue
 
Hmm, the "just following orders" defense. Interesting. That said, I've already made it clear I'll vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. I think it's really all the attacks against here, and virtually none against Sanders, that really convinced me. Now, if BOTH Trump and Sanders run as Independents against Clinton and Cruz, THAT will be quite interesting. I'm also not convinced that Hillary would even be able to replicate her husbands success, being that the world and nation are very different places than they were back then (among other reasons I don't need to get into here).

There is no way to know what would have happened had Gore won (well, he actually DID win, he just didn't get to be President). However, I can't imagine it would have been any worse, and most likely it would have been better.

For the record, I voted for Gore (after considering both Nader and Bush.....Bush VERY briefly, simply based on his anti-imperialist platform.....wonder if people even remember he campaigned on that?). I don't think I voted for Clinton at all, but only because I didn't vote for anybody back then (didn't think it mattered....still not sure it does, but I do it just in case).
 
The USA needs a viable third party (and fourth and fifth parties). Without, the elections are in effect rigged as a game of lesser-evilism with each successive preferred candidate (from a progressive perspective) ever-more incrementally centre-right and product of the Establishment. Ralph Nader had every right to run a Presidential campaign in 2000. To still come across complaints that he somehow tripped the election to Bush is ridiculous. Gore was running against a very weak candidate and should have done better regardless if the Greens were there or not. In 2004, the Dems spent more money and energy denying third-party campaigns than they did politicking against the Bush regime.
 
I voted for Gore in 2000, but I think blaming Nader is like blaming one specific boulder in an avalanche. If so many people, many of them otherwise intelligent, had not been brainwashed by the alliance of the Corporate Media and the GOP to smear the Clintons as Mr. and Mrs. Beelzebub--so that Gore felt the mistaken need to run away from Bill C.--the Dimwit Dauphin never would have gotten close enough for the Five Injustices to steal the election for him.
 
By God, Joe, you certainly know how to get the fluids churning and the pitchforks out to quell the 'Prog' uprising. Do you or any of your readers (that write in) believe that every person passionate about Bernie Sanders is psychotic, idiotic, anarchistic, or all of the above? That no one in their right mind could vote for that slimy dirty-trick asshole Sanders aithout hating the Clintons enough to run them over with a frigging 1946 International pickup with an oak 4 x 8 bumper bolted to the front of it? Jeez, the vitriol coming out toward progressives and supporters of Sanders (they may not be the same in every case, you know). Maybe someone just doesn't like Hillary's Middle East stance or thinks that she will back Israel to the point of continued slaughter of Palestinians on a faster timeline. Broad-brushing progressives or anyone that ever voted for Green Party or Peace and Freedom Party (hey, maybe YOU voted Peace and Freedom once?) is totally unfair to those of us who think the New Deal can possibly happen again. Susan Sarandon didn't say she would vote for Trump. She answered the question by saying that he would bring about a revolution faster that it may come. Hell, I believe that, too. I bet you do, too. That doesn't mean I will vote for the narcissistic bastard. I don't know of any Sanders supporters who would, no matter what they say in a fit of passion.
Hillary wasn't anointed. We still have the right to cast our vote for whomever we please, hopefully without being considered raving lunatics if it's not Hillary, at least in the primaries. I am not delusional and don't think Sanders is, either. Nor Martin Luther King, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, or countless others who believe this country can be better than it currently is. Do you just mock and scream profanities at anyone who thinks we might could turn the country around in larger 'increments' than Hillary suggests is possible. And I didn't vote for Nader in 2000, but think it's a pretty big stretch to blame anyone who did for causing any war.
 
Nothing to see here please move along.
 
I agree with anonymous. It is time to have an independent candidate as a third choice on all ballots. Speaking of Trump and his finger on the button, how would a Trump / Sanders ticket do in the fall as a third party Independent ticket?
 
You've got a typo early on in your article. You cite 1992-1990, when I think you meant 1992-2000.
 
To jo6pac.....You know nothing about me or who I am or what I've done in my 78 years here, so why are you responding to my comment in such a smug and arrogant way? I don't know you but I wouldn't insinuate that your comments have no value.
 
Alessandro, thanks for pointing out the date problem. I rewrite several times, but sometimes typos persist even after the third or fourth pass. I've fixed this one...
 
The system is rigged against 3rd parties. This needs to change, but it isn't going to happen this election season, unfortunately. Most Americans have no clue about this situation.

"Third parties face many obstacles in the United States. In all states, the Democratic and Republican candidates automatically get on the ballot, whereas third-party candidates usually have to get thousands of signatures on petitions just to be listed on the ballot. The state and federal governments, which make rules governing elections, are composed of elected Democratic and Republican officials, who have a strong incentive to protect the existing duopoly. Also, third-party candidates often face financial difficulties because a party must have received at least 5 percent of the vote in the previous election in order to qualify for federal funds."

http://www.sparknotes.com/us-government-and-politics/american-government/political-parties/section3.rhtml
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?


























Image and video hosting by TinyPic


FeedWind



FeedWind




FeedWind