6 Comments

similarly, I also thought RDS was *by far* the best candidate. He was by far the most uppity, pro civil rights politician during the 'pandemic'. I feel like we are trapped in some awful reality show. Here is what bothers me about Trump: much like we saw a lot of bs and theatrics during the 'pandemic', both Charlottesville and Jan 6 were clearly nothing more than government orchestrated theater acted out with government provocateurs. They were not *real* events. But Trump never states this. He just sort of rolls with the punches. Perhaps it is because when the mass media says it is real, maybe he thinks he just has to treat it as real. But also, unlike RDS, he did not expose all of the covid fascism as bs. So although I think Trump is the only viable choice, it's not a good thing that he does not blow the lid on the amount of big-lie bs being pushed onto Americans.

Expand full comment

"Trump...has repeatedly let us down with his narcissism and undisciplined temperament." I wrote this on another blog a few years ago. It still applies today.

Regarding Trumps narcissism...Compared exactly to whom in 2016? Hillary? Jeb!? (You might have a point if you compared him to my first choice, Dr. Ben Carson.) Politicians, by their very nature, are narcissistic. Everyone one of them believes they have (or ARE) the solution to what ills the school board/county/town/state/country. It’s why they run for office. So under what measure was he more (narcissistic) than any other candidate at the time (or today)?

“Why (does Trump have) such huge support?” Precisely because he was never a polished, career politician that lived exclusively on political donations and a salary paid by taxpayers for his entire adult life. People had had enough of being promised this and promised that “if you vote for me!” during campaign season, then getting ignored or otherwise treated as something on the bottom of the average politician’s shoe. Trump came along and ran as the non-politician that spoke as any other regular New Yorker you might meet on the street. He had real-world experience in the private sector including working side-by-side with labor unions, non-unionized labor, and executives. There was no political double-speak, no talking over the heads or talking down to the people who attended his rallies. The message was simple, ‘I’m not one of them in Washington’; and that’s perhaps why ‘they’, both Political Parties, had and still have so much disdain and contempt for him (and now his supporters, too.) He’s not part of their club, their high-society, pearl-clutching, membership club.

Americans on both sides of the isle saw just how out of touch the political-class was (still is) with the people who work 9–5, 40 hours, take your lunch to work, sit in hours long commutes (uphill, both ways in three feet of snow - you know what I mean). Washington was (still is) far more concerned with their own power over the rest of the country. Trump isn’t.

Binary choice? Yes. As it should be. The choice should never only be between two swamp creatures who've lived their life feeding at the taxpayers trough.

Expand full comment

Thank you, GB. Could you complete your #4, please?

Expand full comment

Appreciate your analysis. It also seems to me there are a lot more people vocalizing their support than last time . The tech community and investors especially seem to have thrown him their support .

Expand full comment

Why is it always “Trump” (2nd name) & Kamala (1st name)? There’s a subtle nudging going on there, unconscious & implicit but I’ll wager it was not accidental. We need to resist using the propagandist’s terminology, even if we think the issue is trivial or moot.

Expand full comment

It's not accidental but it's not some big conspiracy. It's not uncommon with candidates with common last names. In the past we've seen "Hillary," 'Jeb," " George W" or " Dubya," "Mitt," etc. When Ronna Romney ran for Senate in MI it was all "Ronna" by her design. And even back in 1980 it was "Teddy" in the Dem Presidential primaries.

Expand full comment