RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Taibbi writes: "Saturday, early October, at a fairground 40 minutes southwest of Milwaukee. The very name of this place, Elkhorn, conjures images of past massacres on now-silent fields across our blood-soaked history. Nobody will die here; this is not Wounded Knee, but it is the end of an era. The modern Republican Party will perish on this stretch of grass."

Donald Trump. (photo: AP)
Donald Trump. (photo: AP)


The Fury and Failure of Donald Trump

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

15 October 16

 

Win, lose or drop out, the Republican nominee has laid waste to the American political system. On the trail for the last gasp of the ugliest campaign in our nation's history

aturday, early October, at a fairground 40 minutes southwest of Milwaukee. The very name of this place, Elkhorn, conjures images of past massacres on now-silent fields across our blood-soaked history. Nobody will die here; this is not Wounded Knee, but it is the end of an era. The modern Republican Party will perish on this stretch of grass.

Trump had been scheduled to come here today, to kiss defenseless babies and pose next to pumpkins and haystacks at Wisconsin congressman and House Speaker Paul Ryan's annual "GOP Fall Fest."

Instead, the two men declared war on each other. The last straw was the release of a tape capturing Donald Trump uttering five words – "Grab them by the pussy" – during an off-camera discussion with former Access Hollywood host Billy Bush about what you can do to women when you're a star.

Keeping up with Trump revelations is exhausting. By late October, he'll be caught whacking it outside a nunnery. There are not many places left for this thing to go that don't involve kids or cannibalism. We wait, miserably, for the dong shot.

Ryan, recoiling from Trump's remarks, issued a denunciation ("Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified"), disinviting Trump from his Elkhorn celebration, which was to be the first joint campaign appearance by the country's two highest-ranking Republicans.

As a result, the hundreds of Republican faithful who came spoiling for Trumpian invective, dressed in T-shirts reading things like DEPLORABLE LIVES MATTER and BOMB THE SHIT OUT OF ISIS, and even FUCK OFF, WE'RE FULL (a message for immigrants), ended up herded out here, as if by ruse, to get a big dose of the very thing they'd rebelled against.

They sat through a succession of freedom-and-God speeches by Wisconsin Republicans like Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, Sen. Ron Johnson, Gov. Scott Walker and Ryan, who collectively represented the party establishment closing ranks and joining the rest of the country in denouncing the free-falling Trump. Once an unstoppable phenomenon who had the media eating out of his controversial-size hands, Trump, in the space of a few hours, had become the mother of all pop-culture villains, a globally despised cross of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Charlie Sheen and Satan.

To the self-proclaimed "Deplorables" who came out to see Trump anyway, Ryan's decision was treason, the latest evidence that no matter what their party affiliation, Washington politicians have more in common with one another than with regular people.

"Small-ball Ryan," groused Trump supporter Mike Goril, shaking his head, adding to this election cycle's unsurpassable all-time record for testicular innuendo.

Speaker after speaker ascended the stage to urge Republican voters to vote. But with the exception of Attorney General Brad Schimel, who got a round of applause when he grudgingly asked the audience to back Trump for the sake of the Supreme Court, every last one of them tiptoed past the party nominee's name. One by one, they talked around Trump, like an unmentionable uncle carted off on a kiddie-porn rap just before Thanksgiving dinner.

Metaphorically anyway, Trump supporters like Goril were right. Not one of these career politicians had the gumption to be frank with this crowd about what had happened to their party. Instead, the strategy seemed to be to pretend none of it had happened, and to hide behind piles of the same worn clichés that had driven these voters to rebel in the first place.

The party schism burst open in the middle of a speech by Wisconsin's speaker of the State Assembly, Robin Vos. Vos is the Billy Mays of state budget hawks. He's a mean-spirited little ball of energy who leaped onto the stage reminding the crowd that he wanted to eliminate the office of the treasurer to SAVE YOU MONEY!

Vos went on to brag about having wiped out tenure for University of Wisconsin professors, before dismounting with yet another superawkward Trumpless call for Republicans to turn out to vote.

"I have no doubt that with all of you standing behind us," he shouted, "and with the fantastic record of achievement that we have, we're going to go on to an even bigger and better victory than before!"

There was scattered applause, then someone from the crowd called out:

"You uninvited Donald Trump!"

Boos and catcalls, both for and against Vos and the Republicans. Most in the crowd were Trump supporters, but others were angry with Trump for perhaps saddling them with four years of Hillary Clinton. These camps now battled it out across the field. A competing chant of "U-S-A! U-S-A!" started on the opposite end of the stands, only to be met by chants from the pro-Trumpers.

"We want Trump! We want Trump!" "U-S-A! U-S-A!"

Ryan, the last speaker, tried to cut the tension with a leaden joke about the "elephant in the room." But he still refused to speak Trump's name, or do more than refer the crowd to a written statement. He just smiled like it was all OK, and talked about what a beautiful day it was.

Ryan's cowardly play was reflective of the party as a whole, which has yet to own its role in the Trump story. Republican ineptitude and corruption represented the first crack in the facade of a crumbling political system that made Trump's rise possible. As toxic as Trump was, many outside observers were slow to pick up on the threat because they were so focused on how much Republicans like Ryan deserved him.

Trump's early rampage through the Republican field made literary sense. It was classic farce. He was the lewd, unwelcome guest who horrified priggish, decent society, a theme that has mesmerized audiences for centuries, from Vanity Fair to The Government Inspector to (closer to home) Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. When you let a hands-y, drunken slob loose at an aristocrats' ball, the satirical power of the story comes from the aristocrats deserving what comes next. And nothing has ever deserved a comeuppance quite like the American presidential electoral process, which had become as exclusive and cut off from the people as a tsarist shooting party.

The first symptom of a degraded aristocracy is a lack of capable candidates for the throne. After years of indulgence, ruling families become frail, inbred and isolated, with no one but mystics, impotents and children to put forward as kings. Think of Nikolai Romanov reading fortunes as his troops starved at the front. Weak princes lead to popular uprisings. Which brings us to this year's Republican field.

There wasn't one capable or inspiring person in the infamous "Clown Car" lineup. All 16 of the non-Trump entrants were dunces, religious zealots, wimps or tyrants, all equally out of touch with voters. Scott Walker was a lipless sadist who in centuries past would have worn a leather jerkin and thrown dogs off the castle walls for recreation. Marco Rubio was the young rake with debts. Jeb Bush was the last offering in a fast-diminishing hereditary line. Ted Cruz was the Zodiac Killer. And so on.

The party spent 50 years preaching rich people bromides like "trickle-down economics" and "picking yourself up by your bootstraps" as solutions to the growing alienation and financial privation of the ordinary voter. In place of jobs, exported overseas by the millions by their financial backers, Republicans glibly offered the flag, Jesus and Willie Horton.

In recent years it all went stale. They started to run out of lines to sell the public. Things got so desperate that during the Tea Party phase, some GOP candidates began dabbling in the truth. They told voters that all Washington politicians, including their own leaders, had abandoned them and become whores for special interests. It was a slapstick routine: Throw us bums out!

Republican voters ate it up and spent the whole of last primary season howling for blood as Trump shredded one party-approved hack after another. By the time the other 16 candidates finished their mass-suicide-squad routine, a tail-chasing, sewer-mouthed septuagenarian New Yorker was accepting the nomination of the Family Values Party.

Now, months later, as Trump was imploding, Ryan was retreating to ancient supply-side clichés about how cutting taxes will bring the jobs back. "We've got to scrap this tax code and start over," he said.

As Ryan droned on, well back behind the stands, two heavyset middle-aged women in Trump/Pence T-shirts shook their heads in boredom. One elbowed the other.

"Wanna grab my crotch?"

This is Wisconsin, after all. You can tell immigrants to fuck off, but you can't say the p-word the day before church, or a Packers game.

The other woman chuckled, then reached down to her own, as if to say, "Grab this!"

Both women busted out laughing. When the event was done, as the crowd of other seething Deplorables filed past them, they and a few others remained in their chairs, staring fatalistically at the empty stage.

The scene couldn't have been more poignant. Duped for a generation by a party that kowtowed to the wealthy while offering scraps to voters, then egged on to a doomed rebellion by a third-rate con man who wilted under pressure and was finally incinerated in a fireball of his own stupidity, people like this found themselves, in the end, represented by literally no one.

Not many people are shedding tears for the Republican voter these days, perhaps rightly so. But the sudden crash-ending of the Trump campaign only made official what these voters have suspected for years: They've been represented by an empty stage all along. Why not sit there and stare at it for a little longer?

Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, the Mohegan Sun Arena, two days later. As he has done multiple times in the past year, Trump has seemingly rebounded from certain disaster. A second debate with Hillary Clinton did not go quite so disastrously as the first, despite horrible optics (he appeared obese from stress and stalked Clinton onstage, as if wanting to bite her back á la Marv Albert) and even worse behavior (he threatened to jail his opponent, a straight-up dictator move you'd expect from a Mobutu, Pinochet or Putin).

Whether or not he "won" the debate was immaterial. He at least impressed pious Mike Pence, Trump's sad-sack running mate, who reportedly had been considering withdrawing from the ticket over the whole pussy thing. "Big debate win!" Pence tweeted, ending rumors of an internal mutiny. "Proud to stand with you as we #MAGA!"

That's hashtag Make America Great Again, in case you didn't believe Mike Pence is hip. (The new white-power movement, like a lot of fraternities, is short on brains, but long on secret passwords and handshakes.) The man who once opposed clean needles on moral grounds was now ready to march through history with a serial groper and tit-gazer.

In Wilkes-Barre, home to a recent Klan leafleting, and a key electoral-map battleground, the turnout for Trump's rally was a vast sea of white faces and profane signage. she's a cunt – vote trump read the T-shirt of one attendee. bill! monica gave you what? read the caption over a photo of a grinning Hillary, plastered on the side of one of a scary triad of 18-wheelers decked out in anti-Clinton invective. On line going into the event, some more mildmannered visitors explained why there was nothing that could dissuade them from voting Trump. "Even if it's small, there's a chance that he's going to do something completely different, and that's why I like him," said Trent Gower, a soft-spoken young man. "And when he talks, I actually understand what he's saying. But, like, when fricking Hillary Clinton talks, it just sounds like a bunch of bullshit." Inside the arena, passions were running high. Kids zoomed back and forth in Trump/Pence shirts. Some future visitors to probate court even brought their little boy to the event dressed in Trump garb, with a blazer and a power tie. Trump called the lad up onstage.

"Would you like to go back to your parents, or stay with Trump?" Trump asked. No one since Rickey "Rickey can't find Rickey's limo" Henderson has referred to himself in the third person with the same zeal as Trump.

The boy paused.

"Trump!" he said finally, to monstrous applause.

That was the highlight of the evening, unless you want to count Rudy Giuliani's time onstage, with his eyes spinning and arms flailing like a man who'd come to a hospital lost-and-found in search of his medulla oblongata. In recent weeks, Giuliani has looked as though he's been experimenting with recreational Botox. His new thing is to say something insane and then let his face freeze for a second, as if for the last time. In WilkesBarre, he started saying something rude about the Clinton Foundation: "Boy, that is phony as ... I can't say the word because I have to be ... nice."

Open mouth: freeze.

He stared helplessly at the crowd for a moment, then pointed upward, like he remembered something. "I might say it in the locker room!" he said, to cheers.

How Giuliani isn't Trump's running mate, no one will ever understand. Theirs is the most passionate television love story since Beavis and Butthead. Every time Trump says something nuts, Giuliani either co-signs it or outdoes him. They will probably spend the years after the election doing prostate-medicine commercials together.

In the far-right world, every successive villain has always been worse than the last. It's quaint now to think about how Al Gore was once regarded as the second coming of Lenin, or that John Kerry was a secret communist agent. Then the race element took Obama-hatred to new and horrifying places. But Trumpian license has pushed hatred of Hillary Clinton beyond all reason. If you don't connect with it emotionally, you won't get it. For grown men and women to throw around words like "bitch" and "cunt" in front of their kids, it means things have moved way beyond the analytical.

Where is it all coming from? The most generous conceivable explanation is that the anger stems from a sense of abandonment and betrayal by the political class. This doesn't explain the likes of Giuliani and Trump, but if you squint really hard, it maybe explains some of what's going on with his supporters.

Although a lot of Clinton backers believe she's being unfairly weighed down by negative reports about the Clinton Foundation and her e-mails, her most serious obstacles this year were less her faults than her virtues. The best argument for a Clinton presidency is that she's virtually guaranteed to be a capable steward of the status quo, at a time of relative stability and safety. There are criticisms to make of Hillary Clinton, but the grid isn't going to collapse while she's in office, something no one can say with even mild confidence about Donald Trump.

But nearly two-thirds of the population was unhappy with the direction of the country entering the general-election season, and nothing has been more associated with the political inside than the Clinton name.

The suspicions heightened on the same day that Trump's infamous "pussy" tape leaked, when WikiLeaks released papers purporting to be excerpts of Clinton's speeches to corporate and financial titans like Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and GE. Her campaign had stalwartly refused to release these during the primary against Bernie Sanders. After the Wiki release, however, one had to wonder why the Clinton camp had bothered to keep the papers secret.

The "secret" speeches in some ways showed Hillary Clinton in a more sympathetic light than her public persona usually allows. Speaking to bankers and masters of the corporate universe, she came off as relaxed, self-doubting, reflective, honest, philosophical rather than political, and unafraid to admit she lacked all the answers.

The transcripts read like freewheeling discussions with friends about how to navigate an uncertain future. In one speech, she conceded a sense of disconnect between the wealthy and the middle class to which she used to belong. This, she said, was a feeling she never had growing up, when the country seemed to be more united.

"And now, obviously," she told executives from Goldman, "I'm kind of far removed because of the life I've lived and the economic ... fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy."

This frank, almost regretful admission rendered her more real in a few sentences than those cliché-ridden speeches about her hardscrabble background as the granddaughter of a Scranton lace-factory worker.

In a speech before the Brazilian Banco Itaú, Clinton talked about her vision for the future. "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders," she reportedly said. She wanted this economy "as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere."

In classic Clintonian fashion, her camp refused to confirm the authenticity of the emails, while also not denying them either. But why not just own the e-mails? Why all the cagey non-denial denials?

The themes Clinton discussed with the banks were awesome, sweeping and of paramount importance, especially coming from someone in such a unique position to shape the world's future. They collectively represented exactly the honest discussion about what is ahead for all of us that no one in power has ever really had with the rest of the country.

The "scandal" of the Wiki papers, if you can call it that, is that it captured how at ease Clinton was talking to bankers and industrialists about the options for the organization of a global society. Even in transcript form, it's hard not to realize that the people in these rooms are all stakeholders in this vast historical transformation.

Left out of the discussion over the years have been people like Trump's voters, who coincidentally took the first hit along the way in the form of lowered middle-class wages and benefits. They were also never told that things they cared about, like their national identity as Americans, were to have diluted meaning in the more borderless future.

This is why the "basket of deplorables" comment rankled so badly. It's not like it was anywhere near as demeaning or vicious as any of 10,000 Trump insults. But it spoke to a factual disconnnect.

It isn't just that the likely next president feels alienated from people in places like Wilkes-Barre, so close to her ancestral home. It's that, plus the fact that she feels comfortable admitting this to the likes of Goldman's Lloyd Blankfein, to whom she complained about the "bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives."

All of which is interesting, and maybe a problem we Americans can have a sober discussion about once we finish bayoneting each other over "pussy" or Miss Universe's weight or the Central Park Five (only Trump could go back in time and revictimize the survivors of one of the most infamous law-enforcement mistakes of all time), or whatever other lunacies we'll be culture-warring over in the last weeks of this mercifully soon-to-end campaign.

It is true that if you talk to enough Trump supporters, you will eventually find an ex-Democrat or two who'll cop to being disillusioned by the party's turn away from the middle class. "My parents were FDR Democrats," says Tim Kallas of Oak Creek, Wisconsin. "I was born and raised to believe that Democrats were for the workingman." A self-described "child of the MTV generation" who has plenty of liberal friends and rocks a long silver ponytail, Kallas says he became disenchanted with the Democrats sometime during Bill Clinton's second term. He was troubled by the Wiki speeches, and says he never signed up for the globalist program. "If you look at what's going on in Europe with the Brexit vote, it's the same conclusion that voters in England came to," he says. "Why are the problems in Greece, or whatever, my problem?"

This sounds sensible enough, but it stops computing when you get to the part where the solution to the vast and complex dilemmas facing humanity is Donald Trump, a man who stays up at night tweeting about whether or not Robert Pattinson should take back Kristen Stewart. (He shouldn't, says Trump: "She cheated on him like a dog and will do it again – just watch. He can do much better!") This is a man who can't remember what he did 10 seconds ago, much less decide the fate of the nation-state.

Whatever the original source of disaffection among these Republican voters, the battle has morphed into something else, as Trump himself proved the morning after Wilkes-Barre. He went on one of his trademark Twitter rampages, this time directed at Ryan.

The House speaker had held a conference call with elected Republicans, telling them they were free to yank support from Trump if they thought it would help them win in November. This sounds like a good decision, until you consider that it's one he should have made the moment Trump sealed the nomination. As always, the Republicans acted far too late in disavowing vicious and disgusting behavior in their ranks. Then again, it's hard to keep the loons out when you're scraping to find people willing to sell rich-friendly policies to a broke population. The reaction among hard-line legislators was predictable: You're telling us now we can't be pigs?

Arizona Rep. Trent Franks told Ryan that Clinton reaching the White House would result in fetuses being torn "limb to limb," while Southern California's cretinous boob Dana Rohrabacher called Ryan "cowardly," and said Trump's "pussy" comment was just a "60-[year-old] expressing sexual attitude to a younger man."

Trump, meanwhile, unleashed an inevitable string of self-destructive tweets.

9:05 a.m.: "Our very weak and ineffective leader, Paul Ryan, had a bad conference call where his members went wild at his disloyalty."

10 a.m.: "It is so nice that the shackles have been taken off me and I can now fight for America the way I want to."

Shackled! Only in America can a man martyr himself on a cross of pussy.

There's an old Slavic saying about corruption: One thief sits atop another thief, using a third thief for a whip. The campaign trail is similarly a stack of deceptions, with each implicit lie of the horse race driving the next.

Lie No. 1 is that there are only two political ideas in the world, Republican and Democrat. Lie No. 2 is that the parties are violent ideological opposites, and that during campaign season we can only speak about the areas where they differ (abortion, guns, etc.) and never the areas where there's typically consensus (defense spending, surveillance, torture, trade, and so on). Lie No. 3, a corollary to No. 2, is that all problems are the fault of one party or the other, and never both. Assuming you watch the right channels, everything is always someone else's fault. Lie No. 4, the reason America in campaign seasons looks like a place where everyone has great teeth and $1,000 haircuts, is that elections are about political personalities, not voters.

These are the rules of the Campaign Reality Show as it has evolved over the years. The program is designed to reduce political thought to a simple binary choice and force more than 100 million adults to commit to one or the other. Like every TV contest, it discourages subtlety, reflection and reconciliation, and encourages belligerence, action and conflict.

Trump was the ultimate contestant in this show. It's no accident that his first debate with Hillary Clinton turned into the Ali-Frazier of political events, with a breathtaking 84 million people tuning in, making it the most watched political program in American history.

Anyone who takes a close-enough look at how we run elections in this country will conclude that the process is designed to be regressive. It distracts us with trivialities and drives us apart during two years of furious arguments. It's a divide-and-conquer mechanism that keeps us from communicating with one another, and prevents us from examining the broader, systemic problems we all face together.

In the good old days, when elections were merely stupid and not also violent and terrifying, we argued over which candidate we'd rather have a beer with, instead of wondering why both parties were getting hundreds of millions of dollars from the same people.

Trump, ironically, was originally a rebel against this process, the first-ever party-crasher to bulldoze his way past the oligarchical triad of donors, party leaders and gatekeeping media. But once he got in, he became the ultimate servant of the horse race, simultaneously creating the most-watched and most regressive election ever.

He was unable to stop being a reality star. Trump from the start had been playing a part, but his acting got worse and worse as time went on, until finally he couldn't keep track: Was he supposed to be a genuine traitor to his class and the savior of the common man, or just be himself, i.e., a bellicose pervert with too much time on his hands? Or were the two things the same thing? He was too dumb to figure it out, and that paralysis played itself out on the Super Bowl of political stages. It was great television. It was also the worst thing that ever happened to our electoral system.

Trump's shocking rise and spectacular fall have been a singular disaster for U.S. politics. Built up in the press as the American Hitler, he was unmasked in the end as a pathetic little prankster who ruined himself, his family and half of America's two-party political system for what was probably a half-assed ego trip all along, adventure tourism for the idiot rich.

That such a small man would have such an awesome impact on our nation's history is terrible, but it makes sense if you believe in the essential ridiculousness of the human experience. Trump picked exactly the wrong time to launch his mirror-gazing rampage to nowhere. He ran at a time when Americans on both sides of the aisle were experiencing a deep sense of betrayal by the political class, anger that was finally ready to express itself at the ballot box.

The only thing that could get in the way of real change – if not now, then surely very soon – was a rebellion so maladroit, ill-conceived and irresponsible that even the severest critics of the system would become zealots for the status quo.

In the absolute best-case scenario, the one in which he loses, this is what Trump's run accomplished. He ran as an outsider antidote to a corrupt two-party system, and instead will leave that system more entrenched than ever. If he goes on to lose, he will be our Bonaparte, the monster who will continue to terrify us even in exile, reinforcing the authority of kings.

If you thought lesser-evilism was bad before, wait until the answer to every question you might have about your political leaders becomes, "Would you rather have Trump in office?"

Trump can't win. Our national experiment can't end because one aging narcissist got bored of sex and food. Not even America deserves that. But that doesn't mean we come out ahead. We're more divided than ever, sicker than ever, dumber than ever. And there's no reason to think it won't be worse the next time. 

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

We are going to return to our original fully-moderated format in the comments section.

The abusive complaints in the comment sections are just too far out of control at this point and have become a significant burden on our staff. As a result, our moderators will review all comments prior to publication. Comments will no longer go live immediately. Please be patient and check back.

To improve your chances of seeing your comment published, avoid confrontational or antagonistic methods of communication. Really that is the problem we are confronting.

We encourage all views. We discourage ad hominem disparagement.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+108 # tswhiskers 2016-10-15 15:05
We've always had lesser-evilism before, but in this election it has reached its epitome. The Reps. have allowed (encouraged?) kooks to run in Senate and Rep. races for a few decades, and I truly wondered what has happened to the minds of average Rep. voters. I WISH I could remember the names of all the crazies who have run in the past; from "I am not a witch" to the idiot who insisted that a woman can't get pregnant after being raped. Fortunately the people in those states were smart enough to vote for someone else. My point is that Reps. are VERY bad at selecting candidates suitable enough to run for anything. Rep. voters shouldn't be protesting the lack of change in party politics; they should be raising HELL with the Rep. Party for consistently allowing wingnuts to run for serious public office, and for running on platforms that enrich the top 1% and exclude the rest of the population while lying to their voters by insisting that they REALLY do have the country's best interests at heart. Reps. are liars at heart. Dems. are dishonest too; but they don't practice the "art of the lie" as often or as well (?) as the Reps.
 
 
-173 # RMDC 2016-10-15 19:03
It is not Trump's fury. It is the media fury. Taibbi is part of the mass media. He's just as fuckrd up as the rest of them. He needs to cut down on the media watching.
 
 
+34 # kitster 2016-10-16 09:06
"trump has to blame someone else for his failures. the media are handy bait for the credulous and misinformed."
 
 
+2 # Robbee 2016-10-18 20:15
Quoting kitster:
"trump has to blame someone else for his failures. the media are handy bait for the credulous and misinformed."

- rump's 7 pillars of wisdom -
1) i didn't do it
2) nobody saw me do it
3) you can't prove nothin'
4) bill did it worse
5) hill enabled bill
6) nothing happened
7) whatever happened it's somebody else’s fault

as to the media - rump skipped straight to #7
 
 
+31 # wrknight 2016-10-16 09:14
It's not the media fury. The media is only pandering to the public. The Trump phenomenon was one of the greatest money makers of all time for the media which will sell its soul for profit. But that begs the question, who was buying it? The public and the advertisers both bought into it.

Neilson ratings skyrocketed and advertisers stood in line to buy commercials on TV as Trump performed his act. The media in every form sold like crazy as people lined up in droves to watch the craziness like rubberneckers viewing an auto accident on the freeway. The more Trump jerked off, the more people wanted to watch and the more the media sold.
 
 
+34 # ericlipps 2016-10-16 09:23
Quoting RMDC:
It is not Trump's fury. It is the media fury. Taibbi is part of the mass media. He's just as fuckrd up as the rest of them. He needs to cut down on the media watching.

"Blame the media" is a spavined old workhorse of the Republican right which even some conservatives admit is ready for the glue factory.

Can you name anything constructive Trump has said? I can't; all I've heard from him apart from pussy-snatching (pun intended) and outbursts of ego and ignorance has been red-meat rhetoric designed to rouse the rabble while offering no sensible (by which I mean both workable and likely to survive Congress and the Supreme Court) policy proposals.
 
 
+1 # pros54 2016-10-16 18:08
"Taibbi is part of the mass media. He's just as fuckrd up as the rest of them. He needs to cut down on the media watching."
It shows up especially when he wants to lump Putin among the "evil dictators". It amazes me how to all purposes smart and intelligent American media personalities find it had to stray off their government sponsored talking points. Are they so beholding to the government foe thier survival that they always have to throw the government a bone otherwise they will lose access to making the living that will keep them in the middle class. I think it shows how fr the oligarch class have taken over the country since Reagan and Thatcher economic policies monetized the country and only those with capital can survive, all others becomes disposable serfs,
 
 
-2 # A_Har 2016-10-18 19:28
Quoting RMDC:
It is not Trump's fury. It is the media fury. Taibbi is part of the mass media. He's just as fuckrd up as the rest of them. He needs to cut down on the media watching.
Yep, and then there is the rigging:

Hidden cameras reveal Clinton dirty-tricks campaign
http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/10/18/hidden-cameras-reveal-clinton-dirty-tricks-campaign

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Quote:
On the eve of the third and final presidential debate, to be held by ironic providence in the sin city of Las Vegas, an undercover team with hidden cameras has begun exposing the dirty tricks orchestrated and played out by operatives deep within Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

The operation, launched as Project Veritas by conservative activist and investigative journalist James O’Keefe, shows top-level Democratic activists Robert Creamer and Scott Foval bragging into hidden cameras about how they send in trained individuals to incite violence at Donald Trump events, and how they have even paid mentally ill people to disrupt and create the sense of “anarchy” and “chaos.”
A lot of this campaign is perception management.
 
 
+29 # CL38 2016-10-16 01:21
Given the appalling downward spiral to the dregs of crazies who now run and win elections in our government--and remain, thanks to gerrymandering and election theft--it's time to establish some ground rules for who can run for public office: no politician who engages in racism, misogyny or homophobia, no using your religion to impose over voters' rights, etc. No candidates who run on a hate, war on women or blacks campaign or work on behalf of special interests.
 
 
+36 # Navrongo80 2016-10-16 07:06
I agree that gerrymandering is a huge problem it that it perpetuates the huge advantage of the two party system. It insures that only the party faithful get nominated. It discourages compromise in any form as disloyal to the party. It discourages doing anything at all.
 
 
+18 # wrknight 2016-10-16 09:36
Quoting Navrongo80:
I agree that gerrymandering is a huge problem it that it perpetuates the huge advantage of the two party system. It insures that only the party faithful get nominated. It discourages compromise in any form as disloyal to the party. It discourages doing anything at all.

You're right, gerrymandering goes a long way to locking in Congressional races. But it doesn't explain why members of Congress who have only a 13% approval rating among Republicans and a 19% approval rating among Democrats get re-elected year after year after year.

The combination of low Congressional approval ratings and constant re-election of members of Congress implies that American voters disapprove of Congress in general terms but don't bother to vet their own representatives.

If voters adequately vetted their own members of Congress, gerrymandering might result in parties retaining control of the districts, but there would be a higher turnover of representatives in the primaries and fewer members of Congress being re-elected.
 
 
+11 # Patriot 2016-10-16 12:08
Gerrymandering is a Federal crime, yet, like most political crimes, such as bribing public officials, REAL election fraud by the Dem and Repub parties, and campaigning on a platform they have absolutely no intention of following, it goes unchallenged, unprosecuted, and unpunished. We no longer are a nation of laws, and thus no longer are a free people.
 
 
+3 # Texas Aggie 2016-10-16 18:07
About those approval ratings, the numbers you list are for Congress in general. When you ask about each person's representative or senator, the numbers are much higher. For some reason there is a massive disconnect between what voters see in their own congress critter and congress critters in general.
 
 
+2 # pros54 2016-10-16 18:11
"The combination of low Congressional approval ratings and constant re-election of members of Congress implies that American voters disapprove of Congress in general terms but don't bother to vet their own representatives."

Proof that we are not a democracy.
 
 
+66 # guomashi 2016-10-15 15:18
"Ryan, recoiling from Trump's remarks, issued a denunciation ("Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified")"

?????
Nobody caught this oxymoron?
If women are as a group are to be championed and revered, then they are de facto being objectified.

US is too stupid to survive if the sin is condemned by itself.
 
 
+30 # RMDC 2016-10-15 19:57
Ryan is too stupid for words. There's no doubt he will be president in 2020.
 
 
+11 # StuBones1960 2016-10-16 07:05
That's exactly what Ryan did, and all feminists and allies called him on it.
 
 
+15 # Caliban 2016-10-15 21:16
"Objectified" is gender contexts means to be disparagingly singled out because of their sex appeal and thus robbed of their full humanity.
 
 
+34 # guomashi 2016-10-15 21:50
...which is exactly what Ryan did.
Or are you claiming that it is only objectification if it is disparaging?
Be careful, it's a trick question.

You dont' think being championed and revered is not objectification?
Doesn't sound fully human to me to need a champion, sounds positively medieval.
 
 
+23 # Kiwikid 2016-10-15 23:22
Oh dear, I find myself agreeing with you - you're absolutely right (ahem, correct).
 
 
+11 # Caliban 2016-10-15 23:42
Not a "trick" question, # guomashi, but a good question.

What I meant was that objectification itself "disparages" by reducing its object to something less than full humanity. In this sense, certain forms of "praise" can certainly be objectification , as in "Wow, she's a fantastic piece of ... etc."

Likewise, were a woman to call a male a "hunk", this "praise" would also be objectification -- and, thus, also a form of disparagement.
 
 
+13 # guomashi 2016-10-15 23:45
Ergo, Ryan is also objectifying women as objects of reverence or to be championed, and this is the same form of disparagement he is criticizing.
 
 
-1 # Caliban 2016-10-16 12:04
Not the same form nor the same intent. I believe Ryan was trying to be a good guy and that he is, in fact, a better guy than Trump.

But objectification is objectification . In the end it diminishes the object by either over-specificit y or over-generaliza tion. Trump's kind was the first (augmented by obscenity) and Ryan's the second despite his (politically desperate?) better intentions.
 
 
+7 # Texas Aggie 2016-10-16 18:16
Being a better guy than Drumpf is not difficult, but Ryan is still objectifying women, and he IS using the same form, talking about them as if they didn't matter as people with their own feelings.

Think about the difference between two slaveholders, one who beats his slaves at every occasion because they aren't really fully human, and the other who treats his slaves as well as he treats his dogs for the same reason.
 
 
0 # Caliban 2016-10-17 12:19
I don't disagree, #Texas Aggie.
 
 
-22 # RMDC 2016-10-16 07:32
What you meant to say is that real people are complex and contradictory. Trump may have some bad qualities and other good qualities.


It is TV and the news media that converts women into "idols" and demands that they look and act a certain perfect way at every moment. No real individual ever corresponds exactly to the idol and then TV criticizes anyone who does not.

All people have very complex characters. Human sexuality is very complex. There are the tight laced members of the Senior Anti-Sex League like Gloria Allred and then there are people like the Clintons who have an open marriage and Hillary, at least, maybe Bill too, is bi-sexual. No doubt they have 3-ways or maybe 4-ways. That's what kind of people they are. It is not important. Trump is a philanderer. That's not important either. But the media objectifies everyone. All politicians must be virgins pure as the snow like Paul Ryan or St. Ronald, or at least perfectly faithful puritans who never have sex without a separation veil.

It is almost impossible for american institutions like its entertainment industry to say anything making sense about sex. This industry has made trillions of dollars over the years selling soft and hard porn, and yet if someone says "pussy" they fly off into fit of shamefulness. But of course, they don't stop repeating it for even a single minute.

Fuck the media. They are the problem. Not Trump. If he has harmed any woman, she should file assault charges against him.
 
 
+8 # kitster 2016-10-16 09:10
same song, second verse. "trump has to blame someone else for his failures. the media are handy bait for the credulous and misinformed."
 
 
+4 # wrknight 2016-10-16 09:50
Quoting RMDC:
...It is TV and the news media that converts women into "idols" and demands that they look and act a certain perfect way at every moment. No real individual ever corresponds exactly to the idol and then TV criticizes anyone who does not....

Fuck the media. They are the problem. Not Trump. If he has harmed any woman, she should file assault charges against him.

It's interesting how everyone wants to point blame at someone else. "It's the media's fault". Obviously. It can't have anything to do with the public who buys the media. The public which is glued to the TV. The public that buys the "newspapers" and the magazines. The public that purchases the goods and services of the corporations that pay the media for advertising. No, it can't have anything to do with the public. It's all the media's fault for selling what the public buys.

Perhaps we need a media that presents only that which is noble and virtuous and is not so concerned with profits that it will stoop to presenting what the public wants to view.

The media is selling its soul to the devil and it's the devil that is buying it.
 
 
+1 # Caliban 2016-10-16 12:11
No, # RMDC -- I meant what I said, not what you seem to think I said. I have tried to add a little more above.

But to be absolutely clear: Trump is THE problem. The media brings us information and deserves our thanks for doing so.
 
 
+1 # TJGeezer 2016-10-16 13:24
"Trump may have some bad qualities and other good qualities."

Reminds me of Hillary's rather desperate response when challenged to say something she likes about Donald - she said his kids love him.
 
 
+2 # Caliban 2016-10-16 16:55
"Desperate"? HRC's answer was cooly brilliant. After all DT's "crooked Hillary" garbage, I was surprised she found anything at all positive about him.
 
 
0 # Billsy 2016-10-17 14:28
Let's not forget that (according to the wiki-leaks memos) the Clinton campaign encouraged the media to elevate Trump's campaign along with those of Cruz. In encouraging a less threatening opponent, it helped unleash a reckless monster. The circus doesn't end with this election. Next time it could be worse. The nest GOP candidate might not be a thoughtless buffoon, but a charming clever manipulative fascist.
 
 
-2 # backwards_cinderella 2016-10-16 04:12
BUT your are DERAILING the conversation by picking apart the article. I CALL YOU OUT: TROLL.
 
 
+5 # markovchhaney 2016-10-16 00:19
Lots of folks have commented on the idiocy of that remark, though perhaps not here.
 
 
-2 # backwards_cinderella 2016-10-16 04:11
He was quoting Ryan, not making a statement of his own. This has been pointed out many times since Ryan said that.
 
 
+7 # economagic 2016-10-16 09:54
Quoting guomashi:
"Ryan, recoiling from Trump's remarks, issued a denunciation ("Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified")"

It looks like a lot of people got it, but some of the apparent disagreement may stem from calling it an oxymoron, although given that the guy who said it is something of a moron himself (loosely speaking), even giving it a label almost requires a footnote.

An oxymoron is a self-contradict ion, and if we're going to say (properly, I think) that saying women should be "championed and revered" DOES objectify them, Ryan is making a "false dichotomy" in saying that it saying that there IS a difference between "championed and revered" and "objectified."

Whew! Rather than clarifying, that probably just further muddies the water and the discussion, proving once again that stupid talk tends to suck smart people in as we try to explain why it is stupid.
 
 
+3 # Texas Aggie 2016-10-16 18:09
Plenty of people, especially of the female persuasion, caught that right away. On Full Frontal there was a bit where Ryan was reminded that he forgot "patronizing" in his little sermon.
 
 
-72 # babaregi 2016-10-15 15:24
It looks like Matt is still in the Clinton camp.

He is already dismissing the importance of the Wikileaks (and other) revelations about the corruption of the Clinton machine.

Gee, it must be nice to have a crystal-ball to see the future with such certainty (especially since Assange promised that the most damaging leaks are yet to come).

This is what I find most fascinating about you Social Justice Warriors; you "feel" something deeply and then presume that your "felt perceptions" are backed up by objective facts because it just "feels" right.

Granted, it's not that hard to manage such conviction, it merely takes the willingness to settle into a comfortable cognitive niche and steer clear of information that might disturb the vision you so painstakingly assembled.

Facts often don't matter in politics, but perception always does.

Trump has been wonderful because he has introduced a discussion of our borders, illegal immigration, bad trade deals, the deep corruption of both dominant parties, and energized this race like no one else could because he is self-funded and speaks his mind.

The Internet is changing everything and making the Mass Media obsolete. Too many people are waking up and are finding new ways to participate.

You SJWs are heading towards obsolescence, as well, because your narratives can't withstand the force of logic and open (non-dogmatic) consideration. When you venture outside your 'safe-space' you will be increasingly...
 
 
-46 # babaregi 2016-10-15 15:35
...confronted by strong counter-argumen ts from people that don't 'feel' the way you do.

Many of those arguers will invade your space (like I do) instead of 'preaching to the choir' and bring it to you. They will do this because they know that stupid arrogant people must be aggressively confronted in their own bunkers, for the good of the whole.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOw4r2THhbk

At some point rational arguments will prevail if enough people start waking up and question their own certainty.

It's a wonderful time to be conscious and alive!

I encourage you to get out of your comfort zone and entertain the thoughts of your 'enemies' and other tribes. You may discover the 'method of their madness'.

To begin with, try some different colors of the "Kool-aid" you have been slaking your thirst with; nothing radical to start with, you understand, until you begin to develop a palette for a wider range of thoughts.

It's a big world out there!
 
 
+25 # Caliban 2016-10-15 21:28
"It's a big world out there!": I agree with this sentence, but I'm going to ask you to explain in clear sentences what the rest of your post actually means.
 
 
-19 # babaregi 2016-10-16 00:35
Quoting Caliban:
"It's a big world out there!": I agree with this sentence, but I'm going to ask you to explain in clear sentences what the rest of your post actually means.


It means that you guys have a one-track mind and think that you have "the winning formula" and everyone else is stupid.
 
 
+7 # reiverpacific 2016-10-16 14:28
Quoting babaregi:
Quoting Caliban:
"It's a big world out there!": I agree with this sentence, but I'm going to ask you to explain in clear sentences what the rest of your post actually means.


It means that you guys have a one-track mind and think that you have "the winning formula" and everyone else is stupid.


So what's YOUR point in babbling on at some length???
 
 
+13 # Jaax88 2016-10-16 00:08
Give us a couple of examples of you, babaregi, getting out of your own comfort zone as you suggest the rest of us do.
 
 
+9 # babaregi 2016-10-16 00:48
Quoting Jaax88:
Give us a couple of examples of you, babaregi, getting out of your own comfort zone as you suggest the rest of us do.


Yes, I am constantly uncomfortable reading opinions from other people and considering their point of view, especially when they make a lot of sense and it convinces me that I may be in error.

I post here, attack and read the responses. Sometimes I hear something new and I adapt to it, but most of the time I merely confront unreasoned vitriol (not surprising) and evidence that no one is willing to open their mind. That's uncomfortable but it is good practice to learn to think straight among fanatical peer group pressure.

I listen to other people that challenge what I thought was true and stay open to change my mind. That is a rare commodity online but it is a very fast method to learn and release misconceptions of reality.

I have changed my mind several times based on new information and the process usually involves dealing with fear and uncertainty.

I've lost a few friends along the way but that's unavoidable sometimes because the pursuit of truth is a passionate affair. Some mistakes are going to be made and there is no turning back once they're made (unless one plays it safe all of the time).

-------------------------------

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
 
 
+2 # pros54 2016-10-16 18:33
""The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell"

Same as said prior by Yeats
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

That is why Fox news is the most listened to network and the others are doing their best to imitate that style.
 
 
-3 # ericlipps 2016-10-16 09:36
Quoting babaregi:
...confronted by strong counter-arguments from people that don't 'feel' the way you do.

Many of those arguers will invade your space (like I do) instead of 'preaching to the choir' and bring it to you. They will do this because they know that stupid arrogant people must be aggressively confronted in their own bunkers, for the good of the whole.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOw4r2THhbk

At some point rational arguments will prevail if enough people start waking up and question their own certainty.

At which time you'll disappear from the Net?

Quote:
It's a wonderful time to be conscious and alive!
Well, in your case, .500 is a good batting average.

Quote:
I encourage you to get out of your comfort zone and entertain the thoughts of your 'enemies' and other tribes. You may discover the 'method of their madness'.
Take your own advice.

Quote:
To begin with, try some different colors of the "Kool-aid" you have been slaking your thirst with; nothing radical to start with, you understand, until you begin to develop a palette for a wider range of thoughts.

It's a big world out there!
At last the patronizing rant ends. Not a sentence too soon.
 
 
+4 # RMF 2016-10-16 14:54
# babaregi
With such a long post can you at least tell us who you support for pres, and thus by implication identify what policies your manifesto advocates (since the column above is about that very subject.)

Full disclosure -- I was for Bernie but now support Hillary.

But even though your comment reqd two panels to fit it all in -- lots of big words -- I still can't figure it out -- so, just guessing, but I suspect you are a Johnson supporter, given your dismissal of those seeking greater justice and equity in US society.

Am I wrong? If so, I will be happy -- as libertarianism is the fast track to disaster.
 
 
-1 # babaregi 2016-10-17 13:18
I voted for Sanders, even though I have big misgivings about socialism.

Hillary and Trump are awful choices.
I have not looked into the other candidates since they have no reasonable chance to win.

I don't dismiss justice unless it's at the expense of the rights of others. I am looking closely at Libertarianism but until people become spiritually awakened, selfishness will rule the day and all systems will be used toward selfish ends because of the low level of consciousness that humanity is operating with.

The machines will, likely, out-evolve us and make this a moot conversation within 50 years. I recommend spiritual practice instead of depending on creating a political utopia with people that have nervous systems adapted to fight or flight.
 
 
+11 # Activista 2016-10-15 20:22
babaregi:
The Internet is changing everything and making the Mass Media obsolete."

Trump Vows to 'Protect Free Speech,' Yet Trump Favors Censoring the ...
reason.com/blog/2016/07/22/trump-vows-to-protect-free-speech-yet-tr
Reason
Jul 22, 2016 - After all, this is the same Trump who favors government censorship of the internet in order to suppress speech that he finds objectionable.
Please Don't Shut Down the Internet, Donald Trump - The New Yorker
www.newyorker.com/.../please-dont-shut-down-the-internet-donald-t...
The New Yorker
Dec 17, 2015 - Nicholas Thompson examines Donald Trump's recent proposal, at a ... Iran, China, Eritrea, and ISIS on the side of censorship and shutdowns.
Donald Trump Wants Bill Gates to 'Close That Internet Up' - Fortune
fortune.com/2015/12/08/donald-trump-bill-gates-internet/
Dec 8, 2015 - Donald Trump thinks Bill Gates can help the United States battle ISIS ... MSFT 0.88% founder Bill Gates, could possibly help censor parts of the online world. “We're losing a lot of people because of the Internet,” Trump said...
 
 
+3 # ericlipps 2016-10-16 09:30
Quoting babaregi:
It looks like Matt is still in the Clinton camp.

He is already dismissing the importance of the Wikileaks (and other) revelations about the corruption of the Clinton machine.

How many times must it be said: There is no "Clinton machine!"

Bill Clinton won the 1992 election essentially by default, as bigger Democratic names fled the field for fear of bein humiliated by the almighty Bush machine, which turned out not to be so almighty after all. He won in '96 against a Republican adversary whose chief campaign argument seemed to be "I fought in world War II ad my opponent didn't."

Hillary Clinton won her Senate seat against a hapless GOP opponent who would probably lost for city council. Faced with more serious opposition in the 2008 primaries, she lost to Barack Obama.

That doesn't sound like some sort of "machine" to me.
 
 
-18 # guomashi 2016-10-15 16:15
What is the point of this article?

It ranges widely and comes to the conclusion that Trump can't possibly win which will confirm the current rotten decaying political structure we already have?

If you are going to try and slap me in the face with "Would you rather have Trump" I will slap you back with "yes, if CLinton is the only other option". Neither one should be out of an asylum.

I don't want to see an expansion of war. You apparently think expansion of wars is the best possible scenario.

I repeat, what is the point of this inchoate rambling diatribe?
Column inches?
 
 
-39 # RMDC 2016-10-15 17:37
I don't see the point of it either. We are all overwhelmed by the media blitzkrieg having to do with Trump's sex life. We all know it does not matter but we are so saturated with it by the media that we cannot think straight. It is like being pissed on by every media organization in the US all at the same time. Trump trounced Hillary in the last debate and now the media are desperate to pay him back.

This is what passes for "democracy" in the US. It is the laughing stock of the world. I lived in the UK during the 2000 Bush/Gore fiasco and I never thought that would be surpassed. But the Hillary show is making Bush look mild.
 
 
+20 # Jaax88 2016-10-16 00:15
"Trump trounced Hillary in the last debate"

RMDC you are getting Trumps disease.ithi nk the ratings would call that Pants On Fire.
 
 
-7 # RMDC 2016-10-16 07:46
jaax -- if would help if you'd actually watched it instead of reading the media spinmeisters.
 
 
+2 # ericlipps 2016-10-16 09:44
Ah, yes; we're back to "blame the media" again. See my post above.
 
 
+4 # karlarove 2016-10-16 10:12
LOL, if you consider how many times one debater interrupts the other Trump was the winner. This is the "Trump Trumpery" show,the "fiasco" he alone creates every time he opens his mouth. The media doesn't even need to make this stuff up.Let's not forget about his confession about what he does to women with his star status. This is truly Trump's show.
 
 
-2 # Activista 2016-10-15 21:43
"I don't want to see an expansion of war." - like diplomacy:
Iran treaty and Cuba diplomatic relations? Obama/Kerry did recently - and Military-Indust rial complex was not happy?
 
 
+10 # Realist1948 2016-10-16 08:23
IMHO one of the best statements in the 'diatribe' was where Taibbi said of Trump supporters: "Duped for a generation by a party that kowtowed to the wealthy while offering scraps to voters, then egged on to a doomed rebellion by a third-rate con man who wilted under pressure and was finally incinerated in a fireball of his own stupidity, people like [a group of Trump supporters] found themselves, in the end, represented by literally no one."

This situation was foreshadowed by Thomas Frank several years ago in "What's the Matter with Kansas?"
 
 
-2 # ericlipps 2016-10-16 09:42
Quoting guomashi:
What is the point of this article?

It ranges widely and comes to the conclusion that Trump can't possibly win which will confirm the current rotten decaying political structure we already have?

If you are going to try and slap me in the face with "Would you rather have Trump" I will slap you back with "yes, if Clinton is the only other option". Neither one should be out of an asylum.

I don't want to see an expansion of war. You apparently think expansion of wars is the best possible scenario.

I repeat, what is the point of this inchoate rambling diatribe?
Column inches?

Well, if you'd rather have Trump than Clinton, that pretty much speaks for itself.

Pity you can't get your wish without dragging the rest of us into the pit with you. You might actually learn something.

And about that "inchoate rambling diatribe" . . . need I go on?
 
 
-1 # A_Har 2016-10-18 13:38
Quoting ericlipps:
Well, if you'd rather have Trump than Clinton, that pretty much speaks for itself.
You keep promoting HRC and the Democratic ticket here regardless of what they DO.

This has recently come out from Wikileaks:

WIKILEAKS BOMBSHELL: Hillary Advisors Admit She “HATES EVERYDAY AMERICANS”
http: //www.thegatewa ypundit.com/201 6/10/wikileaks- bombshell-hilla ry-advisors-adm it-hates-everyd ay-americans/

Jim Hoft Oct 11th, 2016 9:21 am

She also admitted in a speech to the Banksters that she is not so close to ordinary people and that her campaign likes it that they are unaware.

Leaked email shows Hillary Camp called Democratic voters unaware and compliant citizens
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDl8GYmQOWw

So...the fact that you keep promoting her puts you either in the camp of "Unaware and Compliant" OR it makes you a paid SHILL.
 
 
-3 # economagic 2016-10-16 10:03
Quoting guomashi:

I repeat, what is the point of this inchoate rambling diatribe?
Column inches?

Probably, although I think Matt is still trying to wrap his mind around how we came to have these two as alternatives, and why he feels compelled to vote for one of them. Apparently he is not reading your reasons for not voting for Clinton, or mine for casting a positive vote for neither of the above.

(Whether you are planning to vote for Trump or one of the other alternatives seems to have gotten lost in the scuffle.)
 
 
-1 # A_Har 2016-10-18 13:41
Yes, and the corporate media is sounding the bullhorn for Killary full on.
 
 
+51 # Activista 2016-10-15 21:24
The Fury and Failure of Donald Trump
By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone is one of the best writing/analysi s on present state of the USA.
Criticizing/analyzing both Trump and Clinton - but describing Trump's persona - each paragraph is priceless:
"Trump's shocking rise and spectacular fall have been a singular disaster for U.S. politics. Built up in the press as the American Hitler, he was unmasked in the end as a pathetic little prankster who ruined himself, his family and half of America's two-party political system for what was probably a half-assed ego trip all along, adventure tourism for the idiot rich."
read - cry and laugh - this is the American Tragicomedy.
 
 
+21 # Activista 2016-10-15 21:35
It is worth to read original:
www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-fury-and-failure-of-donald-trump-w444943
with videos -
 
 
+14 # dotlady 2016-10-15 23:16
Matt Taibi is wasting words here even if some of them are clever. Until America is attacked by ISIS, or one of our implacable gas or oil companies' pipelines explodes or spills and takes out a major river or city, or the currency fails, or the oceans close over our shores, we're going to be talking about the pitiful Dollar Tramp and Mike Repents and the forked-tongued Hillary. TV game-stunned bubble-dwelling Americans are children posing as adults. Our national psychosis places financial profit ahead of our own survival. We need to elect talented professionals from various fields, not politicians, and allow them to find a balance between America's actual well-being and dreams of empire and personal billions that are bankrupting us as a nation, both financially and spiritually.
 
 
+13 # markovchhaney 2016-10-15 23:17
Imagine if Norman Mailer were still alive to cover this election. The fun he'd have had, the book he would have been able to offer up.
 
 
+10 # boredlion 2016-10-16 00:54
Or Gore Vidal . . Or Lenny Bruce . . . E.g.
 
 
+3 # vicnada 2016-10-16 14:57
or Jon Stewart..oh..
 
 
0 # Navrongo80 2016-10-18 17:38
I really miss Jon.
 
 
+16 # candida 2016-10-15 23:36
A brilliant analysis not only of this election but the state of the US political system and the Gordian knot in which we progressives/Le ftists find ourselves. To say Taibbi is in the Clinton camp (barbaregi)is to not understand the article (or not have read it). Quite the contrary!

I love this line, "Trumpian license has pushed hatred of Hillary Clinton beyond all reason," because it describes so well so many of the commentators on RSN, like RMDC who says, "the Hillary show is making Bush look mild." Lunacy!
 
 
+3 # ericlipps 2016-10-16 09:51
Quoting candida:
A brilliant analysis not only of this election but the state of the US political system and the Gordian knot in which we progressives/Leftists find ourselves. To say Taibbi is in the Clinton camp (barbaregi)is to not understand the article (or not have read it). Quite the contrary!

I love this line, "Trumpian license has pushed hatred of Hillary Clinton beyond all reason," because it describes so well so many of the commentators on RSN, like RMDC who says, "the Hillary show is making Bush look mild." Lunacy!

Hear, hear. Too many folks on RSN see this election as being as simple as ABC: "Anybody But Clinton."

A lot of them squeal for Clinton to "step aside [or be kicked aside] for Bernie." Not happening; get over it. Or they push Jill Stein as though she could somehow, by some sort of divine intervention, actually win. And the poisonous assaults on Hillary just keep coming.

Look, I'm no fan of Hillary's. I'd have been happy to vote for Bernie Sanders if he'd been the Democratic nominee. But he isn't, and no miracle will bestow the nomination on him now. And when was the last time, or even the first, that a minor-party candidate won the presidency?
 
 
-1 # A_Har 2016-10-18 13:45
Quoting ericlipps:
Look, I'm no fan of Hillary's.
After MONTHS of LOTE endorsements of her, you could fool me.
 
 
0 # Robbee 2016-10-18 13:54
Quoting candida:
A brilliant analysis not only of this election but the state of the US political system and the Gordian knot in which we progressives/Leftists find ourselves. To say Taibbi is in the Clinton camp (barbaregi)is to not understand the article (or not have read it). Quite the contrary!

I love this line, "Trumpian license has pushed hatred of Hillary Clinton beyond all reason," because it describes so well so many of the commentators on RSN, like RMDC who says, "the Hillary show is making Bush look mild." Lunacy!

- "Shackled! Only in America can a man martyr himself on a cross of pussy."

i'm going with the hunter s. thompson award for journalistic excellence in reporting on a gutterally loathsome political party
 
 
+14 # Doc Mary 2016-10-16 00:18
Mike Castle was a popular long-term politician in Delaware - Governor, Representative. When Joe Biden stepped down, obviously Castle would be elected Senator in 2010.

But. It was SO obvious that Mike didn't put much effort into the primary race,and he lost to a candidate of the new Tea Party branch of the Reps. (You must remember her - "I am not a witch.") She lost to the Democrat in that race.

But it was the end of an era. Castle did not consider Democrats to be the devil. He was bipartisan.

What is a Republican today? There are the alt-right fanatics. And the intense, neurotic Hillary haters. What else?

What IS the Republican Party? I know of it as obstructionism, against the federal government, against civil rights, against Roe v Wade, against public programs for the poor, but in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy. So determined to kill Roe v Wade that they would accept Trump as president to get to put their own man on the Supreme Court.

I know what they are against. But what are they for?

If Trump does run off to a splinter group media empire, what will be left of the Republican Party?

The Dixiecrats split from the Democratic Party in 1968.So the Republican Party essentially became a new party. But where is it now? It will be a weak Third Party. Where will the Second Party come from?

I can't think of a model for what we are going to be left with. Who will be the Republican Party, and what will they stand for?
 
 
+10 # James38 2016-10-16 00:56
Doc Mary, I have wondered the same thing. One possibility that occurred to me is that the present Democratic Party, led by Hillary no matter how far to the progressive side she might have been shoved by Bernie, will become the new Republican Party. The present Republican Party will be useful as the place for the rabid "Tricke Down" anti-social-pro grams bunch to collect.

The new party should be the true Progressive Party, picking up where Roosevelt left off, taking the semi-shredded and slightly rationalized health care program the rest of the way to single-payer, starting a new WPA (Works Projects Administration) to rebuild the infrastructure, etc.

Otherwise, I have no clue what might happen. I suppose the Republicans might regroup and repudiate the wacko fringe groups, but they will be hard to disavow sufficiently. That camel has well and truly followed his nose into the tent.

Among other things, after the election, it will be very interesting to find out what Bernie and Elizabeth and Al Franken among others think about this problem. We drastically need an answer.
 
 
+2 # James38 2016-10-16 15:17
It is important to add re "...the Republicans might regroup and repudiate the wacko fringe groups, but they will be hard to disavow sufficiently" that the present leadership of the Republican Party, Ryan and McConnell, are full members of the teabagger fringe. They hate social programs, have not a shred of compassion between them, think nothing of turning Congress into a roadblock to any progress (refusing to consider Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court), and wouldn't know how to conduct themselves in a reasonably cooperative bipartisan way.

The Republican Party is well on its way to total and well earned irrelevance - not because some of the core ideas of genuine conservatism are without relevance, but because the entire present party leadership has discarded all such reasonableness.

They have sold themselves to the destruction of everything human and humane about US civilization. Sad, and the low-information voters who form the backbone of the party are the very ones hurt the most by the policies the party is pushing.
 
 
+2 # RMDC 2016-10-16 07:55
Doc Mary -- yes it is really good to understand the republican party. One correction: the Dixiecrats split off in 1948 and the party collapsed after Strom Thurmond failed in his presidential race of 1952. Then the Dixiecrats went in two directions:

1. into the republican party as part of the republican's "southern strategy," an effort to recruit southern conservatives and racists. Thurmond himself because a republican and very many followed him.

2. into the Blue Dog democrat movement. Dixiecrats moved back into the democrat party where they came from and remained there as conservative, racist followers of the traditional southern democrat party.


The main line of the democrat party was far to the left, following Franklin Roosevelt and JFK. It became the party of civil rights. Republicans and Blue Dog democrats really took over the positions of the old southern democrat party.

Today, the Blue Dog democrats are represented by Bill Clinton. Hillary is a Goldwater republican who has become a Blue Dog. The Clintons have been dragging the democratic party to the racist right. They talk in a politically correct way in order to keep traditional democrats but they legislate in the Blue Dog/Republican way.
 
 
0 # James38 2016-10-16 15:21
RMDC, this fits well with what I said just above. Agree. I do have a tiny bit of hope that Hillary may have changed a little, moved to the progressive a little. We shall see.
 
 
0 # Robbee 2016-10-18 14:53
Quoting Doc Mary:
I can't think of a model for what we are going to be left with. Who will be the Republican Party, and what will they stand for?

- a conservative party will stand for

1) small government
2) superpowering our military
3) cutting taxes on everyone but the poor
4) cutting regs - "red tape"
5) cutting regulators
6) cutting "safety net"
7) cutting "civil rights"
8) cutting gov't programs that benefit the poor - minimum wage - food stamps - repealing ACA
9) block granting - to assure that aid to the poor goes to others
10) militarizing the police
11) constitutional rights for all but the oppressed
12) imprisonment to finally win the war on drugs
13) disestablish the department of education
14) stop the conspiracy of international bankers
15) close open borders to "radical islamists"
16) pledge allegiance to god and bible
17) restore family values
18) balance the budget
19) fund religious schools
20) take the gloves off our military
21) streamline, modernize and network our intelligence services
22) take the gloves off our corporations - to enable them to grow and to compete with foreign corporations
23) celebrate out diversity by giving religious corporations the right to impose policies based on their beliefs
24) appoint judges who believe in our constitutional rights - like scalia
25) support israel and nuttyahoo

will the new repug party look any different from the old one? - if rump loses? - not so you'd notice
 
 
+5 # moby doug 2016-10-16 01:40
"The best lack all conviction while the worst are filled with a passionate intensity." ---W B Yeats, "The Second Coming."
 
 
+4 # Navrongo80 2016-10-16 06:43
These are the rules of the Campaign Reality Show as it has evolved over the years. The program is designed to reduce political thought to a simple binary choice and force more than 100 million adults to commit to one or the other. Like every TV contest, it discourages subtlety, reflection and reconciliation, and encourages belligerence, action and conflict.

The above is one of my favorite statements from the article. In effect, the Republican Party is not dead. We are indoctrinated from youth that the US is a two party system. Until we can change that narrative we will be stuck in a rut of little real choice.

The shame it that this year we had two candidates that challenged their party orthodoxy. One got sand bagged (and started out too slowly campaign-wise) and the other got nominated, but is incapable of sealing the deal.

The two major parties have seen what can happen. Have little doubt in your mind that they will not let this happen again anytime soon.

We need to find a way to break the inbred binary mindset if we are to see real and necessary change in the political landscape.
 
 
+3 # draypoker 2016-10-16 09:25
One of the most disturbing things about Trump - as viewed from Britain - is the presence of Nigel Farage who has been leading a party to get Britain out of the EU - a catastrophic policy. It seems the two have been working together. Leaving the EU has attracted the same sort of voters in Britain as are supporting Trump. Farage doesn't win many elections - his party has one seat in the Commons - but has probably influenced the popular vote for exit.
 
 
+7 # karlarove 2016-10-16 10:03
Matt - right on "Trump, ironically, was originally a rebel against this process, the first-ever party-crasher to bulldoze his way past the oligarchical triad of donors, party leaders, and gatekeeping media. The election cycle has demonstrated Trump, ironically, was originally a rebel against this process, the first-ever party-crasher to bulldoze his way past the oligarchical triad of donors, party leaders, and gatekeeping media. But once he got in, he became the ultimate servant of the horse race, simultaneously creating the most-watched and most regressive election ever,”

AMEN. With this last debate, his ranting and raving have increased, inciting voters to believe the election is “rigged.” He knows how susceptible and dangerous some so-called Patriots are if Trump isn’t winning. His minions will take care of his hurt ego. Scary and irresponsible. America deserves better than terrorist threats if they don't get what they want. If Donald wanted America to be great again, he would suggest something different. He is just another Reality star using the media for his aggrandizement. And four bankruptcies is not a good business instead indicates someone who doesn't know what they are doing. And using other people’s money to do it. Daddy trained him well. And if he gets elected his own Attorney General will be investigating him for sexual harassment because Donald is a” modelizer,” only choosing women for their looks.
 
 
+3 # economagic 2016-10-16 10:17
"The "scandal" of the Wiki papers, if you can call it that, is that it captured how at ease Clinton was talking to bankers and industrialists about the options for the organization of a global society. Even in transcript form, it's hard not to realize that the people in these rooms are all stakeholders in this vast historical transformation."

And easy to forget that WE, the people, are also stakeholders, and apparently none of the people in that room give a flying finagle about us. As hinted (snark), that is precisely the reason many otherwise sane people will be actually voting FOR Trump, while a good many "high-informati on" people who see the bigger picture will do the same for other reasons.

Those stakeholders -- the ones who fail to recognize us as also having a stake -- have created this situation of bad politics and bad theater precisely because of that failure. Empire, hubris, etc.
 
 
+1 # alice arlene 2016-10-16 14:01
Yes economagic I agree. It is not a scandal - it's the world we live in. Because of technology we live in a global society which includes the rest of the world. The rest of the world would like the standard of living that we have. This is a painful transition that is going to require all politicians, world leaders, bankers, working people, everyone to have a say in creating - a sustainable economy that works for everyone and does not harm the environment.

The Wiki leaks are much ado about nothing folks. Of course we all, to some extent, gear our talks to our audience. Hillary Clinton showed herself to be a sophisticated, thoughtful, careful politician whose message to Wall Street was if you don't regulate yourselves, the government will have to do it for you.

Yes we all stakeholders. Does this mean we become paranoid isolationists, nationalists, white supremacists as the alt right is pushing for through Mr.Trump? Or do we try to guide this brave new world being attentive to the needs of all.
 
 
+3 # Texas Aggie 2016-10-16 18:31
But she didn't tell the bankers that if they didn't get their act together, the government would do it for them. She told them that they were being unfairly blamed for the results of their actions and that they were the "people who have led successful and/or complicated lives."

They are people whose very existence depends on being able to cheat and lie in order to reach the point where they are. You don't think those thieves running Wells Fargo are unique, do you?
 
 
+2 # lfeuille 2016-10-16 18:34
And she thinks it is just fine to have bankers regulating banks.
 
 
+8 # mlefkoff 2016-10-16 10:52
Dear Matt: As a very active 70-something at the pinnacle of a career, I'd appreciate it so much if you would stop throwing us oldies to the wolves at the same time you rightfully rage brilliantly about our present political system, a rage many elders share. Ageism does not become you.
 
 
0 # revhen 2016-10-16 12:18
We're just experiencing what Winston Churchill stated: "Democracy is the worst form of government -- except for all the others which have been tried and found wanting." This too shall pass. Some way must be found to put the plutocratic oligarchy down.
 
 
+2 # pros54 2016-10-16 19:05
"We're just experiencing what Winston Churchill stated: "Democracy is the worst form of government -- except for all the others which have been tried and found wanting." This too shall pass. Some way must be found to put the plutocratic oligarchy down."

You call this democracy?
 
 
+1 # Robbee 2016-10-18 17:35
Quoting pros54:
Some way must be found to put the plutocratic oligarchy down."

You call this democracy?

- the revolution occurs when we overthrow plutocracy - get private money out of elections - it formally starts when hill or bernie, or both together, propose a constitutional amendment that reforms campaign finance - which hill promises within 30 days of taking office - if she does - there is only one revolution - there is only one way revolution overthrows plutocracy - everything else is window-dressing - focus!- the immediate task of the revolution is to elect hill and as many other progressives as we can! - lets roll!
 
 
0 # elkingo 2016-10-16 15:11
Both Trump and the media both suck, being creatures of insane capitalism. However, and I never thought I'd ever say this: the media have been cool for the first time. From the big networks and lesser institutions have given the Donald a real "bum-rap"and not mincing terms. One "news head" spoke of another "dive into the gutter.) These folks do depart these days from the Newspeak bullshit which is supposed to pass for objective journalism. Or is the recent diktat of their masters who are (!) trying to distance themselves from the Donald?
 
 
+2 # elkingo 2016-10-16 15:39
Alice Arlene: With you 100%! But what you are eloquently and compassionately stating is socialism. Don't get me wrong: we need it excruciately, the only means of earthly survival.
 
 
0 # The Buffalo Guy 2016-10-16 17:11
Occasionally my friends and I would run across someone whose thinking was unbelievable. We might comment,And they let that guy vote. This election makes me realize there are millions of guys like this and they get to vote. I would have quickly supported Elizabeth Warren and Hillary is a second choice. If the economy does as well under her as it did for Hubby Bill then I think there would be little to complain about. It is so difficult to get candidates to vote for rather than voting against their foe that I've come to realize that you will never get everything you want but wind up settling with hope. It is discouraging but it's winner take all. There may or may not be negotiations going forward.
Trump is trying to make complaining a force for change...like that movie NETWORK. Can "mad as hell" change anything?
 
 
+1 # lfeuille 2016-10-16 18:10
I don't have any problem with Taibbi trashing Trump and the party that nominated him, but he seriously underestimates the downside of a Clinton presidency. He should have spent more time on the emails. The degree cynicism and voter contempt exhibited is breathtaking. The campaign was almost entirely image manipulation by whatever means available. I see no reason to believe that will change when she is elected. Then there's this:

"The best argument for a Clinton presidency is that she's virtually guaranteed to be a capable steward of the status quo, at a time of relative stability and safety."

Stability and safety for who? Not the 99%. Unacknowledged inflation is eating into buying power and wages aren't rising. Given Clinton's belief in "public" and private positions" seniors cannot be assured that she won't make a deal to cut social security and medicare, workers can't be sure she won't approve TPP and other horrendous trade deals in the pileline. And speaking of pipelines, environmentalis ts can't be sure she won't approve a slue of them plus other harmful infrastructure. That doesn't feel very safe somehow.

And there is no way to maintain stability in never-ending war, Hillary's gift to the world.

And Taibbi misses one of the causes of Trump's continued viability after the conventions. Namely, his uninspiring opponent.
 
 
+2 # Texas Aggie 2016-10-16 18:23
While I didn't read all the comments, I didn't see where anyone corrected the author who doesn't realize the importance of Hillary's comments to the banksters.

What she told them is directly opposite of what she is saying on the campaign. She claims to be against TPP, against fracking, for accountability, and even worse, she told them that she believes in a private position for what she really thinks vs. a different public position for what she tells people. She realized the implications of what she said for the campaign trail which is why she was so adamant about not letting those statements get into the public discussion. These statements are bombs ready to go off and if they had been exploded during the primaries, not even the delegates at large could have saved her from a Mr. Sanders' blowout.
 
 
0 # PeacefulGarden 2016-10-17 05:54
Ah, the lowly bottom of the trail.

Aggie, the point of the article was

"They've been represented by an empty stage all along. Why not sit there and stare at it for a little longer? "

and this is modern politics to a tee.

The fact that Trump is ranting and raving, and everyone knows he will not win, and it is like he doesn't want to be president at this point-- the duration of how much the American public will continuously support politicians who do not support them is an absolute mystery.

We have no representation at all. And, it appears the process of voting will not change that. Our media has destroyed it.
 
 
0 # Robbee 2016-10-18 16:12
Quoting PeacefulGarden:
it is like he doesn't want to be president

- rump has made it as clear as he can that he does not want to be prez in the traditional sense - with two other co-equal branches of gov't - he "alone" will govern -

if we insist - he will reluctantly delay his urgent need to sue legions of churlish "pigs" for defamation - and his eagerness to face his accusers in court - until the end of his presidency
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN