Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Trump and the cult of stupid

  1. #1

    Trump and the cult of stupid

    Trump and the cult of stupid

    “Donald Trump isn’t a traditional politician and we don’t need to run a traditional campaign.”

    “TV ads don’t work.”

    “He won the primary without spending any real money.”

    “We don’t need you fancy consultants and your decades of experience, losers.”

    Sound familiar? It should. You hear it every day from new Trump Establishment Republicans trying to defend themselves against the overwhelming evidence that Donald Trump’s “campaign” is off the rails. It’s an article of faith among Trump fans that he can ignore all the rules of political physics forever and will simply rise and rise no matter how many unforced errors he makes.

    They take pride in his rejection of the tools and techniques of campaigning, ignoring the hard lessons that Barack Obama’s two election victories taught us as a party. They view the tools of politics as anathema in their cult of stupid, where anger and revenge against the hated establishment was enough to get him the nomination and swear it’s enough to win against Hillary. “Who needs expertise? We’ve got rage.”

    Yesterday, they collided with the realities of a general election, as first day of the RNC convention in Cleveland demonstrated how unready they are for the fight ahead. The day went off the rails with the clumsy, criminally stupid catfight with Ohio Gov. John Kasich, followed by suppression of the legitimate concerns of hundreds of Trump-skeptical conservative delegates who wanted a bare-bones opportunity to have their voices heard.

    Trump’s hostile takeover of the Party was in full public view as the Vichy RNC refused to even consider their motion, with the now-familiar Manafort-themed Eastern European thug tactics and gloating on display.

    Then came the speeches. The base-heavy lineup of speakers, including a white-hot barnburner from 1989-vintage Rudy Giuliani, stuck to the theme, but the fear-centric, the-end-is-near messages were played out to a sparsely filled hall and the networks cut away repeatedly during speakers.

    The less we say about Scott Baio and Mike Flynn, the better, and pushing rising star Joni Ernst into near-midnight slot was another misstep.

    Trump’s Fox-heavy audience ended up missing a vital moment of the evening. During Patricia Smith’s heartbreaking speech about her son’s death in the Benghazi terror attack, he couldn’t resist the siren-song of phoning in to Bill O’Reilly’s show. A real campaign would have realized this and stopped him from blowing an emotional moment tuned to his core audience.

    The crown jewel of the night was supposed to be Melania Trump’s speech. Heavily hyped as an insight into the real Donald Trump, it was touted throughout the day by Trump-friendly media as a game-changer. It was to be the tent-pole of the Trump family’s reality TV debut, and instead turned in to a political dumpster fire as it was revealed that whole sections were lifted verbatim from Michelle Obama’s 2008 Democratic National Convention Speech.

    Instead of humanizing Trump’s image, it turned in to a process story, and almost 12 hours later they haven’t contained the fire.

    The lidless eye of social media almost instantly revealed the plagiarism (for there is no other term for this), and while this would have been a story in any case her earlier boast to Matt Lauer that “I wrote it...with as little help as possible” made it that much worse.

    It took the campaign (which supposedly has hired a rapid-response team) hours to issue a terrible, confusing statement that was more grist for the story. This morning, Paul Manafort doubled-down, daring the media to call his bluff.

    This didn’t happen in a vacuum. This is the culture of Trump. Every adviser to Trump realizes that kissing his ring is the key to survival.

    The empirical facts of the world outside Trump’s bubble are to be ignored or dismissed. For all the talk from Team Reince that Trump is improving and pivoting and professionalizing the campaign, it’s patently obvious that he’s still making it up as he goes along.

    Hillary Clinton is a terrible, clunky and mistrusted candidate. She’s deeply unpopular. Against anyone other than Donald Trump, she’d likely be well behind in the polls. However, Hillary Clinton is raising money, spending it to communicate against Trump and doing the boring, low-glamour high-reward campaign tasks that make her the odds-on favorite in November. There’s nothing random or ad-hoc about her campaign. It’s grinding, dull and ruthless.

    Trump supporters may think that doesn’t matter. They’re in for a painful shock.

    Rick Wilson is a Republican ad-maker and communications strategist. His Twitter handle is @TheRickWilson
    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...cult-of-stupid
    “I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    by WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR. January 22, 2016 12:25 PM Editor’s Note: The following excerpts are drawn from an essay by William F. Buckley Jr. that appeared in the March/April 2000 issue of Cigar Aficionado. http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/20...rily-accurate/

    "Many people are inflamed by the rampant demagoguery in the present scene. Demagoguery — demagogy — comes in two modes. Most conspicuous is that of the candidate who promises the voters what are best described as Nice Things. Why not health care for the uninsured? Or for children? Why not cheaper drugs? Free child delivery? (Free funerals?) Sharpshooters tracking down demagogy were out there waiting last summer, eyes trained, when Bill Bradley arrived in Iowa. Would he do it? Would he advocate an end to the subsidy of ethanol? Ethanol is the program, excogitated during the Carter Administration, which sought to augment the staying power of a gallon of gasoline by an infusion of ethanol. What happened is that the price of oil went down, and the potential economic value of an ethanol additive turned out to be less than the cost of producing ethanol, and that was many moons ago. . .

    What about the aspirant who has a private vision to offer to the public and has the means, personal or contrived, to finance a campaign? In some cases, the vision isn’t merely a program to be adopted. It is a program that includes the visionary’s serving as President. Look for the narcissist. The most obvious target in today’s lineup is, of course, Donald Trump. When he looks at a glass, he is mesmerized by its reflection. If Donald Trump were shaped a little differently, he would compete for Miss America. But whatever the depths of self-enchantment, the demagogue has to say something. So what does Trump say? That he is a successful businessman and that that is what America needs in the Oval Office. There is some plausibility in this, though not much. The greatest deeds of American Presidents — midwifing the new republic; freeing the slaves; harnessing the energies and vision needed to win the Cold War — had little to do with a bottom line. So what else can Trump offer us? Well to begin with, a self-financed campaign. Does it follow that all who finance their own campaigns are narcissists? At this writing Steve Forbes has spent $63 million in pursuit of the Republican nomination. Forbes is an evangelist, not an exhibitionist. In his long and sober private career, Steve Forbes never bought a casino, and if he had done so, he would not have called it Forbes’s Funhouse. His motivations are discernibly selfless...

    There are moments of deep gloom during the primary season. The candidates are immediately approached after a public event to be told whether what they just finished saying added or subtracted from their probable standing in the polls. And the American voter who wants to see a sign of life and of pride in the participants in our expensive and exhausting democratic obstacle course wonder, sometimes with a sense of desperation, whether what we’re seeing is new. Or, are we looking at merely this season’s reenactment of a ritual that began when Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton were quarreling before their conclusive encounter at Weehawken? There is always rivalry, and there is always a search for means of exploiting the means of advancing one’s own position. In other ages, one paid court to the king. Now we pay court to the people. In the final analysis, just as the king might look down with terminal disdain upon a courtier whose hypocrisy repelled him, so we have no substitute for relying on the voter to exercise a quiet veto when it becomes more necessary to discourage cynical demagogy, than to advance free health for the kids. That can come later, in another venue; the resistance to a corrupting demagogy should take first priority."

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...gar-aficionado
    Last edited by Aratus; 07-25-2016 at 05:07 PM.

  4. #3
    The author of the OP is a GOP establishment hack.

    The National Review is second only to The Weekly Standard as a neocon propaganda rag.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty View Post
    The author of the OP is a GOP establishment hack.

    The National Review is second only to The Weekly Standard as a neocon propaganda rag.
    Obviously.
    “I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by CPUd View Post
    Obviously.

    very

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty View Post
    The author of the OP is a GOP establishment hack.

    The National Review is second only to The Weekly Standard as a neocon propaganda rag.
    This is the political equivalent of pretending the white tiles on the ground are lava. This is like plugging your ears and saying I can't hear you every time you don't agree with someone. This is why you are going to lose, sometimes the best criticism comes from people who don't always see eye to eye with you.

  8. #7
    Even so, Smitty. HERE's A BLAST FROM THE PAST!!!
    vote Libertarian and/or 3rd Party in November!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anmlPvmd1Ew

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Aratus View Post
    Even so, Smitty. HERE's A BLAST FROM THE PAST!!!
    vote Libertarian and/or 3rd Party in November!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anmlPvmd1Ew
    Dr. Paul has since stated many times that a 3rd party candidate can't win. Which is why he ran as a Republican.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty View Post
    The author of the OP is a GOP establishment hack.

    The National Review is second only to The Weekly Standard as a neocon propaganda rag
    .
    This^^ It's Bill Buckley's rag. 'Nuff said.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty View Post
    Dr. Paul has since stated many times that a 3rd party candidate can't win. Which is why he ran as a Republican.
    Pretty sure he's also talked about "voting principle before party" and whatnot. Hence his Chuck Baldwin endorsement a few cycles ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    I originally posted this in the "Dark" thread but I think we need to talk about this as it's own subject.


    You know, part of liberty is to allow people to vote how they wish- I am for that, even though I may think their choice is stupid/outrageous/insane etc.

    What I am NOT for is the constant name-calling and degradation of those who do NOT support Trump. Every post that shows some negative aspect of Trump is countered by name-calling, personal insults, and innuendos by 99.9% of Trump supporters. Only a few actually talk about the subject itself, and show a real alternate POV.

    Of course, when opposers finally have had enough of the insults and fire back, then the hue and cry is about the poor Trumpets and the abuse they suffer. Even worse is when people who just post news articles, and do not degrade ANYONE, (like @CPUd) are constantly called names and insulted beyond measure, usually WITHOUT little, or any, argument against the article itself. And, If there is an argument, it's always about the source, not the content.

    My POV is to read EVERYTHING. All sides should be read on a subject that one holds dear- that is really the only way to be able to hold good dialog about any subject and understand all points that are brought up.

    IF you really wish to change hearts & minds, a good argument is based on facts, your personal POV, and acceptance of those who disagree. The next few months are only going to get worse and if you really want Trump as president, try some intelligent persuasion.

    I can guarantee if Hitlery wins it will be as much the Trump supporters fault as those against.
    EM.
    Latest polls show SWC Hillary has fallen behind.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Aratus View Post
    Even so, Smitty. HERE's A BLAST FROM THE PAST!!!
    vote Libertarian and/or 3rd Party in November!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anmlPvmd1Ew



  15. #13
    Hillary Clinton is a terrible, clunky and mistrusted candidate. She’s deeply unpopular. Against anyone other than Donald Trump, she’d likely be well behind in the polls.
    Golly, it sure was lucky that long-time Clinton friend and donor Donald just happened to run this cycle...

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by enhanced_deficit View Post
    EM.
    Latest polls show SWC Hillary has fallen behind.
    Pretty much agree with @r3volution 3.0 on this- from another thread:

    I see both plumbing new depths of unpopularity.

    Both conventions were dumpster fires.

    I guess Trump got lucky that his dumpster fire happened first, since it's now being push out of the news by dumpster fire #2.

    In two or three weeks the conventions bump/dumps will have washed out and we'll have a better idea of where they really stand in the polls.

    I'd still give Hillary a good 90% chance of winning.

    And I'm certain that, regardless, we'll all lose.
    There is no spoon.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Aratus View Post
    Even so, Smitty. HERE's A BLAST FROM THE PAST!!!
    vote Libertarian and/or 3rd Party in November!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anmlPvmd1Ew
    Yes, that's what you should do if you want the Trans Pacific Partnership. I, however, do not.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •