America’s Game of Thrones Election: “Hate’s As Good a Thing As Any To Keep A Person [Voting]. Better Than Most”

game_of_thrones_title_card-1While a curious 28 percent are happy with the current meltdown of our political system, most Americans are disgusted by the choices and tenor of this election. With the two most unpopular nominees to ever run for president for the main parties, both campaigns long ago abandoned the hope of getting voters to actually vote for their candidates. Instead, they are focusing on simply getting voters to hate the other candidate more than their own. In the midst of this race to the bottom, Wikileaks has given the public a new insight into the communications of political operatives, media, and activists. While stolen (and allegedly the product of Russian hacking), the public has been fascinated — and disgusted — by the contents of the emails. The emails have exposed a cesspool of hypocrisy, betrayal, and dishonesty in Washington. The more one reads, the harder it is to understand how this country could fallen into such absolute control of so few with so little integrity. While the Wikileaks emails recently have focused on the Clinton campaign, there is little in Washington that resembles any notion of civil virtue on either side. Strangely, the longer the campaign goes on, the more this election looks like a season of Game of Thrones. Below is my column in USA Today for those seeking insights from the “Seven Kingdoms.”

The WikiLeaks emails have captivated the nation in exposing the inner workings of Washington. Where voters once believed that Washington was a cesspool of dishonesty and blind ambition, they have found that it is far, far worse. For that reason, you could almost hear the sigh of relief from many in the Beltway when a “state actor” reportedly cut off Julian Assange’s Internet access. It was like the sudden cancellation of Game of Thrones — by collective decision of the characters themselves.

Of course, Game of Thrones is fascinating in how some of the utterly lying, lethal characters have lingering impulses of decency or regret. That is what is lacking in the WikiLeaks emails: any redeeming character.

Assuming Assange, accused of sexual assault and hiding from extradition in Ecuador’s embassy in London, is allowed to continue with new episodes, here is a handy cast description to allow you to keep up:

The Lannisters: The Clintons come across as the perfect ruling family maintaining power through a series of public and secret alliances. Like the Lannisters, the Clintons always “pay their debts.” Many of those carrying water for the Clintons expect positions and power in return. When Bryan Pagliano set up the infamous private email server for the Clintons, he was later given a position at the State Department. Sidney Blumenthal, long been accused of spreading rumors to destroy Clinton foes, including then-Sen. Barack Obama, was to be given a State Department position. However, the Obama administration blocked the appointment — so he was given a position with the Clinton Foundation. The emails show a mentality that you are either “with her” or you have to go. For critics, Hillary Clinton seems to echo Cersei Lannister: “Everyone who isn’t us is an enemy.”

Grand Maester Pycelle: The role of the supposedly neutral member of the Small Council (who worked awkwardly behind the scenes for the Lannisters) has to go to the mainstream media. Donna Brazile comes closest to this character. Many people in Washington chuckled as CNN portrayed Brazile as a “neutral” commentator throughout the primary when she was clearly a supporter of Clinton and part of the effort of the Democratic National Committee to give her the nomination. During the primary season, Brazile in one email passes along a debate question in advance to the Clinton campaign that was later asked of Clinton virtually verbatim. Then there is the email from Andrea Mitchell at NBC News calling Trump “awful,” or other reporters running articles that closely tracked emails from the Clinton campaign, or even letting the campaign approve content.

The Wildlings: Obviously, those would be the Sanders people. The Clinton folks are shown to have the same disdain for Bernie Sanders’ supporters as the ruling families have for the “people beyond the wall.” The demise of the Wildling King Mance Rayder is played perfectly by Sanders — a tragic figure who is ultimately crushed by those in power while his followers are enlisted to support those who crushed him. For Sanders, his campaigning for Clinton has left him isolated from many of his own fans.

Ramsay Bolton: Clinton ally David Brock seems ideal to play this role, a person obsessed with being given legitimacy as the bastard of Lord Bolton but valued more for his cruel talents. Referred to by Sanders simply as “scum,” Brock is widely detested by many who view him as a vicious bottom feeder who runs a series of shadowy PACs for Clinton to attack anyone standing in her way. Brock openly offers to pay money for embarrassing videos and dirt to help Clinton. Only Brock could deliver Ramsay’s line, “If you think this has a happy ending, you haven’t been paying attention.”

Petyr (“Littlefinger”) Baelish: This is tough casting call given the wide array of potential “naturals” for the role of a betraying sycophant. However, one email stands out as a typecast from Ron Klain. Vice President Biden’s closest aide wrote to Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta and pledges fealty to Clinton and seems to remind Podesta that he paid dearly to show his allegiance … by helping guarantee Biden’s downfall. Klain wrote last year, “It’s been a little hard for me to play such a role in the Biden demise — and I am definitely dead to them — but I’m glad to be on Team HRC, and glad that she had a great debate last night.” The only thing he did not add was an email to Biden quoting Littlefinger, “I did warn you not to trust me.”

Of course, the Clinton emails are balanced against the Trump videotapes. Many view Donald Trump as the perfect King Aerys II Targaryen, or “the Mad King,” willing to burn the entire capitol city until his own “Kingsguard” killed him. Trump seems willing now to run against everyone, including his own party, as the election worsens by the day — risking not just the White House but also the Senate and the Supreme Court. Of course, it is fitting that the member of the Kingsguard who killed him was a Lannister.

In the end, voters are left with a tragedy filled with characters whom you were hoping would be gone by last season. Voters have given up looking for leaders who actually inspire them. American politics, like the Game of Thrones, is left as merely an exercise of picking the person you hate the least. As stated by Sandor “The Hound” Clegane, “Hate’s as good a thing as any to keep a person going. Better than most.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.

October 24, 2016

144 thoughts on “America’s Game of Thrones Election: “Hate’s As Good a Thing As Any To Keep A Person [Voting]. Better Than Most””

  1. It comes down to a corrupt insider vs a dictator. All the rest is commentary.

    1. No, the facts can also support that it comes down to nuclear holocaust vs. anthropogenic extinction.

  2. Ohhhhh, wait, unless Melania is Daenerys, and Trump is her Khal Drogo in this scenario. Now, if we only had a way for her to hatch some baby dragons in his funeral pyre and take the reins… She seems like the nicest one of the bunch.

    Too far with the GOT analogy?

  3. Where are a trio of dragons when you need one?

    The tragedy is, as Professor Turley mentioned, there is no Daenerys Targaryen in this saga. And no Khal Drogo to even momentarily have her back before she’s starving and under threat of murder in the desert.

    I actually do not believe the Russians are favoring Donald Trump specifically, if they are involved. I believe that they are gleefully taking the opportunity to take us down a peg, and revealing the seedy underbelly of a country that prides itself on its high ideals. How far we have fallen. Russia has become emboldened of late, in part due to a complete lack of fear of us. We’ve become a joke to them. And so they may take any opportunity to embarrass us and reveal how truly corrupt our government has become.

    Will we recover our justice and liberty, or will we throw all in for the corruption that is so far the favorite to take the day?

    1. I have to say I do not agree with your point on Russia Karen. Putin knows we have him in the crosshairs, just like Saddam, Mubarak, Khaddafy… It makes no sense that we keep being so provacative in their own backyard. We would not have tolerated similar Russian actions in central America, for example. Stockman had a recent article on the very idea. Russia now has a GDP a little larger than New York City. Putin knows it, we know it, and we’re going to take advantage of that by marginalizing him just as we do everyone else. China where the real problem for us is at. They will be the largest economy soon, and we are perilously indebted to them. They will be making the terms before long.

      1. I don’t know. We did nothing when he invaded the Crimean Peninsula. We did nothing when he rendered aid to Assad in order for him to dump chlorine gas on little kids in Aleppo. I don’t think he respects America, or fears our response, at all.

        However, you may be right that he could be very worried about his own economy. Maybe he’ll plan to loot another country. And I absolutely agree with you that China owns us. That little deal has already bitten us in the bottom several times. When Iran wrote “death to Israel” on its missiles, that should have triggered sanctions. But we now need China’s approval to re-engage them, which of course they did not give. That Iran Nuclear deal could well be the beginning of nuclear war and the worst environmental catastrophe of all time.

        1. The Ukranian debacle is now a well-publicized action by the NED (more deep state organizations that make policy not based on lawmakers) to further our influence there and make sure their economy was controlled by the west. The chlorine gas may be possible, and it may be another false flag, like Kerry’s YouTube videos. We, and Israel have apparently used phosphorus on many occasions now. Bottom line, Syria isn’t our war. Been a Russian ally for probably 50 years. The old guard realized it was such and acted accordingly, up until recently. Likewise, if the Russians or Chinese would be challenging us in Mexico, we would have been in there in no-time flat. Iran is no threat to Israel. Launching a strike against Israel would be the end of Iran. There had been concerns of the like when Pakistan, like Israel, illegally acquired nuclear weapons (hell, they all did, Iran has been the only one to recognize there is a process to handling nuclear material). I hate to say it, but we’re the biggest threat to world peace right now. We have a lot of the ME in flames right now. Just added more Yemen attacks… whose next??? Guess Hillary will let us know.

        2. The one thing both Obama and the American Military agree upon regarding Russia is regime change.

          Putin isn’t playing neoliberal ball. Our corporations and financial institutions can’t buy them out with fake credit schemes and subsequent rent extracting privatization the way they started to shortly after the USSR collapsed. That and the fact that Putin isn’t embracing all the nuclear weapons we are pointing directly at Russia from it’s boarders.

          How to get rid of Putin is another matter. Obama has been an advocate of waging a financial war; the military wants to do the job in it’s own way though they really have no coherent strategy other than to keep pushing Russia up against a wall hoping it will resort to a direct military response that Putin can subsequently be blamed for loosing but short of a nuclear war.. Very dangerous reckless game.

          I can understand that one would want the US to maintain a posture of strength, but tempering that with a realization of the stakes in any given situation is one of the few areas in which I think Obama shows some measure of reasonableness. We have traditionally shown strength (on the conservative side) more by staying out of foreign messes than by clubbing everything that moves, but of course that was before the reality of globalization and its immense profitability.

      2. Slohrrs-
        I’ve followed David Stockman for a long time….not his advice, but his record.
        Based on that record, I would be cautious about elevating Stockman’s record analysis or predictions
        beyond what his actual record and history warrant.
        Stockman, and some in the media, have successfully promoted him as some kind of guru with special insight.
        The record does not back that up.

        1. I understand. His columns here and there are pretty accurate generalizations, I think. Especially the one concerning all the sabre-rattling. I don’t think there was too much contentious stuff in it. I think the point made is that despite what we remember of history, Russia is a very poor country now, and like most countries, have interest in this election just about like everyone else in the world does. Putin has cleaned house of his military, cleaned house of the defense industry, and they are making good stuff–and if you see the reports of how many sorties they get off in a day compared to what we can do, is very impressive. But Putin knows he could only hold us at bay so long. Any military confrontation with us would make his country a loser, and he knows that. But, like any leader worth a grain of salt, is going to protect their, in this case, long-time interests.

    2. It is highly unlikely the Russians have a great deal to do with the revelations that have been coming out of Wikileaks recently. It is no longer possible to take what one hears on any media at face value. If it doesn’t jibe with other non MSM sources of information, or if it simply seems to advance one agenda too conveniently, it is probably suspect or false altogether. It has become so bad, that one is justified in always assuming the opposite – at least until other evidence is available – of what they hear from the main stream media.

      That isn’t to say Russia doesn’t hack our communication systems. They do. So do we theirs. But in this instance, it is simply too patently used by Hillary for Hillary to be compelling as an indictment of Russian involvement, much less their intention of helping Trump. Note also, how pointedly the Hillary team and the MSM avoids the content of the hacking. It’s very telling that they don’t deny it. All of which, taken together, is highly suggestive that Russia is merely an excuse to divert our attention.

      That said, Russia (or Putin as it’s leader) takes the US very seriously. Russia remains far weaker both militarily and economically than the US and they know it. That we are acting irresponsibly as an empire is a double edged sword. For one, we present the inherent weaknesses of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, (or visa-versa) and such confusion can be exploited; but regardless, we are also powerful, so much so they have to be exceedingly careful.

      1. I should have read further as I was catching up today! Well-said BB, I apologize if I echoed your sentiments in reply to Tnash above. As I have said before, when the cold war was over, Gorby said he would go home if we would go home. What did we do? Attempt to extend NATO right under their belly. You’ll make an enemy of anyone with stunts like that. Plus, since the MSM blocks Putin’s op-eds here, he has quite the following around the world, and I had read very recently where he has made strong inroads with Netanyahu. He’s out there trying to make friends, and we… well ask Kaddaffi how well that worked out…

        1. The more the merrier, Slohrss29 – no apology ever needed for such and your comment made points mine didn’t anyway.

  4. An excellent post and a great analogy (even for those of us who know nothing of The Game Of Thrones) capturing what many are feeling about this election and about the state of our Democracy in general.

    To me, the culpability of both sides was an important point to stress; left and right, at least as they are represented by our shameless politicians on both sides and tied together by a ruthless main stream media that has only the interests of the 1% at heart. All of them – a greedy bunch of criminals wearing their ideologies like magic paper hats as if they could conceal the graft and corruption underneath (but also more and more ironic as if they cared a fart since the ugly truth is they – like Hillary – are increasingly immune to any potential consequence of their actions). .

    Here is an article that captures “spot on” many of the disappointments felt by “progressives” at Obama’s performance and the prospect of Hillary. It’s weakness, though not so much for me, is that is comes from the perspective of a “progressive” (her choice of terms) though many of the ideas are equally shared by both right and left only under different “hash tags” as it were. It also covers the notion of “not voting” as a valid political expression which I find interesting and which, arguably, still distinguishes the US from other countries where voting is not optional (meaning, where the legitimacy of government that stems in large part from the free will choice to make a choice, is forced and as such correspondingly looses legitimacy).

    A sample paragraph describing, after voting for Obama, her awakening to what Obama really represented:

    It wasn’t long before my illusions firmly disintegrated. From minute one Obama began bargaining from the right of where most progressives wanted him to be and conceded from there. I joined my friends in making excuses, but finally decided the gig was up when he maintained the tax cuts for the rich and after months of half-assed “negotiating” on healthcare and maintenance of the war machine. I started looking back at his actions and at criticisms of him that I had ignored before the 2008 election. I discovered the “Change” advertising campaign had won awards for being just that, an ad campaign, a means to an end to sell us all on a system that works very well for the war machine and a small minority. Small epiphanies grew to major shifts in my thinking. Yes, there would be a few bones tossed our way in the guise of equal gender rights or legalized marijuana at the state level, but in many ways things were business as usual and worse. No bankers were jailed for causing the economy to collapse, and in fact the disparity between rich and poor grew and grew. Those who were part of the prior administration were appointed to the new one. The wars continued and expanded. Individual rights and freedoms continued to be challenged. The executive branch kept pushing for and getting more power. Corporations acted with impunity and were able to procure their exact desires after decisions like those in Citizens United.

    1. “an ad campaign, a means to an end to sell us all on a system that works very well for the war machine and a small minority.”

      I couldn’t agree more. Small majorities like the lbgqrst or whatever the next letter is, are forcing us to redefine marriage, sell cakes, share bathrooms and make wimps of boys. The small minority is also winning the p.r. to make all cops bad. The small minority also mistakes “separation of church and state” to mean “separation of state from any religion”.

  5. Here are the facts. Right now we have a police state. We have a wall along the Mexican border. In fact, the DHS wants to review the trans pecos pipeline so it doesn’t interfere with its wall. (See the Marfa Tx, Big Bend Sentinel newspaper if you don’t believe this.) Standing Rock protesters as well as Occupy as well as people protesting the murder of black people by police are all being met with unjust military force. Whether you like or hate any of these particular groups, it should not be acceptable to you that a massive militarized police force is confronting protesters. Journalists are being arrested. This also should not be acceptable.

    Our newz media is clearly willing to lie, manipulate and propagandize our people. Without accurate information, people come to believe all kinds of crazy things. While the left considers themselves above being propagandized, nothing is further from the truth. Wake up lefties, you are lied to all the time and you are believing those lies.

    Part of the reason for all the lies is to turn people against each other, making us willing tools for the oligarchy. It is possible to see the oligarchy ginning up hatred and violence, most recently at the Trump rallies, but not only there. Even people who hate Trump should be concerned that “their” side (really the deep state) is ready to do anything it can on behalf of people hating each other and turning on each other.

    As we stay locked into the two party lie, we wittingly and unwittingly serve the status quo. The oligarchy knows how to keep people busy as the pillage and loot the people and this earth. This is no game. The earth is our source of life. As the oligarchy destroys it, people engage in hate against each other. As people fall into further poverty and despair, the oligarchy fosters that hatred so as to keep us under control, never once allowing ourselves to look behind the curtain at what is really going on.

    USGinc and its private contractors create and foster wars around the world. The media acts as if it’s a great mystery where all these refuges suddenly came from. These are people turned out of their nation by this country’s insane “leadership” with help from our dictator friends.

    These are the naked emperors, the lords and ladies of war and destruction. We should not allow ourselves to be propagandized into unseeing foot soldiers, their stupid servants. We need to form a whole new way of living on the earth and working with other people. It’s the only way we have a chance. I hope, we the people, will take it.

  6. “Voters have given up looking for leaders who actually inspire them.”

    I don’t believe voters know what to look for. Even if they did, they are accepting what they are given as the only options. Then the media narrows down their options to just two. Pick one, wash and repeat.

    The only thing this country lacks at this point to do anything about the political class is an extended and well funded education initiative that opens the people’s eyes and minds to the history that formed this country and the politics that are taking it down.

    1. They had more options in the primary season. They rejected those options. We might be better off having conventions which elect the party’s national officers, adopt a platform, and showcase their party’s candidates rather than nominating them. The use of ordinal balloting with tabulation according to the conventions of the alternate vote would allow us to do away with party nominations in presidential contests.

    2. Exactly, kind of goes back to that saying about the people electing for themselves the government they deserve. That’s OK–before you had people who could threaten world-wide destruction. Hillary’s no-fly zone talk and Kerry’s “Kruschev” posture of threatening Russia with nuclear war over a country that has nothing to do with ours should clearly illustrate these diehard team players that the democrat political machine DOES NOT CARE about their electorate. We’re just cannon fodder, extended.

      But, I cannot comment on this show, or mainly any new show as I find them offensive. There is probably a deeper analogy along with much-needed social commentary that even goes beyond the Professor’s analysis. I thought the show Outlander was very interesting, but I got tired of the weekly drama of the star character dodging rape every episode. I don’t enjoy seeing people suffer that way, especially for the sake of entertainment. The democrats here turn a blind eye to Syria and the real suffering, and our nation seems to enjoy shows like the Walking Dead and Game of Thrones. Interesting… This is from a SciFi kinda guy.

      1. More about that cannon fodder:

        ” What could the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (Tom Vilsack), at the highest strategic planning sessions of our land, be challenged by other leaders to change this figure, to get more people in rural America, to encourage farming and help more farms get started? What could be the driving reason to have more farmers?…What could be the most important contribution that increasing farmers could offer to the nation? Better food? Better soil development? Better care for animals? Better care for plants?
        Are you ready? Here’s his answer: although rural America only has 16 percent of the population, it gives 40 percent of the personnel to the military. Say what? You mean when it’s all said and done, at the end of the day, the bottom line — you know all the cliches — the whole reason for increasing farms is to provide cannon fodder for American imperial might. He said rural kids grow up with a sense of wanting to give something back, and if we lose that value system, we’ll lose our military might.”

        1. Fascinating. On the one hand, our economic system drives small farmers out of business, replaced with pure agribusiness run by hard core business school graduates, while on the other, our military system wants more farm boys from the old school for it’s patriotic ends. Yet another episode from, The Empire Collapses, subtitled, “It’s own worst enemy”).

        2. So, what you are saying is that not only is Vilseck a Monsanto whore, but also putting out for the MIC….

          1. Apparently. Saddens me deeply. I would like to be wrong. Is it possible Joel Salatin misremembered Vilsack’s statements? Maybe, but I sense that is not likely. I would love to have a video or transcript of the discussion to cross-check, though.

    3. Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power. By Jon Meacham has been excellent (listening to it).

  7. Jim, If one were to believe the MSM, Trump is going to get trounced. Only fools trust the MSM. Nate Silver is currently giving Trump a 16% chance. But, the beloved by the MSM Silver continually said Trump would never win the GOP nomination. As I said, this looks like the Brexit and Colombian votes. The MSM/elitist coalition assured all that Brexit would lose and FARC would win. They were wrong on both counts. In the UK and Colombia, the MSM/elitist coalition portrayed voters not supporting their cause, as stupid. But, those were votes on causes, not people. Trump is a buffoon. Hillary is slime. I’m a betting man. If bookies have Trump at 5-1 I would put 1K on Lady Macbeth and $500 on Trump.

    1. It would be hard to make sharper observations than yours, but one might make a different case. Notice how in every damn election cycle, the MSM sort of prepares us for the results, indicating, as Trump suggests, that those results are truly rigged and we only need a certain amount of “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”, noise broadcast our way in order for things to go smoothly.

      I can’t help but feel this might well be the case now. Hillary will indeed trounce Trump, but not by any objective count of the will of the people. Rather, by a rigged system from everything we see and hear right down to the machines that count the votes. This doesn’t feel like an election; more of a coronation. It’s divine right where the divinity is largely the global economic system (of which the military – ever more of a private for profit system – is an active part).

      1. Brooklin Bridge – right now the MSm is trying to convince Trump voters the election is over. They are over-sampling their polls with Democrats (CNN is 57%) and then announcing the world is ending. The polls that are closer to tied are probably more accurate.

        The other thing they will do is call the election before the West and West Coast polls close. That way fewer Trump voters will think it matters and not go vote.

        1. Paul, I think most Trumpsters are like Bernieorbusters, now Steiners and we don’t get our newz from the MSM. So they can talk all they want in their bubble, but millions are not listening.

        2. Agree, but one doesn’t really exclude the other. I think team Hillary (including MSM) are aware that Trump can potentially mount a very credible challenge if this is a close race. Unlike Gore and others on both sides, Trump is not – repeat not – part of the establishment meaning he won’t be a team player when it comes time to play the looser part of the script. Also, I think Hillary wants a strong mandate for some of the vile stuff she has planned given her overall ratings and is pretty confident they can get away with anything on the electoral front because, by golly, they HAVE gotten away with anything and everything, already.

          One way of making the incredible credible is to forecast it over and over again. It works for your suggestion just as it worked against Bernie, but it also works to pave the way for big time voter manipulation which will be at the polls, at the booth, via the delegates, and so on. Lastly, I think they are desperate because their internal polls ARE so far off from those intended for public consumption and Hillary doesn’t seem to think clearly when times are intense.

          1. SWM – read Wikileaks. They are over-sampling Latino and Native Americans in Arizona. The polls are off.

          2. Arpaio is history, but you gotta love how everyone thinks all these polls are wrong. It’s Rasmussen and Romney all over again, only probably worse. By a LOT! At least they’ll be able to take up the RIGGED banner and start calling for everyone’s impeachment.

            I hope Mike Pence and Paul Ryan are standing by on election night with some mental health workers to drag Trump off the stage.

            1. phillyT – the rigged polls are called ‘voter suppression.’ I would not count Arpaio out yet. Sun City loves him.

              1. Right you are! And almost EVERY SINGLE STORY about voter suppression this year, is about Republicans trying to find ways to keep likely Dems from voting because other than super gerrymandering, it’s their only hope.

                Why just today there was (another!) story about a city clerk in Green Bay trying to see if she could closed polling places near the university because she heard that students like to vote for Democrats.


                And there have been dozens more. Every realistic study on voter fraud has NOTHING to do with ID’s which are just a way to disenfranchise the poor and elderly, and EVERYTHING to do with mail in ballots and absentee voting, which NONE of the legislation deals with.

  8. Good piece. Game of Thrones is on our list. We’re currently watching the Amazon series starring Billy Bob Thornton as an alcoholic former big time plaintiff’s attorney, Goliath. Pretty good.

    Like many, I can’t wait for this election to be over. But, there will continue to be turmoil w/ these two horrible choices, no matter who wins. This election is the elitists in BOTH parties vs. regular people. Just like Brexit and the Colombian FARC amnesty vote. The MSM are putting on a Truman Show. It will collapse eventually, the big question being will it collapse before 11/8 or after. We’ll know in 2 weeks.

      1. Tough to say. Polls are all over the map. Very few people have an informed opinion about the methodological flaws in various polls. Even Patrick Caddell says he cannot make sense of the discrepancies.

  9. During the primary process the msm gave Donald Trump more coverage than the other Republican candidates combined. They(msm) wanted him to win. While other candidates were talking about what they wanted to do to make America better, Donald was making all kinds of brash and insulting statements. Now they(msm) have the candidates that they want, and HRC is their girl. On Election Day this is what we have. The media and the entertainment industry are for the Democrates. That is a powerful alley.

    1. This is true to an extant, but–with the exception of Paul–there really wasn’t any difference between the repubs and Clinton. Still isn’t. MSM can dig up some flash point issues to beat, like “choice.” But outside of that it seems to me Kasich and Clinton pretty much represent the same thing–once you remove the drama and spin.

      1. But outside of that it seems to me Kasich and Clinton pretty much represent the same thing–once you remove the drama and spin.

        Example #637 of ignorance attempting to pass itself off as astuteness (or hyper-sectarianism attempting to pass itself off as astuteness).

        1. No, he had what amounted to a sales position in the Ohio offices of Lehman Brothers. Kasich doesn’t have the background to run a hedge fund.

  10. The role of the quasi media is interesting and disgusting. Those who belittle Hillary with ugly photos of her wearing her sunglasses and looking down at her hand held dumbphone and those who say outright that she does not campaign for votes on the basis of a platform and plan for the future. It is a game of drones. The drones seek down the road to get hired by the Koch Brothers and Others. Turley should be named Twerly.

    1. That’s just plain silly. Really silly. The MSM don’t go out of their way to make Trump look any better. Face it, they both look ridiculous. Geeeez.

  11. The comparison between Game of Thrones and the election, I will have to defer to our host since I do not watch the series, but in trying to read a primer on these characters it does seem to meld.

    I’ve mentioned this before but it certainly is applicable today. Here is the foundation of the election we are about to suffer:

    • Hillary Clinton: Most liberals do not like her. Deep down, she is viewed as corrupt and untrustworthy by both sides. Very few of her own party support her strictly on her merits alone.
    • Donald Trump: Most of those individual citizens who identify as republicans want him to become president. Despite the republican party’s leadership attempting to sabotage him, the average person effectively told them to go to Hell when they succeeded in putting him on-top.
    • Hillary Clinton got to her position in large part due to rigging the party primary system, and by befriending the mainstream media and other big pockets donors via the democratic party leadership to oust legitimate and credible opposition candidates, viz. Bernie Sanders.
    • Bernie Sanders: There is credible evidence to propose the possibility of Bernie Sanders having a greater chance of defeating Donald Trump in the general election. This is of course debatable, but a viable possibility. But, the party leadership, through the corruption, assent, and direction of the Clintons, chose a unique position that party supremacy in the election was subordinate to an anointed candidate who through political chicanery due to malfeasance and pandering with a system of spoils where supporting Hillary was more attractive to them personally than ushering a candidate who the people actually wanted.
    • This election is not based upon the merits of Hillary Clinton, it is a referendum on who supports Trump and who hates him. Who takes the majority, if the election is not rigged, will decide the candidate.
    • If Clinton wins, she will be the most meritless candidate to have achieved office–given the offset of her dubious skirting of the law and other sleaze.
    1. I pretty much agree, bar that BO counts as meritless as Hilligula, It’s just that BO was an empty suit who succeeded through the alchemy of branding and Hilligula is a career criminal.

      1. You have a point. Though Obama certainly made the age requirement, he did not have the requisite qualifications to run a large organization and almost none the nuances inherent in governance. Yet, the democrats declare how unqualified Trump is? But then again Mr. Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize after the Nobel Committee allowed themselves to abandon careful consideration and gladly hoodwinked even themselves.

    2. Regarding your comment whether the election being rigged, I’ve been wondering about the brouhaha about Trump steadfastly saying he’d wait to see what happened before he accepted the results.

      The media is howling that Trump will be a sore loser, and will refuse to accept defeat. If that is what he meant, then Trump is utterly and completely wrong.

      However, I was rocked to my core to discover the video admitting that the DNC was planning, and in fact had committed in the last election, massive voter fraud. Sure, I knew that illegal aliens voted in CA. But CA is a solid blue state. How much damage could they do in a state that already is forever Democratic? But using locally registered fleets of cars to transport people to vote, in an organized fashion, multiple times? All they’d have to do is coordinate efforts in swing states, and they could take any election, any time. I did hear rumors about Obama winning 100% of the vote in some cities, which seemed strange. But they admitted on tape that this is how they’ve been doing things.

      Our very republic is based on the foundation of a peaceful transfer of power at the will of the people, decided upon by a fair vote.

      If we do not even have that, then we are at the stages where our next president might as well wear a beret and aviator classes. It’s like we’re reading about Manuel Noriega, not the United States.

      Of course, after a bombshell like this, any reasonable person would be very concerned and would want verification that the election was not gained fraudulently. After such a revelation, who would go on record saying he or she would accept the outcome without recourse?

      Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton’s camp is stationing “observers” around the country at the polls. Is the media screaming that she plans to be a sore loser? Or that she does not trust our election system? I guarantee you that if Republicans were caught planning to drive repeat voters around, HRC would be saying she would want to ensure there was no fraud before accepting defeat.

      1. Excellent observations! It’s horribly frustrating how seemingly successful the Clinton are in using nonsense logic or double speak to advance their cause. This could not be truer than in the claim that Trump is working against Democracy in questioning the legitimacy of the election system. It’s the old, “heads I win, tails you loose” game with the only twist being the breath taking complicity of the main stream media. So heads, Trump is being seditious by objecting, tails he is being a spoil sport simply because he’s loosing. The one thing not mentioned is he may damned well be right!

        1. Brooklin Bridge – don’t forget that Obama has complained several times about voter fraud.

      2. KarenS,

        CA may be a Blue state, but it is wholly corrupt. Look at how Bernie was screwed – and there are still uncounted votes. Apparently the Russians wanted to come in and be observers in LA and TX, but are not allowed to do so. The LA gov said it is still recovering from the flooding =)

        I would like Transparancy International – a non partisan organization focused on corruption to monitor our (s)election, but that’s never gonna happen.

        I think the best we can do is take a photo of ourselves in the booth of who we voted for as a record AND on a local level all across the nation conduct exit polls. Remember the Dems got rid of them after too many discrepancies happened during the primaries.

        In Europe paper ballots are used and they are counted in front of people from all parties after they discovered machines can be manipulated.

        1. I agree. CA is a Blue, corrupt state. Hence the vacation train debacle which was a gift to big union donors.

          I also agree that we need to go back to paper ballots. Anything else can get hacked or otherwise tampered with. And the ballots should be universal, with no chads or confusing butterfly designs.

          I am shocked how my trust in the electoral process has eroded over the years. That’s the very foundation of our democracy. I’ve always wished that other countries would emulate our democracy, but now have to admit that it’s become corrupted.

          We’ve got to cut this rot out and demand law and accountability in our government.

      3. Voter fraud isn’t the problem. Computer fraud is the greater concern. I agree that the disenfranchisement of millions of citizens is a big problem – as it was when the 2000 & 2004 elections were stolen for bush – but votes that can’t be verified is a much more critical problem, and in THIS election, puppets for the 1% may well try to steal it for Hillary.

    3. Spot on analysis Darren. But don’t you mean “most MERCILESS candidate”? =) The corps that control HRC and much of the GOP simply could not tolerate Bernie – he stands against their agenda.

  12. It’s a false dichotomy to assume the candidates and their entourage are corrupted and the American masses (that would include me) are blameless angels watching in disgust. In fact, the Game of Thrones is beloved by the masses…rape scenes included. Look at what are hits these past years as voted by the masses tuning in: breaking bad, the sopranos, sex and the city, and..(I could name more, but I don’t watch TV and know their names).

    The electorate could act all high and mighty, but we are no better than the candidates we chose to run for our high office.

    1. Michael:

      Probably not “no better”, many are afraid and those that are not afraid have no voice.

      The media’s choice is Hillary Clinton and that’s all there is to it.

      Dividing America and “globalization” is their goal. That’s where the lower and middle income tax money is.

      ps: I don’t watch any of the shows you mention. (I hate PS’)

      1. dougkinan – I have watched all the shows mentioned and they make Trump look like a Cub Scout.

        1. Paul,

          I binge-watched “Goliath” on Friday – it’s an Amazon Prime flick – Billy Bob Thornton plays a lawyer against the MIC. It was great to get away from real time politics for a short time =)

          1. Autumn – my wife changed my password to Amazon Prime and forgot to tell me what it was. I will put it on my list. Watching Luke Cage on Netflix but not binging it yet.

  13. Both candidates have acted inappropriately and both have history.

    Private sector history and public sector history are different.

    Trump’s alleged history has had no impact on the nation and the world.

    Clinton has three decades of public service with little to show America what has been accomplished for America and Americans.

    Essentially the government no longer represents the American taxpayers. Is the status quo what America needs or wants?

    On one issue alone, “immigration”, the choice should be clear.

    Everyone deserves a chance to come to America – the proper way. However, Clinton has declared that her “dream” is “open borders”, which means that America as we know it will no longer be America just as Germany is no longer Germany. I t’s fair to conclude that her “dream” will become America’s nightmare.

    The collateral damage to open borders will be so destructive that it cannot be quantified in both financial, sociological and many other terms.

    Consider only one aspect, of many, to open borders: Allowing tens of thousands of non-English speaking children into the school system would be devastating for all concerned. Are we equipped to handle the influx, the results and the expense?

    What about the health system?

    Additionally, lower and middle class working Americans’ taxes would increase dramatically. In other words, we pay but we have no say and no voice.

    In its proper context, poor and unemployed people don’t pay taxes and rich people have loopholes and tax exemptions essentially exempting them from paying taxes. It’s a high burden to lay on the taxpayer’s for a judgment/policy that keeps the power elite the power elite.

    Is it in the best interest of America for another term of Bush and Obama or the status quo?

    Self-serving politicians have demonstrated that they are not good for American business.

    No job and no hope will continue to bring the violence and destruction you read about in the news on a daily basis.

    America now needs to try a business-like approach to running the country the same as you would any business.

    To paraphrase one news “Talking Head”, Clinton may be the “death sentence” for America and Trump is 50/50. Your choice on November 8th?

    1. G. Mason – is Brock actually likable? Like most pond scum you can work with him, but you cannot like him.

  14. Not a “left wing” thang. The Bushes are all about wars as well which is why they are now supporting HRC. Same coin different sides.

  15. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to be in the military these days if it turns out as I fear it will. Can you imagine taking a bullet for Clinton in one of the left wings phony wars?

    Don’t like my attitude. Get yourself 24 plus years in the combat arms and then open your mouth.

    No More Cannon Fodder. If the left wants a war let the left pick up a rifle and tricky trot their little fascist asses up to the firing line.

    It was and am proud to serve the Constitution That’s where it stops. No More Cannon Fodder.

  16. The more one reads, the harder it is to understand how this country could fallen into such absolute control of so few with so little integrity.

    Well, the political class discovered in 1998 the public will tolerate a disgusting human being in the Oval Office if we’re experiencing economic growth without much inflation, and 35% of the public will tell the pollster that they think said gross pig is a person of good moral character. The utter fecklessness of the general public and the liberal chatterati is certainly an important vector here. When have libertarian academics bothered to call attention to the secular decay of moral standards? Well, never.

      1. Ronald Reagan has led an unblemished life. He and his wife failed with their children, all of whom have been buffoons to one degree or another (though three of them managed to marry non buffoons willing to stay with them). Your children are free agents and you can only influence, not control, how they turn out.

        1. Totally right…other than tripling the national debt, helping to end the middle class, ignoring the AIDS crisis, trading arms for hostages in Iran, supplying chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, funding the group that started the Taliban, illegally funding the Contras, messing up the Air Traffic Controllers, a ridiculous drug policy and a dozen other things, Ronnie and Mother Nancy were pretty gosh darn good.

          1. Totally right…other than tripling the national debt,

            Appropriations bills must pass Congress. No president ‘triples’ the national debt. The ratio of federal debt to domestic product increased from 30% in 1981 to 50% in 1989, all with the assent of Congress. That ratio did begin to decline – in 1995 when the Democratic Party lost control of Congress.

            helping to end the middle class,

            I have no clue how you got the idea that the population of salaried employees and small business simply disappeared between 1981 or 1989, or how you got the idea that there were anything but modest incremental changes in income distribution between strata. Barbara Ehrenreich says things like ‘ends the middle class’. She is and always has been an economic illiterate.

            ignoring the AIDS crisis,

            You’re either very young, very stupid, or very mendacious. Back in the world we actually lived in, there was a contextually enormous effort in the realm of medical research, beginning in 1982. The virus was identified in the spring of 1984. Fully 25% of the National Cancer Institute’s budget was devoted to AIDS research, much less what was up with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Cretins like Larry Kramer and the ACTUp crew beat their spoons on their high chairs because Pres. Reagan and Mayor Koch didn’t wave a magic wand and make their world anew and didn’t treat them as if they were the center of the universe. That was (and is) Kramer’s personal pathology, for which Mayor Koch and Pres. Reagan bore no responsibility. While we’re at it, there was no AIDS crisis. There was a public health problem generated by an infectious agent completely novel to the biomedical research community.

            trading arms for hostages in Iran,

            A failed policy. This is interest to you why?

            supplying chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein,

            He did nothing of the kind. The administration extended agricultural credits to Iraq with which Iraq bought pesticides which have some dual use capability.

            funding the group that started the Taliban,

            The Taliban did not exist at that time. The Carter and Reagan administration financed insurrectional groups which later formed the Northern Alliance. In case you’ve forgotten, Afghanistan was then occupied by the Red Army.

            illegally funding the Contras,

            The Contras were our allies, and the better party there fighting.

            messing up the Air Traffic Controllers,

            The went on an illegal strike. He told them that if they went on strike, they’d be fired. The Administration had taken over and amended the Carter Administration’s contingency plans and were ready to implement them. The PATCO crew went on strike and were fired. Your complaint is what? That public employees should be able to dictate policy with industrial actions?

            a ridiculous drug policy

            Prohibitions on street drugs have been present in federal law since 1914 and the DEA was formed in 1968. Some Administrations are more assiduous than others about drug control.

            I have news for you: policy disagreements over such things as DEA appropriations and priorities or medical research funding seldom implicate personal character. It really is not an obscure idea.

            Given time and diligent effort, you may one day be able to do something more elevated that recite talking points supplied by Michael Moore crapumentaries. That day has yet to arrive.

            1. Just typing a bunch of stuff doesn’t make it true. I don’t have time to answer every bit of nonsense in your reply, but Congress voted down sending money to the Contras, who were visciously assassinating people by the way thanks to the innocuous School of the Americas training, and Reagan sent them money anyway. Broke the law.

              And he did ignore AIDS until it was a near epidemic, joking about it mostly.

              He signed all those bills that tripled the debt so that’s on him.

              And he did indeed send chemical weapons to Saddam. And plated both sides of the Iran/Iraq war which killed many thousands. He made at least two illegal deals with Iran to get them weapons.

              The list goes on, but frankly who has time. One of our worst modern presidents. More of a B grade TV performance than anything else.

              And yes, his economic policies were the beginning of the end of the middle class. Trickle down never worked. And it never will. And Donald wants to revive it. What a nasty man.

              1. phillyT – Obama has doubled the national debt (it was much bigger than Ronnie’s), Obamacare is going to have 25% increases and you are probably going to be down to one provider. We have been at war the entire time he was in office. What a guy?

              2. 1. Who signed the appropriations bills covering the National Institutes of Health for 8 years?

                2. The School of the Americas offered miscellaneous training courses for Latin American militaries. They never had anything to do with insurrectional groups.

                3. I’m sorry if it eludes your notice, but now, as in 1979, there actually is a middle class in this country, who would be very surprised to learn they do not exist.

                You need to tell your talking-points suppliers to up their game.

                1. Well I have neither the time nor inclination to answer every last bit of your nonsense, but the stagnation of middle class wages and failure to keep up with wealth distribution are SO well documented it’s hard not to post 50 links here.

                  I’ll just go with this one:


                  Whatever your personal hagiography with St. Ronnie, you should consider rejoining the real world It’s hard, but we actually get things done her.

                  And maybe you’re only fifteen years old so you don’t know about the history of the SoA and it’s decades of training dictators and death squads, but those of us who have been around know all about it. Nice try though:


                  I’m out of room for links but Reagan notoriously short changed AIDS research for years.

                  Try using the google. It’s not that hard to find actual facts about stuff.

                  1. phillyT – Mintpress does not have a good track record. I would not rely on them for information.

                  2. And maybe you’re only fifteen years old so you don’t know about the history of the SoA and it’s decades of training dictators and death squads, but those of us who have been around know all about it. Nice try though:

                    I’m familiar with the agitation against the School of the Americas. It’s another example of stupidity and mendacity on the part of the red haze. A number of Latin American militaries have had rancid institutional cultures. This is a consequence of the history of those institutions, not of short courses their individual officers received at the School of the Americas. Roberto d’Aubuisson, for example is commonly offered as an alumnus. He had a six week course in radio repair at the school.

                    While we’re at it, ‘death squads’ are commonly irregulars or are derived from the constabulary on their off hours or on retainer from local grandees. ‘Death squads’ are seldom subsidiaries of the military.

                    As for the Economic Policy Institute’s tripe, yet again, we have a liberal advocacy group which misinterprets or misrepresents available economic data, as well as misattributing its causes. Since 1973, there has been a distinct redistribution of income toward factors of production other than labor (though the labor share is still within the historically normal range of 60-70%, a rebalancing of consumption between cash compensation and fringes, and some improvement in the relative position of salaried employees vis a vis wage earners. Compensation growth has been fairly slow for wage earners, a reflection of a secular decline in economic dynamism across the industrial world. Your imagination interprets that phenomenon as the ‘destruction’ of the middle class because you don’t know much of anything.

                    I’m out of room for links but Reagan notoriously short changed AIDS research for years.

                    Again, the appropriations bills run through Congress and there was a limit to what the extant research community could absorb. People who are capable of conducting research in immunology or virology or pharmacology require about 7 years of post baccalaureate training on average. They don’t spring up out of the ground like tomato plants if you just seed the earth with federal money. A lot of drama queens in the gay lobby (again, Kramer) kvetched and kvetched, not because they had any better ideas, but because they’re drama queens. (And, no, there’s no reason to think you have any granular knowledge which would allow you to critique funding levels of programs instituted a generation ago).

          2. Hope not for reason from PhilaT. He is a Democrat the same way others are snake-handling Pentecostals, that is his political beliefs are fatih-based in the Party.

            As far as ignoring the AIDS crisis, isn’t it really the homos who are ignoring the AIDS crisis??? Because who exactly is it that is spreading their cheeks for someone, often a stranger, to sodomize them with a condom? Hmmm. OH! The homos themselves!

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. In fairness to Larry Kramer, he did campaign to close San Francisco’s bath houses. The disposition of certain gay groups at the time was an amazement. Their friends were made ill and died from a venereal disease which was not known or defined prior to Sept. 1981 and for which the infectious agent was unidentified until about April 1984. Their response was rage, which was displaced onto pre-approved bogies. It was utterly puerile.

        2. UNBLEMISHED? RR allegedly raped an actress, snitched on fellow members of SAG to the FBI – thereby ruining their careers in Hollywood, married Nancy when she was pregnant, almost never attended a religious service, and rarely saw any family members except “Mommy”.

          Read “Innocents at Home”, by Gary Wills

          1. bill mcwilliams – we should be thankful that RR snitch on those Hollywood commies. It was an honorable job at a time when the commies wanted to bury us.

            1. You should be embarrassed about supporting someone who acted as dishonorably as RR & McCain did.

              You strike me as one of those nutty Curtis Lemay “bomb ’em back into the Stine Age” Neanderthals like the ones that HL Hunt used to support

              1. There’s nothing dishonorable about ejecting schemers from their jobs. They were distorting the product of the studios and publishing houses.

              2. bill mcwilliams – I supported John McCain when he was the junior Senator from Arizona. He was pretending to be a conservative so he could be elected in Arizona.

          2. Ronald Reagan’s life is not blemished by you making stuff up or by Garry Wills making stuff up.

            Reagan was active in the effort to remove Communists from gatekeeper positions in Hollywood studios. See RWB Lewis on what their analogues had done to the publishing industry at that point. There is no blemish to be had from that.

            Even Tip O’Neill never said he ‘rarely attended religious services’. O”Neill contended in October 1984 that he had not attended in 3 months. His son avers that he was in regular attendance when his children were at home. All his life, Reagan belonged to a non-creedal protestant denomination. O’Neill might have viewed non-attendance through the lens of a Catholic, for which skipping Mass on Sundays or Holy Days is a matter for the confessional. That act does not have the same meaning in a non-creedal protestant sect if you have an active prayer life. Reagan offered an explanation of spotty attendance thus: he had a clanking security detail that tended to be disruptive wherever he went.

            As for your remarks on Reagan marrying his pregnant fiancee, I know you’re a poseur, but you need to work harder to conceal it. As of know, your performance borders on the vulgar.

            1. You need to drop the smart alecky pose and learn the facts. As a Reagan apologist, you owe it to the rest of the followers of Saint Ronnie.

              1. Bill, you operate under the illusion that you know something the world calls ‘facts’. Of all the people who participate here, you have the most unblemished record of substituting the issue of your imagination for actual facts. I cannot help you with that. No one can.

          3. and rarely saw any family members except “Mommy”.

            Strange as it may seem to you, people commonly see a great deal of their wife at any age, but not of their adult children when they live in Washington and their children live in Sacramento, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, and Seattle. Mr. Reagan’s brother also lived in Los Angeles. Mrs. Reagan’s mother lived in Arizona Mrs. Reagan’s brother was a surgeon who indubitably worked long hours (but still put in appearances at the White House – they lived a train ride away in Philadelphia). Their shirttails were limited to Richard Davis’ children, of whom at least one spent holidays at the White House (and gave readings at her aunt’s funeral).

    1. Paul, good point. The MSM media whores who must answer to their corporate overlords are wholly in the tank for HRC. BUT thousands of folks are turning out to see Trump and many ordinary citizens from the vast basket of deplorables are creating videos on YouTube. Goes back to enthusiasam – Bernie had lots, Trump has lots and Jill Stein has lots. 0 for HRC

      What’s your take on AZ?

      1. Autumn – I don’t trust the polls since they are over-sampling. It is hard to say what is happening in AZ. McCain will probably be re-elected. In general, I expect AZ to stay Republican.

        1. Trump was correct when he said that McCain isn’t a hero. He acted as a traitor after he was given medical treatment by the Vietnamese. Just as his father did after Israel attacked the U.S.S. Liberty.

          John McCain acted as dishonorably as Newt did when he cheated on his first wife with a Mobster’s daughter and subsequently married her and as an aside, you won’t find McCain signing on to any
          anti-monopoly legislation. Gotta protect the family’s beer distribution monopoly.

          Don’t ask any parent of a Vietnam war MIA about McCain. They all hate him – and for good reason.

          1. bill mcwilliams – cindy mccain sold her shares in the beverage business. I will give McCain points for staying when the Viet Cong offered to release him. He was a conservative until Goldwater died, then he became a liberal Republican. He is one of the reasons I left the Republican Party.

            1. McCain was not and is not a ‘liberal Republican’. There has been no such animal in the U.S. Senate in nearly 20 years. Per the American Conservative Union, McCain has voted their way about 77% of the time in the years since Barry Goldwater died. He’s a difficult man. That’s all.

              1. Steps – the Republican Party has become more liberal and McCain is more liberal that it.

                1. How? The Republican Party caves in to rubbish from the appellate courts. That’s not ‘more liberal’. That’s ‘as craven’.

          2. Don’t ask any parent of a Vietnam war MIA about McCain. They all hate him – and for good reason.

            Doesn’t your chronic yarn-pulling ever perturb you?

          3. Bill, businesses engaged in distribution commonly have thin profit margins. They cannot be called ‘monopolies’ unless you have a witlessly narrow definition of the market.

    2. The same media that is pillorying Donald Trump now gave him millions of dollars in free publicity during the Republican primaries. They helped him win the primaries and built him up, and now they are tearing him down. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

      1. Don de Drain – it seems that plan was to get the papers to help to get Trump get nominated and then destroy him.

      2. The goal of the media was to clear the Republican field of everyone except Trump. They are hoping he implodes, clearing the way for Clinton. Problem is, she is such a terrible candidate that they are tied.

        1. Who’s your alternative to Trump? The establishment lane candidates were collectively polling at about 25% of the Republican electorate in September 2015, precisely what they received of the popular vote during the primary season. That was their ceiling, Trump or no Trump. Ted Cruz was able to collect the rest of the anti-establishment vote. Do you fancy they manufactured Ted Cruz as well?

        2. I agree. He was the candidate with the most issues. But the media fawned over him up to the very moment when he won the primary.

    3. Hilarious! The MSM gave Trump literally millions of dollars of free air time during the primary season There was no show he couldn’t get on, no host who wasn’t willing to suck up a little to the Donald. MSNBC, CNN, Fox(of course), the big three—all made time for him for months and months.

      They all thought it was a joke, or that it wouldn’t last, and like every train wreck in progress, they and we couldn’t stop watching.

      It was only when people starting ACTUALLY reporting on the deplorable things he said at his rallies, and digging into his multiple business failures, business scams, problems with racial discrimination in his rental business with dear old dad, and then finally the sexual assaults, that the worm turned. He did this to himself. No one needs to assassinate the man, he’s done perfectly well for himself. This is just chickens coming home to roost.

      1. phillyT – why aren’t the MSM going after Hillary at the same pace. She is as dirty as they come. Oh, and a new attackee of Bill’s has come forward.

        1. As far as I know, Bill is still not running for office, any more than Melania is. So we’re not vetting her for her porn history or her illegal immigration status or lying about her college degree or 20 other obvious lies, flaws and problems.
          I think Donnie has more women accusing him at this point anyway, and the 13-year-old girl rape thing kind of takes the cake dontcha think?

          1. See Lewis Amselem on Hilligula. “My Foreign Service colleagues and I understood Whitewater immediately. In the 3d world, the function of the 1st lady is to launder the bribes”.

          2. About the 13 year old girl rape thing:

            So far, what we know for sure is that she approached the attorney for the other Epstein victims, who refused to take her case. Her story did not match the proven victims. She described sex orgies happening at Epstein’s social parties, which never, ever, happened. He kept that part private and separate from his society parties. Other confirmed participants could never place her there. No one else he spoke with said that Trump was involved with that side, or did anything wrong. The PI utterly dismissed her, saying that she just threw Trump’s name in there. Perhaps as a whale. The current attorney representing her is a patent attorney who read about her story in a gossip mag, about her fruitless search for an attorney. Her rep is a former producer for Jerry Springer, who literally, and on the record, threatened journalists if they wrote something he didn’t like. For her to get credibility, she would have to come up with new information that for some reason she refused to share with that attorney.

            All of that adds up to negatives to her story, without a single positive that lends credibility. Obviously, that would have to change, and if it does, I would have to reassess.

            I believe any story where Trump called a woman names or commented on her appearance. That’s in character. I could also believe that he gets handsy like Joe Biden. I have doubts about the story about him assaulting a woman in the middle of First Class on an airplane. Mainly, because the woman herself says that she was completely OK with it, as long as his hands stayed above her waist. It was only when they strayed south that she got up and left. He did not prevent her from leaving. She did not indicate she told him no or tried to move his hands away. Rather, she said she was OK and then left when he tried to move up a base. That does not sound like assault; that sounds like making out. Again, seems weird to happen in the middle of First Class. And if this was her only interaction with him, 30 years ago, how did she know it was Trump? I never heard her asked how she could be sure it was him. But again, my problem is in her own accounting of the matter, in which she clearly described being fine with the encounter for the first 15 minutes, and then simply leaving when he wanted to go farther.

            Hillary said she would put Bill in charge of the economy, so he is planned to play a major role in her proposed presidency. The only issues that matter with First Spouses is if they have a clean criminal history, and can manage to make it through events. Other than that their background or personality doesn’t matter. They typically engage in charity work and appearances, much like the royalty of UK are consigned to. Figureheads. Serious and credible rape allegations, as well as of corruption and abuse of public office, are relevant. Who wants a rapist in the White House? In Bill’s case, witnesses placed Juanita Broderick at the event, and saw her directly after her meeting with Bill Clinton with a bitten lip. On the negative side, she disavowed anything happened for years. Her story is that she feared the Clinton’s and felt ashamed. Again, witnesses saw her get upset when she went to the next Clinton fundraiser. And witnesses also corroborate that she told her staff not to let Bill’s calls through. So there are some negatives and positives to her story, but she does have enough to raise grave concerns.

          3. Bill in’t running for office – in the technical sense, But Hillary IS, and her mistreatment of women who were sexually assaulted by Bill would be an issue if the MSM was honest.

            Donnie? You mean Bill’s son?

            I would agree that Hillary shouldn’t be disqualified merely because she had a daughter fathered by her former law firm partner Webster.

      2. Trump refused to let his campaign vet him. By doing this he gave the campaign no opportunity to prepare for the scandals which inevitably came out. He also seems to have miscalculated or not though through how much his insults to minorities, women and handicapped people would impact this race.

        1. Trump spoke with Bill Clinton prior to announcing his candidacy. Hillary Clinton was at his wedding. Ivanka and Chelsea are friends. Methinks it is calculated.

          1. Armand Hammer used to pass himself off as a ‘close personal friend’ of just about everyone, even Prince Charles. I doubt Chelsea and Ivanka are all that well acquainted.

              1. It’s Politico.

                The Clintons have tried to ingratiate themselves with the Bush clan as well.

                Julie Eisenhower goes about saying her father and Lyndon Johnson were ‘close friends’. They weren’t. They were just two men (with little else in common) who crossed paths in the same nexus. ‘Close friends’ is a debased term in our time.

                1. I agree that the term friend has been debased in this era of ‘friending’.

                  That said, I provided two links, one from Chelsea’s POV and the other from Ivanka’s. If only one woman had said she was friends, then that is probably fake. But since both have said it, I am inclined to believe it is true. I suppose both women could be playing with the public’s perceptions. Remember, this election is about the art of the deal.

          2. No calculation needed.

            Rich people kiss each other. Poor people p*** on each other.

            Rich people rarely care about HOW someone came to be wealthy. What counts to them is that someone IS wealthy.

        2. SWM,

          Have you ever watched a Trump rally? Just as I did with Bernie I always look at the footage of people lining up. There are people of color, many women carrying pink Trump signs as well as people in wheelchairs and using canes and crutches. In addition, on YouTube there are hundreds of homemade videos of folks declaring their passion for Trump – whites/blacks/browns/gays/women you name it. Contrast that with pro HRC videos.

Comments are closed.