Archive

Archive for the ‘Musings’ Category

Liberals Have, Also, Irreversibly Lost the War for Ideological Supremacy

November 7, 2019 13 comments

Some readers might have noticed that one commentator on this blog likes to dutifully regurgitate establishment democrat talking points. According to him, anybody who does not agree with the “official version of events” is part of some Russian disinformation campaign or stupid. While I started writing this post to comment on that mindset, it quickly became obvious that it was just one manifestation of a much bigger problem. So let me help you connect the dots by highlighting other manifestations of the same problem. Have you noticed that, within the past 5-10 years, liberals (rather than CONservatives) have become obsessed with censoring anyone with whom they disagree. Ever wonder why that change occurred and why within that particular timespan?

How did we reach the point where LIEbrals, rather than dumbfuck CONservatives, are obsessed with performing overt and fake displays of public morality. Why did LIEbrals become the thin-skinned snowflakes they used to justifiably accuse Conservatives of being. Why are LIEbrals obsessing over “ideological purity” like the CONservatives they used to mock? To understand how this change occurred, we have to first understand why CONservatives were once obsessed with censorship, ideological purity and displays of public morality. The short version is the supporters of dying ideologies will always try to delay the inevitable end through appeals to censorship, increasingly ridiculous displays of ideological fidelity and obsession with purity.

CONservatism entered its terminal phase sometime in the mid 1980s and has been effectively dead since 2006-2008. While there are many reasons for its demise, most come down to some version of the ideology failing to provide its believers and potential recruits what they wanted. In other words, CONservatism failed once it became obvious that the ideology was fundamentally fraudulent and unable to address the real needs for majority of its followers. So why is LIEbralism also failing and why is the speed so much higher than for CONservatism? To better understand this peculiar fact, we have to first talk about what both ideologies are really about. Yes.. neither ideology is what its ardent supporters claim them to be.

The thing is.. CONservatism in the west after WW1 was never about retaining traditional mores and worldviews. It was a logical framework, aka scam, to justify the power of rich people and corporations over everybody else. CONservatives were never interested in preserving traditions or guaranteeing socio-economic stability. Those were just buzzwords they invoked for conning, often willingly, stupid losers with delusions of becoming filthy rich. That is why, among western countries, modern CONservatism was strongest in post-WW2 USA. CONservative support of social issues such as racial apartheid, prayers in schools, anti-abortion stances etc was therefore always about appealing to white trash stupid enough to care about such useless bullshit.

While the last COnservative resurgence (during 1980s) in the west died out in Europe by the late 1990s, it persisted in North America for a few years longer. CONservatism in this country was publicly discredited largely due to a series of spectacular and costly failures during and by the Bush43 administration- from the failed occupation of Iraq to Global Financial Crisis of 2008. But what about the recent resurgence of right-wing parties across Europe- some might wonder. See.. the thing is, right-wing populism and proto-fascism is not CONservatism, even though there is a small degree of ideological overlap. Now let us get back to how CONservatives handled their slow-motion demise during the late 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s.

Some of you might be old enough to remember that, during the 1980s and 1990s, there was a renewed attempt to ban pornography, “violent” video games and push for “traditional” values. They also did other tone-deaf and stupid stuff such as ignore the HIV crisis, tried to to stop the movement for gay rights and censor network TV when everyone was buying satellite TV dishes. By then, all the genies they feared were already out of their metaphorical bottles. CONservatism was increasingly seen as the ideology of stupid, old and out-of-touch losers. It did not help that modern LIEbralism, aka NeoLIEberalism, was now the default ideological choice of rich assholes who wanted to appear “hip”. The many public failures of Bush43 presidency were the final nails in the coffin of CONservatism. That is why Trump was able to defeat every last establishment CONservative in the 2016 republican primary, and with ease.

But what does any of this have to do with the ongoing failure of LIEbralism? As it turns out, a whole fucking lot! The thing is.. LIEbralism, was never about opposing CONservatism or doing any of the other things it pretended to care about. LIEbralism, at it core is the ideological sibling of CONservatism, albeit one that tries to portray itself as more the enlightened among the two. That is why LIEbralism is perfectly fine with everything problematic about CONservatism, except the parts that make them look unenlightened. That is why LIEbrals and corporations will support LGBTQ parades while simultaneously paying their employees starvation wages and denying them healthcare. Similarly LIEbrals love to masturbate to the sound of “woke” labels such as “Latinx” rather than treat real Hispanic people as equal human beings.

This is also why LIEbrals love to celebrate a deeply problematic Neo-LIEbral such as Obama even though he started five more wars in Africa and a couple more in middle-east, was responsible for millions of Hispanics to be deported and millions of black people losing their homes in aftermath of housing bubble. But.. but.. didn’t he pose for photos with a few old black women and children in the Oval Office and give empty inspirational-sounding speeches? See.. LIEbrals differentiate themselves from CONservatives by where they studied, what they wear and eat, how they speak and other superficial stuff. They so because, in every aspect which matters, they are no different from CONservatives. The former just try to be better at scamming people than the latter.

So why, then, did this group who appeared to have prevailed over CONservatives by the mid 2000s get so thin-skinned about “mean people” and “dissenters” so quickly after their supposed victory? Some of you might believe that this had something to do with being the only game in town. The realty is much more complex. As mentioned earlier, LIEbrals and CONservatives are simply two faces of the same group of people and all those “culture wars” were largely for the purposes of distraction and entertainment for the masses. But why did this fake show last for multiple decades? Well.. it comes down to two main reasons. Firstly, for the first 3-4 decades after WW2 the west was the most affluent part of the world and most people who live in societies that seem to be doing OK don’t ask inconvenient questions.

The second reason follows from the first. Societies experiencing continuously rising standards of living and expectations tend to focus on superficial issues and controversies while simultaneously ignoring deeper and more systemic challenges. There is a reason that the post-WW2 american society was dominated by “culture wars” rather than anything deeper such as changing the shitty underlying system. The show went until the combined effects of deindustrialization, neoliberalism and financialization of the economy and society at could no longer be papered over or ignored. But why would that cause the public image of LIEbralism and trust in its institutions to implode much faster than CONservatism?

Well.. it comes down to an undesired, but predictable, result of the collapse of CONservatism. Long story short, after its public collapse in 2006-2008, LIEbralism was the only game left in town. Now LIEbrals could no longer blame their inability to do the ‘right thing’ on resistance from CONservatives. Unfortunately this was also the time when the post-WW2 economic western economic ‘miracle’ started to implode in a very public manner. Turns out that LIEbrals has no real solutions to problems of their own creation other than imposing more austerity, pushing for fiscal CONservatism, spouting bullshit about lifelong education and basically anything other than tackle the problems plaguing most people in their countries. There is a reason why right-wing populist leaders and movements exploded in popularity across western countries after 2010.

The LIEbral reaction to these developments has been highly counterproductive, to say the least. For starters, they doubled and tripled down on empty bullshit such as identity and racial politics, “environmentalism” and celebrity culture aka stuff most people do not even pretend to care about. But what they did next was especially dumb, even by their standards. See.. these idiots had the bright idea that lecturing and trying to shame people into not talking about their real problems was a winner. And they tried really hard to pull the shit off by using their domination of certain institutions to amplify their message, which had the unfortunate (but also predictable) effect of deep-sixing any residual public trust and credibility. The election of Trump in 2016 was the final straw and seems to have broken their mind.

It seems that LIEbrals now firmly believe that nothing short of overt censorship, trying to stifle the speech of their opponents and pretty much anything other than admitting that their ideology was also a scam is the way “forward”. They do not want to believe that the previous state of affairs is dead, discredited and cannot be restored. Since this post is already a bit over 1500 words, this is a good time to wrap it up. Will likely post a followup based on reader comments.

What do you think? Comments?

George Carlin on Environmentalism and Anodyne Corporate Language

November 2, 2019 3 comments

Here are two interesting YT clips by the well-known, and now deceased comedian, George Carlin. While the video quality is pretty mediocre by current standards, the material is extremely good. In the first one he talks about how environmentalism is just a contemporary manifestation of anthropocentric delusions, aka humans wanting to believe that the world exists for them and having some outsize influence on it. In the second one, he goes after how anodyne corporate language and lies has permeated all walks of life in USA.

Clip # 1

Clip # 2

What do you think? Comments?

The Thylacine aka Tasmanian Tiger is Probably Still Around in Tasmania

October 31, 2019 7 comments

Here is another post that I have wanted to write for almost three years, but somehow never got around to completing.. until now. I am sure that some of you have heard about the Thylacine aka Tasmanian Tiger, most likely in the context of whether it could be brought back through the use of cloning or it is truly extinct. So what is the deal with this allegedly extinct animal and why do more than a few people believe it is still around. The real reason why we are talking about this creature in the first place has a lot to do with mammalian evolution during the Cenozoic and plate tectonics and the final breakup of the remnants of Gondwana about 30-40 million years ago.

The thing is.. after the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs at the end of Cretaceous, there survivors (especially on land) were on the smaller side. As some of you might know, the two main surviving branches of mammals after that event were the Placentals and Marsupials. Today, the former dominate most ecosystems on earth- but things were not always so lopsided. For reasons that are speculative and beyond the scope of this post, the three southernmost continents (Antarctica, Australia, South America) and what is today New Zealand were dominated by birds, marsupials, amphibians and some rather usual reptiles until they either came in contact with other continents or became too cold to support most animal and plant life.

Long story short.. for many millions of years after its final separation from Antarctica and perhaps even before that event, the largest land animals in Australia were marsupials, birds, crocodiles and monitor lizards. Marsupials were especially versatile and evolved into creatures that occupied familiar ecological niches. To put it another way, Australia used to have marsupial versions of common placental mammals such as anteaters, moles, rabbits, squirrels, deer, rhinos, pigs and big cats. While usually not as large or diverse as their placental counterparts, these creatures nonetheless managed to hang around for tens of millions of years- with many becoming extinct only in the past 10-40 thousand years or less.

The Thylacine, despite its name, is best understood as the marsupial equivalent of a small wolf or coyote. Fossil evidence suggests that it was once found in Australia, New Guinea and Tasmania- because these three entities are on the same continental plates and connected by land bridges during geological periods characterized by lower sea levels. While it was almost extinct on the Australian mainland by the time it was colonized by the British in the mid-1800s (competition from dingos?), a reasonably decent sized population persisted in Tasmania- which has been a separate island since the end of last ice age. It would have been still flourishing on that island if not for stupid short-sighted white colonial farmers who saw this creature as a pest and hunted it to alleged extinction. But why use the words “alleged extinction” instead of “extinction”.

Because there is a lot of evidence to suggest that it did not become extinct. Officially, the last Thylacine in captivity died on 7 September 1936. There have been very credible sightings of this species in 1938 (shot in a remote area), 1957 (spotted from air) and 1961 (killed in another remote area). While there are no photographs of these sightings, the fact that those involved came from an era when people had seen Thylacines in the flesh make misidentification rather unlikely. Now let us move on to sightings of this animal in the post-1961 era. Before we go any further, let us make an important distinction between post-1961 sightings based on location.

All recent Thylacine sightings can be divided into two categories based on location. One set are concentrated in a remote coastal part of South-West Australian mainland and yes.. early colonists in the mid 1800s had reported very occasional encounters with these creatures. My point is that the idea of a few small populations of that species surviving in remote ares of the mainland is not as implausible as one might initially assume. Having said that, the case for them being around in Tasmania is far stronger. But why would I think so?

Tasmania is a reasonably large island (almost as large as Sri Lanka, Hispaniola or Hokkaido) and most of it is very sparsely populated. Over 70% of 530-540k people on that island live in five metropolitan areas with two accounting for over 50%. Which is another way of saying many parts of the island are pretty wild and seldom visited by human beings. You might have also noticed that a decent percentage of the island is mountainous/ hilly and not close to large population centers. Not to mention that 20% of that island is a national park containing some of least disturbed parts of that island. It is therefore not beyond the realms of possibility for small populations of a shy coyote-sized animal which is especially wary of humans to remain largely hidden from them. Remember.. the Thylacine was never known for being especially fecund or interested in approaching human beings. So ya, it is possible.

It is also noteworthy that post-1961 locations of alleged Thylacine sightings tend to cluster in certain areas of that island, with a rather large percentage occurring in or near the foothills in remote parts of that island- which is about where you might expect such a reclusive species to come across humans. To summarize, it is likely that small isolated populations of the Thylacine are still around in Tasmania. This conclusion is based on number of converging factors such as the number and geographical distribution of sightings, relatively small size and reclusive nature of animal, large amount of almost uninhabited area with enough food and moderate to heavy forest cover for hiding as well as the hilly terrain in interior of Tasmania.

What do you think? Comments?

Some Thoughts on Hollywood and the Trump Derangement Syndrome

October 27, 2019 15 comments

One of the more unusual features of Trump’s presidency has been the large amount of hate it has elicited from Hollywood “celebrities”. Which is odd because, prior to running for president, Trump was well-liked by the same people who now make it a point to constantly proclaim their dislike and disdain for him. So how does a guy who was always lecherous, willing to scam others, with a seriously racist worldview and numerous other character flaws go from just another Hollywood-friendly “celebrity” to an icon of everything that is wrong with this country? Now, I am sure that some of you might say that his many flaws became relevant only after winning the 2016 election and becoming president. But is that really the case?

Think about it! Almost every single character flaw which is supposed to make Trump unsuitable for the presidency would also make him a shitty human being that others would not like to hang out with. For starters, take his well-known obsession with young women, teenage girls and his eldest daughter. As some of you might know, it was widely known that he a bit rapey, unusually interested in beauty pageants and seriously obsessed with his older daughter. However none of these facts were disqualifying to the numerous Hollywood “celebrities” who hung around him during those decades. Which brings us to the question as to why a guy who is now portrayed as a “sexual predator” was once an integral part of the celebrity circuit. Makes you think, doesn’t it?

Or take his well-known history of being involved in multiple failed business and likely connections with mafia in NJ. Was any of this a secret? Did any of this ever have an adverse effect on his acceptance by the Hollywood “celebrity” circuit in the past? Did they stop hanging out with him because he stiffed many small business who had done work for him? Did his rumored connections with the mafia in NJ make him a pariah among Hollywood “celebrities”? Moving on to his history of casual racism and race-colored worldviews.. Did any of the many “woke celebrities” who now condemn his racism on an almost daily basis ever stop associating with him because of his views and actions before 2016? And let us be clear, his main business interests had the subject of investigation and prosecution by the government for racist practices since the 1970s.

My point is that none of these “woke celebrities”, who now criticize Trump at every turn, cared that he was a racist lecher with a massively bloated ego before 2016. But why not? Why didn’t his old and well-known character flaws become an issue until his election on Nov 8, 2016? To understand what I am getting at, let us compare him to the two other previous presidents, namely Obama44 and Bush43. As I have written about in previous posts, the Obama presidency was a disaster for the democratic party and tens of millions in this country. One could even make the claim that popular dissatisfaction with the Obama presidency was an important reason behind the rise of somebody such as Trump. And yet, the Hollywood “celebrity” circuit and discredited lamestream media treat Obama as if he was the best president ever.

So why does an ex-president whose greatest claim to fame is that he did not fuck it up as bad as his predecessor (Bush43) become the establishment’s unquestioned darling? A major clue to this apparent paradox can be found in the recent attempts by elites to rehabilitate the image of Bush43. As some might remember, Bush43 was the single most disastrous president in living memory. Not only did he start the last two major military conflicts which USA lost, but his administration presided over a number of other shitshows such as the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Housing Bubble and the Global Financial Crisis of 2008. So why did Bush43 get only a fraction of the hate from Hollywood “celebrities” that the orange troll gets on a weekly basis?

The more cynical of you might attribute this to the relative absence of social media platforms during the Bush43 presidency. While the lack of smartphones and relative newness of Twitter, FakeBook etc did reduce the amount of dissenting voices during that era, there were two far bigger factors which kept “celebrities” from criticizing Bush43 to anywhere near the levels they do for Trump. Firstly, Bush43 was part of the establishment- even if the credibility of that entity was coming apart in front of everyone. As a consequence of that, the majority of criticism about his administration came from people who were not part of the establishment- either centrally or peripherally. The thing is.. majority of Hollywood “celebrities” see themselves as part of the establishment- if only in their minds.

In their eyes, Trump’s real crime is that he is not part of the establishment. Yes.. you heard that right. They express their dislike for the orange troll, not because he is an incompetent, lecherous and cruel loser or a delusional blowhard- but because he is not part of the right crowd (as they see it). Bush43’s actions resulted in the loss of many hundreds thousands lives, trillions of dollars and ushered the beginning of end for USA as a superpower. By those lofty standards, Trump is a bumbling doofus who hasn’t been able to cause a fraction of the damage caused by the Bush43 presidency. But Bush43, unlike Trump, was part of the right crowd.

An even bigger reason for why Hollywood “celebrities” dump on Trump has to do with the nature of north american society. The thing is.. many of you believe that societies like DPRK and China are the most conformist societies in existence today. However having met and interacted with a number of people from all over the world, I can say without a shadow of doubt that USA is by far the most conformist society on earth today. It is of course true that people in this country spend tons of money and expend much effort to pretend they are individualistic- and then go about showing it in a highly conformist manner. As I mentioned in an old post, a society usually lacks whatever quality, resource or attribute it portray itself to be full of.

The entertainment sector, aka Hollywood etc, is especially full of unimaginative conformists who spend a lot of time and resources pretending they are individualistic free-spirits. However when they hear dog-whistles from the few who have tons of money and power, almost everybody falls in line. That is why dissing Trump has become a competitive sport among Hollywood “celebrities”. Furthermore, we have reached a stage where simulacra have become more important than reality for many people in this country- at least in the short term. Everybody in that sector seems to be displaying fashionable, curated and attention-grabbing versions of themselves. And who can fault them for doing so in a world where only the best fake displays of opinions, behavior and outrage will ensure their continued fame, visibility and relevance.

What do you think? Comments?

Quick Thoughts on the 4th Democratic Presidential Candidate Debate

October 19, 2019 6 comments

I had originally intended to post this on the day after the latest democrat debate, but decided to wait for a couple more days. In retrospect, that turned out to be a good decision as subsequent events have further bolstered my initial conclusions about that farce. And yes.. the show was just another piece of bad political theater. While you can find tons of hot takes, paid hackery, outright lies and bullshit about that debate in the “respectable” corporate MSM, I prefer to focus on the relevant stuff. So without further ado, let us go into the many reasons why that debate (like its predecessors and political theater in general) was a big steaming pile of shit.

1] If you were drunk or masochistic enough to watch that entire show, you might have reached the conclusion that banning semi-auto guns and RUSSIA are the dominant issues for american voters. Let us start by talking about the incredibly stupid idea of banning guns aka ‘gun control’ as pushed by multiple candidates in that debate. As I have written in numerous older posts, the democratic party has an unfortunate obsession with “gun control” which has cost them important national and state elections in the past and will likely cost them the 2020 election. But why is the push for “gun control” such a bad political move? Well.. I have also previously explained the many and interlinked reasons for that outcome, but let me summarize them once again.

It goes like this.. people who see “gun control” as a major issue are a small minority who already vote for democrats. Raising the specter of gun confiscation aka “gun control” does, however, reliably energize a much larger block of pro-gun voters, many of whom are not regular voters. To make matters worse, states with high rates of gun ownership have seen considerable expansion of gun rights in past two decades without an increase in rates of homicide by guns. Indeed, many have seen significant reductions in rates of crime and homicide during that period. Selling gun confiscation to voters outside a few pockets in coastal states is a losing proposition.

And yet, democratic candidates are trying to outdo each other when it comes to supporting gun confiscation aka “gun control”. While the idiot from Texas aka ‘Beto’ is the worst offender, others are not far behind. It is not an exaggeration to say that all democratic candidates for 2020 have vociferously supported some level of gun confiscation. What makes this especially odd is that “gun control” is not an important issue during national or even state elections in most parts of the country. It is as if democrats are pushing an unpopular solution in search of a problem. Pushing “gun control” is not going to help them win all those so-called ‘swing’ states during the 2020 presidential election. Way to go.. losers.

2] Moving to the second obsession of democrats aka RUSSIA/Putin/Ukraine or anything which will lead to the promised land of a Trump impeachment. While I am certainly not the only one to see the long-term problems associated with the deep-state trying to pull off a “legal” coup against a duly elected president, most gloss over the even larger problem associated with such a course of action. See.. every minute devoted to masturbating about the latest useless revelations in the current scandal du jour is one minute less devoted to talking about issues which matter to voters. In a country where more than half the population have less than a few hundred dollars on them, are an illness away from bankruptcy, trapped in usurious student loans and employed in unstable and poorly paid jobs, wasting their time talking about superficial “decency” in politics is a surefire way of not getting them to vote for you in elections.

In other words, the most important reason to not focus on bullshit made-up “scandals” is that they take time and effort away from convincing voters to vote for you because you can deliver them a better life. Of course, neoliberals in both political parties definitely don’t to improve the living standards of their voters. So ya.. it is understandable why democrats focus on bullshit “scandals” rather than put out credible plans to significantly improve the lives of those who vote for them. I cannot resist the irony of pointing out that the allegedly totalitarian Communist Party of China has done infinitely more for people in that country than allegedly “democratic” parties have done for their voters in the allegedly “liberal” west for the past forty years.

And let us be clear about something else.. in 2016, more than 60 million people voted for the orange troll in spite of his lack of political experience, lecherousness, propensity for corruption and numerous other character flaws because they felt that the option (aka HRC) would be worse for them. Think about it.. what would make 60 million people choose the orange troll over HRC except for their complete distrust and contempt for the system? And why should they trust HRC or other establishment democrats and republicans when almost everything they have done in past four decades has slowly destroyed their quality of life? Would you trust establishment politicians if you lived in the de-industrialized Midwest? Would you trust them if you lived in the south, parts of which now have a lower quality of life than Mexico?

3] Now let us move on to a couple of related events which have occurred since that “debate”. The first concerns that stupid photo of Nancy Pelosi appearing to stand up to Trump. While that photo gained a lot of traction in the circle-jerking class of DC, the sad reality is most voters are too busy with their daily struggle to care about posed photos of multi-millionaires pretending to stand up to billionaires. It is as if establishment democrats did not learn a single useful lesson from their humiliating defeat in 2016. Then again, what do you expect from a degenerate and incestuous ruling class who are serviced by an equally inbred and out-of-touch bunch of flunkies credentialed from few “prestigious” universities?

These dumbfucks are delusional enough to believe that people outside their incestuous circles are fans of sad bullshit shows like “The West Wing”. To be fair, they are not alone as numerous “actors”, “celebrities” and other talking heads have also succumbed to the Trump Derangement Syndrome. But guess what.. their public opinion don’t matter, because if it did Trump would not have won in 2016. Yet for some reason (maybe peer approval) these multi-millionaires living in the few remaining affluent parts of coastal states act as if they are personally affected by the Trump presidency. Of course, these delusional attention-whores don’t seem to understand that vast majority of people do not see them as anything other than entertainers aka paid clowns.

Let me wrap up this post by talking about something that blew up on Twitter yesterday. As some of you know, the establishment media and political class are most unhappy with Tulsi Gabbard being a candidate in the democratic primary. To this end, they have gone to considerable extents to smear her with false accusations. Yesterday (or day before that) HRC went on some podcast and suggested that Tulsi was a “Russian Asset”. Of course, she never explained how a person who had served multiple tours of duty in middle-east and is currently an elected representative in house could be a “Russian Asset”. Apparently, things like evidence and reason are irrelevant.

Long story short, Tulsi fired back on Twitter and rightly called HRC “the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long”. Of course there was a reaction from the Clinton network and her paid bots, which was met with an even bigger reaction by Tulsi supporters. While I found the exchanges to be most entertaining, something caught my attention by its absence. See.. nobody in the Clinton network who tried to smear Tulsi further were able to provide any evidence for their assertions. Even more tellingly, HRC supporters did not try to counter Tulsi assertions about HRC. These two things, in a nutshell, tells you everything you need to know about the present generation of incompetent and delusional political “elites” and their underlings in this country.

What do you think? Comments?

The Fundamental Problem with Selling a Trump Impeachment to Voters

October 13, 2019 42 comments

Regular readers might have noticed that I did not post much last week. As it turns out, being on a couple of work-related cross country trips took much of my spare time. Anyway.. so now that I am back and rested, let us talk about the latest development in most recent pathetic attempt by democrats to impeach Trump. While I am no supporter or fan of the orange troll, it hard to deny that every stupid attempt by democrats and their deep-state allies to pull of a “legal” coup ends up making him look more sympathetic. Even worse, every failed attempt which ends with orange man retaining his presidency makes the democrats look desperate and impotent. I am sure that a few readers (MikeCA?) will write long comments about how the latest accusations against Trump are somehow the “real deal” which will create a groundswell of public opinion, finally resulting in his impeachment and removal from office. If wishes were horses..

Now let us get back to the real world and talk about how the voting public see the latest chapter of this three year long farce. As mentioned in the previous post on this topic, trying to impeach Trump in an election year is a really bad idea with multiple downsides and no realistic upsides. As mentioned in that post, we do not live in the 1970s or even 1990s. USA has been on a terminal downward spiral for most of its people during the past two decades. The ability of (white) people to be shocked by political malfeasance and abuse of power has irreversibly diminished, largely because they are now struggling to remain solvent and notionally ‘middle-class’. Only retards are still capable of believing that politicians (as a class) do not use their office to enrich themselves, their progeny, relatives and friends. CNN and MSNBC shouting from the rooftops that Joe Biden’s son did not benefit from his father’s position, if anything, makes him look more guilty.

And he is not alone. Chelsea Clinton seems to have gotten the boards of many corporations over the years in addition to “working” in highly paid sinecures in the lamestream media. A quick look at the Bush family tree shows many similar instances of family and relatives benefiting from the presidencies of Bush41 and Bush43. In fact, the progeny and relatives of almost every politician at the national, state and local level in this country keep getting plum jobs or contracts from the private sector. But.. but.. what about Trump using his position to get a “foreign” country to dig up dirt on the progeny of his potential opponent in the general election? Turns out, such behavior is as american as apple pie. Nixon’s election campaign sabotaged peace talks to end the Vietnam war to help him win in 1968 and he was not impeached for it. Reagan’s election campaign tried to delay resolution of hostage crisis with Iran in 1980 to help him win the general election.

My point is that presidents or presidential candidates colluding with foreign powers for help with winning elections is far too common in recent history to bother most voters. Let us not forget that Hillary’s 2016 campaign was one of the major funders of the so-called “Steele Dossier”. To make a long story short, even a recording of Trump making a request to investigate Joe Biden’s son to the Ukrainian president with an explicit linkage between it and future funding to that country will not make the orange man look any more guilty that Nixon, Reagan or Hillary Clinton. Most voters assume that their elected representative are greedy crooks. Trying to paint Trump as an abuser of power in 2019 is like trying to paint him as a serial pussy grabber and bad businessman in 2016. We know how that strategy worked in 2016.. don’t we. Then again, democrats seem to still have their heads up their asses. Old habits die hard, especially for incestuous circle-jerkers.

Now let us talk about the most obvious, but seldom mentioned, reason that trying to impeach is a hilariously bad idea. Let us travel back in time to the Bush43 presidency.. you know, the one that lasted from Jan 2001 to Jan 2009. While this country had many mediocre to bad presidents, the eight years of Dubya stand out as the worst in living memory. What began with a stolen election against a lackluster democrat progressed through ignoring the signals of 9/11, to that event, its aftermath, disastrous and failed invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, subsequent insurgency in Iraq, shoddy response to Hurricane Katina, the housing bubble and Global financial Crisis of 2008. It is no exaggeration to say that Bush43’s two terms in office started the final death spiral of american empire. The Trump presidency, even on its worse days, has not still anywhere close to equaling the colossal clusterfuck that was Bush43’s eight years as president.

And yet, Bush43 was not impeached inspite of more than a few of his actions being worthy of impeachment. We can start with dereliction of duty pre-9/11, manufacturing evidence to justify the failed occupation of Iraq, the massive levels of corruption and corporate kick-backs made possible by that misadventure, whatever went down in New Orleans after Katrina, the role of his administration’s policy in inflating the housing bubble which contributed to the GFC of 20008. The democrats had many valid reasons to impeach him after winning back the house and senate in 2006, and yet they did not. Instead they just allowed him to finish his second term and then retire in peace. Even worse, these same democrats have been trying to rehabilitate the image of Bush43 since 2016. Have a look of some photographs of establishment democrats and their media flunkies being extra chummy with Bush43 within the past two years.

If democrats could not get themselves to impeach Bush43, how can they demand that Trump be impeached. Bush43, more than any other modern american president, presented the strongest case for impeachment and removal for office. And yet.. democrats did nothing at that time. Even worse, establishment democrats such as Nancy Pelosi are busy rehabilitating the image of that idiot who presided over a eight year long nightmare. The Trump presidency, for all its warts and faults, has still not caused a fraction of long-term damage caused by the village idiot from Texas.

What do you think? Comments?

Attempting to Impeach Trump Will be Disastrous for Democratic Party

October 4, 2019 12 comments

By now, most of you must have heard about the latest drive by democrats to impeach Trump aka the orange troll. As Michael Tracey posted a few days ago, Ukraine-gate is the perfect extension of the failed ‘Russia’ narrative. In that article he wrote that “if Donald Trump were on the phone with the president of Angola or Singapore appearing to solicit foreign assistance, it would barely register on the outrage meter”. The point being that Ukraine-gate is an inferior surrogate for the “Russia” and “Putin” narrative which democrats have tried to push for the past three years. It is telling that their replacement narrative is a hastily assembled and far shoddier version of “Russia-gate”. Then again, professional politicians in declining post-industrial countries and their famously credentialed flunkies are not known for their ability, competence or imagination.

As many of you have also seen, establishment democrats and their ass-kissers in MSM are busy trying to concoct news of Trump’s imminent impeachment. They seem to under the impression that their repeated and failed attempts to unseat Trump using similar techniques have remained unnoticed by the general public. Or maybe they never heard the famous children’s tale about the boy who cried wolf. I cannot resist pointing out that their attempts to impeach the orange troll using made-up bullshit about his alleged attempts to collude with the current president of Ukraine are especially pathetic, given that there are far more legitimate reasons to impeach him. We can start with how Trump uses his post to increase occupancy at his hotels, his continued support for failing Saudi war against Yemen, using extra-legal means to stop legal immigration etc.

But democrats, in their infinite stupidity, have decided that trying to impeach orange troll based on gossip and hearsay is the hill on which they want to die. So here are some my thoughts and predictions on this topic. I have a feeling that certain readers (MikeCA?) are going to really dislike my take on this doomed venture. And yes.. I think that attempts to impeach Trump based on the manufactured scandal of Ukraine-gate is likely to backfire on democrats during the 2020 election season. But why do I think it is a disastrous idea? Haven’t all the talking heads on cable news told you that Trump will fall, just like Nixon. Then again.. they also told everybody, stupid enough to believe them, that the Mueller report was guaranteed to put Trump behind bars. We all know how that worked out.. don’t we? So without further ado, here are the main reasons why attempts by democrats to impeach Trump is a bad idea.

1] Trump is not Nixon and 2019 is not 1974. You must have come across extensive instances of comparison between Trump and Nixon on cable TV “news” and a couple of national newspapers, for the past three years. Yes.. that is right, many mainstream presstitutes are under the delusion that repeating Trump’s and Nixon’s name in the same sentence will conjure up the legislative and popular will to impeach the former. So let us quickly talk about why Nixon resigned under the threat of impeachment. The main reasons for his resignation were as follows: a] Nixon was widely disliked among his own party because of how many others he had run over to attain power; b] The political establishment needed a fall guy for the humiliating defeat in Vietnam, exposure of secret bombing campaign in Indochina, contemporaneous exposure of many illegal government programs and stagflation; c] But most importantly, Nixon was a creature of the political establishment and lacked significant independent support from voters.

2] Trying to impeach Trump makes him look like victim. In their boneheaded pursuit to avenge the loss of the 2016 presidential election, democrats have achieved the almost impossible feat of making Trump look like the victim to a large percentage of the electorate. Contrary to what ivy-league educated idiots believe, most people aren’t stupid enough to believe politicians. Few believe that Hunter Biden getting 50k per month to serve on a Ukrainian companies board of directors in an area in which he had no previous experience was kosher. The same applies for all the high-paying jobs held by Chelsea Clinton. Nor do they believe that Trump or his progeny are paragons of entrepreneurship and competence. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that american presidents have (especially over past 30-40 years) used their office to push for all sorts of personal favors and gains from domestic corporations and foreign governments. Trump’s behavior is widely seen as the rule, not the exception.

3] Attempts to impeach Trump will overshadow the democratic primary and the general election. As many others have previously pointed out, the shit-show of multiple impeachment hearings and proceedings are guaranteed to overshadow the democratic primary contest to the extent that any of Trump’s tweets is going to garner far more media attention than major electoral promises made by the candidates. Even worse, all candidates will have to join in this madness and spend a good percentage of their public appearances talking about impeachment rather than why they are the better candidate. To make things even more horrible, they will have to deal with a situation where the democrat-controlled house votes to impeach Trump but the senate chooses to keep him in office. Have democrats considered the inevitable fallout from a failed attempt to remove Trump from office and what it will do to the voter-base of both parties?

4] Trump will exploit a failed impeachment and its fallout to the maximum. See.. before the latest democratic brain-fart, Trump did not have much to show for the wild promises he made during the 2016 campaign. His trade war against China was going badly, he was unable to build the wall, the promised manufacturing jobs were not coming back, his policies were inconsistent and a mess, he almost ended up alienating gun owners and much more. In other words, his presidency had been a sad failure for everyone except a few charlatans in his administration. But with impeachment over a made-up controversy looming, the orange troll finally has something approaching a genuine reason as to why he was unable to deliver on his ridiculous promises. He can now credibly claim that he is the target of an “legal” coup perpetrated by establishment politicians and the deep-state. You can bet that he will promote that narrative at every chance.

Might write a followup post to this one, depending on reader responses.

What do you think? Comments?