Posts Tagged ‘2016’

The Dumpster Fire of 2020 Election is Eerily Reminiscent of 2016

October 20, 2020 12 comments

As I have written in more than one recent post, the 2020 election and its aftermath is almost guaranteed to be a dumpster fire of epic proportions. Then again, where else but in this “exceptional demockracy” do the two major political parties nominate a narcissistic used-car salesman to run against a guy in the early stages of senile dementia. While some features of this clusterfuck are unprecedented (at least in the previous 80-90 years), others are.. well.. strangely familiar. One could even make the case that the ongoing slow-motion train accident has more than a few similarities to its immediate predecessor, also known as the then unprecedented clusterfuck.. I mean electoral campaign and election.. of 2016. Here is why.

1] The first similarity between 2016 and 2020 comes down to the so-called “independent” and “objective” pre-election “polls”, or as I like to call them- sad and increasingly futile attempts to manipulate voter turnout for political ends. Some of you might remember that almost every single “poll” during the 2016 election cycle had Trump trailing Hillary by at least a few points. Moreover the purported “gap” between them supposedly increased to double digits after the release of those ‘Access Hollywood’ tapes in early October 2016. Even “exit polls” performed on election days showed Trump losing to Hillary in areas and states that he eventually won.

So why were all those polls, which had predicted previous electoral results, so wrong? Well.. I can think of many reasons such as people screening their calls, not telling the truth, bad data sampling and a ton of other innocent explanations. But given that many were more accurate in previous years, one has to consider the possibility that election “polls” are designed and performed to create and support a bullshit narrative rather than report the facts. And this would not be unprecedented. Consider the so-called “free” media in west. Have you noticed that almost all MSM outlets and presstitues are either grovelling stenographers for elites or manufactured opposition who are occasionally allowed to report on minor scandals.

Remember that WaterGate was a mouse fart compared to far bigger and consequential stories in that same time window such as the atrocious conduct of Vietnam War prior to Tet offensive, secret carpet-bombing bombing of Laos, support for ethnic genocide in Indonesia and much more. Remember when MSM and “respected” presstitutes kept telling you that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and connections with 9/11 hijackers? Remember when they also told you that Bin Laden had an amazing mountain lair like some villain in a James Bond movie. Or how about them telling you that the leftist leaders of Venezuela and Bolivia had no real popular support. I could go on but my point is that many people are increasingly unwilling to believe that make-believe bullshit narratives peddled by these incompetent but “credentialed” losers.

2] You might have heard Dementia Joe’ supporters tell you that they might win Texas and Georgia this time around. Funny thing.. Hillary and her supporters said something very similar in 2016. I distinctly remember them boasting how they were likely to win those two states because of “demographic changes” or some other bullshit. But wait.. Obama said something very similar to that in 2008. So how have things worked out thus far? Well.. in Texas, the percentage of non-voters, especially among the state’s Hispanic population, has remained stubbornly high. As far as Georgia is concerned, Democrats have been pushing that same bullshit dream since at least 2008, and yet every single election brings them no closer to actually winning that state. Could it happen this time? Well.. it is 2020, but I would not put down my money for making that bet.

The more interesting question is- why do Democrats think they will “eventually” win those states? Well.. according to them, the racially diverse younger generation is less conservative than their parents and are therefore somehow magically going to vote for Democrats. But why should that be the case? After all, Democrats have done nothing to address the many problems faced by younger generations such as huge student loans, high cost of housing, poorly paid and unstable jobs, nearly unaffordable quality childcare and a host of other systemic problems related to rise of neoliberalism in west. It is no secret that centrist and center-left political parties who are more obsessed with LGBTQ rights and proper pronouns rather than needs of working class have done poorly in elections over past decade.

3] Moving on.. remember how in 2016, every “respectable” MSM outlet and presstitute was constantly predicting that Trump was going to lose big and become a pariah in Republican party afterwards? So.. how has that “prediction” worked out? Need I remind you that Trump still has an over 90% approval rating among partisan Republican voters- and this after he screwed the response to COVID-19 pandemic. To be fair, so did the much more “respectable” leaders of every other major western nation. But this elite fetish for “respectability” is deeper and more comical than you might think. Consider the types of campaign ads run by Hillary in 2026. Almost 2/3 rds of them were about the poor character of Trump. How did that work out? Of course. Biden’s handlers have learnt nothing from 2016.

You might have noticed that most of their 2020 campaign ads are about how Trump is a uniquely bad character and how Biden is “normal” and “qualified”. It is as if they hired the same “campaign experts” hired by Hillary in 2016- and they very likely did. Very few of their ads give concrete and feasible sounding plans about how a Democratic administration would actually improve the lives of those who voted for them. I guess, they are being unintentionally honest- because they have zero intention of changing the status quo which led to that Orange Buffoon being elected in the first place. Isn’t that a brilliant plan? Just like their non-existent plan to fully reopen the economy, compensate tens of millions workers properly, save all those small business.. you know, actually get out of this self-inflicted hole.

4] You kept hearing “news” about how Trump’s 2020 campaign is falling apart, republican politician are deserting him and and how people in it are busy looking for alternate post-election gigs. Funny thing.. I remember MSM outlets pushing the exact same stories in 2016. It is if they cannot even recycle made-up stories without using the same scripts. Says a lot about their real levels of competence.. doesn’t it? But somehow these same presstitutes do not see eerie the similarity between lack of enthusiasm for Biden in 2020 to that for Hillary in 2016. Or the unusual similarities between the almost complete lack of public enthusiasm for Kamala Harris in 2020 to Tim Kaine in 2016. Isn’t it also interesting that both Biden and Hillary drastically cut down on their public appearances in final weeks of election because Democrats were so sure of their “inevitable triumph”.

There are many other odd and eerie similarities between the clusterfuck of 2020 campaign and election to their direct predecessors from 2016, but we are already past a thousand words. I might write a followup part, depending on the comments.

What do you think? Comments?

Why Allegedly ‘Progressive’ Political Parties Keep Losing Elections: 3

December 28, 2019 29 comments

In the previous post of this series, I wrote about why “woke” performative agendas which are so popular among the incestuous classes in charge of LIEbral and “progressive” parties throughout the west have driven the working class vote away from them, and towards right-wing parties. It does not help that these parties, once in power, either continue the right-wing policies of previous administrations or try to “compromise” with them. To make matters worse, leadership of LIEbral and “progressive” parties desperately want bourgeois social respectability and therefore lack the spine or balls to stand up for their beliefs. I also wrote that all their talk about “environment” and “climate change” also ends up alienating working-class voters. Here is why..

Some of you might remember that I had posted a (still to be completed) series about why belief in anthropogenic climate change was a form of secular apocalypticism. The very short version is as follows: belief in man-made climate change is a secular version of Catholicism and like every other religion is about controlling other people to benefit and enrich a few. So why is belief in this secular religion so toxic for the future of LIEbral and “progressive” political parties? More than a few of you must have heard about the Yellow vests movement in France, which is over a year old and has transformed into an anti-neoliberal movement. Do you know what started it? Well.. the neoliberal leaders of France decided to raise taxes on gasoline and diesel to make up for losses from corporate handouts and fulfill “environmental” mandates written by un-elected bureaucrats.

Turns out, that this was the last straw for people living in rural and other non-urban areas of France who had already suffered a multi-decade hollowing of their local economy through “free trade” and other neoliberal scams. This combination of neglect and exploitation of non-urban working class in France is the reason why parties such as the National Front (now National Rally) have a growing electoral presence in that country. Curiously, this is the same dynamic which has bolstered popular support for parties such as AfD in Germany, Freedom Party in Austria, Law and Justice Part in Poland etc. Meanwhile the increasingly impoverished and increasingly non-white urban working class in west European countries face this same problem by turning to ethnic and religious identitarianism in addition to occasional mass car-burnings and other acts of arson.

While corporate “media” in USA does not cover “inconvenient” news from outside USA, a few of you might have heard about recent protests by farmers in Germany, Netherlands, France, Ireland etc. While the list of grievances driving each of these protests is slightly different, the common thread running through these protests is being subject to new capricious laws and regulations written by faceless bureaucrats who have never worked with their hands for a single day in their life. So why are these protests becoming more frequent and larger? Shouldn’t the mechanisms of democracy reduce such conflicts over time? So why isn’t it happening? I am guessing you know the answer, don’t you. Now tell me, why would you expect people who live in rural and non-urban areas whose livelihoods are threatened by “environmental” and other regulations to vote for the very parties pushing for them. Would you vote for somebody bent on destroying your livelihood?

Many LIEbrals try to convince themselves that Trump’s rants against LED light-bulbs, low-flow toilets, windmill farms, EPA regulations for automobiles etc don’t have traction among voters. Anybody who has talked with people without blue-tick marks on Twitter or part of the incestuous circle of establishment LIEbrals will tell you that LEB light-bulbs are far less cost-effectiveness than they promise, low-flow toilets are functionally worse than their predecessors and wind-mill farms are not a reliable source of electricity. They will also tell you that the surge of crossovers in american automobile market has to do with how they are classified by unelected bureaucrats. Or have a look at the level of knowledge about firearms displayed by politicians exposing “anti-gun” policies. Why would you vote for people who are trying to immiserate you, talk down to you and generally make your life harder and worse? Did I mention that they have shown themselves to be not knowledgeable about the topics on which they make decisions.

Do these LIEbrals and “progressive” idiots understand the consequences of people working in coal mining and oil and gas extraction-processing not having a job or livelihood? Why should they trust these incestuous losers who look and talk down to then help them transition to “better” jobs? How has that worked for all those people who lost their livelihoods after their factory was moved to Mexico and China? Hasn’t the impoverishment of flyover states in the past 2-3 decades taught LIEbrals nothing? Haven’t they figured out that the electoral success of the republican party (and right-wing parties in other western countries) in such areas has far more to with the voters feeling abandoned by all those supposedly center-left parties? Do these LIEbral dumbfucks comprehend how much they are hated by people not living the few islands of relative prosperity? Are they even capable? You know that is a rhetorical question.. right?

In the next part of this series, I will go into more detail about how the various tactics used to sell bullshit scams such as “man-made climate change” and other parts of the secular religion known as environmentalism has ended up creating far more skeptics and non-believers than would otherwise be the case. Then again, the credentialed incestuous bunch of losers known as LIEbrals and “progressives” have never shown much ability to empathize with people who do not believe in their bullshit cults. Of course, they increasingly cannot win national elections either..

What do you think? Comments?

Why Allegedly ‘Progressive’ Political Parties Keep Losing Elections: 2

December 23, 2019 22 comments

In the previous part of this series, I wrote about how the weird focus of ‘leftist’ parties throughout the west has caused their electoral downfall over the past two, and in some cases more, decades. You will be aware that their focus on issues such as gender pronouns, contemporary feminism, identity politics, political correctness, gun control, environmentalism and other issues which most people either don’t care about or actively despise are a significant part of why they keep losing elections. As I also mentioned in that post, LIEbral and other leftist parties stopped caring about the real concerns of the working class many decades ago. But what caused supposedly leftist parties throughout the west to embrace performative ‘wokeness’ decades before that particular term entered our popular lexicon. In other words, why did that trend start?

In my opinion, this shift occurred at around the same time that credentialism became the latest excuse to sustain the lie known as meritocracy. Confused.. see, prior to the 1970s, the cadre of leftist or left-leaning parties came from the real ‘working class’ aka people who actually worked with their hands for a living and had no illusions about being petit bourgeoisie. However most of the cadre of these parties after the 1970s and especially after 1980s came from the credentialed “professional” class. Unlike their working class predecessors who harbored no illusions about the nature of class struggle, most of these credentialed weasels harbored delusions of being just a few steps away from becoming rich or at least petit bourgeoisie. It should be noted that this shift did not occur in just Anglo countries. Indeed, the magnitude of this particular change was larger (if less visible) in other west-European countries such as Scandinavian and Germanic countries

It is therefore not surprising to see that formerly socialist, LIEbral and other left-wing parties in the west are run by people who look the same, talk the same and act the same- irrespective of the countries they claim to represent. But why does any of this matter? After all, don’t these ‘leftist’ parties win elections once in a while and allegedly provide vocal opposition to right-wing parties. Well.. as it turns out in real life, LIEbral and supposedly left-leaning parties in power almost never try to reverse the negative effects of previous right-wing rule. In fact, more often than not they reach an accommodation with right-wing parties to further immiserate the working classes.. all in the name of “pragmatism”. And why wouldn’t they? The top cadre of these LIEbral and left-wing parties don’t perceive themselves as working class. Instead, they see themselves as part of the same “meritocracy” which created extreme socio-economic inequality. But if they are no better than right-wing political parties, why do they lose elections more frequently than them.

It comes down to something the ‘left’ does which the right’ does not- at least when compared to the ‘left’. To put it bluntly, the “enlightened left” in addition to screwing over the working class in cooperation with the ‘right’ repeatedly tries to display its moral superiority to the proles- whose interest it claims to represent. That is why those in LIEbral circles are always chasing the latest opportunity for overt virtue display- whether it is adopting children from Africa, supporting the transgender ideology, pretending to care about intersectional feminism, lecturing about the ‘sins’ of consumption while living large houses, often staffed by desperate immigrant servants and travelling around the world in private airplanes to exclusive resorts. There is a reason why slurs like ‘limousine liberal’ were so effective in 1980s. This is why all those ‘celebrity’ endorsements have virtually no effect on voting patterns and why Trump defeated HRC in 2016.

To make matters worse, if that is even possible, these “enlightened” idiots have managed to antagonize the working class in another way. Ever heard of plastic straw bans in certain cities, trying to ban incandescent lightbulbs, trying to force people to buy often shoddily made and expensive LED bulbs which last for far fewer hours than advertised, forcing people to buy poorly made “environmentally friendly” low-flow toilets, legislating fuel-economy standards that often have the opposite effect, trying to destroy reasonably well-paying jobs in the natural gas and oil industry, trying to destroy what are often the only half-decent jobs in poor coal-mining regions. I could go on and on.. but you get the picture. LIEbrals and left-wing types are busy trying to destroy whatever little joy there is left in lives of working class people- and all of this so they can circle-jerk with their ilk about their “moral superiority” via acts of performative “wokeness”.

Right-wing assholes, with all their malice towards the working class, are not delusional enough to fuck over their voters via such effeminate and passive-aggressive means. And to add insult to injury, let us focus on what these LIEbrals and left-wing types done to improve the lives of the most vulnerable among the working class? Have they been able to reduce the extremely high incarceration rates in USA to any significant degree? Have they been able to resists the growing police-surveillance state in this country? Have they been able to actually improve the lives of undocumented immigrants they claim to love? Have they been able to do anything about the massive de-industrialization of this country over past four decades? Have they done anything substantive to end all those foreign ‘interventions’ aka wars that are costly and unwinnable?

While this critique largely focuses on the numerous public failings of the LIEbral and left-wing political parties and class in USA it is, with some modifications, applicable to similar parties throughout the west. In the next part, I will finally go into why the obsession of LIEbrals and left-wing types with “environmentalism” and “climate change” is likely to further alienate the working class. Then again, LIEbral types are heavily into performative “wokeism” rather than seizing and wielding power for those who elect them. Will also go into how LIEbrals have deliberately ignored the negative effects of corporate consolidation, monopolies and oligopolies on the working class.

What do you think? Comments?

Why Allegedly ‘Progressive’ Political Parties Keep Losing Elections: 1

December 15, 2019 38 comments

Over the past few days, you might have heard that the Labor party in UK suffered a particularly humiliating electoral defeat in the most recent election in that country. Those who listen to dying lamestream news outlets might try to tell you that this something to do with Jeremy Corbyn and his ‘socialist’ policies. Other paid losers, might want to push the laughably bullshit narrative that this has something to do with the labor party being ‘anti-semitic’ which is now a code word for not giving carte blanche to Zionists. I plan to write, in another post, about the unpleasant blow-back brewing in most countries in response to this particular conflation. But for the moment, let us focus on why Labor lost in this election, but also why it did so well in first post-Brexit election of 2017. That is right.. Labor under Jeremy Corbyn did very well in 2017, but really bad in 2019.

The delusional losers, who constitute a rather large percentage of what passes for left-wing public intellectuals, want to pin the defeat down to anti-Corbyn propaganda by the establishment and its media lapdogs. Except that this was as big an issue in 2017 as in 2019. The few rational types among what now passes for the left have correctly pointed out that in 2019, Labor tried to go “normcore” by promising to hold a second vote which, for all practical purposes, was an attempt to negate the original Brexit vote. In contrast, the 2017 platform of Labor explicitly accepted the will of the people (in England, at least) and simply promised to negotiate withdrawal from the EU on terms which would cause the least disruption to the lives of most people. It is therefore no surprise that they gained votes during 2017 election in traditionally de-industrialized and poorer areas which had voted for Brexit, but then lost those same areas and more in 2019.

But the problems with Labor, and equivalent parties in other western countries go much deeper. The original attraction of people like Corbyn (and Bernie) was that they, unlike the credentialed neoliberal leadership class before them, could relate to the needs and aspirations of common people. Their focus on the problems of class, critiques of economic policies and understanding the needs of average people is what endeared them to their supporters. But that is not the focus of contemporary ‘left- leaning’ parties in the west. Instead, they and their cadre of advisers.. I mean credentialed circle-jerkers, spent most of time addressing “social” issues and taking ideological positions that are either irrelevant to most people or now frequently antagonistic. Confused.. let me explain. Let us start by talking about the support of the credentialed elite of these political parties for the transexual agenda, fake “wokeness” and politically-correct speech.

Tell me something.. in a country where more than half the people are struggling to survive from paycheck to paycheck (both USA and UK), how is supporting thetransexual agenda going to get the majority to support them. This is especially relevant since many people rightly see promotion of that agenda as an attempt to interfere in their personal lives and make them say ‘2+2=5’. How is blind support of the most delusionary parts of white woman feminism a winning strategy when a lot of men (white and non-white) have shitty jobs or often nothing going for them? How is a white guy who has worked in a slew of precarious and poorly paid jobs for his entire working life supposed to be privileged? How many times can you tell men who have lost their house in a divorce that they deserved that fate? How often can you tell men that they are irredeemable sexist pigs? And just how do you expect those who you sneer at, look down and belittle on a daily basis to vote for you come election day?

And it does not get any better when dealing with the ‘working class’. How many of the politicians in the Labor of 2019 (or democrats) actually have a working-class background or some real-life exposure to the realities of that lifestyle? More importantly, how many trace their roots to the petite bourgeoisie and professional types. Do they understand why these “working class’ types are opposed to immigrants who compete for jobs involving manual labor? Calling people racist, stupid and xenophobic because they are not gung-ho about polish or mexican immigrants, without credibly addressing the dismal states of many areas which aren’t parts of a few select prosperous cities is not a recipe for electoral success. Similarly, dismissing ‘working class’ cultural mores as cis-normative patriarchal or the latest “woke” epithet is not likely to win their votes.

To make matters worse, look how easily these parties crumble in the face of fake criticism from elite circle-jerkers. Did Corbyn stand up for all the politicians who had to resign because of clearly fake ‘antisemitism’ charges? Did he ever tell the elite circle-jerkers pushing those lies to just stuff it? Did he ever take a stand against the pushing the trans agenda, even though it is based on lies and will result in the mental scarring and physical mutilation of tens of thousands of kids? Did Labor pay back CONservative propaganda ads and bullshit in the same currency? Why should people trust you to represent their best interests against the rich and multi-national corporations if you can’t event stand up to a few vocal peddlers of the trans ideology? Why should voters trust political parties that do not really like them, cannot stand up for themselves and fight with one hand tied behind their back- all of which they are allegedly doing to restore the system.

See.. the thing is, the vast majority of people understand that the current system is shitty and incapable of substantive reform. They just want to burn down the whole thing and will go along with whoever promises that particular course of action. That is why Trump won in 2016 here and CONservatives in 2019 in UK. The problem with people like Corbyn and Sanders is that, though they understand public sentiments, they still want to save the system. Which is why both enter into compromises with people and vocal minorities who should instead should be subject to public ridicule. Treating political opponents with kids gloves, trying to maintain civility, bowing to whims of SJWs and worrying about your ideological legacy is how you lose to people such as Boris Johnson and Donald Trump. In the next part, I will go into why all that progressive talk about the “environment” and “climate change” is further alienating them from most voters.

What do you think? Comments?

2019 and 2020 Will be Much Bigger Shitshows than 2015 and 2016

May 30, 2019 17 comments

As regular readers know, I often make predictions on a number of topics which later turn out to be right (or pretty close) with a high rate of success. More importantly, I am able to accurately identify the underlying dynamics, trends and forces responsible for the ultimate outcomes. Now let me make another seemingly obvious prediction, but with far greater insight and details than possible for quacks.. I mean credentialed “experts”. My prediction is that 2019 and 2020 will be far larger and more problematic shitshows than 2015 and 2016. Some of you (MikeCA?) might argue that every day since the election of Trump has been a shitshow.. and that is technically sorta true. But if you think that 2017 and 2018 were shitshows, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

There are many reasons why this period of 1.5 years will be an epic meta-shitshow of the likes we haven’t witnessed in living memory. However, it is not simply the sheer number or magnitude of individual shitshows that will make this period memorable, but how one shitshow will feed into another and so on.. you know, synergy. But before we go there, let us talk about why 2015 and 2016 marked the beginning of our current era of shitshows. It all began with an orange Buffoon riding down a gaudy escalator alongside a trophy wife with a face pumped full of cosmetic Botox. Initially it seemed that his campaign for the republican presidential nomination was just another publicity stunt to obtain a larger payout from the reality show in which he was starring.

However it became obvious to me within 4-6 weeks that his outrageous and colorful persona had far more public support than effete Washington DC ‘insiders’ realized. And yes.. I never changed my opinion on that issue and turned out be right. And ya.. I also predicted he would win against Hillary in early 2016, even at times when even the most radical presstitues.. I mean journalists.. thought that HRC might somehow prevail against him on election day. I also explored the real reasons why HRC would lose to that buffoon– before the election took place. FYI- majority of my accurate predictions have been about issues and topics other than Trump. But enough about the orange buffoon. Let us now talk about Brexit- more precisely, why the ‘remain’ side lost.

MSM news outlets in that rapidly decaying country (UK) want you to believe that Brexit was due to the stupidity of poorly educated people in that country. However a simple look at the geography of that vote tells you all you need about Brexit. Long story short, post-2008 austerity measures in UK hit parts of the country that are not London pretty hard. People who live in those regions, aka most of that country, got progressively disillusioned with the shitty status quo. They expressed their discontent by voting against something which stood as a placeholder for the widely reviled status quo. You know.. just like people in the Mid-West finally got tired of Obama’s 8-year long lie about “Hope and Change” voted for Trump over the symbol of continuity aka HRC.

But both these shocks to the Establishment, their aftermath and colorful rhetoric accompanying both those changes are nothing compared to what we will witness in 2019 and 2020. While I will restrict my predictions to USA, things are also likely to get interesting in other parts of the world- maybe a bit too interesting. But before we go to the list, a word of caution. The most obvious reasons are unlikely to be the most consequential. The less glamorous reasons, further down the list, carry far more weight than the shiny but superficial ones which are obvious. So let us start by listing them in order of apparent obviousness.

1] Ever since Trump won the republican nomination in mid-2016, democratic establishment and deep state types have been trying to find enough dirt to stop his victory in the 2016 presidential election (which they failed) or impeach him. As things stand today, they have not uncovered anything more scandalous than Trump getting his disgraced lawyer to pay hush money to two women he had sex with while married to his current wife. While this revelation does provide fodder for supermarket tabloids, it is totally unsurprising and in line with Trump’s past behavior. More importantly, the Mueller investigation has not uncovered evidence of “collusion” between Trump and Russia or Putin. Nor has it shown any definitive evidence for obstruction of justice by Trump. And I know MikeCA will have something to say about my characterization of that report.

But these severe setbacks have not stopped an increasing number of democrats from demanding his impeachment, because face it.. they always knew he was “guilty” of something impeachable. Today, the patron saint of pro-impeachment brigade aka Robert Mueller came out and all but openly encouraged democrats to start the impeachment process, even though his report does not contain enough evidence to prosecute Trump for either “collusion” or obstruction of justice. And ya.. I am aware of the legalese bullshit about not being able to exonerate him- but let us get real, people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It also helps to be rich and white, but that is a topic for another post. My prediction is that democrats will initiate pre-impeachment proceedings against Trump, irrespective of potential negative effects it might have on their electoral prospects in 2020. But how does this translate into a nasty shitshow?

Well.. for a few reasons. Firstly, it is unlikely Trump will be impeached, tried and made to resign before November 3, 2020. Secondly, the pre-impeachment investigation is going to be long and highly contentious. It will also overshadow democratic primaries and possibly the presidential election to such an extent that other issues will be effectively sidelined. So be prepared for a democratic primary in which candidates offer endless paeans to bipartisanship, civility in politics, reestablishing “norms” and impeaching Trump at the expense of all the other stuff most voters in the general election actually care about. You know.. stuff like antitrust action against various monopolies and oligopolies, medicare for all, doing something about student debt etc. Think of HRCs “what will the children think” 2016 campaign on steroids. But in some ways, this will be smallest shitshow of them all.

2] Stupid old losers who constitute a majority of democratic primary voters in large states seem to be enamored by “gun control” aka banning civilian ownership of guns. Given that everyone in the packed clown car of democratic candidates is expected to appeal to them, one should expect increasingly shrill and strident anti-gun ownership rhetoric. While appealing to these losers might help one win the primary and a few coastal states in general, it is almost guaranteed to backfire in swing states- especially those with large rural and semi-urban populations. Now add in a few random mass shootings (almost inevitable?) between now and Nov 3, 2020 and you can imagine how nutty this could get. Expect the Democratic house to pass one or more atrociously written anti-gun ownership laws and a few high profile court cases.

To make matters worse, if that is possible, we have seen a recent trend by private corporate monopolies/ oligopolies based in heavily democratic states to deny services based on ideology. Here are a few recent examples.. Software Maker Salesforce Tells Gun Retailers to Stop Selling AR-15s, YouTube Alternatives for Gun Videos & Content Creators and Bank of America to Stop Financing Makers of Military-Style Guns. I, for one, don’t see how pissing off millions of well-armed and single-issue voters who live in gun-ownership friendly jurisdictions is a smart idea when your party has to win their votes in 2020. Then again, this is the same party which think that Joe Biden in 2020 would make the best general election candidate. Or maybe the Democrats don’t want to really win national elections. Who knows..

The large number of democratic candidates vying for the party nomination will make things even weirder than the republican field in 2016. We have all seen how small campaigns which use far less costly traditional advertising and advisers can prevail over larger “mainstream” operations. Between this and the proliferation of small donors, expect far more candidates to remain in the race even after the first major primaries are over. And the DNC and other party establishment are going to try hard, and ineffectually, to stop Bernie by hook or crook. Don’t be surprised if the 2020 democratic convention is held under even more acrimonious circumstances than 2016. And there will be anonymous leaks, just like last time. It is going to get real ugly by mid 2020.

3] Let us now turn to the less obvious, but far more consequential, trends which promise to make 2019 and 2020 the biggest shitshows in living memory. Long story short, we are due for at least three independent nasty blowbacks from Trump’s foreign and trade policies. Let us start by talking about Iran or more precisely how his stupid policy towards that country has the potential to backfire in a spectacularly disastrous manner. It is no secret that idiots such as Pompeo and Bolton, urged on by Zionists and Saudis, are trying to start a war. What they don’t understand, or are willing to understand, is that any war with Iran in addition being unwinnable would make the Iraq misadventure look like quaint in comparison. The outcome of such a war would include Iran finally developing nuclear weapons (perhaps with Chinese assistance), prolonged and massive oil shortages with resultant price hikes and many other bad long-term effects (on USA).

Moving on.. Kim Jon-un has repeatedly conveyed to USA that unless economic sanctions are at least partially removed by end of 2019, he will restart testing ICBMs. My guess is that DPRK will demonstrate an entirely solid-fueled ICBM in early 2020, unless Trump and the idiots running “foreign policy” in USA openly abandon the idea of DPRK giving up its nukes and ICBMS- because the later ain’t going to happen. Which means that sometime in 2020, Trump will have to decide on how to respond to new ICBM and perhaps even nuclear tests by DPRK. To make matters even more interesting, this escalation will likely occur around the same time as Iran is likely to finally leave the JCPOA and restart its uranium enrichment program at maximum capacity. But wait.. it gets even better, or worse, depending on your viewpoint.

As most of you know by now, Trump is involved in an unwinnable trade-war with China. And here is why.. China’s economy and manufacturing capacity is far larger than USA in real terms. While the american economy and system will implode without Chinese imports, the converse is not true. There is also no other country in the world that has as large, varied and sophisticated a manufacturing base as China. Did I mention that USA and rest of the “West” are economically stagnant, demand saturated and in overall decline. China is not going to compromise on Huawei, give in to demands of american corporations or basically change anything significant about how it works or does business. It is the USA and rest of “West” that will have to ultimately eat crow. And they will start hurting USA by screwing over Boeing and make life interesting for every american corporation which does significant amounts of business there or dependent on its exports.

Tensions with Russia could exacerbate further given the current political climate in USA and provide opportunity for yet another shitshow. Did I mention how conflicts between internet monopolies and right wingers could spill into the real world with potentially disastrous results for the former. To summarize, the rest of 2019 and whole of 2020 will almost certainly witness far larger and problematic shitshows than anything in living memory. Even worse, many of these shitshows could feed into each other to create meta-shitshows.

What do you think? Comments?

Timeline of Stefan Halper’s Insertion into Trump Presidential Campaign

May 30, 2018 2 comments

Over the past two-three weeks, corporate MSM outlets have been shouting from the rooftops that the Obama administration and deep state did not spy on Trump’s presidential campaign- even when it is clearly obvious that they did so. Even worse, the guy involved has a history of being involved in such “unofficial” intelligence operations. To be more specific, Stefan Halper was a central character in a long-forgotten spying scandal involving the 1980 election, in which the Ronald Reagan campaign – using CIA officials managed by Halper, reportedly under the direction of former CIA Director and then-Vice-Presidential candidate George H.W. Bush. And yes, he got caught that time too.

So we have a spy of mediocre ability with strong ties to the Bush family was miraculously sent to “investigate” the Trump presidential campaign after it became that Jeb Bush was unlikely to win the republican presidential ticket. What an amazing coincidence! And yes, he got involved in spying on the Trump campaign at least a few weeks before George Papadopoulos drunkenly boasted to an Australian diplomat about Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton. And this brings us the question of who was involved in giving him the order to start spying? and why? I was going to write a medium length post about it. Then I came across a recent clip on The Jimmy Dore ShowYouTube channel which pretty much says what I was going to write anyway.

What do you think? Comments?

The Interesting Origins of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Campaign Slogan

June 4, 2017 6 comments

A few months ago (before the 2016 american presidential election), I came across an interesting blog post which traced the origin of Hilary Clinton’s now infamous “I’m With Her” campaign slogan. The short version of the story is that it is almost the ad verbatim translation of the slogan for Paul von Hindenburg‘s 1932 campaign for the German presidency. For the record, Hindenburg won that election against Adolf Hitler. Paul Hindenburg died at age 86 in 1934 and the rest, as they say, is history.

FYI: “Mit Ihm” = “With Him” or “I Am With Him”.

What do you think? Comments?