Posts Tagged ‘HRC’

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?

On the Desire of Democrats to Believe in Myth of Russian Interference

April 26, 2017 18 comments

While I would have preferred to not write about this topic, it is clear that the democratic elite and MSM are still flogging what is obviously still a very dead horse. As some of you might remember, my previous post on this topic was about how the narrative surrounding Russia hacking the 2016 election demonstrated the intellectual bankruptcy of the democratic establishment and their MSM lapdogs. At that time, I had hoped that the passage of a couple of months would lessen the desire of the democratic establishment to peddle this ridiculous narrative, especially since it was not gaining any traction among voters who were not already highly partisan democrats.

Well.. we are in late-April 2017, and the democratic establishment is still busy pushing this comical narrative, while simultaneously ignoring the many other unpopular actions taken by Trump since he assumed office on Jan 20. Consequently, the democratic establishment and party are now widely seen as an ineffectual opposition to Trump at best and an irrelevant, if entertaining, freak show at worst. It is therefore not surprising that all substantive and successful opposition to Trump’s many brain-farts have come from places other than the official opposition. For example, it was pressure from pissed-off voters rather than concerted actions by the democratic establishment which scuttled his first attempt to repeal ‘Obamacare’. Similarly, it was the judiciary rather than the democratic establishment has taken the lead in opposing Trump’s many executive orders.

Moreover, the democratic establishment has been more than eager to support Trump’s ill-advised saber-rattling against Syria, N.Korea and Iran. It is also establishment democrats who cheer the loudest when Trump breaks yet another one of his populist campaign promises. It is therefore not surprising that the democratic party brand has become less popular with voters since the election. It is also no secret that their massive and sustained loss of power at multiple levels of elected government over last 8 years has not helped the situation. You might have also noticed that the losses of 2016 and prior years have not resulted in any real change in the general direction or strategy (if they had either to begin with) of the democratic party. I should also add that the most popular politician in USA is Bernie Sanders, who still rightly calls himself an independent.

My point is the democratic establishment has more in common with a cult in terminal decline than a functional political party with a future- unless they want to be the nominal opposition in perpetuity. But what does any of this have to with the core reason behind the desire of the democratic party to continue believing in the myth of Russian interference in the 2016 election. As you will soon see.. a lot. Let us start by trying to list all the main reasons that most people give for the seeming obsession of the democratic establishment with finding some evidence, however weak and phony, to link Trump with Russia and Putin.

There are those who point out, quite correctly, that democrats obsession with finding a Russian “connection” to Trump have their roots in a modernized version of cynical red-bating such as that practiced by McCarthy in the 1950s. While that analysis is generally correct, I see it as a second order symptom of a much deeper systemic problem. Another possibility is that democrats are so desperate and short of ideas to get rid of Trump that they are literally grasping on straws and tweets of an unstable performance artist like Louise Mensch. Once again, there is a lot of truth in that view but it is at best a second order symptom rather than the root cause. Still others see the whole “Russian interference” sideshow as a way for the deep-state to control Trump, and they too have a point but not the root cause.

The root cause (in my opinion) stems from the fact that establishment democrats are still unable to understand, let alone come to terms with, the loss of HRC in the 2016 election. I am sure that, by now, some of you must have read or heard undeserved hagiographies of HRC by establishment liberals and wondered if the authors in question actually believed a single word of what they wrote or said. Here is what I think.. In most cases, all those “liberal” celebrities and intellectuals who peddled those HRC hagiographies did (and do) actually believe most of what they said or wrote. But why would that be the case? Why would supposedly smart and credentialed people be so blind to the many glaring flaws of HRC as a presidential candidate?

I think that is comes down to their professed religion aka neoliberalism. HRC was the perfect neoliberal candidate in that her public profile put a checkmark on every point in the neoliberal scoresheet. She was white, female, rich, from a well-known family, “credentialed”, had a full resume, center-right on all issues except a few social ones, fiscally conservative, hawkish on foreign policy, in favor of stealth privatizing everything, capable of endless empty platitudes. In other words, HRC was a neoliberal wet dream- even more so than Obama. Furthermore, she hired mostly ivy-league people for her campaign team, invested in big data and every other fashionable bullshit scam and presented a very “polished” and “professional” public image.

And yet she lost to a reality TV host with a bad comb who had the hots for his own daughter and a style of speaking that made more in common with pro-wrestling than “serious” politics. Her loss to Trump, you see, is totally baffling to all those who believe in the religion of neoliberalism. They are simply incapable of mentally processing the idea that there might be people who do not want to vote for this living breathing epitome of american neoliberalism. It is as if the greatest saint of their religion was defeated by an underling of the Devil before their very eyes. They are therefore doing what most people whose belief system has been thrashed and defeated do.. find a scapegoat and then blame it on the devil.

As far as establishment democrats are concerned, Bernie Sanders is the scapegoat and Putin is the Devil. Thinking in this manner is far easier than admitting that their belief system was defective and prone to failure. You might recall that in the middle-ages, Christians in Europe blamed Jews and the Devil for massive plague epidemics. Oddly enough, they were never able to come up with a convincing rational explanation for why either of the two alleged culprits might be the cause of their misfortunes. I guess it was just easier for them to think like that than consider alternate possibilities which would question their existent belief systems.

What do you think? Comments?