Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Trump, Clinton, and proof that the "establishment" loathes the people

There's been a lot of fuss over Donald Trump's sexist comments in 2005.  I share the distaste of many for what he said, but I also have to doff my hat to the man for the way he responded by bringing several of Bill Clinton's sexual victims to the Sunday debate as his guests.  In so many words, he was warning Hillary, "You want to call me sexist?  You've got just as much of that baggage in your background as I have.  If you want to play dirty pool, remember, two can play that game."  It was a political masterstroke.  Bill Clinton's expression as he looked at his victims proved its effectiveness beyond any need for words.

That's not a happy man, right there . . .

Note that the entire 'establishment' - from other leading Republicans, to the Democratic Party, to almost every organ of the mainstream media - were frothing with excitement over Trump's potty mouth.  They tried to use his indiscretion to knock him out of the race once and for all . . . and they failed.  He's bounced back, and is fighting as hard as ever.  I've no doubt that they succeeded in damaging him, and that this damage will be reflected in the polls over the next week or two.  Quite frankly, he deserves it.  He was way out of line, just as any man who behaves and/or speaks in that way is way out of line according to generally accepted standards of behavior in polite society.  Nevertheless, many men who are not from, and do not move within, polite society do behave that way.  In the same way, many women within those circles simply shrug and accept it, because they're used to it.  That doesn't justify it, of course;  but that's their daily reality, and they know and understand it.  I suspect many of them are doing the same in their reaction to Trump's words.

That's what the establishment doesn't seem to understand.  Such women live in the real world, not one manufactured by Hollywood or Ivy League expectations.  Many of them live in environments where Trump's sexist comments are mild by comparison with what they must deal with every single day.  Just listen to popular rap music, where women are referred to as "bitches" and "whores" in almost every sentence.  Most women, I think, will judge the candidates by real world standards, not those the establishment is trying to shove down their throats.  They may not like such comments, but they have to deal with them (or worse) all the time;  so that's what they do.  They deal with them and move on.

What I've found stunning over the past couple of days is the clear, unmistakable evidence coming out of Wikileaks that the establishment does, indeed, regard the people - those who live with that daily reality - with contempt, disdain and derision.  We've always known this in theory, of course, but I've never before seen it admitted so plainly and with such bland assumptions of superiority.  It's particularly evident in two of the Podesta e-mails.  First, from this e-mail from Bill Ivey to John Podesta in March this year (bold, underlined text is my emphasis):

Well, we all thought the big problem for our US democracy was Citizens United/Koch Brothers big money in politics. Silly us; turns out that money isn't all that important if you can conflate entertainment with the electoral process. Trump masters TV, TV so-called news picks up and repeats and repeats to death this opinionated blowhard and his hairbrained ideas, free-floating discontent attaches to a seeming strongman and we're off and running. JFK, Jr would be delighted by all this as his "George" magazine saw celebrity politics coming. The magazine struggled as it was ahead of its time but now looks prescient. George, of course, played the development pretty lightly, basically for charm and gossip, like People, but what we are dealing with now is dead serious. How does this get handled in the general? Secretary Clinton is not an entertainer, and not a celebrity in the Trump, Kardashian mold; what can she do to offset this? I'm certain the poll-directed insiders are sure things will default to policy as soon as the conventions are over, but I think not. And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking - and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging.

Can you believe it?  An open, frank, unapologetic affirmation that the Democratic Party establishment has conspired to 'dumb down' the electorate.  So much for respect for democracy!

Next, this e-mail from Jennifer Palmieri to John Podesta in April 2015:

I know [Hillary] has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use [a reference to her small business policy] once the first time she says I'm running for president because you and everyday Americans need a champion.

Again, a bald, unapologetic statement that Hillary Clinton has 'begun to hate everyday Americans'.  Quite a contrast with her debate claims and other 'on-the-record' statements . . . yet one that was accepted without a word of dissent or complaint by those in the e-mail chain.

What's more, I'm willing to bet that the Republican Party establishment is currently reading those same statements and nodding their heads in agreement.  They, too, appear to regard the electorate with contempt, seeing it as an entity to be manipulated in their best interests, rather than the country's.  I think Hillary Clinton and her coterie are far from alone in their arrogant detachment.

Two commenters appear to agree with me, one from the perspective of American politics, the other from a broader, international perspective.  First, the Z-man has words of wisdom.

The beta male pansies in the managerial class don’t know anything about this, but normal men in private like to tell dick jokes, boast about women and reminiscence about their exploits. The faggots that take up space in Official Conservatism don’t know about these things.

Watching one traitorous fink after another decry Trump’s locker room talk from a decade ago, I was reminded once again that these people were never on my side. It was always a con, a grift, to fool otherwise decent people into putting down their weapons and surrendering to the Left. Buckley-style conservatism, whatever it was, is now just a tool of the managerial class to clear the field for nation-wrecking policies to benefit the ruling elite at the expense of the middle class.

Last night, I was reminded of why Trump was able to obliterate the GOP field despite being out spent a million-to-one. He is not a pussy. Any other Republican faced with the dirty trick pulled on Friday would have gone into the debate prepared to grovel and plead, begging for a second chance. It is not all all inconceivable that he would have offered to step aside. Trump went into the debate prepared to deliver a counter bunch designed to knock the old fat cow on her ass.

It was a sterling performance that turned the tactics and strategy of the government party back onto them. If the contest is going to be a referendum on Trump’s character, then Trump is going to make a big show of exploring the character of the Clinton Gang. Having Bubba’s many sexual assault victims at the event was a missile landing directly into the weapons cache of the Clinton campaign. His demand for a special prosecutor reminded everyone of the elephant in the room.

. . .

Trump probably will not win and even if he does, it’s probably too late to avoid disaster anyway. Democracies always murder themselves. That is the lesson of history and ours will do the same, sooner rather than later. If the worst is to be avoided, then the present arrangements must be de-legitimized in order for a reform effort to have room to grow. That’s the role of Trump in the election. He the destroyer of worlds that need destroying.

When this all started, I compared Trump to the character in the Asimov Foundation series called The Mule. One way of interpreting this character is as a destroyer that sweeps away that which must be swept away in order for something better to rise in its place. That’s the Trump campaign. By cracking the Conservative Industrial Complex and challenging the legitimacy of the managerial class, he is exposing the whole thing as a racket, one which the people can no longer trust.

There's more at the link.  It's well worth reading.

Finally, Nigel Farage provides a transatlantic perspective on the people, the electorate, as a whole.  Bold, underlined text is my emphasis.

As the rich get richer and big companies dominate the global economy, voters all across the West are being left behind ... In the American rust belt, traditional manufacturing industries have declined, and it is to these people that Trump speaks very effectively, since they have all but given up hope of Washington.

To them must be added the small businesses and sole traders ... Every small business feels put-upon by the sheer volume and weight of regulation. Our new hyper-regulated world makes it tough for the little people to compete with the business giants. These people want deregulation, and Trump is promising them that. Many feel they have nothing to lose in voting for him.

. . .

I met many people at the [Trump] rally in Jackson, Mississippi, who had never voted in their lives. They may produce an upset similar to Brexit. It does not matter what the opinion polls, bookmakers or markets say, because these new voters are hard to measure.

. . .

I believe we are witnessing a popular uprising against failed politics on a global scale. People want to vote for candidates with personality, faults and all. It is the same in the UK, America and much of the rest of Europe. The little people have had enough. They want change.

Again, more at the link.

Voters like those identified by Mr. Farage don't care about sexist comments.  They see them as relatively minor flaws compared to what the establishment has done to their country over the past several decades.  They understand (correctly) that the media fuss about Mr. Trump's comments is nothing more or less than an attempt to distract them from this reality, to whip them back into the politically correct line . . . and they want none of it.

I'm not sure whether Mr. Trump can win this election.  I think the 'margin of cheat' that will be deployed to stop him will probably be overwhelming.  I won't be surprised if left-wing, progressive activists ensure that electoral fraud reaches historic, overwhelming proportions.  Nevertheless, I agree with Mr. Farage that the vast mass of disgruntled voters out there is, indeed, "hard to measure".  If there are enough of them, in enough critical states, to make a difference in the Electoral College, we may yet see the biggest establishment upset since President Lincoln's election in 1860 . . . and we all know what happened after that.  The industrial Northern establishment vanquished the agrarian Southern establishment that time, albeit at ruinous cost.  Who knows what may happen tomorrow?



bmq215 said...

You link to the wikileaks release when mentioning the "everyday americans" comment but did you actually read the email chain? It's completely obvious that they're talking about overuse of the phrase itself, rather than their candidate hating the American people.

Andrew said...

Locker room talk between men is bad? You should hear what women, especially 'empowered' corporate women, say when there are no men around, or when only drone men are around. It is positively disgusting.

I have heard talk in a board room that would make a Penthouse letter seem tame. I have heard talk at a hospital that would disgust most male perverts. Talk in the mall as women, with children in tow, demean men as they walk by. Women's shows, like the View or soap operas, where 'super' women cackle about things that are just wrong.

Yet no-one talks about this reverse sexism and how bad it is. And these women are the same ones that have a problem with Trump and support the Clintons?

I hate the world.

Peter said...

@bqm215: No, I didn't read it like that at all. I think it's precisely about "their candidate hating the American people".

Uncle Lar said...

From 1969 to 1974 my first full time job after high school was in a factory that made timers, thermostats, and controls for major appliances. They employed 2500 people, 2,000 of them women. Trust me, a middle aged blue collar female can and will from a standing start out cuss your average sailor or dock worker. I entered that job young and innocent, came out the other end a bit more world wise.
I fully expect HRC to win the election. Most of the media is in her hip pocket, and the Dems are past masters at voter fraud. Expect 200 % turnout in Chicago alone. And the dependent class in this once great nation has risen to the point that promises of free stuff will also play an important role in turnout and choice.
So, in one short election season Ms. Clinton will have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that equal protection under the law and fair and honest elections have become and if truth be known always were fairy tales to fool the children among us.

Judy said...

Yup, women are just as crude as men are.

Yup, the wealthy have total disdain for any class below them since the beginning of recorded history.

Yup, the demon-crats have been rigging elections since the beginning of Tammany Hall in 1789.

Yup, Crooked Cankles and Slick Willie are still guilty of Treason, High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

And lastly, what Uncle Joe Stalin said about who counts the votes. It is my understanding that if you follow the trail of who counts our votes these days it leads back to George Soros. And we all should be aware of what he stands for!

VFM #7916 said...

Mr. Grant,

Your perspective on the morality of Trump's conversation should be tempered with knowing, as Andrew pointed out, that women are as adept at or better at wielding sin as men.

Women in this age are human, not angelic beings who longsuffer the badthink and crimespeak as men. The majority of societal problems are directly cause by women's mass abandonment of politeness, femininity, submission, and respect. It's then compounded by men responding to the economic incentives now presented by women and the State.

This situation provides drama, something women greatly enjoy. Trump is going to give them that, unlike Hillary.

Dirk said...

Saw a meme today... Picture was a woman reading a book. Caption was "If American women are so outraged at Trump's use of naughty words, who in the hell bought 80 million copies of "50 Shades of Grey"?

I think it's a good question.....

Douglas2 said...

Google of course has it fixed now, but on Sunday I started a search with "grab em by the and the predictive auto-fill came up with b***s".

Out of curiosity, I clicked through, and on none of the first two pages served to me was the phrase "grab em by the b***s" meant literally.

"Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum" has been attributed to Lyndon B Johnson, Patton, and John Wayne, and the online quote guides translate the first part as "get their attention".

So successful has the prompting been, that I don't see anyone considering that the philosophical principle of charity might require interpreting trump in the same way as LBJ, rather than as a description of physical assault.

Anonymous said...

I don't care for such language, and my partner doesn't use it with me; in fact, he won't swear, probably I'm more likely too: thus the females out-swearing the guys, but ( we both work in a very blue collar industry: logging and road maintenance) I know that he can and, if needed, does use such language. So what? He tells people his girlfriend wore him out? I think my sensibilities can take it. Besides, I might well (if I had them) tell my closest girlfriends that He wore me out. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

Tal Hartsfeld said...

The "civilian monarchs" and those-in-charge have ALWAYS been contemptuous of the "peasants" and "middle-of-the-roaders", thinking us to be of "inferior stock" and not of the "pedigree" substance they are.

That's ALWAYS been the essential make-up of all societies, past and present.

It's what's known as "social rank fascism". Pure and simple.

And the media is little more than a sophisticated broad-based psyop conspiracy.

Anonymous said...

One thing is different between then and now. The south and west have their own arms industry. Okay, two things: the denizens of fly-over country are much better armed than before.


Cathy said...

I think it is a hoot, watching the politicos running around acting horror struck, as Stilton Jarlsberg puts it, like a bunch of Amish virgins, when Congress has been riddled (or raddled) with prostitution scandals for years. Hypocrisy, thy name is Congress!

JohninMd.(HELP?!??) said...

HRC has always had disdain for "the little people". Ever since Arkansas,w hen she craped all over the State Trooper Security Detail people literally were told to GET OUT OF HER WAY when she moved around the West Wing, or anywhere in the mansion. Mr. Garage is correct, folks are mad and tired of being used and lied to for others benefit. How far it will go, especially if the puppet-masters screw up? Hubris levels are off the chart. We may not have four years left to get it right, especially if the economy tanks as Peter has spoke of, we are in deep Kimchi....

Inconsiderate Bastard said...

Buried amidst the discussion of genitalia, the nugget in today's mine is this:

I think the 'margin of cheat' that will be deployed to stop him will probably be overwhelming.

I have no doubt Peter is absolutely correct in that statement, and it presents a much greater problem for America than many suspect. If elections can be successfully manipulated through fraud, and I think despite the left's best efforts to hide it quite a bit of the fraud that will occur this November will be blatant, then there is no reason to ever hold an election again because the result cannot be trusted.

Consider what happens when elections become meaningless, the result predetermined because of fraud, especially when a sizable portion of that fraud is perpetrated by the government itself (see: Obama, Holder, Lynch, Comey, Pelosi, Boehner, Ryan et al). What recourse do the citizens have to reliably select their leaders?

I know what that recourse will be, and it does not bode well for our Republic. This country has survived economic catastrophes, internecine and global wars, societal upheaval; we may not be able to survive government-supported fraud on such a scale as to negate elective outcomes.

Anonymous said...

I agree that women are far more "earthy" in their thoughts and behaviour than men. I worked as a under manager in a nightclub in the UK and the state of the womens (I won't say ladies) toilets was a hell of a lot worse than the mens, both in graffiti and other activities.

Still, here is a female perspective on the Trump comments which highlights the hypocrisy of the whole thing:



Phil B

Anonymous said...

What preparations are people making if the Donald wins the popular vote and loses the electoral college vote? I'm not sure everyone will be a good sport about that. 'Margin of cheat'. good term.