Search Box

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Which is more important?

There hasn't been a time in recent history when the country has been more divided, and when there are two more divergent visions of what this country should be. The fate of the nation hangs on this election. Yet the election seems to be being determined on some awfully unimportant things.

Should we accept more Muslim immigrants who are potential terrorists, and who will probably be more loyal to their nation of origin than to the US? Does it matter that once they reach a critical mass they will start to demand Sharia law and forever alter the complexion of this country?

Well, maybe, but it's far more important that Donald Trump once told an interviewer that as a celebrity women would let him get away with a lot.

Should we have good relations with Russia, or should we escalate tensions, possibly leading to a major war?

Who cares about a little thing like that when Donald Trump once tried to kiss a woman without asking permission first?

Should we enforce our borders so that we're actually a nation?

It's obviously far more important that Trump, incredibly, once referred to people who snuck across those borders as "illegal aliens" rather than "undocumented workers."

Is it a problem that so many of our jobs have been shipped abroad and that the middle class is being decimated?

Well, it's not nearly as big a problem as Trump saying that Megyn Kelly was "bleeding from her wherever."

Should we choose as the next Supreme Court Justice one who will respect the Constitution, or one who will push the activist agenda of the Obama administration?

Who cares about such an inconsequential thing when it turns out that during production at The Apprentice, Trump actually talked to his coworkers about which women on the show he'd like to bed?

Should we continue to enforce ridiculous standards of political correctness whereby criticism of one group is okay but similar criticism of another is not? Should we continue to call realistic talk "hate speech," thereby ending all honest discussion of our domestic problems?

Who can be bothered about a trivial matter like that when Trump once called Rosie O'Donnell a fat pig?

Should we be concerned about the rising murder rate in our cities and the fact that our police now feel hamstrung when it comes to law enforcement?

Of course not -- this pales in comparison to the fact that Trump used the word "pussy."

It's good to know that the media is keeping America focused on the things that really matter.


Pangur said...

I'd usually just leave a comment but now-banned-from-twitter Ricky Henderson says it better:

"It is abundantly clear that there are two Americas. In one, Donald Trump is a cartoon villain, liar, serial groper, racist, sexist, misogynist, xenophobe, Nazi. In the other, Hillary Clinton is a corrupt, lying, globalist politician.

Put these caricatures aside for a second and look at who is lining up on the two different sides. On one side, you have the crooked media, the crooked politicians, 95 percent of elite Jews and Mormons, 95 percent of the big corporations, the permanent bureacracy, the cosmopolitan entertainment business, and the bloated, useless academics.

All of these institutions failed you. And it wasn't an accident. They failed you because they hate you. It was on purpose. They betrayed you. They attacked you for being Christian. For being Catholic. For being a White man. For being a White mother and having White children."

Read the while thing:

Read it all.

John Craig said...

Pangur --
That is a great, great quote. I've never seen a better summation of the current election.

Thank you.

BTW, you must be a baseball fan, because you wrote Ricky Henderson by accident (I assume), when you meant Ricky Vaughn.

Pangur said...

Yes John, indeed I did mean Ricky Vaughn, apologies. "Ricky Henderson" is the nom de plume of an old poster on that site (which I frequent) and I got 'em confused.

I stopped following all professional sportsball years ago and encourage others to do so; I prefer amateur tilts, for obvious reasons.

John Craig said...

Pangur --
Just teasing, no apologies necessary.

I liked that quote so much that I showed it to my son; he said he'd already read it, he evidently follows Vaughn too.

Steven said...

Interesting...which states would be red and blue if only women voted and if only men voted.

Pangur said...

Then the next step is to get him a posting career.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Yes, there's a huge divide along those lines. Something the media is trying to promote, too.

John Craig said...

Pangur --
In all honesty, his posts would be too brutal; he'd probably push people back the other way.

Steven said...

I'd like to see that.

Jokah Macpherson said...

Women love it when you ask them permission before kissing them. Nothing says raw, passionate love like "May I kiss you?"

Nothing makes them angrier than locking eyes at just the right moment with nervous tension filling the air and just going for it. That is practically assault, and besides, it is extremely disrespectful to a woman to give indications that she might arouse uncontrollable emotions in you.

John Craig said...

Jokah --
That's so true. That whole asking permission campus code thing was obviously generated by feminists who've never had a normal pass made at them.

And the idea that they should run other people's sex lives is the ultimate Big Brother, or in this case, Big Sister, mentality.

High Arka said...

John, I don't see how what you describe is different from any American election in fifty years. In the 1980s, Reagan was running drugs and having white Christian nuns raped to death in order to empower MS-13 and the Sinaloa Cartel to destroy the border between America and Mexico, and take down American industry from within, and most of the media talk was about how funny Dukakis looked riding in a tank, or whether or not it was inappropriate for Reagan to have been an actor. Considering that the Soviet Empire either was or wasn't going to dissolve, and how many nukes would or wouldn't be going to local warlords, the election was "the most important election ever," the way it always seem to be.

I'm pleased to see many people decrying the media as worthless, but that happens every time around, and yet they keep watching it and trusting it. Even our impression that the media is untrustworthy comes from the media itself, as it delegitimizes television and print media in order to push new product offerings via web delivery.

I feel the same desire to think that this time, something in the air is actually different, but they've pulled the trick so very many times now--at least for the past hundred years--that I'm forced to heed statistics and conclude it's just another election.

That little trace of hope is an integral part of keeping us docile. Believing that Dubya will end government spending, or Obama will end government war, or Trump will do something's been a load of shit for a century. We're endlessly goaded by carrot and stick, threat and promise.

I hope I am proven utterly wrong and you are vindicated in your sense of "this time it's different."

John Craig said...

High Arka --
I'm not sure I quite said that "this time it's different." The country has never been more divided, I'll stand by that. The national dialogue seems to be split between the BLM movement and the nascent alt-right movement, both of which are gaining adherents, and there's not exactly a lot of common ground there. (Okay, there are a lot of people in between, but these seem to be the two groups dominating the dialogue now; and my view is probably skewed by the fact that I get my news from the internet rather than TV or newspapers.) And I can't recall a time when political correctness was either more dominant or more insane than it is now.

If you're saying it's no different in the sense that the election is turning on trivialities, then I agree, and yes, the media always focuses on non-consequential stuff. But there does seem to be a higher level of hysteria in the way they cover Trump than I've ever seen in the past.

And yes, it's true that the difference Presidents will make is always overestimated. Events mostly have a life of their own, and most Presidents are at best caretakers, almost as much observers of the world going by as the rest of us are. But Trump is symbolically more of a change from the ruling ethos than any recent candidate has been, partly just because the ruling ethos is now so extreme.

All this said, I can't see Trump winning anyway. And I hope I'm the one proven wrong on that.

Anonymous said...

Good Lord, the misogyny makes me want to projectile vomit.

The sad thing is so many women agree with the tenets of his campaign re: globalization and open borders, but when you start down the road of the rape apologists, forget it.

As for this quote: "It is abundantly clear that there are two Americas. In one, Donald Trump is a cartoon villain, liar, serial groper, racist, sexist, misogynist, xenophobe, Nazi. In the other, Hillary Clinton is a corrupt, lying, globalist politician."

I disagree that there are two Americas. Many of us live in the America where BOTH those statements are true.

As a mother of young children, I am completely at a loss. I will be sitting this election out. Like Voltaire's Candide, I will simply tend to my own garden.

- Gardner

John Craig said...

Gardner --
Who has become a rape apologist? Trump may be an egotistical boor, and he may have mad clumsy passes, but unlike Bill Clinton he's never raped anyone (that I know of). The hypocrisy of the media in ignoring Clinton's actual rapes and Hillary's complicity in them and then making it sound like rape when Trump planted some unwanted kisses on women who weren't particularly interested in him that way is astounding.

As the mother of young children, you might ask yourself if you'd prefer they grew up in a country where Sharia law is making headway, or not. Whether the middle class has survived, or not. Whether political correctness is still holding sway, or not. Thirty years from now, when your children are grown, it will long since have been forgotten whether Trump was a boor or not, but these other issues will still be looming large.

Anonymous said...

I agree that this election is unlike any other in my ~35 years of adult life. Never has a candidate been vilified so completely, so often as Trump. And never has the vilification been so utterly, transparently hypocritical.

Trump is the ‘man of the people’. His proposals are common sense and obvious answers to improve the life of the common man.

Hillary is the woman of the globalist elite.

And for Hillary’s track-record as Secretary of State, and proposals going forward?

Hillary favors more government spending for economic growth. Everyone knows that’s how it works, right?

Hillary is for the US as a ‘green energy super power’. More expensive energy for economic growth? I read that green energy kills two jobs for every job it creates. Makes sense – forcing an economically unfeasible product through government funding / regulation is an economic negative.

Hillary is responsible for the failed state in Libya, now a terrorist hotbed.

Hillary is responsible for the war in Syria. I watched a video of her, as Secretary of State, laughing as she explained that we were funding the ‘good terrorists’, who happened to be Al Queda affiliated. All because she and Obama decided Assad had to go. And what US interest was served by funding this war?

Hillary’s proposal, at the last debate, of declaring a no-fly zone in Syria is a recipe for WW III. Russia is all-in on saving the Assad regime. Russia is openly talking about use of nuclear weapons, and is conducting nuclear drills at home. Have we lost our minds?

So, are you voting for the interests of the common man – i.e. all of Trump’s common sense proposals?

Or are you voting for the interests of the globalist elite, further economic stagnation / decline, and WW III?

Buchanan’s latest article is another example of why this election is different, how the press has lost credibility, and how the elites have been discredited like never before.

- Ed

Anonymous said...

I am no Clinton defender. I was nauseated by the entire Monica Lewinsky et al. affair back in the 90s, I vowed I would not vote for HRC in 2008, and I am keeping to that vow.

I am also completely aware of media bias, having worked at several newspapers and personally knowing many journalists. I agree the media have long since abdicated their perch of impartiality.

Rest assured that I am firmly on the side of keeping America a Western nation, in all that that entails.

However, that does not blind me to DT's disgusting behavior and character. It causes me great sadness that this man is the best we can muster in the defense of Western civilization. Maybe I am a snob, but I want my nation's leader to be articulate, well-educated and spoken, and yes a standard-bearer in terms of morals and values.

Part of what people like me object to is the degenerate nature of modern society, and I can't help but feel, DT, with all his reality TV garbage, is the perfect embodiment of all that materialism and shallowness. Together, he and HRC represent the absolute worst aspects of the modern world.

Perhaps the silver lining is that the horse has left the barn (regarding immigration, globalization etc), and in the next election cycle, a candidate who can actually win will emerge.


Anonymous said...

I wanted to add, in case my agitated remarks don't reflect it, that I am grateful for your blog. There is really no place in my real life that I can express my true thoughts. I am deep i HRC territory.


Anonymous said...


I'm beginning move towards Gardner's position. Substantively I agree with you, but Trump is showing himself to be unhinged. Instead of focusing on the issues - where he has my 100% support - he is allowing himself to be goaded like a bull in the arena.

He is a terrible candidate with good ideas. Hillary is a terrible candidate with terrible ideas. Logically this makes me a Trump supporter but I just can't do it.

Did you read Angelo Codevilla's article:

Takeaway: our republic is over. It's been going on for a while, but IMO the event horizon was the 2nd Obama administration. It might actually be better for us "woke" folks (or waking up) for Hillary to take over the mess and push us to complete rebellion, while another party is formed.

The Supreme Court, you ask. I don't think it matters much. The Supremes are followers of the zeitgeist, look up Dred Scott, Plessy, so many major decisions on labor law, etc. Republican presidents nominate conservative jurists and they still go liberal. It's in the air. The only thing that will change it is total insurrection. I think that a Hillary regency combined with a military defeat (see Philippines China pivot now) and that might happen.

Only a terrible shock will wake people up. It's always that way, John.


John Craig said...

Ed --
Couldn't agree more. And Buchanan's article nailed it: the Left is far more overt with their bigotries, but somehow with them, it never gets called that, since they're "enlightened."

And the weirdest thing of all is the alliance between the liberals and the Muslims: what the Muslims really believe -- and in some case, practice -- is far, far to the right of what any standard American conservative believes or practices -- but that gets overlooked because the Muslims are now a protected group.

Anonymous said...


I agree with you 100%. Also w/respect to being grateful to John for having this place where we can at least vent. This may disappear.


I've been thinking hard about Trump, the hypocrisy, separating the man from the policies, etc. Believe me, I've been trying to do my damndest to do that. I may end up voting for him because of that (my state is going to go Democrat, so it would be a protest vote.)

I've come to this: my problem is not that he's a horn dog, it is that I find him objectively repulsive. I need not go into details, but I would start with the fact that he's a trust fund kid who represents the coarsening and degradation of our society (see Gardner, above). I have, up until now, avoided assiduously everything he ever had to do with.

I try to watch his "speeches" - rambling monologues of pure incoherence. I can't stand it.

He would be immediately overwhelmed by the responsibilities of the office of the Presidency, and all the enemies we have - and we do have them, despite what the alt-right says - would take advantage of that.

I do not trust Putin. I don't want a war with him, but I think he's a thug. China is becoming or has become a great power. I don't think that "dealmaking" is going to cut it with these guys.


Anonymous said...


I have a question, and a comment.

The question. Can you remember a time when race relations were as bad as they are now? I cannot.

The comment. The country is as divided as during Vietnam. I remember fistfights, heated arguments, families shattered. But the difference between then and now is that no one was frightened to give their opinion. No one lost jobs. Dissent was valorized, then it became mainstream. But even when the dissent (anti-war) guys got the upper hand, there were always those on the other side who disagreed with them.

Now, we live in a soft police state. You don't get sent to a prison camp. You lose your job, you get kicked off Nice People's Island, and your name will be shit. You'll be a failure and a loser. At some point in the future even that will not be an option.


Anonymous said...


Sorry, one more thing. What is going on in a man's mind who says, "look at her? I don't think so" to allegations of groping? He said that in his speech on Thursday. His speech should have been a rousing populist call to rebellion, and he wallowed in the mud. Four years of this? I don't think so.

He's impossible, and he's proving his enemies' words without their having to do much.


Anonymous said...

Gardner -

I believe Trump is a far better person than Hillary is.

Hillary has been on a life-long quest for power, it is her only ambition. She – who preached about women’s rights around the world, including China – assailed the character of the women who were sexually assaulted or raped by her husband. She sold US favors in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation. Her foul mouthed, abusive treatment of people serving her is documented. She is a sport liar (Bosnia, Edmund Hillary, etc.). The Email server speaks for itself. John has documented Hillary’s character well on this blog.

Trump got recorded, unbeknownst to him, in a jocular conversation with an off color reference. Every man I know has said things that if they were recorded, then taken out of context, and pounded by media – would be equally embarrassing. Read Ann Coulter’s rebuttals to Trump’s ‘bleeding’ comment, and Trump’s arm motions to the handicapped reporter. Both were likely further examples of media misrepresentation.

Trump is a 70 year old man who has everything in the world. He comes forth with a common sense agenda to better the life of the working man. He is the first person in the United States to stand up to the press and the political correctness police, and win. He has been abused and maligned like no politician in US history. Why is this worth it to him, what is his motivation? Maybe some would say its narcissism. I see it as virtuous.

Hillary had it backwards. Its Trump who should be up by 50 points – and if the media were on his side, he would be.

I admit, I feel it too. Its difficult to stand up to the media assault.

But stand up we must.

- Ed

John Craig said...

Gardner --
There's no question about Trump being a flawed candidate. I've pointed this out several times, in fact have compared him to Goldfinger, set him up in a mock competition with el Chapo, analyzed his Achilles heel, explained how his ADHD manifest itself, and called him a narcissist. I knew guys like him on Wall Street. They were all about, look at my money, look at my beautiful wife, look at my beautiful house, and if you don't express admiration for me I'll hate you for it. I couldn't stand them, and I don't like Trump, either.

But there are bigger things at stake here than whether Trump is a 'hole. Like our survival as a country. And our existence as a repository of Western civilization. (I don't think all the horses have left the barn yet.)

Thank you, and I've alway been grateful for your comments. (I'd also be grateful for your vote.) Anyway, I started this in '08 as a way to vent, I figured it was better than harassing people I know, I'm glad you have the same philosophy.

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Just read Codevilla's article, and yes, it is good.

I don't think Trump is unhinged, he's just, as I said above to Gardner, a narcissist. An egotistical boor. But better that than a corrupt sociopath (is that redundant?), which is what we get with Hillary.

Yeah, traditional values have all been turned inside out, as Codevilla pointed out. (Sounds like de Tocqueville, doesn't it?). And there's not much difference between Paul Ryan and HRC. And the Constitution is now regularly ignored. But is our Republic dead? I'm not quite there yet. The best argument for Trump is that the Republican establishment is largely rooting for Hillary. If you and Gardner won't vote for Trump, it really is all over.

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Thank you re: the blog.

Yes, Trump is a boor, there's no argument there. But, given what's at stake, I think that has to be overlooked, as hard as it is.

The thing about Putin is, he's not on our side; he's on the side of the Russian people. But he's more trustworthy than HRC because he actually is on the side of his people, and will do what he thinks is best for Mother Russia; in that way he's predictable. Hillary will do what's best for Hillary, screw the country and the American middle class. If she can do something to put more money in the coffers of the Clinton Foundation, at the expense of the taxpayers, she'll do it. Putin does dirty tricks (I'm not even sure he didn't steal the last election), but he does it in service to his homeland, or, at least he thinks he does.

In answer to your question, no, I can't remember a time when things were worse as far as race relations. On one side, the BLM, on the other the alt-right. Absolutely nothing in common. And you're right, the way that people are persecuted for speaking the truth just shows how fascist the Left is. There's never been a time in my life when there's been so little freedom of speech. (No, people aren't thrown in jail yet, but they do lose their jobs for telling the truth, as you say.)

I wish Trump hadn't said, "Look at her, I don't think so." But my guess is that he didn't make a pass at her (I don't know, of course) and so he as telling the truth. I haven't seen picture of the woman, and have no idea what sh looks like, but if she's not attractive, my guess is he's probably telling the truth. But, of course, the fact that it's the truth isn't a good defense when you're already effectively on trial for being a boor.

Anonymous said...


My point is that the "Look at her, I don't think so" remarks is evidence not of boorishness but of utter, unbelievable emotional stupidity, and an inability to get a point across.

I can take a boor. A boor can be any kind of person. It's a flaw, but venal, and when the stakes are so high, it's totally unimportant.

Trump isn't a boor, he's a fraud. He is not up to the job of President, and would not get one thing that you and I want done. He would be incapable of governing.

Like you I don't think that all is lost. After this election, we have to pick up the pieces and make a real national movement.


John Craig said...

Puzzled --
It was a dumb thing to say, no question, even if it's the truth. And yeah, he's not articulate; he uses the same words over and over again and can't even speak in complete sentences during the debates.

And yeah, Trump does have something of the huckster to him. all you have to do is look at Trump University to see that; and the way he's always promoted his real estate ventures in the past is with the same sort of hyperbole he uses in the campaign, overselling everything. All true.

But HRC is a fraud too, as well as a sociopath. (I guess that's redundant.) And as far as personalities go, the choice is between a narcissist and a sociopath. Which is, to me, an easy choice. (And that's not even to mention the difference in policies.)

Anyway, would Trump get done what he promises? Of course not; no President does. But if he were to be elected, which it looks as if he won't be, he'd at least -- I hope -- have the right people around him who, while sharing his instincts, would be more knowledgeable and steer him through the various morasses he would inevitably find himself in.

Anonymous said...

I'd forgotten about Trump U. And again, I don't care about boorishness - the point is, he shouldn't even be responding to this. I get that Trump is being battered by an all out assault on his character, while Hillary skates on Wikileaks. But he should be jackhammering her & the whole Oligarchy on all the things you listed. The fact that he doesn't, and that he rises to their bait, tells us something very bad about him.

The kicker for me is whether or not Hillary still supports no-fly zones in Syria. A lot of people aren't clear that doing this risks shooting down Russian planes. To tell you the truth, neither was I, until I read it on a blog. She should be relentlessly pushed on this until she clarifies that, and let people vote on that basis.

I might end up voting for Trump on that basis alone, although my state is no swing state, it is going for HRC.


John Craig said...

Puzzled --
That's a very, very good point about the no fly zones. You're absolutely right.

Trump's dirty little secret is not that he's a womanizer; most billionaires are (and I don't even think he's all that promiscuous; he's too germ phobic). It's that he's really not that smart. If he were smarter, he'd be able to come across that way, and he just can't. A lot of people who aren't that smart can sort of fake it for a while; but he can't even do that. Maybe it's the ADHD, maybe it's the ravenous ego constantly rearing its ugly head, maybe it's a certain intellectual laziness (which is a different quality than just being dumb). But whether the cause is one of those three things, or just a middling IQ, he comes across like the narcissistic CEO that he is (with a touch of carnival barker thrown in), and can't figure out how to appear a more serious politician.

Anonymous said...

I have been encouraged to see many Democrats make comments under MSM articles, stating their intention to vote for Trump (or another candidate). There are Democrats who are fed up with the corruptness in this election cycle.


John Craig said...

Birdie --
Sure hope there are enough of them. The corruption of the Democratic Party is just bottomless.