Search Box

Saturday, October 22, 2016

A little cheerleading

Yesterday, in response to my moaning about the fact that it looks as if Hillary is going to win, commenter Pangur wrote:

I hadn't realized that Just One Minute was my one stop shop for defeatist, depressive conservadad talk. Sack up ladies.

(He got the name of the blog wrong, but otherwise I couldn't really argue.)

About the same time, I got this email from a friend, Ed:

What a bunch of ‘Eeyore,’ glass half empty bunch of whiners on your blog -- and I'm throwing you in that bin too.

'Trump’s not smart enough. He’s not prepared enough. He uses the same words too often. He could have been less offensive.'

Compared against: He smashed through the Republican establishment, and won the nomination on a populist, pro–common man agenda. When was the last time the US saw a Presidential candidate as independent from political corruption as Trump? The establishment, represented by Hillary, is clearly terrified – the media is off the rails with its crazy attacks on Trump every day.

The most recent national polls indicate the race is tied. Trump is on the brink of pulling this out.

I read an analysis that showed polling organizations have no idea how to poll this race – because the patterns are totally unlike any race they’ve tried to predict. I agree, and I believe on voting day it will break in Trump’s favor.

I view Trump supporters resigned to defeat as a real negative.

I replied:

What you say is true; but what I've said on the blog is also true. I certainly hope I'm proven wrong on election day, though I doubt I will be, especially with the amount of fraud I suspect will happen. 

Ed wrote back:

Its not that I disagree with most of the negative things you say about Trump – but that I think there is far more to praise about the man than there is to criticize. And now is the time to deal Trump all the praise in the world. Almost the entire media is eviscerating the man every day – both for valid reasons, and for completely imaginary reasons. ‘His own’ shouldn’t, in my opinion, be denigrating him now.

I sense a mindset from a lot of people commenting on your blog that is too negative, and not nearly appreciative enough for what Trump has already accomplished politically and for the opportunity in this election.

Ed has a point. The media's conniptions over Trump demonstrate how terrified they are that they might lose control over the parameters of the national dialogue. Trump has scoffed at their political correctness, and a lot of people have responded positively.

And maybe I should sack up -- I certainly don't want to discourage Trump supporters from voting.

But the idea of this blog from the start was not to be an unbridled id like Chateau Heartiste, nor to preach to the converted (which is inevitably what sites like this end up doing anyway), but to influence those who might conceivably be swayable. And if you don't admit your own side's faults, you lose credibility, and won't sway anyone.

And, frankly, it's a lot more fun -- and interesting -- to be honest. If you're going to accuse the media of being one-sided and dishonest, it's incumbent on you not to be the same way, and not whitewash anything. (I meet people all the time who always say whatever it is they think they're supposed to say, and I can never get away from them fast enough.)

Anyway, Ed's and Pangur's viewpoints have merit, and deserve airtime.

And, in case I haven't made it clear enough in the past, I am rooting for Trump.


Anonymous said...

I'm listening to Trump's "Gettysburg Address" - he mentions General Cartwright.

Frankly I don't understand all the details but I do get the big picture. This patriot, Obama's favorite general, is in disgrace and may go to jail for lying to the FBI, but for good reason, he fell on his sword.

While Hillary gets to be President for doing infinitely worse things than Cartwright.

We are the indispensable nation, never forget. And the FBI is on the job - interviewing Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie over a marital spat.


John Craig said...

Puzzled --
That case does seem a little ridiculous. Cartwright did what he did in an effort to keep larger national secrets from being revealed. Hillary, on the other hand........but the rules don't seem to apply to the Clintons.

My understanding is that the sociopath Angelina tried to get Pitt investigated, but the FBI didn't want to be involved.

mark said...

Trump has said that if he doesn't win, his campaign will have a been a waste of time(though he had fun no doubt). I agree with him and he hasn't won anything yet and I don't think he will win because of his own unforced errors. Smashing through the Republicans accomplishes next to nothing. He prevented us from seeing a Jeb defeat but replaced it with a Trump defeat. If people think Trump is going to lose perhaps they should hold their fire but Trump sure wouldn't if Rubio or someone else was the nominee.

John Craig said...

Mark --
No, holding fire would not come naturally to the Donald. (Or am I not supposed to talk that way anymore?)

arthur thurman said...

Still...talking to people he is the one they will vote for. The election will (hopefully) be decided on our votes and there is a chance. The good news is believe is that win or lose, the genie is out of the bottle. We don't trust the media, we don't accept the narrative and Trump is a sign of things to come. The fear I have is all the warmongering and false flag maneuvers that are taking place. They are scared but it is a matter of how far it will go.

Anonymous said...

1 L0V3 M1ST3R CRA1G.





John Craig said...

Arthur --
I hope you're right. it has been heartening to see the media finally come under the fire they deserve, and to see that more and more people realize what a skewed narrative they're getting from them. Yes, I wouldn't put it past Obama to try to pull something at the last minute to try to make Trump look bad. But my biggest fear at the moment is electoral fraud.

John Craig said...

Thank you, but both Pangur and Ed are generally friendly commenters, and if they have a legitimate criticism, I'm happy to hear it. And they did have a good point here, even if I'm not going to heed it.

Pangur said...

"1 L0V3 M1ST3R CRA1G"

I don't love John but I do enjoy the writing here, and his interactions with commenters.

My general counsel is to keep moving forward, and I think I wasn't excessively negative. There are always setbacks. However, contrast where we are now to where we were a year ago. The GOPe is mortally wounded, the media lies exposed as 100% corrupt, and there's no going back. This is real progress. Depressive conservatism is a habit, long ingrained, and we need to get out of it.

The media's gaslighting the dickens out of this election right now because Hillary's weak and that's all they have.

Anonymous said...

Mark -

Where did he say that if he loses his campaign will have been a waste of time? That's a terrible thing to say. It's never wrong to fight the good fight.


I'm with Arthur here - Trump said so many truthful things that it gave many of us courage. I don't agree that if he loses it will have been for naught, see above. And unlike you I don't think it's over if he loses. "It ain't over till it's over."

To me the greatest thing about this is the exposure of the press as a bunch of partisan liars. Yes, I knew that, but I didn't KNOW it. I've never seen anything like this, although Romney came close. Sure, now and again you'll find an article about the Clinton Foundation in the NY Times that's so boring who can understand it? But those are very few. And look at this article in the Times. Unless you knew the context, it would make your eyes glaze over.

So, I return to something simple and easy to understand: Brangelina. These two were held up as paragons. But it was all a fake. Look at this (and you can read it, it's not behind a paywall):

"The Examined Life Of Angelina Jolie"?

This is from fucking November 2015, not long ago in other words, when her "marriage" was already on the rocks. I look forward to seeing your post, "The Fraudulent Life of a Sociopath." This bitch went from lesbian affairs, cutting herself, and kissing her brother on the lips, to Madonna (the original Madonna). How? By adopting a passel of international kids and running around to refugee camps. One thing missing: the handsome husband and biological kids. That's still important. So she went out and got herself one, and he was a doozy.

But something happened, and she couldn't maintain the pretense any longer, and she smashed it all up. I wonder if she realizes that the next time she shows up in a refugee camp, wearing hijab and looking like the original Madonna, no one will buy it. If her UN sponsors haven't dropped her.

Branjie gave an interview to media king Tom Brokaw in November 2015. Tom Brokaw!

I'm not particularly interested in celeb-gossip. (Really John!) I mention this because it fits in perfectly with the media tearing down Trump, and before him, Romney. We forget about that. Could there ever have been a more gentlemanly character than Romney? Do you remember what happened with "binders full of women?" I could go on, but you get my point. The media have become a complete tool of the power structure. If they wrote, "The sky is blue," I'd go to my window and check it first.

I believe that the FBI did interview both Pitt and Jolie, although they declined to pursue a case. How nice. But they did waste resources on interviewing them, because (supposedly) their fight occurred on an airplane. WTF?


(OT: Jolie is an example of a slender person who is not "pared to perfection." She is simply wasted and too skinny - no muscle tone whatever. Her upper body compared to Knightly is pathetic!)

Anonymous said...

"The media's gaslighting the dickens out of this election right now because Hillary's weak and that's all they have."

I love this. But go further: the media gaslights the dickens out of everything. Don't believe anything they say. Except hurricane warnings. I haven't gone that crazy. My point is, they create an alternate reality that is terribly distorted. They are a toxic waste dump.


John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Yes, the MSM have always been propagandists, though it all seems to have reached a crescendo this election season. They're just in full blown hysteria mode about Trump.

That WSJ piece about Jolie is hilariously sickening, if those two words can be combined. It might as well have been written by her publicist. The amount of control she exerts over her publicity -- as that article shows -- and the amount she must have exerted over her movies for about a decade there, where she was never once shot not looking her absolute best, was amazing. I've along thought she was a sociopath. And even the need t look like an (original) Madonna is indicative of that.

I agree about her appearance. There was a period, relatively recently, where Jolie was held up as just the ultimate in female desirability. And whenever some guy would bring that up, and make some groan of lust or something, I'd always feel obliged to at least mumble, "She does nothing for me." Those big fake boobs just don't go with her borderline anorexic body, and her lips look fake (though they're actually not). Plus she's always given off those sociopathic vibes, which doesn't exactly stir my desire to a fever pitch.

You might get a kick out of the following post I wrote about her (and me):

BTW, you increased my vocabulary yesterday: I hadn't know what an "Overton window" was.

Yes, Pangur is of course right. (Even if he doesn't love me.) Our media makes Tass (if you remember them) look good. Even my wife, a lifelong liberal, was so disgusted by the NY Times' recent bias that she recently canceled our subscription. (I had suggested it long ago, but had gone along with keeping it just because enjoyed the crossword; I may end up just getting an online subscription to the x-word, though I hate to even give them the money for that.)

Anonymous said...


I love your movie/TV reviews. Very insightful. My favorite Miss Marple was Margaret Rutherford. Re: Anglophilia. I like good. I don't care where a movie/TV show comes from, if it's good, it's good. Most of the French flicks I've seen have been variations on a chick flick theme...sound boring? Nope, they are hilarious, wise, and moving.

LOL you mention Jolie a lot. She seems to have gotten under your skin. She does that. She's a master exhibitionist.


John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Thank you very much. How did you stumble across that Miss Marple review? That's from 2012, I just referred you to a post from 2013. (Did you type "Angelina Jolie" into the subject box?

Margaret Rutherford was good, but as I said, I thought Joan Hickson was perfect. (This may have something to do with the fact that she was the first one I saw, and after you get used to one person in a role, the next person never feels right.)

BTW, given our discussions on the subject of looks, I'd be curious what you think of the following posts:

Anonymous said...

I just cut & pasted and the Miss Marple post came up. Try it.

One of the posts was about Theron in Young Adult. I agree 100%. In fact I thought the movie was so good it almost rose to the level of closet conservative.


Anonymous said...

What do I think of the Dime Pieces

I sometimes wonder whether feminine beauty isn't a kind of drug, and that u guys are overdosing on it. The response to too much consumption is fasting. There have been periods of human history where women were secluded and covered up, and they don't seem to mind it much. Just musing.

I was surprised at how beautiful Megan Fox was. I associate her with Bad Plastic Surgery. Pity.


John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Aha, you're right, I don't know how that happened. I only meant to forward the link to the post about Jolie's mastectomy. And you read all those reviews? Wow. Thank you. I guess I shouldn't have complained about all the homework you were assigning me when I just assigned you more.

Thanks re: Young Adult. Hadn't thought of it that way, but it IS sort of conservative in its own way.

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
It IS a drug, no question.

No one ever fasts voluntarily. At least not that way.

Yes, Megan is evidently a wonder of plastic surgery. Sadly.

Okay, thank you for reading the ones about females, here are a couple about males which will probably interest you more:

Anonymous said...

I agree with the commenter Ed. We need to remain hopeful. This election cycle has been a roller coaster ride for us. I have been delighted to learn about how some Democrats are switching sides, voting for Trump, due to the corruption within their party. Some good has come from all the mess that we've been blasted with, the citizens are waking up to how biased our media is, how corrupt many politicians are, etc. Hopefully, the tide will turn and we can get our country back on track. Despite how bad it looks, I will remain hopeful. Our opposition is filled with cheats, using every dirty trick in the book to win. May God help us.


John Craig said...

Birdie --
The latest poll, which I saw today, and which has supposedly been the best indicator in past Presidential races, had Trump ahead. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

Anonymous said...


"John Craig - Turbulence"


John Craig said...

Ha, I appreciate the heads up. Can't say I'm wild about my namesake's techno music though.

If you can dance to that you're a better man than I am.

Anonymous said...

Hi John,

Funny how our exchanges always seem to return to one thing....Sorry Ed. I drag down the environment where-ever I am.

I wasn't too crazy about those guys, sorry. But that's how looks are. I do think that there's a difference between men & women on this subject, in that I just can't put a number on a man, although I realize I have in some comment back a while. It's either "yes" or "no." And I think that with men, even if they are photogenic, or perhaps especially if they are photogenic, to illustrate the maxim, "pictures don't do him justice." Because you have to see a man in action.

That said, I find the following men devastating: Errol Flynn (a total psycho), Christian Bale (with a beard, w/out he has a bit of a weak chin), Jayson Werth when he was a Phillie (before the current Unabomber look), Burt Lancaster. Lancaster had a splendid, pre-steroids body. Unfortunately I have come to believe the rumors that he was bi.

Jon Voight, Jolie's father, has released a Youtube video in support of Trump. Like Warren Beatty and Shirley MacLaine, I cannot see those two as related. Yet they are!


Anonymous said...


I have an offensive question. I'm asking you the question because you don't give a shit about offense. Or perhaps you won't find it offensive.

I've told you that I don't care about Trump's crudeness, it's meaningless to me, and I'll amplify that briefly. First of all being crude isn't in and of itself a mortal sin. But more important is this: when you are in a war and you have signed on to a team, that team needs a leader, and up to outright lawbreaking (I do have some red lines) a leader's private faults should be private. Eisenhower had Kay Summersby, FDR had Lucy Mercer and who gives a shit? It's totally irrelevant.

That's what the left thinks about Bill Clinton, no? Maybe they never put it that way, but that's the case. He was their Big Dog, and they just didn't care about Monica and Paula. I grant them that. Who cares that he dropped his drawers and told Paula Jones to kiss his dick? Lewinsky....sleazy but consensual.

The big difference is Juanita Broaddrick. If her story is true, then that red line was indeed crossed (see above, lawbreaking). But we can't prove that and she did once disavow the story, then disavowed her disavowal. I happen to think he did rape her, but it's just not provable. By our own standards.

So that's my feels about how to handle the Clintonistas in an argument. Body slam them with Bill's sins, and then say something like, "Ya know what? Your guy is a horndog. My guy is a horndog. And it doesn't matter."


John Craig said...

Puzzled --
No such thing as "dragging the environment down" around me. On this blog, as long as you're honest, the environment is right where it should be.

Okay. I figured you liked athletes, so.....Back in 2009 I was making more of an attempt to appear "balanced," so after writing some pots about women's looks, I figured I ought to do one about men.

Errol Flynn led quite a life, he seemed to be completely without inhibition. Bale also seems to be a psycho, in his case it's possibly exacerbated by steroid use. Yes, Burt Lancaster was great, he came across like a force of nature. "From Here to Eternity" has actually stood the test of time (a lot of those supposedly great old time movies seem awfully hokey when you watch them now, but that one does not). It also featured Deborah Kerr and Donna Reed, two of my favorites.

Yeah, I saw that Voight had come out for Trump, a courageous move in Hollywood.

Anonymous said...

If you like Deborah Kerr, you ought to rent/Netflix "Black Narcissus" an English post-war classic. She plays a nun. The habit accentuated the purity of her features. It's also very un-PC, which adds to the spice.

About Bale, he's an eccentric character alright, but he had a terrible upbringing. Father was a total con artist. He seems to have a normal marriage, and I dont' think that it's a Jolie/Pitt facade. That says something. Anyway, he's handsome.

Voight used to be a typical Hollywood leftist but somewhere along the line had an epiphany - I wonder what happened. One of his brothers is a legitimate, credentialed scientist. He's a geologist, a noted authority on volcanoes. So perhaps a decent IQ runs in the family. Angie is crazy, but not stupid.


John Craig said...

Puzzled --
How is your question offensive in the least? When I read your first sentence I steeled myself for something troubling, then you asked a completely fair and aboveboard question. Plus, keep in mind, given how offensive a lot of people (half the population) would find this blog, I'd be the last person to take offense at anything.

I agree with your reasoning completely. What you're saying basically boils down to: consensual sex is one thing, rape is another. Bill Clinton hasn't just been accused of raping Juanita Broaddrick; he reportedly left Oxford early (never completing his Rhodes Scholarship year) because he assaulted a woman named Eileen Wellstone. And he was reportedly involved in another assault of a 22-year-old woman while at Yale Law School. And I agree with you, where there's that much smoke, there's usually fire. So what all these other guys have done pales in comparison. And Clinton was accused of assaulter rape back in the day when that actually meant assault or rape, not when making a pass or giving the once over or making a comment was considered "assault."

So, yes, complete agreement, except for your last paragraph. It should go, "My guy's an obnoxious horndog, your guy's an actual rapist, and his wife attacked his victims. Big difference."

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
I think I saw a little bit of Black Narcissus once, it was a little too artsy for me.

Good for Voight; you're right, a strain of high IQ can run in a family independent of character.

Steven said...

As I'm pretty ambivalent about Trump and not sure what I'd vote if I were American, I guess I'm the type of person this is aimed at.

I find your support of Trump more balanced and credible since you highlight his shortcomings. I see them myself so if you didn't mentioned them, I'd think your support for him was naive and be more likely to dismiss you. I'm definitely more positive about Trump than if I didn't read this blog.

Whenever I hear about Trump supporter's being dumb I think of you- as evidence that smart people support him too of course.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Thank you for the compliments, especially the one about being more positively inclined towards Trump because of this blog. It's a near impossible task to change anyone's mind about anything political, so that's nice of you to say.

People seem to realize that the media is incredibly biased against trump, but at the same time, they seem be influenced by it. There are two very smart women who comment here occasionally, both of whom have said they won't vote for either candidate, Clinton for the obvious reasons, and Trump because he's such a pig. But the piggishness is exaggerated by the media, and by all these recent revelations of his "assaults" on various women, i.e., he allegedly tried to plant unwanted kisses on them. These women are very much aware of the media bias, but at the same time influenced by its focus on his piggishness. Is Trump a boor? Yes, of course. But has he committed "assault?" Only in today's ridiculous campus definition of the term.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure if I'm one of the smart women whom you are referring to, LOL, but I do have a problem voting for Trump. I admit that I was a bit affected by pussy-gate. But it got me to thinking, and I now reject the entire line of thought, as we've been discussing.

My problem with Trump is I think a bit more sophisticated: he is fundamentally unsuited to the hard slog of being president, and the problems that liberals have created over the past 50 years (which have accelerated to warp speed in the 2nd Obama Administration) will be dumped on his lap.

Still gonna vote for him.

"My guy's an obnoxious horndog, your guy's an actual rapist, and his wife attacked his victims. Big difference."

Right. I was just suggesting an alternate way of dealing with the issue, which is, I don't care about personal failings. I don't care about your guy's personal failings, and I don't care about my guy's. I only care about the issues, and about winning. You only care about the issues, and about winning, so get off the high horse. (I understand the diffs. between talking dirty and doing dirty, John, just offering a debating technique.)

And yeah, there was nothing offensive in that.



John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Yes, you are one of the two I was referring to. You did say something at one point about not wanting to vote for either candidate. I'm glad we not agree that Pussy-gate only affects (metaphorical) pussies.

No question, Trump is too lazy to delve into policy minutiae. But it's far more important to have a guy with the right attitudes, and a President is supposed to delegate anyway. If he gets elected, it'll be four years of embarrassing gaffes etc, but that's still far better than the alternative.

Okay, agreed on the last.

Pangur said...

"There are two very smart women who comment here occasionally, both of whom have said they won't vote for either candidate, Clinton for the obvious reasons, and Trump because he's such a pig."

res ipsa loquitor, no?

John Craig said...

Pangur --
Embarrassingly, I had to look that up. The two meanings I saw were, "The principle that the occurrence of an accident implies negligence," and "The thing speaks for itself." I'm guessing you were using it i the latter sense -- you troublemaker.

I promise you, I know both women well enough to vouch for their intelligence. (C'mon, we're all allowed to make mistakes.) And, in fact, one of them has already said since that she's voting for Trump.

Pangur said...

I did indeed use it in the latter sense.

I'm not a troublemaker, I perceive reality. :)

John Craig said...

Pangur --
C' said earlier that you never talk to liberals unless it's to torment them. No need to do so to the smart women here. We're trying to win them over, not drive them away. (As I said in this post, sorta.)

mark said...

This is a belated answer to the question about Trump saying that his running was a waste of time if he didn't win. Apparently, that is what Trump told Megyn Kelly in May and I agree with him. Trump is not Goldwater. For America to have better trade deals Trump needs to be in the room, at least, that is the theory. I am not the biggest fan of Trump but if you believe in Trump then you want his strong personality in the oval office and not some wimp he made have influenced twenty years from know assuming America has twenty years to go after a Trump loss. Fight the good fight but remember the Serenity Prayer too.

Anonymous said...


I had to look up res ipsa loquitur myself, LOL, but thanks for sticking up for me.

I have to admit something here. It's stupid to get upset over something that a stranger behind an internet moniker says, but the occasional yet persistent nastiness towards women that one encounters on realist websites bothers me. I'm a total believer in sex differences between men and women, but that's not what they are saying. These POS's basically say that women cannot by nature think rationally ever, under any circumstances. Yeah, and that's why the jails are full of female violent criminals, LOL.

It really bothers me.

BTW, thanks for re-introducing me to The American Spectator, which you link to in your later Hillary post. I had written them off.


John Craig said...

Puzzled --
I don't want to encourage a flame war here. There's no question about your intelligence, but I don't think Pangur was quite saying that "women cannot by nature think rationally ever, under any circumstances." He was just saying that a decision not to vote for Trump speaks for itself. In fact, he didn't even bring up the topic of sex differences.

Speaking of which, there are several women who comment here who are extraordinarily intelligent. But I'd also be the first to point out that there is, on average, a difference between the sexes on the matter of logic. As there is, as you point out, on the matter of violence.

Anonymous said...

It's funny to read this post, as I have come to the exact opposite conclusion in the past few days. I think Trump may actually win.

Of all people, Michael Moore has summed up DJT's appeal best.

The two lines that resonate most with me are: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," and calling DJT a "Molotov cocktail" being thrown at the political system.

A vote for HRC is not simply a vote for her, or for the Democratic party, but for the perpetuation of a degenerate system. And by system I mean all of it -- the corrupt, colluding media, global corporate interests being put above those of Americans, the laying waste of the American middle class to enrich a few.

I think I have decided to vote for Trump. Not so much for the man, but for the message. In my state it won't really matter, but I'd love to move that needle just a tiny bit on election day.

As for women and lack of intellect, I must have missed that debate. I can't say that it's been one of my problems in my own life, but I'm sorry if unintelligent women have plagued the lives of your commentators.


John Craig said...

Gardner --
I'm so happy to get your comment. Yes, in case you had any doubt, you were one of the two women I was referring to in my Oct. 24 11:42AM reply to Steven (and also in my Oct. 24th 3:53PM reply to Pangur). So, now both of you have come around, which is reassuring at some level. (Your vote doesn't count any more than anyone else's in the election, but it counts more to me.)

Just watched the video, it was inspiring, thanks.

Your reasoning is solid. (I think it goes beyond that, to all sorts of issues you're already aware of, so I won't bother to enumerate them).

As for men vs. women, let's save that for another day.

Thanks for your comment (and your vote).