How the out-of-touch media missed Donald Trump's rise

[Dr. Jai Maharaj]

How the out-of-touch media missed Donald Trump's rise

washingtonexaminer.com
Saturday, April 23, 2016

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-the-out-of-touch-media-missed-donald-trumps-rise/article/2589050

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://bit.do/jaimaharaj

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

On 04/23/2016 12:34 PM, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> How the out-of-touch media missed Donald Trump's rise

That's OK the dummies missed the TEA PARTY as well.

--
One man's Affirmative Action law is another man's Jim Crow law.


That's Karma

[Byker]

On 04/23/2016 12:34 PM, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> How the out-of-touch media missed Donald Trump's rise

Just following Mahatma Gandhi's advice. I just LUV it when liberals get a
taste of their own medicine. Now the libturds at Slate.com are careening off
the walls...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Trump Happened

By Jamelle Bouie (pic: http://tinyurl.com/j434xpm )
March 13, 2016

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then
you win,” goes the line attributed to Mahatma Gandhi. Typically, you’ll find
this pearl adorning a classroom or splashed across a motivational poster.
But last month, on the eve of Super Tuesday—when a dozen states cast ballots
for the Republican presidential nomination—you could find it on Donald Trump’s
Instagram page, the caption to a photograph of a massive rally in Alabama
the day before.

Perverse as it may seem for the belligerent real estate magnate to channel
even apocryphal Gandhi wisdom, the line is apt. First, we did ignore him—as
a buffoon who wouldn’t survive past the summer. Then, we laughed at him—as a
buffoon who wouldn’t survive through fall. Eventually, Republicans began to
fight him, terrified of his traction with voters. Now, he’s winning, with
more votes and delegates than anyone left in the field. On the eve of
another critical Tuesday slate of votes, Trump is on the verge of an even
greater victory. Polls show him in command both in the smaller states that
will award their delegates proportionally, and in the larger,
winner-take-all prizes of Ohio and Florida. By Wednesday morning, Trump
could be a stone’s throw from the Republican presidential nomination.

<snip>

Long read, but worth it: http://tinyurl.com/hnxkw6b

[Mr. B1ack]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 13:30:30 -0500, "Byker" <byker@do~rag.net> wrote:

>On 04/23/2016 12:34 PM, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>> How the out-of-touch media missed Donald Trump's rise
>
>Just following Mahatma Gandhi's advice. I just LUV it when liberals get a
>taste of their own medicine. Now the libturds at Slate.com are careening off
>the walls...
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>How Trump Happened

They're actively, VERY actively, trying to "un-happen" him.

Frankly I don't trust ANY opinions or polls the major media
now offers about Trump. I don't even trust that the GOP is
adding-up the election results right.

Yer November ballot ... there's an "other" option. Ignore
the 'official' candidates, write in "Donald Trump" ( or
"Bernie Sanders" if you're a lib). These two are the real
choice of the people, so the real contest is between THEM.

The parties and system wants to limit us to just candidates
that are in their pocket. This makes elections a farce - and
'democracy' an illusion. Time to go AROUND the parties.
Pass along the idea ... the "ballot revolution". This is what
we all MUST do in November.

[Governor Swill]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 02:30:47 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
wrote:

> They're actively, VERY actively, trying to "un-happen" him.
>
> Frankly I don't trust ANY opinions or polls the major media
> now offers about Trump. I don't even trust that the GOP is
> adding-up the election results right.

You might take note of the fact that you distrust anything that
disagrees with your beliefs.

> Yer November ballot ... there's an "other" option. Ignore
> the 'official' candidates, write in "Donald Trump" ( or
> "Bernie Sanders" if you're a lib). These two are the real
> choice of the people, so the real contest is between THEM.

More fantasy. To start with, there'll be no need to write Trump in.
He'll win the nomination because everything the GOP has done just
pushes him closer to it because they've gone stupid. As for Bernie.
He never expected to win. His purpose was to push the left and make
Clinton look conservative. He, no less than anybody else was shocked
by the Dem rank and file being as disgusted with Dem failures to
achieve the liberal agenda as the right was infuriated with the GOP.
That said, there's a very interesting difference between the two
cases. The hard line right of the GOP is supporting Cruz. The
hardline left of the Dems is supporting Sanders. Trump is drawing his
support from a broad non ideological band of angry working class
people.

> The parties and system wants to limit us to just candidates
> that are in their pocket. This makes elections a farce - and
> 'democracy' an illusion. Time to go AROUND the parties.
> Pass along the idea ... the "ballot revolution". This is what
> we all MUST do in November.

Vote against all incumbents in November. Busting Congress and the
Statehouses is the only way to achieve your goals. Replacing one king
with another will do no good at all.

Swill
--
The biggest data leak in history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers
https://panamapapers.icij.org/
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-panama-tax-idUSKCN0X10C2
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-panama-papers
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-35918844

[Mr. B1ack]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 22:56:19 -0400, Governor Swill
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 02:30:47 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
>wrote:
>
>> They're actively, VERY actively, trying to "un-happen" him.
>>
>> Frankly I don't trust ANY opinions or polls the major media
>> now offers about Trump. I don't even trust that the GOP is
>> adding-up the election results right.
>
>You might take note of the fact that you distrust anything that
>disagrees with your beliefs.

I won't even believe them if they say Trump is doing
very well ..... BS reigns supreme in this election and
every "truth" offered seems to have an ulterior motive.

>
>> The parties and system wants to limit us to just candidates
>> that are in their pocket. This makes elections a farce - and
>> 'democracy' an illusion. Time to go AROUND the parties.
>> Pass along the idea ... the "ballot revolution". This is what
>> we all MUST do in November.
>
>Vote against all incumbents in November. Busting Congress and the
>Statehouses is the only way to achieve your goals. Replacing one king
>with another will do no good at all.

I tend to agree ... but as I've mentioned before those
"alternative" politicians can't just be anybody off the
street-corner - they actually have to be sane, kinda
honest, and sensible. In short they have to be able
to run a huge 1st-world government and pick up
pretty seamlessly too.

I don't see that happening. Replacing the existing govt
will be a SLOW process. The fact that it'd be slow means
the new guys will get corrupted by the old guys. Things
may get a little better ... but only for awhile. Political
bureaucracies always seem to settle into the same
pattern after awhile ... everywhere. Machiavelli took
most of his examples from the Romans - which the
shadow-leaders of his time were also emulating -
which OUR leaders are also emulating.

It's a problem.

[Governor Swill]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 23:08:03 -0400, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 22:56:19 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:

>>On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 02:30:47 -0400, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>> They're actively, VERY actively, trying to "un-happen" him.
>>> Frankly I don't trust ANY opinions or polls the major media
>>> now offers about Trump. I don't even trust that the GOP is
>>> adding-up the election results right.
>>You might take note of the fact that you distrust anything that
>>disagrees with your beliefs.

> I won't even believe them if they say Trump is doing
> very well ..... BS reigns supreme in this election and
> every "truth" offered seems to have an ulterior motive.

Which sounds a bit insane. You only "suspect" as much as you're
displeased by your minority positions.

>>> The parties and system wants to limit us to just candidates
>>> that are in their pocket. This makes elections a farce - and
>>> 'democracy' an illusion. Time to go AROUND the parties.
>>> Pass along the idea ... the "ballot revolution". This is what
>>> we all MUST do in November.
>>
>>Vote against all incumbents in November. Busting Congress and the
>>Statehouses is the only way to achieve your goals. Replacing one king
>>with another will do no good at all.
>
> I tend to agree ... but as I've mentioned before those
> "alternative" politicians can't just be anybody off the
> street-corner - they actually have to be sane, kinda
> honest, and sensible. In short they have to be able
> to run a huge 1st-world government and pick up
> pretty seamlessly too.

Which would mean voters actually getting involved in local and state
races. More importantly, it would require them to make rational,
rather than emotionally based decisions in the voting booth. This
isn't going to happen as long as humans have this religious/mystical
streak running through them.

> I don't see that happening. Replacing the existing govt
> will be a SLOW process.

By "govt", do you mean the elected representatives or the bureaucracy?
The problem there is that the bureaucracy is actually pretty
responsible and they work hard to do their jobs. Since they don't
have to continually fund raise and campaign, they can focus on their
work.

>The fact that it'd be slow means
> the new guys will get corrupted by the old guys. Things
> may get a little better ... but only for awhile. Political
> bureaucracies always seem to settle into the same
> pattern after awhile ... everywhere. Machiavelli took
> most of his examples from the Romans - which the
> shadow-leaders of his time were also emulating -
> which OUR leaders are also emulating.
>
> It's a problem.

No, it isn't. Lazy voters are the problem. Voters who don't bother
to check all the facts and make logical decisions. Voters who accept
whatever pablum comes from whatever news source entertains them the
most.

It's no wonder our election process now lasts years and is such a
spectacle. The entertainment organizations that used to be news
organizations do their very best to inject as much useless drama as
possible. And the voters are stupid enough to believe it all.

[Mr. B1ack]

Marxism failed because whatever was required to
be a good Marxist just wasn't, well, wasn't HUMAN.
Great socioeconomic system for robots perhaps.

Apparently you want some kind of generic voter that's
also a non-existent species.

Guess what, they're GONNA be lazy, they're GONNA
ignore annoying facts, they're GONNA be illogical and
they're GONNA be swayed by emotional factors. It has
always been thus. This is how humans DO it ... today,
yesterday, tomorrow, here, there, anywhere. This is
about as good as it gets. I'd say "live with it" but, well,
you've GOTTA, so .......

[Governor Swill]

On Mon, 02 May 2016 22:24:16 -0400, Mr. B1ack wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 10:55:29 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>The fact that it'd be slow means
>>> the new guys will get corrupted by the old guys. Things
>>> may get a little better ... but only for awhile. Political
>>> bureaucracies always seem to settle into the same
>>> pattern after awhile ... everywhere. Machiavelli took
>>> most of his examples from the Romans - which the
>>> shadow-leaders of his time were also emulating -
>>> which OUR leaders are also emulating.
>>>
>>> It's a problem.
>>
>>No, it isn't. Lazy voters are the problem. Voters who don't bother
>>to check all the facts and make logical decisions. Voters who accept
>>whatever pablum comes from whatever news source entertains them the
>>most.
>>
>>It's no wonder our election process now lasts years and is such a
>>spectacle. The entertainment organizations that used to be news
>>organizations do their very best to inject as much useless drama as
>>possible. And the voters are stupid enough to believe it all.
>
> Marxism failed because whatever was required to
> be a good Marxist just wasn't, well, wasn't HUMAN.
> Great socioeconomic system for robots perhaps.

Non sequitur perhaps, but Marxism failed because it denied the value
of the profit motive.

> Apparently you want some kind of generic voter that's
> also a non-existent species.

What makes you think that? We already have generic voters. I want
voters who aren't generic. Voters who pay attention and take the
trouble to educate their brains instead of "feeling" it in their
"gut". You know what guts are full of, right?

> Guess what, they're GONNA be lazy, they're GONNA
> ignore annoying facts, they're GONNA be illogical and
> they're GONNA be swayed by emotional factors. It has
> always been thus. This is how humans DO it ... today,
> yesterday, tomorrow, here, there, anywhere. This is
> about as good as it gets. I'd say "live with it" but, well,
> you've GOTTA, so .......

And this is why we have people like Cruz, Trump, Sanders and Clinton
running for President when the real problem is Congresses that have
abrogated their responsibility to the nation and managed largely to
escape the public's attention.

The problem with Trump voters is that they haven't been paying
attention to what's been going on in Washington. Suddenly they've
realized the GOP has been lying to them for nearly forty years and
they're intent on punishing the whole country because THEY fucked up.

[Mr. B1ack]

Nah ... I think it was more general than that, Marxism
ignored "human nature", a lot of that wired-in psychology.
'Profit motive' is just one facet of that psychology.

Marxism was one of those "ivory tower" excercises in
socioeconomic philosophy. Real people just aren't
wired-up to be general-purpose collectivists 24/7
unless you keep a gun pointed at their heads 24/7.

It wasn't too long after this problem with Marxism
became clear that the socialist/red academics came
up with the idea of "social engineering" and made the
assertion that humans were born 'tabula-rasa" ...
blank slates ... experts could write any story upon.
In short, since people didn't make good Marxists
they wanted to re-make people into something else
that COULD be a good Marxist. Kinda nasty evil-scientist
stuff IMHO.

>> Apparently you want some kind of generic voter that's
>> also a non-existent species.
>
>What makes you think that? We already have generic voters. I want
>voters who aren't generic. Voters who pay attention and take the
>trouble to educate their brains instead of "feeling" it in their
>"gut". You know what guts are full of, right?

I'm not sure why the word "generic" got stuck in
there ... musta been multi-threading I suppose ......

"Apparently you want some kind of voter that's also
a non-existent species"

>> Guess what, they're GONNA be lazy, they're GONNA
>> ignore annoying facts, they're GONNA be illogical and
>> they're GONNA be swayed by emotional factors. It has
>> always been thus. This is how humans DO it ... today,
>> yesterday, tomorrow, here, there, anywhere. This is
>> about as good as it gets. I'd say "live with it" but, well,
>> you've GOTTA, so .......
>
>And this is why we have people like Cruz, Trump, Sanders and Clinton
>running for President when the real problem is Congresses that have
>abrogated their responsibility to the nation and managed largely to
>escape the public's attention.

Oh, I don't disagree with you ... the real ugly stuff
is in the legislature. To paraphrase (Doug) Adams,
the purpose of presidents is to distract people away
from what's really going on.

Now yes, he was trying to be funny - but he was NOT
very wrong either. Peoples eyes are always drawn
to the maximum leader ... it's instinctual. That means
the underlings can do pretty much what they want
without anyone noticing. They've used this advantage
to become enormously obese on our money, and
enormously corrupt too. Only once in a great while
are any of 'em caught at it ... and the rest usually
sacrifice him on the altar so they'll look all innocent
and good.

>The problem with Trump voters is that they haven't been paying
>attention to what's been going on in Washington. Suddenly they've
>realized the GOP has been lying to them for nearly forty years and
>they're intent on punishing the whole country because THEY fucked up.

Um ... not JUST the GOP laddie .......... you've got one
eye open, so try and pry the other one open too.

Anyway, after this years election I think a huge shakeup
of those big old parties is gonna begin, might even cause
them to shatter.

[Governor Swill]

On Tue, 03 May 2016 22:18:32 -0400, Mr. B1ack wrote:

>On Tue, 03 May 2016 19:06:44 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>>> Apparently you want some kind of generic voter that's
>>> also a non-existent species.
>>What makes you think that? We already have generic voters. I want
>>voters who aren't generic. Voters who pay attention and take the
>>trouble to educate their brains instead of "feeling" it in their
>>"gut". You know what guts are full of, right?
>
> I'm not sure why the word "generic" got stuck in
> there ... musta been multi-threading I suppose ......
>
> "Apparently you want some kind of voter that's also
> a non-existent species"

Ok. That's right. Educated voters who think before they vote are at
least endangered.

>>> Guess what, they're GONNA be lazy, they're GONNA
>>> ignore annoying facts, they're GONNA be illogical and
>>> they're GONNA be swayed by emotional factors. It has
>>> always been thus. This is how humans DO it ... today,
>>> yesterday, tomorrow, here, there, anywhere. This is
>>> about as good as it gets. I'd say "live with it" but, well,
>>> you've GOTTA, so .......
>>
>>And this is why we have people like Cruz, Trump, Sanders and Clinton
>>running for President when the real problem is Congresses that have
>>abrogated their responsibility to the nation and managed largely to
>>escape the public's attention.
>
> Oh, I don't disagree with you ... the real ugly stuff
> is in the legislature. To paraphrase (Doug) Adams,
> the purpose of presidents is to distract people away
> from what's really going on.

And explains the Trump phenomenon. I've been saying this throughout
the campaign. The solution is not to elect a pie in the sky
President, but to vote against every incumbent you can find on your
ballot irrespective of party.

> Now yes, he was trying to be funny - but he was NOT
> very wrong either. Peoples eyes are always drawn
> to the maximum leader ... it's instinctual. That means
> the underlings can do pretty much what they want
> without anyone noticing. They've used this advantage
> to become enormously obese on our money, and
> enormously corrupt too. Only once in a great while
> are any of 'em caught at it ... and the rest usually
> sacrifice him on the altar so they'll look all innocent
> and good.

And yet, here you are, doing exactly that when you should know better.
;)

>>The problem with Trump voters is that they haven't been paying
>>attention to what's been going on in Washington. Suddenly they've
>>realized the GOP has been lying to them for nearly forty years and
>>they're intent on punishing the whole country because THEY fucked up.
>
> Um ... not JUST the GOP laddie .......... you've got one
> eye open, so try and pry the other one open too.

Sanders is the closest analogue the Dems have to Trump but he doesn't
represent a rank and file, party line crossing, betrayed voter
rebellion. Sanders is simply a hard left liberal, more like Cruz than
Trump.

> Anyway, after this years election I think a huge shakeup
> of those big old parties is gonna begin, might even cause
> them to shatter.

Depends on which party comes out ahead.

If the Dems take the White House and do well down ballot, the GOP will
have some serious reorganizing to do. If Trump wins and the GOP does
poorly down ballot, the GOP has some serious reorganizing to do.

I don't see the Dems losing everything this year because even if
there's a general voter rebellion, they can only win as GOP incumbents
are swept out of office by angry, working class, high school educated
voters.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Wed, 04 May 2016 17:25:38 -0400, Governor Swill
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 03 May 2016 22:18:32 -0400, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>On Tue, 03 May 2016 19:06:44 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>> Apparently you want some kind of generic voter that's
>>>> also a non-existent species.
>>>What makes you think that? We already have generic voters. I want
>>>voters who aren't generic. Voters who pay attention and take the
>>>trouble to educate their brains instead of "feeling" it in their
>>>"gut". You know what guts are full of, right?
>>
>> I'm not sure why the word "generic" got stuck in
>> there ... musta been multi-threading I suppose ......
>>
>> "Apparently you want some kind of voter that's also
>> a non-existent species"
>
>Ok. That's right. Educated voters who think before they vote are at
>least endangered.

Never have been very many of those ... not enough to
really influence things.

Oh, and you're presuming "thinking" will always lead
to the kinds of conclusions YOU like .............

>>>> Guess what, they're GONNA be lazy, they're GONNA
>>>> ignore annoying facts, they're GONNA be illogical and
>>>> they're GONNA be swayed by emotional factors. It has
>>>> always been thus. This is how humans DO it ... today,
>>>> yesterday, tomorrow, here, there, anywhere. This is
>>>> about as good as it gets. I'd say "live with it" but, well,
>>>> you've GOTTA, so .......
>>>
>>>And this is why we have people like Cruz, Trump, Sanders and Clinton
>>>running for President when the real problem is Congresses that have
>>>abrogated their responsibility to the nation and managed largely to
>>>escape the public's attention.
>>
>> Oh, I don't disagree with you ... the real ugly stuff
>> is in the legislature. To paraphrase (Doug) Adams,
>> the purpose of presidents is to distract people away
>> from what's really going on.
>
>And explains the Trump phenomenon. I've been saying this throughout
>the campaign. The solution is not to elect a pie in the sky
>President, but to vote against every incumbent you can find on your
>ballot irrespective of party.

And then we're back to finding a large number of
replacements 50+ percent can agree to support ...

Face it, the current crop are the devils we know.

Also, well I'll give you two examples :

Remember John Gotti ? The cops spent forever
trying to catch him at something. A big part of the
problem was that anytime a surveillance van or
spy was sent into his neighborhood the locals
would immediately inform Gotti.

Why did they do this ? Because Gotti took care of
his neighbors and neighborhood - he was always
donating money to good causes there, always
helping to build the community. That he did some
questionable things elsewhere ..... well .... so what ?
Devil, yes, but a devil they knew, a devil who seemed
to benifit THEM.

The BBC and Moscow Times today took note of some
huge billboards with a picture of Stalin on them. Asking
around they concluded that if there was an election
between Putin and Stalin that old Joe would still get
something like 38% of the vote.

But why ? The guy was a thug and borderline psycho.
Well, as leader, he also gets credit for exerting his will
and getting Russia past that unpleasantness with
the NAZIs. In short, he's the guy who saved Russia and
smited its mortal enemies. He was a devil, but he was
the devil they knew and understood- so he still has lots
of fans.

Our current 'reps' make sure to bring home the bacon
too - or to APPEAR to do so. You'll find that they've
been in office for decades because their constituents
LIKE them. What other stuff they may be up to isn't
all so relevant. Again the devils they know, the devils
that benifit THEM. They'll cuss "politicians", they'll
cuss everyone ELSES politicians ... but not THEIR guy.

>> Now yes, he was trying to be funny - but he was NOT
>> very wrong either. Peoples eyes are always drawn
>> to the maximum leader ... it's instinctual. That means
>> the underlings can do pretty much what they want
>> without anyone noticing. They've used this advantage
>> to become enormously obese on our money, and
>> enormously corrupt too. Only once in a great while
>> are any of 'em caught at it ... and the rest usually
>> sacrifice him on the altar so they'll look all innocent
>> and good.
>
>And yet, here you are, doing exactly that when you should know better.
>;)

You and I know they should ALL make an appearance
before Madame Defarge ....

Well, except OUR beloved loyal rep, of course :-)

And anyway ... in no time the new guys will be just like
the old guys. How politicians act seems to be very
consistent across cultural and historic lines. Perhaps
there are only just SO many ways to herd cats ... er ...
people, so they all gravitate towards similar patterns.
To put it another way, the corrupt self-interested lyin'
way is the lowest-entropy state ... trying to actually be
a "good" politician is more work.

>>>The problem with Trump voters is that they haven't been paying
>>>attention to what's been going on in Washington. Suddenly they've
>>>realized the GOP has been lying to them for nearly forty years and
>>>they're intent on punishing the whole country because THEY fucked up.
>>
>> Um ... not JUST the GOP laddie .......... you've got one
>> eye open, so try and pry the other one open too.
>
>Sanders is the closest analogue the Dems have to Trump but he doesn't
>represent a rank and file, party line crossing, betrayed voter
>rebellion. Sanders is simply a hard left liberal, more like Cruz than
>Trump.

He's a leftist Cruz ... a fairly hardcore ideologue. More
personable though .....

I don't like ideologues ... I like utilitarians. Whatever seems
to work best in situation 'X'. Sometimes that'll seem kinda
rightist, sometimes kinda leftist. "Purist" politics, well, that
gives you ISIL and al-Qaida. None of those idiotologies
can correctly model the real world full of real people, so
fuck ideological-correctness.

>> Anyway, after this years election I think a huge shakeup
>> of those big old parties is gonna begin, might even cause
>> them to shatter.
>
>Depends on which party comes out ahead.

I think BOTH are in for a shake-up. Their evil ways, and
contempt for the people they claim to represent, has been
laid bare. Something will HAVE to be done.

>If the Dems take the White House and do well down ballot, the GOP will
>have some serious reorganizing to do. If Trump wins and the GOP does
>poorly down ballot, the GOP has some serious reorganizing to do.
>
>I don't see the Dems losing everything this year because even if
>there's a general voter rebellion, they can only win as GOP incumbents
>are swept out of office by angry, working class, high school educated
>voters.

Those ? Oh, they're gonna vote for Trump :-)

[Governor Swill]

On Wed, 04 May 2016 22:34:30 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 04 May 2016 17:25:38 -0400, Governor Swill
><governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 03 May 2016 22:18:32 -0400, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>>On Tue, 03 May 2016 19:06:44 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>> Apparently you want some kind of generic voter that's
>>>>> also a non-existent species.
>>>>What makes you think that? We already have generic voters. I want
>>>>voters who aren't generic. Voters who pay attention and take the
>>>>trouble to educate their brains instead of "feeling" it in their
>>>>"gut". You know what guts are full of, right?
>>>
>>> I'm not sure why the word "generic" got stuck in
>>> there ... musta been multi-threading I suppose ......
>>>
>>> "Apparently you want some kind of voter that's also
>>> a non-existent species"
>>
>>Ok. That's right. Educated voters who think before they vote are at
>>least endangered.
>
> Never have been very many of those ... not enough to
> really influence things.
>
> Oh, and you're presuming "thinking" will always lead
> to the kinds of conclusions YOU like .............

No, actually, I'm not. I'm hoping that if they'll think, they'll hold
the pols responsible. That is, they'll have the flexibility and
initiative to throw the bums out when they don't keep their promises.
This is why Trump's promises, which won't be kept either, are so
outrageous. He doesn't have to keep them and he knows it. He only
has to promise what's needed to get elected.

>>>>> Guess what, they're GONNA be lazy, they're GONNA
>>>>> ignore annoying facts, they're GONNA be illogical and
>>>>> they're GONNA be swayed by emotional factors. It has
>>>>> always been thus. This is how humans DO it ... today,
>>>>> yesterday, tomorrow, here, there, anywhere. This is
>>>>> about as good as it gets. I'd say "live with it" but, well,
>>>>> you've GOTTA, so .......
>>>>
>>>>And this is why we have people like Cruz, Trump, Sanders and Clinton
>>>>running for President when the real problem is Congresses that have
>>>>abrogated their responsibility to the nation and managed largely to
>>>>escape the public's attention.
>>>
>>> Oh, I don't disagree with you ... the real ugly stuff
>>> is in the legislature. To paraphrase (Doug) Adams,
>>> the purpose of presidents is to distract people away
>>> from what's really going on.
>>
>>And explains the Trump phenomenon. I've been saying this throughout
>>the campaign. The solution is not to elect a pie in the sky
>>President, but to vote against every incumbent you can find on your
>>ballot irrespective of party.
>
> And then we're back to finding a large number of
> replacements 50+ percent can agree to support ...

No, we're not. All we have to agree to vote against incumbents. When
they see their jobs aren't as secure as they'd like, maybe they'll
start working for us instead of against us.

> Face it, the current crop are the devils we know.

But hasn't your support of Trump been based on supporting the devil
you don't know against the one you do? Have you changed your mind or
is this a double standard? I've said before and will say again, the
problem isn't the executive, it's a lazy, self serving Congress.

> Also, well I'll give you two examples :
>
> Remember John Gotti ? The cops spent forever
> trying to catch him at something. A big part of the
> problem was that anytime a surveillance van or
> spy was sent into his neighborhood the locals
> would immediately inform Gotti.
>
> Why did they do this ? Because Gotti took care of
> his neighbors and neighborhood - he was always
> donating money to good causes there, always
> helping to build the community. That he did some
> questionable things elsewhere ..... well .... so what ?
> Devil, yes, but a devil they knew, a devil who seemed
> to benifit THEM.

Yes, this is how Congress stays in office. This is my point. But
again, our problems are more caused by Congressional inaction and
political horse trading than by the Executive and his policies.

> The BBC and Moscow Times today took note of some
> huge billboards with a picture of Stalin on them. Asking
> around they concluded that if there was an election
> between Putin and Stalin that old Joe would still get
> something like 38% of the vote.
>
> But why ? The guy was a thug and borderline psycho.
> Well, as leader, he also gets credit for exerting his will
> and getting Russia past that unpleasantness with
> the NAZIs. In short, he's the guy who saved Russia and
> smited its mortal enemies. He was a devil, but he was
> the devil they knew and understood- so he still has lots
> of fans.

Exactly. "Old Joe" was always popular but they saw him as presiding
over and expansion of Russian power unprecedented since Ivan the
Terrible. Who cared if some Jews, queers or backwards tribesmen were
routinely killed by the Leader? He oversaw the growth of Russia into
the greatest power it's ever been.

This is why Putin is popular. They see in him a strong man who will
"make Russia great again". Sound familiar? And Trump is wildly
popular in the old USSR. They like him and hope he becomes the next US
president. Is it because he'll "make America great again"? No. It's
because the see him as a buffoon who'll be easily outmaneuvered by
Putin.

> Our current 'reps' make sure to bring home the bacon
> too - or to APPEAR to do so. You'll find that they've
> been in office for decades because their constituents
> LIKE them. What other stuff they may be up to isn't
> all so relevant. Again the devils they know, the devils
> that benifit THEM. They'll cuss "politicians", they'll
> cuss everyone ELSES politicians ... but not THEIR guy.

This is all old news, much discussed by us. But it doesn't change the
solution: A nationwide purge of incumbents, especially the ones which
Washington offices. Nothing, no independent or "loose cannon" will
ever bring the parties into line like watching dozens if not hundreds
of seats in Congress change every two years.

>>> Now yes, he was trying to be funny - but he was NOT
>>> very wrong either. Peoples eyes are always drawn
>>> to the maximum leader ... it's instinctual. That means
>>> the underlings can do pretty much what they want
>>> without anyone noticing. They've used this advantage
>>> to become enormously obese on our money, and
>>> enormously corrupt too. Only once in a great while
>>> are any of 'em caught at it ... and the rest usually
>>> sacrifice him on the altar so they'll look all innocent
>>> and good.
>>
>>And yet, here you are, doing exactly that when you should know better.
>>;)
>
> You and I know they should ALL make an appearance
> before Madame Defarge ....
>
> Well, except OUR beloved loyal rep, of course :-)

hehe And isn't that the rub? Proves again the voters are lazy,
stupid and to boot, selfish. If *everybody* thinks their reps are ok
and everybody else's needs to go. . . but that would require thinking
and logic, wouldn't it?

> And anyway ... in no time the new guys will be just like
> the old guys.

If we change a lot of them at once and many of them regularly, the
lobbies might find it more difficult to stay on top of things.

>How politicians act seems to be very
> consistent across cultural and historic lines. Perhaps
> there are only just SO many ways to herd cats ... er ...
> people, so they all gravitate towards similar patterns.
> To put it another way, the corrupt self-interested lyin'
> way is the lowest-entropy state ... trying to actually be
> a "good" politician is more work.

All true.

>>>>The problem with Trump voters is that they haven't been paying
>>>>attention to what's been going on in Washington. Suddenly they've
>>>>realized the GOP has been lying to them for nearly forty years and
>>>>they're intent on punishing the whole country because THEY fucked up.
>>>
>>> Um ... not JUST the GOP laddie .......... you've got one
>>> eye open, so try and pry the other one open too.
>>
>>Sanders is the closest analogue the Dems have to Trump but he doesn't
>>represent a rank and file, party line crossing, betrayed voter
>>rebellion. Sanders is simply a hard left liberal, more like Cruz than
>>Trump.
>
> He's a leftist Cruz ... a fairly hardcore ideologue. More
> personable though .....

Yep.

> I don't like ideologues ... I like utilitarians. Whatever seems
> to work best in situation 'X'. Sometimes that'll seem kinda
> rightist, sometimes kinda leftist. "Purist" politics, well, that
> gives you ISIL and al-Qaida. None of those idiotologies
> can correctly model the real world full of real people, so
> fuck ideological-correctness.

This is where we agree so often. We both have our own ideological
bent, but neither of us is purely ideological. We are both pragmatic
- enough to allow us to give stuff up for stuff we want. In economic
terms it's "opportunity cost".

Bathroom restrictions may be worthy of debate, but the ideologues,
especially the rightists, aren't even looking at the right problem.
Which is a greater danger to your kids? A queen on estrogen in the
restroom with your daughter, or the guy in the restroom with your son?

>>> Anyway, after this years election I think a huge shakeup
>>> of those big old parties is gonna begin, might even cause
>>> them to shatter.
>>
>>Depends on which party comes out ahead.
>
> I think BOTH are in for a shake-up. Their evil ways, and
> contempt for the people they claim to represent, has been
> laid bare. Something will HAVE to be done.

And that something has to be a heavy duty clean out of Congress.
Nothing else will do.

>>If the Dems take the White House and do well down ballot, the GOP will
>>have some serious reorganizing to do. If Trump wins and the GOP does
>>poorly down ballot, the GOP has some serious reorganizing to do.
>>
>>I don't see the Dems losing everything this year because even if
>>there's a general voter rebellion, they can only win as GOP incumbents
>>are swept out of office by angry, working class, high school educated
>>voters.
>
> Those ? Oh, they're gonna vote for Trump :-)

Exactly. This is what the GOP fears. The rank and file, the working
Joes, especially the white, less educated ones, are in rebellion.
They've rejected what was arguably the broadest, deepest most
competent field the GOP has ever produced. What if they also reject
the GOP and Dem establishments down ballot?

They're terrified President Trump will be presiding over a brand new,
ideological Democratic Congress that feels it's "mandate" and may undo
all that stuff the parties have been doing for decades to benefit
people who already have money and power.

Ending free trade and dollar diplomacy as national security policies
is just a sample of what Trump and a new, liberal Congress could do.