New Yorker: Donald Trump and the "Amazing" Alex Jones

[zoogs]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/donald-trump-and-the-amazing-alex-jones

 

This was a blistering takedown. I don't know where to begin.

 

 

 

...were any Trump supporters given pause about the character of their man by this brain-fogging list of falsehoods? It seems doubtful. Trump is playing a different game. He gestures toward beliefs, hunches, prejudices, and constituencies on the margins. He is playing to Americans who do not trust the media or traditional information sources, such as the government. He offers alternative narratives, fantasies that shock and satisfy. He entertains.

 

It's a very worthy read. A decent Greatest Hits, Vol I of the blusteriest of Trump's bluster, with summary of coverage and responses; even if you've been roughly following, you'll probably learn a thing or two.

 

The GOP is choosing to nominate this man as their candidate for U.S. President next month. At least, they will if the forlorn hope of a delegate revolt is quashed. Good on them, though. At least try to make a stand.

 

 

[HuskerShark]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/donald-trump-and-the-amazing-alex-jones

 

This was a blistering takedown. I don't know where to begin.

 

...were any Trump supporters given pause about the character of their man by this brain-fogging list of falsehoods? It seems doubtful. Trump is playing a different game. He gestures toward beliefs, hunches, prejudices, and constituencies on the margins. He is playing to Americans who do not trust the media or traditional information sources, such as the government. He offers alternative narratives, fantasies that shock and satisfy. He entertains.

It's a very worthy read. A decent Greatest Hits, Vol I of the blusteriest of Trump's bluster, with summary of coverage and responses; even if you've been roughly following, you'll probably learn a thing or two.

 

The GOP is choosing to nominate this man as their candidate for U.S. President next month. At least, they will if the forlorn hope of a delegate revolt is quashed. Good on them, though. At least try to make a stand.

 

I'm not sure why you support tyranny and corruption, but it's disturbing...

[Danny Bateman]

 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/donald-trump-and-the-amazing-alex-jones

 

This was a blistering takedown. I don't know where to begin.

 

...were any Trump supporters given pause about the character of their man by this brain-fogging list of falsehoods? It seems doubtful. Trump is playing a different game. He gestures toward beliefs, hunches, prejudices, and constituencies on the margins. He is playing to Americans who do not trust the media or traditional information sources, such as the government. He offers alternative narratives, fantasies that shock and satisfy. He entertains.

It's a very worthy read. A decent Greatest Hits, Vol I of the blusteriest of Trump's bluster, with summary of coverage and responses; even if you've been roughly following, you'll probably learn a thing or two.

 

The GOP is choosing to nominate this man as their candidate for U.S. President next month. At least, they will if the forlorn hope of a delegate revolt is quashed. Good on them, though. At least try to make a stand.

 

I'm not sure why you support tyranny and corruption, but it's disturbing...

 

 

He supports not putting an insecure narcissistic moron in charge of our country.

 

Is it really surprising to anyone at this point that he rubs elbows with the looniest of the conspiracy theorists? He's not interested in facts or truth or knowing anything. He's interested in playing on people's fears, insecurities, and ignorance to garner votes.

[zoogs]

Supporting a mainstream, establishment Democratic Party candidate in 2016 is supporting tyranny and corruption. And here I thought I was supporting staid progressivism and a defense of the initiatives pursued by the Obama administration in the past eight years -- many of which I support quite strongly (for example, the Paris climate accords) and which will surely come under fire so long as the Republicans have such sway in Congress.

 

Do we have any more crazy adjectives to toss around about Hillary, like traitorous or cold and unsmiling, or are we done deflecting away from Trump?

[HuskerShark]

Well zoogs, you had your first sentence right.

[Guy Chamberlin]

I hate tit for tat. I really do.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right, etcetera, etcetera.

 

But if you hate dishonesty and corruption and cozying up to the Saudi's so much, and you remained silent about it during the Bush Administration (and Reagan, too, for you older folk), than you should probably keep your yap shut about Hillary Clinton.

 

And the "business as usual" practices you decry aren't likely to change under the billionaire who profited by gaming the system.

[Danny Bateman]

I hate tit for tat. I really do.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right, etcetera, etcetera.

 

But if you hate dishonesty and corruption and cozying up to the Saudi's so much, and you remained silent about it during the Bush Administration (and Reagan, too, for you older folk), than you should probably keep your yap shut about Hillary Clinton.

 

And the "business as usual" practices you decry aren't likely to change under the billionaire who profited by gaming the system.

 

"We're tired of inept politicians screwing us over because they're controlled by wealthy elites!"

 

"Let's elect a wealthy elite!"

[BigRedBuster]

I just love it when one candidate really likes the other and thinks they are a really good person.

 

[Landlord]

Supporting a mainstream, establishment Democratic Party candidate in 2016 is supporting tyranny and corruption. And here I thought I was supporting staid progressivism and a defense of the initiatives pursued by the Obama administration in the past eight years -- many of which I support quite strongly (for example, the Paris climate accords) and which will surely come under fire so long as the Republicans have such sway in Congress.

 

 

Both of these seem like true sentences to me.

[HuskerShark]

I hate tit for tat. I really do.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right, etcetera, etcetera.

 

But if you hate dishonesty and corruption and cozying up to the Saudi's so much, and you remained silent about it during the Bush Administration (and Reagan, too, for you older folk), than you should probably keep your yap shut about Hillary Clinton.

 

And the "business as usual" practices you decry aren't likely to change under the billionaire who profited by gaming the system.

I'm not familiar with Bush's relationship with the Saudis, but I'd say that during my lifetime in general there has not been a successful presidency. I give no damns what party a candidate comes from. Bush was a failure mainly due to Iraq and Afghanistan. That was a failure of epic proportions. And one catastrophe that hardly gets mentioned of his was NCLB. That bill single handedly has deteriorated our public education system and made the material arbitrary.

[Guy Chamberlin]

The Bush family did business with the Saudi Royal family and the bin Laden family, owners of one of the largest engineering firms in the Middle East . No secret, really. Just the oil business.

 

On the night of September 11, with all air travel grounded, the Bush administration arranged for safe passage out of the country for members and associates of the bin Laden family. No secret there, either. A prudent move, perhaps.

 

But imagine if those actions had been taken by Obama or Hillary Clinton.

 

The outrage and hysteria is wildly inconsistent.

[HuskerShark]

The Bush family did business with the Saudi Royal family and the bin Laden family, owners of one of the largest engineering firms in the Middle East . No secret, really. Just the oil business.

 

On the night of September 11, with all air travel grounded, the Bush administration arranged for safe passage out of the country for members and associates of the bin Laden family. No secret there, either. A prudent move, perhaps.

 

But imagine if those actions had been taken by Obama or Hillary Clinton.

 

The outrage and hysteria is wildly inconsistent.

I agree with you that Bush's presidency was shady and corrupt. I think people are as oblivious to this fact as they are about the $150billion Obama threw at Iran being used to find radical terrorism.

 

The political establishment is beyond corrupt. In both parties. It's not isolated to one side or the other