Thursday, December 22, 2016

Hypocrisy, Hysteria, and Trump


Sorry to check in so late, but the holiday frenzy as been keeping me busy.  Anyway--

I thought I'd seen the Democrat/Bourgeois-Liberal media dive as low as it could go in the hysterical propaganda department for the month after Trump's election -- but this month they managed to outdo themselves, heeling over into the downright absurd.  Apparently dismayed because they couldn't convince most of the public that Trump is a Nazi (because a handful of southern bigots liked him better than Hillary, Bernie, the Libertarians or the Greens -- a favor which he did not return), the Democrats got the help of the FBI (not surprising;  historically the FBI has served and protected Democrat administrations, just as the CIA has served and protected Republican ones) to claim that the Russians "manipulated" the election and Trump is a Commie dupe.  Obama is calling for an investigation, and the Dems are hoping that will somehow invalidate the election.  Wow.  Democrats, Red-baiting?!  Joe McCarthy's spirit must be laughing in Hell.

When you track the story down (an easy Google-search), what it shows is that during the past summer a pair of hackers, whose location was tracked to Russia, dug up lots of private emails doubtless discussing election strategies and tactics from the computers of the Democratic National Committee.  It's assumed (no proof) that either Putin ordered the hack or the two nerds informed him afterwards.  In any case, what the hackers did with their juicy booty was send all or most of it to Wikileaks -- which, of course, published it where anyone in the world could see it.  The information is supposed to have "influenced" the voters, and thereby "manipulated" the vote, in favor of Trump.  Trump has, in the past, mentioned that he respects Putin's political smarts.  That's supposed to prove that Trump is a Commie dupe, which might explain why the old KGB man wanted to elect the penultimate capitalist.  Uh, right.

Beg pardon, but doesn't this story sound just a little farfetched to you?  For one thing, couldn't a wily old KGB man think of a better use for those strat-and-tac information emails than to dump them onto Wikileaks, of all things?  Second, how many American voters even saw, let alone bothered to read, or believed the Wikileaks?  (I didn't.  Did you?)  Third, how many of those readers actually changed their minds, or their votes, because of what they read there?  Really after the blizzard of crap about both Trump and Hillary that's been flying around the Internet for the past year, how much evidence is there that the Wikileaks leaks didn't get lost in the shuffle?  You really should remember Lincoln's comment about the impossibility of fooling all the people all the time.  Also bear in mind that modern communications may make it quicker and easier to spread false news, but they also make it quicker and easier to verify or disprove a story;  nothing but mental flabbiness, laziness, or just plain willingness to believe keeps anyone -- including entirely too many reporters these days -- from checking a story out. 

As for respecting Putin's smarts, anyone who's studied his career -- especially against the background of Russia's history over the last 20+ years -- would, however grudgingly, do the same.  Putin is no fool, or he wouldn't have survived this long.  Neither is Trump, or he wouldn't have been successful this long.  More to the point, both of them know quite a bit about the nitty-gritty of dirty economics and economic warfare.  This is a topic on which very few Democrats have much expertise.  It's understandable that a couple of experts, like a pair of professional boxers, would size each other up and respect each other's skills -- even though they're very likely to wind up on opposite sides of the ring soon enough -- more than they'd respect some loud and inept sports-commentator.  That's also a possible reason, the only one I can think of, why Putin would rather deal with Trump than Hillary.

The Dems/liberals/media either don't understand this or just plain don't care -- and blithely assume that the American public doesn't either.  This explains why they can't seem to make up their minds whether Trump is a Nazi, a Commie, or some inexplicable mix of the two -- based on some clearly flimsy evidence and attenuated Tinkers-to-Evens-to-Chance guilt-by-association.

I honestly don't know whether to laugh at the Democrats' increasingly hysterical illogic in their assorted attacks on Trump, or to be furious that they think the majority of voters will blindly believe such crap.  Seriously, there are plenty of real complaints we could make against Trump -- his shady business practices, his tendency to thoughtlessly shoot off his mouth, his incompetence at politics (other than campaigning), his ignorance of federal law and international politics, among others -- that the Democrats don't need to invent hysterical fancies like this.  Their insistence on doing it reveals a disturbing contempt for the intelligence of the voters -- which is part of what cost them the election in the first place.  

--Leslie <;)))>< 

 

      

6 comments:

Joel C. Salomon said...

Whatever the history of the organizations, it seems it’s the CIA claiming Russian involvement, and the FBI being blamed for investigating Her Majesty at an inopportune moment.

Leslie Fish said...

Heheheheh. Indeed, traditional alliances are shifting! Gee, it seems you can't trust anyone's loyalty these days.

Tangle said...

I think part of it is that most dems want to believe that the era of "Bigot Is President" is over.

Leslie Fish said...

Hi, Tangle. Indeed, they thought that *their* flavor of bigot would rule forever. I mean, have you noticed how Jew-hatred and blind Muslim-love have been growing in the past 8 years? And how Political Correctitude has become such a problem in most of our Ivy League universities? Yes, that's bigotry -- officially sanctioned.

Paradoctor said...

Sorry, Leslie, I call shenanigans. The KKK didn't endorse Clinton. Maybe Trump doesn't much like Spencer's thugs, but they like him.

And though the orange conman is sincere in his bigotry and misogyny, his biggest assault on the republic will be about class. (As in money, not the kind of class he'll never have.) Expect overclass looting.

Leslie Fish said...

Shenannigans indeed. Trump certainly didn't go looking for the KKK's endorsement, and there's no evidence he even knew that Spencer's White-Nats even existed before the media blew up the bubble about them. All the evidence I've seen about Der Drumpf's "bigotry and misogyny" shows it to be the knee-jerk shallow and thoughtless type, not any real passion. And there's still his welcomed Jewish son-in-law to consider.

Of course his main bias will be class; he's a filthy-rich shady capitalist whose religion is money. But haven't we, in the 102 years since the Ludlow Massacre (go look that one up! I saw a technically-right-wing website denounce it as the single most egregious case of martial law in American history), learned how to deal with that sort? The same working class who voted him into office certainly knows. I've been looking for incidents when/where Trump was willing to tangle with a real, experienced labor union (I have good reason not to include most of the teachers' unions under that heading), and have found remarkably few of them. The blue-collar voters know him, and he knows them, and remember what I told you about respecting an honest and competent enemy. I suspect that Trump will be peculiarly circumspect in his looting. I also expect that union membership will begin to climb, and with no help from the Democrats. It's going to be an interesting four years. Happy New Year!