Oct 102016
 October 10, 2016  Posted by at 6:46 pm Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,

Elliot Erwitt New York 1955

If the US presidential debate last night showed anything, it must be that just about everyone has dug themselves into their trenches and had no desire whatsoever to ever came out.

This seemed especially clear on the Hillary side, which appeared to include -to an extent- ‘moderators’ Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz, judging from their interruptions. But, granted, they were the only biased side in the discussion, so we don’t really know what trenches the Republicans have dug.

The biggest problem with biased moderators is that people notice their bias. Not those who are on one side already, it passes them by. But others do. And perhaps more importantly, -in this case-, Hillary’s team loses its ability to adopt a neutral view. And she will therefore hear so much praise that she can’t figure out if she’s not done too well.

To illustrate that point: the main takeaway must be that Trump won the debate hands down, but that’s the opposite of what Hillary sympathizers concluded and what various polls said. It’s still true though, if only for one simple reason. That is, for 48 hours straight all talk and ‘reporting’ had been about Trumps lewd ‘words’ on the Access Hollywood tapes.

Trump really was cornered, and he knew it, everyone knew it. But after the second debate, and within 90 minutes, most of the talk turned towards how he ‘threatened’ to jail Hillary. Now, that’s not what he said, but even if he had, it’s something a lot more people sympathize with than with his language on the tapes. That’s a lot of territory ‘conquered’.

Meanwhile, even the likes of Paul Ryan don’t seem to grasp what happened overnight (he apparently think Hillary already won). What he doesn’t appear to see is, again, that Trump looked completely lost for 48 hours, but doesn’t look so lost now. There are 4 weeks and a day left in the campaign, and a lot can still happen.

Look, Trump is a buffoon. The word could have been invented specifically to define him. And it would be a very bad idea to make him president of the US. But that doesn’t mean the idea of making Hillary president is any better. It may well be worse, for a variety of reasons.

What the debate made clear once more is that America stands face to face with itself, it’s looking in a giant mirror, one which -only- in choice moments does not contort its own image, and America finds there’s nothing to like about what it sees in those brief moments in that mirror. And then therefore immediately proceeds to contort that image like it’s used to doing.

America may not like to look at its own stone cold hard reality, but it’s better than any culture ever in painting a picture of itself that it does like. In fact, it’s the first nation ever that made exactly that its main goal in life.

The Brits, the French and the Dutch try to hide their dark colonial and slave trading pasts, but America built an entire culture around contorting its history, right there in Hollywood, with ‘stars’ like John Wayne and John Ford being celebrated for movies that celebrate the annihilation and violent submission by the white man of both Native Americans and African slave populations.

In that same vein, the ‘heroic exploits’ of US soldiers in Muslim countries from Libya to Afghanistan in the past decades are now a major topic for the next generation of twisted history in movies and other media, in which invasions, drone killings and carpet bombings are portrayed as acts of bravery that warrant Purple Hearts. While the people whose lives and cultures are destroyed are swept under the first available carpet.


But that’s another story for another time. Back to last night’s debate. Trump may have won big, but he left some substantial scraps on the table that he may yet come to regret. Perhaps he was too focused on digging himself out of the ‘grab that pu**y’ hole -and yes, that is foul- to notice he was already out. Hard to say. He has the intuition, but does he have the brain?!

The first thing either The Donald or one of his team members must hammer down, urgently, is the way past stupid narrative of Russia’s involvement in US politics. Hillary repeatedly brought it up again, and it’s cheap fare for her, she can say anything she likes on the issue, no-one will contradict her or check any facts.

There were all these alleged fact-checkers ‘active’, but they dare not check the facts on this (there are none). Anything the Democratic Party wants to hide, it is free to hide behind Putin. No questions asked. That is insane at best, and Trump should have halted the narrative.

As should Cooper and Raddatz, and the army of fact checkers, but the fix was in. The low point must have been the allegation that Wikileaks is linked to Putin. Really? Come with facts, or forever hold your tongue. Too much cheap fare, hollow as can be, and Hillary build much of her story on it. Not good on the part of the Trump people.

I was reading an August 2 piece by Timothy O’Brien at Bloomberg the other day on Trump’s Russian connections, and Tim seems to start off with good hope of ‘inking the deal’, but ends up admitting there’s no there there.. The entire narrative of Trump’s Russian connections is as false as John Wayne’s heroism in slaughtering Native Americans. He should have cut that tale short in the debate, He didn’t.

Hillary gets to say, without any interruption or fact checking that “Russia has decided who it wants to be president, and it’s not me.” and that is way beyond any comprehension, really. There is zero proof of that, as there is of everything the US claims about Russia.

For all we know, Putin would much prefer Hillary to be president, because he sees Trump as a much stronger opponent when the chips are down. Hillary’s allegations are just a narrative she thinks will appeal to voters. She’s wrong. At least when it comes to those who wouldn’t have voted for her regardless of the narrative.


The second issue Trump desperately needs to put to bed is the one of his taxes. And mind you, I did say Trump should not ever be president of the US. That’s my perspective.

Hillary again last night painted a picture of Trump leaving US veterans out in the cold by not paying enough taxes. Trump retorted by saying Buffett (not Jimmy) and Soros do the same. But that’s a huge missed opportunity.

Paying taxes in America, and in any western nation, is not some voluntary exercise; there are laws, and they are some of the most stringent and most punishable there are. You cheat on your taxes, and the IRS or their equivalent in other countries have the power to go after you like no other government institution. Tax cheats very often go to jail.

That none of this has happened to Trump means, it’s that simple, that he did not break the law. He has used to the law to his advantage, just like everyone else who could, sure, But there’s not an inch of evidence, not even a hint, that he did anything illegal.

Hillary’s campaign is well aware of this, so the issue gets presented as some -pretty opaque- moral issue: ‘You didn’t do well by our veterans’. But what could he have done? Should Trump be the only American, or only western citizen, to tell the IRS to please take another extra $10 million or so, or $100 million, after they were done auditing him? So he wouldn’t be attacked 20 years on when running for office? It makes no sense in any sense.

And yes, the situation is very different if you’re on a payroll for some company, you can’t deduct what Trump could. But he’s not alone in that; in fact, all American entrepreneurs are in the same boat, and they will all try to swing that boat in the direction that fits them best. And Hillary loves these entrepreneurs as much as anyone when it suits her purposes. And her accountants do the same thing, they follow the same principle. Perhaps for lesser amounts, but that’s not the point.

Trump’s taxes are a non-issue, a brainless narrative. Not something for Hillary or anyone else to use as some innuendo-laden topic, anymore than Trump can use Hillary’s tax files against her in an ‘innuendo illegal’ way. Any judgment on that is up to the IRS, not either the Republican or Democratic campaigns. It’s ridiculous that Hillary can use that in a debate, and Trump and his people should have shut that venue down long ago.

But anyway, we have that 4 weeks and a day to go, and there’ll by much more to ‘enjoy’. Still, Trump came back last night from very very far away. No matter what CNN and other polls may say. Those polls are as biased as the night’s moderators.

It might be a good idea to realize that a year ago nobody ever gave Trump a shot at the gold medal, and his support never came from the people who conform with CNN (which nobody watches stateside anyway) or ABC.

We’ll talk again soon. Meanwhile, I’m with Susan Sarandon, who says bring it on, bring on Trump, because she despises Hillary, and because:

Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately; if he gets in then things will really explode.”

Sort of like what I wrote before, that if you must choose between two very bad options, might as well pick the worst and get it over with:




Home Forums An American Tragedy: Trump Won Big

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
  • #30869

    Elliot Erwitt New York 1955 If the US presidential debate last night showed anything, it must be that just about everyone has dug themselves into thei
    [See the full post at: An American Tragedy: Trump Won Big]


    Trump does apparently have business connections in Russia: https://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-national-security-498081.html

    The tax issue is a bit more complicated than just following the rules or not. Taxes depend on accounting, and accounting is always a matter of judgment and interpretation, e.g. whether an expense is personal or business-related. How close to the line does a person play in order to reduce their taxes? How flagrant a violation is required before the IRS decides the evidence is enough to convince a jury? Beyond that, people often structure their business activities in order to enable the kind of accounting that reduces taxes, along with protecting assets from bankruptcy proceedings etc.

    Trump has no political track record and bases a lot of his campaign on his business acumen. So it is important to establish that for Trump, business = greed. This is the Ayn Rand philosophy that has infected so much of the power elite in recent decades and destroyed the country.


    I’m thinking voting for Trump as a revolutionary or anarchic act is sort of silly idea. It would be self defeating in any short to medium term. Handing the keys over to the authoritarian who would think he has a popular mandate is not a wise move. It is unlikely that the National Security State would instantly bend to Trump’s will and move against anybody that strikes is fancy in the middle of the night, right away, but in a year, or two…?

    I’ve thought this over and the thing is that yes, Hillary represents every entrenched institutional power there is. Protesting institutional power by voting against its top representative only now is cheap and lazy. A symbolic act which would amount to the cure being worse than the disease, again in any short to medium term. When the break comes in the financial economy and then the real economy surely the right will rise to fill the vacuum, probably uninvited. Don’t invite them in before hand.

    As to his winning, winning voters? I will pass in silence.


    Susan Sarandon is correct. Far better to accelerate the tide’s regression now than delay with unrealistic hope and endure far more pain all around later. Besides, Hillary can live out her remaining years…probably very limited… earning more than a President’s salary as an ombuds(wo)man for AIPAC if she doesn’t end up in jail. Hard to reconcile what I witnessed in the debate last night (Trump OBVIOUSLY a big winner in spite of highly biased moderator and Zioglobalist-in-arms Raddatz) with the post-debate MSM analyses on the internet this morning. Impossible to not wince at the blatant partiality of the commentary by the mouthpieces of the money worshipers.


    In an unwinnable scenario, short of Jesus showing up and running for POTUS, Trump is the only option. I do not believe he will solve things, because they are unsolvable. But I do believe he is the only one who might actually keep things from being worse than they otherwise would be. So I don’t totally agree with the notion that he’s going to blow things up because of his unsuitability for office–rather he will blow things up because they are going to blow up anyway, and he will be the spark that ignites the long dead forest. Trump will begin dismantling the charade so something better might have a chance of surviving in its place. In fact, I actually can’t think of a policy statement he’s made I couldn’t get behind. Except he said Snowden was a traitor. That’s almost enough for me to reject Trump. But no one, sadly, is perfect.


    Lord Acton pretty much covered it all. Not much left to say but “Power corrupts,,,,absolute power corrupts absolutely.”


    Ilargi, am I correct you are not a citizen of the USA? If not, you are not eligible to vote, whomever you prefer. That burden falls on the imperfect electorate whose government, in fractal terms, exists as a compilation of all our aptitudes and accomplishments, our failings and frustrations. Woe betide us all, especially the poor sap or sapess who becomes our next president, if events proceed as you and Nicole insist. Rather than criticizing individuals, kindly offer one constructive idea each of us can do in our own lives to better prepare for the future. Thank you.

    Dr. Diablo

    Golly, Shak, generally Raul and Nicole offer nothing but constructive ideas you can use at home. One of those above is, “Don’t take it all too seriously.” But if you look to the very latest article, you’ll see a laundry list of how when the very character of the money system changes, the electoral and political system must as well. And what this will mean at your house: https://www.theautomaticearth.com/2016/10/the-imf-and-all-the-other-losers/

    Everyone has opinions. Certainly the Americans do about leaders in France, Britain, Germany…and Syria, Libya, and Egypt, in which they enforce the selection of their favorite leader at the point of a gun, and nevermind economic collapse and WWIII falling on the Deplorables.

    Not trying to step on any toes, it’s just what I do naturally…


    “<i>There is zero proof of that, as there is of everything the US claims about Russia.</i>”

    Wow, that has to be a gross exaggeration but, otherwise, a nice piece. I hate Trump as much as Clinton but I totally see the bias in the media at almost every report. Trump’s lewd remarks a decade ago were just that, and indefensible, but they were just as he says, locker room talk (or bar-room talk); I’ve heard almost as bad myself from people who are fantastic blokes otherwise. Seems that fantasizing is wrong, now.


    Yes, I think crude private conversations are completely defensible. In fact it’s strangely ironic that the progressive left fought for twenty years to give us the right to be sexually free adults with the liberty to live our private sex lives the way we want, but all of a sudden these same “champions” of freedom have become some kind of morality police that deems sex talk unacceptable. I will continue to defend my right, and anyone else’s right, to talk about sex in private conversations, full stop. The day that my private conversations about my sex life become illegal will be a very scary day indeed, and it seems that’s the direction the regressive left is taking us today.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.