I’ve stated before, I have no fear for Donald Trump … my anguish is the close allies and the minority of Americans who voted for him. Shame on the opposition party elite who failed to commit to a policy which would have carried a nominee to the presidency.
Matt Taibbi’s New Book: ‘Insane Clown President’ | Rolling Stones |
Trump is the perfect modern American. He’s a human consumption machine with no attention span, no self-control, no beliefs and no hobbies outside of sex, spending, eating and talking about himself. Nixon at least played the piano and read classics. He was an intellectual with a pig’s heart. Trump is just the pig part.
The distance between the two men represents how far we’ve fallen as a nation in the last 40 or 50 years. Once we were merely rotten and evil on the inside. Now we even lack the depth needed to be two-faced, and our dark underbelly is also our shameless, dumb exterior.
During most of the last two years I thought the Trump campaign would just be an isolated episode of mass insanity on which we would someday be able to look back and laugh. It turned out to be something a lot darker and crazier than that. Insane Clown President is the story of how we got here, to the beginning of our next long national nightmare.
« click for more info
U.S. Presidency by default to a clown - The Apprentice . Becoming a failed state ...JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, as a new study finds the world’s eight richest men control as much wealth as the poorest half of humanity, six of the eight billionaires are Americans, including Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Jeff Bezos. Oxfam said it’s concerned that wealth inequality will continue to grow following the election of Donald Trump, whose Cabinet members have a combined wealth of nearly $11 billion.
AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by award-winning Rolling Stone journalist Matt Taibbi, who’s been chronicling the rise of Donald Trump during the 2016 election campaign. In his new book, just out today, he writes, “It’s an Alice in Wonderland story, in which a billionaire hedonist jumps down the rabbit hole of American politics and discovers a surreal world where each successive barrier to power collapses before him like magic.” Yes, Matt Taibbi’s book is titled Insane Clown President: Dispatches from the 2016 Circus. As this week, Friday, the inauguration of the 45th president, Donald Trump, is set, your thoughts, Matt Taibbi?
MATT TAIBBI: I mean, it’s unbelievable. I think this is an unprecedented crisis heading into an inauguration week. I think we never could have imagined that some–this last twist, at the end of what was already the craziest election season in history, with this Russia controversy and this sort of unparalleled intelligence crisis, in a way it’s actually kind of the perfect anti-ending to this, you know, incredible tragicomedy of the last couple years.
Continued below the fold …
Profound words from the editorial staff at The Atlantic and a subtle headline!
In october of 1860, James Russell Lowell, the founding editor of The Atlantic, warned in these pages about the perishability of the great American democratic experiment if citizens (at the time, white, male citizens) were to cease taking seriously their franchise:
“In a society like ours, where every man may transmute his private thought
into history and destiny by dropping it into the ballot-box, a peculiar
responsibility rests upon the individual … For, though during its term of office
the government be practically as independent of the popular will as that
of Russia, yet every fourth year the people are called upon to pronounce
upon the conduct of their affairs. Theoretically, at least, to give democracy
any standing-ground for an argument with despotism or oligarchy,
a majority of the men composing it should be statesmen and thinkers.”One of the animating causes of this magazine at its founding, in 1857, was the abolition of slavery, and Lowell argued that the Republican Party, and the man who was its standard-bearer in 1860, represented the only reasonable pathway out of the existential crisis then facing the country. In his endorsement of Abraham Lincoln for president, Lowell wrote, on behalf of the magazine, “It is in a moral aversion to slavery as a great wrong that the chief strength of the Republican party lies.” He went on to declare that Abraham Lincoln “had experience enough in public affairs to make him a statesman, and not enough to make him a politician.”
Perhaps because no subsequent candidate for the presidency was seen as Lincoln’s match, or perhaps because the stakes in ensuing elections were judged to be not quite so high as they were in 1860, it would be 104 years before The Atlantic would again make a presidential endorsement. In October of 1964, Edward Weeks, writing on behalf of the magazine , cited Lowell’s words before making an argument for the election of Lyndon B. Johnson. “We admire the President for the continuity with which he has maintained our foreign policy, a policy which became a worldwide responsibility at the time of the Marshall Plan,” the endorsement read. Johnson, The Atlantic believed, would bring “to the vexed problem of civil rights a power of conciliation which will prevent us from stumbling down the road taken by South Africa.”
○ Diary on influence of Anglo-Saxon protestantism and white-supremacy in America
○ America’s Greatness Ended With the Statue of Liberty
Indians, Slaves, and Mass Murder: The Hidden History
Taínos who resisted the Spanish were set upon by dogs, disemboweled by swords, burned at stakes, trampled by horses–atrocities “to which no chronicle could ever do justice,” wrote Friar Bartolomé de las Casas, a crusader for Indian rights, in 1542. Against the Caribs the Spaniards had a tougher time, fighting pitched battles but capturing hundreds of slaves as well. Columbus sailed home from his second voyage with over a thousand captives bound for slave auctions in Cádiz (many died en route, their bodies tossed overboard). He envisioned a future market for New World gold, spices, cotton, and “as many slaves as Their Majesties order to make, from among those who are idolators,” whose sales might underwrite subsequent expeditions.
« click for more info
Carl Lumholtz: Tarahumara Woman Being Weighed, Barranca de San Carlos (Sinforosa), Chihuahua, 1892; from Among Unknown Tribes: Rediscovering the Photographs of Explorer Carl Lumholtz. The book includes essays by Bill Broyles, Ann Christine Eek, and others, and is published by the University of Texas Press.Thus did the discoverer of the New World become its first transatlantic human trafficker–a sideline pursued by most New World conquistadors until, in the mid-seventeenth century, Spain officially opposed slavery. And Columbus’s vision of a “reverse middle passage” crumbled when Spanish customers preferred African domestics. Indians were more expensive to acquire, insufficiently docile, harder to train, unreliable over the years, and susceptible to homesickness, seasickness, and European diseases. Other obstacles included misgivings by the church and royal authorities, which may explain Columbus’s emphasis on “idolators” like the Caribs, whose status as “enemies” and cannibals made them more legally eligible for enslavement.
Implicit in Taibbi’s question/answer is that the MSM has a method to take down politicians but somehow it didn’t work with Trump. At least Taibbi, unlike Democrats and liberals, acknowledges that the MSM was trashing Trump early on and not only never gave up doing so but ramped it up during the general election. Then he gets stuck pondering what was/is unique about Trump.
Liberals/Democrats have convinced themselves that they vote on policies and not character/personality and “conservatives”/Republicans vote party line and character/personality. As Trump is uniquely odious, liberals/Democrats can’t wrap their brains around why the Trump character/personality didn’t cost him more votes. Particularly considering that the MSM was doing the heavy lifting on that to favor Clinton.
These assumptions, observations, and expectations seem off to me. Gore was relentlessly trashed, based on close to nothing, by the MSM from the beginning of the 2000 election cycle and gave GWB exceedingly generous coverage and it didn’t work that time either.
Throughout the 2016 election cycle I kept getting the nagging feeling that we should look back to 1992, but I couldn’t articulate exactly what it was that we should look at. Trump entered the race mid-June 2015, but Perot didn’t get going until March 1992 in a “draft Perot” movement. (A precursor to the “draft Carson (send money) that was formed by 2014.) In May, Perot was leading Bush and Clinton. The media coverage changed at that point, and Perot’s numbers declined and he dropped out late in July. He re-entered the race on October 1, his VP had a disastrous debate appearance, and he still managed to capture 18.9% of the national popular vote. Why?
The 1992 themes, in crude terms, were:
GOP: come all ye racists, capitalists, and warmongers.
Dem: the real “big tent,” that’s hip and will deliver goodies.
Perot: you’re getting screwed.
That election cycle started later but it was the MSM that boosted Perot’s status into a contender.
Maybe, maybe not. I’ll not quarrel, however,
What I do remember about Perot was the fervor among his supporters who (the ones I knew) were people never before involved in politics much like Bernie supporters only not so young. They were middle-aged middle-income college educated professionals, very blase, not wide-eyed innocents.
The slogan “Ross for Boss” was telling. I once interviewed for his company, EDS, at a job fair before he sold it to GM.
The candidate before me was wearing a dark blue business suit. I was wearing my gray pinstripe. The interviewer told the candidate before me, “You know if you are hired you will have to buy a gray pinstripe suit, don’t you?” When it was my turn, to break the ice, I said, “As you see, I already have the gray pinstripe.” He responded sourly, “It’s the wrong pinstripe. Too narrow.” I was wearing my spit-shined Navy shoes and a new crew cut. That interview told me all I needed to now about EDS.
BTW, after the sale, I read a hilarious article in Wall Street Journal about the culture clash of the EDS suits meeting the GM jeans.
>>the culture clash of the EDS suits meeting the GM jeans.
I lived this in the late 80s at a silicon valley company bought by IBM. very interesting times. for a while there was an IBM-origin sales crew in the building next to mine and we’d see them on the way to the cafeteria for lunch. Clones. Every one of them in dark blue suit, white shirt, red tie. OTOH our engineers in jeans, and no one below VP who wore a tie every day.
That was them! Perot had them wearing a uniform.
What was Perot’s national name ID at the beginning of 1992? Doubt it was even close to Bernie’s in the spring of 2015 and which was in low single digits.
How did he vault to the top of the leader board in a few short months? “Draft me and I’ll run” only works if the media is giving the person a lot of attention. Carson’s year and a half effort before declaring his candidacy only got him to maybe 20% of 1/3rd of the electorate.
That sounds about right to me. And they weren’t dissuaded as it became evident that Perot was nutty and a crank and wildly unreliable. I suspect that they were responding positively to his appearance of fiestiness and his message. The latter contrary to both Bush and Clinton. After that election it was assumed that his voters just melted away and back to D or R in some equal measure. Yet, he still drew over eight million votes in 1996 without being much of a presence in the campaign.
Enter Trump. He made a brief stab at picking up the Reform Party banner before correctly concluding that it wouldn’t work. What it looks like to me is that he dusted off his preliminary 2000 plan and updated it to run as a Republican. Hold the GOP base with their racism and fealty to capitalism; then add the Perot (or Perot type) voters.
He did have to sense that the “Christian values voters” were more mirage than real. Something most liberals/Democrats couldn’t see because they’d never taken off their 1980 glasses. Had he been wrong on that, he wouldn’t have made it through the GOP primary. He only got one scare on that — the Iowa caucus — and was he ever furious about that.
We know where he focused his campaign in the general election, but I don’t know if he broad-brushed it or if he had a number cruncher that put him right where the Perot voters lived, voters that didn’t give a crap about anything other than “feisty and the other team is going to continue screwing you.” The latter effective in 2016 because the winners since ’08 have been the haves and the white, white-collar types.
So, at the statewide level, here the plan model that I see:
Focus on states that in 2012 gave Romney 44% or more and less than 52% of the vote and also gave Perot more than 6.5% in 1996. While all we bozos here couldn’t see how PA could possibly flip having been “blue” for six straight presidential elections, the Romney/Perot model had it in play. There was only one “red” state that required focus, NC (’96 Perot 6.7%). Blue state rank order by the ’96 Perot votes:
MN (11.8)
OH (10.7)
WI (10.4)
NH (9.7)
PA (9.7)
NV (9.5)
FL (9.1)
MI (8.8)
IA (8.5)
CO (6.6)
VA (6.6)
I didn’t perceive much Trump effort in MN, but it ended up being #6 in the closeness of the results, 1.52% (only one state, FL, in 2012 was decided with a smaller margin than that of MN 2016). Kaine took VA off the map.
IA and OH (and I would also include NC) broke early for Trump, putting him at 231 to 203 and he had eight states left in play.
I think your analysis is perfect. It shows that Bernie maybe could not have won either with the albatross of Obama hung around his neck. Yes, he promised to be different, but so did Obama.
According to what I’ve read here, Clinton had zero effort in MN. I don’t even recall seeing any national ads, but I rarely watch network TV. I don’t recall trump ads, either. it seems that all the electioneering was in so-called “news”.
Disagree. Remember that Trump’s plan was formulated with the guarantee that Clinton would be the nominee.
I do have to make one big assumption that in a head-to-head with Trump, Bernie would have taken off the kid gloves he wore when he ran against Hillary. He’s long demonstrated that he can do that and remain polite.
Sanders ran on a strong and articulated “you’re getting screwed” message backed up with identifiable policy changes. In comparison, Trump’s was weak tea. Instead of policies, he generally resorted to “we’ll look into that.” That’s the same sort of default that most politicians use not to reveal that they have nothing or to hide their true intents. Trump empowered racists and nasty bullies (and against Sanders might have attracted that sort from the Hillary camp), but when people are hurting economically or feel they are, that faction of the electorate isn’t large enough to win if there is a viable alternative.
When Biden said, “He’s [Obama] clean,” he was making an important point. “Clean” politicians have an advantage over dirty ones. All other things being equal (and they hardly ever are), “clean” wins. Trump’s business record, the only thing he had, is dirtier than Romney’s (and Mitt also had a four year stint in public office), and he lost to still “clean” enough. While I’ll never forgive Bernie for not having his tax records in order for public release, the only possible there there was Jane’s incompetence.
Can’t dismiss that voters responsive to a “you’re getting screwed” message either voted for the black man in 2008 and 2012 or sat it out. And they didn’t appreciate their 2016 choice between Hillary and Trump. But some in specific locations went with corrupt and different over corrupt and old.
I did say “maybe”. The Clintons were confident in their victory too.
Not many sure things on this planet.
I gave you two concrete elements to this election that would have figured figured in a Sanders v. Trump general election. You raised another issue where Sanders would have had an advantage over Clinton — he didn’t have the Obama albatross around his neck. In fact, his call for someone to challenge Obama in ’12 would have been seen as confirmation of that.
Now, it’s entirely possible that Clinton Democratic primary voters would have sat out, voted for Johnson, or voted for Trump, but then they would have been shown their true colors and that would be the end of their farce.
OTOH, a not insignificant portion of Trump’s votes were from rabid anti-Clinton Republicans and Independents and they would vote for anyone but Clinton. Sanders v. Trump would have been a different equation for them.
Why is Trump so unable to accept that he lost the popular vote? It seems extreme even for a total narcissist who generally are satisfied with a win regardless of how it’s accomplished. He’s obsessed and suspect that it figures into his need to run again and prove that a solid majority of voters do love him. On the plus side, those with landslide obsessions tend to fall quickly.
Why are Democrats obsessed with the popular vote? Even claiming that Trump’s Presidency is somehow illegitimate. As yo7u pointed out recently, Bill Clinton won with 43% of the popular vote, so maybe his Presidency was illegitimate too (besides him being personally a b…)?
They’re obsessed because they’re too stupid to see that they’ve swallowed a big pile of propaganda. “Popular vote” sound truthy. Sheesh — they’re now cheering on an IC coup as if coups make things all better instead of worse and for a much longer period of time.
Can’t compare numbers in time due to extreme polarization after the year 2000 – the SCOTUS intervention to appoint the next president.
○ Pew Research: Presidential job approval ratings from Ike to Obama

One must also realize, it took time for Bill Clinton to grow into his presidency as his popular vote represented a record low figure – 45 million or 43%.
Crunching numbers is never an easy task, I prefer above graphs for global analysis …
An indication for post Obama years could be interpreted from extreme low level in popularity from opposing party from 2009 until 2016. Call it partisanship, or better racial prejudice and build-up of white anger. Result: vengeance in electing Trump for white-supremacist America in 2016.
○ Obama job approval higher, but views of him are still the most polarized in recent history
Posted earlier in fladem’s diary – Question about Clinton’s Approval.
I expect Trump’s to look like Nixon’s but with the fall starting much sooner.
It’s more like Reagan’s but again falling faster. Trump seems to have a weird idea that he’s supposed to accommodate the crazy folks that bought his crazy talk.
Reagan is still revered in Republican circles. I doubt that Trump will be revered 30+ years later.
Reagan is still revered in Republican circles.
Evidence of their ignorance and stupidity. Although, the same could be said for Democrats that revere Bill Clinton.
YUUGE Hillary supporter:
Robert De Niro Joins Robert Kennedy Jr. On Panel Questioning Safety Of Vaccines
The actor once came under fire for supporting a controversial anti-vaccine documentary.
Nobody should ever listen to science illiterates on any matter outside of their demonstrated and earned area of expertise. For DeNiro that’s acting.
The official report produced for CDC … no causality but a precautionary move.
We had intense discussion at the pond eons ago …
Salon article “Deadly Immunity “has been highly criticised. The causes of increased autism is highly complex and does not point in a single direction.
In recent days, I watched a German documentary how professionals worked on a remedial effort to socialize an autistic child. See Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Isabel Dziobek at Humboldt University and facial expression.
In the new DSM V, Autistic Disorder, PDD-NOS and Asperger Syndrome have been placed in a new category: .
One of the most significant changes is that the separate diagnostic labels of Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, and PDD-NOS will be replaced by one umbrella term “Autism Spectrum Disorder.” Further distinctions will be made according to severity levels. The severity levels are based on the amount of support needed, due to challenges with social communication and restricted interests and repetitive behaviors. For example, a person might be diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3. The DSM-V revision website says the reasons for using the umbrella term of “Autism Spectrum Disorder” are 1) the old way isn’t precise enough–different clinicians diagnose the same person with different disorders, and some change their diagnosis of the same symptoms differently from year to year, and 2) autism is defined by a common set of behaviors and it should be characterized by a single name according to severity.
The removal of the formal diagnoses of Asperger’s Disorder and PDD-NOS is a major change. People who currently hold these diagnoses will likely receive a different diagnosis when re-evaluated. This has the potential to be confusing for parents of children with these diagnoses as well as children and adults who identify strongly with their diagnosis.
Of course, there is also a genetic component to autism … from a history of borderline, asperger’s syndrome. The severity in a child can vary from very slight to almost full disability and care.
Increasing incidence or increasing recognition/diagnosis? That can’t even be answered.
IMO, the most interesting physiological finding has been Children with Autism Have Extra Synapses in Brain. IOW the natural synaptic pruning that begins in infancy isn’t functioning properly.
Worth noting from Marina Hyde at The Guardian – Trump is a media troll – so stop feeding him .
She highlights Ana Navarro in one way to get it right: