Alex Jones
Charlie Sheen
Glenn Beck
Rosie O’Donnell
Jesse Ventura
Oliver Stone
need three more
1 Like
Sarah Palin
It just hit me: Trump is like a little kid who, when things aren’t going his way, threatens to take his toys and go home (or to someone else’s house).
4 Likes
3 Likes
If doing a Conspiracy tic-tac-toe I’d vote for Art Bell for the UFOs and Dave Emory for the Nazis.
1 Like
Is he still even a thing?
Meh, not much of one, it seems. A la Wikipedia:
In February 2014, Wurzelbacher took a job at a Jeep plant which required him to be a member of the United Auto Workers. He complained that his colleagues have called him a “Tea-bagger”.
5 Likes
7 Likes
Wha-huh?
1 Like
As I’ve always understood it, the super wealthy donate to both parties because money talks, and if you have plenty to throw around you are essentially hedging your bets: no matter who wins, you will have their ear.
Someone like Trump is almost alien to the whole notion of political parties-- the idea that he would subscribe to a platform devised by other people and follow advice of long-time party leaders is ludicrous-- the only party good enough for him is The Trump Party, the classiest, most extravagant, most gold-plated party of all time, of which he is the sole member.
10 Likes
Besides, the Dems aren’t against tax cuts for the super-rich either.
2 Likes
I read a theory somewhere that Andy Kaufman faked his death and is actually playing Donald Trump as a character, his ultimate trolling long con performance piece. I guess it’s possible, but the strange thing is that it kind of seems weirdly probable.
7 Likes
Ross Perot was serious, and smart, and often even honest. Occasionally also paranoid and bat-eating crazy, but there may also have been non-imaginary people out to get him, but still serious and smart. And he kept America safe from having another 4 years of George H.W. Bush.
6 Likes
During the 2012 election, his job was pretty clear - he was the opening clown act in a months-long circus designed to convince the Tea Party voters that they weren’t going to be able to get one of their own people nominated because none of them would be viable candidates, and they’d have to line up behind the party machine candidate, who by then was clearly Romney.
Rick Perry took the crazy-people spot away from Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain was clearly a lightweight, the collection of misogynists cost them three Senate seats and a few Presidential candidates by opening their mouths, and even Jon Huntsman, who was conservative but honest, wasn’t viable because Romney got there first and would play the machine’s game while Huntsman was too independent for them. (There was also Ron Paul, who had a reasonably large support group and wouldn’t go away, but was too radical for either party’s majority to accept.)
This time? Who knows, maybe it’s something organized or maybe it’s just Trump wanting to continue to get $250k speaking fees by keeping his name in the press.
That he did, also ensured the US got 8 years of Slick Willy. Which is why he seems a more apt comparison than Nader, since the presumed Dem nominee will be a Clinton (sweet FSM, I hope not, but the fix is probably in).
3 Likes
“We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.”
The saddest thing being, if this group of R’s and D’s is (ostensibly) the best our political elites can put up as viable candidates, well, I’ll just be down here digging my bunker.
3 Likes
They’re “best” in a Market Efficiency sense, sure. But you forget that to those who possess the most “speech” in the US, these candidates represent their interests perfectly. And they entertain the media, which is not interested in backing candidates best for the country under the guise of “objectivity”. They want a circus, they want all the sweet ad $, they want entertainment, not facts. They also want to set and change the narrative.
1 Like
Agreed, for the most part. Between the amount of money necessary to get into the race and the amount needed to simply be known as a viable political elite, there’s not much room…well, no room left for ‘objectivity’ (although I don’t think it’s possible for objectivity to exist in a political candidate within a particular political system–they’re always subject to needs and wants).
As for the media wanting to set and change the narrative, I don’t agree with that. That they want a circus in order to sell content, yes. Perhaps we, as the media readers, bear culpability in that–we need to tease out the nuance and important details of what’s reported so that it can be fed back to the candidates in the form of, “Why haven’t you moved on issue X?” or “What are your thoughts on issue Y?”
In the end, we live under the dome of some weird capitalist somewhat-representative democracy, and until that changes (and to what, I haven’t the faintest), well, that’s the shovel we’re digging with.
3 Likes
Al Sharpton
Don’t know, I am too dumb to figure out your question
1 Like
