Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 26, 2016

The Childish Villain-ification Of Donald Trump

This pic comparing a young Donald Trump with a child figure in some old Nazi propaganda was posted by Doug Saunders, supposedly a serious international-affairs columnist at the Canadian Globe and Mail.

bigger

It is illogical, childish nonsense. But Saunders is by far the only one disqualifying himself as serious commentator by posting such bullshit. Indeed, the villain-ification of Donald Trump is a regular feature which runs through U.S. and international media from the left to the right.

A few examples:

Pinochet. Chavez. Trump? - Politico, Cher compares Donald Trump to Hitler at Clinton fundraiser - Foxnews, Cher Slams Trump At Clinton Fundraiser; Likens Him To Stalin - CBS, Cher Compares Trump to Mao - Newsbuster, Trump is the GOP's Frankenstein monster - Washington Post, Biden on Trump: ‘He woulda loved Stalin - USAToday, Huffington likens Trump to Kim Jong Un - MSN, What Hugo Chávez and Donald Trump have in common - Reuters, The best way to thwart Trump Vader - CNN, Warning From the Syrian Border: Trump Reminds Us a Bit Too Much of Assad - Rolling Stone, News Quiz: Trump Rally or Erdogan Event? - The Intercept, Trump & Putin. Yes, It's Really a Thing - TPM, Trump’s not Hitler, he’s Mussolini - Salon, Media ethics writer compares Trump to Hitler - Politico, Donald Trump’s Insane Praise of Saddam Hussein - Daily Beast, Trump and Lenin - Miami Herald, Insult, provoke, repeat: how Donald Trump became America's Hugo Chávez - The Guardian, The Unstoppable Trump Monster - The Atlantic, Donald Trump is GOP's Dark Lord Voldemort - Townhall, Donald Trump is The Joker: Forget Mussolini and Hitler - Salon, Donald Trump’s Mansions and Saddam Hussein’s Palaces Are Basically the Same - Vanity Fair, Trump and Baghdadi Join Forces - Huffington Post, Echoes of Joe McCarthy in Donald Trump's Rise - RealClearPolitics, Donald Trump's bromance with Vladimir Putin - CNN, Trump's flirtation with fascism - Washington Post, The Maoism of Donald Trump - The New Yorker.

Is there any villain in U.S. (political) culture Donald Trump has not been compare to? Let me know what to search for.

I doubt that this assault on Trump's character is effective. (Hillary Clinton is a more fitting object.) Potential Trump voters will at best ignore it. More likely they will feel confirmed in their belief that all media and media people are anti-Trump and pro-Clinton.

The onslaught only validates what himself Trump claims: that all media are again him, independent of whatever policies he may promote or commit to.

Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him. Pointing that out, instead of inventing idiotic comparisons to this or that "bad person", would be more effect in dissuading people from voting for him.

Posted by b on August 26, 2016 at 15:10 UTC | Permalink

Comments
« previous page

my apologies... i see this is the hilter=trump thread!

Posted by: james | Aug 27 2016 20:33 utc | 101

@ 96, 97 PavewayIV

Well done. It is the electors of the electoral college that matter; this is always at state level. It is the ignorance of this that those shilling for other than main party candidates do not seem able to grasp, must be beyond their ability since nothing slows their moralistic rants that their belief is best. Only a few of the older smaller 'third' parties even have organisations to effect state level outcomes; usually the third party candidate is on an ego trip and has enough wherewithal (cash) to do so. There is not the slightest chance any of these third party candidates will accumulate enough votes in an electoral district to receive recognition for their electors to vote; certainly not nationally. Voting for third candidates is ineffective, popular votes are as meaningless as male tits, but that is what the not-so-bright sparks in these threads want others to think, that voting for Jill or whomever will make an iota of difference - it won't.

The only ways to cast an effective ballot is toward either of the candidates of the two main parties having national organisations, OR not cast a ballot at all which will show up the diminished active vote as representing a small portion of the eligible franchise, thus a marker for future historians to find out why. It took six years from the establishment of the Republican party to develop to the point they were able to elect a president - A. Lincoln. Today, even with the communications available, no body can be bothered; mail at the speed of a horse accomplished a greater goal - blame a feckless, narcissistic, obsessive and uneducated generation (not to even mention obese and overprivileged).

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Aug 27 2016 20:38 utc | 102

@okie farmer 80, hoarsewhisperer 85
Some real beauties in there alright. Kerry giving himself yet another uppercut.

"...U.S. officials say it is imperative that Russia use its influence with Syrian President Bashar Assad to halt all attacks on moderate opposition forces, ..."

Not Assad must go. Not close. Yet, still blissfully ignorant of the fact their more extreme moderates are getting their jollies out of hacking sick 12 year old kids heads off with fishing knive. I wonder at what point does 'moderate' become a dirty word...?

@Noirette Pt1
Big crowds scare Hillary these days. Best not to shake her up too much. I wonder though, how she expects to compete with Trumps fervour... must be pretty happy that they can do a nice back door job on election day. When opening act Rudy G is getting pummelled with calls of 'does Rudy have Alzheimer's...?' you know you're doing something right - really, just...awesome political theatre.

Posted by: MadMax2 | Aug 27 2016 21:04 utc | 103

vote for Clinton is vote for globalization, while vote for Trump is vote for anti-globalization

Posted by: smarterthanyou | Aug 27 2016 21:25 utc | 104

The ZioMedia is in the tank for Hillary. Impossible for a candidate who cannot draw a crowd to be "ahead in the polls". And a candidate who packs 10K ppl into any given space at will to be "behind in the polls". Humiliatingly low turnout for the HBomb is stage-crafted by all ziomedia outlets to hide this embarrassing fact.

Recall that Billy Blowjob ushered in Media Consolidation which gave 5 ziomedia corporations carte blanche to bullshit the public.

Recall that the Obomber passed the legislation that legalized propaganda (lying to the public) and permits no remedy other than the ability to protest in fenced in free speech zones until the cops show up as head knockers or agents provocateurs.

Posted by: fast freddy | Aug 27 2016 21:54 utc | 105

I was reading articles on the Turkish attack into Syria and there is no mention of the Syrian government nor whether/when/if Turkey will engage the Syrian Army. But then I found this chart from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/25/middleeast/syria-isis-whos-fighting-who-trnd/index.html
For one thing, they pretend ISIS has no support. We all know differently. Also, it looks like every one is fighting ISIS except ..... Free Syrian Army and Saudi Arabia and Gulf Allies.

Posted by: Curtis | Aug 27 2016 22:27 utc | 106

james@100
Nothing but lies from Josh Earnest.

Posted by: okie farmer | Aug 27 2016 23:41 utc | 107

I have been trying to keep an archive of this nonsense:

https://4threvolutionarywar.wordpress.com/trump-putin-troll-archive/

(I am no longer even attempting to be exhaustive, because their is SO MUCH!)

Posted by: Akira | Aug 27 2016 23:54 utc | 108

You say that Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him. Anyone's economic policies will be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for Trump. That's baked into the political and economic structure of things. It is part of the natural order.

The difference with Trump is that after the economic catastrophe that will happen--is now happening, it may be possible under a Trump administration to pick things up and rebuild. Under any other likely regime, the aftermath of economic catastrophe will be limitless debt peonage and unlimited oligarchy.

Posted by: Macon Richardson | Aug 27 2016 23:57 utc | 109

The shooting down of an Israeli warplane by Syria has not been reported by Western and Israeli media sources. According to Sputnik, on August 21, “the Israeli Air Force resumed airstrikes on Western Syria, targeting a government army base at Khan Al-Sheih in Damascus province and another in the al-Quneitra province after a six-hour halt in attacks that followed their multiple air raids over the Golan Heights.”

It was struck. An SA-9 from the Iftiraas Air Defense Base and an SA-2 near the Khalkhaala AB were fired. But, the technical wizardry was most on display when an S-300 (SA-10 “Grumble) super-air-defense missile was fired from the Republican Guard base near the Mazza AB at the foot of Qaasiyoon Mountain west of Damascus. This was done so that the F-16’s electronic countermeasures would first fix on the SA-2 and SA-9 while the S-300 plowed forward to exterminate the vermin inside the Israeli aircraft. The S-300 vaporized the Israeli bomber. No evidence was seen of the pilot ejecting. Instead, eyewitness accounts described a ball of fire over the Golan and the remains scattering into the air over the Huleh Valley in Palestine.

Also, the Israelis lost 2 helicopters while flying missions over the Golan Heights in an effort to bolster the sagging morale of the Takfiri rats of Nusra/Alqaeda and Al-Ittihaad Al-Islaami li-Ajnaad Al-Shaam. The 2 helicopters went down over the area near Qunaytra City and were reportedly shot down by shoulder fired, heat-seeking missiles deployed throughout the Syrian Army.

source - http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-shoots-down-israeli-warplane-f-16-bomber-and-helicopters/5471009

Posted by: ALberto | Aug 27 2016 23:58 utc | 110

53

You seem by omission to imply that Donald Trump is not a friend of Israel, that his comments that he is a Great Friend of Israel is just political posturing, that his comments that he likes lots of Jewish bankers working for him proves he is outside of the Coven of the Chosen, and therefore, you seem to suggest he's the 'safe' candidate, the 'law and order' candidate, the 'Exceptionally White' dog-whistle Choice of the People, in a pre-1964 sense of 'people'.

He's not. Trump is just doing what he always does, grandstanding. Both Clinton and Trump are Uber-White silver-spoon succoths to the same Party of One, the Ubers who have bankrupted the wealthiest, most militarized,, most powerful country on earth, under the full service and protection of a constantly-metastasizing Mil.Gov.Fed Technocrat Sychophancy.

The key word is 'bankrupted', something Trump, the Trump Hotels and Casinos stock swindler and Trump University flim-flammer knows all about. 'Bankrupted'. Take a deep breath, a sip of coffee, and realize that your children, your grandchildren, all future generations, will be forced to pay interest-only penalty tithes on that wholly illegal, completely odious, onerous synthetic collateralized, greatest financial crime in human history, 'debt'.

Forever.

America is now for all future eras a society of have's and have nots, a slave society just like the White German Scot Old Deep South that Trump-Clinton represents. Free education? Free healthcare? Social safety net? ... gone. You must first pay your 'debt' (sic) tithe, and then recognize the right of the Ubers to rule you. America is no different now from an AnteBellum Plantation society, and Trump-Clinton are two sides of the same Uber Confederate counterfeit aristocracy.

1776-2016 America is Dead, Long Live America!

Now the whole world must deal with this, and will inevitably be subsumed by the private Central Banksters, irrevocably be trapped by same All-Bleeding Pharoahic Eye. E pluribus no hay comida, no hay nada. London and the Vatican, make way. The Shining Light on the Hill is guttered and blown out. We are all chained to the Wheel of the Chosen, the Bitter Yoke of fraudulent, fiat, onerous, odious credit-debt slavery, from which there is no surcease.

Ever.

Posted by: TheRealDonald | Aug 28 2016 1:46 utc | 111

@17 okie... yes.. as i was saying to jfl on another thread - always informative watching someone lying to get an idea of how they are framing the lies..he is actually a really bad liar, cause he doesn't come across as convincing in any way whatsoever... in fact, he assumes the audience listening is naive or stupid which is a bad place to start out from..

Posted by: james | Aug 28 2016 2:11 utc | 112

@okie farmer
@james

What Earnest is saying is not new. But he talks like he's being fed the answer. And he talks so much like Obama so I get the sense that it is Obama that is actually the one feeding him the answers.

The logic is circular and likely to be exact what Kerry has related to Lavrov. So it's not surprising that he notes that Kerry's talks with Lavrov are "struggling, if they making any progress at all" (not an exact quote).

<> <> <> <> <> <>

What we have seen in the last two weeks almost guarantees increased tensions between US-Russia. It's the perfect backdrop for a Hillary 'stick save' in October that brings Turkey back into the NATO fold.

Trump will say something stupid and MSM will highlight his previous anti-NATO, pro-Putin comments.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Aug 28 2016 2:58 utc | 113

So b. What color will the Trumpjugend uniforms be?

Posted by: ALberto | Aug 28 2016 3:06 utc | 114

Realist
A cynic whose expectations are plausible.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Aug 28 2016 3:09 utc | 115

Realist: someone who believes in four out of five mass illusions.

For example, Steven M. Walt is a self-proclaimed realist. But I think that he still does not get it why USA was unsuccessful in Afghanistan. True, he noted that the invasion there was not such a hot idea, but he theorized that if Bush the Lesser refrained from totally gratuitous invasion on Iraq, he would have enough resources to handle Afghanistan properly. But it does not explain how additional "resources" could help. IMHO, the problem is that US establishment cannot deliver prosperity, even (or especially) relative modest prosperity compared to a very low initial baseline, and the reason is that that would entail some "running of the economy", and how they could run the economy in Afghanistan (or Iraq) when they have no idea how to do it at home?

With positive changes in the lives of population, there would be many more enthusiasts of the new system, the military/police would be less riddled with desertions, frauds, backstabbing and so on. Why Taliban does not need years and years of training with experts from assorted countries to operate effectively? Perhaps the lack of those experts helps?

That touches upon one unrealistic claim of b: it would be more effective the thoughtfully refute economic ideas of Trump. That is a bit hard for many reasons. One thing is that Trump, superficial as he is, actually runs some companies and on occasion, he says something "realistic", like that without companies investing in USA rather than in China and Mexico there number of new good jobs will be consistently and pitifully small. So one would have to show that while the goal of generating well-paying industrial jobs in USA has merits, overall Trump gave no indications that he can do it. But this is not a simple point to make, and there is an entire industry devoted to prove that white is black, particularly in economy.

The cardinal principle of politics is that to convince the public to vote for you one has to use simplest arguments possible. Optionally, one can also deliver more details etc., but they are boring to 97% of the public.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Aug 28 2016 7:17 utc | 116

A little example of mass illusions. Preamble: while misbegotten imperialism and revival of (not so) Cold War is definitely an acute problem outside USA, domestically the most dramatic is redirection of GNP into the maws of rapacious Medical-Industrial Complex. Just to use round numbers, while "normal countries" devote 1-2% of GNP to military, USA devotes 5%, but 15% is swallowed by the medical costs, and no realistic method was invented to stop rapid increase. I mean, in USA, elsewhere folks know what to do.

The most recent controversy is that supplier of EpiPen doubled price of a packet of two "auto-injectors" from 350 to 700 dollars. Millions of people in risk of sudden severe allergic reactions should carry a device that can quickly deliver epinephrine. How much does it cost in poor countries? Do people there simply drop dead when they are affected with anaphylactic shock? I checked the practice and prices in Poland, using my knowledge of the language and the miracle of Internet. There are choices, unlike in USA. First, one can purchase the devices one at the time. One should carry two, but most of the time the first dose suffices, in which case we can buy one replacement. Second, the cheaper device which is a bit less convenient costs 14 dollars (which would make it 28 for two). Thus Poles who have roughly 1/4-1/3 of American GNP per capita have a cheap option. This is a pre-loaded syringe that allows to inject only the recommended dose. Unpacking is a bit harder than with EpiPen, one has to jab the tigh and press the piston. However, some may find it too difficult and these individuals can buy EpiPen, for 75 dollars (150 for a pair?). With universal insurance, the cheaper option (produced in Poland) is fully refundable, so Mylan would find very few customers willing to shell 700 dollars.

This is the miracle of competition. Somehow, when an improved device was invented, the marginally inferior one was TOTALLY removed from medical recommendations in USA, but it remained the standard one in poor Poland. Importantly, at that time, I am guessing that the difference in price was small and there were at least four auto-injectors to choose. You must remember that this is not some miracle drug, a very old medication that costs much less than a dollar per dose, and a clever but rather trivial gadget, much less sophisticated than, say, "dumb phone". However, somehow the number of "approved providers" decreased to two, and at this point the monopolists racked quite a few billion dollars.

It would be nice if this was an isolated story, but the market of allergy medicines is quite uniformly f...d up. I used to have asthma, and very rare episodes could be treated either with herbal tea, or more quickly, with an over the counter inhaler for few dollars, one with "herbal epinephrine", the other with epinephrine, both since outlawed. Thus there is no medicine on American market for mild, easy to treat cases of asthma.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Aug 28 2016 8:15 utc | 117

|@ 102 Addendum

Effective voting this election will, because of the choice presented, be profoundly important and dependent upon rational assessments rather than emotional beliefs. The electorate has only one viable option - to purge from their minds as much of the propaganda, disinformation and political marketing as they are able; put themselves into a political sensory deprivation chamber, cut off from the political roaring around themselves and try to find out just what their interests are, which effective candidate most likely meets those interests or is likely not to meet those interests, deciding which effective vote matters to themselves. Each voter will have to judge the information they encounter: is the information directly known? does the information arrive from a trustworthy source? is the information distorted in any way, by commission or omission? is the information believable when held to one's knowledge of human behaviour? of deviant behaviour? is the information either hearsay or conjecture? backed by other sources or not? … and so forth. Occam's razor can be quite useful as well in weeding political noise from appreciation of personal interests. One thing must be noted: morality is misleading, the present political processes depend on such devious calculations.

This election would be as good as any to start taking back control of the political process. At this point there is little one can effect as far as presidential position is concerned, only one candidate or the other, or refrain from voting altogether; those are the only options, although a voter may use their effective vote to upset the calculations of the political technicians by overwhelming or depriving those calculations of numbers expected - a beauty of being undecided until the ver end. Probably most important for those who decide to vote is below the vote for president, those being elected to national and state positions. Never allow a single party to hold both executive and legislative bodies, those days are gone never to return unless under extremely unusual circumstance. Also break up the legislative branch so no party controls both houses of Congress. To make this effective one other factor must be addressed: the re-election of incumbents must be severely curtailed. Incumbents get quickly accustomed to privilege and power of their positions which displaces all obligation towards those whose votes have placed them there. Do not, under any circumstance return an incumBENT to office without firm and convincing evidence that that candidate actually fulfils the public trust, so few of them do after their first term in office. The electorate needs pull the plug on this behaviour. Doing so will likely provide some surprising results in the public's favour. Always consider the incumBENT candidate as deformed and undesirable, you have nothing to lose by doing so and much if you are not certain of the candidate's fidelity to the public welfare.

Much of the above also pertains to state level politicians, always break up any political platform's access to wealth or power, making sure any acts are derived from agreement between differing perspectives; you are certain to be displeased with the results should you not always observe this condition. Never become committed to just one political tribe, become aware and play one off against the other, the present method of political control will not survive such an environment, the voter has a chance to become master again in the Republic, but only if the voter becomes master of themselves. Never sell the family cow for a handful of magic beans, no matter how persuasive you are told to believe. Trust instead in what you actually know, it is a much firmer footpath through the political swamps and may get you to your destination without mishap.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Aug 28 2016 8:57 utc | 118

ALberto | Aug 27, 2016 7:58:07 PM | 110

c'mon

this supposedly happened a year ago. and oddly enough only sputnik and fars even bothered reporting it.

Posted by: dan of steele | Aug 28 2016 9:20 utc | 119

116

PB. I hate to pop your fabulist bubble, but the only difference between the Taliban and the Karzai Mob is how long their beards are. I was a FOTW for the Karzai's when they went around Kandahar, collecting their rents and extortions from all the ghamdz