What I Learned From Watching The Gorilla Channel

If you’re a “citizen of the Internet”, or one of the “Twitterarti” — in other words, if your job is so short on actual work that you can spend your day on your phone or computer keeping up with the latest tempest-in-a-teapot — then you’ve no doubt heard about the “Gorilla Channel”. If you haven’t, here’s the story in a nutshell. The author Michael Wolff has written and released a book about President Trump, whom he calls “aberrant” although he sang a different tune when he was writing the book. Although I haven’t read the book (and probably won’t, I don’t care for detailed psuedo-insider portraits of things that happened just months ago) it is being widely reported as being thoroughly critical of Trump, often to a degree that worries pundits on both sides of the aisle.

Yesterday, a Twitter humorist who goes by the handle of @PixelatedBoat decided to publish a fake “excerpt” from the book. It’s far from the first time he has done something like this, as you’ll see. But this time was special — because his parody page, which claimed that Trump spent 17 hours a day kneeling in front of a television and talking to gorillas, was taken as absolute gospel by a variety of heavy-duty left-wingers, including a few writers at the New York Times.

That’s the “excerpt”, which I think is absolutely hilarious. It appears to refer to a previous piece on Trump that was published in the New Yorker a while ago:

You have to admire the effort put forth by the New Yorker writer, whose distaste for Trump actually leads him to get sniffy about somebody not watching the “plot-oriented” parts of Bloodsport. The horror! How can you skip the parts of that movie where they aren’t fighting? It would be like watching one of those Cinemax soft-care porn films and skipping to the parts where they get naked! That’s disgusting! Jean-Claude didn’t learn all that English dialogue phonetically so you could skip it! My GOD!

Just to give you some context for the PixelatedBoat “excerpt”, here’s the same writer’s parody of Hilary Clinton’s shambolic “What Happened”, which he posted on the day of that book’s release:

What makes both of these parodies worth reading is their deft extrapolation of a public image, followed by deft evisceration of same. Mrs. Clinton generally impressed people as a cheerless, inhuman, inauthentic creature with a limitless will to power and zero scruples about exercising it; Mr. Trump came across as a braggart and an intellectual lightweight. In both of these “book excerpts”, we progress from the merely extreme (“What if I ate a whole hunk of beef onstage?” and “Trump seemed to think there was a Gorilla channel”) to the outrageous (Clinton’s execution of the cattle rustler, Trump’s mentally-handicapped seventeen-hour interaction with television gorillas).

So why didn’t the Hilary piece “go viral”? Simple: it concluded with something that could not have been concealed. Mrs. Clinton’s friends in the media might be able to pull the covers over the infamous side of beef incident and they never let the wacky-head-moving thing get too much traction, but an on-stage execution during a rally would have been too big to hide.

By contrast, the conclusion of the Trump “excerpt” concerns something that “happened” in secret. The public has been told again and again how “secretive” and “chaotic” the White House is at the moment. It seems reasonable to assume that we don’t know everything that is happening in there.

It’s less reasonable to assume that President Trump kneels in front of a television 17 hours a day, but some people believed it anyway:

They weren’t the only ones. NYT contributor Farhad Manjoo wasn’t quite sure, and then he got angry about it (Twitter shows tweets in reverse order):

Scott Dworkin, who runs a Democratic-Party-affiliated fundraising organization and who claims to have “discovered” the “Trump-Russia connection”, fell for it hook, line, and sinker, although after he was clowned from here to eternity he deleted his Tweet and said that he was just kidding.

Which leads to the obvious question: Why were so many people easily tricked into thinking that the leader of the free world talks to gorillas on a television screen? The obvious answer to the obvious question is: Because they have been told about Trump’s limitless stupidity so often that they have come to believe in it. That, in turn, leads to the only interesting question: What process has occurred to make generally reasonable and normal people accept something which is so obviously untrue?

Regardless of what you might think about Donald J. Trump, he managed to get through two schools that are generally considered to be something besides a cakewalk: Fordham and Wharton. (Naturally, somebody has gone through the trouble of claiming that he didn’t make much of an impression with his fellow classmates, because that sort of article is guaranteed to make money.) It’s also worth noting that he attended these schools in an era where people were still expected to do something besides write essays about polyfat pansexuality wolfkin identity politics while scarfing down gournmet meals paid for with low-future-time-orientation student loans.

Even if we assume that Trump somehow skated through those two schools, however, the evidence of his life suggests that he is anything but an idiot. Yes, he’d be wealthier now if he’d just put his inheritance in an index fund forty years ago — but that oft-quoted factoid ignores the fact that he has spent hundreds of millions of dollars enjoying his life and flying around on private jets and grabbing beauty contestants and all that. He has repeatedly proven to be smarter than the bankruptcy laws, smarter than his fellow investors, and smarter than his competitors. Oh, and he also managed to win the Presidency with half the budget of his opponent and the not insignificant handicap of having every major news organization in the country except Fox openly shilling for said opponent to the point where most of them were predicting a 95 to 99 percent chance of a Hilary win the day before the vote.

Now, you can suggest that he is probably not a genius in the Hawking or Newton sense, and I won’t argue the point. But you cannot reasonably assert that a man who has managed to make a couple billion dollars through his own decision-making process is so stupid that he thinks he is talking to gorillas on the Gorilla Channel. I wouldn’t believe that about the dumbest sandwich artist at your local Subway. I wouldn’t believe that about a ten-year-old child from a disadvantaged background. It’s not a credible allegation when it is leveled against Donald J. Trump. It doesn’t matter how often the Post or the Times remotely diagnose him with dementia. You can’t win Presidential debates when you have dementia. You can’t speak off the cuff when you have dementia. At the age of seventy-one, he reads from a teleprompter better than Obama and is considerably more at ease without one than his much younger predecessor. I’m sure Trump is not as sharp as he was thirty years ago. That’s true for me and it’s true for pretty much everybody over forty. But there is a continental divide between “looks awkward holding a glass of water” and “talks to gorillas on the Gorilla Channel.”

After some (I hope) non-demented thought about this Gorilla Channel business, the best answer I can come up with is the following: The left wing of our country suffers from a dementia of its own, one in which individuals of average intelligence consider themselves to be brilliant because they mindlessly parrot the opinions of people whom they perceive to be brilliant.

I’ll prove it to you. Go take a look through the Twitter profiles of the people who believed Trump was stupid enough to watch the Gorilla Channel. Many of them are obviously well below Mensa-qualified, but there’s nothing wrong with that. What’s troublesome is how often they will rant about the stupidity of conservatives. The young lady in one of the above images who was completely taken in by Gorilla Channel has “Common sense has become so rare that it should be considered a superpower” as her Twitter motto, and a header image reading “1 out of 3 Trump Supporters Is As Stupid As The Other Two.” I assure you that she is entirely representative of the general Gorilla-Channel-Is-Real group on Twitter. She thinks she is one of the smart ones. She thinks she “fucking loves” science. And she thinks that Trump must be stupid, because he doesn’t agree with her ideas. And since she thinks he is stupid, it seems reasonable that he would do extremely stupid things.

She is not alone. I’ve been on both sides of the political divide in this country, having voted for both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, and I have noticed a worrying difference between my right-wing pals and my left-wing pals. My right-wingers say “So-and-so on the left wing is wrong/dishonest/lying/corrupt/evil.” The left-wingers say “So-and-so on the right wing is stupid.”

The pervasive belief that your ideological opponents are not merely wrong but also stupid is absolutely fatal to the future of political discourse in this country. It carries all sorts of additional implications: that you don’t need to examine your own positions because they are only opposed by stupid people, that your stupid opponents are less than human and therefore don’t deserve equal treatment, that you are inevitably on “the right side of history” and therefore need neither compromise nor adjust your most extreme beliefs.

A while ago I read something that affected me profoundly: Antonin Scalia’s interview with New York Magazine in which he said, “Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the Devil.” It hit me like a brick between the eyes, because for much of my life I’ve personally doubted the idea of anthropomorphic deities that fight on a daily basis for our souls and I’ve attributed that skepticism to the fact that I’m smarter than T.C. Mits, the celebrated man in the street. But Scalia is right. I think I’m pretty smart and I can probably return a one-in-a-million result for a lot of standardized testing but even that doesn’t make me smarter than plenty of people who have believed in the Devil. Furthermore, they had the same amount of evidence for and against the Devil as I have now, which is to say none. Who am I to think that I have the authoritative answer on that, just because I can understand math or literature or art better than some “young Earther” sitting in a pew in a dirt-poor Tennessee church? By the same token, if a Christian who knows more physics than I do happens to believe in something that I don’t, is he automatically right?

Furthermore, who am I to think that I have the authoritative answer on anything else, whether it is illegal immigration or tax rates or 37 genders or all-wheel-drive? Nowadays, we desecrate the memories of this country’s Founding Fathers because they supported slavery. Who’s to say that history won’t have the same opinion of Barack Obama because he ate meat? We’re already taking a “critical look” at Martin Luther King, Jr. because he was disrespectful to Black women and because he told a gay kid he was mentally ill. How many of our current oh-so-enlightened opinions will be considered bigoted in fifty years, or in five hundred?

Unfortunately, that kind of self-doubt isn’t exactly commonplace among, say, Jezebel readers or contributors to the Daily Kos. They believe that they are intelligent because of their certainty, not in spite of it. They believe that their adherence to the progressive platform, as it is defined at precisely this moment, makes them smarter than the people with whom they disagree. They think they are scientists because they quote Neil DeGrasse Tyson, they think they are foreign-policy wizards because they agree with John Kerry or Mrs. Clinton, they think they are civil rights pioneers because they voted for Barack Obama. In their minds, adherence to the progressive doctrine is proof positive of intelligence. It’s an odd form of self-referential Calvinism:

How do you know progressives are smart? Well, all the smart people are!

How do you know they’re smart? Well, they’re progressive!

I should point out that right-wingers are afflicted by a similar misapprehension, namely: Their opponents are evil, lazy, anti-American, and so on. And some of the same circular logic is used on the conservative side: many people believe they are moral because they hold conservative views — and that conservative views are held by moral people. I think that’s why so many people were willing to believe that Mr. Obama was a Muslim. It didn’t occur to them that his foreign policy with regards to Iran and Afghanistan could simply be wrong. It had to be evil.

At some point, this country has to wake up and realize some truths.

Holding liberal beliefs doesn’t add a single point to your IQ.

Holding conservative beliefs doesn’t make your actions any more moral than they would be otherwise.

If we can internalize that lesson, we can go back to a political process where we debate ideas instead of personalities and stop treating the news like a football game in which points are scored by a given side. We can get rid of so-called “whataboutism” and “truthiness”. We can evaluate policies and choices on their actual merit rather than on how well they reinforce our individual beliefs.

Don’t hold your breath.

It’s not going to happen.

Instead, we are all going to keep watching Twitter and Fox and MSNBC day and night, skipping over thoughtful discussions in favor of hard-hitting hot takes, telling our “enemies” that they are stupid or evil and telling the guys on “our side” that they did a really good job hitting that other…

Holy shit.

It’s not Trump who is watching the Gorilla Channel.

It’s us.

81 Replies to “What I Learned From Watching The Gorilla Channel”

  1. silentsod

    Unrelated to the absurdity of people not verifying reference and not wondering what he would do the other 7 hours of those days… John Claude Van Johnson is totally worth putting into a queue to watch. At least, the first three episodes are I haven’t watched the others.

    “You cannot be me, like matter cannot occupy like space.”

  2. arbuckle

    I think the idea of “political discourse” in this country is pretty much done. The unpersoning of those holding opposing view points is already complete and the Constitutional legislative process is toast.

    For now both sides largely still have respect for authority of the courts so elections are really only useful to stack the bench so judges can periodically appear from the mist and give a verdict on whatever issue made it that far.

    Eventually one group is going to tell the courts to fu*k off and start ignoring their decisions. At that point we get Civil War II.

  3. nick

    C’mon Jack. Sloppy linking maybe?

    I watched the Hillary ‘seizure’ video (never heard of it prior to this) and to me this was clearly and obviously an attempt by Hillary at physical humour in response to multiple questions being shouted at the same time.

    It looks to me like Hillary mistook polite laughter for general amusement and got a bit carried away. But I am honestly baffled how an honest viewing of this piece of film can support any other conclusion.

    I would be interested in the reactions of other viewers seeing it for the first time. (A second viewing made me more sure of this conclusion. Note the reaction of the reporter directly facing Clinton. She clearly and immediately understands that Hillary is making a joke.)

    (P.S. I broadly agree with you on trade, immigration, and peace. I further agree that the left is experiencing a degree of TDS. But Trump simply does not hold the personal characteristics to be an effective president.

    P.P.S. I’ve read the book, and think you would probably enjoy it too. It’s principally about the war between Bannon and Javanka for the soul of the Trump White House. I believe much of it to be true, because the chief weapons used to prosecute the war were vicious leaks to the press from both sides.)

    • silentsod

      I hadn’t seen those clips and it looks like Hillary is a robot (possible, I’ve heard her talk) having a motor control error.

      What makes an effective president? If Trump has economic growth averaging 3+% GDP, avoids entangling the US in a war abroad, and reins in the executive branch is that being effective?

      • nick

        “What makes an effective president? If Trump has economic growth averaging 3+% GDP, avoids entangling the US in a war abroad, and reins in the executive branch is that being effective?”

        If all those things hold true in 2020, I’d say Trump would be at least even money to win re-election.

        But if I were Trump my concern would be that given the length of the current economic expansion, some kind of correction is due prior to the election. Given how under-water the President’s approval rating is with such strong economic conditions, think what his popularity would look like in a recession. And in the same way that right-wing media are lauding Trump for the current boom, the main stream media would hammer Trump for causing any contraction (both over-selling the case in my view). If he’s at 35-40 approval now (-15 net) and Democrats are winning statewide in Alabama and almost sweeping Virginia in off-year elections, think how Trump’s political fortunes would look if his approval sinks below 30, with a net of more than -20.

        Not to mention the Russia thing. I do’t believe there was serious collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign (not withstanding a stupid Eric Trump meeting or two). But that doesn’t mean that Mueller can’t do serious damage to Trump. Remember that Ken Starr was initially appointed to investigate Whitewater and ended up nailing Clinton on something totally unrelated.

        Finally, with Kushner and MBS busy stirring up trouble and the fact that Trump has surrounded himself with military careerists in the White House (not to mention Trump’s tempestuous character) I’m not sure I’d bet on no new wars. Also, as Afghanistan drags on, that could begin to weigh on Trump’s electoral fortunes.

        • silentsod

          A recession is due, I agree with that since we’ve had a positive GDP growth for 8(?) years now and was expecting one to be more or less immediate and then things went the other way so what do I know. I think the economy will be a big point around Trump’s reelection (if he runs) odds. I would also be interested to know if the polling is even worthwhile – it sure as shit was not in the run up to the election so I’m not putting massive amounts of stock in them.

          Alabama saw a massive mistake in Luther Strange being denied the candidacy and I think that was a serious strategic mistake by both Bannon and the GOP. The GOP didn’t figure out a way to get their preferred, and not fringe sounding, guy on the ticket when it mattered which meant that a deeply Republican state managed to lose what should have been a lock.

          I think Mueller is unlikely to find anything to actually nail Trump or his close advisers to the wall. I am disappointed they didn’t start investigating the Uranium One deals, deeply look into Clinton’s email server and practices, etc. The story for collusion keeps changing in the public narrative that’s being sold which is why I have such low confidence anything will actually come of it.

          I don’t know who MBS is. Trump’s team of military advisors seems to be leaning toward Jacksonian relationships with other nations which very much involves not getting actively involved abroad, then again someone could fly planes into some more skyscrapers or set off a bomb in an airport (which, frankly, confuses me as to why that’s not a common mode of attack).

          • nick

            Just a couple of points in response:

            ” I would also be interested to know if the polling is even worthwhile – it sure as shit was not in the run up to the election so I’m not putting massive amounts of stock in them.”

            If you read a bit of Nate Silver at 538, you’ll discover that this one is a bit of a myth. I think right before the election Hillary had a roughly 3 point lead in the 538 average. Nate Silver interpreted this as Hillary having 70-30 odds of winning, or as he put it “Trump is a normal-sized polling error away from being president.”. Given the narrow nature of Trump’s victory and Hillary’s pop vote lead, the national polls were actually fairly tight.

            The real problem here was liberals interpretation of the polls. Lots of us, especially the media, acted like Hillary was a 99% cert when the polls didn’t say that at all. I think the polls were about as accurate in 2012 as in 2016. The difference is that when the leading candidate wins by 6 rather than 3, no one notices. But if the trailing candidate wins by 1 rather than trailing by 2, it looks like a big mistake.

            “I think Mueller is unlikely to find anything to actually nail Trump or his close advisers to the wall.”

            Steve Bannon disagrees with you on this, as do I. When you combine (1) a sprawling criminal code with broadly drawn statutes, (2) a determined, well-resourced federal prosecutor, (3) a career in Manhattan real estate, (4) largely financed with shady foreign money I think there is plenty of reason for both Trump and Kushner to be concerned.

            “I don’t know who MBS is.”

            Sorry, that was me being jargon-y. It’s Mohammad bin Salman, the 32 y/o recently self-appointed crown prince of Saudi Arabia. Him and Kushner appear to be up to all sorts of nonsense in the Middle East that could easily backfire. If you recall anything in the news about Saudi princes being held captive in a Hilton hotel, that was MBS with a likely wink and a nudge from Kushner/Trump.

          • silentsod

            Regards to Mueller, why special investigators aren’t limited to only the allegation at hand is beyond me. What’s worse is that with what’s leaked about his team if they do find anything you’re going to have roughly half the country declaring it’s a partisan hit instead of a neutral(ish) and objective(ish) case. I would be surprised if they came up with anything other than shady deals which are technically legal. So far they appear to have nothing given the leak happy nature of the investigation we would expect something concrete to have shown up in the past half year (year+ if we’re counting the pre-election Steele dossier leaks that are likely what led to FISA taps of some of Trump’s campaign people which, incidentally, looks like a real misuse of government power that some people should result in prosecutions but probably will not).

            Do you have a link handy for the 538 polling information?

          • Kevin Jaeger

            “I think Mueller is unlikely to find anything to actually nail Trump or his close advisers to the wall.”

            You should recall that Mueller’s good friend Comey had no trouble putting Martha Stewart in jail. A determined Mueller’s team can certainly manufacture a case against anyone in the Trump entourage if they choose to. The only question is how brave and brazen are they prepared to be?

            I believe they started out thinking it was going to be a slam dunk to bring down Trump and they’d be toasted as heroes in every swank party in DC and the Hamptons. But Trump isn’t like other Republicans and is prepared to fight back, so I’m not sure what they’ll do next now that they are coming under some serious scrutiny of their own.

          • silentsod

            The initial 538 article does mention the models with higher probabilities (up to and including 99%) and states that the media chose to use models which fit with its preferred narrative.

            So let me revise my statement – I will be putting very little stock in the polls that places like the NYT, HuffPo, and their ilk back because they are inclined to cherry pick things that back their narrative to an unreasonable extent (everyone does it, but constant doubling down can lead to serious blind spots in analysis from “authoritative voices”).

          • silentsod

            Also, if NYT et al. are using the word poll in place of statistical model (some algorithm, presumably) then that’s a major issue in the reporting itself.

    • stingray65

      The problem with the seizure video is that it was not covered by the media, which would have been appropriate if it had been a “one off” event, but Hillary also had several other seizure episodes including at her coronation at the Democratic National Convention. She also was caught stumbling many times and had to be helped up and down steps, and of course had the infamous fainting/collapse at the 9/11 commemoration. Hillary also had the lightest campaign schedule of any recent major party candidate, which might be due to the fact she couldn’t fill a medium sized classroom (which was also not covered by the media), but also to rumors of health problems. There were “credible” rumors that Hillary had everything from Alcoholism to Parkinson’s, but any attempts to bring up possible illness or poor health was slammed by the mainstream media as sexist. Yet “sexist” “conservative” Donna Brazile’s book said that behind the scenes Hillary’s health was such a concern that she was considering whether to replace her as the Democrat candidate for President.

      • safe as milk

        the “side of beef” incident did it for me. i edit video for a living do i spend a lot of time analysing people’s movements in slomo. look at her team. no one is surprised or caught off guard. the ballet they do covering her doesn’t come from training alone. that kind of action is the result of experience.

    • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

      I agree with you. I think the initial reaction was meant to be acting. The problem is that when she shook her head, something went awry. Her expression goes from “haha” to “unhinged”.

      • silentsod

        The way her body locks up in the side of beef clip is actually fairly similar to the way my brother’s post-drowning seizures used to occur (they don’t anymore, which is nice that his brain remapped itself enough to keep that from happening).

  4. viper32cm

    I think things in this country got significantly worse after Bush v. Gore. Maybe it started to get worse earlier than that, but BvG was a real watershed moment for media polarization in my mind. Before then, I remember being able to watch John Stewart and take him for what he was, just a comedian. With the exception of certain issues, the media seemed less polarized than they do today, and I could watch Fox, CNN, etc. without feeling like the newscasters were trying to indoctrinate me. Looking back on the 2000-2004 time frame, i.e., the first GWBush administration, it seems so obvious how the table was being set for where we are today in terms of the quality and tenor of our discourse. I’m sure folks older than me will chime in that it was bad before BvG, but, to my 34 year old mind, that was when the current battle lines were draw–every Republican is an idiot, every Democrat is “the most liberal X,” etc.

    I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of leftists and their views of their own intelligence compared to that of Republicans (and libertarians I would argue). They have been told for so long that they are so much smarter then their progenitors because of the opinions and/or degrees they hold, but the reality is that they are just as gullible as those that came before them, if not more so. Worse still, when enough people believe their ideas are infallible it’s a one way ticket to a very bad place.

    What’s really scary in light of all of these problems is that we’ve already weaponized the law in terms of the power given to regulatory agencies, law enforcement, and prosecutors. And, to make matters worse, we have a pick and choose mentality when it comes to the enforcement of law, especially at the federal level–no need to repeal are, just de-emphasize enforcement, e.g., marijuana and immigration. Add smug self-righteousness to that cocktail, and I fear the result.

    Finally, I truly despise the phrase “the right side of history.” What a smug, historically illiterate phrase that is. Victory, not a vague concept of virtue, writes the history books. Otherwise, for instance, the allied powers would have listened to Keynes after the end of World War I instead of waiting until Europe was laid waste a quarter century later.

      • stingray65

        Yes but the fact that GWB won the “unofficial” Florida recount monitored by the NYTimes and other media never got much media coverage for some strange reason. It’s almost as if the fair and balanced media wants people to erroneously believe the Gore was cheated out of the election.

    • Ronnie Schreiber

      I think that things started getting very partisan during the Clinton impeachment. I lost a lot of respect for Carl Levin then.

    • Baconator

      I was there at the time, and I think you’re correct that Bush v. Gore was a watershed moment. It was … shady. Even if nothing was technically done wrong, it certainly was not handled in a way that enhanced the legitimacy of the government. A lot of Democrats felt that the country had straight up been stolen by local Republicans who were part of the vote counting apparatus.

      The stage was set for it by the 1994 Congressional elections that swept in Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America crew. They ended up becoming the neocon establishment, but at the time they were the angry insurgents. Much like the Tea Party talk of “RINOs,” the Gingrichites talked about the then-existing conservative leadership as just not committed enough to the cause. They did some very specific things to reduce the chances of bipartisan compromise. For instance, they re-arranged the schedule to kill off a number of bipartisan holiday parties that used to be a place where informal across-the-aisle ties were strengthened. They also changes the way committee chairs operated so as to make the minority-party committee members have less influence on outcomes.

  5. Dirty Dingus McGee

    I don’t Twitfaceinstasnap period, so my only exposure is screen shots I see, or an occasional thread on a website. In my opinion, most commenters are the modern iteration of Cliff Clavin, ie the smartest person evah.

    If most of us were half as smart as we think we are, we would be twice as smart as we actually are.

  6. stingray65

    According to all the Democrats and a lot of the Establishment Republicans, Reagan was an amiable dunce (e.g. only an actor who was good at reading lines written by someone else), who sleeps through cabinet meetings (too old), repeats the same tired anecdotes repeatedly (aka senile), and holds dangerous mistaken ideas about the economy (e.g. cutting taxes and regulation would create economic growth) and foreign policy (e.g. peace through strength). Democrats also believed Reagan voters were stupid and gullible for believing all that “morning in America” crap. Sound familiar? Trump is a narcissistic idiot who watches too much TV (gorilla channel or not), is either senile or mentally ill, is controlled by Russia, holds crazy economic and foreign policy ideas, and anyone who voted for him is deplorable. Another thing Reagan and Trump seem to have in common – they win despite huge opposition from the Democrat Media Complex (aka mainstream media), and their “wrong” policies seem to actually work – the economy is booming under both, our enemies are showing signs of newfound cooperation, and all this success is completely exasperating for all the critics or “resistance” members.

    As for the genius of the left/liberals/Democrats – here are 12 “smart” things they tend to believe:
    1. The death penalty is wrong even for the most heinous crimes because human life is precious and/or a mistake in convicting the wrong person would mean killing an innocent life, but abortion up to the delivery date of the baby should be legal, easy, and subsidized.
    2. Taxing and heavily regulating companies is necessary to protect the public from greedy capitalists, but then wonder in amazement why public pension fund portfolios fail to generate the expected returns to keep the pensions solvent.
    3. Science is to be followed, but also believing that all inequality between individuals, genders, races, and ethnic groups is caused by white patriarchy designed to keep everyone but white male heterosexuals down, while ignoring all the scientific proof that most differences in life success are due to differences in IQ and other biological causes.
    4. Science is to be followed, but think scientific theory is proven by popularity contests (97% of scientists agree, etc.), rather than empirical proof.
    5. Communism/Socialism is far fairer than Capitalism, despite the fact that Communism/Socialism killed over 100 million people during the 20th century, and is killing millions more today in North Korea, Venezuela, China, and Cuba.
    6. Transgenders, gays, and women should have equal rights and/or special protections, while also believing that Christians should be persecuted for not baking gay wedding cakes, but also that we should welcome Muslim refugees/immigrants who believe transgenders and gays should be killed and women should be covered and not leave the house without a male escort.
    7. Man-made global warming is happening and dangerous, and is demonstrated by heatwaves, extreme cold, hurricanes, blizzards, droughts, and floods. In other words, Global Warming theory cannot be falsified.
    8. Rich western countries with low birthrates need open borders to bring in immigrants who will support the welfare state, even though most “available” immigrants come from places with failed cultures, below average intelligence and education, and no marketable skills, and hence will become wards of the welfare state rather than contributors to it.
    9. Women are the same and equal in every way to men, but need special protection from men. Women should be get the same treatment as men, but in matters of employment in high status fields, “comfort” in the workplace, sexual harassment, divorce settlements, child care and custody, need/deserve more generous treatment.
    10. The poor will be helped by government policies designed to make energy more expensive and less reliable.
    11. If we are “nice” and “non-threatening” to Russia, Iran, N.Korea, etc. they will also be nice to us. We deserve every terrorist attack against us, because we haven’t been nice enough.
    12. Trump is an anti-Semite just like Hitler who killed 6 million Jews, even though Trump has a Jewish son-in-law and Jewish conversion daughter as two of his closest advisers, and is the first President to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Trump is homophobic even though he supported gay marriage years before Obama or Hillary.

    • stingray65

      A few more “smart” things that liberals/leftist widely believe:
      13. Dressing like a slut and heavy intoxication on the part of women has nothing at all to do with “rape culture”.
      14. Education should be free, but teachers should be paid more.
      15. Trump’s rescinding of Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders is fascist.
      16. Fairness requires the rich to pay higher taxes, but the Republican tax bill that actually raises taxes ONLY on the rich is unfair.
      17. Intentions are more important than actions/results. Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy may have raped and molested many women, but since they have good intentions on women’s issues, the raped women should be grateful. 50 years of “war on poverty” may not have not have had any positive effect in reducing poverty, but since the intentions were good the programs should be continued or even expanded.

      I’m sure I could come up with a bunch more, but I invite any leftist/liberals in the audience to come up with a list of hypocritical or fantasy beliefs that are widely held by the right/conservatives.

      • Mopar4wd

        1) Upsetting Palestine and half the middle east is somehow helpful to peace negotiations
        2) State rights are important unless they go against our views (gay marriage or health insurance or banking laws)
        3)Personal freedom is the utmost importance (unless its again something we disagree with)
        4) Deny global warning while Military and GOP elected officials in southern states ask for funding to handle the effects of man made global warming.

        I’m not really good at this sort of thing but I’m sure there are more, really aligning yourself totally with the left or right really means you have have decided to give up on critical thought and want to blindly follow a group. Realistically large portions of both groups have some pretty idiotic ideals.

        • stingray65

          Thanks for the interesting list Mopar, but there are a few problems:
          1. There is no Palestine, and never was an independent Arab state of Palestine, and Jerusalem has never been an Arab capital city – only Israeli. The Arabs in Palestine were offered half the territory of the mandate of Palestine by the British, who inherited the area after the demise of the Ottoman Empire after WWI, but the Arabs refused this offer in 1948. They also declined the territory offered by Israel several times in the 1990s and 2000s. Hard to see how upsetting the Palestinians will have any further negative effects among people that have started and lost 3+ wars against Israel and refuse to accept the right of Israel to exist, but who have never-the-less been offered and refused land and peace multiple times. Yet even if you dispute this history, I suspect that there are large portions of Republicans/conservatives that really don’t care about the Middle-East or Israel at all, after all the Republicans and Trump are often accused of being anti-Semites by Jewish Democrats, so your statement likely wouldn’t qualify as a widely help conservative position.
          2. I think you will need to provide some examples of widely held Republican/conservative positions that support the Feds over States Rights. For example, the movement for gay marriage rights largely originates in Libertarian circles, and Libertarians more often than not vote Republican. The Defense of Marriage act, which might fit your narrative, was actually signed by Bill Clinton. Obamacare is the only major federal health insurance mandate to over-ride state laws, which of course is also Democrat, while Republican alternatives have tended to focus on block grants to allow States to experiment with different approaches.
          3. The only examples that I can think of regarding possible Republican/conservative desires to curb personal freedom are related to abortion and drugs, but again I’m not sure you could say they are widely held. As noted previously, Libertarians tend to represent a significant block of Republican votes, and they also tend to be in favor of a “woman’s right to choose” and drug legalization. Republican opposition to abortion typically isn’t built on a desire to curb personal freedom, but instead on a desire to protect the human rights of the unborn. Similarly, Republican opposition to drug legalization isn’t about curbing freedom, but about the effects that drugs have on the freedom of others due to the costs of addiction/intoxication, such as crime, family violence, etc. Thus to the extent that Republican’s support such positions, it would fall under the rule that personal freedom only extends to where it doesn’t negatively impact the freedom of others, which strikes me as logical and not hypocritical.
          4. As many as half of Republicans/conservatives claim to believe in global warming according to polls. Jeb Bush, Christy, Kasich, McCain, Romney are among the recent Republican presidential candidates that have expressed belief in man-made global warming. Thus I don’t think you can say disbelief in global warming is a widely held Republican/conservative viewpoint.

        • viper32cm

          2 & 3) Each side is equally guilty of these. Magically, liberal states like NY and CA give a shit about states rights now that the Republicans have the executive and legislative branches–see sanctuary cities, debates regarding the tax bill (NY is suing the federal government over the tax bill), etc. Further, conservatives and liberals tend to value personal freedoms differently and espouse their support for “personal freedom” under the banner of their particular buffet of those freedoms, but they generally have negative views of the freedoms they don’t value. For instance, rare is the person in this country that is an ardent supporter of both gay rights and gun rights. The reality is we’re all hypocrites on some level. Pointing out that hypocrisy tends just to be for earning quick rhetorical points, but very little help in the end, especially in our strict two-party/polarity based political system. We desperately need more shades of grey.

          • stingray65

            Viper – not to disagree with you, but your specific examples of hypocrisy are all on the left/Democrat side, while you only provide vague “both sides do it” for the right/Republicans. I strongly suspect you would find far more right/Republicans that support gay rights and gun rights (I do), than you will find on the left. In fact, I would go so far as to say you would not have difficulty finding lots of leftists who are against gun rights, but also think people who are against gay rights should be shot dead (or at least beat up severely).

        • Ronnie Schreiber

          1) Upsetting Palestine and half the middle east is somehow helpful to peace negotiations

          In 1929, when the Arabs of Hebron rioted over supposed Jewish desecration of the Temple Mount (think about that for a second, will you?), and massacred 69 mostly elderly, pious non-Zionist Jews, were they upset about the Nakba of 1948 or the occupation of 1967?

          When Jordan occupied Judea and Samaria (aka the West Bank) from 1948 to 1967why did they not establish a state called Palestine?

          Can you provide me with the name of a good general history of the Palestinian people? Something along the lines of A History of the Jews by either Cecil Roth or Paul Johnson will do.

          I won’t hold my breath. “Palestine” has never existed as a state and the “Palestinians” are as much of a fictional nation as Yugoslavia was, maybe more so.

          I know why there are Jews named Moscowitz and Berliner. Can you explain to me why the richest Palestinian’s name is “al Masri” (the Egyptian in Arabic, cognate to Hebrew’s Mitzri) or why Baghdadi is another not-uncommon “Palestinian” name?

          Yes, following successive Roman, Byzantine, Muslim, Crusader and Ottoman occupations of the land of Israel there were a few not really indigenous Arabs in what the Romans renamed Palestine after the second Jewish revolt in the second century. There weren’t many of them, some peasant fellahin and a handful of rich landholding families. Those who follow Mideast politics will recognize the names Khalidi (Obama’s buddy), Nusseibah, Hussein (Arafat and Hitler’s pal the Mufti were Husseinis), and a couple others as still dominating the politics and economy of the Palestinians.

          Contemporary accounts describe pre-Zionist 19th century Palestine as mostly depopulated. Still Jews maintained a continuous presence over the millenia. The 17th century saw the flowering of Kabbalah, Jewish mysticism, which was centered in Tzfat/Safed in the Galilee. Jews were a significant part of the population of Jerusalem in the 19th century, perhaps even a majority, before the influx of Zionist Jews.

          As the Zionist movement got started and Jews started buying land and moving back starting in the late 18th century and really gaining steam in the late 19th century with the establishment of Netanya and Rishon L’Tzion, the local economy picked up and Arabs too started migrating from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Transjordan (hence Baghdadi and al Masri).

          Before 1948, the term “Palestinian” was likely to refer to a Jew living in Palestine, not an Arab. For the most part there was no sense of nationality to the Arabs of Palestine. That’s one reason why so many ran away. Allegiance was to the clan, the village and to the faith.

          After hundreds of thousands of Arabs ran away from Palestine, expecting to return behind the five Arab armies that attacked young Israel, they ended up in refugee camps in the surrounding Arab countries. Those countries would not let them assimilate or become citizens, prefering to use their limbo as a propaganda weapon against the Jews. The UN refugee relief agency set up just to help the Arabs who ran away (and UNWRA still exists just to shuffle money to them and UN officials) starts giving out free food and other aid. Now you’re a poor Syrian or Lebanese whose family never lived in Palestine but down the road the UN is giving out food to “Palestinians”. It’s not like they were checking passports and papers so becoming a Palestinian was a career move for a lot of poor Arabs in the surrounding countries.

          Today, all of those folks are considered Palestinians, living there since time immemorial and the Jews, who have actually maintained a continuous presence there for 3000+ years and have DNA that identifies them as Middle Eastern in origin, are foreign interlopers. Oh, and the Jews are a religion, not a nation with a right to sovereignity, donchaknow?

          Oh, by the way, while you’re crying about the Palestinian refugees, could you spare a tear or two for the 3/4 of a million Jews who were virtually expelled, under the threat of pograms, from their Arab lands of birth following the establishment of Israel? Of course, the Sephardi Jews were only refugees for a generation and were broadly absorbed by Israel and other Jewish communities, not turned into a festering and supperating death cult like those other refugees of 1948.

          The notion of the Palestinians as a nationality was invented in the late 1950s and early 1960s as a tool in the Arab fight against Israel. As fictional as Kwanzaa. If you want to believe that, you’re a sucker.

          • stingray65

            Thanks Ronnie – I learned a few things from your excellent summary of the region, and just reinforced my belief that Trump was right again about Jerusalem.

          • Jim

            After what happened in Deir Yassin I would have run away too. Plenty of eggs were broken to make the Israeli omelet.

            I do support Israel, if only because they supply me with plenty of generic Prilosec.

      • stingray65

        Three more liberal beliefs to complete the top 20 list:
        18. Sin taxes on smokes, alcohol, gasoline, etc. need to be high so they discourage people from using these dirty/dangerous products, but higher minimum wage laws will have no effect on the hiring decisions of managers.
        19. Stricter gun laws will prevent criminals from getting/keeping guns (because criminals will obviously follow all laws).
        20. Life is not fair, and it is the job of progressives to fix it. Successful people “didn’t build that” and hence don’t deserve all they earn because they were born lucky with good genes/parents, and lucky in life with good schools and job opportunities. Unsuccessful people are victims, and the best way to help victims is to teach them in school about their victimhood, and since they are victims they deserve to get free stuff paid for by all the undeserving successful people, and administered by fair-minded, honest, and very smart progressives (who deserve a very good salary, pension, and accolades for all their good work).

    • Ronnie Schreiber

      while ignoring all the scientific proof that most differences in life success are due to differences in IQ and other biological causes.

      I’m generally in broad agreement with your post but you’re leaving out the critical factor of values. Good is good and smart is smart and they’re not the same thing. All the cleverness in the world won’t help you without a little bit of sitzfleisch.

      • stingray65

        Values are definitely important, but liberals say they believe all values/cultures are equal, thus anyone that points out the poor life success rate of Ghetto culture/values or the intolerance of Muslim values/culture are labeled racists. But of course, liberals are hypocrites, because they say all are equal, but then criticize the Christian/European values that have been responsible for most of the best parts of the world we live in, while they themselves whenever possible live in protected enclaves and send their children to expensive private schools so as to avoid any close personal proximity to the cultural/value diversity they claim to respect and honor.

        • silentsod

          If all values were equal we might then expect a much greater parity in terms of influence of various cultures. We don’t see that in reality, though.

  7. Harry

    In defense of those people who believed it, it is getting hard to tell parody from not.


    I can’t say I fully believe the claims made in that article as the methods he uses seem too ridiculous to be effective.

    I find it plausible that he has that particular fetish, it is not uncommon with narcissists in powerful positions. Edward VIII/Duke of Windsor in his young days comes to mind. His behaviors as described leads me to think that he would be very frustrated with his success rate.

    • silentsod

      I recall reading a very similar tribe based analysis years and years ago; this one is mostly an echo, but with some additional thought around why local outgroups are stronger than distant outgroups. I see it also included a couple references to the IAT which has come under fire lately as not actually being a repeatable, reliable test for much of anything.

  8. hank chinaski

    Those last three lines were masterful. no homo.

    The whole kerfuffle will sell a lot of books to the WNYC crowd.

  9. Kevin Jaeger

    The Gorilla channel joke largely describes how the media obsessively watch every move Trump makes.

    Whether or not Trump is an idiot, they’ve certainly demonstrated beyond all doubt that Trump has driven the media utterly insane. I suppose I should be concerned but mostly I’m content to be entertained by the spectacle.

  10. James

    You are right that people attach themselves to ridiculous beliefs to make themselves feel smart, when they suspect they are not. You cannot understand humans without understanding their herd mentality!

    But something more is at work here: You find the gorilla channel ridiculous because you imagine it. You have a mental image of aides searching the Internet for the best gorilla clips, recording a voiceover for the “documentary,” and so on. To imagine the gorilla channel is to find it ridiculous, which is to get the joke.

    Those who didn’t get the joke, then, didn’t actually think about what they, for a moment, believed. The gorilla channel, to them, was like the heliocentric view of the solar system to Sherlock Holmes–a non-operative belief, in which none of its believers had the courage of their convictions.

    Sherlock Holmes, the great fictional detective, promptly forgot Watson’s description of planetary motion, because it did not affect his work in the slightest. The gorilla channel’s believers know, as Reagan said, many things–and I would say that the whole point is that so many of the things they know do not affect them, and so they are able to stay tight in the herd by believing so many ridiculous things, safe from reality’s intrusion, because what they believe in is fundamentally not real to them. Thinking about their beliefs would make them real; and so about these beliefs they cannot think.

  11. Mopar4wd

    Not sure Trump is an idiot but alot of things he does are bizarre. I have never liked the guy. Well before he ran I always viewed him as a scummy realestate developer with questionable ethics. Nothing he has done since does any thing to dispel that.
    I think the real answer it Trump is impulsive and has an incredible ego. He basically seems to only act for his ego. Everything I have seen since his election seems to back that up. Nothing he does is for the US or even his family, everything he does is attempt to boost his own self image. I mean to some degree this is common among politicians and executives he just takes it to another level where he seem incapable of even faking empathy for even his base.
    On his speeches I never liked his cadence but I always though Obama a very good speaker. Trump makes me literally laugh out loud when he speaks. I would say he speaks like a kid but even children have more self reflection and modesty then the president. He certainly is one of a kind.

    • Kevin Jaeger

      I largely agree with what you’ve said here. The thing about Trump is that everyone has know all about him for at least 30 years. He isn’t any different this year than he was 20 years ago.

      It’s perfectly legit to think he was a poor choice for President. But like him or not he was successful in his chosen endeavors in real estate and entertainment, and then he beat whoever your preferred candidate was, Republican or Democrat.

      All this nonsense about him suddenly being an evil Russian-conspiring genius who is also stupid and mentally unstable is certainly revealing someone as unhinged, but it ain’t Trump. Trump is still exactly who he has always been.

    • stingray65

      I think everyone needs to be very careful in how they evaluate Trump, because virtually all media accounts of him are edited to make him look bad. He is clearly a narcissist, but he has never promised to stop the seas from rising and heal the planet as his predecessor did. While Trump is often accused of being a fascist, he has so far not done anything unconstitutional, while “Constitutional Lawyer” Obama lost 20 times unanimously in the Supreme Court (a record). Perhaps Trump thinks about himself an awful lot, but I don’t remember ever hearing any stories about Obama inviting military personnel to play golf with him (Trump invited the local Coast Guard to golf with him in Florida), and I don’t remember Obama inviting “man on the street” supporters to have snacks and a personally guided tour as Trump recently did in Mara Lago. Its also hard to envision Obama delaying his flight to make sure a motorcade cop was ok after an accident, but Trump did. Trump was criticized for saying the “wrong things” to the widow of a slain marine, but at least he called, which apparently was something Obama never did. In fact, it seems that Obama rarely (never) had any time for anyone that wasn’t a celebrity or a major donor to his campaign, and given the media bias, you can be sure if he was doing any “man on the street” interactions there would have been a lot of media coverage of it. If Trump is a selfish man and terrible speaker, it is also strange that this billionaire from Manhattan is so good at connecting with the common man. Thousands of Larry Lunchbuckets waited hours to attend Trump rallies, and they weren’t bused in by George Soros as was the case for Hillary rallies that were attended by dozens, and the media always made sure to minimize the size of the Trump crowds, and carefully cropped the Hillary rallies to avoid showing all the empty spaces. If Trump is selfish, it is also a bit strange that he spent so much of his own money to campaign while Hillary was busy earning millions giving speeches and never spent any of it on her own campaign. Trump is probably the only President in modern history that has had to take a serious pay cut in taking office, and given his age, he is unlikely to be motivated by the opportunity to “cash in” on his celebrity when he leaves office, which is a big contrast with the post-presidency cash generating operations of “men of the people” Bill Clinton and Obama. Trump is far from the perfect man (which he admits himself), and his presidential style is certainly “unusual”, but he deserves a chance to succeed, and seems to be doing so despite the media “resistance” and the lack of any support from the left or establishment right.

      • Mopar4wd

        Trump’s unusual speaking style comes off more common man pretty simple. He also tends to run on populist ideas thou does little to actually get those into law.

        On the calling widows I’m guessing you typically only follow right wing media that claim was debunked rather quickly as there were many documented cases of Obama calling family and even personally visiting with family members of fallen soldiers. Trump and Huckabee Sanders just claimed that didn’t happen with no backup.

        As to Trump being selfish and spending his own money on a campaign. Well of course he would it’s the ultimate vanity project a guarantee into every history book I’m sure that’s worth a lot of cash to his ego.

        You can say anyone deserves a chance (if you wanted to you could say it about Hillary) But Trump has kind of a proven record of being a scum bag thru out his history in the public eye. I have little reason to believe based on his actions in office that anything has changed. He seems personally willing to accept anything congress can actually get done for instance even if it goes against his promises.

      • Sonny Stitt

        This whole diatribe reads like a list of false stories at snopes. I will start with addressing the whole, he ran his campaign with his own money. First of all, people with money, rarely spend it on endevours such as a political campaign. Trump is no exception. He loaned his campaign 10 Million and made sure his 10M was the first to be repaid.

  12. Ronnie Schreiber

    It doesn’t matter how often the Post or the Times remotely diagnose him with dementia.

    My mother has dementia and is in an assisted living facility’s memory care unit. I have a hard time believing that anyone with actual firsthand experience with folks with dementia would say that Mr. Trump has that disability. Despite lots of coping behavior, it’s almost impossible to hide in even a casual conversation, even early on once you are aware of the symptoms. You’ll be talking with someone and think you’re having a normal conversation and then something seems a bit off like aphasia, fluency, or their thought train deflected to a tangent. If Trump was truly telling the same people the same story over and over in the space of 10 minutes he wouldn’t be able to get through a long, one on one interview with a reporter from the New York Times, as he did last week.

  13. Ronnie Schreiber

    I happened to have this page open when reading JB’s latest missive. It seems relevant to the discussion of how smart people can believe stupid things.


    In the end we are left with a powerful sense of knowledge – false knowledge. Confirmation bias leads to a high level of confidence, we feel we are right in our gut. And when confronted with someone saying we are wrong, or promoting an alternate view, some people become hostile.

    The Dunning-Kruger effect is not just a curiosity of psychology, it touches on a critical aspect of the default mode of human thought, and a major flaw in our thinking. It also applies to everyone – we are all at various places on that curve with respect to different areas of knowledge. You may be an expert in some things, and competent in others, but will also be toward the bottom of the curve in some areas of knowledge.

    Admit it – probably up to this point in this article you were imagining yourself in the upper half of that curve, and inwardly smirking at the poor rubes in the bottom half. But we are all in the bottom half some of the time. The Dunning-Kruger effect does not just apply to other people – it applies to everyone…

    The Dunning-Kruger effect is not just about dumb people not realizing how dumb they are. It is about basic human psychology and cognitive biases. Dunning-Kruger applies to everyone.

    The solution is critical thinking, applying a process of logic and empiricism, and humility – in other words, scientific skepticism.

    In addition to the various aspects of critical thinking, self-assessment is a skill we can strive to specifically develop. But a good rule of thumb is to err on the side of humility. If you assume you know relatively less than you think you do, and that there is more knowledge than of what you are aware, you will usually be correct.

    Even smart people, particularly smart people, need to know how little they know. The two smartest people that I know are quite sure of what they know but have very humble affects and will be the first to acknowledge when they are out of their field of expertise.

    • stingray65

      Very good comment Ronnie. I work around very bright people everyday, and the most dangerously over-confident tend to be the moderately bright who either consciously or subconsciously are unwilling to accept they are not the brightest, and hence try to hide their small handicap with over-confidence. On the other hand, the smartest and most accomplished people I know, tend to be the most humble about their own knowledge/abilities.

  14. Jeff Zekas

    Jack, you are the last reasonable man in America. Especially liked, “They believe that they are intelligent because of their certainty, not in spite of it.” As for me: I have been a member of the Republican, Democratic, Peace & Freedom, Green, Socialist and Communist parties, and it has not affected my I.Q., as far as I can tell.

  15. Zykotec

    Good job, not much to add. I’m thankful that someone out there is awake. Even media channels that I would rcently call pretty neutral seem to just relay information taken directly from clickbait or left wing sites. Finding the ‘truth’ is near impossible, because you have to sift through tons of propaganda from either side to find actual objective observations.

    And I have to say this goes for both sides. For each person that thinks Trump is retarded or have dementia, there is someone who thinks Hillary leads a pedophilia-ring and that Obama is a Muslim.

  16. Bigtruckseriesreview

    Fox News and Conservative talk fueled the rise of Donald J. Trump.

    Barack Obama’s presidency fueled the rise of Trump.

    BERNIE SANDER’S fueled the rise of Trump.

    Donald Trump would NEVER HAVE WON if Sanders hadn’t been around to spoil the election for Hillary.

    That’s why everyone who knows me KNOWS I was calling this election for Trump long before he got the GOP Nomination.

    First I had to argue that he WOULD get the GOP nomination. Everyone called me crazy.

    I KNEW as soon as I saw him dominating these WEAKLINGS that the typical, right-winger, drinking-beer-in-their-underwear-watching-Fox-sociopath would gravitate towards him.

    I KNEW that these MORON gen Y and Gen X millennials wanted BEEEERNIE and wouldn’t turn out for Hillary. They just wanted bigger welfare checks.

    I got people ducking and dodging me to this day cause they actually believed that BULLSHIT being spewed by the “scientific polls”…


    It’s divide and conquer.

    Hillary still won the popular vote, just not where she needed it to be – in electoral points. Obama beat McCain and Romney with both Electoral and Popular cudgels.

    Had Biden ran, Trump would NEVER have been president.

    They gave us two HORRIBLE, POLARIZING choices and demanded we pick one.

    fortunately, this constitution is built with a form of term limits – VOTING.

    Your only chance to remove Trump is to:

    a) vote every Republican out of office in 2018.
    -This will make Trump a LAME DUCK for the next two years.
    2006 all over again.

    b) vote against Trump in 2020 – if he hasn’t been impeached/removed or files resignation prior.

    And just remember: I DON’T GIVE A DAMN WHO THE DNC RUNS.

    they could NOMINATE ME.

    You’d BETTER support whoever it is, or BY GOD I will watch you all plunged back into Hell for another 4 years.

    Me, myself…I’m just gonna get a bigger TV (than my 80”) to watch the onslaught.

    Trump has been a wonder for my portfolios.


    Prove to me you deserve a future.

    • Bark M

      So, just to make it clear, your method for getting Trump out of office is to…vote for somebody else in the next election.

    • Dirty Dingus McGee

      Trump wasn’t my first choice, but was better than any candidate the Dems drug out. IF the economy stays growing, Trump will be reelected, unless he is caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl. As stated above, popular vote means bumpkus. No matter how much the urban crew squalls about it, the “deplorable” “flyover” states carry plenty of clout. If Joe six pack is still doing good, guess who is getting his vote?

  17. CGHill

    The one good thing that came out of that Gorilla Channel business was farce. For instance, there was a Twitter hashtag: #GorillaChannelShows. (I admit to contributing “Win Ben Stein’s Monkey.”)

  18. Ronnie Schreiber

    Right now I bet there is a team at the Discovery Channel developing a Gorilla Week to run after Shark Week.

  19. ltrftc

    Jack, for a long time now I’ve been hoping to see you approach the current political climate with the same objectivity and balance that you apply to your car reviews. For a long while your political commentary has been about as one sided and as interesting as listening to a Miata anorak drone on about why the Mazda is the right answer for everything (yes, I know). 🙂
    This for me is will go down as one of your most memorable articles, mainly due to it’s balanced analysis that has challenged my thinking and opened me up to new ideas. Please, more of this.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.