Trump’s loss: the treason of the intellectuals

The following is a condensed version of a piece in the Spectator, where I explore causes and consequences of the Democrats seizure of power in the US.

One of the truly remarkable developments over the past half-century is the reversal and the relative flows of electoral funding going to parties of the right and parties of the left.  

Fifty years ago, parties of the right had a colossal advantage.  In the recent United States election, the Democrats outraised and outspent the Republicans almost to two to one.  Open Secrets adds, Even when excluding the money spent by billionaire presidential candidates Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer, Democrats spent $5.5 billion compared to Republicans’ $3.8 billion.  But that is also remarkable in so far as two billionaire candidates were seeking to represent the Democrats, which is not only the leftist party but is far more to the left on a vast range of issues than it has ever been in the past.  

Obama personified an abrupt left-wing turn by the Democrats. This was welcomed by the oligopoly that controls the media: Facebook, Apple, Twitter, Google , Amazon (FATGA to Niall Ferguson) plus Microsoft, Netflix, YouTube, SnapChat, Stripe, Shopify and others, which occupy first, third, fourth and fifth places in the market cap league table.

Those giants have not only refused to allow their communications networks to be used by Trump-aligned Republicans but also blocked the access of Parler, a rival to Twitter with a conservative following.  They have showed an almost total tolerance for left wing violence . But moves against their political enemies on the right have culminated in deplatforming The President and 70,000 other users.

Why has business shifted its political support to the left, when – at least in the US – the moderate left has all but disappeared?  Economic motivations are unpersuasive, especially since Trump reduced business and high-income earners’ taxes.

Much of the business courting of the left is down to “wokegeld”.  Firms are vulnerable to attacks from consumers and shareholder activist groups which can depress sales, reduce share prices and make recruitment more difficult.

But there is something far deeper at play.

Senior executives and many employees in tech sectors were appalled by Trump’s 2016 election victory and sought to bury issues, like Hunter Biden’s business dealings, that were unfavourable to the Democrats. Employees at all levels in the major tech companies and the thousands of companies that play important roles as subcontractors see themselves as something akin to previous revolutionaries’ self-depiction as the vanguard – a righteous dictatorship to carry out the unconscious wishes of the common people.  Their firms’ phenomenal success has led their leadership and other employees to claim the “master of the universe” title.  And they are now exercising greater power than any politician outside of totalitarian states has ever controlled.

Having overturned the Trump Presidency, the tech oligarchy is now seeking to prevent such raw anti-establishment power ever arising again.  With the Biden Presidency they have reached first base.

But that victory carries the seeds of their ultimate defeat. Political leaders including those on the left have expressed horror that a group of private businesses can exercise such control over the political airwaves.  Russia’s opposition leader, Alexey Navalny, spoke for many in saying “Don’t tell me (Trump) was banned for violating Twitter rules. I get death threats every day for many years, and Twitter doesn’t ban anyone.”

Clipping the power of the tech firms will be facilitated by a Biden Administration, unencumbered by moderate voices or a Republican Senate, undermining the US economy.  Biden has already signalled tax increases and plans to double the $7.25 an hour minimum wage. After a rebound from COVID 19 a consequent economic downturn will cause the loss of the Democrat Senate and House of Representatives majorities in 2022.

In the interim, considerable turmoil is certain.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

88 Responses to Trump’s loss: the treason of the intellectuals

  1. mh says:

    But there is something far deeper at play.

    Senior executives and many employees in tech sectors were appalled by Trump’s 2016 election victory and sought to bury issues, like Hunter Biden’s business dealings, that were unfavourable to the Democrats. Employees at all levels in the major tech companies and the thousands of companies that play important roles as subcontractors see themselves as something akin to previous revolutionaries’ self-depiction as the vanguard – a righteous dictatorship to carry out the unconscious wishes of the common people. Their firms’ phenomenal success has led their leadership and other employees to claim the “master of the universe” title. And they are now exercising greater power than any politician outside of totalitarian states has ever controlled.

    That’s not convincing.

  2. stackja says:

    A nation cannot survive half free and half enslaved.
    Biden people want all enslaved.

  3. Rafe Champion says:

    The intellectuals have caused the infantilization of political debate whereby the focus shifts from policies to the personality of the president, or at least President Trump and other conservative leaders. That process is apparent in the flight to the woke side by the commentators and leader-writers in The Australian in recent months. It came home with a dull thud reading a piece by Tom Switzer yesterday, I am sure he can do better but survival in that milieu requires conformity to the narrative. People with families to feed are between a rock and a hard place, some of us can still say more or less what we think but a lot of others cannot.

  4. Rafe Champion says:

    A nice example of something, not sure what to call it.

  5. mundi says:

    $15/hr is never going to happen.
    It would be interesting to happen… because it would destroy left economics. But it won’t happen.

    Dems absolutely bow to the lobbyists. They want the big evil corps to appear as enemies of the people from which dems are the saviour. Once they get power, they quite down again.

    Obama and Hillary both toed around minimum wage increases – ultimately they left it to the states. This hasn’t changed.

  6. H B Bear says:

    Trump represented a thread to several well established orders.

    He could not be allowed to succeed.

  7. H B Bear says:

    *threat

  8. FelixKruell says:

    Those giants have not only refused to allow their communications networks to be used by Trump-aligned Republicans

    Only now, 4 years later, when they were seen to be encouraging violent rebellion. That’s being pretty generous – plenty of people have been suspended from these platforms for less in the past.

    But that is also remarkable in so far as two billionaire candidates were seeking to represent the Democrats, which is not only the leftist party but is far more to the left on a vast range of issues than it has ever been in the past.

    The system in the USA makes it virtually impossible to get elected unless you are a rich man, or have rich friends. That applies to republicans and democrats. Thankfully we don’t have that here.

    Biden has already signalled tax increases and plans to double the $7.25 an hour minimum wage. After a rebound from COVID 19 a consequent economic downturn will cause the loss of the Democrat Senate and House of Representatives majorities in 2022.

    That’s how democracy works.

  9. Roger says:

    Much of the business courting of the left is down to “wokegeld”. Firms are vulnerable to attacks from consumers and shareholder activist groups which can depress sales, reduce share prices and make recruitment more difficult.

    Normies have much more economic power than the hardcore prog-left minority bullies.

    Why don’t businesses realise that?

    Because they employ many of the latter in their PR departments and that’s how they view the world.

  10. Rex Anger says:

    The system in the USA makes it virtually impossible to get elected unless you are a rich man, or have rich friends. That applies to republicans and democrats. Thankfully we don’t have that here.

    Great trollshitting, Grigory.

    I’m not going to bother to point out the massive donations from politically-aligned.business.moguls.and lobbyists, etc. As.I suspect.you know about them and what they do, and will only try to dissemble and deflect.from your painfully obvious wrongology.

    Stupid Grigory…

  11. gavalanche says:

    there is no going back….DC, big tech, msm, universities have become co-opted by powers hostile to the american republic.
    if the republic is to survive the military will have to take control
    general flynn i would guess.
    an awful lot of people need to go to jail.

  12. Entropy says:

    Settle down, gavalanche. Let the left overreach and in four years the yanks will elect Ivanka. That possibility will likely ensure the DNC puts a leash on some of its bigger idiot minions.

  13. BalancedObservation2 says:

    What a refreshing article asking what you’d think on reflection were obvious questions but are questions usually not asked by the mainstream media.

    I’ve got another angle to add to the discussion on the seemingly irrational attitude of big business to Donald Trump.

    Large businesses in free enterprise economies can attempt to pursue what is termed satisficising behaviour under certain conditions.

    Particularly after a business has reached a very high level of return and market dominance, and it perceives ( wrongly in my view) that all it needs to do is to hold its current trajectory to continue to be highly successful. It’s what you might also term risk averse behaviour. It will continue to innovate but also minimize risk. It’s got a lot to lose, unlike when it begins its life as a highly entrepreneurial small time player willing to try everything.

    It can also happen when newly immensely rich owners want a happy life in their relations with employees. So they let the political attitudes of employees – even where they may not be aligned fully with their own business interests – get involved with the companies stance. This is particularly so with very high skilled employees who are hard to replace and are very important to the business. And profits are so high and seem almost guaranteed that owners can afford to indulge employees.

    It’s my opinion Donald Trump was good for the economy overall but he represented risk to entrenched players who had a pretty cosy relationship with the existing status quo, under the previous Obama administration. The Democrats had been better for big business than they had been for their own constituencies. For example it took Trump to reduce unemployment for black Americans to an all time low, before covid struck. Barack Obama couldn’t do it in two terms.

    So what about the tax cuts? Why didn’t they endear Trump to the rich and big business more ? Well maybe after the cosy years for business and the wealthy under Obama they didn’t make as much difference as you might have expected. On the figures for big business that looks a real possibibility. During the year following the tax cuts there was an 80% increase in share buy backs in the US. Quite substantial amounts were spent on that instead of being spent on expanding output.

    There might be a delicious irony awaiting big business in the form of business stifling increased regulation and control coming from the Democrats. But somehow I think life for big business under Joe Biden ( or whoever is actually pulling the strings) will be as cosy as it was under Barack Obama. And sometimes increased regulation and control makes life easier for entrenched monopolists than it does for smaller business and new players

  14. Tom says:

    the treason of the intellectuals

    There are no “intellectuals” in the 21st century left — just anti-intellectual fascists incapable of argument, using toddler-level threats via the social media monopolies (founded, run and operated by autistic Silicon Valley sociopaths) to police the US democracy they have seized and destroyed.

  15. Terry Andrews says:

    Super rich use the left as a useful idiot army. Create an issue, i.e, Global warming, wind up the left and away they go. As they don’t have critical thinking when the left wing media present a green cause it’s fait accompli no matter how dubious. The pink sheep have championed global cooling, acid rain, ozone hole, Y2K, global warming and now the china flu. All making billions for the industries involved. Trump and BREXIT forced the media to reveal their agenda, lies, hypocrisy and how they attempt to sheepdog the public. At least democracy survives in Britain and Australia but is lost in the US.

  16. Watch Your Back says:

    Hmm, some plausible arguments, but it’s not quite adding up to me.

    It’s true the grassroots or ‘rank and file’ of the Democratic Party has been taken over by the PC, woke Left, but also by the hard left that support Marxism and Anarchism. This happened in the UK to a fair extent under Blair, paving the way for Corbyn. The loonies were let loose on local government because Blair thought it didn’t matter. About half or more of the UK Labour Party are now ‘pure’. In the US, this takes on racial memes.

    Then there’s the Good Ole Boys, not the Southern racists of old but the establishment who felt threatened by Trump. This includes the Never Trumpers as well as the Clintons, Pelosi and the rest. Media companies and lobbyists are in the fold where money and preferment are the currency.

    But there’s more I think. What is the agenda of the billionaires? We need to look to Davos as a window on cronyism and, let’s be honest, corporatism. Power and control.

    Big Tech are in on this, as we see when they turn up At Davos in their private jets. But some of them – the bearded one at Twitter perhaps – are ideologues too, his views coloured by Marxism?

    It all looks like a shaky alliance to me. How long before the rank and file turn on either the Establishment or Big Tech?

    When Zinoviev, Kamenev and Trotsky were fighting the revolution and the civil war, they wouldn’t have expected to be exiled, tortured, paraded at the Moscow Trials, executed and assassinated. But that’s what happened. I’m sure they didn’t want it, but they couldn’t stop it.

    This isn’t about the economy or foreign policy, but rather power, corporatism, control and ideology. I rather doubt Mr Biden can do much more than keep taking pay-offs. He’s been bought and that’s it for him.

  17. MarcH says:

    Too many individuals and businesses are tied to government. It can’t last but no one wants to get off the wagon even as the cliff approaches.

  18. max says:

    Alan Moran: Why is so much big business leaning left
    Mr. Moran you are way way behind:

    Thomas Sowell:
    Anyone who thinks that business is Gung ho for the free market has just not been paying attention to business. Adam Smith knew better, back in the 18th century.

    Some books:
    Wall Street and The Bolshevik Revolution by Antony C Sutton
    Confessions of a Monopolist by Frederick C. Howe
    The Triumph of Conservatism by Gabriel Kolko

    Cartoon by Robert Minor appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 1911. It shows Karl
    Marx surrounded by enthusiastic Wall Street financiers: Morgan partner George Perkins,
    J.P. Morgan, John Ryan of National City Bank, John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie.
    Immediately behind Marx is Teddy Roosevelt, leader of the Progressive Party. (p. 211)

    What emerges from this sampling of events is a clear pattern of strong support for Bolshevism coming from the highest financial and political power centers in the United States; from men, who supposedly were “capitalists” and who according to conventional wisdom should have been the mortal enemies of socialism and communism.

    Professor Quigley tells us:

    To Morgan all political parties were simply organizations to be used, and the firm always was careful to keep a foot in all camps. Morgan himself, Dwight Morrow, and other partners were allied with Republicans; Russell C. Leffingwell was allied with the Democrats; Grayson Murphy was allied with the extreme Right; and Thomas W. Lamont was allied with the Left.

    Frederic Howe’s Confessions of a Monopolist is the story of a man who stumbles upon the secret of power politics and the modus operandi of the financial elite.
    Howe’s book is as relevant and revealing today as the day it was written in 1906. This is the saga of the fascinating lure of something for nothing, of making the other fellow pay, a universally tempting creed polished by the corporate monopolists and adopted by the demogogues of all stripes and hues to capture the commanding heights of society. In sum, Howe portrays the art of making society work for the few.
    The basic rules of the elitist game are simple: Achieve political influence. Get political power. All monopoly depends on legislation and politics. Without politics, there can be no monopoly. It’s that simple says Frederic Howe.

  19. Watch Your Back says:

    There are some prescient comments above.

    I like Balanced Observations concept of ‘satificism’, also the reminder by Max that capitalists praised Communism. It’s a way to guarantee great profits and little competition. It suits both the Swamp and Big Tech. But for how long?

  20. FelixKruell says:

    Rex:

    I’m not going to bother to point out the massive donations from politically-aligned.business.moguls.and lobbyists, etc. As.I suspect.you know about them and what they do, and will only try to dissemble and deflect.from your painfully obvious wrongology.

    You forgot to explain why any of that makes me wrong? Whoops. Your bad.

  21. BalancedObservation2 says:

    Watch Your Back

    #3728667
    # 3728688

    Thanks for your comment on what I said.

    I think we can overestimate the influence of ideology when it comes to big business. Usually the dollar and maintaining the comfortable status quo ( when you’re already on top) trumps altruism, wokeism, or any other ism, or the wanton wielding of power. One qualification on wokeism: it’s a different story, when for those pursuing it, it’s aligned with making big bucks through energy policy etc. Something you seem to have alluded to.

    I think the big monopolist players will do ok under Joe Biden. The irony is it will be middle America and the supposed Democrat constituencies who will suffer most.

    To my mind that’s why Donald Trump was electorally successful in the first place. His was an impressive victory as a virtual outsider without the complete backing of the Republican establishment.

    Will the people effectively exercise their will against the establishment again at the next presidential or mid term elections?

    There’s a lot of power, money and effort aimed at preventing that, in play already. The second impeachment of Trump and the shackling of access to social media for the right were the first big steps to prevent that recurring.

    Both these steps give us a glimpse of the power of the establishment. Will it be too much for the will of the people to overcome?

  22. Roger says:

    The system in the USA makes it virtually impossible to get elected unless you are a rich man, or have rich friends. That applies to republicans and democrats. Thankfully we don’t have that here.

    You can’t be elected leader of the parliamentary Labor Party without the approval of union power brokers.

  23. FelixKruell says:

    Roger:

    You can’t be elected leader of the parliamentary Labor Party without the approval of union power brokers.

    True. But that doesn’t mean you need to be rich.

  24. Fisky says:

    The difference between the Biden and Obama administrations is Obama prioritised traditional Democratic concerns like health care and the environment, depleting all his political capital on these issues in 2 years, with no major legislative achievements for the remaining one and a half terms. Biden’s team are not going to make this mistake. They are going for amnesty, all 12 million illegals, to permanently transform the electorate leftward, so they’ll never have to worry about competitive elections again. In this, they will have the full support of the “libertarian” movement, who love open borders and low wages, not realising of course that this leads to big government.

  25. Rex Anger says:

    Grigory:

    You said- The system in the USA makes it virtually impossible to get elected unless you are a rich man, or have rich friends. That applies to republicans and democrats. Thankfully we don’t have that here

    I said- I’m not going to bother to point out the massive donations from politically-aligned.business.moguls.and lobbyists, etc. As.I suspect.you know about them and what they do, and will only try to dissemble and deflect.from your painfully obvious wrongology.

    You then tried- You forgot to explain why any of that makes me wrong? Whoops. Your bad.

    Read those bolded parts. Slowly. Several times over. Then try to snark at me again.

    Stupidity is about your rhetorical limit, Grigory. Stupidity and arrogance is one trollshit too far for you…

  26. Lee says:

    In this, they will have the full support of the “libertarian” movement, who love open borders and low wages, not realising of course that this leads to big government.

    Now who does that remind me of who used to comment here until banned last year?
    LOL
    And he always maintained that he was in favour of small government!

  27. BalancedObservation2 says:

    max

    #3728677

    I think we continue to see on-going really good examples of what you’re saying.

    Big business is always banging on publicly about the free market until it’s own position feels threatened. Then it unashamedly colludes with government (when it has the influence to do that ) to stifle the free market.

    The successful capitalists in Russia are hardly too concerned about the concepts of free markets or free democracies.

  28. bruce says:

    Can the GOP bounce back? Unlikely.
    Millions of Trump voters are devastated that the party showed little interest in exposing the massive vote fraud and in Washington particularly promoting Biden as the winner, when blind Freddy could see it was a sham.
    Unless the voting laws are changed, which is unlikely given that the Dems almost have the trifecta, they will never lose another contest they don’t want to lose. You see they’ll just keep flipping and counting until they have a winner.
    The vote rigging in 2016 was their ‘insurance policy’ but they badly underestimated Trumps popularity.
    But it worked in the 2018 mid terms and gave them the house, and 2020, after plotting for four years, their ultimate prize.
    Trump increased his 2016 count by at least 10 million, probably more, and won handsomely.
    His opponent may get the crown, but he lost the contest. Illegitimate. Now, what comes next?

  29. Roger says:

    Big business is always banging on publicly about the free market

    Big business is all in for crony capitalism these days, which is antithetical to the free market.

    There is a nexus between business and politicians that amounts to soft fascism.

  30. bespoke says:

    Rafe Champion
    #3728582, posted on January 18, 2021 at 2:35 pm
    A nice example of something, not sure what to call it.

    Thanks for reminding me why I stopped visiting.

  31. Watch Your Back says:

    Balanced,

    I think it’s both corporatism and ideology. The left are left because of Marxism in the main. They become corrupted by their own lights when they ease into corporatism. On the other hand, the corporate concerns are happy to snuggle up to authoritarians until they themselves are purged.

    I don’t know which comes first, but once we have both it grows until they start fighting each other. The trouble is, as you say, they destroy others as well as themselves.

  32. Boxcar says:

    Eisenhower’s comment is still true, just the “complex” has morphed.
    If the claims about Dominion are even slightly true, ES&S has failed the Republicans dramatically because they are in the same game, and should know how to compete.
    Ostensibly, ES&S lost Georgia to Democrats because of their shitty software. Hart InterCivic is also getting into ES&S customer base.
    There is likely to be a huge battle for states to shift vendors over the next couple of years, or up the features in the ES&S equipment, or company takeovers.
    Their politics are so corrupt now, it’s only about who counts the votes.

  33. Woolfe says:

    Unless the voting laws are changed, which is unlikely given that the Dems almost have the trifecta, they will never lose another contest they don’t want to lose

    Exactly there will never be another Republican President and republicans in Democrat states are only there by permission. It is not who votes but who counts them.

  34. JohnJJJ says:

    But that is also remarkable in so far as two billionaire candidates were seeking to represent the Democrats, which is not only the leftist party but is far more to the left on a vast range of issues than it has ever been in the past.
    It’s just smoke and mirrors. Why should they care. Socialist are great a keeping entrepreneurs from threatening the entrenched. As pointed out, the left now run around barking at the sun and hugging rainbows.

  35. FelixKruell says:

    Rex:

    Read those bolded parts. Slowly. Several times over. Then try to snark at me again.

    I did. Still nothing. So here’s some more snark for you – We don’t have a culture of large individual donations here, or a need for candidates to be rich to make it. Unlike in the USA.

    None of which has anything to do with corporate donations or from special interest groups.

  36. 1735099 says:

    The Republicans are slowly waking up the fact that they are no longer a majority party.
    The Republican presidential candidate has won the popular vote only once in the last eight presidential elections (2004 after 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq).
    The electoral college, their unrepresentative senate, gerrymandering, and voter suppression have kept them in the game.
    The Republican base is now shrinking and Trump’s approval is in the 30s.
    They are at a crossroads.

  37. 1735099 says:

    Trump increased his 2016 count by at least 10 million, probably more, and won handsomely.

    And Biden got 7 million more votes than Trump.
    So he “won handsomely”, and Trump lost bigly.

  38. Rex Anger says:

    Well Grigory, if you think the Australistani system is so good, virtuous and pure (Which I know you don’t because of your nature), I recommend you take a closer look at the intricacies of the Party Systems and Machines employed in Australian politics at all levels. Particularly if you are an outsider challenging an established ‘dynasty.’ Better still, give it a go.

    In fact, if you are even remotely genuine (chortle) in your beliefs, ask Custard about his experiences in Queensland.

    Then come back and repeat your trollshit…

  39. jo says:

    Only a Uncivil War will resolve the problem.

  40. incoherent rambler says:

    Now, what comes next?

    wot Bruce said.

    next? A whole lotta shitty events that you would expect in the absence of rule of law.

  41. Tel says:

    $15/hr is never going to happen.
    It would be interesting to happen… because it would destroy left economics. But it won’t happen.

    After the next big round of inflation it will happen … and the numpties will all cheer about getting back what they already had.

  42. Tel says:

    In this, they will have the full support of the “libertarian” movement, who love open borders and low wages, not realising of course that this leads to big government.

    Given that only about 10% of the current population have any interest in libertarian ideas … one wonders why you care at all. Presumably the concept of personal responsibility is too much for conservatives, and they need someone to blame their losses upon.

    From a libertarian point of view, if we even get 15% or 20% of migrants to take some interest in freedom, then hey … we made a profit.

    As a guy who lives in a heavily migrant area of NSW I am so much happier with my neighbours than what I see in the supposedly better off suburbs when it comes to COVID nutbaggery. People from Syria who have seen genuinely bad government immediately know the signs and understand what to do. There are seriously no “Karens” in this surburb, there are a big choice of small business shops around and the people who run those businesses are amazingly decent, while I read the news and hear of absolute fruitloop stuff happening in other areas. In Australia right now, this is as libertarian as it gets.

  43. Forester says:

    Clipping the power of the tech firms will be facilitated by a Biden Administration

    Not now they’ve paid their tribute in kind.

  44. mundi says:

    The tech giants want regulation.
    Regulation favours the incumbent, and protects them from competition.

    If you think Palour removal is bad – wait until its the government removing them because they can’t meet the requirements of the “code of practice for online media moderation of factual information 2020” which requires you to employ thousands of people and have a department at truth in every social media organisation.

    That is where we are headed.

  45. tgs says:

    Politics is downstream from culture. The reason big business and the corporate world buy into the leftist groupthink is because the individuals who make up that world have largely bought into it through school, university and the soft authoritarianism of what you are and aren’t allowed to say in polite conversation these days. Say the shibboleths, be part of the team and feel superior to the hoi polloi.

    In this, they will have the full support of the “libertarian” movement, who love open borders and low wages, not realising of course that this leads to big government.

    Show me on the doll where the libertarian touched you. Your neurotic fascination with the boogeyman you’ve created libertarians to be is always fun to watch.

  46. BalancedObservation2 says:

    mundi

    #3728933

    Good points.

  47. Kim says:

    A jumble of nonsense. GOP candidates have had ample funding fir years, especially in the house and senate. People like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson have been effective tactical financiers fir a takeover of the party. Twitter and FB were Trump’s biggest allies in winning election and it is only his abject refusal to respect the electorate that has had him removed from his platforms.
    A whinger.

  48. BalancedObservation2 says:

    Kim

    #3728983

    Did you miss the comment below in the article.? It seems so.

    “Russia’s opposition leader, Alexey Navalny, spoke for many in saying “Don’t tell me (Trump) was banned for violating Twitter rules. I get death threats every day for many years, and Twitter doesn’t ban anyone.”

  49. BalancedObservation2 says:

    Kim

    #3728983

    Neither FB nor Twitter actually backed Donald Trump nor shared his ideology. They were not “allies” of Trump as you say they were.

    Trump simply got the right like anyone to use their services. He generated an enormous number of new customers for them. They didn’t give him anything.

    It’s a huge step in a democracy to ban the president of a country. Especially when there’s no evidence sufficient enough to convict Trump of anything in the courts associated with the capitol incidents – otherwise there’d be moves to prosecute him.

  50. miltonf says:

    ‘a jumble of nonsense’ – sounds like something from the thoughts of Chairman Mao.

  51. miltonf says:

    Great article and great comments with some exceptions. Very interesting. Thanks.

  52. FelixKruell says:

    Rex:

    Well Grigory, if you think the Australistani system is so good, virtuous and pure (Which I know you don’t because of your nature), I recommend you take a closer look at the intricacies of the Party Systems and Machines employed in Australian politics at all levels. Particularly if you are an outsider challenging an established ‘dynasty.’ Better still, give it a go.

    I never said our system was pure – just that it’s better than the US’s system, partly because we don’t require our politicians or leaders to be rich to get elected. So poor people (like Abbott) and even outsiders (like Rudd) have made it.

  53. BalancedObservation2 says:

    tgs
    #3728939

    You make a good point that politics is influenced by culture.

    And probably the opposite is also true.

    It’s become quite fashionable to bag Donald Trump. In fact when many say something derogatory to you about Trump they seem to automatically expect you to agree. It’s become a form of virtue signalling. It usually wouldn’t matter whether their point is valid or not.

    Comedians often seem only to mention Trump’s name to get a laugh. For them it’s easy material and it can also be a form of virtue signalling. Virtue signalling among comedians seems in general more popular than ever. It’s as detrimental to humour as political correctness, which is also more popular among comedians.

    This is all out of keeping with the fact well over 70 million Americans voted for Donald Trump. Not too far off close to half that voted. They can’t all be unthinking buffoons.

    I think it’s a symptom of the fact that conservatives on the whole are rapidly losing the contest for idea with the left.

  54. BalancedObservation2 says:

    FelixKruel
    #3729118

    I wouldn’t say that both Kevin Rudd and Tony and Abbott are poor. Particularly Rudd.

    Barack Obama wasn’t rich before he was elected – although when you see the mansion he’s just bought it looks like he’s much better off now.

    Four Prime Ministers in Australia since 2007 have been removed from office without an election or even the vote of parliament. That’s not a very good record.

  55. Old School Conservative says:

    Virtue signalling among comedians seems in general more popular than ever

    Today I saw virtue signalling extend to general tv viewing.
    A contestant on “Who wants to be a millionaire” rejected GWH Bush an an option to one question saying “If I select him I’ll have to resign from the human race”.
    Accepted by Eddie with a smile.
    Virtue signalling is endemic and any opposition is increasingly dealt with harshly.

  56. BalancedObservation2 says:

    OldSchoolConservative
    #3729157

    Doesn’t surprise me at all.

    And GWH Bush was quite the gentleman and quite restrained and level-headed in his actions as President.

    And I bet no one in the audience showed any surprise at the remark either.

  57. FelixKruell says:

    Balanced:

    I wouldn’t say that both Kevin Rudd and Tony and Abbott are poor. Particularly Rudd.

    Rudds wife is rich, but he didn’t really use any of that money for his candidacy, or move in rich circles. So I think he’s an aberration.

    Abbott was poor relative to US politicians – a median priced house that was mortgaged. That’s about it.

    Obama was no doubt the poorest of recent presidents. Most others, including candidates, were multi-millionaires. If not, they had rich benefactors.

    Four Prime Ministers in Australia since 2007 have been removed from office without an election or even the vote of parliament. That’s not a very good record.

    That’s our system. The public don’t vote directly for the PM. They do get their say at free and fair elections though, and have generally punished parties that switched leaders

  58. BalancedObservation2 says:

    FelixKruel

    #3729182

    “That’s our system”

    Precisely.
    And I understand our system fully.

    The public has “generally” punished parties that have switched leaders.

    Not so either. Malcolm Turnbull was elected PM after removing Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison was elected PM after replacing Malcolm Turnbull.

    Julia Gillard was arguably the only one punished and not by the electorate – she was punished by her own party. Unless you think Rudd was punished for being removed and then regaining the job the people decided to give him in the first place. (Regardless of the legal situation people by convention vote for the leader who’s presented to them as the next prime minister by their party).

    All is needed under “our system” is a majority party vote. In the case of the two Coalition government PM removals only a majority of Liberal Party members was needed. The National Party partner in the Coalition didn’t even get a vote.

  59. FelixKruell says:

    Balanced:

    Not so either. Malcolm Turnbull was elected PM after removing Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison was elected PM after replacing Malcolm Turnbull.

    Turnbull lost seats, and barely hung on. That’s punishment. Morrison would be the exception. People really just hated Shorten and his policies more than they wanted to punish the coalition.

  60. BalancedObservation2 says:

    FelixKruell
    #3729253

    Although I was very sorry to see Tony Abbott removed by Malcolm Turnbull, Turnbull actually did better in the election than Tony Abbott was predicted to do by the polls. That was hardly punishment.

    Rather than generally being punished by the people as you maintain only one was really punished and that was not by the people but by her own party.

    I notice you ignored the other points I made.

  61. Rex Anger says:

    I never said our system was pure – just that it’s better than the US’s system, partly because we don’t require our politicians or leaders to be rich to get elected. So poor people (like Abbott) and even outsiders (like Rudd) have made it.

    You idiot Grigory- What do you think Malcolm Turnbull is? And all the senior Union appatachiks and lawyers and assorted bugmen are?

    Have you even seen what these people get paid as even coffee-wallahs for MPs? Let alone Party Staffers?

    Stop channelling Bob the Communist and actually research what you’re trying to lie and trollshit about.

  62. FelixKruell says:

    Balanced:

    Rather than generally being punished by the people as you maintain only one was really punished and that was not by the people but by her own party.

    Gillard took over from Rudd. Massive loss of seats at next election, formed minority government.
    Turnbull took over from Abbott. Massive loss of seats at next election. Polls don’t really count.

    I’d say that’s pretty good evidence that voters still punish leadership changes.

    All is needed under “our system” is a majority party vote. In the case of the two Coalition government PM removals only a majority of Liberal Party members was needed. The National Party partner in the Coalition didn’t even get a vote.

    Yes. Not sure your point though?

  63. FelixKruell says:

    Rex:

    You idiot Grigory- What do you think Malcolm Turnbull is? And all the senior Union appatachiks and lawyers and assorted bugmen are?

    Have you even seen what these people get paid as even coffee-wallahs for MPs? Let alone Party Staffers?

    Turnbull is the exception. Remember how noteworthy it was he used his own money to find the campaign?

    As for union hacks and lawyers and staffers – they do ok, but they’re not rich. A few million at most. That’s worse than Bernie Sanders, the Uber-communist.

  64. Rex Anger says:

    As for union hacks and lawyers and staffers – they do ok, but they’re not rich. A few million at most. That’s worse than Bernie Sanders, the Uber-communist.

    In which case your rampant idiocy continues unabated, Grigory.

    Only A few million at worst, you say?

    When most people in this country aspire to making a few hundred thousand in their lifetime, and getting a home to provide some equity in later life, and a place to raise a family…

    This is the hill you’ve decided to die on, Grigory. Telling us Cats millionaires aren’t rich, relative to billionaires. Therefore the political and bugman classes in this country, for all their dynasties, gatekeeping and vehement elitism are better than the Uniparty cronyism of the US’ political classes, because they aren’t as rich?

    You contemptible, Elitist fool.

  65. flyingduk says:

    After a rebound from COVID 19 a consequent economic downturn will cause the loss of the Democrat Senate and House of Representatives majorities in 2022.

    You think the Dominion machines will care about buyers remorse?

  66. FelixKruell says:

    Rex:

    When most people in this country aspire to making a few hundred thousand in their lifetime, and getting a home to provide some equity in later life, and a place to raise a family…

    Now you’re a man of the people? Oh Rex…be still my heart.

    Telling us Cats millionaires aren’t rich, relative to billionaires. Therefore the political and bugman classes in this country, for all their dynasties, gatekeeping and vehement elitism are better than the Uniparty cronyism of the US’ political classes, because they aren’t as rich?

    Most of our recent PMs (and most MPs) have made their money from their salaries over time. They’re practically working class.

  67. Rex Anger says:

    No Grigory.

    You chose to defend this.

    And all the attempts to drip sarcasm at me will not disguise the magnitude of your failure.

    Most of our recent PMs (and most MPs) have made their money from their salaries over time. They’re practically working class.

    Oh Grigory. Please. Tell me that you’re actially an LNP or ALP staffer out there in the meatspace. This is the only way your ambit could possibly make sense.

    Retire this sock, Grigory. You’ve broken it on the stupidest trollshit you could possibly squeeze out…

  68. BalancedObservation2 says:

    FelixKruell

    #3729301

    The evidence certainly does not support your contention that parties are “generally” punished for replacing Prime Ministers.

    Labor replaces Rudd with Gillard and is elected at following election. (When the polls had shown Rudd was likely to lose the next election if he remained leader).

    Liberals replace Abbott with Turnbull and the Coalition is elected at following election ( When the polls had shown Abbott was likely to lose the next election if he remained leader).

    Liberals replace Turnbull with Morrison and Coalition is elected at following election. ( When the polls had clearly shown Turnbull was likely to lose the election by a large margin).

    In each case that’s hardly punishment.

    The only exception is when Labor replaced Gillard and returned to Rudd and was defeated at the following election. And arguably that had a lot more to do with Labor promising not to introduce a carbon tax at the previous election and then introducing it soon after being elected.

    So your contention that parties are “generally ” punished for removing Prime Ministers is not supported by the evidence.

    But my main point is not that at all. It is a party can change the Prime minister without a vote of the people or parliament. And in the case of the Coalition without even the vote of the Coalition partner.

    Who the Prime Minister is can make a big difference over how a country is governed. For example Malcolm Turnbull represented a huge change in direction over Tony Abbott who’d been elected by the people.

    And Prime Ministers are elected by the people. At elections parties put up their leader for the people to vote for as the next Prime Minister. Election material by parties asks voters to vote for their leader to become Prime Minister. I understand the legalities of the system but by convention our Prime Minister is elected by the people at elections.

    A system that permits changing elected PMs with a handful of party room votes is therefore a system with an important flaw. The people can be stuck with a PM they never expected to get nor voted for, for four years.

    The system actually allows a party to change the PM as often as they like. They could give us any number of different PMs without reference to the people. And that could last four years before the people get the right to give a verdict on it.

    A party under our system could put up a leader for election as Prime Minister and immediately replace that Prime Minister after the election.

    This is a key flaw in our system – which is an otherwise pretty good system.

  69. FelixKruell says:

    Rex:

    Oh Grigory. Please. Tell me that you’re actially an LNP or ALP staffer out there in the meatspace. This is the only way your ambit could possibly make sense.

    You forgot to explain why you disagree. Again. Almost like you can’t.

  70. FelixKruell says:

    Balanced:

    So your contention that parties are “generally ” punished for removing Prime Ministers is not supported by the evidence.

    Losing a large majority of seats at an election, but still winning, is still punishment.

    And Prime Ministers are elected by the people. At elections parties put up their leader for the people to vote for as the next Prime Minister. Election material by parties asks voters to vote for their leader to become Prime Minister. I understand the legalities of the system but by convention our Prime Minister is elected by the people at elections.

    Yes, we have a difference between the legal structures and the common understanding. Most of the time, politicians are aware of the likelihood of being punished for taking advantage of that difference (like changing PMs at a whim). That’s why historically it’s been rare. That all changed over the last 2 decades. The key question is whether this is a blip, or a permanent change, and therefore whether we need to change our system to stop it from happening. I think we need a little more time before we can say either way.

  71. Rex Anger says:

    You forgot to explain why you disagree. Again. Almost like you can’t.


    No Grigory.

    We have been through this. You need to be both rich and well-connected to have the patronage to move up in the Australian political system. You admitted as such in your little bout of millionaires vs. billionaires sophistry. Since when is a political system better because it is full of, and governed and gatekept by millionaires vs. billionaires? Cos Australian?

    That you choose not to acknowledge this failure in order to start your little trollshit dance again (Remember As for union hacks and lawyers and staffers – they do ok, but they’re not rich. A few million at most. That’s worse than Bernie Sanders, the Uber-communist? And They’re practically working class?), is not my problem.

    Just like George Pell, the No lekshun frod heer, peasant! meme you’ve been peddling since November and anything.else you try on, Grigory…

  72. BalancedObservation2 says:

    FelixKruell
    #3729671

    I think we may be making a little ground up between us.

    Yes you’re right the system served us well for a long time.

    But it hasn’t for about a decade now on what now looks like this flawed aspect of it.

    The question is will parties stop doing this? It’s unhealthy for our democracy. I don’t think they will.

    Leaders like Turnbull who did it are totally unrepentant. He’s claimed removing him was an outrage yet he did the same thing himself to Tony Abbott.

    Because a party loses seats over what they after what they held after the last election is not proof that they were punished for a leadership change – when the polling evidence before the leaders was removed showed they were actually going to lose the following election. That’s the case in three out of the four cases we have.

    I have shown all the examples and the results and the evidence certainly does national not support your contention at all, that parties are ” generally” punished for it.

    But as I said earlier that was not my main point. The question is, is it good for our democracy to allow a Prime Minister elected by the people to be removed so easily without any reference to the people for up to four years afterwards. I don’t think it is.

  73. FelixKruell says:

    Rex:

    You need to be both rich and well-connected to have the patronage to move up in the Australian political system.

    Abbott, Gillard, Shorten, Morrison – none of them are rich. Yet they moved up in our political system just fine.

  74. FelixKruell says:

    Balanced:

    But as I said earlier that was not my main point. The question is, is it good for our democracy to allow a Prime Minister elected by the people to be removed so easily without any reference to the people for up to four years afterwards. I don’t think it is.

    I think we need a little more time to see whether the parties themselves can fix this – either with discipline (being very optimistic) or with their own rules (Rudds changes to the ALPs methods for picking leader).

    If that doesn’t work, then maybe some kind of recall mechanism like many US jurisdictions have?

    Or do you have another solution?

  75. Rex Anger says:

    Abbott, Gillard, Shorten, Morrison – none of them are rich. Yet they moved up in our political system just fine.

    How many zeroes do you take to define ‘rich,’ Grigory?

    Did ykuou also consider the bank balances of those whose patronage they relied upon?

    Give up, Grigory. Stop reinforcing your failure. You lost this the minute you decided to follow Commie Bob’s line, then engage in rhe sophistry of millionaires being better than billionaires cos poorer…

  76. FelixKruell says:

    Rex:

    How many zeroes do you take to define ‘rich,’ Grigory?

    If you don’t have to work for a living is a reasonable bar.

    But I didn’t realise you were so sensitive about your limited means Rex – though it does explain the chip on your shoulder.

  77. Rex Anger says:

    Sorry Grigory, but that insult doesn’t even work. Remember that you are now recorded as having said As for union hacks and lawyers and staffers – they do ok, but they’re not rich. A few million at most. That’s worse than Bernie Sanders, the Uber-communist?

    Congratulations on reinforcing your failure again by attempting to insult me instead of giving up on this whole failure of a trollshit and weebling back up to try your luck elsewhere with another sockpuppet.

    If you had, say, opened your ambit with the examples of some Independents or Minor Parties, maybe your argument would have had traction. You could have mentioned Pauline Hanson, Bob Katter, Ricky Muir or even David Leyonhjelm.

    Instead, you betrayed your dishonesty, mendacity and stupidity by trying sophistry about millionaires and billionaires. And how a system influenced by mere millionaires is somehow better than one involving billionaires.

    Ironic, given your championing of deliberate and documented electoral interference in the USA by the influence of the fortunes of both.

    You are a very bad troll, Grigory. Try being more like Benito M0ntylini- His brand of drive-by sloganeering might suit you better…

  78. FelixKruell says:

    Rex:

    Do you need a loan? A sandwich? I hate to see poor people suffering. Even you.

  79. Rex Anger says:

    Sorry Giggity. You’ve lost it, mate.

    Pick up your Ed Case sock and go bullshit some more about Ben Wade on the OT for a bit.

    You’re done here.

  80. JC says:

    Ringshot,

    Instead of trolling every single comment you disagree with why not try and participate by adding commentary instead of replying dishonestly, you pillow biting troll.

  81. FelixKruell says:

    JC:

    Instead of trolling every single comment you disagree with why not try and participate by adding commentary instead of replying dishonestly, you pillow biting troll.

    I did. See my exchange with Balanced above. Note the difference in that exchange, versus those with you and Rex? Almost like you lot are the problem.

  82. JC says:

    Oh my apologies, , instead of 100 % replies and lies, it’s 30:1. You must have been badly beaten up as a child, Ringshot.

  83. Rex Anger says:

    I did. See my exchange with Balanced above. Note the difference in that exchange, versus those with you and Rex? Almost like you lot are the problem.

    Giggity,

    Stringing along a naive innocent with a mendacious ‘conversation’ around your trollshit is not a good example.

    It’s a bit like saying “Well Sleepy Joe said Tara Reade wanted it bad, so what’s your problem with what we’re saying about Brett Kavanagh?”

  84. FelixKruell says:

    Rex:

    Was that a no to the loan? Don’t be too proud now!

    The fact you can’t recognise a normal discussion here anymore says it all.

  85. Rex Anger says:

    The fact you can’t recognise a normal discussion here anymore says it all.

    But Grigory, darling…

    You’ve never held a normal discussion on this blog once.

    I am impressed that you’re still trying a debunked insult to provoke a rise.

    Is the cricket that bad today, or is your personality so deeply fracture this afternoon that you must prevail in this persona before you try Terry Pedersen or Ed Case again?

  86. FelixKruell says:

    Rex:

    Have you considered fruit picking?

  87. Rex Anger says:

    Have you considered fruit picking?

    Have you?

Comments are closed.