Protestor builds wall around Donald Trump’s star on Hollywood’s “Walk of Fame”

I’m starting to weary of the endless Trump-bashing by people who delight in his every misstep, like the plagiarism of his wife in her speech. (Yes, I’ve been guilty of that., too!) But it’s becoming extreme, and the aims are not political, as they should be, but often sheer mean-spiritedness. Granted that Donald doesn’t seem to have an empathic bone in his body—every gene he has is dedicated to self-promotion—but it’s too much to make something like this, which is all over Facebook.


Really, must people be snarky about his marriages? I am just so confident that Trump will lose that I see stuff like this as overkill, and as Schadenfreude, which is never a good emotion. Trump is going to lose the election, and if any reader feels otherwise I’ll be willing to bet them some dosh, as I’ve bet Lou Jost. My money is on Hillary.

Nevertheless, I’ll put up one satirical post, which, unlike the meme above, does make a valid political point. It’s a report by CBS News that Trump’s star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame has received some, well, treatment. Someone built a 6-inch wall around his star, put “Keep out” signs on it, and topped it with razor wire:

Screen Shot 2016-07-20 at 12.54.23 PM


Of course my question is this: Why does he have a star in the first place?


  1. Mike
    Posted July 20, 2016 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

    I hope he sent the bill to Mr Trump.

    • GBJames
      Posted July 20, 2016 at 1:36 pm | Permalink


  2. Randall Schenck
    Posted July 20, 2016 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    Seems appropriate and yes, what is required to get a star these days. A thousand twitter followers?

    • Billy Bl.
      Posted July 20, 2016 at 1:42 pm | Permalink


      • Ann German
        Posted July 20, 2016 at 2:15 pm | Permalink


    • Heather Hastie
      Posted July 20, 2016 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

      You can buy a star, and that’s what he did.

      I heard Trump described recently as a poor person’s imagining of what a rich person is/does. I thought that was pretty good.

      • Posted July 20, 2016 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

        I think that was Sam Harris’ characterization of Trump.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted July 20, 2016 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

          It was too! Thanks for reminding me. 🙂

        • Posted July 20, 2016 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

          It amazes me that there is any overlap between the fans of Sam Harris and Trump supporters, and yet, it seems to be the case (and in significant numbers). How can anyone who takes thinking seriously support Donald Trump? I don’t get it.

          • Posted July 21, 2016 at 7:22 am | Permalink

            I’d be curious what makes you think there are “in significant numbers”.

            I’ve seen nothing that would lead to that conclusion.

            • Posted July 21, 2016 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

              It’s what Sam said in one of his podcasts. I will admit, though, that I don’t know what “significant” means, exactly.

      • Runcible Spooner
        Posted July 21, 2016 at 7:57 am | Permalink

        I think that might have been a variation on the old description of Newt Gingrich as a stupid person’s idea of what a smart person sounds like.

  3. Posted July 20, 2016 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    Of course, it’s difficult to compete with Trump’s mean-spiritedness. Just ask Mr. Kovaleski.

  4. Posted July 20, 2016 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    Brilliant post on difference between mocking with a political point and nasty ad hom.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted July 20, 2016 at 3:55 pm | Permalink


      • Pliny the in Between
        Posted July 20, 2016 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

        What about nasty ad hom attacks with a political point?

        After suffering through his 60 Minutes interview I’m not convinced that any level of ridicule is excessive.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted July 20, 2016 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

          I’m OK with attacks on Trump, but I’m uncomfortable with any on a family member of any candidate. I prefer not to do stuff like making nasty comments about his hair or skin colour, though I admit to laughing when others do it (and wishing I could stop myself). There’s plenty to pick on without that.

          I know that’s a bit of a cowardly stance, but I also don’t like the idea of sinking to his level. I don’t feel like I can abuse him for mocking a disabled reporter if I mock his hair.

          One of the things that really bugs me is when someone criticizes something Trump says/does and the immediate response of his supporters is to point to something Obama or Clinton said/did that’s similar as if that makes it okay. It’s something sycophants on Fox like Sean Hannity and Eric Bolling do all the time.

          Btw, I added a link to your page of Trump cartoons to one of my posts about him recently, and also to your page of Noah etc cartoons on my post about the Ark Encounter.

          • Pliny the in Between
            Posted July 20, 2016 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

            I agree that shots at family are usually poor form – except in the case of the Duck Dynasty of course. But that HAIR! No way that get’s a pass because it is so symbolic of his core being. No one cares that he’s got a bald spot but he has created this elaborate coiffure to cover it up just like his brazen rhetoric tries to cover his total lack of governing substance. He may be America’s first completely faux candidate. Saddest of all is the fact the a significant number of people don’t seem to care that he has as much substance as a Cheese Puff (not intended as a comment on his skin tone btw…)

            Also – thank you for the links! – that explains my doubled readership (20 hits instead of 10 ;)).

            • BobTerrace
              Posted July 20, 2016 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

              You insulted cheese puffs by comparing to Mr. Narcissist who lies 76% of the time.

            • Posted July 20, 2016 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

              I’m just going to freely nerd out and run with my free association. I was struck by Pliny’s “faux candidate” and my thoughts went to pseudogenes:

              There’s a paragraph in the wiki on the shared history between a gene and its pseudo, which made me think of Tr*mp as representing all the dying historical forces of our progress as a nation. Going with my metaphor, because pseudogenes exist doesn’t mean that progress has not occurred. It is tempting to lose sight of the organism as a whole when focusing on a dead gene, but even if we phenotypically f-up and elect him, I am confident that we have stronger and more functional genes (rational forces), which will ultimately present. But I am with Jerry; my bet is on Hillary come November.

            • Heather Hastie
              Posted July 21, 2016 at 12:24 am | Permalink

              When you’re a cartoonist you get a pass on the hair of course! 😀 I’m in a bit of a different position.

            • Robert Bray
              Posted July 21, 2016 at 9:09 am | Permalink

              7 no-trump it is, then. Just another hum-drum day at the bridge club.

  5. Mark Sturtevant
    Posted July 20, 2016 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    All talk show monologues start with Trump. Trump this, Trump that. I am pretty sick of the man.
    That Hillary will win is marginally likely, but not a sure thing. The conservative, saber-rattling Republican can win if the public does not feel safe, and a terrorist attack can do just that.

    • Posted July 20, 2016 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

      I agree, it would not take much. Per Nate Silver – Clinton’s lead is currently about as solid as John Kerry’s was at this stage in 2004

      • Reginald Selkirk
        Posted July 20, 2016 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

        But the campaign started much earlier this cycle, so that we can expect that opinions are more set.

  6. Philip Elliott
    Posted July 20, 2016 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    He has a star moslt likely because he paid for it himself. The star is usually paid for by the celebrity or someone in their behalf.

    The older ones are honors bestowed by the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, but in 1980 they “instituted a fee of $2,500, payable by the person or entity nominating the recipient, to fund the Walk of Fame’s upkeep and minimize further taxpayer burden.[20] The fee has increased incrementally over time; by 2002 it had reached $15,000,[35] and stood at $30,000 in 2012.[3]” [Quote from Wikipedia]

    So Trump, with the excuse of being the star of his reality TV show, likely paid what any of us would consider a hefty fee for the privilege.

    • Randall Schenck
      Posted July 20, 2016 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

      I’m sure he would have taken it off on taxes. Guys like that deduct everything, even self-promotion.

      • Posted July 21, 2016 at 11:43 am | Permalink

        I know the IRS’ tax code has some pretty crazy loopholes, but … surely not?

    • Mandible
      Posted July 21, 2016 at 8:45 am | Permalink

      Why not use the Ockham’s razor here? To explain why Trump has the star, it is sufficient to acknowledge that he was a star of a TV show which was popular (enjoying high rankings, at least in the beginning) and ran for many years (14 seasons, to be precise). This, or often much less, was enough for many other people to get their stars. Assuming that he must have paid for it is both arbitrary and unnecessary for explaining the observed data.

  7. Graham
    Posted July 20, 2016 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    “I am just so confident that Trump will lose”

    That’s just how I felt, here in the UK, about the possibility of our exiting the EU. Everyone I spoke to was for remaining and thought we’d be crazy to leave, yet it turned out that 52% of us thought differently. That really dented my confidence in being able to predict how an electorate will vote.

    • Ann German
      Posted July 20, 2016 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

      PCCE: I will take your bet, only because the prospect of my losing may tip the balance in Clinton’s favor. I DO NOT FEEL sanguine about this election . . . like the Brexit vote, a vote for Trump is a vote for isolation, xenophobia, good ole white boys and bigotry, all of which are mainstays of the American psyche right now. I repeat, I AM NOT SANGUINE.

      • Dave
        Posted July 20, 2016 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

        “. . like the Brexit vote….is a vote for isolation, xenophobia, good ole white boys and bigotry”

        That’s a neat dismissal of the choice made by 17.5 million Britons, of whom half are likely to have been women, and many to have been non-white. Do you have any evidence to back it up, or is it just a product of your own bigotry against anyone who doesn’t happen to share your opinion?

        • Posted July 20, 2016 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

          Hey, please don’t attack other commenters; that comment crossed the line. It would be nice if you tendered an apology. Even if somebody says something that intensely annoys you, can we all please respond civilly?

        • Posted July 20, 2016 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

          While the Brexit ‘leave’ vote likely does represent the voices of those from working-class, low SES backgrounds, many did NOT understand the implications of the vote on them. In the same way, many who would vote for Tr*mp have no idea that his policies will functionally hurt them the most. My poor, illiterate mother is one poignant example. It is easy to manipulate the masses with promises of better days ahead. And yes, we need to focus our efforts on those who are the most vulnerable. But going after Ann German for her empathy doesn’t help bring that point out.

          • Posted July 21, 2016 at 7:28 am | Permalink

            “many who would vote for Tr*mp have no idea that his policies will functionally hurt them the most.”

            This has been the Republican program since Reagan, at least. And it has worked, by and large.

        • jeremyp
          Posted July 21, 2016 at 5:53 am | Permalink

          Judging by the rise in racist incidents following the vote, while many of the Leave voters might not have had xenophobia in their minds, the vote was most definitely for an inward looking xenophobic Britain (well, eventually , England when Scotland leaves).

          There’s no doubt that xenophobia (both of European bureaucrats and immigrants) formed a major part of the Leave campaign strategy.

          The Leave vote has brought the country that I used to love to the edge of destruction. Some of us are very angry with the Leave voters because of that. The decision was act act of epic stupidity, of which every Leave voter has a small part.

      • Posted July 20, 2016 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

        Okay, email me with how much you want to bet.

    • Posted July 20, 2016 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

      People paid to predict how an electorate will vote (the sociologists) also failed. I start to suspect that votes, like earthquakes, cannot be predicted.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted July 20, 2016 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

      The difference between the Brexit vote and the presidential vote is the US electoral college.

      Remember, for example, that the popular vote between Obama and Romney in 2012 was fairly close but Obama won the electoral college in a landslide. Because of demographics, and going on all the polling so far (which could change of course), it is extremely unlikely Trump will win.

      • Posted July 20, 2016 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

        Yes, and picking a fight with the governor of Ohio did not help his chances.

        • Posted July 21, 2016 at 7:30 am | Permalink

          Yes, Kasich has really turned his back on Drumpf.

  8. Posted July 20, 2016 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    I’m no fan of internet memes either, but Trump just flew into the Cleveland convention on a helicopter, accompanied by ponderous (minor key?) orchestral music. This ‘Triumph of the Will’ stuff is getting a little wearisome, too.

  9. BobTerrace
    Posted July 20, 2016 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    Since Trump has mentioned Bill Clinton when talking about Hillary, talking about his marriages is certainly fair game. He cheated on # 1 with # 2 and on #2 with #3.

    His racism, bigotry, xenophobia, misogyny, bullying, constant lies, derogatory and defamatory talk about everyone, false religion, etc. means he deserves every single joke and dig and mean post.

    • Posted July 20, 2016 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

      I agree that the meme about his marriages is fair play. If he wants to claim a level of integrity and fidelity that becomes a leader of a nation, he can expect to have that claim dissected and refuted if it turns out to be bluster.

    • Charles McCullough
      Posted July 20, 2016 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

      I just observed a story picturing Trump with an ex-Marine GOP state legislator (Baldasore)who claims: Hillary should be shot for treason.” He is Trump’s veteran affairs advisor. With that disgusting display, anything is fair against Trump and ALL of his ilk. Would there be any true justice in this nation if these vile people are empowered?

      • BobTerrace
        Posted July 20, 2016 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

        You are right, Charles. The US would become a Third World dictatorship and lose the rule of law.

    • bluemaas
      Posted July 20, 2016 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

      I agree as well. Considering all of the promises Mr Trump has made in this political campaign — if he becomes the chief of this land and its leader ?! In one’s private life as in one’s public arena, the best predictor of future behavior is … … one’s past behavior.

      And here — Mr Trump’s past behavior — there are a lotta.lotta broken promises not only within mawwiages* but also in deals and in arrangements; the number of lawsuits [very many ongoing right now] in which this person is a litigant is staggering. [Yes, I know: W H Y for the past eons of decades however, the average (truly: the average one) American Republican making $50k a year or less incessantly continues to [i]ever[/i] vote Republican, let alone for the likes of Mr Trump, flummoxes me no end !] The average American, thankfully, is [i]never[i/] inside a civil or criminal courtroom, as say a defendant, even one time in their lifetimes — — let alone, because of the number of times that this man’s attorneys have been there or in backroom litigations — — defending his broken promises.

      As re mawwiages (as re ones betwixt any gender), there needn’t be for any political candidate anywhere — any mawwiages ! Back in the day, there weren’t even serial boyfriends or girlfriends ! The one – at – a – time couplings’ kind.

      So, there [i]is[i/] a way to have the [number of] private relationships one apparently wants ! [At least, in certain countries.] Without its being thought of as debauchery. Without its being considered whorish and sluttish. Without its being adjudged as of one’s infidelities. And I do not know why [perhaps you know ? nondeterminism and / or we have free will – thinkings of people enter in to this answer ? I don’t know] it ever fell outta favor — let alone, for especially high – profile folks within any public endeavor: for as long a time as a person wanted her or his relationships this way, why, it used to be simply called … … playing the field.

      *as of its pronunciation within [i]The Pwincess Bwide[i/] film


      ps Thank you, Mr Blilie. I have tried to italicize. Did I succeed ?

      • bluemaas
        Posted July 20, 2016 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

        “Did I succeed ?” Noooo, apparently NOT !

        Blue 😦

        • Mark R.
          Posted July 20, 2016 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

          Wrong type of brackets…use instead.

          • Mark R.
            Posted July 20, 2016 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

            Darn it didn’t show up. The brackets to use are the greater than/less than type.

            • BobTerrace
              Posted July 20, 2016 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

              you need to show it this way:


              use ampersand lt; and ampersand gt;

              We’ll see if this show correctly.

              • Mark Sturtevant
                Posted July 20, 2016 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

                Now my question is: How did you show that? Whenever I try to show this sort of thing it ‘does’ the command and hides the symbols used for the command.

              • BobTerrace
                Posted July 20, 2016 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

                I showed how: ampersand, l,t, semicolon to represent “less than”…

              • Posted July 21, 2016 at 7:33 am | Permalink

                Well done Bob Terrace.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted July 20, 2016 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

          In WordPress you need to use for ]. Also, when stopping the italics, the / has to go before the second i, not after.

          • Heather Hastie
            Posted July 20, 2016 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

            Ok, that didn’t work.

            Use greater than and kess than signs instead of square brackets. Everything I wrote between greater than and less than signs above has been left out completely, which I should have remembered would happen.

        • gravelinspector-Aidan
          Posted July 20, 2016 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

          If you’re using Firefox (on whatever platform, Windows, Android, GNU/Linux, xBSD which includes Macintosh), try installing the BBCodeXtra extension, which will give you formatting options for WordPress and a number of other systems. (WordPress uses the xhtml command set).
          If you’re not using Firefox, you’re going to have to persist until you “get” the programming language that is HTML. Unless someone else knows a solution for the browser you do use.

  10. geckzilla
    Posted July 20, 2016 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    I was confused for a moment (perhaps it was just me) about the way your first sentence was written. It took me just a few seconds to realize you meant you were guilty of Trump-bashing rather than plagiarism. “WHAT? He would never plagiarize… say it ain’t so!”

    Hard as it may be, I try to picture Trump as just another guy and criticize him as dispassionately as possible. Same with Hillary. Just two people who happen to be running for prez… From the same planet, made of the same DNA that I am making the same mistakes dodging or falling into the same intellectual pitfalls my own brain does.

    I find it strangely relaxing to know that every terrorist, every dictator, every murderer, rapist, liar, and thief shares the same DNA I do. I might be a terrorist if I grew up in the same situation a terrorist grew up in. I still get angry that bad people exist sometimes, but it takes the edge off.

  11. Posted July 20, 2016 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    Here is why the plagiarism and his wife’s “non-existent college degree” (bio says she has the degree) matters:

    Trump is running as a competent businessman who, despite his political inexperience, will straighten it all out.

    At what we are seeing is an unprofessional train wreck of a campaign, which I believe is inconsistent with his claims about his strengths.

    If he can’t run his campaign any better than this, how will he run the country?

    • Reginald Selkirk
      Posted July 20, 2016 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

      His wife made those comments are part of her speech during a political convention. To suppose that her relationship with Trump is somehow off-limits seems extraordinary under those circumstances. If family are off-limits for criticism, they ought to be kept in the background.

      • Posted July 20, 2016 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

        Sure, if you are an adult at the podium, you are fair game. But most people don’t care whether she even knows what plagiarism is. I think that they should care about the quality of the campaign that Mr. Trump is running, since he touts himself as being highly competent and getting things done.

  12. Ken Kukec
    Posted July 20, 2016 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

    Didn’t think I’d ever agree about Trump and overkill. Then I scrolled down and saw the crack about “his third wife.” It lacks any redeeming wit.

    Interesting to note, nonetheless, that the nation has had but one divorced president, Ronald Reagan, elected 1980. Before that, having a divorced US president was considered verboten (although private debauchery was tacitly tolerated). That was the case through the 1960s, when getting a messy divorce probably cost Nelson Rockefeller a shot at the Republican candidacy. (Richard Nixon’s dirty tricksters mounted a smear campaign against Rocky, that the nation “needs a leader, not a lover.”)

    Sure is a long way from there to the likes of Donald Trump. Wonder if those are the great old days he’s planning on taking the country back to?

    • Kevin
      Posted July 20, 2016 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

      Divorce should be irrelevant and I feel sorry for his present wife; it’s like she has been used.

      • Reginald Selkirk
        Posted July 20, 2016 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

        Trump will stand by her steadfastly, right up until he trades her in for a newer model.

        • RossR
          Posted July 21, 2016 at 5:23 am | Permalink

          … as they say, “marrying your mistress – creates a vacancy’.

      • Christopher
        Posted July 20, 2016 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

        The important thing is that they married for love, right?

    • jay
      Posted July 21, 2016 at 7:25 am | Permalink

      hey, I’m with my third wife. I don’t see that as a big issue. Life happens

      *(happily I’m on good terms with both ex’s and their current husbands)

      • Posted July 21, 2016 at 7:37 am | Permalink

        Of course not. But if you are campaigning for president and rolling out your (3rd) wife to tout how loyal you are …

        … you’re leaving yourself rather wide open to pointed criticism.

      • GBJames
        Posted July 21, 2016 at 7:45 am | Permalink

        The issue isn’t serial monogamy. It is serial hypocrisy in a political party that constantly yammers on about “family values” while ignoring their own blatant violation of those values.

        Similarly, we don’t object to Catholic priests having consensual sex (with adults) but we are free to call “hypocrisy” because they push the bullshit notion that they hold moral authority over the rest of us.

  13. Dean Booth
    Posted July 20, 2016 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    As with religion, actual facts and arguments are not very effective against conservatives. For this reason, I believe that the more widespread the mocking, the better.

    • Eric Grobler
      Posted July 20, 2016 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

      As with religion, actual facts and arguments are not very effective against conservatives.

      What makes you think that the radical left is fact based or rational?

      • KD33
        Posted July 20, 2016 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

        One does not have to be “radical left” to argue effectively against conservatives. Anywhere in the range of mildly progressive to generally rational will do just fine against today’s facts-optional conservative. As a general observation, in the last decade or so the conservative world has moved so far into the netherland of dogma and mean-spiritedness that it leaves the rest of us as de-facto owners of values and policy relevant to the real world. This may sound harsh, but I can actually no longer think of a single policy view held by Republicans that has value. Can someone find one for me?

      • Reginald Selkirk
        Posted July 21, 2016 at 7:10 am | Permalink

        What makes you think that the radical left is fact based or rational?

        Adjectives! I love adjectives. But your attempt to draw equivalence fails Indeed, there is a “radical” left, immune to reason. They are a small fringe.
        But on the right, the Republicans have been mainstreaming the crazy. They do it wholesale. At this moment, the topic of this very post, they have nominated Donald J. Trump to be the Republican candidate. How can you possibly argue for equivalence in light of that?

  14. ascanius
    Posted July 20, 2016 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    don’t be complacent.

    trump and clinton are virtually tied in the polls, though clinton still has an edge in the electoral college.

    • Posted July 21, 2016 at 7:38 am | Permalink

      And if neither clears 271, then it goes to the (GOP-controlled) House of Representatives.

  15. Mark Sturtevant
    Posted July 20, 2016 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    For the latest on the speech plagiarism from Mrs Trump: A speech writer has come forward and admitted that he had accidentally done it. Now get this: He also gave an unconditional apology for the error, and offered to resign!!
    Now that is refreshing! The error stands as a bad thing, but how unusual for a Trumpian to actually show contrition!

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted July 20, 2016 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

      I understand it was Meredith McIver — oft described as “a former ballet dancer and English major,” who had worked on a couple of the Donald’s so-called “books.”

      This admission comes after Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and a slew of his surrogates, had spent two days declaiming that there had been no plagiarism, merely a coincidental overlap of language between Melania and Michelle’s speeches.

      • Reginald Selkirk
        Posted July 20, 2016 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

        As Republicans ought to have learned, “The cover-up is worse than the crime.” They ought to have done this a day earlier, rather than attempt the mock-able denial, and the Little Ponies hilarity.

        I also have to suspect that the writer who “stepped up” was ordered to do so, and perhaps was not the guilty party; but that’s the way the game is played.

  16. Posted July 20, 2016 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    I couldnt figure out why he has a star either…just because he’s crooked and filthy rich?
    That wall around it is inspired.
    I agree on the overkill, who cares about the extra bs, its such a circus.

    • BobTerrace
      Posted July 20, 2016 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

      He might have a star due to that awful so-called reality show “Apprentice”.

      • Posted July 20, 2016 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

        True enough, but he didnt even create it…must have been too many orders made so they are using the stars up.

  17. Posted July 20, 2016 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    I think that it is OK to mock Trump over his divorces. If you do not want your personal life exposed and commented, do not run for an important public office. To me, the integrity of a person is manifested in private as well as in public life. Therefore, I search information on the personal lives of politicians before voting for them. If a politician has cheated on his partner whom he presumably has loved, why should I think that I, the voter, wouldn’t be betrayed?
    When Gerhard Schroeder was running for chancellor, there was a poster reminding his 3 divorces: three women with thumbs pointing down and an inscription: “Three women cannot be wrong”. I wish German voters had paid attention to this poster.

  18. squidmaster
    Posted July 20, 2016 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    I hope you’re right, Professor! People have been talking abut how it was impossible for Trump to advance at every stage of the game and yet, here he is. I expect the Republican party and the conservative machine to get into high gear and demonize Hilary Clinton. I’ve been a Clinton supporter right along and think that her transgressions are relatively tame compared to her accomplishments and that she’s more experienced, more trustworthy and less duplicitous than Trump. Politifact rates her assertions as 51% true or mostly true and 22% as half true. Only 1% were ‘pants on fire’. Her histogram is almost identical to Obama’s. Trump, on the other hand, has a flipped distribution: 19% pants on fire and 56% false or mostly false. Only 3% were rated ‘true’. and yet, just today, the NY Times called Clinton, ‘a flawed candidate’. I think that the perception of Clinton as deceptive and dishonest, even by progressives, gives Trump space. I worry.

  19. David Duncan
    Posted July 20, 2016 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

    “…it’s too much to make something like this, which is all over Facebook.”

    I think this is pretty mean too. They’re pretending to attack evangelical Christians but the real target is Trump.

    • GBJames
      Posted July 20, 2016 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

      What is being attacked is the rampant hypocrisy of “family values” Republicans. I don’t think it is the least bit mean.

      • David Duncan
        Posted July 20, 2016 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

        They aren’t attacking “family values”. They’re just attacking the Trumps.

        • GBJames
          Posted July 20, 2016 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

          Perhaps you haven’t been paying attention to Republican politics for the past forty years.

        • Posted July 20, 2016 at 10:17 pm | Permalink

          GBJames didn’t say the creators of that image are attacking family values. He said they are attacking (demonstrating) the hypocrisy of conservative theists who support Trump.

        • Posted July 21, 2016 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

          I don’t understand how you could possibly see that as an attack on Trump and not on the hypocrisy of “conservative, family values, Christian, republicans.” You are totally misinterpreting the message.

  20. Reginald Selkirk
    Posted July 20, 2016 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    Really, must people be snarky about his marriages?

    Yes, I must. Because Republicans I know still joke about Bill Clinton’s infidelities. I have let my sister-in-law know that if she wants to support Trump, she is never ever again allowed to mention B. Clinton’s philandering.

    The topic of hypocrisy among conservatives is too broad to cover here; just one recent point is Trump criticizing Hillary for supporting the Iraq war while his VP pick Pence also supported it; not to mention that Trump’s non-support of that war is a lie.

    • tomh
      Posted July 20, 2016 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

      When asked about Pence’s support of the Iraq war, Trump said he “didn’t care,” and “he’s entitled to make a mistake every once in a while.” Asked why Clinton isn’t entitled to a mistake, Trump simply said “she’s not.” And that was that.

      • Reginald Selkirk
        Posted July 21, 2016 at 7:12 am | Permalink

        Not to mention Trump’s own claim to have opposed the Iraq war from the start is a lie.

  21. Eric Grobler
    Posted July 20, 2016 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

    Trump is going to lose the election, and if any reader feels otherwise I’ll be willing to bet them some dosh

    I think it is unpredictable because;
    a) Hillary is a terrible candidate herself
    b) An event like a terrorist attach before the election can have a huge effect.
    c) The political discourse in the US has become highly sectarian and irrational and people like you assume humans a generally sensible 🙂

    It is sad that the greatest country on earth has such a superficial, somewhat corrupt and kitsch election culture – it has become a reality tv show.
    God knows who is the script writer.

  22. gravelinspector-Aidan
    Posted July 20, 2016 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    In both of the pictures presented there is what looks like a logo or writing in the lower-right.
    I guess there are better pictures somewhere that show these more clearly. I hope they say something like “Paid for by the people of Mexico” or something equally apt. Or savage. Or both.
    Of course, it might be even better if it said “Paid for by Mrs Trump #1”, but his landsharks probably have good tight NDA in there.

  23. Posted July 20, 2016 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

    I find that pointing out Trumps failures and his hypocrisy is as warranted as pointing out the similar failures and hypocrisy of the many many Christian pastors/priests and politicians that have come down the pike. One should use ol’ Donny’s photo rather than Melania I think.

  24. Jeremy Tarone
    Posted July 20, 2016 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

    RE: Hillary a shoe in. I sure hope so, but:
    Republicans have used just about every dirty trick in the book to get elected, including treason. Including Reagan’s illegal behind the scenes deal making to ensure hostages were not released until after a presidential election, and Nixon’s secret Vietnam deal making. While I’m not inclined to believe conspiracies, there seem to be an awful lot of people with incriminating stories.

    I don’t think there is anything Republicans wouldn’t do to get more power, no matter the damage it would cause Americans or other peoples. I think there isn’t anything Trump wouldn’t do, within his power. Which I suppose is the entire point.

    I won’t call the election until after it’s done. Even then it may not be over. Taking it to the supreme court worked before. Unlikely this time, but we won’t know what their next trick will be until they pull it, and perhaps not for decades after that.

  25. Debra
    Posted July 21, 2016 at 2:23 am | Permalink

    He has a star because you can buy them. I will bet you 5€ that he wins. Never underestimate the stupidity of the American public. (I should know, my ancestors came on the Mayflower).I can buy a six pack of beer for that. I am going to need it if he does win. BTW, I do think the meme makes a valid point.

  26. TJR
    Posted July 21, 2016 at 4:24 am | Permalink

    I’m also not optimistic about the US elections.

    As noted above, all it could take is one shock just before the election for Trump to win it. ISIS et al know this just as well as anyone else.

  27. Posted July 21, 2016 at 8:21 am | Permalink

    FFS, now Ivanka is being trotted out today to sing his praises. Everybody who had dealings with him had to sign non-disclosure clauses, otherwise s/he got squat or even a lawsuit for divulging anything uncomplimentary.

%d bloggers like this: