October 8, 2016 (To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)
Trump’s private comments on a 2005 tape have been leaked. You can read the quotes elsewhere. He’s talking about being a star and how easy it is for a star to get women. Quite explicit. These comments obviously reflect his actions at the time, or earlier. Now we also have a recycled Gennifer Flowers comment about her ex, Bill Clinton. Flowers said Bill told her Hillary had more women than he did. And of course there are Bill’s notorious sexual exploits and Hillary’s protection/enabling of him, extending apparently to powerful threats (and worse?) against Bill’s women.
So for the moment, at least, this is the substance of the campaign for the Presidency of the United States.
Bring them all on stage with Jerry Springer as the moderator.
Or admit they’re all a long way from being perfect people and decide who is worse. If you want to go that way, don’t forget to factor in the recent destruction of Libya and ever-strange Clinton body count.
Of note: The newly discovered 2005 Trump tape that now has him in hot water was a conversation with radio and TV host, Billy Bush, who is a member of the Bush family. The Bushes all appear to be voting for Hillary. Did Billy just take one for the team? Tune in tomorrow—the gossip will surely build.
And keep in mind, it doesn’t matter where the country is going, it doesn’t matter who will sit in the White House and make overarching decisions—it only matters who screwed whom and when.
If you want to go down that road, fine. I suggest remembering the word “rape” and deciding how Trump and Bill compare on that score.
Far be it from me to distract the hungry audience from its salacious meal, but here is the Presidential campaign article I finished just before the Trump tape scandal broke. It concerns media, the presentation of real issues, television mind control, and other boring material.
Read it while you wait for the next sex scandal—
The optics of the Presidential debates: split-screen insanity
By Jon Rappoport
There are many problems with the debate format, but by far the biggest optic is split-screen, which enables the viewer to see Trump’s and Hillary’s close-up facial reactions while they’re silent and listening to each other.
When Trump frowns, shakes his head, is irritated, it’s all there—and audiences are trained to think these actions are somehow “negative.” Hillary, for the most part, remains non-authentically cheery and bright. This is considered “standard” political response. “Rational, even-handed, unaffected.”
Trump should bring a cut-out photo of his face grinning widely, and hold it up in front of his own face whenever Hillary is talking.
The idea that facial reactions of the candidates are a key to debate victory or defeat is absurd. It’s a con. It’s part of gotcha journalism.
“Did you see what happened when she said that? He almost went ballistic. Wow. He’s out of control.”
The mask of unaffected neutral fixed response is an artifact of network news. That’s where it comes from. The anchor is above the fray. He’s dedicated to the truth. He resists the temptation to react. He remains objective at all costs. He’s part human and part machine. He’s the blank face and the voice of reason…
And since the debates are actually media events run by the news networks, the audience is led to expect the same sort of “unflappable” behavior from the candidates.
I’ve written several articles about the preposterous set up of the debates—which are not debates at all. If we must have network “moderators,” they should be muzzled and simply display large flash cards.
Card One: Hillary Clinton has 20 minutes to criticize Mr. Trump as a candidate. Then, she does. Trump isn’t on stage.
Card Two: Donald Trump has 20 minutes to criticize Hillary Clinton as a candidate. Then, he does. Clinton isn’t on stage.
Card Three: Hillary Clinton has a half-hour to recommend changes to current economic policy of the US government. Then she does. Trump isn’t on stage.
Card Four: Donald Trump has a half-hour to recommend changes to current economic policy of the US government. Then he does. Clinton isn’t on stage.
You get the idea. At no time do the candidates go face to face and carp at each other or interrupt. There is no split-screen. There is no gotcha. Instead, we actually listen to what they have to say—uninterrupted. The moderator holds no sway. He’s not part of the proceeding. Why should he be? He has no reason to be there.
No reason at all.
Now, if the debate were held between Lindsay Lohan and her fiancé, with whom she recently parted, then yes, a moderator might be appropriate. Jerry Springer, for example. Everybody would get paid, everybody would interrupt and accuse and react on split-screen, and the audience would be thrilled.
But a Presidential race is supposed to be different.
Perhaps you remember the first 2000 debate: Gore vs. Bush. Gore kept sighing when Bush spoke. “Sighing” immediately became a campaign issue in the press. Katie Couric asked Gore whether he considered sighing was “presidential behavior.” I’m no fan of Al Gore, but that was ridiculous. Optics before substance.
There are many wags running around with the title of journalist next to their names who believe strongly in optics, as “revealing” of a candidate’s nature and character. Fine. In that case, subject the candidates to press grillings and see what can be stirred up. But debates on major issues? That’s another animal altogether.
Far more important is a candidate’s complete and specific position on the issues. And to understand that (or the lack of it) we need to hear the candidate speak at length. Alone.
In that setting, are we getting high-flying fluffy generalities? Are we getting pure nonsense? Are we getting real solutions? Would they work? Would they push the nation into a deeper hole?
The press doesn’t go for depth. They don’t use it or sell it. It’s not their game. They’re afraid people will tune out. So the moderator of the moment says, “You have two minutes to reply to your opponent.” Is the moderator a complete idiot? Of course he is. He seems to believe he’s going to elicit something important in 120 seconds.
He’s a highly paid news anchor? He’s a college graduate? And he’s acting like an animal trainer with a little whip in a two-bit circus?
What if this happened in criminal trials? “Hello, everybody, I’m your judge and moderator. Remember the rules. Attorneys will be allowed to examine witnesses for 3 minutes each. Opening and closing statements are limited to 90 seconds. The jury is urged to watch the television monitors, which will display continuous close-ups of the attorneys, the defendant, and the witnesses as they react to the proceeding. You will find clues on their faces that impact on the guilt or innocence of the defendant…”
“We, the jury, have reached a verdict. We were strongly affected by the defendant wiggling in his seat during his wife’s testimony. Guilty on all counts!”
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.