Home | About | Donate

Winning By Destroying: Trump and Gingrinch


Winning By Destroying: Trump and Gingrinch

Robert Reich

When I was a boy and lost just about every sporting event I tried, my father told me, “What counts isn’t whether you win or lose but how you play the game.”


Oh, I can vote for a rich warmonger or a rich warmonger.

Hillary wants to win at any cost. She's a fat rich perfumed woman vs
a rich groomed guy. No new ideas here.

They rule by confusion and the 1% always wins.


Just look at how Trump conducted himself in the debates. He immediately took the debates into the gutter. There was nothing presidential about the Republican debates. It was more like school kids arguing on the playground. Trump knew the debates could not be about policy for his purposes, which is typical for debates and for the most part characterized the Democratic debates. Instead he turned the debates into name calling and negative branding such as Lyin' Ted and Little Marco. He was successful in getting the support of his base of non-college educated white men. He even stirred up violence at his rallies. Reich is correct that this is the path toward tyranny. Trump only cares about increasing his power. Mainly this has been though making money by pretty much anything goes including deception of vulnerable people. If he were to be president he would immediately set out to increase his power by any means possible. He would do whatever it took to destroy his political enemies. The courts and the press would become immediate targets since they are critical parts of democracy. This is an excellent article by Reich. He has accurately described how Gingrich changed politics and how Trump threatens democracy in the United States.


I would add two thing to this excellent piece by Robert Reich.

The modern Republican Party has decided that winning elections by any and all necessary means is what really counts in the US.

First: They have adopted the policies that will rob many voters of their vote by gerrymandering, voter ID laws, reducing the number of voting stations and voting machines, reducing early voting and voting hours, making voter registration more difficult and even changing the count in their favor.

And second: They have changed the laws to allow secret and virtually unlimited campaign contributions.

Jim Shea


No, Robert R., the Newt may have embodied the very most evil of evil political hypocrisies, yet the beginning of the game of win at any cost was well rooted in the US political elite long before the Newt came alone. Think of GWHB's inability to refrain from calling in the CIA to throttle Carter's re-election prospects in October, 1980. Think of Bill Clinton's deployments of Cruise Missiles, recklessly aimed at innocent Afghan children and women, to take public attention off WJC's impeachment trial. Think of RR's Star Wars gamble with the life of the planet. Think of RMN's deployment of the CIA, FBI, and any goon or squad of goons he could muster to silence Daniel Ellsberg and the entire anti-War movement while RMN wildly bombed Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and God only knows where else. Think of LBJ's presiding over the assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X, and at least two millions of innocent Vietnamese, just so he could be the peacock in the White House. Think of Ike sending the Dulles goons into Tehran to overthrow Iran's democratic government as set that nation into still piling up decades of civil violence and destruction to itself and other nations around the Greater Middle East. Think of the long string of US Presidents bowing at the knees of the violent, vicious, repugnant, malicious, terrorist, racist, sexist, Saudi Kings with their long-standing history of terrorism, even aimed at the US, whenever they choose. Think of the very same long history of US Presidents turning their backs whenever the malicious, violent, racist, terrorist Israeli government attacks the US, from at least as far back as their attack on the USS Liberty to the present illegal deployment of AIPAC, a wildly illegal foreign national lobbying organization undermining US political and governmental integrity.

Robert Reich, you have been in politics and the university all your five (?) decades of adult life! Have you learned nothing of looking into the history of a political trope before you deploy it as part of your rhetorical/electoral gamesmanship?!

Gestures can prove more violently devastating, when poorly aimed, to the truth than to any supposed enemy.


Bobby slyly falls back into line doing the heavy lifting for a Clinton.


Reich never mentions that Newt's rise to power was 100% Bill Clinton's fault.

Bill zealously promoted and pushed NAFTA through during his first year in office, resulting in the Democrats losing control of Congress in the 1994 election for the first time since 1954. GOP control of Congress gave Newt the opportunity to launch his "Campaign with America" that turned out to be a bipartisan contract ON Americans..


Excuse me, but the only candidate with any honor in this regard is Bernie Sanders.
Hillary has waged a "take no prisoners" campaign from the very start.
"Winning at any cost" is the mantra from Hillary and the DNC ... and they will stop at nothing to win including dirty tricks and widespread election fraud.

Face the facts: Hillary was chosen from day one and everything else has just been a big charade.


I agree with your first point but it seems to me that it was the Supreme Court that has made it possible for unlimited campaign contributions and even anonymous such contributions in the Citizens United case. Of course, the justices who formed the majority in that decision were appointed by Republican presidents. I don't know what support the McCain-Feingold bill had from Republicans but that bill was passed by Congress. So at least the Republicans who supported that bill deserve some credit.


Some young, hip filmmaker should do a short remake of Eddie Murphy's role in "Trading Places" that sends Newt and "The Donald" into "the hood" for a spell.

It is impossible to conjure the images of more self-centered, privileged, pompous, out of touch arrogant white guys than these two court jesters.

I can't look at either of them without a gag reflex.


Unfortunately, the pseudo-Democratic ("Liberal Hawk") Clinton machine that's tainted the Democratic party has quickly caught up with the Republicans... or did you manage to NOT notice the voting shenanigans in Arizona, New York, and California?

By the way, the idea of "Might Makes Right" (a derivative of "Winning is all") is the central premise of militarism and also the creed that Machiavelli lived by. In the latter case, it was termed "The Ends justify the means."

Trump has no concept of karma, the greater good, or the sort of empathy that would allow him to genuinely understand the lives of those not born into privilege... or not born as white males.


Until he gets honest about Hillary Clinton's record, Mr. Reich's dissection of Trump only reeks of yet more partisan hackwork.

Hillary Clinton is an unrepentant war criminal, almost certainly a sociopath. She openly laughed at the brutal murder of political opponent Muammar Qaddafi, she baits and pushes Russia, a nuclear power, she sacrificed the human beings of Iraq in order to pad her resume, she openly boasts of her ongoing foreign policy teas with the butcher of Indochina, Henry Kissinger... and it goes on and on and on.

Robert Parry recently wrote an article for Consortium News titled “The Bigger Nuclear Risk: Trump or Clinton?

Mr. Reich, we know Donald Trump is a miserable excuse for a human being. Until you address the worst of Hillary Clinton's actual record, though, you'll remain wholly unpersuasive. As Robert Parry surmises, given her belligerence and record of incompetence it's entirely possible Hillary Clinton is significantly more dangerous to the world than Trump.

Please discuss this at some length. In short, surprise us. Thanks.


Are you claiming, somehow, that white people are inherently more "self-centered, privileged, pompous, out of touch..." than people of other races or colors?

I ask because aside from you bringing it up, I don't see the relevance of their being white to the awfulness of their character.


The American People lose either way.. Nothing to be proud about.. We know the fix is in .. with the Clinton Machine and the Plutocracy that has our nation in a stranglehold.. but we can only be choked for so long..


Obviously white people are more pompous, privileged and out of touch.. in general.. this is a no brainer.. . let me guess.. you're white? ,, Well, so am I.. but .. sheesh.. at least I know the difference..


Not white people, "Blair." White males of means. The same "rich men's club" that has run things; and based on the self-evident state of this planet, run things to the ground.

And before you go off blasting me on Hillary Clinton as you clones tend to do, I am not a supporter. But I also fully recognize that many card-carrying racists and misogynists (who shill for Trump here while hiding behind laudatory praise for Sanders) will make full use of Mrs. Clinton's record to downplay the importance of gender parity.

On several hundred prior occasions I explained that male and female traits don't just follow ONE set of characteristics. The archetypes were discussed by Carl Jung and expanded upon by Jungian analyst & author, Jean Shinoda Bolen.

WHEN you have read these items and can bring that level of intellectual engagement to the discussion, I'd be open to debating you on the relative strengths of having more women (not Athena clones, i.e. those who show homage to the military, as in Mars Rules) in positions of influence.


At least you "know the difference"? Please. Have some self-respect.

I loathe this sort of racism, regardless of who it's aimed at. Unless you want to convince me how un-pompous, un-privileged, and un-out of touch well-off people of other races and colors are. Don't bother.

Huh. Guess we're sort of stuck with the notion that the privileged are pretty much the same everywhere.


Spare us the overt racism, "Siouxrose."

Unless you want to go for a real laugh and try to talk about how much more compassionate rich women in the "rich women's club" are, or how much more compassionate the upper crust in China or India or Kenya are.

I didn't think so.

Sucks, doesn't it, when the sad, mindless race-baiting of the sort you, in your rich-girl third-wave privileged way, thought was safe to crassly exhibit gets called out?


I truly hope this article isn't a veiled attempt at telling us to vote for Hillary. I find that thought disgusting and against my morals. She is everything we are fighting against, so is Trump.
If Bernie isn't on the ballot I will be voting for the Green Party, actually Jill Stein is left of Bernie. She is a solid and moral vote and I won't be going against everything in my being. I wouldn't vote for Clinton oligarchy any more than Trumps.
Take heart Bernie supporters there is a choice.


I, for one, would not be the least bit surprised to find myself reading Mr Sander's obit within the next 90 days.