Creating a Anti-Trump ad
A great base for ad creation...from LiveJournal
British Writer Pens The Best Description Of Trump I’ve Read
- Apr. 24th, 2020 at 11:38 AM
“Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?” Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England wrote the following response:
A few things spring to mind. Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem. For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed. So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.
Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever. I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman. But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.
Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers. And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.
There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface. Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront. Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul. And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that. He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.
And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully. That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead. There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.
So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
• Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
• You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.
This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss. After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of ****. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum. God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid. He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart. In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump.
And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish: ‘My God… what… have… I… created?' If being a **** was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.
Morganna said:
An honest question, was there a candidate that you liked among the Democrats? I watched all of the Republican debates and had picked a couple of candidates that I thought were the best options. I had hoped the Republicans would have nominated Kasich or Rubio. So was there a Democrat that you thought would have made a good President if Trump lost.
If you go back to her posts in 2016 you will see that she was not a Trump supporter and her vote for him was a last-minute decision based almost exclusively on her antipathy toward Hillary Clinton.
Now having voted for Trump she seems to think she must take every opportunity to defend her decision.
Morganna said:
A candidate that did not get much coverage but I thought was a good man was Bennett. You might have liked him. Soft spoken, smart, reasonable, a sense of humor, I watched him in the Senate. I could see someone who liked Kasich's manner voting for Bennett.
You do not understand her. She has picked her team and loyally sticks with it.
You might as well ask her what Minister she would choose to follow if she were a Protestant.
Sorry for the drift. Morganna is a friend and I was just trying to help.
STANV said:
Sorry for the drift. Morganna is a friend and I was just trying to help.
Thanks for the drift.
I approached two men that I liked about their vote for Trump. One had been my vet and the other my cousin. Both men were smart and uproariously funny. When I weeded through the anti liberal rhetoric, I mentioned that I thought Kasich would have been a good Republican nominee, both men quickly replied that they had leaned towards Kasich. So both men were in agreement with me, but because they disliked what they believed liberals stood for, they accepted Trump and defended him.
As time went on I saw my cousin dig in more than I would have expected. I've concluded it is less about Trump and more about a dislike of purported Democratic positions. I am hoping we can bring this country a little closer together and I realize how Pollyanna-ish that sounds but I believe it all goes wrong when we stop talking.
Morganna said:
As time went on I saw my cousin dig in more than I would have expected. I've concluded it is less about Trump and more about a dislike of purported Democratic positions. I am hoping we can bring this country a little closer together and I realize how Pollyanna-ish that sounds but I believe it all goes wrong when we stop talking.
I think you have hit the proverbial nail on the head, Morgana! Mrs Clinton deserves the credit for giving the basket of deplorables a wake up call in 2016.
Now, given the frenzied, bullying efforts to unseat this unusual POTUS, rather than let the electorate vote him out of office, his supporters may just want to give him a chance to actually get things done.
mtierney said:
I think you have hit the proverbial nail on the head, Morgana! Mrs Clinton deserves the credit for giving the basket of deplorables a wake up call in 2016.
Now, given the frenzied, bullying efforts to unseat this unusual POTUS, rather than let the electorate vote him out of office, his supporters may just want to give him a chance to actually get things done.
I focus on what Trump has already done. I often stay in my lane on issues so I keep pretty informed on animal welfare issues, the environment and climate change. Organization appeals to me so I'm drawn to lists. Here's one that I saved.
Since they are not at the top of most people's priorities they usually go unnoticed. These are some of the issues that motivate me at the ballot box.
May I ask, seeing that the list includes several Acts that would have protected those statues being taken down and vandalised, what other kinds of legal protection can federal authorities revert to now apart from apart trespass etc?
(He was obviously thinking about heritage listed buildings etc when the Acts were revoked, but these last weeks show another side of the legislation)
joanne said:
May I ask, seeing that the list includes several Acts that would have protected those statues being taken down and vandalised, what other kinds of legal protection can federal authorities revert to now apart from apart trespass etc?
(He was obviously thinking about heritage listed buildings etc when the Acts were revoked, but these last weeks show another side of the legislation)
I have no idea. I know there was a huge debate about Bear's Ears a designated National Monument in Utah and a push for uranium rights. I would think that it would be addressed by 15 and 17. https://www.nrdc.org/court-battles/nrdc-et-v-trump-bears-ears
Thank you, except they were effectively pulled or made useless as protective legislation (as you highlighted re the national parks discussions). The argument for the ‘revision’ was that [developers] couldn’t have such historical assets appropriately/objectively reassessed, the legislation was already weighted in favour of sentimental reactionaries opposed to newer supporters of changed use of land etc.
Guess the last laugh could be with those who tried warning about hasty revisions of well-written legislation.
Looks like MeidasTouch has been doing some of these types of ads.
https://www.youtube.com/c/MeidasTouch/videos
Most appear to just be published to YouTube, but some will be launched as ads on TV:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/21/politics/meidastouch-trump-videos/index.html
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
A candidate that did not get much coverage but I thought was a good man was Bennett. You might have liked him. Soft spoken, smart, reasonable, a sense of humor, I watched him in the Senate. I could see someone who liked Kasich's manner voting for Bennett.
I think Klobuchar would have had cross over appeal.
I agree that the field was overcrowded. Having watched the Republicans struggle to manage 16 candidates I was discouraged when the Democratic field grew so large. It particularly frustrated me after 6 women announced early, almost a dozen men stepped forward, a few quite late in the race.
Well, I'm looking forward to the VP pick. I have my favorites but I'll be happy to see a woman as a VP nominee.