I never realized that Stern played that big a role in the Trump story. Never really figured out how he became so famous that his adultery was front-page news. But that was before he ever went on the Howard Stern radio show. Right?
I'm not a Howard Stern fan so I don't know, but I had the impression that he exposed Trump in a way that showed his bad qualities. I don't see how you can blame Stern for people ignoring negative information about Trump.
2: That's just how it seems to us. What seems like negatives to us are super positives to Trumpworld.
I don't think trumpkins think the fact that Trump is a con artist is a positive. They reject that fact because it is coming from people they don't trust, or because they don't want to give up on the false hope he is dealing in.
As I understand it, Trump wasn't a regular on Stern until post-bankruptcy when there were few others who gave him slots. He was sowing and harvesting notoriety via the tabloids long before then.
More in-depth analysis of what Stern and Trump got out of each other.
4: I don't think trumpkins think the fact that Trump is a con artist is a positive.
Depends on the Trumpkin. The true hardcores literally believe he is President by divine right and that what he does is correct by definition. (I'm not even exaggerating.) Most are willing to believe his being a con artist is just clever "gaming the system" unless and until his lies directly impact them.
Stern is a fuckhead but Trump would be a monster with or without him. Trump learned his gifts for malevolent showbiz and his unique unidirectional chess method at the feet of Roy Cohn, so I'd say -- to the extent that "whose fault is he?" is even a question of interest -- Roy and Trump's old man can share that prize.
Isn't it the case that Trump became famous due to the amount of publicity he got from enablers like Howard Stern and Spy, not to mention his "Apprentice" show? Since all the events that made them think "Oh, yeah, nutso guy we can get ears and eyes from" happened in and around New York, they became national news.
Seems pretty simple, really. I have no idea what other local NY morons Stern has given a boost to by featuring them on his show, but being a NY moron seems to be a pretty good path to success.
CULPABILITY? THATS THE VOTING PUBLIC.
Trump had means to popularity with the rubes other than Stern. He got plenty of promotion out of the mainstream media and entertainment industries, he showed up on the pro wrestling circuit, he had NBC; Stern is just part of the picture. Trump didn't need him.
Let's not always blame the Jewish guy.
We don't really need an external explanation for a narcissist's need for fame and adulation.
Intellectually, I know that, but emotionally sometimes you just want something more, you know?
I thought we were well into the "Screw Trump voters!" phase and out of the desperately-seeking-explanations phase.
I used to ignore Trump but ever since he got elected, I've been outraged by Howard Stern.
We might as well blame Gary Trudeau, who was lampooning Trump in Doonesbury in the late 80s.
And Justin Trudeau too, for good measure.
9: Even this list by itself is pretty incredible.
Trump has always been desperate for any kind of exposure, taking, per 17, even the shittiest roles to get his face on a screen. Howard Stern built a career on people volunteering to come on to his show and acting like assholes when they did. It was inevitable that he and Trump should work together, but I don't see that Stern was somehow necessary to Trump being Trump.
All you young people ignored my show for "shock jocks," seeking only your own amusement and not thinking of what would happen when radio for the masses moved past brain-dead folksy. Now you know the rest of the story. Fuckers.
What are the good sides to Stern?
From what I recall of the assless-pants photos, not the back.
20: In my opinion, he's an amazingly gifted interviewer. He can get people to forget they're being broadcast and slip into intimate hanging out zone, where they just loosen up and gab about astonishingly personal things.
This skill is probably less interesting since social media changed the yardstick for what constitutes over-sharing. But pre-FB and blogs, I think it was really something else.
13: I was out of the desperately-seeking-explanations phase the first time he held one of those glorified Klan rallies that he called campaign stops. The explanation was obvious then as now.
They know he's lying and they like it. Some of them anyway.
The only thing you can do when people think like that is hope there aren't too many of them.
I was under the impression that they were friendly in real life.
It's called fascism. They want to see the Fuhrer win and humiliate their enemies and they don't care what tactics he needs to use to do it.
That said: Trump's base is in fact showing signs of erosion.
According to CNN, if you can believe them, 2.1 million people still use AOL dial-up.
On the plus side, if America doesn't go back to electing sane-ish, non-Fascist people, at least I'll never have to worry about a Halloween costume again. I'll just put on my 2016 clothes and say I'm a liberal until some of the parents complain that I'm scaring the kids too much.
"Sexy liberal," if I can still fit my tight Dockers.
Holy shit. AOL still exists.
My mom had to verify that she was over 70 in order to work some retirement benefit, and her AOL email address was causing problems with the documents. I tried not to let on how funny I found it. Shouldn't it be a valid documentation of being over 70 if you can't get the technology to work because of your AOL account?
For further proof of valid age, observe that she still exclusively uses an AOL browser.
Surely just possessing an AOL account should be valid proof of being over 70? I'm nearer 70 than 60 myself and I don't know anybody who has one.
A surprising number of middle-aged solo practitioner lawyers. It's not actually that loony -- they're guys who got email addresses for professional purposes early, when AOL wasn't shameful, and don't want to change the email address that they've been giving out for years. And they're not quite young enough/engaged in the online world enough to have a real feel for how bad AOL addresses look.
How bad does a yahoo address look? I've had a couple people imply to me that it's AOL-bad. The reasons I still use it are:
1. ugh, switching, and
2. my heebie is a gmail account, and I don't want gmail to merge the two sides of my life.
I can get around 2. by exclusively using different browsers, (which I already do!), ie Heebie uses Chrome, and CrystalGale uses Firefox.
My brother uses a yahoo address. It seems fine, but he is a middle-aged solo practice lawyer.
I am a middle-aged lazy professional, if that's close enough.
The article Minivet posted in 4 really rings true. Trump is just not that good of a negotiator.
I also agree with Lord Castock in 27. Most just dont care. They want things burned down.
40: I use three browsers partly for this reason. Firefox for things I don't want associated with my real name, Chrome for day-to day use, and whatever the hell the Apple native browser is for Netflix and HBO. Actually I guess it's 4 since I also use the Tor browser sometimes for things I *really* don't want associated with my real name.
39: That was one of the first things I learned when I first got on internet newsgroups in the mid-90s. Everyone made fun of the people with AOL addresses. I got to feel all smug with my The University email address.
43,27: "Burn it down" is a surprisingly popular idea among Trump supporters and the Trump-curious. They don't seem to grasp that "burn it down" is how you turn a functioning first world state into a third world shithole.
Some of them want the Third World shithole for reasons Milton's Satan articulated.
||
BLEG: Is there anybody with a Jstor subscription who could get me this? If it costs money I'm happy to pay. Not urgent.
(email in sig.)
|>
Chris, if you're willing to pirate, Sci Hub works like a charm. Just search with the JSTOR stable URL.
Anytime, assuming I'm in the office. Can't do that remotely now.
Re 37-40 There was a time when you could make a reasonable first order estimate (biased guess) as to when people first got online based on email address: aol, ispname, hotmail, yahoo, another few I can't remember. The basically everyone but me and Heebie's mother switched to gmail so it became more difficult to look down on people for having a newbie email address.
Can't you still make a pretty good guess as to when somebody switched to gmail? For example, joe.smith probably started very, very early and joe.smith18765669983 probably much later.
53 is correct.
I will say that IMO yahoo is an order of magnitude less embarrassing than aol, since the latter basically only ever existed as a sort of training wheels for the internet thing, while getting an email address through yahoo in 2000 didn't really signify anything different from getting one through gmail today.
I remember using my AOL free hours to sign up for another internet service.
54: I am up against this right now. My current Gmail is Liz.[unique hyphenated name]. I'm dropping the hyphenation and going back to [insanely common name], and I don't know whether to give up and keep the gmail address I have now, or figure out some non-super-irritating version of Liz.[common name][with random string appended] that I can still get.
I'd keep your current one regardless and set it to forward to your new one.
Let me be the first to suggest Liz.WryCooter.
Forwarding, definitely.
It's annoying not having a middle name, which I could pull out for some disambiguation. But that ship has long sailed.
Forwarding, definitely.
It's annoying not having a middle name, which I could pull out for some disambiguation. But that ship has long sailed.
I honestly can't see any evidence that most Trump voters have an ideology that even remotely approaches anything as concrete as "burn it down". As long as libtards, feminazis, and homos are pissed off, they are happy. Everything else is just background noise.
61: You could just insert "NoMiddleName", but if your last name is really common, someone else may already have done that.
You could just insert "NoMiddleName"
Or "Available".
Way back in college, when I still got paper mail from friends, I complained that I'd never really had a nickname. So for a while all my mail came addressed to [Random work] Breath.
The only two I remember are Mandrake and Staircase. I suppose I could be Liz. Mandrake.Breath.
My nickname was "Hammer." Try that for a middle name, with or without the definite article.
Try your first and last, with each successive letter of the alphabet as a middle initial until you find an e-mail address that's available. Then you can retcon a good middle name with that initial.
"Dagobert" would also make an excellent middle name. (I came across it while confirming that "Charles Martel" was really "Charles the Hammer.")
Oh, I could steal an old baseball nickname of Dad's I always liked. It only makes sense if you know the last name, but he went by "City" occasionally.
Serenissima
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_(manner_of_address) has helpful links to equivalent information in a variety of languages
How bad does a yahoo address look?
I'd say pretty bad, in that I assume anything coming from a yahoo address is spam. But I guess it depends on your audience.
62: I imagine Trump as the crazy rightwing uncle who calls into talk radio. A mass of views that cohere only to the extent that they allow them to hate everyone who isn't them.
Can you keep the address and change the display name?
Liz "My middle name is 'danger.' Not officially, but since I didn't add this to my name in furtherance of a fraud, I think it's legal in most states" [Common Last Name]
Could you do your first and last name backwards, and then people will assume you're from somewhere vaguely exotic?
Unfortunately, her last name is "Amanaplanacanalpanama".
Which is apparently really common.
I believe it's up there right after LB's married name, AslutnixessexinTulsa
(Sorry to dox you, LB!)
Can you keep the address and change the display name?
Did that already, as well as FB. It is weird being Elizabeth [Common last name] again. She hasn't existed since 1997, and she was really young.
But what if she did exist and was for all the time disguised and fighting crime.
Or committing crime. My theory works either way.
Maybe an epithet? lizlastnamethebold?
Or a geographic signifier: lizlastnameofneighborhood.
Or an Icelandic patronymic: liz.fathersdottir.lastname
I have always taken Neville as an inspiration.
Liz.hadchristnotdiedfortheethouhadstbeendamned.commonlastname@gmail.con is available.
Or local saint's name is still available, in the old spelling seaxburgha. Because, sometimes, Liz sexburga common name just doesn't come across right
Out Christian names are shorter in the the fens
Despite my widely acknowledged skill at naming things, I've yet to convince anybody to open a turf business called "Sod o' Might".
Elizabeth Isabel CommonLastName is nicely bouncy.
Particularly if your last name really was "Commonlastname".