Between Trump’s Ears, By Zach Galifianakis

Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifianakis has won at least one Emmy Award. If you have ever seen it, you would know why. It is, uh, unique. Barack Obama has appeared on the “interview” show, which usually features celebrities. Hillary Clinton made an appearance last week and not only survived, but was quite funny and entertaining (some 30 million people watched the interview on the first day; I posted it below in case you missed it).

Naturally, Galifianakis was asked if he would interview Donald Trump. Here was his response:

No. That doesn’t interest me. Doing it the other way doesn’t interest me. He’s the kind of guy who likes attention – bad attention or good attention. So you’re dealing with a psychosis there that’s a little weird.

I wouldn’t have somebody on that’s so mentally challenged. I feel like I’d be taking advantage of him. And you can print that.

The comedian had this to say about Hillary Clinton:

I was very impressed with her. I can’t say that she probably has the same thing to say about me. [Laughs] We chatted about a book I didn’t expect her to know about. We kind of bonded over this book called “Amusing Ourselves to Death” [by Neil Postman].

I walked away from that whole interview going, “She’s cool.” I thought she was cool, and I don’t know if that was my impression of her before that.

How about that? Most of the comedians in this country have figured out the essentials of this race. Now if only journalists on TV could figure out what’s going on before it’s too late.



  1. ansonburlingame

     /  September 26, 2016

    Rather than extend the comments on the two “Appeals” blogs I offer a closing (before tonight’s debate) comment herein. But first two quick returns to final comments by Duane and Anonymous on the second “Appeals” blog.

    Gun Control, Anonymous, is one of my progressive opinions (the other is pro-Choice). We should “pass a law” that supports the 2nd Amendment in which the law allows all citizens to own a gun so long as those guns will only be used to “Establish and maintain a militia…..” , period. In other words, for those joining the military and other “militias” authorized by the government, let them bring their guns IF and only IF the government is unable to provide such guns to them, government owned guns!! Simple, right?? BUT if the government can and does supply the guns, well let every one just check one out when “joining up” with other Americans to protect and defend America.!!!

    As for unions, I believe I do know full well “how they work” based solely on about 10 years working with (and sometimes against) unions, including one court case which the judge threw it out of court for being “ridiculous” (I don’t remember the legal word he used).

    Now for my pre-debate views.

    The astonishing thing to me right now is according to “polls” the race is even. Why? Recall I have predicted no more than 40% general election votes for Trump. It is astonishing to me that they seem to be about 50-50 right now IF polls are to be believed.

    My guess is that tonight there will be no “clear” winner. Both sides are so polarized (you herein included) they will pundit us to death claiming victory for their side. I may record Fox and MSNBC post debate programs to prove that point!!

    IF, and only IF, Hillary shows some willingness to compromise between her campaign “leftist” agenda and that of policy views held by many GOPers (but not necessarily Trump), then I will claim her a winner, say so loud and clear herein and even, probably, vote FOR her, so long as she shows some form of “centrism” during subsequent debates and speeches.

    The dilemma for Hillary is how she can convince “me” (and a few million others) that she WILL do her best to be somewhere close to the center and not lose votes from her very leftist (including “you guys”) supporters. I believe she is more worried about getting Bernie supporters on her side than she is about “me”, conservatives that want nothing to do with Trump.

    If this was a “normal” election with Hillary as the “mainstream” Dem and say Paul Ryan as the “mainstream” GOPer it would be a close race but probably a GOP victory simply because a whole lot of Americans do NOT want 4 more years of the Obama agenda.

    I want my vote to count for sure, as we all do. I would like nothing better to say BOTH major party candidates are NOT good choices and then cast a third party vote to join the millions feeling the same way. But if the race remains very tight, well please pass the nose clips so I can vote “for” (oh that I could type that in such small letters no one could read it) Hillary.

    So Duane, yes “we” can vote to show neither major party candidate is worth voting “FOR” and thus the message of “get your act together major parties or watch out for another round of “Bull Mooseism”. But I won’t cast such a vote if it means a win for Trump,

    Can’t wait for tomorrow when Duane posts his comments on tonight’s debate. Hell I may write my response to all of you BEFORE he posts such views!!


    Liked by 1 person

    • You wrote,

      I believe she is more worried about getting Bernie supporters on her side than she is about “me”, conservatives that want nothing to do with Trump.

      I don’t know if that is right, but I do know this: If Trump should win, he will have redefined “conservatism” in such a way that it will never recover. The only hope for conservatives, as many of the intellectuals in the movement have expressed, is for Trump to lose. The problem in the conservative movement, though, is that the rank and file no longer trust even their own elites. I have read most of the anti-Trump material on Bill Buckley’s National Review and you should see the comment section. Trump may have, even if he loses, damaged the conservative brand beyond repair.


%d bloggers like this: